Atheist Science

H. H.

Godless House

Posted to Scribd :
25th May 2011
 Contents

Page

Introduction 4

Ch. 1 Decoupling 8
Arrogance 12
Understanding personal nonexistence 14
I want freedom, I want atheism, I want science 17
A world made in the Jew’s image 23
The act of becoming 26
Academic philosophy 28
But what is decoupling ? 32
Seeing through God’s eyes 34
Unchanging change 44
Evolutionary decoupling 45
A law of superorganic being 46
Nonexistence of the self can only be escaped
by delusion 53

Ch. 2 Counterblast 55
The Superorganism as Information 60

Ch. 3 Ultimate Knowledge 62

Sweet innocence 62
Truth of the matter 62
Knowledge as property 63
Ownership of knowledge 64
From overt to covert religious autocracy 65

Ch. 4 Science Occupied by Atheism 68

Absolute knowledge revealed 69
True science 70
Society as a natural entity 71
Superorganism 73
23/03/2011 74

Ch. 5 Philosophy of Atheist Science 78

Theocracy engineers science 79
Progress 81
Gatekeepers 83
Dawkins 88
Hitler as a Gatekeeper of the Jews 91
Ch. 6 My Work 93
What is the nature of this piece ? 93
Silver, lining a dark cloud 97

Ch. 7 An Interlude with Astrophysics 98

A new theory of universal force evincing active
and passive dynamics, applying Einstein’s
1915 Theory of Special Relativity to the
formation of human societies 103
This view of space-time applies to society. 105
Social space as authority 110
Reading light 112
Special relativity of structure 116
Force and matter 120

Part 2

Practical Atheist Science

Introduction 124
The notes 126
Some comments on the notes 131

Lucifer Principle 134

Bibliography 175
 Introduction

Atheist Science is an amalgamation of positive and negative ideas. These two ideas
are inseparable. Atheism without science is impotent and meaningless, science without
atheism is impossible. It has always been my view that anyone seeking knowledge today,
beginning from an atheistic starting point and thinking scientifically, must ask two questions :
Why does religion exist ? and, What are humans ?
These questions are products of the modern era, characterised by a freedom of
conscience that allows atheism to exist openly, without suffering direct repression. In
keeping with this openness, the modern era is undoubtedly an age of scientific knowledge,
that is knowledge of reality untainted by political, or social bias.

Even so, religion bestrides our world like the colossus it has always been, tainting
everything. Atheism is free in principle at least, but insignificant ; while science abounds, but
is heavily proscribed, being limited to practical matters, to technological, material concerns,
scarcely touching on subjects of a political kind, despite the great mass of supposedly
scientific material generated in respect to these more intimately human subjects. Given the
immense amount of science devoted to human concerns, in the shape of psychology, history,
sociology, anthropology, political science, economics and so on and on, it is surely a most
curious fact that while all our secular politicians tend to be well known for their deeply held
religious convictions, never, ever, ever, has there been one single political figure, from the
smallest minnow up, who said anything about society, life, morality, values, or anything else,
from any stance drawn from such intellectual fields. Not in my lifetime anyway, and my life
is two thirds done. Look at the great spook of the moment, Cameron’s Big Society ! What
prey is that ? It is creating a stir in the opening phase of the new coalition, as people try to
find out what it is. What it is, is a meaningless piece of jargon, it says nothing, and, as ever
with politicians, it is designed to say nothing, thereby allowing anything. Allowing old
Conservative values to be insinuated into the new mantra according to ancient traditions of
deceit and manipulation, garnering power to the few, while manipulating the powerless.
Thus, although forced to backtrack, one example of this Big Society is selling off England’s
treasured, publically owned forests, to capitalists ! Another example is privatising the
National Health Service, to give people more freedom ! As if. The politicians have no
respect for meaning in language, they play with words as a child plays with plasticine. One
stooge says there is no such thing as society, the next day, in political terms, another stooge
says all there is, is society, first Thatcher, then Cameron. It makes no odds how they dress up
their nasty little schemes because the same agenda lurks beneath : screw the peasants,
empower the elite.
What no politician ever comes out and says, is something like : “According to the
analysis given in such and such a sociological text, the actions of the government must follow
. . . such and such a course.” Thank goodness people may say, but the point is that for a so
called scientific age, there is an incredible dearth of science where it really matters, in our
social lives. Here things remain as they have always been, as primitive as ever.
 We must recognise that science does not encroach upon how we live, where it really
matters, it never has, and it never will. Whether we humans hunt in dark woods and use flint
tools ; live in large communal, circular houses, and build megaliths ; or live in high-rise
apartments, absolutely nothing changes in respect to self knowledge, in respect to, in other
words, how we live. The modern human, the most intelligent and best educated of them, has
not one iota of knowledge more about who and what they are, than any human that has ever
existed on this planet previously. This is what science has done for our self knowledge,
absolutely nothing. And this is a cause for rejoicing, for most people. Philosophers love to
say that science cannot tell us everything, it cannot, for example, determine what constitutes
moral rectitude. If science does encroach upon social affairs of this kind, a furore breaks out.
And this is why religion is able to rule our world with unbridled stupidity and ignorance, in
all matters of the greatest importance, at every turn of every day, for all of us, and we can do
nothing about it.

When dealing with science applied to how we live, we must understand that we are
engaging in an abstract exercise, a search for pure knowledge, and that is all we are doing.
Instead of a scientific monism expressing the fundamental principle of science—the unity of
nature—we find science is characterised in one particular field, that of life, by a dualism
which allows humans to be decoupled from nature, thanks to Darwin’s mechanism of Natural
Selection. Thus breaking the scientific scheme of things and, bizarrely, thereby allowing
humans to continue within the scheme of nature to which they belong, protected from any
scientific interpretation taking over the field of knowledge dealing with human existence, that
has already been occupied by naturalistic schemes, namely those of a religious kind.
The act of decoupling performed by Darwin, by making the evolutionary process a
question of mechanical selection, which left human choice intact, existing in a field of its
own, is the key to understanding how the theocracy which rules our world, has managed
knowledge down to the present time, a time of all pervading scientific knowledge, to allow its
political authority and power to continue untouched by science. For the theocracy the key to
power is the control of knowledge, where the control of knowledge is all about this subtle
device of decoupling, which relies, ultimately, upon an ever present intellectual field of
logical dualism. Darwin decoupled religion from science, allowing both to exist
simultaneously, but since this coexistence is an impossible, the secret of its success derives
from the application of social power to the maintenance of a sterile, pseudo science of life.
It is the job of Atheist Science therefore, to put an end to this dualism, to show where
this dualism lies, and how, in the pretence of uniting humans with nature, Darwinism actually
decouples them from nature where it really matters, at the level of free will and individual
consciousness. Darwin placed humans right in the heart of nature by making us relatives of
the ape kind, compared to where religion had placed us hitherto, in Biblical mythology. But
since we are obviously not apes, this left us even more excluded than if we knew nothing of
this fact, because now we thought we were enlightened, when we were not, so that we
stopped asking for answers to questions going begging, due to the constraints imposed by
religious dogma. In addition to this spurious insight into our primate ancestry, which in
terms of self knowledge, is nothing more than a red herring, Darwin taught us that along with
all other living things, we were made by way of a mechanism that selects ever more perfect
forms. Yet this mechanism did not apply to humans where it really mattered, in the social
domain that is everything to us. Once again, we found ourselves more alienated from nature
by these new insights into our place in nature, than ever before. Thankfully this meant that
the ways through which we had always understood ourselves to be formed apart from nature,
by a universal creator who made us in his image, remained the only possible way to
understand who and what we are. Well thank goodness for that, there is a stroke of luck,
thank goodness for religion, it has saved us from this monstrous failure of science to explain
us to ourselves, where it really matters.
Atheist Science is therefore a monistic account of life, which units humans with
nature according to scientific principles that make monism the all inclusive scientific method,
that it would be in a world where science is really free to be itself. This piece is a freely
written expression of the ideas arising from such a monistic scheme of life. It is intended to
introduce the philosophy of Atheist Science, to point the way to something which the world
needs, and if it has ever had it before, has presently, entirely lost, which is a true scientific
sense of humanity’s place in nature. If monism is to be an alternative way of invoking the
essence of science, we must combine it with an assertive atheism. Otherwise we will fall into
the trap of associating ourselves with the sterile Monism of the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries, which tried to set Monism up as an ethical ideal drawn from science.
These Monists kidded themselves that science already existed, epitomised in Darwinism of
all things ! Religion was to be honoured, as it faded away. Or at least that is what the likes
of Haeckel and Ostwald said in their brief monistic statements of the period. We say : first
religion must go, then science can be begin, any other idea is simply a delusion, or a con.

There is second part to this work, which in truth is the reason for creating this piece in
the first place, although I like the idea of writing something bearing the title ‘Atheist
Science’. I read Howard Bloom’s 1995 Lucifer Principle with the idea of making notes and
typing them up for presentation, as the best way to provide an interrogation of this most rare
of works, which treats the idea that human societies are in reality Nature made
superorganisms, literally ! Phenomenal, but not genuine, naturally. I could not write an
appraisal of a work that was a fraud ; that would be like studying the lies of a criminal in
order to understand the truth of them. Instead I have performed the task and made the notes
into a second part of this work, and described the method as a practical example of applied
Atheist Science. Pretty neat all round I would say, I hope so anyway.
__

Wednesday, 18 May 2011 – Finished. I seem to be developing a regular mode of

operation. I create on the spur of an idea ; I read as I go, to keep the product comprehensible,
while distributing headings as I go, with no forethought whatsoever. Finally I sort the
contents and bibliography.
I use to read the finished article, which is ideal really. There are minor issues of an
editorial nature to consider, where passing errors are made that cause a loss of meaning, and
this ought to be corrected in a philosophical work presenting ideas that are unfamiliar and
challenging. When I include extravagant passages tackling abstruse subjects like
astrophysics I really ought to see what happens when I read it myself ! But hey, I cannot take
myself that seriously when I have no come back. The ideas I have written about are now
very familiar to anyone who has discovered an interest in my work, so why bother pretending
to refine stuff that for all I know no one gives a shit about ? If anyone is interested they can
get what they need of whatever is contained herein without me perfecting it, by studying my
previous presentations. The point about truth, about science, is that anyone working in
isolation must come to the exact same conclusion as anyone else doing likewise, if they are
working correctly, as I am, from the right pivot of observation, which in this case says the
human animal is a superorganism. Who the individual is makes no difference to the end
product, indeed there is no such thing as an ‘individual’, we do not exist. And finally, the real
purpose of writing this item was to provide a platform upon which to locate my notes written
while reading Bloom’s Lucifer Principle, so really this piece is nothing at all, in itself.
As work accumulates with the passing years, and I never communicate with anyone, I
have no feedback and no idea how to obtain any exchange of ideas, because finding people
interested in real knowledge is simply impossible, everyone has an agenda, for whatever
reason. The problem here being that the fake science of Darwinism entirely fills the void
where curiosity should be, stifling any sense of a need to know what is real, that had existed
so powerfully before this mental plug was established to destroy all science by destroying the
impulse to inquire at its very roots, within the programmed brain. So I write for the future,
for a time when the impulse to seek true knowledge has been unleashed once again, just to let
them know we were not idiots, we were slaves of the priests, exactly as nature intended us to
be. This means fine tuning is too tedious, too much hard work, and time-consuming. I am
already writing Master Race, so I’d rather crack on with that. I have developed a
longstanding habit of inserting an ongoing commentary on my life’s imbibing of material,
from books bought, programmes seen, news picked up and experiences had. I like this
practice of writing a piece and simply fitting whatever comes along into it. This is practical
sociological science, suited to the philosophical nature of Atheist Science, as the sole
repository of true science in our world. I passed through Alderly Edge this morning and a
big, fancy new Oxfam bookshop had opened in a newly built office block, it was pricy but I
was flush, so I picked up three books on atheism, plus one on the facileness of religion,
objected to of course . . . but, that is for the Master Race, see you there, in a few months, taty-
bye.
 Chapter 1

Decoupling

Decoupling is not a dramatic word, but it is destined to a momentous role in our

scheme of things. From the simple idea of ‘decoupling’ we shall develop the ultimate
scientific theory of knowledge, as follows.

The best work I ever read is that which I write myself. It is the only work that adopts
the argument I adopt, the only work I can read therefore, that makes any sense, being the only
work that ever further my own ideas directly. Other work provides material for discussion,
food for thought and so on, but it is always coming from an erroneous, antagonistic point of
view, or else falls woefully short of developing its own scientific logic. There is only one
way to understand reality, and the approach I take, is that way. This is a factual statement,
which simply recognises that there can only ever be one true knowledge of reality, and that as
regards the most important question of all, to do with human nature, I happen to be the first
person ever to discover that way, and to make it known.
Much of what I say will echo ideas that have gone before, the break with the past is
not absolute, but it is so radical that it may as well be. I spent less than a week writing this
little piece, initially, and yesterday I began the process of reviewing it. I picked up the word
‘decoupling’ in the introduction and felt an urge to expand upon it, and in doing so I have felt
a still greater need to explain more about the significance of ‘decoupling’ in my scheme of
understanding human reality. Thus my own work has stimulated itself.

The word ‘decoupling’ has no major place in any great model of the world that I
know of, but it could have in mine. I have only used this word in one specific place thus far,
when talking about the role of Darwin’s science in defence of religion against science. But,
as I have just said, it is only by reading my own work that I am going to find this idea put
forward, giving me the opportunity to advance the idea by having its expression induce
feedback in my own reasoning. It is as if my reasoning occupied a geometrical space and I
can enter it to produce a fractal logic into which seems to have an infinite potential to expand.
A nice idea, but not entirely useful in terms of trying to convince people that you have
a great new way understanding everything of interest to human life. As a lay philosopher my
method is untempered by academic training, and free from the benefits of critical feedback
from others. It would surely be best to work out a rigorous scheme of development along
some consistent structural lines befitting the ideas I am dealing with here, which concern the
nature of human nature as a natural phenomenon. Unfortunately it is not in me to organise
my work methodically, sorry.
I feel the lack of this methodical organisation now, as I express the urge to expand
upon the idea of ‘decoupling’. The problem is that within the scheme which I am putting
forward, that culminates in a new philosophy of knowledge that I call Atheist Science, the
idea of decoupling acts like a hinge at the heart of the system. Thus decoupling is of
immense importance, but it is only a small element of a whole process, a mechanism, and if I
begin to unravel the significance of decoupling as I did in the introduction above, then I
suddenly find myself driven to present the whole business, right from the off, and that was
not the way the initial presentation took shape over the course of this last week. So now we
have a new first chapter, lets get on with it.

Decoupling is very much a part of what our nature is all about, or at least, what we
have just spoken of in terms of decoupling, it is central to the making of what we are as living
creatures at home on this planet.
A common theme in Atheist Science is that of decoding familiar meanings, whereby
we take commonplace ideas, or all pervasive ideas, and show what they really mean, or what
they really refer to, as part of reality. This implies that ordinarily our ideas are not what they
pretend to be. A good example would be our proof that God does not exist, which involves
showing what ‘God’ is in reality. The principle lying behind such a method assumes that
important ideas, although self evidently false, must have some real significance behind them.
In the case of decoupling, this method ought to tell us something useful, for decoupling really
is an all pervasive feature of our lives. On BBC 2 last night, 16/02/2011, Neil Oliver
presented the second episode of A History of Ancient Britain, in which he made much of the
way hunter gathers had been replaced by farmers, bringing about an amazing transformation
in the way humans lived, leading to a whole new idea of our place in existence which came
down to an immense decoupling of humanity from nature. Oliver’s account of this process
was that of a Sunday school preacher lecturing little innocents, but this is the BBC, a
patronisingly paternalistic institution only rivalled by the church itself in this respect.
In many ways this documentary holds much of the essence of what Atheist Science’s
challenge to establishment ideas is all about. The observation of reality is accurate, the
analysis is accurate, but the interpretation is utterly false. And the falsity of the meaning,
interpretation or significance of what is seen and analysed, is the product of decoupling.

This makes decoupling in respect to knowledge formation, an extremely important

subject. What is the nature of this decoupling ?
As a physical act of reality, Oliver nicely portrays just what decoupling amounts, it is
all about the shift of humans away from nature, and towards society, exactly as he said it was.
In making the move away from hunting to farming, Oliver said humans invented society.
What we need to get to grips with here, is terminology, and its extreme significance in the
way we understand things, and the way things are for us as humans.
Oliver’s mode of expression was rooted in the official terminology of personal
empowerment, thus he said humans ‘invented’ society. Our language is not a neutral medium
of information that spontaneously transmits information faithfully, only imparting bias if the
individual has either intentionally or inadvertently, or unwittingly imparted some spin to their
mode of expression. No, this is not the case at all. The language we speak is heavily
distorted from the off, having evolved to carry an intense social bias. That bias is loaded
toward supporting the core religious ideology of society, which says that the individual is a
free willed being.
At the same time as Oliver comes under the influence of this linguistic spin, as we all
do, as an archaeologist one likes to think the man is immersed in the sense of deep time
processes that cause people to be carried along in a given developmental direction, as much
as people are ever the active makers of their world. And this was reflected in his account.
However, where the personalising terminology was free flowing and emphatic, the
scientifically informed ideas were presented as the fruit of great wisdom and insight, and
offered tentatively, with a hint of apology. Thus he spoke about the way humans
domesticated animals, but, in the process, after a fashion, they also domesticated themselves.
He spoke of how the finds on some neolithic sites indicated a sense of the shift away from
ancient ways of life, to a new way, which, like it or not, people could not choose to go back
to. The drift of his discussion argued that humans chose to make the transition to farming, its
rewards being uncertain, so that only a brave man could of made this choice, he said, holding
the skull of a man he said was one such brave individual. Yes, all very Sunday schoolish.
Yet at the same time, he managed to introduce the idea that people really had no choice in
these matters. Once set on this course the ensuing increase in population and such like
changes, meant there was no going back, not for the early progenitors of farming, nor for us
today. The nub of these last remarks are that we have no choice in the way we live, and this
is just what we want to find in Atheist Science, this is real science : ideas that utterly destroy
all conventional understanding, because they are true.
We saw in the introduction that modern politicians continue to play this alternating
tune. First the politician says there is no society, as social structure has become intensely
communalized through socialistic principles and they want to counteract the shift ; then two
decades later the same political creed says that society is all there is, and we must bring that
idea forth, because society had been so fractured by the effort to breakdown the fruits of
socialist dogma, that the pendulum had reached the maximum extent of its arc in the opposite
direction. So it seems that throughout human existence there has been a dichotomous feature
whereby human nature formed a pivot of reality, the reality of being human, about which two
alternating alternatives rotated. The shift from one point of focus to another provided the
impetus for change, which always retained its point of focus about human nature.
This gives us a core of human nature, and an associated dynamic enabling change to
occur via a mechanism of conceptual decoupling, allowing two alternate expressions of
human nature, the individualistic anti-natural nature, versus the social anti-natural nature, to
keep human corporate nature forever shifting toward a greater degree of social expression,
which is what having a corporate nature means, while always remaining true to the core.
Whatever social identity is associated with this unchanging core, will remain eternal, no
matter what cultural changes occur over time, this constancy is what religion provides, as
seen in the longevity of Judaism.
Any movement, whether individualistic or socialistic, is always moving toward a an
ever greater degree of social integration, so it is always social in its nature, even when it
appears to be the exact opposite of social. All that is really happening when individualistic
competes with overtly social movements, is that structural distinctions are being refined
internally. Thus human nature is a natural core of social structure, it contains within it a
mechanism for decoupling humans from this natural core to produce an unnatural product,
namely society, unnatural as it appears to us, hence we consider social forms to be artificial,
though society is in reality perfectly natural, and not at all artificial. The idea of the artificial
from a scientific point of view is sheer insanity No matter what humans do in response to
this mechanism of decoupling, the result will always be represented in the same way, as a
separation from nature, though in themselves each of these acts of separation will be opposite
to one another, hence we find our world perpetually represented by a dualistic model, left to
right and such like. The rise of Communist versus Fascist camps in Europe a century ago is
surely the most dramatic example of such a process, where the exact same impetus, an
organicist model of society, inspired identical social formations, rotating about two
diametrically opposed expressions of motive force, still containing the exact same core of
human corporate nature at their centres. Each of these expressions of the conceptual
mechanism of decoupling led to exactly the same place, both of which invoked massive acts
of destruction, and soon disappeared from the social landscape to leave a wholly reordered
and extended social structure, still rigidly centred upon the age old core of human nature, the
Jewish religion. Thus, in reality, these expressions of human corporate nature, Communism
and Fascism, for all their appearances to the contrary, were part of one integrated organic
whole, always possessed by the core identity of Judaism. This is why these two extreme
political modes of decoupling have disappeared and left nothing of themselves behind,
nothing to speak of, while Judaism has continued on its merry course as if nothing had ever
happened, the whole turmoil of twentieth century history being just one more blip on the
radar of life, as Judaism careers ever onward towards the end point that human corporate
nature, projected through the act of decoupling which is the Jewish religion, is taking us all.
The end point is a uniform global society under the Jewish mantel of human corporate nature.

According to Atheist Science, no matter how things appear, there can, self evidently,
be no separation from nature. Any appearance to the contrary is an appearance only. In
which case this whole model of human nature, being characterised by an impulsion to
separate humans from nature, must be explicable in natural terms. What then is this
naturalistic, this scientific, explanation ?
The explanation is obvious. At the heart of the process we have been discussing, is
obviously language. The linguistic empowerment of human kind is the be all and end all of
what humans are, and what humans do. If human nature is located within a physiological
core of human bodily form, then the projection of alternate manifestations of that nature
which extends human lifestyle beyond the existing state of nature, is enabled by the existence
of language, that, and nothing else. When seeking to understand humans, the key is to
consider language as a natural phenomenon, and to think of nothing else.
Thus, within this model of human existence, language acts like a force existing
between individuals, which accumulates within the structure that we call culture, including all
knowledge and all forms of behaviour, which process of accumulation causes the human
biomass under its influence to augment and increase in internal complexity. Each new
increment in cultural form adds a slight degree of mass to the social body, and in doing so it
impels that mass further toward an expression of this dualistically formed separation from
nature, seen in the development of an increasingly hierarchical internal structure. As time
goes on this degree of separation from nature through the burgeoning of culture induced by
linguistic force, comes to a degree of sophistication where knowledge is able to represent this
new form of human existence in expressive ways, revealing a kind of self consciousness quite
unlike anything ever seen in any animal previously. This is what Oliver was describing, or
reaching for in his show last night, this is the very essence of what Atheist Science is all
about, bringing the full significance of this process of human corporate nature to light. Like
any natural process, that of human corporate nature driven by linguistic force, requires a
material base, hence we find differential expressions of human corporate nature according to
the material conditions in which these creatures happen to be located. A harsh but extensive
material base like Australia can sustain a minimal level of complexity in superorganic form
indefinitely, but it requires an abundant material base to ignite the transition of human
corporate nature to a new level of complexity which sees these animals make a radical shift
‘away from nature’, and begin the formation of society as we know it. What these animals
can never escape from however, because they take it with them wherever they go, is their
corporate nature. This is what the human animal is all about, its corporate nature.

Has no other person ever seen this naturalistic role of language, before me ? The
problem here is the inherent bias of language which is imparted by the core authority of
religion, so that no matter how hard they try, would be exponents of a truly natural account of
humanity have always kept to the straight and narrow in the end, and made sure that the
integrity of the individual is preserved. I have a four volume set of work written by the
Italian Vilfredo Pareto, called The Mind and Society, first published in 1916, which I bought
some years ago, a huge effort to describe society as a natural entity. This last week I also
picked up a book called Pareto’s General Sociology : A Physiologist’s Interpretation, by
Lawrence Henderson, 1935. This review reminds me of some of Pareto’s ideas, so full of
promise but utterly useless in the end. The following quote compares Pareto’s model of
society to that set out for the physico-chemical system by a man called Gibbs:

As Gibbs considers temperature, pressure, and concentrations, so Pareto considers sentiments,

or, strictly speaking, the manifestations of sentiments in words and deeds, verbal elaborations,
and the economic interests.
(Henderson, p. 16)

How full of promise does this comparison sound ? Very, I would say. But, as with Darwin,
the product is more of a barrier to knowledge than a fulfilment, because it begins from an
entirely erroneous position which treats the individual person as a real object, instead of as a
unit, of a real object. Thus Pareto has linguistic phenomena expressing some inner essence of
individuality : the sentiments. How vague and useless is that ? Very, for sure. Whereas we
treat individuals as being nonexistent in their own right, so that such things as ‘sentiments’ do
not exist, only language exists and the things which language creates, whereby, if we must
discuss sentiments at all, we include them within the range of phenomena generated by
linguistic force, in order to create superorganic form. Therefore, as we see, despite his
monumental effort, all Pareto did, like Darwin, is to add to the wall of ignorance defending
religion from science. Science must always negate the individual, absolutely and totally ;
while religion must always make the individual absolute, and everything. Science is about
reality, while religion is part of reality. Religion is a function, science describes functions.

Arrogance

They say that Eskimos have many words for snow, reflecting the nature of their
environment. As I wondered how to head this section, intended to deal with some of my free
and easy claims to uniqueness above, I thought ‘arrogance’ would do as well as anything.
We have many words of a similar kind, which says something about our civilised
environment, where competition and status are as thick on the ground here, as snow at the
north pole.
I like modesty, and hate boastfulness. If I say that I have discovered the greatest
knowledge any humans could ever hope to discover, and such like things, it is because this is
a simple fact. Read what I write and dispute it if you can. The problem is of course, that
dispute it everyone will, for the things I have discovered meet the need I have felt, but this is
not a need anyone else I know of has ever felt.
All I want to do just here, is to pause for a moments thought about the idea of
knowing the things I say I know, that I offer to let you know now. Think about the questions,
What are humans ? or, What is human nature ? These are common enough questions, and
they have been for a long time, for aeons. I give you the final answer to these questions, they
are easy to come by, but no one before me has ever come close. Why not ? Because the
answer leads to a very strange place. In talking about decoupling, and making the connection
with Oliver’s discussion of how people shifted from wild to domesticated lifestyles, and how
this act of decoupling is an ongoing process in human existence, we explain this difficulty,
because we indicate that as each transition occurs in human lifestyles, an act of decoupling
occurs that not only transforms our physical mode of existence, but accompanies that shift
with a new mode of consciousness. The first man credited with presenting a science of
society to the world was Auguste Comte, in the 1830’s, and he set out a general scheme of
social development that obeyed something approximating to a natural law, whereby all
societies were supposed to develop from a theological, to a metaphysical, to a positive,
meaning scientific phase, of intellectual development. Such an account is at best wishful
thinking, but it is true that times change and the intellectual condition of society has altered
over time. Although I have chosen to assert that when all is said done, we show no more true
self knowledge today than those people who left their handprints on cave walls thirty
thousand years ago. They were ruled by mysticism, and so are we.
Ask yourself what a true model of human existence would look like, if we had one ?
The two questions posed above must have definite scientific answers, they are legitimate
questions. So what implications does this statement have, what can we say about the
implications of knowing this, even without having the actually answers ? Any scientific
model of human existence would have to look exactly like any other model pertaining to any
other aspect of existence, of which there are many, each describing its own specific domain
of universal reality. The crucial point about any final explanation of a portion of reality, such
as the nature of the earth’s place in the physical universe, or the nature of the human animal
in the pantheon of life, is that it is final, and as such it is full of detail and explanation, and it
has no blanks left within its general scheme.
It is for this reason that leading scientists favour the strategy of denying that questions
about human nature do have an answer ! I saw one senior scientist state on television some
years ago, that there was no such thing as human nature, because humans changed from time
to time, and place to place, which would not happen if there was an applicable, uniform
biological nature. Her premise was correct, any biological nature must always be apparent.
But her observation was way off the mark. There are numerous attributes of humans that are
as perennial as any other features of any other creature’s defining attributes. She posed her
question within the level of biology, and then provided an answer drawn from the level of
culture. A standard trick of shifting between structural levels, used by our priests all the time
to abuse our powerlessness in relation to knowledge. First and foremost, humans are social,
always, and everywhere. A most extraordinary universal marker of our kind, is religion, a
very weird thing, utterly inexplicable on any rational basis we know ; at least until Atheist
Science came along. Language is yet another universal biological feature of our kind. But
these senior scientists are determined to do their work as enemies of science, as slaves to
religion, so they care not what they say, like any good priest, it is propaganda that matters to
any leading scientist. Leading scientists are the political faces of their creed. By ‘leading
scientist’ we mean scientists with a significant public persona.
I was just looking for some material on the free book site and hit upon The Principles
of Science : A Treatise on Logic and Scientific Method by William Jevons, 1874, in which he
obligingly includes a brief discussion of social science, always of central concern to Atheist
Science since this is the critical area of knowledge that cannot, at all cost, be allowed to be
treated scientifically, from the point of view of the priesthood that rules our world through the
preservation of religion. Turning to page four hundred and fifty seven of volume two, we
find a subheading The Reign of Law in Mental and Social Phenomena, which freely concedes
that uniformities exist among people, but quickly asserts that this area is shot through with
enormous complexities, so that he likens applying science to society, to weather forecasting.
We soon see why he finds such complexity inevitable, because :

If we are to apply scientific method to morals, we must have a calculus of moral effects, a
kind of physical astronomy investigating the mutual perturbations of individuals.
(p. 458)
He makes social dynamics a subject of individual free will. Needless to say this is a political
interpretation, born of the requirement to make the person the human object. It is the whole
point of Atheist Science to change this stance by making the person disappear, to make the
social body the only thing that is real. Jevons’ work is a good example of how the theocracy
manages knowledge in such a way as to allow science to exist freely in all areas that are of no
consequence to the survival of religion, while preserving just those areas that must be set
beyond the reach of science, exactly as Jevons does, with no justification whatsoever, and
spitting in the face of any genuine logical reasoning, simply concocting a model of scientific
logic to suit his purpose as a priest of the absolute theocracy he serves. This is not to be
thought wilful deceit on his part either, he is just acting according to the identity programme
into which he has been inducted, what we call his ‘culture’.
The social structure selects those properly inducted into the culture, and rejects those
who are not, so the whole system is self organising, to use a popular idea amongst
contemporary complexity theorists. The word ‘theocracy’ is a political term, but we use it
constantly because it suits our atheist agenda by emphasising the point that all official action
moves in obedience to linguistic force, centred upon a religious core, which makes the
authority ruling our world a theocracy, even though this is in point of fact a physiological
core, created by nature through the action of linguistic force. It is because nature creates this
theocracy, that the political form of the same physiological structure can become transformed
into a wholly different looking object, a democratic, secular, scientific organisation, while
still remaining an absolute theocracy, unchanged from what it was when formerly an all out
absolute theocracy. If such political transformations were real, then religion would be dead
today. But they are not real, they are linguistic manifestations of theocracy suited to modern
conditions. This is decoupling at work, projecting a conceptual model of social life that we
all become imprinted with as part of the process of being living entities. In this case our
social world is decoupled from the inner core of our social structure, making us think we live
in some new kind of civilized age, while all the time, the same old identity core lives on,
empowered by its new found seclusion within, hidden from us all. Thus the Jewish master
race rules us all, as it has long done so, causing humanity to continue decimating the planet,
to live like rats in a sewer, waging war and wreaking havoc in the name of religion, like there
is no tomorrow, because this is how a master race exploits its slave biomass, in keeping with
the imperatives of human corporate nature that created Judaism.
If we follow the Atheist Science route we end up with the very thing that true science
must give us, a completely mechanistic model of human existence, in which the person has
no part. This no one will allow, and no ordinary person wants this either. But this is what we
must have if we are to have a science of humanity that is real. I give you that science. This
claim to be unique, the first and the only, and so on, is not arrogance, it is more akin to
calling myself a leper, and putting myself completely beyond the pale of humanity. Which is
were I am most at home, fortunately.
In this case then, any apparent arrogance, is simply alienation, positive alienation
though, that is what makes it seem arrogant, because it is declaring a difference, and saying
that difference from all others, is better. The idea of arrogance shows us one more example
of how language suppresses knowledge, by enforcing a social conformity determined solely
by political power.

