There is No God

2
There is No God ......

But ...... There is Something,

Even Better !

3
 Contents

Page

2011 Introduction 5

Updating Hilter 2011 9

Philosophy 12

Essay Title 23

Preface 25

Introduction 30

I The Idea of the Social Organism 33

II Let‘s Look at Force 50

III The Evidence 66

Part II
100

IV Professionalism 131

V The Echo of Organicism 168

VI The Transformation of Logic 170

VII Organicist Philosophy in Mein Kampf 187

Conclusion 299

Bibliography 309
4
 2011 Introduction

This book was finished in October 2006 but I am using it

now to try a publishing option I just came across on the Alibris book
selling site this March 2011. Accordingly I must say something
about the place of this work in relation to current interests. It must
stay as it is, and it has never been read by anyone else, nor edited or
reviewed, so it is in a raw state of presentation.
My work is entirely unique, and as such it matters little when
anything I have written is published, since it will be as novel to the
world today as it was five, or even ten years ago. On the other hand,
I have kept slogging away at this subject, and a few things of
relevance to this older work that are worth mentioning. First I have
recently become aware of one contemporary author who has used
the superorganic model to present a serious account of human nature
based on the exact same general principle as lies at the heart of my
work, he is the American Howard Bloom. Secondly, this work
delineates a functional link between Nazism and the genuine science
of human nature, which is organicism as applied in sociology. The
function is a taboo against a real science of human nature, and since
writing There is No God I have obtained a copy of Human by
Nature, 1997, purporting to seek an accommodation between
biology and sociology, which is replete with overt examples of this
taboo being openly used, discussed and justified ; though obviously
not being identified literally as a ‗taboo‘, since a working taboo
cannot be identified as such without its power of restraint being
compromised.
And finally I have only recently become aware of a vein of
intellectual endeavour going back a few decades, which has sort to
bridge the divide between biology and sociology through the avenue
of information theory. The Evolution of Information by
Goonatilake, 1991, introduced me to this field, but once alerted to it
I see there is a mass of material along similar lines that, until a
5
couple of years ago, I was completely ignorant of : Evolving
Hierarchical Systems by Salthe, 1985 ; Evolutionary Systems and
Society by Csányi, 1989, being two early examples of the genre,
while Evolutionary Systems by Vijver et. al., 1998, and Self-
Organisation and Evolution of Social Systems edited by Hemelrijk,
2005, are more recent. These works strike a chord with my thinking
because of the idea of linguistic force which is so central to my
current thinking, but I see that ‗linguistic force‘ is mentioned in this
work early on.
More up to date still, is a book I obtained just last week,
Darwinian Sociocultural Evolution by Blute, 2010, although I see
her efforts in this field go back a long way too. This work falls into
the category of official science smothering genuine science, as it is
Darwinian in nature. It is of interest because it seeks to impose
Darwin upon a field which is becoming ever more exposed to
scientific exploration, namely sociology, as indicated by the titles
noted above. This demonstrates the relevance of my argument to
current efforts to control knowledge, where I am seeking to burst
through the blanket of Darwinism smothering all genuine attempts to
understand human nature. The only affinity Blute has with my work
is that its stance implies human society is a natural phenomenon
related to the biological sciences. The bibliography in Blute‘s book
shows a huge swathe of works seeking to maintain this pretence of
Darwinism‘s validity as a science, even though Darwinism had no
valid theoretical basis from the outset in 1859, being based upon an
appropriation of scientific facts, put to political purposes.
Darwinism is not science, it never was, it was a political
accommodation of scientific facts emerging at the time, formed into
an intellectual pastiche that could protect religion from an emerging
genuine science, that would of revealed the true nature of humans as
natural beings. It is as a political defence of religion, that
Darwinism continues to be promoted today, covertly, in short,
Darwinism is Religion, pure and simple.

In terms of these modern approaches to what I regard as my

area of interest, that is human biological nature, no one does what I
do, I am unique, and alone, despite the immense attention which has
been given to this area of interest over the course of human history.
6
 Essentially there are two alternative views of human nature :
the individual and the social. These two alternatives give rise to a
third, which tolerates both views simultaneously. That the human is
the individual, is the sole view in existence. The idea that humans
are social individuals, so much so that their individuality is
compromised, is, to all intents and purposes a sop to the idea that
humans are in fact a social entity, which means a superorganism.
This latter idea is rare, never expressed in popular forums, but it is
commonplace enough as an undercurrent, if you are out to find it.
The idea that humans are superorganisms, is unheard of, not
literally unheard of, since it has been a very strongly promoted idea
in the past, and indeed it is this idea that Bloom puts forward in his
Lucifer Principle of 1995. But the idea that humans are
superorganisms, plain and simple, in other words scientifically
asserted ; this is utterly unheard of, anywhere, ever, other than in my
own work. This is what makes me unique. Although Bloom talks
the talk of human corporate nature, he always contradicts himself by
setting up the individual as the real object, which we must strive to
realise, despite the difficulties imposed by our being part of a
superorganism ! Pathetic nonsense ; but still delightful to read for its
novelty value.

As can be seen from the tenor of the book I am presenting

here, what comes to the fore is atheism. And so it should. Atheism
is the foundation of my uniqueness as a scientific philosopher of
human nature. This is what makes all the difference between myself
and every other person ever to of put pen to paper. I put atheism
first, and then I seek to understand science accordingly. This is the
secret of my success. We live in an absolute theocracy, a world
where there is no free access to knowledge, hence no freedom of
thought and consequently no freedom of expression. The foremost
concern for any scientist of any kind, is religion, before all else,
because as long as religion exists, there can be no science. Such an
idea is simply incomprehensible to any academic alive. Yet is it an
essential insight for anyone wishing to understand scientific
knowledge today, and its total failure to grasp the most simple, basic
insight into human existence.

7
 Crucially then, human nature is corporate, which means the
form of the human animal evolved to bring a living organism into
being at the level of social organisation. The human animal is a
mammalian superorganism. This superorganism is the human
animal. Individuals are cellular units of the superorganism. And
crucially therefore : there is no such thing as a human individual.
The human individual does not exist. This is the ultimate scientific
fact that any human individual can ever know : they, do not exist.
This means individuals do not exist as ends in themselves,
which is perfectly obvious, but no one ever admits this in science. It
would not be allowed, and for good reason, as will be obvious to
anyone who reads There is No God.

Howard Hill

England, Friday, 11 March 2011.

8
 Updating Hitler 2011

I nearly had this job ready to fly until I hit a problem with the
online publishing process which had got me organising this 2006
work now. The delay, if such it is, got me thinking. When writing
this work I used the copy of Mein Kampf I was currently reading,
and with one eye on the question of publication I did not want to use
great chunks of a 1969 translation. This meant I mostly adopted the
practice of identifying the page under discussion and saying what I
wanted to about its relevance to the organicist idea at the core of our
work.
Since that time I became fascinated by the history of Mein
Kampf’s publication and I bought first editions of each of the
translations, two American and one British, which appeared on the
eve of the Second World War. It now occurs to me that I can use
these first editions to quote from, an interesting idea in its own right,
though a bit tricky trying to know precisely what got me thinking
half a decade ago, and of course the expression varies quite notably
so we may wonder whether I would of had the same response to a
different version. Anyway, this work is to be updated as noted.

My first updating concerns pages 211 – 12, and immediately

I see confusions arise as I begin, without the translation before me,
by saying Hitler does not name the Jews, but refers to them by way
of an analogy. With the translation included it seems as if he most
definitely mentions the Jews, but I must of meant that he did not
expressly say they were a disease of the nation. Still, it goes to show
how having the passages before us alters our perception of their
contents. I do not want to alter my original text however, that would
cause chaos, so I make this note here to warn readers of any
incongruities that may be caused by the inclusion of actual passages.

9
 The Books

This decision to freely select from three different first

editions of Mein Kampf has soon raised an issue in terms of
describing these editions, its not quite straightforward. The
publication of this work is a story in itself, indeed there is a slim
volume on the subject, Hitler’s Mein Kampf in Britain and
America : A Publishing History 1930-39, by James and Patience
Barnes, 1980. The rogue one of the three needs a little fuller
description in order to make sense of it. The Barnes‘ account names
Barrows Mussey as the translator but explains that he did not see the
job through and refused to allow his name to be associated with the
work, hence it was published anonymously. But then they get into a
flap about a lost translation by Ludwig Lore, which they eventually
decide is one and the same thing as the Stackpole edition, the story
of which got confused for reasons I will not go into. But they do not
seem to of resolved the issue succinctly, so I will do so. They were
stumped by the lack of a Stackpole copy being available in Britain,
being the rare one of the three ; it took some searching out, but I got
one from America for a modest price—the joys of the internet. My
guess would be that the person selling it did not understand its
significance compared to the run of the mill copies on offer,
fortunately for me. The taboo on this book seems to have managed
to include bibliophiles within its grasp, though needless to say, not
me ! It has a reputation amongst book dealers for being a
contemptible, turgid piece of writing, Mussey is described as
despising it ; but for readability I found it quite as good as anything I
have ever read. All I ever require from a book is that I understand
what is being said.
On page one hundred and thirty three of Barnes, we finally
get a fulsome account of how Lore, a communist and anti-fascist,
came to write the preface, he was not the translator. So now you
know. The Stackpole edition was eventually ‗ruled illegal‘ (p. 135),
so in 1980 the only version in print was that by Ralph Manheim,
which is the one I read.

The Houghton Mifflin version names ten ‗Editorial

Sponsors‘, while the Barnes text, in the course of quoting Mussey on
10
page ninety five, identifies the translator as Helmut Ripperger. The
most fascinating aspect of this work is the appendix at the end of the
first volume, which has a mass of early Nazi political literature of
the most ephemeral kind, that you will not find anywhere else,
except some national libraries perhaps.

The history of Mein Kampf continues to be interesting in its

own right. The book is banned in Germany and as it happens the
main book dealing website in Europe is based in Germany, so the
book is not readily found even from England. It is freely available
to download from the net however, or it used to be, I have not
checked recently. Although the Barnes say that only Manheim‘s
version was in print in 1980, I accidentally bought a modern
paperback copy of Murphy‘s translation, based on a 1942 edition,
while trying to pick up a first edition. There are no indications of
who produced this copy, but it is good quality and could be 1980‘s,
though more likely 1990‘s I would guess from its appearance.

Wednesday, 23 March 2011.

11
 Philosophy

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
12
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
13
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 meaning.

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.)

14
 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
15
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 nature.

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
16
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 love.

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
17
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

18
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 identities.
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
19
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.

20
 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
21
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.

22
The Making

of the

Monster
by

H. H.

Godless House
2006

23
 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)

24
 Preface

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
25
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
26
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
27
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,
28
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.

29
 Introduction

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 religion.