Understanding personal nonexistence

My arrogance then, is nothing of the kind, it is a consequence of the fact that we do

not exist, such that the validity of what anyone says or does, is determined by their status
within society, and has nothing to do with any ideal of correctness or truth. The Atheist
Science model indicates that the human animal is a superorganism and the individual person
does not exist, as an end in themselves. When the first social scientists discovered this, they
looked right through it, and failed to see it, because they did not how to do anything else. We
see this fact in the statements of Jevons above, he is determined to decouple humans from all
other existence, so he makes human society inscrutable, like the vagaries or complexities of
the weather. The weather of course is easy to understand and predict, the difficulty, such as it
is, concerns the kind of precision we would like in England, where the weather is notoriously
changeable and we want to know what is about to happen, when we want to know it, minute
by minute, and days and weeks ahead ! The problem is not really the inscrutability of the
weather therefore, but the inappropriate, self centred fulfilment we are trained to desire with
regard to knowledge.
A crucial problem for anyone wanting to know the truth, wanting a true science of
human nature, providing a genuine model of human existence, is that they must be able,
intellectually at least, to accept the reality that they quite literally do not exist. This is like
accepting that you are, quite literally moving, even when you are sat still in your favourite
armchair, watching Sky at Night talk about the rotation of the heavens. To make sense of the
programme you must understand that you are not only not sitting still, but you are hurtling
through space.
Above I asked you to consider what a scientific model of human existence would look
like, if we had one. I indicated that it would look like all other scientific models of reality : it
would be complete, accurate, and leave no mysteries of any consequence. Our nonexistence
as individuals is the key insight that such a model sets before us, because the exact opposite
idea is the key to our linguistic identity programme, that unites the fabric of our
superorganism about the core of Jewish master identity. This is why we cannot find the truth,
not because it is not obvious from a scientific point of view, but because we are too damn
close to the consequences, so we cannot look upon the truth without destroying ourselves.
For this reason I have argued in my work, that these ideas I present are unknowable,
humans at large cannot possess this knowledge. This outcome is also a product of our
physiological status as units of superorganic being, that means we exist to serve a higher
organic purpose. This must be an impossible idea to comprehend for anyone stuck in the rut
of normal life, but there are many indications of its truth, decoupling being at the heart of this
curious state of affairs, projecting conceptions that separate us from reality, through the
intercession of a collective consciousness imposed upon each of us as individuals. Last night,
18/02/2011, I caught a fragment of a show on Channel Four called 10 O’Clock Live, a
satirical news show that mixes humour with serious current affairs debate, an odd mixture.
Three people sat around a table in front of an audience while an American guest, an author of
some kind, made flippant remarks about the futility of voting. The hosts added their
pennyworth to the humour by pointing out what a bummer this cynicism was for the
Egyptians right now, a reference to the revolution which has just presented the possibility of
democracy to these hard pressed people. But this Yank expanded on his argument, he talked
about how amazing it was that anyone voted given the futility of the exercise, if only we
could find a system of electing politicians who did what we want instead of simply lying to
us to gain power over us, and then serving their own short term interests, while acting with
total disregard for what we want. The main crew asked him what he would do, and as he
drew breath to think of an answer to this most interesting question, their impatience cut him
short, allowing him to duck this impossible question, because of course, there is nothing we
can do about the existence of a master class that farms us like cattle. Saying which, brings to
mind the wry cry of an Egyptian caught running through the streets of Cairo, turning to shout
at the camera that Mubarak must go, “We do not exist just to be farmed !” he said. Ah, woe
is me my friend, to tell you in such a moment of exhilaration, “Oh yes you do !” There is no
escape from being human cattle, unless you want to become one of the farmers of course.
We may be farmed in a less intrusive manner in the First World, but believe me, we are cattle
as surely as any humans have ever been, at any time, in any place, the only real difference is,
that we do not know it.
Earlier in the week the dilemma of another intractable social problem appeared on our
TV screens, this time it was Paxman on BBC 2, talking about the damning report on how old
people are treated in the NHS. After some discussion with his guests, he asked the anguished
question, What can we do about it ? Here then, twice in one week, people came bang up
against major aspects of our social life, and hit a brick a wall. No one dared pursue the
reality that these aspects of our existence were perfect, being exactly as they were supposed
to be, because we do not exist, which any genuine sociologist would of been able to report, if
such a person existed. Which they do not of course.
And the same state of affairs exists throughout the domain of social life. We are
nothing, and our social fabric treats us as nothing, but, it pretends to do otherwise, in our
more enlightened, as we call it, societies. Education is my favourite example of a system that
exists to abuse us, but which politicians are able to endlessly represent as something precious
that will one day be perfect, for everyone. No, wrong, there is no ‘everyone’, there is no
‘anyone’, there is only the superorganism.

What I am telling you here is reality. You can bury your head in the sand, but that
will change noting. The strategies we have touched upon concerning a linguistic process of
decoupling, separating us from wild nature and increasingly integrating us into a
superorganic physiology, is managed through an increasingly refined process of deception,
which works. These deceptions keep us happy and they appear to improve social conditions,
but ultimately, they change nothing, we remain cattle. Conversely, we could say these
increasingly sophisticated illusions are regressive in terms of our status as individuals, which
is why they peak today in advanced societies by producing religious science, Darwinism,
which makes us think we are free when we are not. This must have the effect of reducing us
into an ever deepening state of mindless dependence upon the social body we are part of.
Then again, how many degrees of mindlessness can there be ? Ignorance is ignorance, and
for the most part, as seen in religion, we are utterly mindless. And this is why we find
discussions like that last night where we who live in a mature democracy spit on the system
in contempt, even as others who continue to endure the older version of the Jewish social
structure, monarchy, overt theocracy and military dictatorship, crave what we have. There is
a difference, and the difference is important, and the propaganda, as ever, presents an
idealised image of the difference, which is not correct.
I did wonder if we should say that our physical social conditions are improved by our
spiralling into an ever more degrading state of ignorance, fuelled by an increasing power to
determine the truth, as in science, which is perverted to serve priestly power based on
religion. But yesterday, 23/02/2011, we had yet another report from some children’s society
saying that Manchester was the worst place in Britain for child poverty, with a quarter of its
children living in serious poverty. No surprises there then. I grew up in Manchester, not in
poverty though, just in bemusement.
If we want to have a true science of human nature, we need to be fully aware of these
curious aspects of the matter. Imagine watching a documentary on ancient Britain presented
by an Oliver type person, only trained in science instead of a religiously moderated form of
science. At all points in his discussion of the shift from hunting to farming, Oliver spoke of
the transformation in personal terms, of they, them, will and want. But if he understood that
there is no such thing as an individual, in the context of social transformation, he would of
had to speak of these process in impersonal terms such as we apply to inert matter, thus ‘it’
would of replaced these personalising words, as the whole description becomes more skewed
toward a mechanistic, force driven process, rather than the moralistic model which this priest-
scientist gives us.

I want freedom, I want atheism, I want science

I live in a world where these things do not exist, and everyone is my enemy, forever
trying to thwart my desires in regard to freedom. So I tend to be aggressive about my
approach to these issues. But, it behoves me to find a way of making the advance to truth
positive, which, ultimately, it must be : it must always be better to know the truth than to
endure ignorance. If we can just find a way to cope with the truth. Unfortunately, my
suggestions as to how we might take advantage of a true science of human nature, are frankly
utopian, given the current state of our world. My ideas tend toward egalitarianism, a shift
away from capitalism and toward communism, but not the travesty of communism based on
Marx’s pathetic ideas of human nature, a true communism where we do not seek to
emphasise the worst consequences of our bovine status, but instead try to maximise the
potential of the fact that we do not exist, as ends in ourselves. So, as you can see, impossible
right now, but in the meantime, we can at least have the science as a curiosity, for those who
just want true knowledge, for the hell of it.

Lets review the meaning of decoupling in the light of some of our latest thoughts.
The idea of decoupling in Atheist Science first arose because of reflections on the work of
Darwin, which decoupled humans from nature by placing humans firmly within nature
according to a false scheme of connection. Darwin’s model of evolution meant information
was sorted at the environmental level, through a grid of natural selection. Atheist Science,
working backwards from the realisation that humans are superorganisms and linguistic
information is therefore a physiological manifestation of information, saw information as a
force integral to all life forms, driving evolution from within the fabric of living matter, and
causing living form itself to act as an environment in its own right, thus allowing the
evolution of superorganisms made of integral organic units, like ants and humans.
From this initial idea of decoupling as a mechanism of priestcraft, allowing a
priesthood to control knowledge and thus ensure the persistence of religion even in the midst
of a scientific revolution, we have found a more central place for this idea as we have thought
about the way priests of the scientific class, men like Oliver, routinely evoke the idea of
human development involving an act of separation from nature and descent into ever more
social complexity. At this level of reasoning we find decoupling applies so extensively to the
whole manner in which we conceptualise existence, that we are forced to make decoupling a
significant factor in our Atheist Science view of life. Thus we have the first principle of
Atheist Science which says that human nature is corporate, meaning that humans evolved to
bring a living being into existence at the level of social organisation. Secondly, we assert that
information is the essence of life, information is unique to life and as such information is the
living force creating all living form, of any kind, including all social structure. Thus we see
language as a seamless extension of genetics, projecting biological form onto the level of
social organisation.
As we proceed to unravel this model of human existence, we come to assert that at the
heart of human existence is a linguistic force. Linguistic force is an expression of the force of
information acting expressly towards the formation of social form, and as such linguistic
force creates all social form, of all kinds. Linguistic force existed millions of years before
humans, but we call it linguistic because it culminates in human language as we know it
today. And now we can place the process of decoupling within this scheme of linguistic
force as set out here. Linguistic force creates social structure by organising sentient brick
units of superorganic being, people that is. In order to do this language creates hubs of
authority by virtue of its use, which is compulsory, humans cannot choose not to speak, and
hence not to be social, there is no choice about this. The use of language spontaneously
generates social structure in the form of a unified biomass organised about a hub of authority,
because language is accumulative and super individual, being comparatively immortal
relative to the individuals who use it. Linguistic force, in the shape of language, is projected
into a social domain which it creates, where it is preserved and passed down the generations,
thus forming social structure and authority, or, expressed scientifically : superorganic being.
Hubs of social authority are a spontaneous product of linguistic action, since linguistic
information accumulates in the form of a language that deposits a structure about itself,
which preserves the language which creates the structure and augments itself on a super
individual level, thus forming a social structure with a culture and a language of its own,
forming one integral, base level, or simple superorganism. From the beginning of human
existence, this formation of super individual authority vested in a culture which is immortal
compared to the living individuals who act as its carriers, expresses the mechanism of
decoupling, because each individual, in the act of being inducted into its cultural milieu, is
decoupled from all other possible social modes of life. They are in effect taken possession of
by the superorganism to which the fate circumstances granting them existence, have allocated
them. We must allow some flexibility about these initial circumstances determining the
allocation of social identity, because while birth is the obvious mode of deliverance into a
cultural setting, the fact is that taken overall, birth is by no means the most important aspect
of the formation of superorganisms via a process of inducting individuals, especially is this so
as we move toward more recent, civilised eras. Birth always remains significant, but as
superorganisms develop more complex physiology, the hitching of whole biomasses to a
master biomass in a hierarchical series, convolutes the simple act of birth as a mode of
attachment, which is how the whole biomass of the earth has been attached to Judaism today.
We need to be aware of this, and thinking only of birth as a mode of induction into the body
of the superorganism would stunt our awareness of this important fact.
This simple idea of decoupling then, has now become the mechanism by means of
which persons are incorporated into the superorganism, lifting them out of nature, and into
society. If these general ideas of superorganic nature were to be developed then this was an
inevitable end point for its logic to reach. Even so, it has taken me by surprise, and I am
delighted with this outcome. Even so, while it is pleasing to find the idea of decoupling
applying itself to every point in the process of superorganic being, it remains of most use in
explaining the macro level of transition, which presents the most challenging aspect to our
understanding of ourselves in a free and easy manner, that befits our status as elements of
nature, made by nature, which is what all scientists must at least say they want to attain.
The story told by Oliver as discussed above, is as useful as any in this effort to
understand ourselves. He focused upon the shift from hunting to farming and identified a
transition away from nature to society, and he recognised that there was at least an element of
inevitability about this process, which limited the extent to which we could identify choice in
the making of this transition. Such a shift represents a cusp in human evolution that applies
to the superorganic level of organisation, not the individual level of bodily form. We may
think that we should say the transformation in our mode of existence is the feature to be
called ‘decoupling’, but this would be wrong. Remember, linguistic force creates all social
structure, therefore linguistic force created the newly formed mode of living we call farming,
from the former state of living we call hunting. Therefore the transformation is not a physical
process, it is a linguistic process, or we may like to call it a mental or psychological process,
just as long as we do not fall into the trap of thinking that individuals had anything to do with
these changes, they did not, these changes were inevitable, they were built into our biological
corporate nature.
The identification of decoupling with this process of radical change in the human
mode of existence, must be associated with the mental process involving the manner in which
linguistic force drives these social changes. Oliver was quite deliberate in his discussion of
this aspect of the matter, he made the change in the way we viewed the world the most
important thing in this whole business of becoming social living, settled agriculturalists, and
he was quite right to do so. But now we want to explain this mental adjustment in scientific
terms, not the moral/religious terms that our famous scientist uses. So the decoupling was the
shift in attitude, it was the shift in attitude that came first, leading to the physical
transformation. The way Oliver tells it, it feels as if it was the other way around, that people
adopted farming practices gradually so that as the benefits infiltrated themselves into the way
of life, by increasing the population for example, people suddenly found themselves driven
into a way of life they had never anticipated, so that, waking up to the event after it was too
late, they developed new ways of thinking about existence that expressed the new
circumstances they had, kind of inadvertently, made for themselves. It is as if the news ways
of thinking were coping strategies : Oops, what have we done now, made civilization ? Ah
well, never mind, better get on with it then, bring me another slave to slap and quick about it !
This mode of representation helps keep the individual at the forefront of the process,
being defined by their relationship to self knowledge, as a frail, imperfect beings, struggling
against amazing odds, and in the process triumphing splendidly. This of course is very much
how religion is portrayed, as a means of allowing the poor little person to cope with life.
Whereas, seen scientifically, where knowledge is treated as a biological phenomenon, as a
behavioural strategy caused entirely by nature, to achieve precisely the effect seen in the
process of social transformation and ideological mystification, the individual becomes the
plaything of nature. So the interpretations we are presented with, though looking all sweet
and innocent, in that they sound so reasonable, being based upon great wisdom and expertise,
are nothing of the sort. The stuff our intellectuals feed us, is the product of a very definite
agenda, which is all about controlling sentient brick activity relative to the social mode of
existence pertaining at any one time. This agenda is biological, coming from the core of the
superorganism, it is not political, and it is not created by people, which is why it takes a
scientific view like that of Atheist Science to explain what is meant by the science that the
authorities present us with. Oliver, for example, is not responsible for the knowledge he
teaches, he is the front man at the head of an immense edifice accrued from past effort so
vast, that he must be likened to a single sensory cell delivering information to the brain,
stimulating a state of consciousness, and nothing more. We have said elsewhere that religion
is part of nature, not an explanation of nature, while science is about nature, and is an
explanation of nature, which means that only science can explain religion, and it is the job of
science to do this. However, now we find that science is drawn into orbit about the core of
religious identity, so that a new form of science is required that expressly sets out to eradicate
religion by explaining it, because that is the only way for real science to exist.
Today, Friday, 25 February 2011, as is my habit, I drew a book from a shelf to see
what lay within, to stimulate my mental juices, and it opened with this delightful passage :

A CRAVING to understand existence pervades mankind, and the life of every self-
conscious individual. Every system of philosophy has endeavoured to penetrate into
the nature of things, and has originated in the attempt to apprehend the coherency of
 those great series of material and spiritual phenomena, of which man flatters himself
that he is the centre or the end.
Some quiet themselves by emphasizing the contrast between mind and body,
idea and phenomenon ; others, by the catchword of identity ; some have deemed
themselves and the world in the most beautiful harmony ; others, from the times of the
Buddhists, in the 6th century B.C., to the eccentric saints of the present day, the
followers and reformers of Schopenhauer’s system, regard the world as a mere
accumulation of discomfort and conflict, from which the sage may escape by a
complete withdrawal into himself, and a return, by the force of an iron will, to an
absence of needs and to nothingness.
In all these endeavours to be reconciled and contented with the world, the
consciousness of man has made no very important progress. Marvellous as are the
attainments of our generation, whether in the domain of individual sciences, or in the
sphere of commerce and industry, it is scarcely less wonderful how little certain or
advanced is the opinion of the multitude on general questions. Even now, as much as
in the days of Aristophanes, the multitude, and likewise many men of “culture,” allow
themselves to be imposed upon by empty jargon. We no longer burn witches, but
verdicts of heresy still abound. As the basis of scientific medicine, our experimental
physiology enjoys unexampled encouragement, and a general instinctive recognition
unparalleled in former times ; but these do not prevent the door from remaining open,
in all classes of society, to the most audacious quackery.
We have only to look round at the spiritualists and summoners of souls, who
now form special sects and societies ; at the advocates of cures by sympathy and
incantation, and we can but marvel at the extensive sway of a superstition hardly
superior to the Fetichism of a race so alien to ourselves as are the negroes. These are
only individual cases of the very widespread lack of judgment, which prevails
wherever the supposed enigma of human existence is concerned. Millions and
millions who would turn away indignantly if required to believe that anything not
entirely natural occurred in the most complicated machine, in the most elaborate
product of the chemical retort, or in the strangest results of physical experiment, are
yet disposed to seek a dualism behind the processes of life. Wherever, also, the
explanation of life, and the reduction of vital phenomena to their true natural causes is
concerned, they would wish to deny point-blank the possibility of such explanation or
such knowledge, and to refer life to an unapproachable and mystic domain. Or, if the
solution of the problem of life be admitted in the abstract, at least something peculiar,
and a different standard from that by which other living beings may be measured, is
required for the beloved Self.
If we thus see, on the one side, a great portion of our contemporaries either
standing before the most important of all problems in utter perplexity and
helplessness, or solving it by the theology of revelation, we may, fortunately, point,
on the other side, to the goodly host of those who, since the development of science
has admitted of it, have encountered the investigation of man’s place in nature with
sincere interest, and have weighed the problem with intelligence.

(The Doctrine of Descent and Darwinism, Oscar Schmidt, 1873, pp. 1 – 3)

I love the sentiments expressed here, they need no alteration in order to describe our
world today, perfectly. I drew this selection to a close after sampling the first part where it
tails off into drivel, as Schmidt contradicts the denunciation of all humanity for being idiotic,
even scientists, by saying nonetheless there are a host of real seekers after truth, the scientists.
No there are not, and this man’s work is not science either, it is pure religion, it is setting out
to pay homage to Darwin, and this is why he begins by attacking superstition, because that is
what Darwin’s work was always meant to do, it was meant to replace superstition with a fake
science pretending to be real, which obviously required that the frauds presenting Darwinism
must set themselves up as the antithesis of those who favour sentimentalism over reason.
Darwinism is not superstition, it is pure craft, a highly worked piece of academic
misrepresentation designed by the priesthood, to meet the requirements of the modern era of
scientific expertise. I suppose we could say that Darwinism is superstition in the same sense
that farming is hunting, just in order to affirm the physiological continuity of such pseudo
scientific knowledge within the structure of the human superorganism, where new modes of
decoupling occur in an endless series, like the accumulating layers of a shell, lifting
individuals ever further away from immediate contact with nature, and deeper into the
exoskeletal fabric of the superorganism.
I thought this passage would fit nicely just here, after paying attention to the way
decoupling lifts people away from reality, by creating conceptual forms that make people
think they are connected to reality. This is what language always does in the process of
knowledge formation, it separates people from reality. Saying this gives us the theory of
knowledge befitting the idea of nonexistence within the being of a superorganism. By this
means, by this act of separation, knowledge lifts us from nature into superorganic being.
Knowledge is therefore never true, as it can only ever be functional. Atheist Science is true
knowledge, but then, this knowledge does not exist in any meaningful sense, because it is not
accepted. Atheist Science is not functional, it is the antithesis of functional knowledge
because it is true. What we call ‘Atheist Science’ was firmly in the hands of our world over a
century ago, it existed, and the world washed its hands of it as quickly as it could, and it was
glad to do so by means of all out warfare and wholesale destruction occurring over decades,
anything but get stuck with the truth !
The problem with the truth, you see, is that it has no power of separation, it cannot
decouple people from nature, since that is precisely what true knowledge must avoid, it must
put people in nature. We see a reference to this fact in Schmidt’s piece, where he accuses the
lovers of scientific prowess of succumbing to the lure of dualism when questions of their own
place in nature arise. In other words, where we are concerned, knowledge must permit us to
separate ourselves from nature. This is not a flaw in the mental processes of such persons,
this condition is the essence of the human animal, the superorganism, as it impacts upon the
consciousness of the sentient brick units of superorganic being, units which must be inducted
into the superorganism in order for the human animal to exist, and are thus inducted through
the process of linguistic separation from nature, or from whatever went before, as in hunting
before farming. This process of decoupling sets in train an endless separation appearing in
the social structure, that we call progress, development, history, and such like. Decoupling
can run on tick over, for thousands of years even, where human corporate nature lies
dormant, but once human corporate nature ignites, due to favourable environmental
conditions, the decoupling process inherent in linguistically empowered human corporate
nature, shows itself in all its cultural glory.
If the person has perfect knowledge of reality, then the person becomes an end in
themselves. Then, instead of the person not existing, as nature intended when evolving
humans, it would be the human animal itself, the superorganism, that could not exist. This is
why we see a state of tension existing between these two possible extremes, only one of
which can ever be realised, because of the way nature has shaped us, which always finds the
individual on the losing end, being always subject to an new form of decoupling soon after
any moment of teasing enfranchisement occurs. As can be seen from the fact that we now
live in a scientific age where the false science of Darwinism has been set on the pedestal from
which we must all imbibe our supposedly perfect knowledge of reality. This process of
decoupling occurs constantly, it is this process that will return the Middle East to a calm state
over the coming years, reversing the impulse of freedom associated with revolution, by
returning the biomass to a state of subjection, hopefully one in keeping with the
contemporary model of Democracy, which is the currently favoured form of oppression that
decouples us from reality just enough to keep us happy, but not so much that the
superorganism to which we are enslaved as surely as ants are to their nest, dies. If this
happened Judaism would cease to exist, and then what would we do ?

I caught a comment on the wave of revolutionary fervour sweeping the Middle East
on Newsnight last night, 24/02/2011, where a women said that recently attention had been
drawn to the problem of predicting the outcome of financial contagion as the world went
through a calamity brought on by banking collapse, and this new situation represented a state
of political contagion, with dynamics that are even more difficult to predict. The relevance of
such a remark for us, is that it speaks of forces driving human social action. We do not get
too many good examples of this pure form of linguistic force during the course of a single
lifetime, they come along infrequently like major earthquakes, such as the one that hammered
Christchurch in New Zealand this week, which indicates that events like this outbreak of
revolutionary fervour, which openly display the existence of linguistic force, indicate that this
force is ever present, but not often seen in a raw, and recognisable form. If language did not
exist, then how could such contagious events occur on a regular, if long-term cycle, as they
do ? This proves that language creates social structure by acting upon us, and through us, and
that language is the manifestation of a physiological force ; as long as we have the scientific
insight that tells us the human animal is the superorganism, and not the person. If we try to
make sense of such events through the prism of personal existence, we find the task utterly
hopeless.

Below I note the arrival of Blute’s book a couple of days ago, the bibliography to
which has Thought Contagion : How Belief Spreads through Society by Aaron Lynch, 1996.
So, what do you reckon, do you think this work will invoke the existence of a natural force
acting through individuals, to create social form by organising sentient brick units into an
organised state of social being ? Can pigs fly ?

There are figureheads like Gaddafi and Mubarak who figure in these historical events,
and priests love to make out that these key figures have a pivotal role in shaping the large
scale social phenomenon they are part of, but this is all nonsense. The Great Man scenario is
part of the political bullshit of our theocracy, a bias interpretation of reality that is intended to
reinforce the idea of the individual while suppressing our awareness of the true nature of
what we are as organic beings, as animals. Figureheads there are, but are we ever in want of
figureheads ? Of course not. The reporter on Channel Four News last night, 25/02/2011,
said there was a political vacuum in Libya because Gaddafi’s regime banned political parties
—it was not all bad then, a world without politicians sounds like the first step towards utopia
to me—so that a kind of technocracy was attempting to fill the void in those areas freed by
this week’s revolution. This stark absence of a figurehead proves that we are ordinarily never
without a figurehead, and why, because the social structure is permanent and figureheads fill
a structural slot, they do not make the structure they represent. The same was noted above
with regard to academics like Oliver and the knowledge they teach, in short : there is no such
thing as an individual. And this fact becomes more obvious the more important the
individual is within the social hierarchy, because they thereby become more and more
representative of the whole social body. What the priests who feed us our knowledge do, is
to invert the true nature of this relationship, putting the cart before the horse by making the
figurehead the Great Man, without whom the social structure could not exist. This is utter
nonsense. If Napoleon had not come forth in the aftermath of the French revolution, to return
France to stability under the old regime, accommodated through a new act of decoupling
which pretended to preserve the free impulse of the revolution, then Bob or Bill would of
done ; if Hitler had not stepped into the breach of history after the upheaval of the First World
War, to ensure that the old religious order retained its iron grip on our world, then Bob or Bill
would of done ; if Churchill had not met the need to play at defending freedom in partnership
with Hitler’s pretence of decimating freedom, then Bob or Bill would of done, and so on ad
infinitum. It is a system, a structure, a biological system what is more, one driven by
linguistic force, where the mechanism of decoupling links ideas to actions, spontaneously,
and where the consciousness of individuals plays no part in what happens, none whatsoever
to speak of. If individuals did play a part in how society operates then the continuity of
society, typified by religion, would be utterly inexplicable. That one person can be insane
enough to call themselves a Christian, beggars belief, but instead a whole world is happy to
follow such madness, age after age after age.

A world made in the Jew’s image

When pundits in the media ask questions about the future, after a bout of social
upheaval, they are not seeking, or giving, scientific answers. Science, genuine science, has a
very precise agenda : to seek the truth. Pundits have a very precise agenda : to seek
knowledge serving interests which they are identified with. Last night Channel Four News
interviewed a former foreign minister of Jewland, who made it plain that democracy was
alright as long as it served Israel’s interests, otherwise it was illegal and despicable. She did
not put it like that of course. Bias political agendas are part of the social material that we as
scientists are interested in, and since Jews are the master race, or stellar race about which all
human social structure rotates, so that we all exist to serve Judaism, there can be no better
voice for Nature in human affairs, than that of a powerful Jewish politician. What she said
goes, she was laying down the law that all the world has to follow, and this command is as
close to reality imposed by Nature, as we will get from a none scientific, none atheist
commentator. Whatever happens, however long it takes, the turmoil in the Middle East will
be a major boon driving home Jewland’s establishment as the pivot of power in the world.
Of course we can say that about anything happening anywhere, anytime, but this is especially
so with matters so close to the home of the stellar race as this is revolutionary outbreak.
Its funny, The Big Questions Sunday morning religious propaganda show on BBC 1,
is ongoing right now, 27/02/2011 10:50, where earlier on, they had been debating whether
adoption should be colour blind. Two black English people were arguing vociferously for a
fanatically racist agenda, calling for black people to be placed on a pedestal above white
people, whereby black people should be seen as people by virtue of the colour of their skin !!
Incredible. What can you say ? Obviously these people feel we whites place ourselves on a
pedestal relative to blacks, but we certainly are not allowed to by law and no white person
would get within a million miles of a BBC studio if they wanted to express the ideas these
two spouted today, as the host indicated when he said these statements sounded like
something taken straight from a British National Party leaflet.
Race is a medium of corporate, meaning superorganic, identity. That is why race
exists, to define the superorganism, and that is why individuals cannot help being drawn to it,
because it is a biological foundation of social power acting at a certain hierarchical level of
superorganic physiology, that we as sentient brick units of superorganic being, are meant to
be animated by. Although long since superseded by religion as the prime social identity
formula, race has continued to play an important role in organising the structure of
superorganic physiology, and this is what these ungrateful niggers want a piece of, now that
they have been naturalised in white society, instead of being kept as pets or slaves, as they
should of been, obviously. The same arguments can be applied to religion of course, and it
was fascinating to see a young man at the close of one of these programmes a few weeks ago,
say that teaching your kids to follow a religion—the debate was about taking your partner’s
religion when you marry—is disgusting and simply a form a racism ! YES. He was right.
But did he understand why this was correct ? Not unless he has read me he didn’t, because to
understand this you must know that you do not exist, that the superorganism is the human
animal and these identity wars are all about forming the physiology of superorganic being.
You either read me, or you work this out for yourself, there is no other possible means of
accessing this genuine scientific understanding of what it is to be human. My work is the
only source of true scientific knowledge about humans. Tell me I am wrong, I would love to
think others know what I know without getting it from me, but I will not believe this until I
see it, because there is not the least reason to do so, apart from the general proposition that if
one person can do it, then so can another. Few will be like me however, ‘odd’ does not even
begin to describe it.
There is a completely unique author, in that he makes one of our primary insights
derived from our understanding of human corporate nature, the guiding thread of his work,
but with great disingenuity he corrupts the idea that society is a superorganism, always
ensuring that the individual is the real end in play. In The Lucifer Principle, 1995, Howard
Bloom, extracts a wonderfully worked logic from the idea that society is a superorganism,
whereby he says :

we are casualties of Nature’s callous indifference to life, pawns who suffer and die to live out
her schemes.
One result : from our best qualities come our worst. From our urge to pull together
comes our tendency to tear each other apart .
(pp. 2 - 3)

This is a fine approximation to the reason for the negative impact of what we call ‘racism’,
that we indicate derives from the fact that we do not exist. But as we can see from this
snippet, Bloom is asserting that we do exist, as victims of Nature ! This is a perfectly normal
religious, political, philosophical, intellectual stance to take, always emphasising ourselves,
and why not ?
It is not science for a start, and consequently the end result of this magnificent diatribe
produced by Bloom, is nothing but more verbal sludge, adding to the ocean of sludge we call
‘knowledge’, in which we are immersed. A load of inspired, get us nowhere nothing, that
tells us nothing, and leaves us right where religion always leaves us, stuck with self satisfying
rubbish that is useless. This is how Nature abuses us, by giving us stuff like the Bible, the
Koran, The Origin of Species and The Lucifer Principle, to name but a few.
The whole point of our interest in all this Insight coming from Bloom, is that it can
tell us everything, but only if we follow its logic to the bitter end, and realise that everything
is exactly as it should be, because, ultimate insight of all insights : we do not exist. And this
insight is plain for all to see in Bloom’s reasoning, but he deliberately avoids taking it to its
logical conclusion, choosing instead to make this deepest of all insights, a starting point for
further ramifications of Jewish mysticism : eulogising the individual. Showing that he is a
priest, not an honest man, a seeker of knowledge ; but a manipulator, a charlatan, a politician,
one who would be a farmer of men, a parasite, a capitalist, a perfect example of what a stellar
race is made of, of what the core organ of superorganic being consists of : a Jew. This is
what Nature does to us, how nature abuses us, but there it is, no one said we had to like it,
this is science, not sermonising.
Bloom presents himself in the guise of a saviour, a man dealing politically correctly
with the subject collective hatred, which he says we must tackle by finding a new way of
understanding ourselves. This new way means seeking a new depth to self knowledge, which
he pretends to provide by revealing how nature causes us to form a true, living
superorganism ! Magnificent, wonderful, what more could we atheists ask for ? We could
ask that atheism be brought to the fore, as it must be before any science can exist. The real
advance in this direction would be towards real scientific knowledge, revealing what religion
is, what Judaism is, allowing us to eradicate these evils and to live without them. Sadly,
though I bring this knowledge to fruition, it is no use, we cannot benefit from it ; but still, it is
nice to know, I think.

Everything then, leads towards the Jewish domination of humanity, what the Jews call
Chosenness. This is a natural process, people have no conscious part in its operation, it is
delivered by a linguistic programme belonging to the human animal, the superorganism,
bearing the Jewish identity. The superorganism has to have some such religious identity in
order to exist as nature intended it should.
We want to understand how this guaranteed outcome is delivered by linguistic force.
Looking at the detail of what the former minister of state for Jewland said last night, provides
as good a source of information to that end, as any, her political statements only need
scientific interpretation according to the logic of individual none existence, and what her
information stream must mean therefore in terms of the animal she is a part of, and her
physiological position within that animal’s body. As ever, social power is all about the
control of linguistic force, and making linguistic force rotate about yourself, as the physical
centre of human existence. Accordingly what this lady said indicated how the manipulation
of linguistic force over the centuries, had placed Israel in the centre of a web of linguistic
information, law that is, with sinewy properties pulling on the muscles of superorganic being,
such that all nations recognised Israel as a legitimate state, such that any newly enfranchised
nations wanting the same privilege had to become part of the club which recognised Israel. A
fascinating thought given that it is the Jews, through the agency of their slave nation of
America, which imposed oppressive dictatorships upon the surrounding regions by playing
the arch villain at every possible turn, in every nearby nation. This shows how the law as
argued for by the Jews, acts like a structural barb fired in a fixed social direction, that cannot
be retracted from the social structure it causes to crystallise. Territorial geography based on
law, forming national states which are made in the Biblical image of Israel, are the product of
social crystallisation induced by linguistic force, producing a linguistic programme called
‘law’. If the people of the neighbouring lands about Israel desired the destruction of Israel as
an illegitimate state, which it obviously is by any half sane standard of ‘legitimate’, other
than the standard provided by Jewish mythology itself, as in law, they could not move from
the dictatorships which had sanctioned legitimacy under duress, and now claim to be actuated
by the voice of the people and thus declare war, as a free democracy, upon the Jews. See
how the linguistic sinews form, and operate ? And understand how important identity, racial,
national, religious and such like, must be in order to provide attachments for these sinews to
work from. This is why religion exists, and is so intimately bound up with politics, nation
and law.
The position of the Jews is obviously highly contrived, as all political forms always
are. In terms of abstract logic, setting aside the inbuilt logic of a world made in the Jew’s
image, last night’s claims are clearly invalid, relying upon the military might backing up their
manufactured political legitimacy, but there is nothing new in that. The interesting aspect is
the way these public debates show how the physiology of a superorganism is created and
maintained through the control of linguistic force. Why do the Jews exist ? What is a Jew ?
I am not a Jew, so why are some people Jews ? Why cannot Jews just stop being Jews and be
English, American, Chinese or whatever ? It is not as if they are black and we are asking
why they cannot be white ? So what is a Jew ? There was a debate on The One Show on
BBC 1 this week about multiculturalism, I did not see it, it seemed to be about a government
scheme to force native children to mix with aliens forming a neighbouring ghettos in London.
At its close the Muslim presenter of the piece said it was wrong to focus on being Muslim.
OK, yes, “I am a Muslim.” he said, but that is not the only facet of who I am. I am a father, a
husband and so on, he said, in an effort to expand the meaning of identity, in a manipulative
attempt to discharge the intense significance of religious identity, that he wanted to protect
and advance. We are all the foci of a variety of social roles, but we do not all have religious
identities, and if we do, they are not all alien to the lands of our birth, and antagonistic to the
surrounding culture, obviously. It is quite clear that no one can be Muslim and British
without negating the true meaning of what it is to be British. I have yet to hear of a Muslim
atheist, no doubt they exist, but where are their organised bodies ? Are there any Islamic
atheist organisations fighting to shut down mosques and deny women the right to wear the
veil, or attacking the establishment of Islamic schools ? Like hell there are. They may join
our atheist organisations, but the Muslims need one of their own, dedicated to the war against
Islam. Muslims are not slow to form other organisations aimed at promoting Islamic
interests, as distinct from native organisations after similar ends for the native population. So
do not talk to me about being part of our free society and being a Muslim. Islam in our
society is a means to privilege, that is why Islam has special laws defending it against the
majority of people, who hate Islam and would do for Islam in Britain what the Libyans are
doing for Gaddafi in Libya right now. So I thought, yes, but the really telling thing is that
you are a Muslim, a member of a vile, sick and depraved identity group, for which there is no
excuse in our free land. Therefore, why are you a Muslim, you are not living in a Muslim
land now, so why not stop being a Muslim ? Of course this question is never asked because
all these state empowered pundits are promoting a bias agenda which attacks the masses that
have lost their Jewish slave identity, and appeals for the majority to tolerate the alien minority
that only wish to form power blocks that, over time, can force everyone to become fanatical
slaves of Judaism, once again. All the sinews pull together, all the time, from everywhere,
and it is language that makes this possible.

The act of becoming

Decoupling is the conceptual product of the linguistic force creating all social
structure. We have seen that decoupling acts at the point at which every individual is
inducted into a superorganic fabric. As the linguistic programme that organises sentient brick
activity within the superorganic fabric becomes more and more complex, the act of
decoupling which separates the individual unit from all possible ways of living as it places
them in one actual way of living, carries the individual further and further away from what
Oliver called the natural, and into the social.
Now we can make sense of the ability of a Darwin to come along and perform an act
of conceptual transformation, that responds to an ongoing process of physical transformation
by creating a psychological act of decoupling, which operates the mechanism at the bedrock
of our human nature, such that he subverts all science in the act of making the greatest
science, and so protects religion from science by making religion become science. All of this
extraordinary subterfuge is possible, and indeed inevitable, because it is driven by linguistic
force through the ongoing process of decoupling, that moves people ever more into the fabric
of superorganic being and away from connection with reality. Ultimately this process of
controlling by becoming, is exactly what makes the Jews exist. This tells us what a Jew is,
what the Jews are, what Judaism is : the act of becoming generated by human biological,
corporate nature. The act of becoming derives from linguistic force. It works through the
evolution of a linguistic formula making everything take shape in its own image, so that no
matter how things appear in our world, they are always made in the image of Judaism, this is
includes any overt antagonists of Judaism, such as the Nazis, because in the end all such
forms, including Judaism, are part of the body of the One superorganism.
It is from this dynamic of becoming that people are caused to be so keen upon
retaining their religious identities, and are encouraged in that direction by social forces at the
core of power in society. Because the act of becoming as we have described it here, is the
essence of our humanity, and it is expressed at this time of our living being, as Judaism,
which some people know as Islam, Christianity, Nazism, democracy, capitalism, socialism,
communism, and so on, ad infinitum. The act of becoming culminates in the being of the
superorganism, that human corporate nature exists to create at the level of social
organization.
By unravelling the idea of decoupling, beginning from the initial association with
Darwin, where we said Darwin decoupled science from religion to allow the two ultimate
authorities to run side by side, in a manner that had not been achieved before Darwin, and
had been desperately needed for the theocracy to accommodate science, we have transformed
this act of subterfuge into a normal ongoing process of separation from reality, enabled by
language fulfilling the biological function for which linguistic physiology evolved.
If we come to see all linguistic production as building separation from nature, then we
have a vision of this act of astounding subterfuge on the theocracy’s part, seen in Darwinism
maintained by the academic establishment, as a normal ongoing process of knowledge
production, intended , by human nature, to perform just this act of creation, where the human
world becomes ever more its own self contained entity, the superorganism. The act of
becoming is the linguistic process of creating superorganic physiology, and, all things
considered, paying homage to religion, just for once, religion is a remarkably fine revelation
of this real natural process. Religion is of course not intended to provide understanding, as it
is so often said to do, rather religion is part of the physiological process of becoming that
belongs to the human animal, the superorganism that is.
Since realising that Darwinism was not science, because it was designed to keep
religion safe while making a true science of humanity impossible, exactly as has been the
case since 1859, I took to saying that Darwinism is in fact religion. I knew what I meant by
saying this, but to others this sounds a mighty strange call, I imagine. However, now we
have this idea of linguistic force creating all social form, whereby the mental aspect of this
creative force builds collectively carried concepts that lift us away from nature, or reality, as
epitomised in religion, then we can make science subverted as Darwin subverted science, a
simple continuum of this process of decoupling consciousness from reality. It may seem that
science does more than anything else to make us a part of reality, and this is exactly what
science does do, which is precisely why, in the end, theocracy had to give up suppression and
turn to subversion by making science its own, by making science in the image of Judaism, by
making science subject to the ongoing act of linguistic becoming. Darwin conformed to the
imperative that science connects us to reality, by making us the kin of an ape lineage, but in
doing so he removed us from reality by inserting a false idea of our place in the pantheon of
life. This is what all deceptions do. When a person tells us how something happened, that
we are desperate to understand, if they lie, then, by supplying us with a substitute for the
truth, they move us further away from the truth than we were when we knew we had an
important question with no answer. This is what Darwin’s Origin of Species did, and the
history of knowledge since that time proves this to be the case, for science has not moved one
jot further to an understanding of what humans are, while the obscenities of pervading
knowledge, religion especially, have continued to act with undiminished force in our daily
lives. Despite all our immense knowledge born of the scientific age, we are today more
primitive in ourselves than at any other time in our existence, a fact bound to make any
thinking person shudder. Ultimately, this is what it boils down to when we describe our
superficially wonderful world, as a shithole.
Darwinism then, is a perfectly natural expression of the linguistic force which
expresses human corporate nature by building superorganic physiology. Thus we are not
accusing Darwin of being part of a conspiracy or of being a liar in any overt sense. We are
saying that this outcome whereby science was spontaneously subverted in order to maintain
the established physiology of superorganic being, is a normal, natural process. People have
no say in this, and can do nothing about it, it is produced spontaneously by the operation of
human physiology that evolved to bring a living being into existence at the level of social
organization. Not even Darwin had any say in the production of the work he produced ; since
he did produce it, how could he of done otherwise ? If he had not of produced it then he
would not of been Darwin, he would of been Bill or Bob, or whoever. This work had to be
produced by someone, and that someone was Darwin, that is all. This is not an argument for
the forces of fate, it is an argument derived from the logic of linguistic force generating a
linguistic identity programme that creates a superorganic physiology, in which individuals
take the role of sentient brick units that can but do what their linguistic programming, acting
in conjunction with their structural location within the human animal’s physiology, tells them
to do. This sounds a bit like fate, but if it is fateful in tone, then it is fate with a difference, it
is fate known for real, and not imagined as fanciful magic. But science does not sound like
fate, it is fate that sounds like science, albeit ideas of fate preceded those of science, because
intuition acts in anticipation of real knowledge.

Academic philosophy

I consider myself to be a natural philosopher, seeking true knowledge of reality,

which science would provide if science existed as an independent fiefdom in the social
domain. Professional philosophy is something entirely different from true philosophy, it is a
principle of academic philosophy that the truth or otherwise of any philosophy is irrelevant,
that is not what an academic philosopher seeks to address. The question for these people
concerns the internal consistency of an argument, and as such I find philosophy an utterly
contemptible, waste of time. They had a series of programmes on the BBC recently
examining justice in society, and I caught sight of the presenter in an auditorium at Harvard
the other day, talking about Kant’s views, concerning the immorality of lying, and whether
this meant you must tell a would be murderer the whereabouts of an intended victim, if they
ask you ! Boy oh boy, what is a person to make of such stuff ? If you want to build a
philosophy of lying, then how about trying to explain why the Machiavellian model is the
natural state of affairs, instead of trying to defend the Christian model which no one ever
applies, least of all any Christian ? But there they were in this grand institution, a gathering
of enthusiastic young folk, all debating this errant garbage. How would such academics
handle the Philosophy of Decoupling, that we have just sketched above, I wonder ?
 In the first place a reviewer might like to try and relate this idea of decoupling to other
more familiar expressions of a similar kind. Accordingly they may say that the essence of
decoupling is alienation, as seen in the way we associate this process of decoupling with
setting people apart from what has gone before, in an effort to build some new social form.
Conversely, decoupling could be said to create alienation, because it is all about
consolidation, of individuals into one organic whole. But such approaches must fall at the
first hurdle, if they seek to understand what we are trying to say, because they are tackling a
mechanistic model from an experiential point of view. In other words, they are taking a
neutral analysis of human society, and trying to make it personal. This is exactly what we
would expect the priesthood to try and do. Our approach seeks to explain in natural terms,
how society works, this requires that the idea of the individual be erased from our
consciousness. But the whole point of an organised body of paid professionals concerned in
the manufacture of knowledge, is to ensure that the individual is always kept at the centre of
social action, because this is pivotal to the current form of our religious, collective
consciousness. It is the point of the state of decoupling we live within at present, we could
say. Academics would always seek to subvert a model like Atheist Science by reconnecting
the scientific ideas expressed, through a prism of conscious motives derived from the figure
of the sacred individual, the eternally unspoken core of our Jewish based collective
consciousness. But, as we say from the outset, it is our express intention to deny the
existence of individuals, entirely. Any such reinterpretation is therefore never going to be a
genuine critique of our work, it is always going to be an out and out attack, all be it a covert
attack disguised as even handed analysis, coming from an enemy who seeks to destroy
freedom of access to true knowledge, in order to sustain the false knowledge of religion that
they, as servants of the establishment, serve.

Last night, 01/03/2011, BBC 2 screened a Horizon programme asking if humans were
still evolving. The young girl presenting the programme was as pathetic as she usually is, as
she is supposed to be, this scientific documentary took the usual form of a Sunday school
lecture. By presenting some exquisite science, this programme beautifully illustrated the way
science places the individual at the core of all of its reasoning about what the human is,
without the least shift away from this utterly false assumption, and without ever stating this
assumption openly. This new knowledge came from the science of the genome, a truly
gorgeous subject. We were told that farming caused a major shift in human evolution, within
the last ten millennia, as people evolved to be lactose tolerant in adulthood, entirely because
of their newly established symbiotic relationship with animals. Thus humans are evolving.
But, a horribly pathetic advocate of Darwinism, Steve Rose, showed this girl around a
cemetery where numerous gravestones told a tale of massive infant mortality, which no
longer pertains, proving that due to medical advances in the last couple of centuries,
evolution had been brought to a dead stop. This is the usual eugenicist bent coming from
Darwinists, a lunatic position that was supposed to of been eradicated long ago, but, as we
can see, persists because this is where Darwin’s lunatic ideas force anyone following them, to
go. Then Robinson, the girl professor, visited an American firm that manufactures humans
by predetermining aspects of the genome sent forth into life through embryo selection. Once
again proving that evolution is taking place.
In conclusion, the idea was expressed that humans as we know them will become
extinct, as our forebears, such as the cavemen, gave way to humans, ourselves. But not
anytime soon. All in all this was very much an exercise in pissing into the wind, as all
science dealing with humans always is, as it is meant to be. As we keep saying, it would be
an outrage if science actually told us the truth. If what we say was presented as science by
the establishment, would you be outraged ? Of course you would, everyone I speak to always
is, when we cut to the bit about the Jews being the master race, that seals the deal, their
receptivity closes down in abject horror. Or is it fear ?
In the end what this programme was really all about, was giving the appearance of
science being applied to understanding humans. The question asked is ludicrous, in terms of
the way this girl answered it. She is only the politically correct face of science for the
moment, not the creator of the knowledge she presents, any more than the youthful seeming
Oliver is. In the past intellectuals were likely to be mature, wise seeming old men. Look at
the image of Darwin with his long white beard, making him look like an all knowing
Methuselah. Nowadays propagandists want front men who will please the audience they are
seeking to indoctrinate, manipulate and deceive, at a simple, mindless level of reception,
hence presentation is all about image, as with politicians, in this age of visual media. It goes
without saying that we are evolving, nothing can ever change that, in so far as our genetic
makeup is of itself a natural phenomenon in a state of flux, that is what the whole idea of
sexual union is all about !
The only real meaning this question can have, which may of been asked at the
beginning, I only caught the last bit of this religious propaganda show, is whether we are
evolving in the significant sense of species type transformation ? Are we becoming a
different type of animal ? From this point of view it is hard to say that we are evolving at all.
But these professional academics are oblivious to this fact, because they have no ideas about
what the human animal is, their mindless robotic reasoning being actuated by the assumption
that they are the human—end of story. If we consider the major transition coming our way in
transport this century, as oil gives way to green energy causing the petrol or diesel vehicle
gives way to various other types, we can ask if this means the car is evolving ? The answer is
clearly no, not in the only possible sense that this question can have any real meaning, which
is the sense in which we mean, is the car becoming something entirely new, still being a form
of transportation, but no longer anything like a car, perhaps becoming a bionic extension of
ourselves, connected to our neural physiology, lets say, for illustrative purposes. The internal
structure of the car is evolving, but the car is not evolving, it remains a car irrespective of the
fuel that drives it. In this sense we have adaptation, as distinct from evolution, two words
that are generally conflated by scientists ; I wonder why ?
The shift from petrol to electric does not cause the car to become something other
than a car, therefore it does not evolve in the sense of the question applied to humans by last
night’s religiously subservient documentary. And the same applies to thoughts on lactose
intolerance, which is an exact analogue of the shift in engine types in cars, where the ability
to process a readily available supply of fuel, kicked in, allowing humans to live in the
radically different circumstances of animal husbandry, brought on by the shift in the
linguistic programme which generates superorganic physiology. This shift could invoke the
idea of a linguistic genome, which some might say is composed of memes, but we do not like
the term ‘memes’ because it derives from the Neo-Darwinist school, and is frankly
superfluous to the description we are presenting here. Although if it were not abused, and
instead simply used to mean a unit of linguistic information akin to the gene as a unit of
genetic information, as a mechanical term relating to superorganic formation, it might have
some validity and usefulness in a genuine science of humanity.
There was a telling moment when Robinson said that it was amazing to see how
something we had done, rather than something nature had done, in making the shift to
farming, had caused us to evolve ! Listening to this I thought, “Yes, except we did not do
this. Nature did this as surely as nature did anything else.” In this sentence she reveals the
total subservience of the human sciences to politics. This is the same old same old that has
been going on for years, where these damned priests propagate the mantra of decoupling
from nature. It is bullshit ! Logically impossible. Which is why they make up for
illogicality by imposing a rigorous conformity upon all pundits, and sticking to it like glue.
Most important of all in this subversive strategy, is not to allude to it, by always assuming its
application in everything you say. This is just what we see all the time, as they address all
interpretations to the prism of individual being, treating the individual person as the human
being, the end in themselves. The validity of this assumption use to be a matter of great
moment. Before the world wars it was discussed widely, because science had proved there
was no such thing as an individual, because society was a social organism, and the theocracy
fought back rabidly, with the result that, since that time, the question has been erased from
academia, since it could not be answered in a manner favourable to the theocracy, it has been
silenced. We see the consequence of this silencing all the time, if we know of it.
This major shift in our genome, enabling some regional variations of humankind to
drink milk into adulthood, is of immense interest, and demonstrates the magnificence of
science, but it meant absolutely nothing in terms of the question put to it, about whether or
not humans were still evolving. Yet this stupid women took the answer ‘yes’, from it ! No,
humans are not evolving. Humans are superorganisms, they have been fully fledged
superorganisms in excess of at least one hundred thousand years, and not one iota of change
or evolution has occurred since that time. Which is why religion exists in a scientific age,
making it is impossible to find reason in the world today, despite all the wonderful
knowledge our mindless technicians discover. There is no such thing as an individual, we do
not exist, and this is why Robinson, Oliver, Rose, Dawkins, Darwin and all the rest of them,
are complete and utter tossers, all the time, as a stream of information flows through them,
which they think they are somehow involved in shaping ! Damn fools.
What we might take from this new knowledge about major shifts recorded in the
human genome, is evidence of our superorganic nature. For the study of this lactose tolerant
factor was related to regional variations in modes of living. The expression of lactose
tolerance varied from virtually nil in some Asian areas, to near totality in Ireland, being high
in north western Europe, in areas such as Scandinavia and Britain. What this reveals is that
human genomes transform on a population wide level, such that all humans do not constitute
one species as determined by such factors, but rather they vary regionally, according to
geographical location, whereby all members of a regional bloc belong to the same genome
configuration. This sounds like variation that would apply to any widespread species, and as
a lay thinker I am not equipped to make anything precise out of it. But that such important
variation in modes of existence leads to major evolutionary changes at the level of individual
physiology, creating new types of human group, without leading towards the least degree of
new species formation in humans, suggests that species level definition exists at a higher
physiological level in humans than that of the person. Otherwise other adaptations would be
expected to carry this shift towards lactose tolerance further towards beneficial refinements of
the same kind, such as being able to mate with the domesticated livestock. Na, only kidding ;
then we would all end up as welly wearing Welshman, dread the thought ; but you see what I
am getting at. This does lend itself to the idea that the group constitution is the primary
determinant of the human individual, the end to which human evolution is directed.
Suggesting a way to prove, according to religiously established scientific methods,
traditionally considered the only valid mode of proof, that humans are superorganisms and
not persons. Ancient myths spoke of about unions between humankind and their symbiotic
species, creatures half man half beast, intuitively recognising the organic link we have with
nature that comes from being a superorganic species.
The dispersal of physiology across a territorial range, resulting in an organic entity
covertly distinguished by genetic factors, without generating species differentiation, emulates
the overt evolution of geographically distributed races, that is so distinctive of the human
animal. The socially charged structural-functional nature of racial physiology, can therefore
be linked in evolutionary terms, via this underlying, socially neutral physiological attribute of
lactose tolerance, to the core essence of human being, the corporate nature which makes the
human animal a superorganic species. The attribute of racial identity is a key feature of these
mammalian superorganisms, where race defines the being of a superorganism by providing
an organic social identity, a biological expression of linguistic force. The combination of
superorganisms, defined by such discrete identity patterns as racial identity provides, leads to
compound identity superorganisms, where racial identity spontaneously defines an internal
physiological hierarchy, as seen in the use of black races as livestock by white races in recent
times, the impact of which is still with us, as seen in the racist backlash seen on the BBC’s
Big Questions show last Sunday, where fully enfranchised English black sentient bricks,
expressed a need to be defined as human, by virtue of their skin colour, not their national
identity, as required by law.

If anyone wants to counter the arguments expressed here, they must begin with the
bedrock upon which these arguments stand, which concerns the nature of the human animal,
which we say is a superorganism. This generates the major implication that the individual
does not exist, and this is something that any would be opponent must find some means to
dispute. We have placed the power of speech and its products, knowledge, culture,
consciousness and such like, at the centre of the processes associated with the human
superorganic being, and again, any opponent wishing to dispute the veracity of Atheist
Science must find some means of denying the simple facts we assert in this regard.
Given that it is impossible to allow a free discussion of our ideas, because they are
impossible to refute in an open field of debate, another approach must be employed. The
alternative, the one which rules our world, is that power rules the day. Proof is accorded to
what the powerful say. Thus, despite the utter imbecility of Darwinian ideas, from beginning
to end, Darwinism is proven true today, and no scientist would dare question this fact. That
is how proof is determined in our world, through the sheer force of political power. We
cannot change this, we must simply note this fact, and continue with our happy labours, fully
aware that all our efforts are futile, but necessary because we want knowledge, if only for the
sake of knowing what is real. Possessing this is no mean thing in a world so full of nonsense.

But what is decoupling ?