Human beings are animals, they are organic entities and, in

common with all life forms, humans evolved to be what they are,

30
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
31
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.

32
 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

33
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
34
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
35
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
being.

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
36
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
37
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.
38
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
39
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
40
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
41
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 !
42
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 cases
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.

43
 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 mechanism.

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
44
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
45
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
46
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
47
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

48
staggering advances in practical-knowledge have done nothing to
diminish the eternal continuity of identity-knowledge.

49
 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

50
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 ?

51
 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
52
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.

53
 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
54
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 game.
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—into 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
55
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
56
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 strategy.
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
57
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
58
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

59
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
60
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
61
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.
62
 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
63
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.

64
 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.

65
 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.

66
 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
67
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
68
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
69
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.

___________

70
 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
71
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.

72
 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 conditions.
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
73
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
74
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
75
into an ever increasing state of dependency upon the social being
and the ever increasing development of that attribute of human life
we call progress.
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.

76
 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
77
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
78
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
79
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
80
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.

81
 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 tribes. (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 is 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
82
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 Australopithecines were already leaving
exoskeletal remains in the form of stone tools in the fossil deposits
where their fossil bones are found. 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
83
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
84
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 Darwin.
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
85
 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
86
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
87
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
88
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
89
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
90
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
91
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‖ After this splendid start Comte
went nowhere, in common with most of those who followed the
social organism route way 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
92
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
93
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.

94
 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
95
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
96
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
97
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
98
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.

99
 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
100
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—
25/09/06, not yet, oh dear.) 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
101
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
102
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 drop this blinkered perspective would
lead instantly to the total destruction of religion and thus to the end
103
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-
104
 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
105
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
106
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
107
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

108
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.

109
 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
110
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 interesting.
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
111
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
112
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
113
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
114
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 whine.
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
115
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 Judaism.

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
116
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
117
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
118
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

119
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

120
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

121
 organisation as itself a part of some higher and more
complex organisation.
(British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Volume V,
No. 17, May 1954, Theory of Integrative Levels, James K.
Feibleman, p. 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
122
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.
123
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
124
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 form.
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

125
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
126
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
127
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
128
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
129
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.

130
 Chapter IV

Professionalism

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

131
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 physiology.
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
132
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
133
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.

134
 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
135
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
136
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.
137
 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
138
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
139
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
140
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
141
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.
142
 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
143
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
144
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
145
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
146
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
147
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
148
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
149
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 regressive 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
150
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
151
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.

152
 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 science.

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,
153
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
154
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 free 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
155
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

156
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
157
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

158
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
159
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.
160
 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
161
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
162
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 with.

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

163
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 jungle.
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
164
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
165
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
166
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.
167
 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 is.

This chapter should consist of the works appearing post

Second World War in the age after the death of science, works

168
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.

169
 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

170
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

171
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
172
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
173
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
174
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, bipedal
gate and crude implements, while still being of short stature and
175
small brained with a more apelike visage than human face, and
living over a 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 were vastly more
advanced toward being human than any other animal that has ever
existed, they had tools, they were a fully evolved superorganic
species, but the superorganic potential had 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 ; 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
176
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
177
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
178
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
179
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
180
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 mind.

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
181
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
182
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
183
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
184
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.

185
186
 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.

187
 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
188
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
189
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
190
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

191
anyone can do this then I will throw in the towel and admit to
anything.
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,
192
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
193
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
194
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
195
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
196
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
197
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

198
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
199
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
200
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 previously.
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
201
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
202
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

203
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.

204
Title page from first edition, 1939.

205
 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
206
 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-
207
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.

208
Title page from first edition, 1939.

209
 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
210
thought is the one that has been given most attention but having read
up to page five hundred and fifteen, 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
211
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 identity.
I cannot resist giving you a taste of this delightfully deranged
author :

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

way a stage preparatory to the formation of man. Nor could
they be regarded as the by-product of human evolution. On
the contrary, insects reveal, in their structure and in the
structure of their separate parts and organs, forms which are
often more perfect than those of man or animals. And we
cannot help seeing that for certain forms of insect life which
we observe there is no explanation without very complicated
hypotheses, which necessitate the recognition of a very rich
past behind them and compel us to regard the present forms
we observe as degenerated forms.
This last consideration relates mainly to the organised
communities of ants and bees. It is impossible to become
acquainted with their life without giving oneself up to
emotional impressions of astonishment and bewilderment.
Ants and bees alike both call for our admiration by the
wonderful completeness of their organisation, and at the
same time repel and frighten us, and provoke a feeling of
undefinable aversion by the invariably cold reasoning which
dominates their life and by the absolute impossibility for an
individual to escape from the wheel of life of the ant-hill or
the beehive. We are terrified at the thought that we may
resemble them.
Indeed what place do the communities of ants and
bees occupy in the general scheme of things on our earth ?
How could they come into being such as we observe them ?
All observations of their life and their organisation inevitably
lead us to one conclusion. The original organisation of the
―beehive‖ and the ―ant-hill‖ in the remote past undoubtedly
required reasoning and logical intelligence of great power,
212
 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 experiment.
(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 one hundred and thirty seven, Hitler displays to the
fullest extent the manner in which his philosophy was informed by
213
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)
(p. 138)

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
214
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.
(Ibid.)

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
215
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 :

Thus, the most sensible prerequisite for the formation and

preservation of a state is the presence of a certain feeling of
cohesion based on similarity of nature and species, and a
willingness to stake everything on it with all possible means,
something which in peoples with soil of their own will create
heroic virtues, but in parasites will create lying hypocrisy and
malignant cruelty
(pp. 138 – 9.)

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
216
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

217
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
218
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
219
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 211-12 (1969 ed.)

Murphy :

From time immemorial, however, the Jews have known

better than any other how falsehood and calumny can be exploited.
Is not their very existence founded on one great lie, namely, that
they are a religious community, whereas in reality they are a race ?
And what a race ! One of the greatest thinkers that mankind has
produced has branded the Jews for all time with a statement which is
profoundly and exactly true. He (Schopenhauer) called the Jew
―The Great Master of Lies.‖ Those who do not realize the truth of
that statement, or do not wish to believe it, will never be able to lend
a hand in helping Truth to prevail.
We may regard it as a great stroke of fortune for the German
nation that its period of lingering suffering was so suddenly curtailed
and transformed into such a terrible catastrophe. For if things had
gone on as they were the nation would have more slowly but more
surely gone to ruin. The disease would have become chronic ;
whereas, in the acute form of the disaster, it at least showed itself
clearly to the eyes of a considerable number of observers. It was not
by accident that man conquered the black plague more easily than he
conquered tuberculosis. The first appeared in terrifying waves of
death that shook the whole of mankind, the other advances
insidiously ; the first induces terror, the other gradual indifference.
The result is, however, that men opposed the first with all the energy
they were capable of, whilst they try to arrest tuberculosis by feeble
220
means. Thus man has mastered the black plague, while tuberculosis
still gets the better of him.
The same applies to diseases in nations. So long as these
diseases are not of a catastrophic character, the population will
slowly accustom itself to them and later succumb. It is then a stroke
of luck—although a bitter one—when Fate decides to interfere in
this slow process of decay and suddenly brings the victim face to
face with the final stage of the disease. More often than not the result
of a catastrophe is that a cure is at once undertaken and carried
through with rigid determination.
But even in such a case the essential preliminary condition is
always the recognition of the internal causes which have given rise
to the disease in question.
The important question here is the differentiation of the root
causes from the circumstances developing out of them. This
becomes all the more difficult the longer the germs of disease
remain in the national body and the longer they are allowed to
become an integral part of that body. It may easily happen that, as
time goes on, it will become so difficult to recognize certain definite
virulent poisons as such that they are accepted as belonging to the
national being ; or they are merely tolerated as a necessary evil, so
that drastic attempts to locate those alien germs are not held to be
necessary.
(James Murphy, translator, 1939, pp. 199 – 200.)

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
221
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 nature.

Page 221 (1969 Ed.)

Murphy :

The function of the so-called liberal Press was to dig

the grave for the German people and Reich. No mention need
be made of the lying Marxist Press. To them the spreading of
falsehood is as much a vital necessity as the mouse is to a
cat. Their sole task is to break the national backbone of the
people, thus preparing the nation to become the slaves of
international finance and its masters, the Jews.
(Murphy, p. 207)
222
 Here we have the yoke of international capital under the
command of its masters, the Jews. So, from being parasites the Jews
have now 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, (1969, Ed.)

Stackpole :

For such people, no doubt, the Frankfurter Zeitung

was and is the very essence of decency. It never uses rude
language, opposes all physical brutality, and always urges
war with ―intellectual‖ weapons, which oddly enough is
always the favourite idea of the most unintellectual people.
This is a result of our half-education, which separates people
from natural instincts, and pumps them full of a certain sort
of information without being able to lead them to the
ultimate knowledge ; for here industry and good intentions
alone are useless, and the necessary intelligence—native
intelligence—is indispensable. But ultimate knowledge
consists in understanding the causes of instinct—that is, man
must never be so misguided as to believe that he has
ascended to the position of lord and master over Nature (as in
the conceit of half-education he so easily may), but must
understand the fundamental necessity of Nature‘s rule, and
realize how completely even his existence is subject to these
laws of eternal battle and upward struggle. Then he will
perceive that in a universe where planets and suns revolve,
moon moves around planet, in which strength is always
master over weakness, and either forces it to be an obedient
servant or crushes it, there cannot be special laws for man.
Even over him the eternal principle of this ultimate wisdom

223
 holds sway. Try to grasp them he may, but can never free
himself from them.
(Anonymous [Mussey], Stackpole, 1939, p. 240.)

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
224
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 values.

On page two hundred and fifty seven 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.

The deepest and the ultimate cause for the ruin of the
old Reich was found in the non-recognition of the race
problem and its importance for the historical development of
the people. For events in the lives of the nations are not
expressions of chance, but, by the laws of nature, happenings
of the urge of self-preservation and propagation of species
and race, even if the people are not conscious of the inner
reasons for their activity.
(Houghton Mifflin, 1939, p. 388)

Page 243 (1969 ed.)