I was just, 20/02/2011 19:54, watching a documentary on BBC 4, The Story of

Science : Power, Proof and Passion, in which the presenter said that new knowledge
presented by Lavoisier, about the balance of mass underpinning the elements of which matter
is composed, was as fundamental a contribution to knowledge as that of Newton and, you
guessed it, Darwin. Darwin, for pities sake, it is always Darwin who is extolled by scientists
of all kinds, as the symbol of excellence in science. And yet, setting aside the profusion of
scientists spouting such stuff, it is perfectly obvious to anyone who cares to think about the
matter, that Darwinism cannot be science, because it tells us absolutely nothing. If you read
about Darwinism at any point in its history, you will find that what it did that was so
magnificent, was to tell us how everything that we had wondered about so much, actually
happened, at last, Darwinism made sense of everything, it told us how everything worked.
But aside from saying this, it just is not true. What is life ? What is human biological
nature ? How did human animals come into existence ? Here are three basic questions,
popping into my head one after another, they represent the first questions anyone would like a
real science of evolution to answer straight off, where failure to do so must indicate that there
is no true theory of life, its origins and its nature. And certainly, no scientist pretends to
answer any of these fundamental questions, but still they persist in pretending that we have a
theory of life in Darwin’s dogma of Natural Selection ! It is bullshit, with not one grain more
reason to it than the Biblical story of creation found in Genesis. Which is how both stories
come to live side by side in society without the least suggestion that one might unseat the
other.
Watching this jerk, spouting stuff parrot fashion in a BBC science based religious
propaganda show, prompted me to wonder how this man would feel if he was faced with the
idea of decoupling, such that we might ask what decoupling is to a man like this, a man who
pretends to adore knowledge and love science. This is what I came up with :

So far we have described decoupling in terms of mechanism, but as intelligent, well

educated people, if the phenomenon of decoupling really exists, and we certainly can have no
sense of it directly, then what, we may wonder, is decoupling relative to ourselves as living
persons ? It is hard to know what the point of this question can be, given our discussion so
far. But trying to think of the answer means making sense of something real, that affects how
we think, and yet we are oblivious to its existence. So that decoupling is like a force of
gravity always acting upon us, so that we are always aware of its action, but without being
aware it its existence as something distinct and separate from the actions it causes. This idea
is readily convertible into the central elements of Atheist Science, such as mind as linguistic
programming, linguistic force, culture, knowledge and religion. So on a personal level, what
we call decoupling is manifested in the most precious aspects of our lives, and this makes
perfect sense if we retrace the argument that began with Oliver’s discussion about humans
being separated from nature and forming society. Then this decoupling process whereby
linguistic force creates all social structure, or superorganic physiology, would be manifested
in the intangible forms we are intuitively so aware of—mind, knowledge, culture, religion
and so on, including science, as in Darwinism, the latest major expression of the decoupling
process distancing us from reality by generating a whole new level of social structure.
So this robotic lover of science, occupying a senior role in the promulgation of the
lying dogma of science, completely unwittingly, serving ignorance and absolute theocracy by
exuding a passion for knowledge, truth and science, would have to understand that
decoupling is real, just as gravity is real, and it is what the pursuit of knowledge is really all
about. This man touts knowledge, but he has no idea what knowledge is, and really, there is
an important lesson for science right there : no one has the right to presume to teach
knowledge of reality, until they have first found what knowledge as a facet of reality, actually
is. Otherwise how will they know when they are actually serving knowledge, and not being
misguided by the appearance of doing so, which is, after all, the precise reason for which the
animal ability to generate knowledge evolved ? This is the Achilles heel of modern science,
which exists because religion exists. So that we must understand that science and religion
cannot both exists at the same time, in the same society, it can only be one or the other, so
that science must seek the eradication of religion as a precondition of its own existence, and
this programme on TV tonight, is a perfect example of why this is so.
We generally say that linguistic force is all about creating superorganic physiology,
naturally, because we are trying to present a consistently naturalistic model of human
existence. But if we step beyond this strictly scientific mode of expression, to discuss this
process in the personal world of our lives, then this process whereby linguistic force
generates social structure is seen in the production of knowledge in which we take an active
part, this is why these animals, these human superorganisms, spontaneously generate
knowledge. Knowledge does not exist to serve individuals, in any way. Knowledge exists to
serve superorganisms in exactly the same way that information carried and transmitted by the
nervous system, does not exist to gratify the person whose body it maintains, but rather it
exists as part of the functional routine serving that body. According to this view, knowledge
is an extension of nervous system information, into the physiological realm of superorganic
being, where information exists on a precise par with nervous tissue information, only now
operating at the level of the social organisation, where it is called ‘knowledge’. This is why
all knowledge is so flawed, from a personal perspective, religious knowledge being
transparently false, unless you happen to be a subscriber to it, and scientific knowledge being
false at a level it is nye on impossible to detect, without the ideas we seek to present which
discover this strange subconscious world of superorganic information.
Decoupling now becomes the theory of knowledge at the core of Atheist Science.
And this is why, even when it comes to the magnificent pantheon of modern knowledge that
comes under the heading of science, such as this man’s series of programmes are seeking to
present to us in a matter of fact, we ‘know it all’, popularising manner, even here, this organic
function of knowledge overrides the whole scheme of knowledge as we understand it. And
this fact is revealed in the fleeting, seemingly insignificant, but in fact all important
insinuation of this bow to Darwinism, inserted, as it always is, into a free flowing discussion
of lots of truly real science, such as that which ultimately led to the periodic table of
elements, and such immensely powerful, very real expressions of linguistic force, in the form
of knowledge that is true to reality. Here, truth is made the handmaiden of lies, which is
precisely how nature intended it should be, and we only see this true state of affairs in
reverse, in mirror image, because we see the vision from the inside looking out, as if we were
living within a mind, the mind of the superorganism, where we see everything in reverse, as
if the constructs of collective information were our own, but nothing could be further from
the truth. This inversion of reality through the prism of linguistically generated information
gives rise to dualism, and the routine inversion of mechanistic relationships that crops up all
the time in our criticism of public knowledge, where the horse, as in the superorganism, is
always made to be pushed by the cart, as in the individual.
It is from this kind of oh so subtle propaganda work shown on TV tonight, that we see
how the whole edifice of science, even the solid bits we adore, all comes together in the
service of absolute theocracy and blind ignorance, in the name of social order based on
religion, as it has always been, at all times, in all societies.

Seeing through God’s eyes

This last discussion ends with the intriguing suggestion that we occupy a place within
the mind of the superorganism, the superorganism being what science reveals is the true
object we call ‘God’, as if we look out upon reality through God’s eyes, and so we do, given
this general sense of what knowledge is and how we relate to it.
It is not however, our objective to further the inflation of egotistical tendencies, but
rather to keep such inclinations earthed in reality. Thus, we must keep in mind that this
God’s knowledge flux, is akin to the electrical stimulation flowing through our central
nervous system, and there is nothing romantic or superhuman about such a vision. It has long
been a favourite subject of intellectuals of all kinds, to talk about the experience we have of
reality as if it were a view through a slit on a misty night, sort of thing, whereby the apparatus
of sensation and interpretation are so formed as to give us a highly selective view of reality,
in order that it can serve a purpose. In other words sensual awareness and brain power are
not there just for the hell of it, they have a job to do in terms of supporting the body they are
part of. With a solid idea of the human animal as a superorganism, within which knowledge
is understood to be the continuum of this functional information flux, the same caveat can be
extended to advantage. Doing so finds an immediate accord with experience, where we find
that, of the welter of possible information flows that might exist in the external world, the
human cultural world of knowledge that we are thinking of now that is, only a tiny, highly
selective beam of information gets through, which may contain odd strands varying here and
there, but for the most part it leaves most of us exposed to a kind of white light of knowledge
sameness. And this of course is precisely what a political organisation, of whatever kind,
exists to ensure : one message, one sameness registering on the consciousness of us all.
Thus we derive our minds from the collective flux of knowledge that is the mind of
the superorganism, and if we wish to think of ourselves as peering through the eyes of divine
being, we should bear in mind that this being of Atheist Science insight, is no empowered
individual projected onto the stage of divinity, but the individuality of somatic being,
projected onto the level of super individual form. So that just as we as individuals only see a
narrowly refined vision of reality that serves our purposes, via our sensory equipment, so
when we look through the eyes of the superorganism we are part of, through the knowledge
we receive courtesy of our social world, the same limitation applies. It is only the functional
refinement that we are supposed to see, because this is what serves the being of the
superorganism to which we belong.
The exact shape of the experiential form of the white light of blinding knowledge, is
of no consequence whatsoever. The experiential content of social vision produces what is
essentially just a colour, a spectrum of false knowledge of a biologically functional nature,
serving as a band of corporate identity belonging to the superorganism, by means of which
individuals are incorporated into that organism in a process of ‘acculturation’. There has to
be an experiential aspect to knowledge for us to absorb and relate to, but it is only the deeper
functional aspect of experiential knowledge that has to conform to an exact shape and
structure. A shape that is predetermined by our evolved biological nature, which has
resulted in our possessing the form of a ‘sentient brick’, whose function is to create a living
being, a superorganism, at the level of social organization. This is why we always find
religion, priestcraft, elites, slaves, war, farming and much else besides, wherever corporate
nature has ignited and blasted forth a supermassive, complex superorganic being, what we
call a ‘civilization’. The experiential appearance of knowledge, though structurally
irrelevant, and hence responsible for an immense effusion of cultural variation, is however
everything to us, as that is all we ever see directly, of the superorganism to which we belong,
and for which we exist. We have no direct knowledge of the biological nature of the
superorganism that we are part of, or we had none until I began writing about the
superorganism. The same dynamics I deal with have been much discussed, but always
askance, never with the full comprehension I, as an avowed atheist, provide. Thus we may
observe :

In early times the quantity of government is much more important than its quality.
What you want is a comprehensive rule binding men together, making them do much the
same things, telling them what to expect of each other—fashioning them alike, and keeping
them so. What this rule is does not matter so much. A good rule is better than a bad one, but
any rule is better than none
(Physics and Politics, Bagehot, 1890, p. 25. First pub. 1872.)

Bagehot’s delightful description is acutely observed, but nonetheless it manages to

avoid being science, and as such must remain religion, in political guise. He describes a real
social dynamic, but his phraseology suggests that this dynamic is a product of human action,
whereas it is no more a product of human action than eating is. Try not eating and see what
happens ; likewise, try and live without law and see what happens. Where can you
experience life without law ? Try a Stonehenge solstice festival at the waning of the hippy
era in the 70’s/80’s period—unnerving paranoia in the flickering fringes of campfire light !
And much worse told of.
Humans have to know the rules in order to live, because we have to live in company.
The rules are a spontaneous creation of linguistic force, over which no individuals have any
influence whatsoever. Any appearance to the contrary is an illusion born of the complex
physiology laid down over hundreds of generations of individuals, which each generation
inherits but does not grasp the true meaning of, nowadays thinking law was made by their
forebears and is added to by them. Whereas law is in reality a natural product of language
that is preserved in the living body of the superorganism that language creates, from which
location Language, partly by way of ‘law’, directs all social activity, of all kinds, right down
to the last fraction. In this abstract capacity we generally speak of ‘language’ as ‘linguistic
force’, by this means we include a multitude of forms, many of which are not literally
linguistic in form, such as racial appearance, dress, music, public punishment, ritual, art and
so on. Last night, 04/03/2011, Newsnight had a piece on the passing of the law equalising the
age of consent, allowing old men to butt fuck schoolboys with impunity, as they have long
had the right to have sex with schoolgirls. I could not be arsed watching this disgusting
egotistical drivel, it is bad enough having to endure the impact politician’s games, without
watching them wallow in the glory of the abuse they heap upon us, even if this is what nature
intended life to be like. Unfortunately I too ordinarily see only the predominantly
experiential front that I have to deal with in daily life, in personal terms. Damn I hate being
human. Jack Straw was the tosser of the moment. He personalised the making of this law, as
if without him, it would never of come to pass. Complete and utter shit. As if ! This law,
just like civilization, like farming, like the theory of Natural Selection, like Judaism, like,
like, like ad infinitum, would of happened Straw or no Straw.
But that is how we are trained to think of these things, through the naming of
individuals and their accreditation as creators thereby. Consider this : how did it just happen,
that Straw was the man in place, to pass this law ? You can ask the same of anyone who is
lionised for providing this service to society, the women who passed the drink driving law for
example. The person who passes such radical laws, that everyone is horrified by before their
enactment, but which, decades later, we all take for granted and cannot imagine the horror of
a world without, always happens to be someone who has a passion for these controversial,
oppressive, culture transforming laws, which otherwise simply would never of been passed !
The heroic stories of how such legislation comes to be, is puerile nonsense, pure,
unadulterated fiction, crafted by the priests who farm us and delivered by the machinery of
society, or superorganic being if you prefer. For their special role to be convincing, it would
have to be more often the case that, like everyone else, the person fighting with all their
might to pass a hated law, also hated it. That Straw, for example, was fanatically opposed to
age of consent equalisation, but, while expressing his opposition to it, fought for it because
that was his job. But this never happens, conveniently, the person responsible always
happens to be passionate about the laws they pass. Well fancy that, what a stroke of luck ;
you think ?
Our world is a kindergarten, and we are the juveniles in the care of the smiling ninnies
who farm us, control us, and own us. If it were otherwise then these goons would stand
before us and say what we say, they would say I hate this, but I am going to do it, for this
reason . . . As it happens, because we are in an unusual situation at present, that has the
similitude of wartime battening down the hatches about it, with the banking fiasco trashing
our economy, we do find ministers heaping pain upon us and saying they hate to do it, they
do not want to, but they have to, for this reason . . . But when this strategy will not wear, they
use the moral righteousness angle, and that requires a pretence of conviction, obviously. But
if we lived in a world informed by science, Atheist Science that is, this would not be the case.
We could then have an adult conversation which dealt with all the facts head on, without any
emotional content acting one way or the other. It could then be said that homosexuality is
normal, but being evolved for reasons to do with the structural organisation of sentient brick
activity, it impacted upon individuals differentially, and therefore, we wanted to reflect the
structural and functional ramifications of this dynamic in the laws we applied to our self
management. See a politician saying this can you ? To come out with statements of this kind
you would have to have a brain capable of independent thought, rather than simple
processing activities. But since we do not exist, and all that does exist is the superorganism,
which does not give a damn about us individuals, or anything else, because it is an organic
machine made up of us individuals, this is not how the job is done. So our individuality is
paid lip service, while it is ignored, and we end up living in an unbounded version of an
insane asylum, where the hardcore lunatics hold the keys to all the doors, which they open
and close at will, causing us to flow this way and that, with all the freedom of a stream of
charged particles animated by the dynamics of linguistic force.
Such control is what politicians are always striving for, something we know
instinctively, because we see it all the time. It goes with the territory, government is of its
very nature fascistic, the best we can hope for is a benign fascism, but more often than not we
get all out Fascism, of one sort or another. Last Thursday, today being Sunday, 06 March
2011, the Welsh voted on increasing the powers of the Welsh Assembly, one third turned out
and voted in favour, after which a ‘No’ campaigner said that politicians always want more
power, they crave power, she said, and that is all that this referendum was about. Wise words
indeed, but the hatchway allowing individual expression, normally locked fast against us, was
set ajar for a fleeting moment, and inevitably a spray of frustrated particles obediently shot
through the gap, eager for a sense of personal existence, for the taste of personal power that
we all crave. That is fascist democracy for you. Individuals are powerless against this highly
sophisticated system of abuse, the politicians always get there way.
It is in the nature of beast that we are, that life should be like this, as made by Nature.
This is superorganic physiology in action, as created and operated by Nature through the
medium of linguistic force, that is derived from the evolved linguistic physiology of our
individual bodies. Linguistic force comes from within our own bodies, being projected into
the social domain where it controls us through the collective expression that our linguistic
physiology was designed to support, central to which is the organ linguistic force, the brain.
This emanation from within to deliver effect from without, is a logical imperative of the
‘natural force’, as science conceives it to be. Gravity must ultimately derive from the inner
mass of the subatomic particles which gravity itself acts upon collectively to form massive
structures, it cannot be that gravity exists aside from the substance it acts upon. The ability to
apply rigorous mathematical calculations to the influence of gravitational force proves this
assertion to be correct, since it means that given mass and velocity there are no further
extraneous factors involved in gravitational phenomenon. Although the idea of curved space
gives pause for thought. But really, all this means is that mass accumulated on a sufficiently
significant scale, a cosmic scale, is able to project the inner force that unites it beyond the
limit of its physical boundaries. Is this projection pure gravitational force, separated from the
mass it unites ? Hardly. It is evident from the formation of cosmic bodies that gravity has
inbuilt limitations upon its ability to aggregate mass, otherwise there could be no sifting
effect to produce organised space, as everything would tend towards a single point.
Differential energies within accreted matter resists such uniform collapse. Am I saying
gravity is an electromagnetic force ? I seem to be. Better leave it there before I get carried
away with the exuberance of my own imagination. My argument is based on logic, as
described, which in physics soon leads me beyond my depth.
 Is there anyone out there that has ever been in a position of authority, such as a parent
for example ? Then you know the impossibility of telling the truth when delivering orders.
The difficulty is not really about the fact that you are dealing with minors, but rather it is that
authority, by its very nature, carries a requirement for obedience, and hence some discretion
with regard to reasons. In a democracy, adult upon adult, this poses a problem, and Straw’s
little anecdote about the pathetic idiot who topped himself, is a perfect example of how the
adult with authority controls the impotent adult, who has to obey even when they hate doing
so. Which raises the question why the difficulties arise which require such authority ? And
the answer is, that these imponderables derive from the process of linguistic force acting
upon sentient bricks to form superorganic physiology, or social structure if you prefer. So the
authority does not belong to Straw, and he is not making the imposition, because of course he
does not exist anyway. Authority is imbued into the structure within which Straw has a
significant structural place, and he acts as the mediator of that authority. The system, driven
by linguistic force remember, delivers its instructions on the same basis as any other living
body, through a sensory array which allows linguistic force to feed into its structures of
command from all quarters of its physical being, and this feedback is responded to in
conformity to the lines of command that have been laid down previously in physiological
form, at the superorganic level of social structure.
What makes this story such a good illustration of the point we are making here, is the
story that Straw told. He described how a fourteen year old boy hung himself in his, Straw’s,
dormitory, because he was so terrified of his father finding out what he thought he was.
From that time on a gracious saviour of butt fuckers was born into our homophobic world,
who made it his mission to empower men to fuck each other in the certain knowledge that we
would all honour and respect them for doing so, as surely as our emotions positively affirm
the sight of a boy and girl in love. And so the law was made, despite all the opposition from
nye on everyone in society, bar the butt fuckers themselves, and those who sort to exploit the
situation to garner political power and prestige by acting in keeping with the dictates of the
times, which, unbeknownst to everyone, were being dictated by linguistic force as it had
manifested itself in the formation of superorganic physiology, in the shape of Western
Civilization thus far. Its funny, because the use of the expression ‘thought he was’ carries a
hint of homophobia about the mentality of this champion of gay rights, in the form of
subconscious bias about what homosexuality is. Why not say bluntly that the boy hung
himself because of what he was ? Straw’s use of this indeterminate expression leaves it
hanging whether or not this boy was queer or not, so that he may not even of been gay, just of
thought he was, which would make the matter even more tragic and more demanding of a law
designed simply to show our collective love for male on male sex. This also shows how
homosexuality is unavoidably distinct from heterosexuality, in that it may carry a
consequence of misjudging oneself before maturity has had a chance to take effect, which
cannot apply to heterosexuality, since the latter is the default condition from which the
former diverges. To be emphatic might also suggest that the boy had a real reason to hang
himself, and that reason was his sexual orientation towards males, so that Straw is not saying
this was so. The subtle twists that our manipulators exercise when talking to us is a wonder
to behold. Anything but talk straight. Trust a Jew to make sure he jumps on any bandwagon
going that allows him to whip up a political storm about himself, to make him look like a
hero bettering the contemptible low life that abounds all around. Was it as Home Secretary
that I saw Straw recounting how as a student he had been on demonstrations—as part of some
defence of the government’s attacks upon the right to protest—earning himself an MI6
dossier for his pains ? I cannot recall exactly, but this one is evidently skilled at finding the
teats from which to draw the lifeblood of superorganic physiology toward his own
gratification. Ooh, see how I am employing the logic of individualism, naughty. This is
because I am expressing personal, emotional venom, against someone and the system they
represent, and this is what our emotions are meant to do, to act as a blind preventing us from
knowing the reality of our condition by seeing things in terms of individuals and ourselves.
Ultimately Straw is part of a living biological structure, a cellular unit within a living being,
he serves that structure by serving himself, according to the linguistic programme that has
built that structure and which impregnates Straw’s brain accordingly.
This scientifically informed interpretation of political behaviour, also explains that
other most annoying aspect of law, to do with its extraordinarily temperamental and
contradictory nature when viewed over time, first outlawing buggery and then, not only
freeing it from sanction, but in doing so catapulting it to the forefront of legislation
proactively empowering it, to the point where we now have men marrying men and using
fertility treatment to conjure up a travesty of heterosexual love. How bizarre is that ? Sense
comes from such visions of chaos when we apply the principle of none existence, telling us
that people do not make law, the superorganism makes the laws we live by. We dangle from
the laws of superorganic physiology like puppets on a string, the threads are woven from
linguistic force reaching into our being in the form of linguistic information, so that we do
not see these threads or feel their tugs. As a result these threads make us believe that we are
the motive force behind them, as we can see no other, so that we speak of ideas, knowledge,
laws, morals and a myriad of other things that we think we make, even though any half witted
goon could see that nothing could be further from the truth, if they just had the least
inclination to think for themselves. But no one does. The invisibility of linguistic threads
leads to mythical notions, ideas of spirits and divinities. Linguistic force reaches in and takes
possession of us in the shape of religion, and having been possessed by a slave making
religion like Judaism’s Christianity, we find the linguistic routine weaves protection to ensure
no other routines can perform the same trick, so it talks about demon possession and the like.
In saying that linguistic force operates in this insidious way, we cannot help noticing that this
is exactly how the Jews operate, showing that Judaism has taken the power of linguistic force
unto itself, allowing Jews to reach into our beings, into the physiology of our living
superorganism, making us into Jews by implanting us with slave identities wearing a thinly
disguised, other name. But it is linguistic force that made the Jewish master identity
programme to be a writer of slave making programmes, giving the Jews a power they call
being ‘Chosen’, because they had no more idea what they were than we did, before Atheist
Science came along.
I am of course an extreme individualist, that is why I alone of all the humans ever to
of lived, have discovered ultimate knowledge : I do not exist. Ultimate knowledge can only
exist in a scientific form, and I am not aware of anyone stating within a scientific treatise, that
human individuals literally, do not exist. I am therefore unique and alone in recognising this
simple, undeniable scientific fact. Knowing that I do not exist, explains why the ideal of
individuality I am trained to believe in, is not met in life. In a curious about face, my
intensely nurtured individuality has resisted the indoctrination of individuality which created
it. This may seem inconsistent, but this dualistic dynamic—is it called a dialectic ?—is built
into the macrostructure of our society, we see it in the pendulum of left-right politics
exemplified by Britain. It is a dynamic of social formation that can be detected in the
existence of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim triadic social hierarchy, where the Jew becomes a
disempowered identity core surrounded by two polarities of itself, whose interaction propels
Judaism forward as its satellite identity hubs compete with each other for the domination of
the world, until all that is left is this political triad bearing the uniform identity of Judaism
throughout. Outbreaks of anti-Semitism comply with this model, so that when Communism
burst forth an opposite polarity joined it in the shape of Fascism, which pulled together about
Judaism, so that we had the holocaust propelling Judaism toward the pinnacle of its
existence : the establishment of Israel.
Straw ; it makes me sick to hear this utterly disingenuous, lying, filthy, scheming
scum, trot off their garbage. I hate them, hate them, what worse thing is their on this earth
than a politician ? But you get the point of the story. Without ever once entering into a
debate about what law is, this scumbag told us what law is : a precious thing that we must all
treasure ; the highest endeavour of individuals, for which we must all congratulate ourselves
as moral, thinking beings. No it is not ; law is a mindless sequence of linguistic information
that exists to form and animate an animal’s bodily existence. That is why law is so hateful
and disgusting, and oppresses us horribly. Law may appear to free us from oppression and
abuse, which is why the Libyan’s are dying in the streets right now to obtain freedom under
liberal laws. But this necessity only arises because people lord it over us with vicious
brutality, making us crave the evil of law, instead of the evil of institutionalised lawlessness.
These are shades of grey expressed by politicians in black and white terms, which makes
them appear like our heroes for freeing us from the things they would always inflict upon us
if we did not agree to allow them to be our ‘heroes’. This is why these most disgusting of
people are the most honoured in all societies. Such heroes are monsters by another name.
But all these contradictory dynamics surrounding lawmaking, that arise from the simple
observation made by Bagehot, but not fully explained by him, that our biological nature has
obliged us to live this way.
In a society ruled by law that is made by people operating as conscious individuals,
inconsistency or irregularity would normal, because it makes sense in terms of individuality.
Whereas the rule when making a superorganism, where individuals have no existence, is
uniformity, exactly as Bagehot says. Thus we are obliged to tolerate bad laws, for the sake of
unity. Which contradicts Bagehot’s bow to political correctness, seen in his suggestion that
bad laws only exist in primitive society, not his modern British democracy. Thus, why not
prohibit homosexuals from consenting to sex until they are eighteen ? Homosexual sex is
different to heterosexual sex, as noted above. This week we had a curious decision from the
European courts which will stop insurance companies from acknowledging that women are
safer drivers, through lower premiums for young women. The Newsnight debate brought out
the truth of the matter, odd as it seems at first sight, namely, that anti discrimination laws
have nothing to do with truth, they are about making a statement of values to be pursued in
society, about enforcing sameness, unity. In the past, instead of the extreme swing towards
inclusivity, we saw laws proscribing the use of, say Welsh in Welsh schools, which again was
about promoting sameness, unity. This shows that whether state oppression is exclusive or
inclusive, the object, and the result, is always the same.
Thus we have experientially bad laws, imposing subliminal, structurally good effects.
It is always the job of the politician to get us to accept these things that are good for us,
because to the politician there is no such thing as an individual, there is only society, so that
the job of the politician is to obtain an accommodation between the living individual and the
none living social being, as it were. Do not be distracted by famous quotes coming from
prime ministers, as in Mrs. Thatcher, who proclaimed that there is no such thing as society.
Keep in mind that every word coming out of a politician’s mouth is a lie, we can be sure that
when she said this, she did so in order to serve the society she was saying did not exist,
because otherwise she would not of been a politician. This is why the politician is always
such a dishonest figure, it is their job to be dishonest, although they would never express it
like that ! They are always about manipulating the mass of people, so they have to act in this
dishonest way ; Machiavelli ring a bell ? It is this exact same process of manipulation,
control of linguistic force that is, that gives us the modern form of science based on Natural
Selection, because Darwinism was never science, it was always a political accommodation of
new knowledge of a scientific kind, coming forth to clash with religion. The politicians knew
that this knowledge could not be allowed to blossom, and that it could not be prevented from
emerging, so they provided an acceptable formulation based on the facts which were forcing
the issue, by gathering up the emerging facts of science on the HMS Beagle voyage, and
fashioning them into a neutral paste, so to speak.
Politicians deal with the law of the possible, not the law of the reasonable, and in
doing so they are actuated by the natural law of existence, which has created the mammalian
superorganism within which they have the special role of making the superorganism exist.
Thus the politician exists to abuse individuals, as seen from an individualistic point of view,
to make individuals operate as the sentient brick units of superorganic being, that nature
made them to be, as efficiently as possible. Whether it is a Gaddafi, a Hitler, a Cameron or a
Churchill, makes not one bit of difference. And that is why our freedom loving governments
never bat an eye at empowering dictators if it serves the aim of fixing order and obedience
over a population, according to their perceived interests, as manifested in the identity to
which they belong, which is always Jewish. Any none Jewish identity has long been
expunged from the face of the earth, though integration into a solid, uniformly Jewish global
superorganism is still a long way off, in personal terms, but approaching rapidly on the scale
of superorganic being.
We know that law must force everyone to live according to the lowest common
denominator, whereby the most stupid or inept set the standard for everyone to live by,
otherwise the law lacks maximum efficiency in terms of enforcing order, safety, obedience
and such like, but what we do realise is that this fact arises because we do not exist, the
superorganism is the only body of any consequence, it is the human being. Here we see the
blatant impact of our true biological form as sentient brick units of a superorganism, and we
fail completely to see it for what it is, because we are obsessed with our individuality.
Understanding the centrality of the idea of individuality to obedience under the law, allows us
to understand the importance of the Jewish identity programme, why it evolved to be the
master, slave maker identity, because it teaches the principle of individuality in obedience to
the law. This principle of individuality is the key to Jewish power, that explains the intimate
relationship of Jews to the rule law, and why the Jewish slave identity programme of
Christianity is so fanatical about the sacred importance of the individual, which it backs up by
intensely emotional routines that make life sacred. I have always thought the uniquely
Jewish sanction against infanticide had to do with impelling the growth of the superorganism
as a slave making body, but here we find a subtle new mechanism arising from the same
linguistic routine, where the command to treasure each individual as sacred, possessed of a
soul or whatever, is clearly the foundation stone of the person’s individuality as a human
being, as an end in themselves, from which their relationship to God (superorganism), through
the law, proceeds. From which it also follows that the emphasis upon individuality that
informs all science of human nature today, ultimately derives from the ancient Jewish
sanction against infanticide, for which they were much despised in ancient times because it
ran counter to pagan attitudes in this matter. The linguistic mechanism of life’s sanctity, has
been critical in the Jewish success as an identity formula making a global superorganism in
the image of Judaism, based on law, because it established the unquestionable principle of the
individual as an end in themselves. This in turn indicates the difficulty for science now, as it
reaches the point where true knowledge cannot help but reveal these dynamics, and hence the
reason for the Darwinian imposition, serving its function today as the Ptolemaic imposition
served the same function of filling a void where the truth should go, in the days when the
earth’s place at the centre of the universe was the lynchpin in the linguistic formula used by
the Jewish masters of the ancient world, as they then existed.
 Talking thus leads one into a quagmire of intellectual difficulties, such that any
academics faced with such bland, unsubstantiated statements as appear in the preceding
paragraph, would be bound to laugh out loud in disgust. We are working from general
principles arising from the established fact that humans are superorganisms, and the Jews are
the master race within the global superorganism. How the Jews operated as the masters in
the ancient world is beyond me, I have some ideas on the subject and I have sought long and
hard for evidence, but it does not exist in any coordinated form for obvious reasons. But we
do know that the Jews had to be at the core of power then, as they are now, and after all as
obvious as it is that the Jews are the master race now, that we all exist to serve, does any
academic know this ? No, yet this is very easy to prove ; I made some notes the other day,
they are all the proof anyone could ever need :

08/03/2011 – Noam Chomsky interviewed by Paxman for Newsnight, described as the High
Priest of the left. Chomsky was delightful in his piling Obama together with Bush and Blair
as criminals responsible for war and mayhem. Paxman, like a twat, screwed up his face in
consternation at this accusation against Obama, but what person with any knowledge of
politics could fail to say that Obama gave us more of the same fascist American politics ?
The justifications Chomsky gave were the UN’s motion to declare the Jews building illegal
settlements in Palestine illegal, which Obama vetoed, plus hyping up the war in Afghanistan.
I would of added the failure to close Guantanamo Bay.
Chomsky is of course the great linguist. He seems immensely intelligent and
knowledgeable, a genius perhaps. He is a rebel against authority like myself, apparently. Yet
like Dawkins who is an avowed atheist, Chomsky fails to attain the realisation that authority
remains permanently fascistic, even when a hero of liberal qualities comes to the fore like
Obama. Chomsky keeps chomping at the same old bit, in the course of which, like Dawkins,
he implicitly asserts the supreme mantra of the individual, which is the very basis of fascism,
for the simple reason that it is false, and the foundation of authority based on the bias
influence of false knowledge. Chomsky is ultimately an enemy of freedom, as I have always
thought his work showed him to be. And I bet that he would resist this interpretation with the
same stalwart obstinacy of Gaddafi in Libya right now, showing Chomsky’s true colours
when faced with having his own innate fascism revealed, fascism borne of self serving
ignorance.

The idea that Obama was going to represent a new dawn in America because he was black, is
a disgustingly racist view, although it is ‘good’ racism, which is why it was the view freely
expressed by all the sycophants that had any opportunity to display views publically, at the
time of Obama’s election. Needless to say I anticipated no change, and I was right, the world
was wrong. No surprises there, if I do say so myself.
The other general principle drawing a guffaw of derision from intellectuals, is likely
to be the way we made the Jewish break with infanticide the point of origin for individualism,
creating the key mechanism of power at the heart of Judaism. The issue here concerns the
idea of individuality. Studying this topic will lead to the discovery that people were not
regarded as individuals until the modern era began, the corporate principle was in fact the
norm, where individuals were subsumed into the social order. The same answer must suffice,
we offer a general principle, the fact that historical details appear to contradict our assertion is
not relevant because we are coming at the same subject, the nature of human society, from an
entirely different angle to that which is adopted by academics, who treat the individual as real
and history as a record of individual actions. The subject is far too deep for us to tackle such
issues in any more depth until the world has begun to take onboard the fact that humans are
superorganisms and there is no such thing as individuals, or history, or law, or religion, or
anything else, in the usual sense of these words. Once we are all standing on the same spot,
then a meaningful discussion of the details can begin, but not before.
 Getting back to Straw’s story. When I was at college a young man hung himself in
one of the halls of residence, not mine mercifully, fearing to return to Greece during the
summer vacation because he had failed to obtain the highest grade possible in some interim
exams. A few years later a post graduate student living in a house in town where my bird
lived, told an exact same story. Such things are tragically frequent, and to argue that we must
tolerate an utterly inhuman, disgusting, vile law, for such a sentimental, irrelevant reason,
well, this is just the kind of shit we expect from a lawyer, and a lawyer-cum-politician, the
mind boggles at what kind of monster such a combination would produce, but our political
house is packed full of them. No wonder our world is such an utter shithole, awash with
disgusting laws, abusing us and attacking us at every turn, while leaving the real criminals
who run our world free to do as they please ; I refer to the capitalists of course when speaking
thus. It amazed me that people of the highest calibre and achievements should kill
themselves because they were failures, and this speaks of the pressure specific to this class of
person, wherein the drivel Straw came up with last night to bludgeon the weak-minded into
submitting to an obscene law, bound to create great harm to individuals, but serving
Bagehot’s principle of enforcing uniformity, can be seen for what it is : a politician’s ruse
employed to get the job the done, sod reason, whip up the emotions, exactly as nature
provided for by evolving our sentient brick kind. No wonder the pubs are overrun with
young queers these days, they are a damned nuisance, forever trying to screw your arse,
treating you like a girl to be chatted up !
It is the elaboration of superorganic structure that gives the impression of being
manmade. Eating is obviously made by nature, but if we see how sophisticated eating can be,
the exuberance of the display makes it nye on impossible to understand that what is taking
place is no different to what happens when mould appears on bread. Likewise, the elaborate
rigmarole involved in creating a modern state with its seat of government and highly trained
law makers—Straw is a lawyer by trade, as are so many of our masters in parliament—and
the fancy arguments that lead up to the passing of a law such as that which equalisers the
law’s attitude to homosexuality, that it becomes impossible for us to understand that all that is
happening here, is the same as what happens everyday in a jungle where myriad animals play
out their lives. In seeking to understand humans at their ultimate exposure to science, we
must see past the display and understand the function, and we can only do this by knowing
that there is no such thing as an individual, and the only thing that exists is the human
superorganism.
The experiential form of knowledge has to take some shape, and that shape is always
that of a religion, hence the ubiquity of religion in the human animal’s life. Political creeds
like Communism are of course just another mode of Jewish slave identity programming, and
as religious as it is possible for an ideology to be, despite being overtly atheistic.
Communism is religious for the simple reason that, like Hitler’s National Socialism, or any
other political creed really, these linguistic formulas provide complex behavioural
programmes linked to social identities, which define insider and outsider parameters, thus
constituting an organ of superorganic being, which is precisely what any religion does.
Today there is only one religion, into which all other religions have been drawn as satellites,
the debris of social destruction ; so that Judaism is the stellar religion, or culture, wherein the
Jews are the master race flanked by two subidentity forms, the Christian Jews and the Muslim
Jews, these latter religious systems being more akin to planets than social debris, being
reconstituted biomass formed according to the rules of a Jewish slave making programme.
There is however, one proviso to add to this account of knowledge as a natural
phenomenon with which we interact. Science is truly awesome, it is, I do not care what
anyone says. Yet, in the end we have had to reveal that science does not exist, that it is the
handmaiden of ideas which are gross and obscene. But, as shown by this science programme
that we began talking about above, the lies and ignorance are interwoven through a mass of
sublime knowledge, for that is how lies must be propagated, discretely, buried within material
that will allow them to pass undetected. The theocracy maintains academic institutions
whose function is to garner factual knowledge and form it into useful products, which
includes making a neutral paste of those portions which would otherwise destroy the
theocracy. Voids cannot be tolerated : the mind hates a vacuum. In this way facts are
consolidated and made inert, instead of being left like so many bits of shrapnel flying about
and waiting to make contact with the inner core of superorganic identity, causing the whole to
implode on itself. The Origin of Species is the most famous pot of such paste knowledge
ever to of been produced, but that does not stop the priests managing to make it shine like a
diamond in the constellation of truly great gems of scientific understanding. So the pure
knowledge of science that exists to serve the vile knowledge of religion, is fantastic, and I
delight in the idea of peering through the eyes of a God, out into a universe where immense
wonders exist, that can only be experienced through the eyes of the Divinity which is the
superorganism, to which we belong. This is my indulgence in emotion and sentimentality,
maybe there is some potential for a world cleansed of all religion to exist one day, when the
only knowledge we see through the eyes of the being we belong to, is that of true science.
Then who knows how glorious our world will be ; one thing is for sure, if humans last that
long, it will be a long, long, very long way off in the future.

Unchanging change

We have said that decoupling changes nothing, while changing everything. This is
because the process of change transforms the social product of an unchanging core of human
nature. The idea is simple enough really, but there was an example of it given on Newsnight
last night, 21/02/2011, arising from the current bout of revolutionary agitation in the Arab
lands, which timely occurrence seemed worth recording here.

A revolution that fails to live up to the hopes of the revolutionaries can be worse than
no revolution at all.

This is how the reporter ended his review of the Orange Revolution which took place in the
Ukraine in 2005, in consideration of where all the turmoil in Tunisia and Egypt may lead in
the end. In all three cases the uprising of the people ousted the man in charge, but in the
Ukraine the man deposed has now been voted back into power !
These issues are very complex in detail, and the subject is only of interest to us
because of the sentiment expressed in the closing remark. The Enlightenment, leading to the
scientific age in which we live, was all about free access to knowledge and escaping the yoke
of ignorance bearing down on everyone’s neck due to the overt domination of life by the
church. Today nothing has changed, the only knowledge we are allowed free access to is that
which has been especially prepared for us by the religious establishment, this is what Atheist
Science is all about. Centuries ago people here fought for freedom, just as they have done in
Tunisia and Egypt over the last month or so. Our forebears won the war against religion,
laws against atheism were removed and the secular age dawned, job done. But nothing has
changed. Religion persists, and continues to rule our world with an iron fist, only now the
fist wears a kid glove called ‘democracy’. As a consequence no one even knows that the
magnificent revolution was a fraud, as all revolutions always are, for the reasons we are
pointing out here when we talk about the true nature of humans and the linguistic process of
decoupling, that allows unchanging change to occur continuously by preserving an inner core
of corporate being, surrounded by an extended biomass of structural form. This is the human
superorganism we are all part of, and the little snippet from the news last night is a neat
example of this process occurring in life, seen by those of us privileged enough to spend our
lives seeking knowledge and understanding, but really seen by no one, because these
professional seekers, only ever serve the absolute theocracy that demands functional
ignorance, in the end, however we may get there.
If you are taken in by the illusion of change, which most people are—otherwise the
illusion would be of no use as a mechanism for superorganic growth and language would be
useless—then you are fine, you live in a free world. But if, like me, you are not blind to the
obvious, then the nightmare of living today, is infinitely worse than what people endued half
a millennia ago when they could be burnt at the stake for expressing atheist ideas. At least
they knew they were living in a state of absolute oppression. Now, if you know as I do, as I
have always done, because it is obvious, then you are isolated and alone, because no one else
knows. They have Darwin, and his followers of fanatical atheists and scientist to provide
them with the illusion of a revolution attained, and thus see no need to seek freedom and real
knowledge. Oh to be a moron, the joy of blissful ignorance it must bring.

Evolutionary decoupling

As we unfold the ramifications of the decoupling mechanism, we cannot help but

recognise the evolutionary nature of the process it gives rise to, leading us to wonder how
decoupling relates to evolution, and how it differs. Without further ado we must see that the
transformation of one species into another sounds like the process of decoupling, as described
above. The subject demands attention in order to clarify a matter that such discussions as
ours, if read by others, must provoke.
Our use of the term ‘decoupling’ has begun within the social context of human
interaction, where knowledge is deemed to act as a medium of social structure. There is a
process of development involved here, but it is internal to the physiology of the human
superorganism, which means that so far decoupling has been a linguistic process only. It is
our contention that linguistic information is a continuum of genetic information, and this idea
comes to the fore now, as we trace our observations in the social domain of linguistic
information, back to the genetic domain.
Through the action of genetic change, unchanging change can become real change,
and this is what we call evolution, where one species emerges from another. This is real
change, as opposed to structural change, because the old species invariably gives way to the
new one. This involves a process whereby species have to move forward, and having done
so, they have no way of going back, of reversing the process, which is a feature of the process
we saw Oliver take notice of above, when talking about the way humans became farmers. In
the linguistic domain the transformation induced through the increasing intensity of linguistic
force inducing social fabric to grow, must always remain contained within the same genetic
species, so that linguistically induced development cannot itself create a new species from the
original kind. Thus we space age people are an identical species to the feral Europeans of ten
millennia ago, and to a certain extent we could make a successful return to a feral state if our
linguistically created world lost its superorganic fabric, which seems to be the kind of
question addressed in Last Civilization that I ordered from Amazon a couple of days ago.
Only genetic transformation can produce a new species of hominid from an old one. So that
we find in the delineation of genetic versus linguistic information, a cusp in the production of
organic form, from where all transformation becomes structural, taking place within the
confines of the genetically evolved form, which internalisation, lies at the root of our
superorganic being, causing us to become ever more integrated parts of a living
superorganism. But, we must understand that this process of internalisation delivered
through language, or linguistic force, was created by genetic evolution producing a sentient
brick form evolved to create a living being at the level of social organisation, by
spontaneously combining at the behest of an accumulative, ever increasingly complex
linguistic identity programme, that comes under the general heading of ‘culture’.
When different forms of hominid appeared over the course of the last ten million
years, which anthropologists give various names to, such as A. afarensis and Homo erectus,
the genetic process of decoupling is taking place, so that one species gives way to another
and the trajectory along which this hominid kind is headed culminates in its maximal degree
of potential expression. This is how the human form came into existence, in its now
perfected state, fully evolved to form a mammalian superorganism. The human form is
therefore a special kind of animal, of which there are many examples, such as bees and
termites. These species have evolved to form animals composed of somatically discrete
individuals, and the key to their evolution is the evolution of physiology that contains at its
heart an information computing machinery, which in humans means the brain : the seat of our
power of speech.
Language is therefore a physiological organ evolved to create social physiology, and
its expression, although emulating the basic process of decoupling seen in evolution, is not an
evolutionary process in the sense of creating new life forms. Thus the shift from a hunting
way of life that is so dramatic a feature of human history, does not represent an evolutionary
shift, as is made plain by the fact that Australian aborigines are the same species as
Europeans, despite the extraordinarily divergent social histories of each of these peoples. We
say that information is the essence of life, and genetic information gives rise to linguistic
information, and there is a continuum here. So we should find some continuity in the process
of organic change induced by genetics and linguistics, but the two modes of information flow
are not one and the same. Genes create somatic form and linguistics create super-somatic
form. Humans can therefore never become a new species by way of change brought about by
the expression of linguistic force.
We might pause to wonder, given modern developments, whether there could be a
convolution of informational processes here, whereby linguistic sophistication becomes so
great that it allows us to change our genetic profile so much that we become a new species,
thus confounding what has just been claimed. Maybe. But then we have to ask ourselves
where such transformation would be taking us. Evolution is a goal oriented process, a fact
which directly contradicts the most emphatic pronouncements of Darwin’s priests. Life
evolves towards latent sources of the potential energy of life, and its development falls into
certain broad categories, aquatic, terrestrial, aerial and the special, convolute zone of life
itself, where superorganisms arise. So just where else can we imagine ourselves going next ?
There is nowhere. Science does not see this because science is based on Darwinism, which
leaves all doors open, but this is piss taking science, imbibe it if you like that sort of thing.

A law of superorganic being

Episode three of A History of Ancient Britain presented by Neil Oliver was screened
in the last hour, now being 23/02/2011 22:26. It was most enjoyable because of the sites he
visited, but boy, what a load of twaddle this pompous young git comes out with.
We have already indicated the bias of this young academic, mindlessly committed as
he is to the idea of the individual as the object of human existence, so there is no need to
restate this fact. I am sure he would not deny it, I am certain he would be happy to assert it
himself, but of course, he does not come out and say it. We, like him, are all supposed to be
so enslaved to our cultural state of ignorance, that no other idea would enter our heads. And
the priest is certainly not going to rattle our brains by sowing the seed of reason in our minds,
that he exists to suppress by expounding the priestly dogma he has spent so many years being
trained to deliver.
The reason for sitting down to write now, is that Oliver’s piece ended on a useful
note, that hammered home the contrast between his idiotic religious drivel and our rigorous
scientific truth. After touring the key sites of ancient Britain and indicating that they
represented a common religious culture, he stated the obvious, that these fossilised remains of
a superorganism, indicated the living flesh counterpart of a ruling priesthood. Here we would
of indicated that this history lesson revealed an early example of a globalising superorganism,
pre-Judaic, yet immensely sophisticated. The existence of a priesthood showed that this
superorganism revealed all the signs of a core religious identity, while the architecture,
chiselled symbolism and fine quality artifacts, indicate a highly sophisticated linguistic
programme enslaving a biomass to this priesthood. This suggests that just as the Jews are our
masters today, that are drawn from an alien body that remains alien within, so the people who
ruled ancient Britain must of been of the same kind—alien masters ruling a biomass their
forebears implanted themselves into in the yet more distant past. He did not go into it, but
Time Team once reported information showing that an elite came from the continent to rule
Britain, though this may of been later, the Beaker people I am thinking of, whose power was
based on knowledge of metal working, showing how the control of knowledge forms the
basis of any master identity.
This is where science meets religious pseudo science head to head. Oliver gave a
soppy account of what this all meant by way of conclusion, it was a real, now its time to go to
sleep, put your head on the pillow and suck your thumb kind of touch. What all of this
meant, he said, was that the early stone age societies had moved on from comparatively
simple religious monumental practices, to a new vision of existence, a decoupling, as we
would say, had taken place, that was all about a new level of the search for self knowledge.
Instead of the connection with the earth indicated in past monuments, the Neolithic cultures
introduced astronomy into their mythology, indicating a new expression of the human search
for knowledge.
Isn’t that lovely, doesn’t that make you want to go arrgh, and maybe shed a tear of
delight ? Well it should, what is the matter with you, you heartless sociophobe you ! But, if
you have not been properly programmed by the current slave identity formula, unlike Oliver,
you may be open to the truth. Since the human animal is a superorganism and there is no
such thing as an individual, it follows that there can be no such thing as a search for
knowledge. Knowledge has existed from the first instant that our kind came into being, as
has walking, and talking. Walking and talking have not changed their nature, and neither has
knowledge, any suggestion to the contrary is simply too idiotic for consideration. Knowledge
does today what it did 120,000 years ago, for the very first Homo Sapien to set foot to earth,
in Africa. We do not search for knowledge or understanding, that is not why knowledge, of
any kind, ever exists. Knowledge exists to serve a biological function, that of organising the
sentient brick units of superorganic being into a social fabric. The story of sophisticated
change in the modes of reasoning which Oliver so delightfully points out, are the remnant of
information patterns revealing how an increasingly powerful superorganism was taking shape
as linguistic force increased in intensity and produced social structure accordingly, at the core
of which was an alien priesthood intent on increasing its power while degrading its slave
biomass into an ever more zombified state. This process has continued over the intervening
millennia to produce the most disgusting humans imaginable, ourselves, massively
empowered by knowledge, and all the more deeply immersed within ignorance as a
consequence. Just look at what happened in Japan this weekend, after the massive
earthquake on Friday, today being Sunday, 13 March 2011. Sky News just ran a montage
illustrating the series of catastrophic events caused by Friday’s tsunami, not least of which
was the final shot, of the explosion at a nuclear power station yesterday. Nice! Idiots. Why
do humans live like this ? Answer, they do not, human superorganisms do however.
Individuals have no choice in the matter, but the delivery of stupid obedience to the need for
growth and power comes from an insatiable priesthood composed of an exclusive elite,
constituting an alien body lying at the core of the social body. In our social body the core
centres on Judaism, and the structure from which mindless commands are relayed is
capitalism, which demands increasing populations and technical development, and makes no
concessions to any kind of ‘values’, of any kind. Such as not building nuclear power stations
in earthquake zones, or overpopulating the planet, so that people can live contented,
comfortable lives generation after generation, without needlessly falling victim to predictable
disasters like the one shaking the Japanese slaves of Judaism at this very moment.
The proof of our argument abounds. In a land as rich in ancient remains as Britain,
the signs of the superorganic physiology are there, screaming out to us of their presence, once
we are onto them. What stands out is the evidence of a highly advanced, exclusive
priesthood, whose power is expressed through the manipulation and control of knowledge.
Therefore, when we find a remarkable transition from an impressive and highly sophisticated
monumental culture, to one which adds an amazing new layer of sophistication, whereby
these monuments take on the added complexity of astronomical observatories, we readily see
that this is a sign of the superorganism increasing in complexity. It is a law of superorganic
physiology that : increasing information, as seen in knowledge and culture, must be equated
to increasing physical development, and vice versa. This follows from the fact that linguistic
force creates all social structure, of all kinds. Oliver’s history lesson tonight, is good
evidence of this, but the jerk who presented it, has not got the slightest idea what it meant,
anymore than his ancient counterparts, the priests of old who waxed lyrical on the subject of
astronomy and how it placed the earth at the centre of the universe, though they knew much
factual detail, had the least idea what was real.

Thursday, 03 March 2011 – We have been picking up links from Neil Oliver’s series Ancient
Britain and last night was the fourth and final episode, entitled Age of Bronze, so we might
make a final comment on this typical piece of contemporary religious propaganda, disguised
as science.
Oliver said that the arrival of bronze changed everything, because the metal from
Ireland and Cornwall was found united into bronze in Scotland, indicating trade. This in turn
inferred that the people controlling the trade routes, were set for social elevation, which
archaeological finds have proven to of been the case. Bronze constituted a new kind of
highly concentrated wealth, which was reflected in the creation of high status individuals,
producing a special elite of a kind hitherto unknown in these parts.
As ever the interpretation subtly imposes the significance of personal feeling,
invoking the individual existing as an end in their own right, within these social dynamics.
Intellectuals take the part of individuals existing within the framework of humanity, and
reflect upon the events of human existence from that internal perspective, of which they are a
part. Whereas genuine science would not do this, it would project itself outside the field of
human existence by shedding all human sentiments and feelings, in order to interpret what is
seen to of occurred over centuries and millennia, in dynamic and structural, not personal,
terms.
 Science must keep to the principle of the none existence of the self, such that
individuals are treated as units of organic physiology belonging to a higher structural entity
than themselves. ‘Self’ is in reality a moral manifestation, part of the fabric of internal
superorganic physiology that science has to explain, not pay homage to !
It is only in the last year or so that I have begun to buy a few volumes on information
systems in sociology : The Evolution of Information by Goonatilake, 1991, introduced me to
this field, but once alerted to it I found a mass of material along similar lines that, until a
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. If this is science,
then surely people like Oliver, working on the major historical transformations of human
society, ought to be trained in these schools of thought as part of their archaeological studies.
But it is clear that these rational schools are as ignorant of these radical new lines of thought,
as was I until very recently. Which might explain my ignorance, because there has been no
means of connection between myself as a layman and these, as yet, ivory tower specialists.
Does their ignorance of modern ideas bother the rationalists ? Not in the least, they have a
job to do, teaching us all the knowledge we need to understand ourselves in the modern
world, and that has nothing to do with knowing what happened in the past, it is all about
finding evidence of what happened in the past, and giving it a suitable interpretation to make
it fit in with our religious preconceptions of what life is now. Oliver shows us how
knowledge manufacture continues to operate as it has traditionally, reaching back to ancient
times, unchanged, by finding facts, and using them to empower political interpretations suited
to the ruling theocracy. We continually make this point with regard to Darwin, because his
Origin was such a dramatic example of the process of knowledge control, that continues to
overwhelm us today, but here, in an ongoing fragment of the all smothering blanket of
ignorance that we call ‘knowledge’, we find the same process being applied. It looks good,
and sounds fascinating, so we fall for it hook, line and sinker. But the ‘facts’, they are the
key to this process of knowledge control by an absolute, yet covert theocracy.
The facts are the bait that capture our attention, convincing us to swallow frivolous
conclusions drawn by those who sling these facts in our direction. Conclusions that bury
themselves into our minds as hooks, allowing us to be reeled into the net which is the priest’s
‘school’ of thought. These teachers are truly fishers of men. Saying which, suggests how
science came into existence as a rigorous method, by refining the process of garnering facts
intended to serve as ‘proof’ of arguments, serving the political objective of possessing social
power. Now there is a fascinating idea, which moderates the impact of the argument that
modern science is simply religion in a false guise. Because it shows that the core principle of
science—the discovery of facts serving as proof—from which valid conclusions are then
drawn, was always a mode of knowledge manufacture directed towards a political purpose,
and so it is not surprising that it has yet to break free of its roots and become science for real.
Thus science is not so much subverted, as we often say it is, but rather, not yet realised.
Which is a far more satisfying, organic view of what science is today, than our hitherto
politically bogged down notion has made out. In other words science has always been
performed in the service of social power, as all things are made to do by means of legislative
structures, and as such science is managed by political authority, which has always been
lodged in the church even when political form pretends otherwise. This means that what
Atheist Science is really trying to do, is to make science discover itself and break free of
religion.
The fabric of complex human activities is made to rotate about the Church by way of
a tax system, and this is suggestive of the mechanism whereby scientific knowledge is made
to serve religion too. In this case an all pervading, sacred body of pseudo scientific
knowledge containing the key principle of Jewish slave religion, must be fabricated. This
core knowledge must be political in nature, it must make the individuals the human being,
living as ends in themselves. And it must leave the sacred free will of humans untouched, so
that human society can be portrayed as it is in the Bible, as being made by man in God’s
image. And so we have Darwinism, which forms the core of the intellectual tax system,
which means the authorities can safely allow anyone to say anything, as long as they pay
homage to Darwinism in the work they produce, either overtly, as most works do, or just
implicitly by preserving the key religious principle of individuality vested in the person. And
this is exactly what we find all authors, of any kind, do, they all pay their dues to the
Intellectual Revenue System which is Darwinism ; find me a book, or any other format, that
does not.
Darwinism itself, alerts us to this ploy in the methodology of a political order’s
control of knowledge, because Darwinism is presented to us as pure science, when it is
nothing of the sort. Once alerted however, we find this method more obvious in the artistic
forms of intellectual endeavour coming under the umbrella of the humanities, which, as in the
case of history, have, with the coming of science, been caught between two stools, leading
people to ask what these old modes of study represent now. Here is one such title, snatched
from a shelf close by : Telling the Truth about History, by Appleby et. al., 1994. It is not
quite what I had in mind, as it is not seeking to defend the idea of history in a scientific
world, but rather it covers the same problem on a more global cultural scale, but I am going
to use it because of this exquisite passage on the nature of scientific knowledge, that I want to
give you :

In nearly every field the new social history described in Chapter 4 challenged
and dethroned the inherited intellectual absolutisms. When the same thing happened
in the history of science, an icon of Western culture was undermined. The challenge
ignited a war, what we will call, in honor of the terminology used at the time, the War
between the Internalists and the Externalists. The so-called Internalists took an
essentially Popperian position with regard to science. Its historical development
occurred as the result of empirical work and the unfolding of the rules of logic.
Basically the history of science had nothing to do with the social. The heroes of
science got put up on their pedestals because they were true heroes, smarter and more
creative than everyone else.
Under the influence of social history, a new generation of so-called Externalist
historians of science looked for the larger interests and values at work within
communities of scientists. The Externalist position—the term misleadingly
predetermines what is inside and what must therefore be outside—vastly extended the
definition of the social. Whereas Kuhn confined it to networks of scientists, the
generation of the 1960s made it the universe beyond the laboratory or university. With
the battle cry “social context,” the Externalists took up arms against the Internalists.
The war was waged, not surprisingly, around the pedestals of the scientific heroes.
Born under the shadow of the bomb, the generation of the 1960s took a very
different approach to science from that of most of its predecessors, Kuhn included.
Like the Progressive historians of an earlier era, they developed new methods and
asked new questions in an effort to understand the role of interests and ideologies in
the making of science. Given the strength of social history by the 1960s, the history of
science, not surprisingly, took a turn toward the social, now broadly defined. In
centuries where most men and more women were neither literate nor leisured, it was
 relatively easy to find the scientists among elites, sharing their social outlook and
political interests. Looking in private letters and diaries, social historians of science
found the heroes of science immersed in the power relations of their time, willing to
adopt or abandon theories for many complex, and not always disinterested, reasons.
The new social historians sought to understand scientists in relation to governments,
churches, religious beliefs, political ideologies, even with regard to their gender
identities and their material assets and property.
In the expanded social understanding of science associated with the
Externalists, the interests, values, linguistic conventions, even pride and greed of
scientists shaped their understanding of nature. In effect, the definition of what should
be considered internal to science changed dramatically. The heroes of science tumbled
off their pedestals, their statuesque feet upon closer inspection seemed more clay than
marble. Perhaps Popper had been right after all. If those mirrors in the heads of the
heroes and founders of Western science could be shown to have been made by
society, surely all of human knowledge could be revealed as socially constructed. The
position was paradoxically a remake of the older realist, mirrors-in-the-head version
of the scientific mind common among the positivists. The positivists and Internalists
said that the scientists had mirrors always trained on nature ; the extreme Externalists
said that if so, those mirrors were the products of society. Thus trapped in the thicket
of linguistic conventions, modern science succeeds only by using words like “nature”
and “society” in ways that are entirely the result of linguistic moves made by
seventeenth-century scientists like Boyle and Newton. They invented the modern
meaning of “nature,” and thereby tailor-made for themselves a world which they and
their successors could in turn investigate.
(pp. 172 – 173)

Many titles have set themselves the task of vindicating history in the scientific age,
which is a futile exercise of course, because if history is real, then it is science, and so it can
only be sociology or anthropology, and ultimately a branch of biology since it deals with life
history. All we can really say history is today, is the record of facts and events. But History,
as ever, pretends to be more than this, it pretends to offer explanations of facts, which can be
nothing more than a political game, where academic politicians interpret history to suit
themselves, as members of one faction or another. In the above we find a delightful
challenge to scientific absolutism, but one that entirely misses the point, in scientific terms,
because it has no external point of reference, beyond the social. Indeed its inspiration is the
discovery of the social, in startling contrast to the pure individual, which was always assumed
to be the real source of scientific knowledge. Truly incredible, such naivety and deep seated
ignorance in the intelligentsia is astounding. Fatuous bunch of posers is what these
overgrown school kids really amount to. The war they notice is phony, its true location really
lies between religion and science, as expressions of knowledge existing as a functional
dynamic of superorganic physiology, not as a consequence of individuals operating within a
political system. Such scientific, biological insights into the working of human society, are
as far away from these floundering historians imaginations as it is possible to get. Their
chatter is delightful, so full of questioning promise, but in the end, it is just more of the same.
All knowledge is created within the machinery they call ‘social’, because all that ‘social’
means, as used in this context, is the living superorganism within which the knowledge we
experience, really constitutes an information flow running through a nervous system, in order
to create structural order and animation constituting superorganic physiology. Knowledge is
not the precious, personal thing that we take it to be, it is just a flow of biological information
occurring at a particular level of a physiological order. Knowledge does not come from us,
knowledge flows through us. Depending upon which of these two alternative viewpoints are
adopted, any description of knowledge as a social phenomenon is going to look radically
different, as we have just seen.
History is a broad deep expression of knowledge, of ancient use, which is why it has
proved to be as resistant to modern ideas as the religion it is a fundamental part of. History is
the very root of individualism as seen in the Jewish slave pantheon of knowledge, but upon
entering the scientific arena, we may interpret history in relation to its new companion in the
constellation of knowledge control. These historians are not paying their intellectual taxes to
Darwinism directly, but they are paying them ; we may say this for interpretative purposes,
where we make Darwinism primary in a scientific context, even though in reality history is
Darwinism’s big brother, being the ancient manifestation of individualism writ large. Their
contribution to Darwinism is more like that of a value added kind, given up on a pay-as-you-
go basis. Because the subliminal logic informing all their reasoning about the facts they play
with, assumes that individuals are ends in themselves, as Jewish history making always has
done. VAT is a subliminal tax, we pay it all the time, yet we are virtually oblivious to it for
precisely that reason ; which is part of the reason why governments love it. Because these
historians have no idea they are paying homage to an underlying logic imbued into their
minds, as they were inducted into the Jewish slave identity programme of Christian/Western
culture from birth, they talk freely about reverent advocates of science, the Internalists, and
irreverent students of scientists, the Externalists, as if they knew something about these
subjects. But like the Tories and the Socialists in British politics, that take turns fronting the
government, both the participants, and their analysts, the historians, support and sustain the
same core principles of individuality and self madeness. No one defies the system as a
political entity in any absolute, or scientific terms, so that all these varieties of intellectual
commentator are Internalists in reality. This is what the great twentieth century philosopher
of absolute power and the Jewish master race, Adolf Hitler, had in mind when he taught us in
Mein Kampf that there can only ever be One message, it may come in a myriad of forms, but
it could only ever say one thing, if absolute power was to be maintained. That message is that
the individual is an end in themselves, and the theocracy that creates and sustains Darwinism
knows that perfectly well, and always seeks to support work that delivers this subliminal
message, while suppressing any, such as ours, that does not. Hitler’s philosophy,
interestingly, made much of a negation of the individual in favour of the organicist view of
society as the only true object of human existence. Thus he brought true knowledge into
disrepute by putting it to the most evil ends imaginable, leaving the only other form in which
we know this knowledge to exist, in religion, to rise to the surface again once Hitler’s work
of suppressing true knowledge was done.