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.
225
Murphy :

An examination of the religious situation before the War

shows that the general process of disruption had extended to this
sphere also. A great part of the nation itself had for a long time
already ceased to have any convictions of a uniform and practical
character in their ideological outlook on life. In this matter the point
of primary importance was by no means the number of people who
renounced their church membership but rather the widespread
indifference. While the two Christian denominations maintained
missions in Asia and Africa, for the purpose of securing new
adherents to the Faith, these same denominations were losing
millions and millions of their adherents at home in Europe. These
former adherents either gave up religion wholly as a directive force
in their lives or they adopted their own interpretation of it. The
consequences of this were specially felt in the moral life of the
country. In parenthesis it may be remarked that the progress made
by the missions in spreading the Christian Faith abroad was only
quite modest in comparison with the spread of Mohammedanism.
It must be noted too that the attack on the dogmatic
principles underlying ecclesiastical teaching increased steadily in
violence. And yet this human world of ours would be inconceivable
without the practical existence of a religious belief. The great masses
of a nation are not composed of philosophers. For the masses of the
people especially, faith is absolutely the only basis of a moral
outlook on life. The various substitutes that have been offered have
not shown any results that might warrant us in thinking that they
might usefully replace the existing denominations. But if religious
teaching and religious faith were once accepted by the broad masses
as active forces in their lives, then the absolute authority of the
doctrines of faith would be the foundation of all practical effort.
There may be a few hundreds of thousands of superior men who can
live wisely and intelligently without depending on the general
standards that prevail in everyday life, but the millions of others
226
cannot do so. Now the place which general custom fills in everyday
life corresponds to that of general laws in the State and dogma in
religion. The purely spiritual idea is of itself a changeable thing that
may be subjected to endless interpretations. It is only through dogma
that it is given a precise and concrete form without which it could
not become a living faith. Otherwise the spiritual idea would never
become anything more than a mere metaphysical concept, or a
philosophical opinion. Accordingly the attack against dogma is
comparable to an attack against the general laws on which the State
is founded. And so this attack would finally lead to complete
political anarchy if it were successful, just as the attack on religion
would lead to a worthless religious nihilism.
The political leader should not estimate the worth of a
religion by taking some of its shortcomings into account, but he
should ask himself whether there be any practical substitute in a
view which is demonstrably better. Until such a substitute be
available only fools and criminals would think of abolishing the
existing religion.
Undoubtedly no small amount of blame for the present
unsatisfactory religious situation must be attributed to those who
have encumbered the ideal of religion with purely material
accessories and have thus given rise to an utterly futile conflict
between religion and science. In this conflict victory will nearly
always be on the side of science, even though after a bitter struggle,
while religion will suffer heavily in the eyes of those who cannot
penetrate beneath the mere superficial aspects of science.
(Murphy, pp. 225 – 6.)

It was my intention not to alter the text of this work now, but
taking this passage on religion from Hitler, I cannot refrain from
making the point that here he shows himself to be utterly devoted to
Judaism, come hell or high water. He defends religion, Christianity
even, despite it being fully appreciated amongst German Nationalists
that Christianity was a slave identity of Judaism. He shows a clear
grasp of the meaning and function of religion as a binding agency,
yet he fails to make the connection with identity, because he has
another agenda : the protection of Judaism from science. What else
227
can it be ? It is what he achieved, and it is all that he achieved. He
says the conflict between science and religion is futile, exactly what
a priestly defender of absolute theocracy would say. And he shows
his utter hatred of people like me, people who value freedom, and
knowledge for its own sake. This is a most important passage for
any atheist, or scientist come to that. These words speak louder than
actions, because they reveal true intentions, and as such they make
the holocaust pale into insignificance in terms of showing what
Hitler really felt for the Jews : his beloved lords and masters. Never
let it be said that Hitler was an atheist, as religious freaks often
claim. He was no such thing. Here he makes it plain that he is
devoted to religion, and more particularly to Christianity. Hitler was
more of a Christian than most devout Christians, and his life‘s work
is in perfect keeping with such an idea ; there is nothing known to
us, more evil than religion. Hitler was fighting a Jewish crusade
against science, and he won, which is why we now have the Hitler
Taboo in sociology, the very reason for our need of Atheist Science.
[2011]

Page 264-8 (1969 ed.)

Stackpole :

It is futile to argue over what race or races were the original

sustainers of human civilization and thus the real founders of
everything we include in the word humanity. It is simpler to ask
ourselves this question about the present, and here the answer is
plain and easy. The human culture, the results of art, science and
invention which we see before us are almost exclusively the creative
product of an Aryan. But this very fact permits the not unfounded
deduction that he alone was the creator of a higher human life, and
thus is the prototype of what we today mean by the word man. He is
the Prometheus of humanity, from whose radiant brow the divine
spark of genius has always sprung, ever lighting anew the fire
which, in the form of knowledge, has illuminated the night of
speechless mysteries, and thus sent man up the road to lordship over
the other creatures of this earth. Take him away, and perhaps within
228
a few thousand years profound darkness will descend again upon
earth, human civilization will vanish, and the world become a desert.
If we were to divide humanity into three classes, the
founders, sustainers and destroyers of civilization, probably the
Aryan would be the only possible representative of the first class. He
laid the foundation and built the walls of all human creations, and
only the outward form and color are determined by the particular
characteristics of the individual peoples. He furnishes the great
building-stones and plans for all human progress, and only the
execution depends on the character of the various races. Within a
few decades the whole of Eastern Asia, for example, will call a
culture its own whose ultimate foundation is Hellenic spirit and
Germanic technology, just as in our own case. Only the outward
form will—at least in part—show traits of Asiatic character. It is not
true, as many people suppose, that Japan is superimposing European
technical progress on her own civilization ; European science and
technology are being garnished with Japanese style. The basis of real
life is no longer a specially Japanese civilization, although that does
set the color of life (which owing to the inner difference, is more
outwardly conspicuous to the European), but the tremendous
scientific and technical work of Europe and America, that is of
Aryan peoples. Only on the basis of these achievements can the East
follow general human progress. It is the basis of the struggle for
daily bread ; it forges the weapons and tools. Only the outward dress
is gradually accommodated to the Japanese character.
If, starting today, all further Aryan influence on Japan were
to cease, supposing Europe and America to be destroyed, Japan‘s
present advance in science and technology might continue for a
while ; but within a few years the well would run dry, the Japanese
individuality would gain, but the present civilization would ossify,
and would sink back into the sleep from which it was awakened
seven decades ago by the wave of Aryan civilization. And just as the
present Japanese development owes its life to an Aryan source, so
once in the dim past an alien influence and an alien spirit must have
awakened the Japanese culture of the time. The best proof of this is
the fact of the later hardening and complete rigidity. This can happen
to a people only if the originally creative racial core has been lost, or
if the outside influence is lacking which furnished the impulse and
229
the materials for the first cultural development. But if it is known
that a people receives and digests the essential substance of a
civilization from alien races, and grows rigid each time the external
influence ceases, the race may indeed be called a ―sustainer‖ of
civilization, but never a ―creator.‖
Examination of the various peoples from this standpoint
shows the fact that almost none are creators ; they are nearly always
sustainers.
Something like the following picture of their development
always results :
Aryan tribes—often in truly ridiculously small force—
subjugate other peoples, and develop their slumbering intellectual
and organizing powers under the stimulus of the particular living
conditions of the new territory (fertility, climate, etc.), and with the
help of the large number of available workers of an inferior type.
Often in a few thousand, nay a few hundred years they build up
civilizations which originally bear every inner mark of their
character as adapted to the above-mentioned special characteristics
of the soil and of the subjugated people.
But eventually the conquerors violate the principle,
heretofore observed, of keeping their blood pure ; they begin to
intermingle with the conquered inhabitants, and thus terminate their
own existence. Even the Fall of Man in Paradise was followed by
expulsion.
After a thousand years or more the last visible trace of the
former ruling people appears in the lighter skin-coloration that its
blood bequeaths to the subjugated race, and an ossified culture
which, as the original creator, it had once founded. For just as the
actual and spiritual conqueror was lost in the blood of the conquered,
so the fuel was lost for the torch of human cultural progress. The
blood of the former masters has left a faint glow in the complexion
as a remembrance, and the night of cultural life is gently illumined
by the surviving creations of the ancient light-bringers. They shine
out through all the renewed barbarism, and all too often make the
thoughtless observer of the moment think he sees before him the
image of the present people, whereas he is but looking into the
mirror of the past.