It may look to us as if bronze manufacture provided an opportunity for people to

extend the scope of their ambitions, through acts of increasingly grand self adoration, but it
was nothing of the sort viewed scientifically, as opposed to personally or sentimentally.
Tribes will of been established in all available territories across which the new trade routes
extended, obviously, so that bronze working culture, advancing by way of trade rather than
conquest, will of fuelled, or supercharged, the established social structure, which will always
of had a hierarchical framework. Therefore boosting leading individuals into a state of
glorified and detached status compared to the majority of their fellow social group, cannot of
been the expression of personal ambition, but rather an inevitable effect of the introduction of
new technology associated intensely with the power of linguistic force, in the shape of the
highly sophisticated knowledge that metal working represented. Raising the high status of
individuals was therefore a natural effect of the ever present linguistic force that creates all
superorganic physiology, and nothing whatsoever to do with the individuals themselves, and
their political motives, as suggested in Oliver’s pathetic eulogy to human egoism. It is
irrelevant which individuals happened to be alive at the moment when these new
technologies arrived on the scene, the social effect was guaranteed to be precisely what it was
irrespective of which persons where about at the time. If King or Queen Whoever had not
been glorified, then Bill or Ben would of been, exactly as we noted in respect to the
production of the idea of Natural Selection by Darwin in 1859. This idea had to be produced
for the sake of the Jewish theocracy, and so it was ; if not Darwin, then Bill or Ben would of
been its author, and we can see the same physiological dynamic operating in a different
context, all these years ago. But not the intellectual, they see nothing, they just capture facts
from reality, like fishermen throwing out their nets, then they organise the facts they have
taken possession of, according to a core foci of linguistic force, derived from the Jewish slave
identity programme that determines the shape of all their thoughts. This requires the
individual be kept enslaved by being represented as a supreme authority existing in their own
right, offering a very flattering denomination appealing to our self centred mentality, but one
which steals our souls away by flattering us out of true self knowledge, and leading us to
think we are free, when we are anything but free. This is how linguistic force beguiles and
manipulates us at the most intimate level, through the programming of our brains with a
language during our defenceless phase of identity induction, or ‘imprinting’, as the
behaviourists who first wrote about these effects in animals, called it. Humans have to be
imprinted to a superorganism, this the behaviourists of the 1930’s never told us.
The historical facts that Oliver, as a priest of academia, is granted possession of, are
not about people, they are about superorganisms. There are no people, there are only
superorganisms, at the level of scientific understanding. This is what a true science of
humanity would tell us, if it existed, but it does not, because in our world the decoupling
conception of individuality acts as an opaque membrane of consciousness, set between
ourselves and reality. This is why we have no choice but to describe all the science presented
to us these days, quite simply as ‘religion’, because that is what it is, even though it is
religion disguised as science. One thing is certain, the gush the intellectuals come out with is
anything but science, although, they do make a good pretence of presenting science, by
stealing the facts which science relies upon to make itself. The theft of facts by established,
institutionalised authorities, is the basis of theocratic control over scientific knowledge,
which must arise from the handling of real facts. This method was personified in Darwin’s
development as a priest of science, with his initial quest for exotic knowledge of life,
garnering facts hitherto unknown, over which he mulled for many a long year, before
producing his nonsense at the peak of his wisdom, when the quality of sage shone all about
this most vile of fraudsters.

Nonexistence of the self can only be escaped by delusion

The idea that there is no such thing as an individual, which pans out to mean there is
no such thing as people, and which also echoes through the continual denial of science in this
fantastic scientific age, is too much. But it is of course correct, which is why we keep
hammering it home. So lets pause to consider the one sense in which it is not only not too
much, but where it is the great solution to everything with which we wrestle day by day.
Religion. It is the existence of religion that confounds all reason. It is all very well to
protest that we individuals are the only thing there is, that we are the sentient beings, and so
on, but what about religion ? Religion is the great destroyer of all claims to being rational or
reasonable, in any way whatsoever. And hence we have recourse to Atheist Science, as some
means of escaping the insanity of our staggeringly intelligent world. Through Atheist
Science we square the circle of all pervading human stupidity, in an age of pure genius.
Let us be clear, Atheist Science, while proving that there is no such thing as an
individual, does not deny all the rationality and sentience that anyone may care to proclaim in
opposition to our true model of human nature. Atheist Science simply makes sense of
religion. If religion, in whatever form, such as communism, capitalism or democracy, to
name some of religion’s modern sublimations, did not exist, then the officially proclaimed
nature of humans as individuals would be valid. Although in saying that, we must affirm that
then humans would not be humans, so this is a futile concession, but we are trying to make a
point here, about the mindless resistance that exists to true knowledge of self.
So anyway, religion does exist, therefore there can be no such thing as an individual,
no matter what anyone says about human sentience, reason, self making and self knowledge.
The crux of the matter is how we come to fulfil the imperative of our corporate nature. Do
we fulfil the dictate of nature to combine into highly complex, organised biomass, by choice,
with each and everyone of us knowing precisely why and agreeing ? Or do we culminate in
this state of organic unification, via a process of organisation that renders us the units of a self
organising process, in which we have no choice, and at best, can only make the most of ?
It makes no odds what we do or don’t think, as long as the outcome is always the
same. By which we mean, if we are forced to form social groups, and we act spontaneously
toward that end, being driven by factors we may call racial or cultural, or if instead we attain
the exact same end by carefully deciding to do so according to purely rational reasons of a
practical kind, can make no difference to the scientific evaluation of what we are, and what
we do. If we end up in the same place either way, then there is no difference in how we get
there, we can only be the end products of a process over which we have no control. Living in
modern Britain and being of an anarchistic bent, whereby the relentless current of oppressive
law and financial oppression is ceaseless, but delivered through the vehicle of collective
consent, we may readily experience this process of force ameliorated through the art of
stroking along the lie of our mental fur, so to speak. We all choose, but if we resist the
choices we make, woe betide us ! If a wheel left to the impress of nature delivered through
experience, ends up round, then it makes no odds if some clever dick thought of the idea and
before making any move, realised what the end result must be, and so made a round wheel.
Behind both outcomes the same unswerving, predetermined end, lies waiting to be born from
the conditions preceding the outcome in which we are interested. The same applies to the
formation of every last detail of our social structure, except that the delineation of our social
structure into a highly complex hierarchy in which a miniscule number of players make all
decisions, always furthering Judaism to which we are all enslaved by way of identity, means
that the shape of the ‘wheel of life’ is predetermined by nature, according to a cultural pattern
that has found what roundness means in this social context.
 Chapter 2

Counterblast

26/02/2011 12:23 – Darwinian Sociocultural Evolution : Solutions to Dilemmas in

Cultural and Social Theory, Marion Blute, 2010, just arrived. A swift appraisal prompts a
new chapter, brief as it will be, to take notice of this bang up to date offering from official
science, ever determined to support the sham science of Darwin.
What we have here is a proof of the absurdity of modern science, the fact that such a
book is produced, shows that science has nothing to say about humanity as part of nature.
Instead it goes on and on pumping out bullshit to make up the shortfall. With this work
though, we find science being forced to cut ever closer to the quick which it desperately
wishes to avoid.
The blurb on the back page is a delight, laden with promises of good intentions and a
will to fulfil every desire anyone devoted to understanding humans scientifically, could have.
Upon entry we find the contents page, always my first port of call, where there is nothing of
any great moment, but the whole presentation is significant, being quite unlike anything I
have seen before. Nothing here makes me want to leap into the text, I must continue my
initial examination, looking for openings that will let me extract the essence of what this
author is saying, in a few words. She begins with a preface described as a postmodern
metanarrative, shit me, here we go, what the f’in ‘eck does that mean ?
Jargon aside, the prose seems clear enough. Blute identifies three goals for this work,
these are interesting, in that their waffle continues to emphasise the worthlessness of modern
science, faced with the age old problem we saw Schmidt take notice of when saying that
come what may, people would never allow themselves to be made one with nature. More
specifically, I hit upon this following a brief eulogy to evolutionary biology’s triumph :

This is not to say that many problems do not remain outstanding — those pertaining to the
role of the individual in evolutionary processes for example.
(pp. vii – viii)

So there we have it, straight off the bat this priestess declares her commitment to religion and
her uncompromising antagonism to the science which she stands here, as a champion of.
With champions like these, science needs no enemies, and religion need fear no science. All
thanks to the solid foundation of bullshit set in stone by Darwin, as a figurehead of scientific
knowledge arising at just the right time, which, if he had not come to the fore, would of been
realised by Bob or Bill, or whoever. What we can be sure of is that ‘Darwinism’ was
coming, one way or the other, irrespective of whose name it bore, and not because it was true,
but quite the opposite, because it was not true. Darwinism was a product of the decoupling
process lifting people away from nature, just one more hike away from reality, in the ongoing
process of developing the superorganism based on Jewish identity. It is the hike in
knowledge that this latest addition to my library is at the forefront of, hence all the
handwringing about difficulties juxtaposed with great achievements, designed to assert
immense intellectual power challenged by impenetrable mystery, but trying, trying oh so
hard. Yes, trying to drag us further and further away from reality, further and further into the
fabric of superorganic being, which manifests itself in political diatribe such as this book by
Blute.
We must understand that this issue of the individual is the be all and end all of
everything. If science has two alternative modes of understanding reality, then the status of
the individual is the pivot about which the two alternatives rotate. But this rotation is a
reflection of the life dynamic as it is manifested in human form, driven by the linguistic force
which creates superorganic being. There is no ‘individual’, there is no ‘religion’, and there is
no ‘science’, in the final analysis. All there is, is the superorganism and the elements thereof.
Dealing with those elements however, as components of superorganic being, we may treat
these components as if they exist, bearing in mind that they are structural elements of one
whole, which have no separate existence such as this women says they have in the sentence
quoted.
It is true that she is only saying individuals have a role in evolutionary processes, just
here, but I can assure you that this little aside is no innocent thing, it is far too important for
that to be the case. This can only mean that she intends to make out that individuals are real,
we see this all the time in works produced since the arrival of Darwin’s monstrous
imposition. It occurred to me as I lay in my pit this morning, waiting for my brain to attain a
sufficient degree of recovery from the comatose state a few beers from last night inflicted,
that the power of mathematics must derive from the hierarchical manner in which universal
processes build structure by adding individual units one to another. Thus we find that
individuals are added to one another in human society to form a true living organism, which
individuals, are therefore not themselves qualified to be. This is why modern forms of
absolute theocracy are organised on a numerical basis, that of free and fair voting, called
‘Democracy’. It is also why religion exists, because the imposition of identity upon
individuals, according to a common pattern drawn from the social milieu, leads to precisely
the same numerical effect as democracy, by creating enclaves of attachment to set patterns of
social organisation, or politics, as we say. What does you brain deliver to your consciousness
first thing, as you wake in the morning ? Shit, I’m alive !

Moving on, I placed markers at two pages. First is chapter eight Micro and macro
III  : the evolution of complexity and the problem of social structure, which, with a
requirement to crack open the jargon once again, begins thus :

The concept of “progress” hovers about all questions pertaining to complexity but since
progress is inherently a normative or evaluative concept it cannot be answered scientifically.
(p. 182)

This section breaks into a sprint in terms of expanding the science of the individual as an end
in themselves, and this is why she speaks the way she does about progress, trying to make it
suit a religious view of humans as sacred beings, making themselves. I thought it was nice to
take this comment on the nature of progress, in the light of our scientific explanation of
progress which indicated that progress was a product of linguistic force, unleashing the
evolved potential of human corporate nature by employing the mechanism of decoupling to
separate individuals from reality, by ceaselessly producing new modes of understanding
suited to ongoing conditions, changing as the superorganism grows over a period of time far
in excess of individual lifespan. By taking this denial that science can cope with progress
immediately after we have shown science coping with progress, we juxtapose the pseudo
science of the state with the real science of an individual, committed to atheism as the
precondition of discovering true knowledge about the nature of humans.
I suppose we should bust this jargon before moving on. What Blute is saying when
she calls progress ‘normative’ and ‘evaluative’, is that progress is relative because it is
subject to the vagaries of opinion. This is certainly a statement, one of a kind that is familiar
enough. But this statement comes from a highly specific place in the body of linguistic
programming that controls our consciousness, and as such it is redolent with assumptions
which this women never once deigns to confess, taking it for granted that, like her, you and I
understand that we exist, and that consequently, the individual is everything.
But of course we do not accept that we exist. Quite the opposite, we know that we do
not exist, that all that exists is the superorganism to which we belong, as a physical fragment
of its living being. Everything is a matter of opinion according this women’s use of the
scientific method, proof being a product of majority voting, or expertise agreement. She has
no detached touchstone of evaluation to work from, hence all her ideas fall foul of this
problem, which she employs to suit her purposes just here. Once we have a detached object
to refer all aspects of human existence to—that of the superorganism—such problems do not
arise, there is no such thing as opinion, knowledge, ideas, truth, falsehood, or any of these
manifestations of individual will. What these words identify are all manifestations of
linguistic force, acting upon sentient brick units of superorganic being to create an organised
superorganic physiology, and nothing more. Progress therefore is neither abstract nor
arbitrary, it is simple and precise, it is nothing more nor less than change in an accumulative
structural direction.
For me progress is appalling, it is the politician’s word for destroying everything we
love. But to most people, being taken in by the power of the elite and their manipulative
methods, progress is wonderful, this bias is part of our mode of acculturation, which I am
alienated from. But the fact is that this progress that I hate, can be identified as ‘progress’
because it always proceeds in one uniform direction, which is associated with the living
superorganism to which we belong, that bears the Identity of Judaism. Simple, end of story.
This women does not see this, and she would not want to see it, or be allowed to see it as a
professional academic. And this is why her work is full of these idiotic caveats about the
nature of familiar things and the impossibility of attaining perfect knowledge of reality. She,
in other words, conflates individual consciousness with knowledge of reality, exactly as
Schmidt said people always do, way back in 1873. And nout has changed in this regard since
then, even though knowledge has progressed immensely, in terms of supporting the
development, the growth of the Jewish superorganism, towards the domination of the entire
human biomass of the planet.
Essentially, this women is using the philosopher’s techniques to thwart science. The
academic philosopher needs to distinguish themselves from scientists in such a way as to
justify their own existence, since in reality there can be only One, and that One is science.
Accordingly any professional academic philosopher will begin their lessons in philosophy by
indicating that they do not deal with truth, that, if you want truth, you need to go across the
courtyard to the halls of science. Science however, they will lie to you, cannot answer
everything, science, for example, cannot say what is right or wrong, good or bad ; in short,
science cannot determine the validity of human values. This is pure religious gush, perfectly
in keeping with religious diatribe down the ages, claiming a rarefied supremacy for itself,
while denouncing earthly realities. This strategy is clearly what our vile Ms Blute is
employing here. This is what academia has made science come to now. That any scientist
should dream of suggesting that something real can be beyond the remit of science, is the
ultimate sin against science, as it simply denies the existence of science outright. Science is :
the means by which we know reality. This is the only possible valid scientific definition of
science, as a way of knowing.

The second marker I placed where she talks about language, right at the end of the
book. There is nothing here, the last paragraph mentions cultural programming which I like
the sound of. It talks about sociologists believing that people are owned by culture rather
than the other way around, and being disinterested in biology. This is a curious inversion of
what you would expect from such a realisation, Where do these sociologists think culture
comes from, thin air ? We can see from this why language is so crucial to the Atheist Science
account of human nature, and why all professional academics fail to possess the least notion
of how to resolve the questions they claim to be so interested in, simply because they fail to
see that in the search for science, the first question to arise is the war of religion against
science, and until this is resolved, there can be no science, and there can be no better proof of
this, than this work by Blute.
I ask you, who do these people think they are ?
It would not be so bad if we did not live in such a shithole of a world, but since we do,
I say again, who do these know it all ignoramuses think they are ?
There is no originality of thought with these people, they all play follow the leader,
like sheep. I started working my way through Blute’s bibliography last night, a long one it is
too, which is good, especially with this being a bang up to date item, I ticked lots of titles for
examination but there is really nothing new here. There are indications of frustration with
Darwinism in the way people are trying to break away from the stranglehold that this fake
ideology has on all scientific thought. But it is evident that the grip is complete, if anyone
does attempt a new formulation of evolution and life, they are always careful to call it a new
application of Darwin, exactly as we see in the title of Blute’s book. What we need is an anti
Darwinian work fully committed to that line of investigation, but unless we write it ourselves,
as I have, this is a field yet to exist.
If a real science existed then all that went before by way understanding life in familiar
terms would certainly be eradicated, within science at least. So that it is evident from a book
like this, that science is straining itself to accommodate the past which still rules our world.
There was one title asking what real science is, which I thought rather nice, but it is an article
not a book, which means it will be more awkward to get and if I go to the trouble it will be in
vain, it will only be more of the same old self satisfied bullshit, where smarmy intellectuals
tells themselves how hard done to they are by nature’s obscurantism, but how wonderful they
are for persevering in an inevitably unrequited, lifelong quest for true knowledge. When an
academic asks a question like this, whether real science exists, you can be sure it is a word
game they are playing with their fellow academics, playing with meaning, not an
antiauthoritarian rebellion against the fascism of religious autocracy, announcing that the war
of religion against science is ongoing, by declaring a new outbreak of resistance.

New books prompted by Blute’s bibliography continue to arrive. Today, Thursday,

17 March 2011, we have Evolution in Language by Bernard Bichakjian, 1988, and Thought
Contagion : How Belief Spreads Through Society by Aaron Lynch, 1996. So now, much to
my embarrassment, I find myself awash in yet another whole school of modern scientific
thought, or a continuation of the Darwinian version thereof, namely the school of memetics
instigated by Dawkins in, according to Lynch, his infamous The Selfish Gene of 1976.
The work by Lynch is weird, I am amazed to see how the simple idea of the meme
has been picked up and run with. I loved the idea when I first came across it a dozen years
ago because it practically mirrored my thoughts on humans as programmed units of
superorganic being. But of course no one has ever thought to think of it in this counter
individualistic manner, even when they have this vision of a programmed unit hammering on
the door to their mind, exactly as Lynch does.
I am currently reading Bloom’s Lucifer Principle, 1995, and he uses this meme idea
with all the artistry of a skilled intellectual contortionist, “The real significance of a meme is
its power to pull together a superorganism.” ( p. 109) he says, in a manner that has all the
appeal of organicism, with none of the genuine scientific logic of nonexistence applied to the
individual, which such an idea requires. The problem is that where we make linguistic force
derived from linguistic physiology a natural force creating the superorganism, Bloom
detaches this organic force from the human person and applies it to the human
superorganism, leaving the whole thing hanging in midair, unconnected with nature. This is
of course exactly what Darwin did by inventing the political notion of ‘natural selection’,
mimicking human selection. These ruses are clear examples of the mechanism of decoupling
separating humans from nature by placing humans within nature, according to a false idea
centred upon the individual as an end in themselves, or, alternatively, by recognising the
reality of a social form, but casting its creation in some mysterious detached manner, as via
some magical thing called a ‘meme’, which is then given all the attributes of a force in its
own right. As we have seen, Wilson argued that natural selection is the force driving
evolution, so if we combine Wilson’s grossness with Dawkins’, we can see that the gene
must be the material carrier of this natural force as articulated by the Darwinian priesthood.
With Bloom, Blute and Lynch picking up the linguistic turd thrown out by Dawkins, we now
see a new vehicle of force created to fill the void of social formation, with the meme being
appointed to pick up the evolutionary force in society, which had been allocated to the gene
in somatic physiology, and so the Darwinian obscenity careers ever onward.

Meanwhile, what of Bichakjian ? I liked the look of this book when I opened it up. It
talks about evolution in language and discusses the debate about language as natural or
manmade. But I did not find any clear point of delineation where he came down on the side
of language as natural, so this is a concern. In addition, the book I bought was not the one
appearing in Blute, which was about language as a Darwinian phenomenon ! Not good. This
item needs more scouting around.
Page forty indicates that humans evolved to speak, but this idea is over folded upon
itself, as he talks about our ability to improve upon our natural endowment :

man is biologically endowed with the necessary implements for acquiring and using this type
of speech, and that he is also endowed with the genetic implements for improving the
articulated elements, the latter endowment being the object of the present study.

This horribly contorted mode of expression makes us think the man had to spit the words
from his tongue, as he strained every sinew of his mind to say that humans have total control
over every last detail of their linguistic expression, even as he said linguistic expression was a
biological function created by evolution. Horrible. What is all this ‘implements’ shit ? This
is another word for ‘tools’, a word we always use to indicate individuality making the world
according to its own desire. Obviously were he a scientist he would of used a mechanistic,
functional term, like ‘mechanisms’. And instead of the empowering term ‘endowment’ he
would of used the mechanistic idea by speaking of human form being ‘equipped’ with
functional mechanisms. So much for this American junk knowledge.
Saturday, 19 March 2011

The Electric Meme : A New Theory of How we Think by Robert Aunger, 2002, arrived
today. Some sad person must of read this item because it is heavily underlined in red felt-tip,
much of it is near impossible to read with any comfort. Fortunately it is what, we may now
call, a typical piece of Darwinian priestcraft reaching out into the domain of society, of the
kind we have tapped into by finding Blute’s 2010 piece of religious junk knowledge,
disguised as science. Junk knowledge : fast food for the minds of the masses ; churned out by
professional academics to satiate the inquisitiveness of moderately educated minds, leaving
them blotted with a satisfied feeling that tells the person they possess great knowledge, where
in fact, there is none. There is an interesting sounding chapter, chapter five, The Data on
Information, which starts with Information is Physical, followed by a section on The Nature
of Biological Information. Now we know there will be nothing but shit here, but this subject
is so bang on the topic which has often been of interest to us, that it must be nice to see a
discussion of it, even coming from a miscreant, hell bent on destroying knowledge. My first
peek at this section gives an immediate clue as to the strategy employed by this scientist to
undermine science, and it seems to follow the method employed by Blute, as in using the
devious tricks of the professional philosopher, skilled as they are in the dark arts of elaborate
linguistic obfuscation. In this case Aunger’s discussion of the physicality of information
immediately put me in mind of the old conundrum that you will soon come upon if you study
philosophy at all, concerning the nature of the mind. Is the mind real, does it exist ? Of
course the religious freak will only tolerate one answer to this question, which is why the
professional philosopher works so hard to tease out an argument allowing the possibility,
even though proving that the mind does not exist is almost easier than proving that God does
not exist. I recall describing to a philosophy night class some years ago, how we could see
that the mind had no substance by thinking of a quantity of ink on a piece of paper, first as an
inkblot, then as writing. In both cases the physicality is assumed to be identical, but in the
latter case we have an immensely powerful form, where in the former we have nothing.
Mind, or information, is therefore nothing but organised matter.
Reading this section did however prompt a fascinating thought, which I made a note
of thus :

The superorganism as information

The mind is an information form impressed into the brain, a physical organ made to
take an information form. Brains in turn, following scripting with information, are evolved to
organise themselves into a physical structure, based upon the resulting pool of information
arising from information being held in common amongst a population of homogenously
scripted brains. The resulting social form, is a human superorganism. All of these processes
and products are predetermined by nature.

According to this reasoning then, we may say that the superorganism has the same
nature as the mind, and thus we are the brain cells, the social neurons, giving this corporate
brain its form. This is a useful insight because the enemies of organicism were very keen to
assert that only the person existed, hence the idea of the social organism was in the end, only
an analogy. According to our reasoning the reality of the superorganism is equivalent to the
reality of the mind, which, as we have just seen, is a none physical entity whose existence
arises from the organisation of parts made for the purpose of being organised, so as to bring a
mind into being, which in turn brings a superorganism into being, in the case of creatures like
ants, termites and humans.
Nice, very nice, yes, I like that ; I like that a lot !
 Chapter 3

Ultimate Knowledge

Lets pick up on something mentioned in the introduction, by talking about the final
resolution of the two questions made central to our subject : the formulation of an Atheist
Science. Why does religion exist ? and, What are humans ? We have said that we live in an
age of freedom of thought and of science, so we have the basic conditions wherein such
questions could be expected to find a resolution, but, as of the present moment, no advance
has been made in this direction, so we have noted that science does not encroach on political
affairs, while religion continues to dominate them. And we concluded the introduction by
saying this state of affairs could never be changed. How can we possibly know such a thing ?
Lets say that a resolution of these two primary questions of the modern age of
freedom and science, amount to an ultimate state of knowing, in the sense of knowing about
ourselves, then, who is to say that possessing such knowledge would not transform our
world ?

Sweet innocence

Ours is an amazing society. This is England, a pillar of First World order, giving
those of us lucky enough to be native to this culture a highly privileged view of the nature of
social life, central to which is the value we place on freedom.
We have already seen freedom enter into our discussion, whereby the present state of
affairs concerning the right to be an atheist, is an expression of this modern state of freedom.
The ability of science to act according to its own principles, unconstrained by any other
considerations, in pursuit of knowledge, is another product of our value given to the ideal of
freedom.
But the fact that we place such a high value upon freedom, while speaking of these
proofs of its reality in our culture, begs a question, to do with the opposite state of affairs,
what of the lack of freedom, what it was, where it was, why it was ? And, without further
ado, lets add, whether or not it ever really went away ?