230
 It may happen that such a people in the course of its history
comes in contact a second time, or even oftener, with the race which
once brought it civilization, without there being necessarily any
surviving memory of earlier encounters. Unconsciously the remnant
of the old masters‘ blood turns toward the new arrival, and what had
originally been possible only by compulsion may now happen
through free will. A new wave of civilization arrives, and lasts until
those who uphold it once more go down in the blood of alien
peoples.
It will be the task of future cultural and world history to
make its explorations from this point of view, and not to smother in
description of outward events, as our present historical learning
unfortunately too often does.
Even this sketch of the development of ―culture-sustaining‖
nations also covers the growth, work and—decline of the true
culture-founders of this earth, the Aryans themselves.
Just as in daily life the so-called genius needs a particular
occasion, indeed often a regular jolt to cause him to shine, so in the
life of peoples does the race of genius. In the monotony of daily life
even outstanding men often seem insignificant, scarcely rising above
the average of their surroundings ; but let them be faced with a
situation where others would give up or go wrong, and the genius
rises visibly from out of the inconspicuous average man, not
infrequently to the astonishment of everyone who so far has seen
him in the pettiness of community life—which is why the prophet is
seldom much considered in his own country. There is no better
opportunity to observe this than in war. In hours of trial, when others
despair, apparently innocent children shoot up into heroes, reckless
in determination and icily cool in judgment. Had it not been for the
hour of stress, probably no one would have dreamed the beardless
boy harboured a young hero. Almost always some sort of impact is
necessary to call forth the genius. The hammer-blow of Fate, which
lays one man low, suddenly strikes steel in another ; the every-day
outer shell breaks, and the hidden core lies open to the eyes of an
astonished world. The world balks refusing to believe that what had
seemed its own species can now suddenly be a different sort of
being—an occurrence repeated with almost every outstanding son of
the race.
231
 Although an inventor, for instance, does not begin to become
famous until the day of his invention, it is a mistake to think that
genius itself had never taken hold of the man until then ; the spark of
genius exists in the brain of the truly creatively gifted man from the
hour of his birth. True genius is always inborn, never taught or
acquired.
But this is true, as I have already emphasized, not only of the
individual but of the race. Actively creative peoples have
fundamental creative gifts from the beginning, even though the
superficial observer may not recognize it. Here too outward
recognition is possible only as the result of deeds accomplished,
since the rest of the world is after all not capable of recognizing
genius as such, but only sees its visible expression in the form of
inventions, discoveries, buildings, pictures, etc. ; and even then it is
a long time in winning its way to that realization. Just as the genius
or the extraordinary talent of an outstanding individual man, set in
motion by particular stimuli, strives for practical realization, so in
the life of peoples the real utilization of existing creative powers and
abilities often takes place only when particular conditions invite it.
We see this at its clearest in the race which has been and is
the bearer of human cultural development—in the Aryans. The
moment Fate throws special conditions in their way, they begin to
develop their innate abilities at an ever-swifter pace, and to embody
them in tangible form. The civilizations which they thus inaugurate
are almost always decisively conditioned by the soil, the climate—
and the conquered people. The last element is almost the most
important. The more primitive the technical limitations of any
cultural activity, the more necessary is the existence of man-power,
which, organized, concentrated and applied, must replace the power
of the machine. Without this opportunity to use men of a lower type,
the Aryan could never have taken the first step toward his later
civilization—just as he would never, without the help of various
suitable animals which he succeeded in taming, have arrived at a
technical development which now is gradually permitting him to do
without these very animals. The saying, ―Othello‘s occupation‘s
gone,‖ has a meaning unfortunately all too deep. For thousands of
years the horse was forced to serve man, and help him lay the
foundations of a development which now, thanks to the automobile,
232
makes the horse himself superfluous. Within a few years the horse
will have ceased his work ; but without his help in days gone by,
perhaps man would have had difficulty in arriving where he is today.
Thus the availability of inferior races was one of the most
important essentials for the formation of higher cultures, since it
alone could make good the lack of technical tools, without which
advanced development is quite unthinkable. Beyond question the
first civilization of humanity rested less on domesticated animals
than on the employment of inferior human beings.
It was only after the enslavement of subjugated races that the
same fate began to befall animals, and not the other way around, as
many people would like to think. First it was the conquered man
who drew the plough—and only after him the horse. But only
pacifistic fools can consider this a sign of human degeneracy, not
realizing that this development had to take place in order to arrive at
last at the point from which these apostles can send their vaporings
into the world.
Mankind‘s progress is like the ascent of an endless ladder :
there is no going higher without climbing the lower rungs. Thus the
Aryan had to travel the road which reality pointed, and not that
dreamed by the imagination of a modern pacifist. The road of reality
is harsh and difficult, but it leads at last to the spot where the pacifist
would like to dream mankind to be, but whence in reality,
unfortunately, he is rather removing it than otherwise.
So it is no accident that the first civilizations arose where the
Aryan, encountering lower races, subjugated them and made them
do his will. They were the first technical tools to serve a dawning
civilization.
Thus the road which the Aryan must travel was clearly
marked. As a conqueror he subjugated the inferior peoples, and
regulated their practical activity under his orders, according to his
will, and for his own purposes. But in thus setting them to a useful if
a hard task, he not only spared the lives of the conquered, but gave
them fate which perhaps was actually better than their previous so-
called ―freedom.‖ So long as he ruthlessly maintained a master‘s
attitude, he remained not only the real master, but the preserver and
encourager of civilization. For this depended entirely upon his
abilities, and thus on his survival. When those conquered began to
233
advance themselves, probably also approaching the conqueror in the
matter of language, the sharp cleavage between master and servant
disappeared. The Aryan surrendered the purity of his blood, and thus
lost the right to the Paradise which he had made for himself. He
went down in the mixture of races, and gradually lost more and more
of his cultural capacities until finally he began to resemble the
aborigine more than his own forefathers, not only mentally but
physically. For a time he could still live upon existing cultural
substance, but then ossification set in, and finally oblivion claimed
him.
Thus civilizations and empires collapse to make way for new
structures.
Mingling of blood, with the decline in racial level that it
causes, is the sole reason for the dying-out of old cultures ; for men
are destroyed not by lost wars, but by losing that stamina inherent in
pure blood alone.
(Stackpole, pp. 282 – 288.)

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
234
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
235
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 (1969 Ed.)

Murphy :

The question as to the ground reasons for the predominant

importance of Aryanism can be answered by pointing out that it is
not so much that the Aryans are endowed with a stronger instinct for
self-preservation, but rather that this manifests itself in a way which
is peculiar to themselves. Considered from the subjective standpoint,
the will-to-live is of course equally strong all round and only the
forms in which it is expressed are different. Among the most
primitive organisms the instinct for self-preservation does not extend
beyond the care of the individual ego. Egotism, as we call this
passion, is so predominant that it includes even the time element ;
which means that the present moment is deemed the most important
and that nothing is left to the future. The animal lives only for itself,
searching for food only when it feels hunger and fighting only for
the preservation of its own life. As long as the instinct for self-
preservation manifests itself exclusively in such a way, there is no
basis for the establishment of a community ; not even the most
primitive form of all, that is to say the family. The society formed by
the male with the female, where it goes beyond the mere conditions
of mating, calls for the extension of the instinct of self-preservation,
since the readiness to fight for one‘s own ego has to be extended
also to the mate. The male sometimes provides food for the female,
but in most cases both parents provide food for the offspring.
Almost always they are ready to protect and defend each other ; so
that here we find the first, though infinitely simple, manifestation of
the spirit of sacrifice. As soon as this spirit extends beyond the
narrow limits of the family, we have the conditions under which
larger associations and finally even States can be formed.

236
 The lowest species of human beings give evidence of this
quality only to very small degree ; so that often they do not go
beyond the formation of the family society. With an increasing
readiness to place their immediate personal interests in the
background, the capacity for organizing more extensive
communities develops.
The readiness to sacrifice one‘s personal work and, if
necessary, even one‘s life for others shows its most highly
developed form in the Aryan race. The greatness of the Aryan is not
based on his intellectual powers ; but rather on his willingness to
devote all his faculties to the service of the community. Here the
instinct for self-preservation has reached its noblest form ; for the
Aryan willingly subordinates his own ego to the common weal and
when necessity calls he will even sacrifice his own life for the
community.
The constructive powers of the Aryan and that peculiar
ability he has for the building up of a culture are not grounded in his
intellectual gifts alone. If that were so they might only be destructive
and could never have the ability to organize ; for the latter
essentially depends on the readiness of the individual to renounce his
own personal opinions and interests and to lay both at the service of
the human group. By serving the common weal he receives his
reward in return. For example, he does not work directly for himself
but makes his productive work a part of the activity of the group to
which he belongs, not only for his own benefit but for the general.
The spirit underlying this attitude is expressed by the word : WORK,
which to him does not at all signify a means of earning one‘s daily
livelihood but rather a productive activity which cannot clash with
the interests of the community. Whenever human activity is directed
exclusively to the service of the instinct for self-preservation it is
called theft or usury, robbery or burglary, etc.
This mental attitude, which forces self-interest to recede into
the background in favour of the common weal, is the first pre-
requisite for any kind of really human civilization. It is out of this
spirit alone that great human achievements have sprung for which
the original doers have scarcely ever received any recompense but
which turn out to be the source of abundant benefit for their
descendants. It is this spirit alone which can explain why it so often
237
happens that people can endure a harsh but honest existence which
offers them no returns for their toil except a poor and modest
livelihood. But such a livelihood helps to consolidate the
foundations on which the community exists. Every worker and every
peasant, every inventor, state official, etc., who works without ever
achieving fortune or prosperity for himself, is a representative of this
sublime idea, even though he may never become conscious of the
profound meaning of his own activity.
(Murphy, pp. 248 – 250.)

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.
__

Annotations for this passage in Houghton Mifflin describe

how this organicist doctrine was implemented by bringing the most
important principle of Atheist Science into view, ―For by abolishing
the individual, the Third Reich automatically created the mass.‖
(p. 409). This indicates how Nazism meets science headon, as it is
the eternal refrain of Atheist Science, that the individual does not
exist. Indicating how, by employing the pure science of Organicism
to political effect, National Socialism saved the Jews from
annihilation, to which they were doomed merely by the free advance
of knowledge ; as history proves, since the Jews are still here.
238
 A further point, while Hitler is hammering home the idea of a
willingness to sacrifice for the corporate being, is that this is
precisely what the six million Jews of holocaust fame were, not
willing, but ‗a sacrifice‘. Performed to establish the taboo which
makes Jews sacred now, and which gave them Israel. The other
millions slaughtered in the last world war were no less sacrificed for
the Jews, although far less obviously, because they were not called
Jews. [2011]

Page 277 (1969, Ed.)

Murphy :

The Jew has never been a nomad, but always a parasite, battening on
the substance of others. If he occasionally abandoned regions where
he had hitherto lived he did not do it voluntarily. He did it because
from time to time he was driven out by people who were tired of
having their hospitality abused by such guests. Jewish self-
expansion is a parasitic phenomenon ; since the Jew is always
looking for new pastures for his race.
But this has nothing to do with nomadic life as such ;
because the Jew does not ever think of leaving a territory which he
has once occupied. He sticks where he is with such tenacity that he
can hardly be driven out even by superior physical force. He
expands into new territories only when certain conditions for his
existence are provided therein ; but even then—unlike the nomad—
he will not change his former abode. He is and remains a parasite, a
sponger who, like a pernicious bacillus, spreads over wider and
wider areas according as some favourable area attracts him. The
effect produced by his presence is also like that of the vampire ; for
wherever he establishes himself the people who grant him
hospitality are bound to be bled to death sooner or later.
Thus the Jew has at all times lived in States that have
belonged to other races and within the organization of those States
he has formed a State of his own, which is, however, hidden behind
the mask of a ‗religious community,‘ as long as external
circumstances do not make it advisable for this community to
239
declare its true nature. As soon as the Jew feels himself sufficiently
established in his position to be able to hold it without a disguise, he
lifts the mask and suddenly appears in the character which so many
did not formerly believe or wish to see : namely that of the Jew.
The life which the Jew lives as a parasite thriving on the
substance of other nations and States has resulted in developing that
specific character which Schopenhauer once described, when he
spoke of the Jew as ‗The Great Master of Lies.‘ The kind of
existence which he leads forces the Jew to the systematic use of
falsehood, just as naturally as the inhabitants of northern climates
are forced to wear warm clothes.
He can live among other nations and States only as long as
he succeeds in persuading them that the Jews are not a distinct
people but the representatives of a religious faith who thus constitute
a ‗religious community,‘ though this be of a peculiar character.
As a matter of fact, however, this is the first of his great
falsehoods.
He is obliged to conceal his own particular character and
mode of life that he may be allowed to continue his existence as a
parasite among the nations. The greater the intelligence of the
individual Jew, the better will he succeed in deceiving others. His
success in this line may even go so far that the people who grant him
hospitality may be led to believe that the Jew among them is a
genuine Frenchman, for instance, or Englishman or German or
Italian, who just happens to belong to a religious denomination
which is different from that prevailing in these countries. Especially
in circles concerned with the executive administration of the State,
where the officials generally have only a minimum of historical
sense, the Jew is able to impose his infamous deception with
comparative ease. In these circles independent thinking is
considered a sin against the sacred rules according to which official
promotion takes place. It is therefore not surprising that even to-day
in the Bavarian government offices, for example, there is not the
slightest suspicion that the Jews form a distinct nation themselves
and are not merely the adherents of a ‗Confession,‘ though one
glance at the press which belongs to the Jews ought to furnish
sufficient evidence to the contrary even for those who possess only
the smallest degree of intelligence. The Jewish Echo, however, is
240
not an official gazette and therefore not authoritative in the eyes of
those government potentates.
Jewry has always been a nation of a definite racial character
and never differentiated merely by the fact of belonging to a certain
religion. At a very early date, urged on by the desires to make their
way in the world, the Jews began to cast about for a means whereby
they might distract such attention as might prove inconvenient for
them. What could be more effective and at the same time more
above suspicion than to borrow and utilize the idea of the religious
community ? Here also everything is copied, or rather stolen ; for
the Jew could not possess any religious institution which had
developed out of his own consciousness, seeing that he lacks every
kind of idealism ; which means that belief in a life beyond this
terrestrial existence is foreign to him. In the Aryan mind no religion
can ever be imagined unless it embodies the conviction that life in
some form or other will continue after death. As a matter of fact, the
Talmud is not a book that lays down principles according to which
the individual should prepare for the life to come. It only furnishes
rules for a practical and tolerable life in this world.
The religious teaching of the Jews is principally a collection
of instructions for maintaining the Jewish blood pure and for
regulating intercourse between Jews and the rest of the world ; that
is to say, their relation with non-Jews. But the Jewish religious
teaching is not concerned with moral problems. It is rather
concerned with economic problems, and very petty ones at that. In
regard to the moral value of the religious teaching of the Jews there
exist and always have existed quite exhaustive studies (not from the
Jewish side ; for whatever the Jews have written on this question has
naturally always been of a tendentious character) which show up the
kind of religion that the Jews have in a light that makes it look very
uncanny to the Aryan mind. The Jew himself is the best example of
the kind of product which this religious training evolves. His life is
of this world only and his mentality is as foreign to the true spirit of
Christianity as his character was foreign to the great Founder of this
new creed two thousand years ago. And the Founder of Christianity
made no secret indeed of His estimation of the Jewish people. When
He found it necessary He drove those enemies of the human race out
of the Temple of God ; because then, as always, they used religion
241
as a means of advancing their commercial interests. But at that time
Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews ;
whereas our modern Christians enter into party politics and when
elections are being held they debase themselves to beg for Jewish
votes. They even enter into political intrigues with the atheistic
Jewish parties against the interests of their own Christian nation.
(Murphy, pp. 255 – 7.)