Truth of the matter

The truth of the matter is that we enjoy no more freedom today, than we ever did in
the past, not in ideal terms. People were sent to prison, or worse, for being atheists, and from
this starting point the conditions we enjoy today, are free indeed. But herein we see the
negativity of atheism, all that we have now is the freedom to deny, that was previously denied
to us. Freedom to deny, is hardly freedom to know. What is knowledge ? Knowledge has a
positive nature, knowledge occupies space, pretty much as buildings do, and hence
knowledge is a form of property, in the human social world. Knowledge is not physical, so
the constraints and conflicts over knowledge are more obscure than this analogy suggests, but
we can speak of the primary attribute of knowledge being its very existence, so that all
knowledge needs to do in order to fulfil its biological, physiological function in human
affairs, is to exist. Thus, if we are atheists we are denied the right to exist, and then, we are
given the right to exist in a world as dominated by religion as ever it was. How does this
shift from oppression to freedom change anything ? It does not, unless we can make
something more of atheism than a mere denial of the contents of religious knowledge ?
The previous discussion of the superorganism as information, is a powerful idea in
terms of understanding how knowledge can be said to occupy space, for knowledge then
becomes the pattern from which the actual substance of the living superorganism is woven.
The pattern is created within a kernel of knowledge, such as Jewish culture, and from there it
is projected outwards and elaborated according to need. So that knowledge always has a
material form, and cannot exist apart from the material it shapes, anymore than gravity can.
This is how Judaism manages to become the master identity, by filling out all the space
occupied by knowledge to build a superorganism in its likeness, whether its pattern appears
as Judaism proper, or Christianity or Nazism.
And so, atheism and science must be linked to one another from an atheist standpoint.
Conversely, from a religious standpoint, science, being knowledge, must be treated as a
territorial domain, to be occupied and possessed, ensuring that atheists cannot make this, their
natural bedfellow, their own. This means that from a defensive point of view, rather than a
necessary one, religion also needs science in order to exist. But atheism wants science to be
itself, to be free, not for science to be an atheist dogma. While religion has its own
knowledge base, and it only wants to be sure that science does not undermine it. In the end
though, however they get there, both camps must seek to possess science. Atheism must
possess science by allowing science to be free, and religion must possess science by ensuring
that science is not free, but that on the contrary, science is made in the image of religious
dogma.

And so it is that in believing that we live in a free world, we are raised to think that
science is free, even though religion thrives and rules our world as surely as it ever did,
leading to our somnambulant existence under a blanket of sweet innocence, where ignorance
is always made out to be due to the sheer difficulty of things being otherwise. And so we
come to the nub of this work, the revelation that things are not as they appear to be, at a very
fundamental level of our social life we are deceived, and this is no mean deception, this is a
most remarkable thing, that stands everything on its head.

Knowledge as property

Property exists, this is reality. But how come, what makes the possession of property
possible ? We take such a feature of our life for granted, but it is probably a very interesting
subject, and one we can be sure much attention has been given to.
Without getting embroiled in the fascinating ideas concerning the origin of property,
we will just make the general point that it implies organisation, order, law, finance of some
kind, in short, property is a product of institutionalisation. And we make this statement
because it suits our purpose just right, for the more tricky objective of representing modern
knowledge within an ostensibly free society, as property, is best achieved by representing the
process of knowledge control as being organised through the elaborate formation of
institutions dedicated to the purpose.
 How can we explain that with the coming of the modern era of idealised freedom,
giving us a world in which atheism is tolerated for the first time ever, and science is unbound,
likewise for the first time ever, supposedly, that religion persists unabated, and science is
incapable of saying anything about what we humans are, or why we humans live as we do ?
Why is it that our politicians are not all professors of sociology ? How can this be ? Are all
our chemists students of chemistry ? Of course they are. What about our wonderful pilots,
are they all trained in the art of flying ? Yes, how could it be otherwise. Doctors, do they
know anything about medicine ? Durr, idiot, how long do we have to keep this up ? Well
answer me then, why are our law makers, our economists, our moralists, not all professors of
anthropology, students of the human animal, in other words ?
We do not mean by asking this question, to infer that any science can tell us anything
about how we should live, for this science cannot do, obviously, what we mean is to ask why
the science of human nature, can tell us nothing about human nature ? This is truly
incredible. Imagine if the science of chemistry could shed no light whatsoever on chemistry,
how weird would that be ? It is inconceivable, for surely if the science of chemistry could
not even get beyond stating what a chemical was, there would be no science of chemistry.
But you find me one example of a sociological work, that can tell you what society is, beyond
a collection of individuals variously arranged, which any idiot can see for themselves, and I
will, as they say, eat my hat.
And it is not as if we do not have an immense need for practitioners in the social arts,
for we are awash with law makers, military people, economists, moralists and who knows
what, so why is it that there are no links between being professors of anthropology and being
members of these ruling professions ?

Ownership of knowledge

The problem of owning knowledge must be as old as society itself, therefore in an

advanced society like ours, it is hardly surprising that special institutions exist to organise the
ownership of knowledge, which mirror the familiar management of social property. Of
course the transition from an absolute theocracy which is able to suppress freedom of
expression in society, to a world in which freedom exists, must, you would think, mean that
any institutional control of knowledge would be most impacted upon by this shift. Thus we
would expect the intellectual landscape to change dramatically as the shift is made away from
a world of oppression coming from religious authorities, to one in which atheists were
tolerated and science free to follow its own agenda.
This quite simply did not happen. Amazingly, the absolute theocracy was able to so
orchestrate the transition from an absolute theocracy to a free society, that nothing changed,
nothing whatsoever. This is a most amazing fact. How can it possibly be correct ?
The answer has to do with the nature of knowledge as property, and the references we
made to knowledge possession above when we spoke about the need for atheism to take
possession of science by allowing science to be free, as contrasted with the need for religion
to take possession of science by ensuring that science followed a religious agenda. We are
therefore saying that the academic institutions which existed to control knowledge for a
millennia, under an absolute theocracy, were so organised two centuries ago as to allow the
transition from overt absolute theocracy to covert absolute theocracy, to a state of ‘freedom’
that is, so as to ensure that absolutely nothing changed.

As a general argument, this suggestion is difficult to sustain, since by definition we

are faced with an institutional effort seeking to maintain a social fiction, which we isolated
and powerless atheists wish to oppose. As it happens, current affairs offers us an avenue of
approach toward this subject at this precise moment, since the Egyptian revolution climaxed
only two days ago, with the resignation of Mubarak. The run up to this momentous political
event revealed an underbelly of political machinations that we rarely get to see. In essence,
the Mubarak dictatorship was a structural element in the global organisation of Jewish power,
centred on Israel and maintained by Christendom as the one world superpower, represented
by America. These are the elements of the recent revelations of interest to us at present. The
present interest lies in the way this ruckus has revealed how Egypt served an institutional role
in securing the establishment of the newly formed state of Israel. Egypt fought wars with
Israel, which it lost of course, due to the Jewish control of America, and so Egypt then
became a dependency of Jewish controlled America. Hence freedom loving America,
imposed a vicious dictatorship on Egypt, in order to secure the interests of Israel.
What all this is leading up to is the theme of this event, which concerned how the
Jews were to keep things as they wanted them, to allow the demands of the people for
freedom to be controlled, without allowing the dictatorship to come to an end, in other words,
how to allow a move from dictatorship to democracy to take place without there being any
shift in the levers of control fixed on Judaism.
Here we place Judaism at the centre of all these goings on, as the core to be preserved
at all cost, but for the purposes of our discussion of knowledge as property, relative to the
subject of freedom personified in atheism and science, we only need speak of the abstract
entity of religion, as the manifestation of knowledge to be preserved at the core of the
knowledge management institutions.

Watching events unfold in Egypt over the past fortnight we can see how the interested
parties jockey for position when structural turbulence of this ‘evolutionary’ kind sets in.
Maintain the status quo is the first base, some toing and froing about the alternatives
surrounding this situation occurs, in which we discover the true nature of the sinews holding
the social structure together. We see the concerns expressed ; would the Muslim
Brotherhood, the only organised opposition party, we are told, come to the fore and renege on
the peace treaty with the Jews ? Occasionally we catch a snippet, if we watch very closely,
coming from a simple Egyptian person, who reveals the truth, that there are many opposition
parties, and our journalists are only reporting the frightening idea that the Muslims are the
only alternative because these professional defenders of freedom, serve the Jewish theocracy.
The game is relentless, the game of knowledge control. The impression, seen in full flight
like this, is one of a sailing ship weathering a storm, with all men to the rigging, clinging on
by any means possible, and trying to get back on course, the course being the preservation of
Jewish interests at all cost. In terms of the specific topic of religion in the modern English
context, the Jewish identity is of course at the core of this revolution too, but we need not
emphasise it so much just now. The point is that social transformations did cause the shift
from the age of overt religious autocracy pre-eighteen hundreds, to the open secular
democracy of today, and history reveals in no uncertain terms the decades, if not centuries
long struggle, that the religious establishment engaged in to keep religion in the driving seat,
finally returning matters to an even keel when they relinquished their grip on the tiller, and
allowed a management team to run the show for them—the scientists that is.

From overt to covert religious autocracy

At the centre of our argument so far has been this idea of knowledge as terrain to be
taken possession of, and held. Self evidently the world of knowledge was owned by the
theocracy in no uncertain terms up until very recent times, the exact times with which we are
dealing now, the times when atheism came out of the shadows and science took centre stage
in the formulation of knowledge.
How about now ?
It is already apparent that we are set on course to deny that what passes for freedom
today, is anything of the kind. The nature of the social storm which theocracy had to weather
concerning the ownership of knowledge was of a truly momentous kind, representing a
cultural revolution to rival any cultural revolution ever seen in human history. Returning the
ship to an even keel took dramatic action, so dramatic that it represents one the most amazing
things known to human kind, except, apart from ourselves, human kind as yet, has no idea
that this event has occurred.
Events in Egypt this last week have been of a purely political nature, and as such they
represent a minor tremor on the Richter scale of social movement. The events which saw
democracy come into existence, which this event in Egypt is one minor consequence of,
shook the world. This belated ripple on the north coast of Africa has caused next to no
physical damage, and it will almost certainly pass without making the slightest difference to
anyone, except a few people living near its epicentre. Not so with the continental wide, earth
shattering upheaval that saw atheism enter the light of day and science finally be granted
freedom to be science. This event rated a seven or eight on the Richter scale of social events,
near enough annihilation for all that went before, but, like the great earthquakes of the past,
such as San Francisco in 1906, this devastating social upheaval changed absolutely nothing in
the end, the theocracy hung on, and rebuilt from inside a protective shell of democracy,
freedom and science, within which it lies ensconced to this day.
Monday, 21 March 2011 – Reading these statements a few weeks on is slightly
amusing as since they were made Japan has been sent reeling by a massive earthquake that is
threatening a nuclear catastrophe ; while a couple of days ago the world went to war in
Libya ; and the Egyptians had their first ever referendum in which they voted for
constitutional change. Still the point remains the same, nothing ever changes, really, because
the core is always preserved, as people struggle to get back on track. On a personal level
such changes are significant and real, but deeper within the superorganic physiology, all
remains as it has always been, that is the secret of Judaism as a master identity, as it is indeed
the key to human corporate nature.

But how did the theocracy achieve this great act of survival ?
It did it by the only possible means available, by unleashing knowledge, by setting
knowledge free, and then by taking possession of knowledge from within the free domain.
This method of property possession mimics the method which also emerged in the world of
true economics, at the same time, the capitalist method of free enterprise which allowed
unfettered access to ‘property’, and from that position allowed free enterprise, corporations
that is, to take possession of the social fabric. Such unfettered freedom always leads to the
eradication of freedom, as the most powerful emerges as the sole survivor in an area where
the state declines to fulfil its controlling role, allowing social power to accrete in good old
Darwinian fashion. Where formerly the church had been the one power allowed to determine
what science could and could not say, the release of control over knowledge allowed the most
powerful corporations dealing with knowledge, the academic institutions, to take control and
oust all opposing voices, who were now free, but impotent. Thus the church became a
capitalist movement, not only in the real domain of property as we are familiar with it, but in
the domain of property as knowledge, with which we are so concerned now.
Tracing the historical process whereby science was set free and than captured from
this new perspective of freedom, is very easy to do, once you are aware of the situation, and
therefore looking for the telltale signs. But the meaning of what we are saying, is that today
science is a protective shell within which lies the age old absolute theocracy. And that is
quite something to say, for it means that science quite simply does not exist today, all there is,
is religion. Given that we live in a scientific age, where all knowledge is made by science,
this fact is truly astounding.
So lets look at the form of the two positions, that of the overt versus the covert
theocratic position. The overt position saw religion denouncing anything that contradicted
religion, we freely debate the incredible arguments arising from this position today. There
was a documentary on television recently, the beginning of 2011, which described how
Scottish thinkers played a leading part in the discovery of deep time processes, which had to
face the censure of the then scientific establishment which, for example, used the Bible to
work out how old the earth was, coming up with an age of 4004 years ! This was little over
two centuries ago, a mere twinkling of an eye in terms of social transformation and the
development of knowledge.
The nineteenth century then, is the may period of time with which we are concerned
when we speak about the shift from overt absolute theocracy to covert absolute theocracy. It
was during this most remarkable century that knowledge was transformed into a full blown
covert charade. The twentieth century has seen a continuing elaboration of this subversion of
science, while the eighteenth century saw the first great advances in scientific knowledge,
building upon the very first shifts in this direction occurring in the previous century. So there
was an ignition, a build up, then full-blown transformation, leading to an ongoing powering
along. The period of full-blown transformation is the nineteenth century, and it was in the
middle of this century that the theocracy got its act together, and reinvented itself by
reinventing the social structure, of which it has always been the unchanging core.
Many forms of scientific knowledge have come into being over the period we have
just outlined, but only one is of interest to us, the one which forms the lynchpin of the
theocratic deceit : the theory of evolution bequeathed to the world by Darwin.

At this time, this must be the greatest claim to which Atheist Science attaches itself,
the fact that Darwinism is a total fraud, the foundation of the absolute theocracy which
endures to this day, which continues to cause major social disruptions such as the still fresh
Egyptian revolution, causing all social action to rotate about itself, as all history has rotated
about it for many generations now.
But this assertion has science mimicking atheism, for it is an act of denial, a refutation
of the establishment dogma. This on its own is worthless, we need science to do what real
science does—to know reality—we need science to be positive, to say what is, not what it is
not. And it is the ability of science to come forward and say what science really is, replacing
Darwinism, that makes Atheist Science something real, and something to be reckoned with.
 Chapter 4

Science Occupied by Atheism

Till now, all the world has ever known is science made in the image of religion.
There has never been a true science of existence. We have set out the basic parameters as to
the reasons for this. These have to do with the fact that knowledge is a form of social terrain
to be possessed, whereby social authority has accredited in the form of institutions that
constitute the physical being of the superorganism, from whence authority arises that turns all
social fabric into property, as the extent and complexity of the living superorganism
advances. In scientific terms ‘property’ is simply the physical body of the superorganism, it
is not a personal possession, but part of the fabric of the superorganism associated with
individuals and corporations.
Since religion is a mode of construction taking place within the land of knowledge, it
follows that changes in the materials from which knowledge is constructed, the bare facts of
reality, must impact on the way the social authority ensconced within the social exoskeleton
of institutions, builds the structures it occupies. With the coming of new facts by the bucket
load, a radical restructuring programme was needed, and we see the result of that rebuilding
in the form of capitalism, democracy and the ideal of freedom and individuality. However,
the individuals attached to social authority such that authority was in effect their property,
always bearing in mind that there is no such thing as an individual, but who constituted the
powers that be, always sort to sail the ship through the storm, not to let a new vessel come
into being. And so, change as they did, they preserved the core, as proven by the fact that we
have a peculiar state of affairs referred to above whereby religion thrives and dominates our
world, while science says absolutely nothing of any practical use that supplants religion in
public affairs.
We have revealed that the method of preservation was to let science run free, and then
to take possession of it from the level playing field of freedom, from whence the theocracy,
through the various forms of social structure, allowed a new science to come to the fore, to
stand for the three big things which were to denote the new world : atheism, science and
freedom. Darwinism is this new expression of absolute theocracy, as proven by the fact that
it lives alongside absolute theocracy, without causing the least worries for the priesthood.
These social games are old hat to our masters, trained in the dark arts of social
management as they are. Just this week the government announced a hike in the levy banks
were to pay for something or other, a shift from £1.7 to £2.5 billion. The banks went
ballistic, and ministers claimed to be making the banks pay. Meanwhile bankers will pay
bonuses to each other of some £6 billion, and we know this show of outrage is just posturing
for the public. To us ordinary mortals such gamesmanship is beyond our usual range of
comprehension, but to our rulers, who play for high stakes, these are the basic rules of the
game they live by. And this is an important observation, for it applies to the manipulators
who must work behind the scenes to see that the Egyptian public get the freedom they want,
while nothing actually changes for real. Coming to the important bit for us, this is exactly
what the establishment had to do when faced with a storm of intellectual change that meant
the emergence of a whole new world of knowledge. How were they to let science come into
existence, revealing every last detail of reality, while ensuring that nothing changed, so that
all the vile nonsense of religion would stand impregnable ?
Clearly, there had to be science, but that science had to be sterile. This meant that the
science that would eventually come to be accepted by the world, would have to have all the
characteristics of a true science : it would have to be anathema to religion, it would have to be
at war with religion, it would have to be the vile thing that all religious people feared. And
yet, not quite. In fact, it would have to be based on principles at the core of religious dogma,
and as such it would have to be sterile, as we have said, and impotent to positively
countermand religious dogma. These requirements are what gave us the greatest science ever
known, the science of evolution manifested in the idea of Natural Selection.

OK, so we get that. Knowledge is a terrain to be occupied and built upon and
therefore possessed by social authorities. And the shift in the basic content of knowledge
with the new method of scientific observation, meant a new form of knowledge had to come
into being and the former owners needed to build their house from new materials. They did
this by letting science run its course in many incidental areas, only singling out the critical
areas for a battle to take place, leading to the formulation of Darwinism, which rules our
world today, and is utterly beyond question by any official commentator of any kind.
At the heart of this deception in terms of how we experience it in daily life is this
phenomenon that we called ‘sweet innocence’, where we accept the idea of freedom and the
ideal, which we then assume each independent authority lives up to according to its own
lights. Thus we would never think to question the truthfulness of Darwinism on the basis that
we live in an absolute theocracy, where science is compromised by its religious overlords,
that was the whole point of shifting from a theistic to a secular political form, to allow this
illusion to be projected upon society.
As atheists then, we tend to be taken in by the overwhelming power of the deception,
it is awesome after all. We love Darwin, he is our hero, and we think that Darwin expresses
our freedom of thought and gives us the free access to knowledge that is the best it can be, at
the present time. We fall hook, line and sinker.
But, there is one telling thing, one Achilles heel in this little game that these
miscreants play, as indeed there must always be in any game that seeks to control knowledge,
that flaw is the fact that in the end the presentation must be a fraud, and any fraud must have
a weak spot where it breaks lose from reality, if only that weak spot can be found. And that
is what Atheist Science does by way of making official science, into real science, by allowing
science to be free and to tell us what is absolutely true, by giving us absolute knowledge.

Absolute knowledge revealed

When atheism occupies science, absolute knowledge is revealed. Science then

becomes a ‘property’ formed according to reality as it is. This allows no one to possess this
knowledge, and therefore it destroys the very use for which the human capacity to know,
came into existence ; which is to form a core social authority that generates a superorganic
being, which that authority automatically possesses as ‘property’, over which it rules. This is
a fairly radical idea, think about it.
Why does religion come into existence by forming knowledge, which occupies the
terrain of knowledge and becomes a property possessed by an exclusive authority ? Why
cannot knowledge just be something we seek as persons ? This is the sweet innocence
scenario again, which is certainly what we are fed by those who provide us with our
knowledge. But the human superorganism creates knowledge for a very specific biological
reason, and if science removes that reason by revealing it, we are left with a form of property
of immense importance, that no one can own, and hence, no one can use. Which means the
superorganism cannot use genuine scientific knowledge of the nature of humans, to organise
individuals to form an authority which rules individuals, because individuals are not ruled by
reason, but by attachment to identities which cause them to support enclaves of social order.
This is akin to turning the whole world into a desert. If atheism occupies science, absolute
knowledge becomes known, and our existence comes to an end. Is this a problem ? Hitler
certainly thought so, which is why he hated atheism and loved Christianity, and in Mein
Kampf he explains these things exactly as we have done, but in his own sweet way.

True science

We can delay no longer, we must spit it out, and say what absolute knowledge is,
what it is that science must reveal if science is allowed to exist unfettered by constraints
derived from established interests.
The nineteenth century was the hotbed of knowledge, which saw the final solution
provided by the establishment : Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. This area
of knowledge was critical because it concerned the nature of life, and hence the nature of
humans. Even with the sterile formula given to it by Darwin, the idea of human existence
having been made subject to the laws of nature, still caused enough furore. We have seen
however, that furore is all part of the game. If Darwinism had not been reviled by religious
people it would of been most odd, so it was part of the trickery, for priests to whip up
indignation at the dehumanising implications of Darwin’s work, which would of been
rendered pointless if priests had begun by pointing out from the beginning that it had no
bearing on humans and could not be science for that reason, that a true science awaited
discovery therefore. Overtly religious people were never going to denounce Darwin on a
scientific basis, and scientific people were not going to do this because they were all drawn
from the establishment which constituted the fabric of the absolute theocracy.
In the end though, this is the whole point about Darwinism, it simply does not apply
to humans. And the reason why Darwin’s ideas do not apply to humans ? Because humans
are social living creatures, and Darwin’s ideas have nothing to say about the formation of
society, as is perfectly obvious from examining his books. Setting aside his ground breaking
master piece of 1859, the more relevant Descent of Man of 1871, says nothing about how
humans fit into the story of evolution, it just drivels on about apes and such like. I ask you,
what the hell have apes got to do with anything !! Are we apes ? No. And therein lies the
point, talk all you like about apes, but any fool can see that we are not apes, so when do we
get to talk about ourselves ? Ah well, yes, now there is the snag, we can’t talk about
ourselves, we just do not know what we are, we are different.
Which leads us to the critical point that any true science of life would have to tackle :
society.

Hence that is what Atheist Science does, it does what religious science, what
Darwinism, never did. Atheist Science begins by assuming God did not exist, and finds its
resolution of the scientific conundrum when it makes the explanation of society subject to
science, in absolute terms. There is only one way to make society subject to science, and that
is to make society a natural phenomenon created by nature.
 Society as a natural entity

Lets try and keep to a programme of gradual build up, so as not to shock the system
too much all at once. Today we are not taught to think of society as an entity existing in its
own right, if Darwinism is the main connection between ourselves and nature, this link is
certainly relayed through the social matrix. This state of affairs was quite otherwise before
Darwin came along. And when Darwin came along, the link was picked up and quite rightly
made the key to understanding all things, rightly in so far as this is what everyone was led to
believe was true in the first place. The upshot of this travesty of science was Social
Darwinism, Nazism, holocaust and taboo. The beauty of this process of knowledge control,
if we can use the word ‘beauty’ for such a vile, ugly process, is that it seems capable of doing
anything it wants. I mean, I ask you, science is cruising along quite happily, struggling with
religious oppression, but still, it is irresistibly bubbling up. Then, along comes the
theocracy’s solution to science, wrecks everything, and produces the most monstrous effect.
So the establishment eradicates everything truly scientific, namely the inclusion of society in
a naturalistic agenda, and preservers the cause of mayhem, the subversion of evolutionary
theory, as in Darwinism, and then makes any further experiments in thinking scientifically
about human nature utterly taboo, forever more !! I ask you, how do they do that ?
We can answer this question once we know what correct science looks like. But in
general terms, when we think of the monstrous forms of knowledge, such as any religion, it is
little wonder that priests have the power to create any similarly monstrous form of science,
and manipulate it to their hearts content.

The crucial thing to understand when we speak of society as a natural phenomenon is

that we mean to include society in nature, on a par with all other nature. This means that
society is made by nature, as surely as a dandelion may be said to be made by nature.
At first thought this is the obvious way to apply science to society, and, would you
believe, this is exactly what the first modern thinkers did, making them the forerunners of
sociology, sociology being the science of society. The problem with this approach, is that it
is correct, and the last thing the theocracy wanted was a correct scientific approach to the way
human society works. Darwin’s theory of natural selection was designed to short-circuit this
scientific method of understanding society. By making selection the mechanism
transforming life, and vesting the power of selection in an external agent, the environment,
Darwin made way for the existence of human agency as an emergent property of human
social behaviour. This isolated the ‘human environment’, rather than simply leaving humans
as the passive recipients of the adaptive process within the wider natural environment which
applied to all creatures, except humans, according to Darwin’s idiotic idea. Thus Darwin
made nature in humanity’s image, so that when it came to understanding humans, scientists
trained in Darwinian teachings found humans just happened to do what evolution did for all
life, for themselves ! Thus natural selection was cancelled out by human selection and,
surprise surprise, this meant humans made themselves and were not subject to nature at all.
Phew, thank goodness for that, science was stopped in its tracks and religion let loose to
continue wreaking havoc in the name of the superorganism, as it has always done.
What makes Darwinism idiotic, is that it does not apply to humans. Were scientist up
in arms over this, complaining that this left humans room for manoeuvre, in terms of
proclaiming uniqueness and an ability to act for themselves ? Hardly. Given that people
were not going to object in principle that science was not destroying their most treasured
possessions, things went in the other direction, as previously noted. Those interested in
applying science in an unrestricted way to society, were often quite likely to be of an
antagonistic bent towards the religious establishment, so they were just happy to have the
Darwinian gift, handing the property of knowledge to atheists for a change. But for atheism
to enter the domain of property ownership in the terrain of knowledge, on the back of this
invitation, was to drink from a poison chalice.
Darwin made nature work according to the political principles that apply to human
social life, so that when these principles were applied to human social life they simply cut
through all the subtle devices of human activity that ordinarily serve to moderate the
competitive angle. The result was an appalling view of humans as individual animals, instead
of the social beings we actually are. This culminated in ideas which came under the term of
eugenics, which in turn fed into the disgusting ideas of the Nazis. But the whole principle of
competition proved to be adaptable to any level of organisation, so that even when people
viewed the human being as a social entity, they then treated the social entity as a unit in
competition with other such entities, and this fuelled the other disastrous manifestation of
Darwin’s sick view of evolution based on natural selection, which is ideological racism.
Thus Darwinism proved to be an incredibly poisonous venom. Injected into the
newly emerging free society, it tore at ever fragment of its tissue, and simply killed the thing
stone dead. Leaving the old religious tissue as the only fragment left alive afterwards, giving
us the dead world of knowledge, occupied by religion as surely as it ever was anywhere in the
past. Ours is the world of the living dead today, the worst horror any fiction writer ever
conceived, and it describes our wonderful world to a tee. No wonder movies about vampires
are so popular, it expresses the love people have for movies about themselves !

The only possible way to understand humans as an integral part of nature, is to treat
being human as being synonymous with society. This means that society is the human life
form, and the individual does not exist. Setting aside for a moment, whether this is
reasonable or not, ask yourself what such an idea would mean for us. Think what it would
mean if science promulgated the idea that the human animal was a superorganism, and the
person was nothing more than a robotic, cellular unit within its flesh.
Like that idea do you ?

Well now, here’s the thing, if it is true, then whether you like it or not is neither here
nor there. And this fact shows itself in the world we live in. We may well be, for arguments
sake at any rate, exactly what our masters tell us we are, namely free thinking creatures that
make the world exactly as we want it to be. But if that is so, we need to ask ourselves how
come we make the world exactly as it would be if we were robotic, cellular units of a
superorganism, that we had not idea existed at all ?
It is a bit of a coincidence don’t you think. I mean, certainly we can understand
inequality, genocide, species extinction, frenetic, mindless destruction of all the planet’s
resources at the fastest possible rate of depletion we can manage, without any regard for the
future ; unbridled population increase, living conditions plummeting into the most base and
disgusting level, so worthlessness in the most rich and powerful nations ; the relentless
pressure to advance the spread of evil, nasty, ignorant value systems and the relentless war
against true knowledge, from the point of view of an engorging beast, hell bent by its biology
to expand until it can expand no more. Hell this is easy to understand, this is nature in the
raw. But, is it not curious that somewhere in this ever so short list of how we behave, given
that nothing whatsoever on a social scale happens unless we have all come together and first
mulled it over carefully and then taken a collective decision that what is about to happen, is
precisely what we want to happen, then you would think that somewhere, just once maybe,
for a fleeting moment at least, just one of these awful things would not be our chosen course
of action !!!!!!! Don’t you think ? Why if we are free willed do we act as if we are
nonexistent, so that our world appears to be the product of superorganic physiology driven by
a natural force over which we have not one fraction of control ?