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.

242
 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 (1969, Ed.)

Houghton Mifflin :

In the country there was no social question, as the master and

the servant did the same work, and, above all, they ate out of the
same dish. But all this had now become different at one blow.
The separation of the employee from the employer now
seems to be carried out in all domains of life. How far in this the
inner Judaization of our people has progressed can be seen from the
low respect, not to say disdain, which is awarded the craftsman‘s
work in itself. For this is not German. Only the tainting of our life
with foreign elements, which was in truth a ‗Judaization,‘ turned the
one-time respect for craftsmanship into a certain disdain of all
physical work as a whole.
Thus a new class, which was very little respected, was
actually created, and some day the question was bound to arise
whether the nation would by itself have the energy to make this new
class again a member of general society, or whether the social
difference would widen into a class-like cleavage.
But one thing was certain : the new class contained not the
worst elements in its ranks, but the most energetic ones. Here the
over-refinements of the so-called ‗culture‘ had not yet exercised
243
their deteriorating and destroying influences. In its broad masses, the
new class was not yet infected by the poison of pacifist weakness ; it
was robust, and, if necessary, even brutal.
While the bourgeoisie does not care at all about this
enormously important question, but indifferently lets things take
their course, the Jew seizes the unlimited opportunity for the future
which is offered here, and while on the one side he organizes the
capitalist methods of exploiting human beings to the ultimate
consequence, he approaches the very victims of his spirit and his
activity, and after a short time he becomes even the leader of their
fight against himself. ‗Against himself‘ is, of course, only
metaphorically expressed, for the great master of lies knows how to
make himself appear always as the ‗pure‘ one and to charge the guilt
to the others. As he has the impudence to lead the masses in such a
manner, the latter does not even think at all that this could mean the
most villainous betrayal of all times.
And yet it was so.
As soon as, out of the general economic transformation, the
new class develops, the Jew sees also before him, clearly and
distinctly, the new pacemaker of his own further advancement. First
he uses the bourgeoisie as the battle ram against the feudal world,
then the worker against the bourgeois world. Just as at one time he
knew how to gain by sneaking the civil rights for himself in the
shadow of the bourgeoisie, thus he hopes now that in the worker‘s
fight for his existence, he will find the way towards a leadership of
his own.
From now on the worker only has the task of working for the
future of the Jewish people. He is unconsciously put into the service
of that power which he believes he is fighting. By making him
apparently storm against capital, one can most easily make him fight
just for the latter. Thus one always cries out against international
capital, whereas in reality one means the national economy. The
latter is to be demolished so that on its field of carnage the triumph
of the international stock exchange may be celebrated.
The Jew‘s procedure in this is, in short, the following :
He approaches the worker, pretends to have pity on him, or
even to feel indignation at his lot of misery and poverty, in order
more easily to gain his confidence in this way. He takes pains to
244
study all the actual (or imagined) hardships of his life — and to
awaken a longing for changing such an existence. In an infinitely sly
manner, he stimulates the need for social justice, dormant in every
Aryan, to the point of hatred against those who have been better
favored by fortune, and thus he gives the fight for the abolition of
social evils a definite stamp of a view of life. He founds the Marxist
theory.
(Houghton Mifflin, pp. 438 – 440.)

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
245
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,

246
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.

Only in one place of the German language territory

there existed something like a bourgeois party flag in
German Austria. One part of its national bourgeoisie, by
having chosen the colors of the year of 1848, black, red, and
gold, as its party flag, created a symbol that, although
without any significance as a view of life, had a
revolutionary character in reference to State politics. The
greatest enemies of this flag black, red, and gold were in
those days — and this must never be forgotten today —
Social Democrats and Christian Socialists, that is the party
of the clergy. They in particular have cursed, stained and
soiled these colors in those days, exactly as later, in 1918,
they dragged the colors black, white, and red into the gutter.
True, the black, red, and gold of the parties of the old Austria
were the colors of the year 1848, that means of a time that
was perhaps fantastic but that had the most honest German
souls as its individual representatives, although the Jew
stood invisibly in the background as the wirepuller. Thus it
was treason towards the country and the disgraceful selling-
out of the German people and of German wealth that made
these flags so congenial to Marxism and the Center Party that
today they worship them as their highest relic and that they
create special organizations for the protection of the flag they
once spat upon.
(Houghton Mifflin, p. 732.)

247
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
host.
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.

Houghton Mifflin :

He who would win the great masses must know the key
which opens the door to their hearts. Its name is not objectivity, that
is, weakness, but will power and strength.
(4) One can only succeed in winning the soul of a people if,
apart from a positive fighting of one‘s own for one‘s own aims, one
also destroys at the same time the supporter of the contrary.
In the ruthless attack upon an adversary the people sees at all
times a proof of its own right, and it perceives the renunciation of his
destruction as an uncertainty as regards its own right, if not as a sign
of its own wrong.
The great masses are only a part of nature, and this feeling
does not understand the mutual handshake of people who assert that
they want various things. What they want is the victory of the
stronger and the annihilation or the unconditional surrender of the
weaker.
The nationalization of our masses will only be successful if,
along with all positive fighting for the soul of our people, its
international poisoners are extirpated.
(5) All great questions of the times are questions of the
moment, and they represent only consequences of certain causes.
Only one of them is of causal importance, that is, the question of the
racial preservation of the nationality. In the blood alone there rests
248
the strength as well as the weakness of man. As long as the people
do not recognize and pay attention to the importance of their racial
foundation, they resemble people who would like to teach the
greyhound‘s qualities to poodles, without realizing that the
greyhound‘s speed and the poodle‘s docility are qualities which are
not taught, but are peculiar to the race. Peoples who renounce the
preservation of their racial purity renounce also the unity of their
soul in all its expressions. The torn condition of their nature is the
natural, necessary consequence of the torn condition of their blood,
and the change in their spiritual and creative force is only the effect
of the change in their racial foundations.
He who wants to redeem the German people from the
qualities and the vices which are alien to its original nature will have
to redeem it first from the alien originators of these expressions.
Without the clearest recognition of the race problem and,
with it, of the Jewish question, there will be no rise of the German
nation.
(Houghton Mifflin, pp. 468 – 9.)

Page 308

The racial question gives the key not only to world

history, but to all human culture.
(Manheim)

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
249
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 existence.

Stackpole :

Some inspired idea springs from the brain of a man who feels
himself called to impart his insight to the rest of mankind. He
preaches his views, and gradually wins a certain circle of adherents.
This process of direct and personal transmission of a man‘s ideas to
the world around him is the most natural and ideal way. The
increasing number of the new teaching‘s followers makes it
impossible for the upholder of the idea to go on working directly
upon the innumerable followers, leading and guiding them. As the
growth of the group cuts out quick and direct dealings, a
consolidating organization becomes necessary. The ideal condition
comes to an end, and in its place we have the necessary evil of
organization. Small sub-units are formed, which in the form of local
groups, for instance, represent the nuclei for the political
movement‘s later organization.
250
 But if the unity of the doctrine is not to be lost, this sub-
grouping must never take place until the authority of the intellectual
founder and of the school he has trained can be regarded as
absolutely recognized. In this connection the practical importance of
a centrally-located headquarters for a movement cannot be over-
estimated. Only the existence of such a place, surrounded by the
magic spell of a Mecca or a Rome, can in the long run give a
movement the strength that lies in inner unity and the recognition of
a fountainhead standing for this unity.
In forming the first nuclei of the organization, therefore, care
must always be taken not only to preserve the importance of the
idea‘s place of origin, but to increase it until it is paramount. This
growth of the theoretical, moral and actual predominance of the spot
where the movement began and whence it is directed must go on at
the same rate that the lowest nuclei of the movement, becoming
innumerable, demand new organized interconnections. For just as
the increasing number of individual followers and the impossibility
of further direct dealings with them lead to the formation of the
lowest groupings, so the eventually immeasurable increase of the
lowest form of organization forces the setting-up of higher units,
which may be politically described as provincial or district divisions.
Easy as it may be to maintain the authority of the original
headquarters over the lowest local groups, it will become quite
difficult to preserve this position in face of the higher forms of
organization that now begin to grow up. Yet this is the first essential
for the unified subsistence of a movement, and thus for the carrying-
through of an idea.
If at length even these larger intermediate groupings are
united in new forms of organization, the difficulty of maintaining
even against them the absolute supremacy of the original place of
foundation, its school, etc., is again increased.
Consequently, the mechanical forms of an organization must
not be elaborated beyond the degree to which the intellectual
authority of headquarters seems absolutely assured. With political
entities this guarantee may often seem to be given only by practical
force.
(Stackpole, pp. 336 – 7.)

251
 This passage is meant to describe the organisation of the
National Socialist movement, but it is a politicised expression of the
organicist principles that make sense of the Jewish superorganism
bearing a triadic macro hierarchical physiology, preserving a Jewish
master identity at the core of an extended, disguised Jewish identity,
appearing in the form of two main slave identities, accompanied by a
host of identities all brought into orbit about Judaism ; including, we
might add, both Nazism and Marxism. So without messing with the
Jews directly just here, Hitler continues to apply the biomechanics of
Jewish master race power to his plan, emphasising how he modelled
himself upon the Jews with whom he was obsessed as parasites,
exploiting the world. He wanted to be those ‗parasites‘, hence the
substitution of his model as the new master race, replacing the one
he was supposedly, intent on destroying. [2011]

Page 320 (1969, Ed.)

Murphy :

(14) The movement must use all possible means to cultivate

respect for the individual personality. It must never forget that all
human values are based on personal values, and that every idea and
achievement is the fruit of the creative power of one man. We must
never forget that admiration for everything that is great is not only a
tribute to one creative personality but that all those who feel such
admiration become thereby united under one covenant.
Nothing can take the place of the individual, especially if the
individual embodies in himself not the mechanical element but the
element of cultural creativeness. No pupil can take the place of the
master in completing a great picture which he has left unfinished ;
and just in the same way no substitute can take the place of the great
poet or thinker, or the great statesman or military general. For the
source of their power is in the realm of artistic creativeness. It can
never be mechanically acquired, because it is an innate product of
divine grace.
The greatest revolutions and the greatest achievements of this
world, its greatest cultural works and the immortal creations of great
252
statesmen, are inseparably bound up with one name which stands as
a symbol for them in each respective case. The failure to pay tribute
to one of those great spirits signifies a neglect of that enormous
source of power which lies in the remembrance of all great men and
women.
The Jew himself knows this best. He, whose great men have
always been great only in their efforts to destroy mankind and its
civilization, takes good care that they are worshipped as idols. But
the Jew tries to degrade the honour in which nations hold their great
men and women. He stigmatizes this honour as ‗the cult of
personality‘.
As soon as a nation has so far lost its courage as to submit to
this impudent defamation on the part of the Jews it renounces the
most important source of its own inner strength. This inner force
cannot arise from a policy of pandering to the masses but only from
the worship of men of genius, whose lives have uplifted and
ennobled the nation itself.
(Murphy, pp. 295 – 6.)

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. 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 to 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

253
do not bear the hallmarks of organicist thinking in the manner of
their exposition.

Page four hundred and seventy one 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 four hundred and seventy two 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 as ―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. [By which I meant the defence of the Jews from science, by
bringing Organicism into disrepute by making it the basis of a
murderous ideology focused upon the destruction and replacement
of the real master race, the Jews, who were bound to be identified as
such by any true formulation of social science. 2011.]

254
Pages 473 & 4 (1969 Ed.)

Stackpole :

The war in its four-and-a-half years of bloody events

disturbed the inner equilibrium of these three classes. One realizes
this by recognizing all the sacrifice of the intermediate class, which
lead to an almost complete blood-letting of the best men. And what
was shed of the irreplaceable blood of German heroes in these four
and a half years, is monstrous. One adds up all the hundred thousand
particulars. Each time they kept asking for : volunteers for the front,
volunteer patrols, volunteer spies, volunteers for the telephone
squad, volunteers for bridge-crossings, volunteers for the U-boats,
volunteers for aviation, volunteers for the storm battalions, and so
forth—again and again for four and a half years on thousands of
occasions, volunteers and more volunteers—and one saw invariably
the same failure : The beardless youths or the ripe men, both filled
with passionate love of the Fatherland, reported with great, personal
courage, or the highest consciousness of duty. Ten thousand, nay an
hundred thousand of such cases are recorded, and gradually this
human species grew scarcer and scarcer. What did not die was either
shot to pieces or crippled gradually, because of the smallness of the
remaining number. But one considers before everything that the year
1914 with the whole army made up of so-called volunteers who,
thanks to the criminal unscrupulousness of our parliamentary do-
nothings, had obtained no valid, perfecting peace, and so now had
surrendered like defenceless cannon-fodder to the enemy. The four
hundred thousand who fell or were maimed at the battle of Flanders
could no longer be replaced.
Their loss was more than the loss of a mere number. By their
death the balance was weighted too little on the good side, and now
the elements of meanness, of vileness and of cowardliness, in short,
the mass of the worst extreme were launched.
And added to that : Not only the best extreme became
thinned on the battlefield in the most monstrous way for four and a
half years, but the worst, in the meantime, in the most remarkable
way were conserved. To be sure on every volunteer hero climbing
the steps to Valhalla by the holy death of sacrifice, fell a poltroon
255
who very cautiously turned his back to death in order to give
practical proof of his being more or less useful in the homeland in
their stead.
Thus the end of the war presented the following picture : The
broad, intermediate stratum duly sacrificed its toll of blood ; the best
extreme sacrificed itself with typical heroism ; the worst extreme
was unfortunately preserved intact, supported, on the one hand, by
the most stupid laws, and on the other, by the non-application of the
Articles of War.
This well-preserved scum of our nation then made the
Revolution and only it could make it because the extreme of the best
element no longer opposed it ; it was no longer alive.
Thus, the German Revolution was from the outset limited in
popularity. It was not the German people who were guilty of this act
of Cain, but the purblind riff-raff of deserters, kept women, etc.
The man at the front was happy to greet the end of the
bloody fight, to be able again to go home, to be allowed to see wife
and child. Alone he had nothing intrinsically to do with the
Revolution itself ; he did not like it, and still less did he like its
agitators and organizers. In four and a half years of the hardest
fighting he had forgotten the party hyenas ; their strife was foreign to
him.
(Stackpole, pp. 503 – 4.)

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 four hundred and seventy three 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
256
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 continent.
Page four hundred and seventy three 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, (1969 Ed.)

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.
257
 The real organizer of the Revolution and the actual
wire-puller behind it, the international Jew, had sized up the
situation correctly. The German people were not yet ripe to
be drawn into the blood swamp of Bolshevism, as the
Russian people had been drawn. And that was because there
was a closer racial union between the intellectual classes in
Germany and the manual workers, and also because broad
social strata were permeated with cultured people, such as
was the case also in the other States of Western Europe ; but
this state of affairs was completely lacking in Russia. In that
country the intellectual classes were mostly not of Russian
nationality, or at least they did not have the racial
characteristics of the Slav. The thin upper layer of
intellectuals which then existed in Russia might be abolished
at any time, because there was no intermediate stratum
connecting organically with the great mass of the people.
There the mental and moral level of the great mass of the
people was frightfully low.
(Murphy, pp. 430 – 431.)

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, (1969, Ed.)

Quote ―In both cases ....defenceless to the Jew.‖

258
Murphy :

The Defence Leagues had force at their disposal. They were

masters of the street and of the State, but they lacked political ideas
and aims on behalf of which their forces might have been or could
have been employed in the interests of the German nation. The
cunning Jew was able in both cases, by his astute powers or
persuasion, in reinforcing an already existing tendency to make this
unfortunate state of affairs permanent and at the same time to drive
the roots of it still deeper.
The Jew succeeded brilliantly in using his Press for the
purpose of spreading abroad the idea that the defence associations
were of a ‗non-political‘ character just as in politics he was always
astute enough to praise the ‗purely intellectual‘ character of the
struggle and demand that it must always be kept on that plane.
Millions of German imbeciles then repeated this folly without
having the slightest suspicion that by so doing they were, for all
practical purposes, disarming themselves and delivering themselves
defenceless into the hands of the Jew.
(Murphy, p. 437)

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
259
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, (1969, Ed.)

Murphy :

The founding of the National Socialist German Labour Party

incited a movement which was the first to fix its aim, not in a
mechanical restoration of the past—as the bourgeois parties did—
but in the substitution of an organic People‘s State for the present
absurd statal mechanism.
From the first day of its foundation the new movement took
its stand on the principle that its ideas had to be propagated by
intellectual means but that, wherever necessary, muscular force must
be employed to support this propaganda. In accordance with their
conviction of the paramount importance of the new doctrine, the
260
leaders of the new movement naturally believe that no sacrifice can
be considered too great when it is a question of carrying through the
purpose of the movement.
I have emphasized that in certain circumstances a movement
which is meant to win over the hearts of the people must be ready to
defend itself with its own forces against terrorist attempts on the part
of its adversaries. It has invariably happened in the history of the
world that formal State authority has failed to break a reign of terror
which was inspired by a Weltanschauung. It can only be conquered
by a new and different Weltanschauung whose representatives are
quite as audacious and determined. The acknowledgment of this fact
has always been very unpleasant for the bureaucrats who are the
protectors of the State, but the fact remains nevertheless. The rulers
of the State can guarantee tranquillity and order only in case the
State embodies a Weltanschauung which is shared in by the people
as a whole ; so that elements of disturbance can be treated as isolated
criminals, instead of being considered as the champions of an idea
which is diametrically opposed to official opinions. If such should
be the case the State may employ the most violent measures for
centuries long against the terror that threatens it ; but in the end all
these measures will prove futile, and the State will have to succumb.
(Murphy, pp. 438 – 9.)

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
261
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
262
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, (1969, Ed.)

Quote ―In 1918 ...... sleeve.‖

Houghton Mifflin :

In the year 1918 there was absolutely no systematic anti-

Semitism. I still recall the difficulties which one ran into the minute
one used the word Jew. One met either a dumb stare or experienced
the most violent opposition. Our first endeavours to show the real
enemy to the public then seemed almost hopeless and only very
slowly did things begin to turn for the better. As unsuccessful as the
‗Guard and Ward League‘ was, its service in having again broached
the Jewish question as such was, nevertheless, great. In any event,
in the winter of 1918-19 something like anti-Semitism began slowly
to take roots. Later, of course, the National Socialist movement
drove the Jewish question to the fore in an entirely different way. It
achieved, above all, the raising of this problem out of the narrowly
restricted circles of little and big bourgeois strata, and its
transformation into a compelling motive of a great nationalist
movement. Hardly, however, had the great unifying idea of struggle
on this question been given to the German people than the Jew also
moved to counter-attack. He seized on his old weapon. With
amazing speed he threw into the folkish movement the arsonous
torch of bickering. As the situation was then, the only chance of
occupying public attention with other problems and thus stemming
the concentrated assault on Jewry lay in opening up the
Ultramontane question, and in the mutual clash of Catholicism and
263
Protestantism arising from it. Those who flung this question among
our people sinned against it in a manner for which they can never
make amends. The Jew, in any event, achieved the desired goal :
Catholics and Protestants were merrily at war with one another, and
the deadly enemy of Aryan humanity and of Christendom laughed
up his sleeve.
(Houghton Mifflin, pp. 824 – 6.)

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
264
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, (1969, Ed.)

Houghton Mifflin :

Because God‘s will once gave men their form, their being, and their
faculties. Who destroys His work thereby declares war on the
creation of the Lord, the divine will. Therefore, let everyone be
active, and best of all each in his own denomination, and let
everyone feel it his first and most sacred duty to oppose him who, in
his activity by word or deed, breaks out of the framework of his own
creed and seeks to pry his way into the other. For the struggle
against the essential peculiarities of a denomination within our
present German religious division leads inevitably to a war of
extermination between both denominations. Our relations in this
respect permit no comparison whether with France or Spain or,
certainly, Italy. For example, in all these three countries a struggle
against clericalism or Ultramontanism can be preached without
running the risk that through this attempt the French, Spanish, or
Italian nation as such will fall apart. But this may not be done in
Germany, since here Protestants, too, of course, would join in such
265
an initiative. Consequently, however, the defense, which elsewhere
would be solely by Catholics against political encroachments of their
own prelates, would here immediately take on the nature of an attack
by Protestantism against Catholicism. What would always be
tolerated from adherents of the same denomination, even if it were
unjust, immediately meets the sharpest rejection in advance the
moment the opponent belongs to another creed. This goes so far that
even men who would be ready, as far as that goes, to redress without
more ado obvious grievances within their own religious community,
immediately quit and resist the outside world as soon as such a
rectification is welcomed or, in any case, as soon as it is demanded
in a quarter not belonging to their community. They feel it to be
equally unjustified and inadmissible, indeed indecent, to mix in
matters which are no concern of the said parties. Such attempts are
not excused even when based on the higher law of the interests of
the national community, since today religious feeling still lies deeper
than all national and political expediencies. And this is not in the
least altered by the fact that now both denominations have been
driven into a mutually embittered war, but can become otherwise
only by a mutual tolerance which will endow the nation with a future
so great that it will gradually have a conciliatory effect even in this
field.
I do not hesitate to declare that I see in those who today try to
draw the folkish movement into the crisis of religious controversies
worse enemies of my nation than I do in any internationally oriented
Communist. For the National Socialist movement is called on to
convert the latter. But whoever, from within its own ranks, takes the
National Socialist movement away from its proper mission acts most
reprehensibly. Whether he be aware of it or not is beside the point,
he is a crusader for Jewish interests. For the Jewish interest today is
to let the actual folkish movement bleed to death in a religious war,
in the moment it begins to represent a danger to the Jews. And I
expressly emphasize the words, let it bleed to death ; because only a
person totally uncultivated historically can today imagine solving,
through this movement, a question on which centuries and great
statesmen have been dashed to pieces.
(Houghton Mifflin, pp. 827 – 9.)

266
 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
267
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 ?

We see in the above quote how Hitler hated atheists, and, not
for the first time, his accusation that people may be unwitting agents
of Judaism seems so apposite, given that is exactly what we say he
was, on a far grander scale. Such duplicity would be just what
epitomises a Jew, to Hitler, the ultimate Jew, in our view. This
makes Hitler a Gatekeeper of Judaism, as we say Dawkins is the
Gatekeeper of the Theocracy because of his sterile, ultra-atheist
agenda. Here Hitler sets himself up as an ultra antagonist of the
Jews, thereby thwarting any real antagonists of Judaism coming
forward to give a reasoned version of Hitler‘s mindless, anti-Semitic
rant. [2011]

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

268
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
269
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
270
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
271
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 (1969)

Stackpole :

At any rate, a young triumphant idea must avert every fetter

which paralyzes its active power to advance its ideology. National
Socialism must claim as a matter of principle, the right, to force
upon the entire German nation its principles, (without consideration
to the former boundaries of the federated states) and to educate it to
its ideas and thoughts. The National-Socialist idea finds itself just as
unencumbered by the respective state territories of our Fatherland
as the churches feel themselves not bound and limited by political
boundaries.
The National-Socialist doctrine is not the servant of the
political interests of individual federates states, but is to be ruler of
the German nation. It has the life of a people to destine and to
regulate anew, and therefore it must positively claim the right to
ignore boundaries, drawn by evolutionary forces, which we reject.
The more complete the victory of the National-Socialist
doctrine, the greater may be the particular freedom which it offers at
home.
(Stackpole, p. 559)

272
 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 (1969)

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.

273
Houghton Mifflin :

If a movement has the intention of pulling down a world and

of building a new one in its place, then there must be absolute clarity
about the following points in the ranks of its own leaders : Every
movement, at first, will have to divide the human material it has won
into two great groups : into followers and members.
The task of propaganda is to attract followers ; the task of
organization to win members.
A follower of a movement is one who declares himself in
agreement with its aims ; a member is one who fights for it.
The follower is inclined to like a movement by its
propaganda. The member is induced by the organization to help
personally towards acquiring new followers who then, in turn, can
be trained to become members.
As followership demands only a passive appreciation of an
idea, while membership demands an active presentation and
defense, there will be ten followers for every one or two members at
most.
The followership is rooted only in recognition membership,
in the courage to present personally, and to spread further what has
been recognized.
Recognition in its passive form corresponds to the majority
of humankind, which is inert and cowardly. Membership requires an
effective mind and thus corresponds only to the minority of men.
Therefore propaganda will have to see to it that untiringly an
idea wins followers, while the organisation has to watch most
sharply that from the followers only the most valuable ones are
made members. Propaganda, therefore, needs not to rack its brain
about the importance of each individual it enlightens, about his
ability, achievements, and understanding or of his character, while
the organization has most carefully to collect from the masses of
these elements those who really make possible the victory of the
movement.
(Houghton Mifflin, pp. 849 – 850.)

274
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.

275
Page 531, (1969, Ed.)

Stackpole :

The greater and more revolutionary an idea, the more active

becomes its membership, for the revolutionary power of the doctrine
spells danger for its ambassador, a danger which is apt to keep
away small, cowardly philistines. Privately they too will consider
themselves adherents, but they decline to confess it publicly by the
act of becoming members. In this way the organization of a really
revolutionary idea takes in as members only the most active of the
adherents won over by propaganda. This activity of the membership
of a movement, brought about by a natural selection guarantees its
future just, active propagation and a successful fight for the
realization of the idea.
The greatest danger of any movement is a membership that
has grown abnormally by reason of too rapid successes. For while all
cowards and egoists carefully shun a movement as long as it is
engaged in a bitter struggle, they usually try to join it, if through the
developments the party has either gained a big success or such a
success has become likely. To it can be attributed how many
movements, victorious before success or rather before the final
completion of the will, that lose out suddenly because of a vague,
inner weakness, suspend the fight, and finally die. Because of their
first victory so many bad, unworthy but particularly rotten elements
have entered into their organization that these least worthy things
attain the ascendancy, finally, over the fighting strength, in order to
force the movement into the service of their own interests ; they
reduce it to the level of their own, trifling heroism, and do nothing to
complete the victory of the original idea. The fanatical goal is thus
effaced, the fighting strength becomes crippled, or as the bourgeois
world in such a case chooses very rightly to say : ―Water also has
now come into the wine.‖ And then indeed can the trees no longer
grow into heaven.
(Stackpole, p. 565)

Further elucidation of the principle of superorganic control

where Christianity appears as an idea and a historical reality that has
276
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, (1969, Ed.)

Stackpole :

From the main body of the old movement it has not only to
fill all important positions of the conquered formation, but it must
also form the entire leadership. This has to be done until such a time
when the old principles and doctrines of the Party shall have become
the basis and purpose of the new State. Not until such a time can the
reins be gradually given over to the particular constitution of this
State, born out of that spirit. That, moreover, usually takes place
only after a mutual struggle, since it is less a question of a human
insight than the play and working of powers which from the very
start may well be recognized, but cannot be guided forever.
All large movements, be they of a religious or of a political
nature, can ascribe their tremendous successes only to the
realization and application of these principles, but all lasting

277
successes are especially unthinkable if these laws are not taken into
consideration.
(Stackpole, p. 566)

Highly organic sentiments here saying that social order is

delivered in obedience to laws, not human insight.

Page 546, (1969)

Stackpole :

The National-Socialist movement, which is working with one

goal in mind : the National-Socialist National State must not
entertain any doubts that all future institutions of this coming State
must grow out of the movement itself. It is a big mistake to believe
that all of a sudden, with nothing in hand but the possession of
power, a definite reorganization could be brought about, without
having previously provided for a certain basic group of men who are
trained along the lines of our conviction. Even in this case the
principle obtains that, more important than the outward form,—
which can easily be created mechanically—is always the spirit
which fills such a form. For instance, one can command dictatorially
that the principle of leadership be ingrafted in a state organism.
However, it will only live if it has evolved from the smallest
beginnings and gradually developed itself, gaining in the course of
many years by means of the continuous selection, which is effected
incessantly by the hard realities of life, the number of leaders
necessary in order to carry out this principle.
(Stackpole, p. 579)

The phrase ―state organism‖ appears 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
278
unions of their own and compete ? He has no answer but he does
not approve of grafting a leadership onto an existing body.

Page 551, (1969 Ed)

Murphy :

In this connection we must not be led astray by the fact that

the international trades unions are conducted by men of only
mediocre significance, for when those unions were founded there
was nothing else of a similar kind already in existence. To-day the
National Socialist Movement must fight against a monster
organization which has existed for a long time, rests on gigantic
foundations and is carefully constructed even in the smallest details.
An assailant must always exercise more intelligence than the
defender, if he is to overthrow the latter. The Marxist trade-unionist
citadel may be governed to-day by mediocre leaders, but it cannot be
taken by assault except through the dauntless energy and genius of a
superior leader on the other side. If such a leader cannot be found it
is futile to struggle with Fate and even more foolish to try to
overthrow the existing state of things without being able to construct
a better in its place.
(Murphy, p. 492)

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.

279
568-9, (1969, Ed.)

Houghton Mifflin :

Hence the Jew today is the great agitator for the complete
destruction of Germany. Wherever in the world we read about
attacks on Germany, Jews are their fabricators ; indeed, just as both
before and during the War, the Jewish stock exchange and Marxist
press deliberately added fuel to the hate for Germany, until State
after State abandoned neutrality and entered the service of the
World War coalition against their true national interests.
The Jewish train of thought is, moreover, clear. The
bolshevization of Germany, i.e., the extermination of the national
folkish intelligentsia and the exploitation of German labor power in
the yoke of world Jewish finance facilitated thereby, is thought of
solely as a preliminary to a further extension of this Jewish tendency
to conquer the world. Thus, as so often in history, the mighty
struggle within Germany is the great turning-point. If our people and
our State fall victims to this bloodthirsty and money-thirsty Jewish
tyrant over nations, then the whole world will fall into this polyp‘s
net ; if Germany frees itself from this embrace, this greatest of all
dangers to the nations can be regarded as crushed for the entire
world.
Just as surely, then, as Jewry will utilize all its agitational
work, not only to sustain the enmity of the nations against Germany,
but, if possible, to intensify it, this activity parallels only to a small
extent the true interests of the nations which it poisons. In general,
Jewry will always fight within particular national bodies with those
weapons which seem most efficient and promise the greatest success
in the light of the well-known mentalities of these nations.
Consequently, in our body national, so jumbled from the viewpoint
of blood, it uses in its struggle for power the pacifist ideological
conceptions sprung from these more or less ‗cosmopolitan,‘ in short,
international, tendencies ; in France it employs the well-known and
well-understood chauvinism ; in England, economic and imperial
conceptions ; in short, it always utilizes the most essential
characteristics exhibited by a people‘s mentality. Only when by such
means it has added a certain luxuriant influence to its wealth of
280
economic and political power does it slough off the hobbles of this
transferred weapon and now equally advance the true inner intent of
its will and struggle. It begins ever more quickly to destroy, until it
thus transforms one State after another into a mass of ruins, on the
basis of which shall later be established the sovereignty of the
eternal Jewish empire.
(Houghton Mifflin, pp. 906 – 7.)

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, rebellion.

583, (1969, Ed.)

Houghton Mifflin :

While, then, English State leadership did not, despite the

joint struggle on the battlefields of Europe, wish to decide to relax
the alliance with its Asiatic partner, the entire Jew press fell on this
alliance from behind.

281
 How can the organ of a Northcliffe, the loyal shield-bearer of
the British struggle against the German Reich, now suddenly
practice disloyalty and take its own course ?
The destruction of Germany was not an English, but
primarily a Jewish, interest, just as today, too, a destruction of Japan
serves British State interests less than the far-reaching desires of the
leaders of the projected Jewish world empire. While England wears
itself out maintaining its position on the globe, the Jew organizes his
attack for the conquest of the same.
He sees the contemporary European States already as
powerless tools in his hand, whether through the indirect means of
so-called Western Democracy, or in the form of direct rule through
Russian bolshevism. Yet it is not only the old world which he
regards as thus ensnared, but the same fate threatens the new, also.
Jews are the regents of the stock exchange power of the American
Union. Every year they manage to become increasingly the
controlling masters of the labor power of a people of 120,000,000
souls ; one great man, Ford, to their exasperation still holds out
independently there even now.
With rapacious cleverness they knead public opinion and
form from it the instrument of a struggle for their own future.
Already the greatest heads of Jewry envisage the approach of
the fulfilment of the hereditary slogan of the great devouring of the
nations.
Within this great herd of denationalized colonial regions, a
single independent State could, at the last moment, still undo the
entire job. Because a bolshevist world could survive only if it
included everything.

Editor‘s note : These reflections are copied, for the most part, from the
Dearborn Independent, Mr. Henry Ford‘s newspaper. Much of the anti-
Semitic propaganda once disseminated by this journal is still current in
Germany.
(Houghton Mifflin, pp. 929 – 930.)

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
282
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
283
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.

584, (1969, Ed.)

Houghton Mifflin :

If only one State remains standing in its national power and

greatness, the world empire of Jewish satrapies would and must, like
every tyranny on the globe, succumb to the power of the national
idea.
The Jew knows only too accurately that, owing to his
millennium of adaptation, he has it well within his power to
undermine European peoples and to train them to be sexless
bastards, only he would hardly be in a position to subject an Asiatic
national State like Japan to this fate.
(Houghton Mifflin, p. 930)

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.
284
 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
285
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.

[Five years ago I said Hitler had no idea what nationalism was, but I
did not elaborate. Nations were an invention of the Christian,
Jewish slave territories imposed upon Europe after the Roman slave
order of Judaism, having done its work, was disbanded. As such
nations have always looked to me like the exoskeletal framework
used by the Jews to build the slave biomass coming under the
Christian slave identity programme, imposed by the Roman slaves of
Judaism. Thinking about it now, I cannot imagine why Hitler was
so full of pride for German nationalism, and why anyone would
associate the political space that is a ‗nation‘ with race, when the
very essence of such a territory is that it should transcend racial
boundaries, which is why this political device served the Jewish
purpose perfectly once they had a substitute for racial identity ready
and waiting, in the form of Christianity. The process of imposing
states has continued in those regions the Jews have taken over under
the banner of European colonisation. Yet another reason to see in
Hitler‘s views the perfect expression of Jewish purposes. 2011.]

589, (1969, Ed.)

Stackpole :

Thus we find today upon the earth a number of powers, who

not only have a considerably larger population than Germany, but
286
whose greatest support for their powerful position lies in the size of
their territory. Compared with area and population, never has the
ratio between the German Reich and other rising world powers been
so unfavorable as at the beginning of our history, 2000 years ago,
and again today. At that time we, as a young nation, stormingly
entered a world of decaying, large political structures of which we
ourselves helped to do away with one of the last of the giants: Rome.
Today we find ourselves in a world where large power states are
forming, a world in which our own Reich gradually sinks deeper and
deeper into insignificance.
(Stackpole, p. 626)

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 five hundred 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
287
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.
288
 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 that 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
289
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. 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.
(Hartland, 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
290
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
291
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
292
scheme that allows us to recognise mechanistic connections existing
beneath the skin of consciousness 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.
293
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 ?

592, (1969, Ed.)

Houghton Mifflin :

The third great achievement of our political activity consists

of the creation of the Prussian State and the cultivation, which it
precipitated, of a special State conception, as well as of the bringing
into organizational form and adaptation to the modern world of the
German army‘s impulse of self-preservation and self-defense. The
transformation of the individual defense idea into national defense
duty sprung from this State structure and its new State conception.
294
The importance of this development cannot in the least be
exaggerated. Precisely the German nation, super-individualistically
disintegrated because of its jumbled blood, regained from discipline
through the Prussian army organism, at least in part, the capacity for
organization which it had long missed. What is aboriginally present
in other nations as a result of their herd instinct, we artificially
reacquired for our national community, at least partially, through the
process of military training. Consequently, moreover, the
elimination of universal military service — which might be of no
great moment to dozens of other nations — is of the most
momentous significance to us. Ten German generations without
corrective and pedagogical military training, abandoned to the evil
effects of their jumbled blood and consequent jumbled view of life,
and this nation would really have lost the last bit of any independent
existence on this planet. The German spirit could make its
contribution to culture only in individual men in the bosom of
foreign nations, without even having its origin recognized. Culture-
fertilizers, until the last trace of Aryan-Nordic blood had been ruined
or extinguished in us.
(Houghton Mifflin, pp. 942 – 3.)

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 scale.

295
604-5

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.
(Manheim, pp. 604 – 5.)

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
296
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 ?

Note

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
297
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.

298
 Conclusion

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
299
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
300
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 objective.

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
301
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
302
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. [Of course this means Judaism as it appears in its
entirety, which includes Christianity and Islam. 2011.]
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.
303
 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
304
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
305
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
306
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
307
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 SOLE PURPOSE OF THIS WORK IS TO FREE

SCIENCE FROM ITS BONDS.

308
 Bibliography

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. 1930.

Bagehot, Walter Physics and Politics ; or, Thoughts on

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

Barnes, James J. & Hitler’s Mein Kampf in Britain and

Barnes, Patience P. America : A Publishing History
1930-39, Cambridge, 1980.

Baron, Salo Wittmayer Modern Nationalism and Religion,

Harper and Brothers, 1947.

Bloom, Howard The Lucifer Principle : A Scientific

Expedition into the Forces of History,
Atlantic Monthly Press, 1995.

Blute, Marion Darwinian Sociocultural Evolution :

Solutions to Dilemmas in Cultural and
Social Theory, Cambridge, 2010.

Boulding, Kenneth E. Ecodynamics : A New Theory of

Societal Evolution, Sage Publications,
1978.
309
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 1943.

Calleo, David The German Problem Reconsidered :

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

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. 1852.

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

Considered in Five Essays,
John Murray, 1884.

310
Coren, Michael The Invisible Man : The Life and
Liberties of H. G. Wells, Atheneum,
1993.

Csányi, Vilmos Evolutionary Systems and Society : A

general theory of life, mind, and
culture, Duke, 1989.

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 No17, May 1954, p. 61.)

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.

311
Goonatilake, Susantha The Evolution of Information :
Lineages in Gene, Culture and
Artefact, Pinter Publishers, 1991.

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.

Hemelrijk, Charlotte K. Self-Organisation and Evolution of

Social Systems, Cambridge, 2005.

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.
312
 Mein Kampf, Unexpurgated Edition,
Two volumes in One, First Volume :
A Retrospect, Second Volume The
National Socialist Movement, Murphy,
James (Translator), Hurst and Blackett
Ltd., London, 1939.

Mein Kampf, The first complete and

unexpurgated edition published in the
English language, Anonymous
[Barrows Mussey], Stackpole Sons
Publishers, New York City, 1939.

Mein Kampf, Complete and

Unabridged, Fully annotated,
Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1939.

My Struggle, The Paternoster Library,

October 1935. First, October 1933.

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 Social Darwinism to
Sociobiology, Yale, 1986.

Kidd, Benjamin Social Evolution, Macmillan and Co.,

1894.

Marais, Eugene N. The Soul of the White Ant, Methuen &

Co. Ltd., Fourth Edition, 1939.

May, Tim & Bauman, Thinking Sociologically, Blackwell,

Zygmunt Second edition, 2001. First Pub. 1990.

313
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. & Bees as Superorganisms : An

Southwick, Edward E. Evolutionary Reality, 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.
314
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.

Salthe, Stanley N. Evolving Hierarchical Systems : Their

Structure and Representation,
Columbia, 1985.

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, Oxford, 2000.

Spencer, Herbert First Principles, Williams and

Norgate, Fifth ed., 1898. First 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.

Sumner, William Graham Folkways : A Study of the Sociological

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

315
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 originally
in New England Journal of Medicine
1971-3.

Vijver, Gertrudis Van de ; Evolutionary Systems : Biological and

Salthe, Stanley N. ; Delpos, Epistemological Perspectives on
Manuela. (Editors) Selection and Self-Organization,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998.

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.

Weingart, Peter ; Mitchell, Human by Nature : Between Biology

Sandra ; Richerson, Peter & and the Social Sciences, Lawrence
Maasen, Sabine (Editors) Erlbaum Associates, 1997.

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

1923.

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.

316
Worms, René Philosophie des Sciences Sociales,
Vol. I, Objet des Sciences Sociales,
Second Ed. M. Giard & E. Brière,
1913. First pub. 1903.

317