Superorganism

Well of course the fact is that the animal as it evolved in nature is the mammalian
form of the superorganism, which has many counterparts in nature, most famously in the
insect world, ants, bees and termites being the typical example. Humans, as in the person,
you and me, simply do not exist, in any meaningful sense, where meaningful refers to the
sense in which we are said to exist as self driven ends in ourselves. What makes it blindingly
obvious that we do not exist, is the fact that we are entirely plastic in every detail of our
individuality that means everything to us as individuals, namely regarding our cultural
identity. Today we are Christian, but tomorrow, in a hundred years time that is, we may be
Muslim, just as yesterday, two millennia ago that is, we were Druids. As individuals we can
be moulded by the identity of the superorganism, any which way it likes, and we are perfectly
happy no matter what. So much so that we even take ideas telling us we are individuals, as
readily as we take anything else, it is incredible how malleable we are in these respects.
Things do not even have to be so dramatic, politicians mould us in real time as if we were
made of plasticine, one decade we are all homophobic drink drivers, the next we are all
homophilic haters of drinking and driving. And all because the politicians have either passed
or repealed a law, and initiated a massive wave of propaganda and real time implications in
the wake of these changes, so all we shift our deepest felt attitudes in an instant, to match.
So this is it folks, after all the preliminaries, this is where we meant you should be
right from the outset. This is absolute knowledge, this is the end of knowledge, once you
know that the human animal is truly a superorganism, and there is no such thing as a person,
as in the individual existing as an end in themselves, you have all knowledge, or the key to all
knowledge, as determined by science, a true science that is.
And if anyone should be in any doubt, the repercussions of this knowledge are such as
to make for a ten on the Richter scale of social upheaval, of that there is no doubt. Allowing
science to fashion knowledge according to this model, would mean developing a new kind of
property which left no room for any other kind whatsoever. Religion would be destroyed, all
religion, outright. The reason is simple, this opens the way to a positive description of human
life in purely functional terms. One example is that this provides a description of God’s
nonexistence on purely naturalistic grounds, avoiding all the usual knowledge about logical
disproof which merely takes the idiocy of religious dogma for its starting point and weaves
words in response, that get atheism nowhere.
With the idea that humans evolved to create a mammalian superorganism we have an
object to set all our observations against. Everything we see is then held up to the test of
superorganic being, and then we ask Does this fit or not ? In the case of religion, and
especially the figurehead of divine being, it is easy to see that religion imbues the social
entity with a true life of its own in which the idea of God culminates. Thus we can say that
Atheist Science can prove that God does not exist by showing what God is : God is the
superorganism.

If we look at the kind of atheist-cum-scientist given to us by the Darwinian creed,

epitomised by Richard Dawkins, we can see that the kind of statement we make about
religion is explanatory and functional. We do not seek to deny religion on the basis of its
obscene stupidity, we recognise that this is irrelevant because we do not exist, all that exists is
the superorganism, so that stupidity has nothing to do with the matter, functional operation,
as in unifying the social physiology can be the only concern. Dawkins rejects the idea that
humans are a superorganism, he takes it as a foregone conclusion that humans are individuals
and he denounces religion for all of its real foibles, viewed in terms of rational ideas, so that
he says we should not accept religion because it is bad and wrong. Fine, but it is not true.
Religion is functional, and that is why it exists, and this functionality can only be seen when
we know that humans are superorganisms and the individual is not the determinant of
functionality. The only conclusion we can come to when we see this incredible failure on the
part of a rampant and dominant atheist, is that this man is being supported by the same
institutions that created the Darwinian fraud long ago, and thus Dawkins failure to see reason
is not a failure, we need not suffer from the sweet delusion of true effort made but falling
short. No, this gross stupidity and a betrayal of science and atheism combined, on the part of
Dawkins, is, like the religion it protects, exactly what it is supposed to be.

23/03/2011

Things are really hotting up out there, in the world at large, you will never believe the
book that dropped on my hall floor yesterday, 23/03/2011. Get this for a title, I have not seen
titles like this since the amateur efforts of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries—The Last
Civilization : Is this the last civilization so far or the last one forever ? An objectively sever
look at our long past, and future, made possible by the whole new science of social evolution,
by Charles Brough, 2010.
This is the most remarkable book I have yet laid my hands on. Tragically it still
manages to come down on the side of fascist religion, despite saying the right thing, about
promising a sever look at reality. This man is as far from reality as any religious freak could
ever hope to be. But it is really straining to give the impression of taking account of
everything I have been arguing for over the last decade, indicating the increasing force of the
organicist idea out there, in the world at large.
I spent about one hour dipping into this book yesterday and making some notes on the
front fly leaves. The back cover immediately captured my attention and excited me, as it
began by talking about social evolution and naming Kidd, someone I have not seen
mentioned in a modern work, ever, and scarcely referred to in works while he was alive.
Brough notes the link between society and religion made in Benjamin Kidd’s work, but there
was something missing. Digging into the text it was not good. First off, he made humans the
masters of language in the most unabashed way I have ever seen. This is quite disgusting and
utterly fatal to any scientific idea of what it is to be human, but exactly what is required for
religion. So it was just more of the same old stuff. But, this same old stuff was presented in
a very different form, the work is shot through with the idea of the human superorganism
which he takes great care, just like Bloom, to make sure means nothing and does not conflict
with religious principles.
So I made some notes, picking up the places where he touched on organicism, and
indicating where he was talking nonsense. One nice touch however, is that he does expressly
deny that humans are superorganisms :

There is no basis for seeing social organisms as breathing, city-sized “social animals”,
one with cybernetic brains, electric transmission line nervous systems . . .
(p. 180)

So at least he is addressing the subject, but from this reference to an analogical method he
might be responding to other recent work picking up the organicist idea and dealing with the
city. I have ordered such a work just last week, we will have to see what it looks like. Of
course this puerile analogical method was fronted by Spencer in the nineteenth century and it
has nothing to offer, being worse than useless as science. There is no index to this book and
the bibliography does not identify a single organicist author of old, nor does he name Bloom.
The books he does list are often quite dated and there was next to nothing of any recent date
so I marked few items to look for, and I found nothing I wanted when I did look. Brough is
certainly not a mainstream academic of any kind, as per usual with people touching on
organicism in recent times.
What did catch my eye later on, after I had finished an initial review, was a passage in
the introduction where he says “consensus social theory has not been able to be
objective.” (p. x), and then he comes out with the most amazing statements :

For centuries, social theorists have been adapting the West’s eighteenth century Age
of Enlightenment and Age of Reason based secular world-view, and fitting it to coexist with
liberalized Christianity to provide necessary stability to Western society and civilization.
(p. x)

The social theorist consensus has always interpreted social science data in ways that allow
both secular and religious doctrines to still be regarded as “inherent Truths.”
(p. xi)

In these two sentences we have the usual positive interpretation of abject failure by
science, with a twist. Here, this pseudo intellectual creep, blithely admits that the subversion
of science was deliberately performed, in the name of religion ! Would you believe it ? This
is the war of religion against science he is coughing up to here, and saying it had been a good
thing and necessary ! Shithead. So his line is that now this control of knowledge must end
because the exploitation it fosters is destroying our world. His argument is simply a
continuation of the exact same corruption of science in the name of religion, for the reason
that science must destroy society as we know it if it be allowed to run free. And this is so,
science must destroy society if it is allowed to run free, which is why we had the two world
wars and the rise of the Nazis, to ensure we kept knowledge under the thumb of religion. So
what do you want, a world ruled by the Nazis, as now, or a world where we are free, a world
without Jews ? It is one or the other, and it cannot be both, about that much this vile insect of
a man is right.
You do get it don’t you ? If the Jews are the masters of all earth that rule when things
are good, and then when time for the harvest comes they don a new cloak, the Nazis for
example, and butcher us, then they resume business as usual as the familiar Jew, Christian,
Muslim, Darwinist, or whatever, then we can best capture the reality of our world when
everything is peace and love, by crediting its existence to those who ensure its periods of
peace by engaging in bouts of mayhem. Thus our world is a world ruled by Nazis, because
without the Nazis the bounty of being exploited by the Jews, would not be possible. This is
why we have evil Mr Bloom, because without it our masters could not farm us in what we
call the ‘good times’.
What Brough does not get, because he does not understand that society is a biological
organism created by nature, is that religions evolve in as an expression of passive linguistic
force that emanates from the actively evolved linguistic physiology of speech, the use of
which spontaneously creates language and hence, social authority, giving rise to a core
authority structure which, in the shape of a master religion, drives the exploitation of all
resources to the maximum. And this is why we humans burnout everything we can get our
hands on, as quickly as we can, just as all natural processes do. This elaboration explains
why we get a detached master identity like Judaism, which produces aggressively
expansionist slave forms, where the structural delineation setting people at odds with each
other, that we call ‘civilisation’, is what allows exploitation to proceed without any of the
restraint that integrated—single identity order, free societies do practice—so that complex
master identity social forms create a superorganism of the greatest possible extent.
Exploiting all available energy for a process, is the only strategy nature knows, and while the
process of stellar evolution is the best example of this energy consuming process that we
know of, the evolution of humans societies, comes a pretty close second. One wonders what
will be left when the Jewish global society goes supernova, and collapses in upon a burnt out
self. The idea is more than poetic, given a few more centuries conjuring with genetic
technology we may possibly have a real, long term impact on the forms of life taking our
place when nature has run the course of her human experiment.
Meanwhile, the show must go on, the capitalists have just milked us dry in a process
of financial meltdown, so now they turn up the notch of exploitation to fatten us up ready for
the next debacle ; they call it helping industry to create jobs ! Don’t you just love they way
these fuckers pluck our linguistic strings, you have to admire their artistry. Ha, stuff your
fucking jobs, just get off our backs you damn leeches. Look at what our Tory government
announced in the budget this week, a relaxation on planning laws that have been a hopeless
aid to our protection from rampant capitalism that destroys our communities—business is all
that matters. Who cares about what the cattle want ? Half a million people have been on the
streets today, Saturday, 26 March 2011, and the fascists that these people voted into power do
not give a toss now they have had the votes, their only aim is to fuel the increase of wealth
amongst the wealthy by grinding down the powerless. Political attempts to manage the
process of ecological degradation are contained by the urge to exploit that comes from the
hierarchical biological social order, over which rational humans have no control whatsoever,
why the hell else would we build nuclear weapons, and use them on one another ? Not to
mention the lesser paraphernalia of death that is the eternal idol of Jewish civilisation. So, if
humans want to take control of their own human world, the first thing that science must do, is
bring an end to the dominion of religion.
What we have in Brough then, is the most fascinating example of a liar, a criminal,
caught out. the subject is the war of religion against science, which, since Darwin provided a
basis upon which to pretend science is free, has done an about-face, and made out like the
war is over. But here, this man is acting like the game is up, a confession confined to
sociology where the war has continued in a supposedly isolated pool created by Darwin
hiving life of from nature, by placing humans in a sea of nature which left their social product
floating and adrift, in terms of being part of that ocean. So, just as the liar does when caught
out in life, this degenerate says “So what.”, “Who cares ?”, “Our lies were good lies.” This is
a very American attitude, it is the attitude of omnipotent arrogance found in all ages no doubt,
but it is wonderful to see it appear here, in the realms of the war of science against religion,
as this shows the fight coming back, with atheism pressurising the psychopathic religious
freak, again, at long last.

It really is a most unusual turn of events. Turning back to the text, he follows up the
observation that society is not a living organism by saying “the main reason to recognize
societies as super-organisms is that it is practical to do so.” (p. 181) This idea chimes with
our proof that God does not exist, by showing that God is in reality the superorganism. So
here Brough is saying society is not a superorganism, but if we want to take a scientific
approach to society then we must treat society as if it were a superorganism ! Too much.
Idiot. This is because society is an organism and he is just prevaricating to keep up the
religious, Jewish rule over our world, by any argumentative means possible, in the usual style
of a Christian freak.
 The last thing of interest is the glossary, in which he does at least take the trouble to
define terms that academics would much rather ignore, well almost. For ‘social organism’ he
refers us to ‘society’, where we find the point that caught my eye : “Societies are social, not
biological organisms and are a super-organism life form.” (p. 247) Apart from the bad
English, what on earth does this mean ?
I just read his definition of Judaism, boy, that is a weird one. It is all very amateurish,
Now, how does he define ‘evolution’ ?

EVOLUTION : genetic change wrought by natural selection in living organisms. (p. 243)

OK, that shows he blindly accepts Darwinism and it also explains his approach to
defining a society as social and not biological, while still feeling able to say it is a super-
organism, because he is adopting the usual Darwinist stance, with a twist which allows some
convoluted talk about society being made up of cells, because we are made up of cells and
society is made up of us. Note, he is not saying that we are the cells of a living
superorganism. It is all so pathetic, the only reason to bother with it is because it picks up the
organicist theme as a topic to pay attention to, thus indicating a sudden new trend breaking
out in the new century, for the first time since the nineteenth century, before the great
Cleansings of the two world wars, and this must be encouraging. Another idea he introduces
me to is ‘swarm intelligence’, which is a kind of social mind idea, and he names a book
related to this idea, an old modern one at that, which I must check out. Nothing there.
All in all, different and interesting as an intellectual object, but otherwise very poor
effort. The other good thing about this book is that its actual purpose is to face up to the
problems created by a global superorganism, so that he says we must have a genuine social
science and this is why he is attempting to utilise the idea of the social organism. But
unfortunately he is trying to walk two paths simultaneously, exactly as he says we have long
done, in order to obtain the benefits of insight without rocking the boat upon which our world
sails. I of course want to sink that boat, and I want unrestrained insight accordingly, so that is
all you will find in my work. But because Brough is mostly concerned with the problem of a
global society, he does something I have often thought of doing but never been able to get my
head around, because I am not interested in compromising knowledge for the sake of
expediency. He gets to grip with the practicalities of how we might manage our global world
going forward, so this section of his work would bear more study, if I was really up for such
speculative, political type discussion. But I am not, I just want science, free and unrestrained.
 Chapter 5

Philosophy of Atheist Science

According to the eighteenth century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes “The end of
knowledge is power”. He tells us this at the beginning of De Corpore where he begins a
paragraph, “The end or scope of philosophy is . . .”. In this section he justifies this assertion
thus :

For the inward glory and triumph of mind that a man may have for the mastering of some
difficult and doubtful matter, or for the discovery of some hidden truth, is not worth so much
pains as the study of Philosophy requires ; nor need any man care much to teach another what
he knows himself, if he think that will be the only benefit of his labour.
(Thomas Hobbes, Gaskin, 1999, p. 189)

Reading this first off, I thought my effort to deliver true knowledge to the world contradicted
the assertion that a person would not simply want to pass what they had learnt, at great pains,
to others, purely for the sake of it. I considered that the erroneous conclusion was due to an
incorrectly constructed premise. Then I thought about the title of this work, De Corpore
Politico (1655), The Political Body, and reconsidered this assertion, which, although framed
in the terminology of the person, as if the political body were a person—an idea Hobbes is
famous for working out along mechanical lines in his Leviathan—if applied to the pursuit of
knowledge as it comes to be established in society, his assertion fits the bill perfectly. For
that is what we are saying ourselves : that the production of knowledge is all about the
establishment of social power. And this is why we find that in the end, the search for
knowledge has nothing to do with the attainment of knowledge, as it is supposed to have
been enacted in modern science, but rather, it is all about the possession, or control of
knowledge. First religion takes possession of the property that knowledge is, then natural
knowledge is taken possession of in a collaborative and necessary act of extension, to this
initial establishment of social power through the formation of an idea of existence, which
places power at the centre of a religious identity. All of which is a realisation of the potential
of human corporate nature, driven by passive linguistic force, that creates of social form.

On a truly personal level, I may affirm that things are different regarding myself, a
true philosopher, not a professional academic or priest-cum-politician type. I have always
been alienated from society, it was a cultural mode of the decades in which I grew up, being
born in 1955. I spent my life searching for a solution to the extraordinary problem of
religion, never expecting to find a solution myself, being totally take-in by the pretence that
our leaders in knowledge purveyance sort the truth ! Blind fool that I was. Upon discovering
the truth, that our greatest scientific knowledge had been subverted and suppressed, then
faked, I realised that I was a philosopher. It is no mean feat to, alone and singlehandedly,
discover the greatest knowledge any human being could ever hope to possess, that many
millions of the greatest minds have sort after, for all the time civilisation has existed. I alone
have accomplished this task, and you have the prove, in miniature, before you, doubt it if you
can. It was then that I realised that I was a philosopher, in the same way Mozart was a
musician or Rembrandt a painter, it is in my blood to seek knowledge, and to have the
wherewithal to find it ; a rare gift, but not one favoured by society unfortunately.
It follows from what I am saying that my motives are not those of the social body, as
nicely delineated by Hobbes. Therefore there is no positive idea of seeking power involved
in my search for knowledge, although the urge to seek an explanation as to why so vile and
disgusting a thing as religion rules over your world, is a negative expression of an urge for
power, in the same sense that a slave seeking freedom is driven to obtain something that has
been taken from them, that they want back. I just caught a fraction of the religious
propaganda show The Big Questions on BBC 1, 27/03/2011 11:00, and the debate concerned
the religious question in the census we are required to do today. A man gave a very eloquent
explanation as to why the state should be blind to religion and received a huge applause ; yet
oddly, he said he went to church ever Sunday, I do not get that. Anyway, some old tosser
shouted out that this is a recipe for a humanist tyranny, which he explained was so because it
meant ignoring the views of the religious. What he overlooked was the part of the statement
that began by pointing out that religion was utter trash knowledge, and extremely dangerous
for children, or, as I would say, the sole point of religion is to form a fascist political power
base. Which means this religious bigot was saying that seeking to disempower religious
fascists amounted to an atheist tyranny ! And that says it all really, because it indicates that
religion engenders fascism anyway you look at it, allowing the religious to accuse their
opponents of doing what they do, when they try to constrain religion politically. Which they
never succeed in coming close to anyway, because of the power of the religious freak to
corrupt and control all expressions of linguistic force in keeping with the core identity of
Judaism, a facility which is built into the structure of the superorganism of course, which is
precisely what this whole argument is all about. But the religious fascist is always prepared
for the possibility of having their autocratic power compromised. My search for knowledge
relates to a desire for power in the sense of resisting this absolute, authoritarian power, that is
personified in religion. It is also about a natural desire for true knowledge, something many
people are supposed to feel, but I see no evidence of this whatsoever, at any point in human
history, no one ever simply seeks the truth, though they may think they do.
Being a philosopher by nature, I found myself in possession of ultimate knowledge
quite by surprise, in my middle years, and the thing that occurred to me right away, was that
after all this effort, now I would take this knowledge to my grave. So, contrary to what
Hobbes says, I do want to simply give the fruits of my life’s work to the world, and if I can
do that, given what that fruit is, that will be a considerable achievement. Please, take it,
someone, take it, please !!

Theocracy engineers science

The idea that knowledge is, in the end, only ever pursued for the advantage it confers
on the core power within society, that we say always rests with the absolute theocracy that all
societies are, and must always be, begs the question how this process is managed. In a book
called simply Science, we have a few discussions which at least validate the general idea.
Trying to escape the confines of self centred views, Fuller asks who the Islamic and Japanese
worlds think about Western attitudes to science. He indicates the concerns that Islam has
with the way Western society has allowed science to threaten traditional values :
 Initially, Muslims deliberately refused to follow the West’s path of allowing science
to become so autonomous from the rest of society that it frequently threatened its moral
constitution. In contrast, the West has pursued knowledge at the expense of wisdom.
(Science, Fuller, 1997, p. 107)

This is a neat demonstration of how the fiction ruling our world, about the autonomy
of science, is simply picked up and pumped out by everyone, making it as pervasive as the air
we breath, and nye on impossible to question, until you have a real reason to do so, such as I
provide in my work.
The following touches on just how the overt theocracy, equally opposed to science as
Islam is to this day, managed the transition to a covert absolute theocracy by creating the
illusion that science was now free to go its own way :

Most of the European advisers hired by the Japanese cautioned against the promotion
of scientific training that was not securely grounded in what Kant had called the ‘public’ use
of reason. Kant’s original idea was the Enlightenment one of people participating in decisions
that are taken to apply their knowledge. They would be no mere technicians serving another
master’s ends, but knowledgeable agents who would share responsibility for the situations in
which their expertise played a role. However, as the Kantian ideal was institutionalized in the
modern German university, students of the natural sciences and engineering had first to be
trained in the humanistic subjects of philosophy, history, and the arts to ensure that the
appropriate value orientation — one friendly to Western (more specifically, Prussian-
national) sensibilities about democracy, open-mindedness, and criticism — is transmitted.
(Ibid., p. 127)

This ploy of science being involved in the application of its ideas, smacks of modern
political speak that we are all so familiar with in these days of ever present live media
coverage. In other words it is an appealing verbal representation of an extremely offensive
idea or intention. This Kantian idea is clearly a licence for anyone with the power to do so, to
control science according to their own bias needs, yet it is expressed in the abstract terms of
an ideal motive. This is how the absolute theocracy set about transforming society into the
image of a free world, ruled by science, yet still as tightly encased in the vice like grip of
absolute theocracy as any world could ever be, only now, no one would have the least idea
that this was so. The Muslims may well of looked on in dismay at the way Western powers
had allowed society to go, but their unsophisticated outlook missed the point, as do most of
us, for the Western way was like the Ancient Greek philosopher Aesop’s moral tale of the
struggle between the wind and the sun to get a man to remove his coat, where the sun worked
with the man to get him to remove it himself. The shift from fighting to suppress knowledge,
to allowing people to think they had won the battle and now had knowledge, was a trick of
sublime beauty that has brought the ancient, horrific world of the past, right down to the
present.
The real shift on the part of theocracy however, was the move into advancing science
on its own behalf, culminating in the greatest act of knowledge fraud yet seen in our world,
Darwin’s Origin of Species of 1859. That Natural Selection is a piece of errant nonsense is
perfectly obvious, it is pure political theatre that can have nothing whatsoever to do with the
process of life as seen on earth. This is as obvious as the fact that the Christian gospel is a
piece of errant nonsense, but that did not hinder the act of manufacture, the ease of
imposition, or prevent a never ending trail of enthusiastic support, in both forms of the
religious possession of knowledge. The essence of life, or the nature of living matter as
distinct from none living matter, is Information, thus information must be regarded as the life
force. Darwin’s imposition of Natural Selection, insinuated itself into the position where this
scientific idea of information as a life force, should of gone. Natural Selection is clearly an
informational process, although Darwin does not describe it as such, the fact that genetics has
been shown to be the bedrock of evolutionary transformation proves this to be so. The Neo
Darwinist school of the last quarter of the twentieth century picked up on this fact in order to
update the fraud that, as professional scientists, they have been trained to support, in keeping
with Kant’s principles on the art of doing science. Thus we find the likes of E. O. Wilson
spewing forth nonsense about Natural Selection being the force behind evolution ! Ha ha ha,
what a . . . Well, choose your own expletive. You can find a section entitled The Forces of
Evolution on page seventy five of Wilsons’s The Diversity of Life, 1992, which we will not
examine here, as, in the first place it is self evidently nonsense from the outset, and in the
second, this present item is intended to introduce, rather than deliver a full exposition on,
Atheist Science. Darwinism then is a barricade behind which religion lies as snug as a bug in
a rug, impregnable against any attack science might make, because this is where science
begins, with the charade that is Darwinism. It is this fact which has forced Atheist Science to
see the light of day.

Progress

What this method of running with the grain of human nature means, is that we are
forever being flattered, forever being told that our world is wonderful. Because we are the
First World, we are the elite of the planet’s folk, with all the wealth and power vested in our
Western culture. We are privileged, and inclined to want our comfort to be affirmed with
philosophical platitudes. One such platitude is the idea of ‘progress’. In intellectual circles it
is a matter of routine to speak of modern ideas in a positive light, and past ideas are
selectively dealt with. In effect Atheist Science is turning this bias on its head and saying that
in its first flush of unbridled freedom, science was perfect, if unsophisticated, in its
deliberations. Technical advances in science have been astounding, and this strengthens the
urge to think that modern ideas must be superior to old ideas. If we imagine scientists writing
treatises in which they regret that in the ninetieth century science was free to speak in
genuinely scientific terms about the nature of society as a social organism, whereas now it is
a well know scientific fact that this true knowledge is false, we would be left banging our
heads on the wall in an attempt to jumble the meaning of the words we read, into making
some sense. So it is an absolute imperative that modern knowledge is superior to past
knowledge from which it differs, otherwise old knowledge would remain valid today !
Where we find old knowledge was vastly superior to more recent times, as with
certain ideas mooted in ancient times to do with atomic theories and heliocentric orbits about
the sun, we make excuses about the odd thinker being before their time. Never is the reason
given, that these irregularities in the direction of time’s arrow with regard to knowledge, have
to do with the corporate nature of humans and the consequently physiological function of
knowledge within the superorganism we are part of, or any such functional explanation.
Today then we must understand this point, knowledge does not progress because
knowledge is not an ideal phenomenon created at the behest of human freewill. As indicated
by Hobbes remark above, knowledge exists for a functional purpose, and this is not
determined by human consciousness as Hobbes implies, but by the imperatives of human
biology. Modern knowledge is therefore not only not superior to old knowledge, necessarily,
it is in point of fact inevitably vastly inferior, where the conflict remains between science and
alternative explanations of reality. Such as we find in fields of expression like religion,
which are variously said to be beyond the realm of science, or to deal with alternative kinds
of knowledge, or as that most horrible scientist Gould said, these two areas represent different
magisteria. Gould’s idea was apparently rejected on both sides according to Dennett in
Breaking the Spell : Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, 2006, page thirty, but it is the usual
kind of stuff that we find the priesthood never tires of pumping out. While all the time they
only need one idea if they want the truth, the idea that we provide, which says that humans
are mammalian superorganisms, and the individual person does not exist as an end in
themselves, being merely a sentient brick unit of superorganic physiology. Dennett, like
Dawkins, is a Gatekeeper of the Theocracy, a rabid atheist, a champion of science, most
especially Darwinism, and not someone to be fooled by, though obviously we are.
I have never examined Dennett to any great degree, just looking at Breaking the Spell
to find the comments on Gould, I noticed another page that had previously caught my
attention where he talks about selfish memes, without using this phrase. Page one hundred
and eighty six, has a lovely discussion that we would simply describe as the linguistic force
expressed as a linguistic programme, organising sentient brick activity to create the living
superorganic physiology. Dennett is evidently determined to stick to the religious principle
that the human animal is the person, and this is what makes him, and Dawkins, both priests of
the theocracy, no matter what representations to the contrary they bombard us with. What
Dennett’s ensuing discussion misses by misplacing the true object of human being, is the
central point that religion imparts identity. So that words are not the possessions of
individuals, freely chosen by them. But information packages of superorganic being,
imparting consciousness to individuals in a structured way, that makes the person as mindless
as the ant which obeys the dictates of pheromone communication, and lets a parasite suitably
dressed into the community to feed at leisure. There is no difference between an ant and a
human in this respect therefore. Dennett says “No ant can put itself in the service of a
Word.” (p. 187), a completely fatuous remark if ever there was one, exactly the kind of thing
we would expect a self satisfied religious dogmatist to come out with. He has already said,
on the previous page, that the very “word Islam means “submission.” ”, indicating that the
words we acquire during our acculturation process possess our consciousness, making us
powerless to think outside the dictates of the language our brains are programmed with. And
how does this idiot think we get to choose whether or not to be Muslims or Christians, and so
on ?
Of course, we can complain all we like, but the opposite scenario is inconceivable :
that anyone would say what we say, that humans are superorganisms and individuals do not
exist. Imagine a world in which this idea ruled. It did rule to some extent up until the Great
Cleansing of 1914-18, and slightly thereafter, until the next act of cleansing which recovered
Western society for the Jews, and this is precisely why this true idea no longer exists :
because it has existed before.
This is the true nature of progress in knowledge with regard to science, the shift away
from truth, back to dogma. A particularly anti-scientific, recurring feature of Dennett’s
argument, is his deference to how individuals wish to be thought of “They [religious people]
don’t want to see themselves” (p. 185), he tells us. What scientist cares what religious
people, as a category, a type of person, have to say about the nature and meaning of religion ?
Do psychologists begin an account of pathological behaviour by telling us what ‘deviants’
think of themselves ? : whether drug dealers see themselves as evil ? if peadophiles regard
themselves as sick ? or homosexuals saw themselves as perverts before 1968 ? Who cares
how categories of people see themselves, other than as a source of data to be interpreted
according to a physiological model ? Only science can say what human behaviours mean,
otherwise the idea of science in human affairs means nothing ! The first principle of
sociology as a science, is that the sociologist can no more ask a person what their behaviour
means than a zoologist can ask an ant why it acts as it does. Obviously the first rule of
sociology as it is taught in universities, entirely inverts this scientific rule, saying that
sociology is unique because sociologists can ask individuals what their behaviour means, so
they do not have to rely upon their data obtained as detached observers. But we all know
why this absurdity rules the academic roost, don’t we.

Gatekeepers

The idea of a Gatekeeper of the Theocracy is a consequence of the Atheist Science

stance, whereby science has been fashioned in the name of absolute theocracy, along with the
whole edifice of society, meaning that incredible science like that of Darwin’s, needs to be
continuously protected from the decay of the barricade that it constitutes, protecting the
theocracy, as it does. Dawkins is by far and away the number one Gatekeeper, for many
years he was my sole object for the use of this term, but we have just noted Dennett, and
another fine example of the type is another wonderful, popular scientist of immense prestige,
Carl Sagan. The following selection is a perfect slice of this priests work on behalf of the
theocracy, we must be aware however, that there is no reason why Sagan should know he is a
fraud, and in keeping with well know principles of deceit, it is always best that deceivers
have no idea that they are deceiving, so they act as agents of the message, of the linguistic
force behind the superorganism indeed :

SCIENTISTS, like other human beings, have their hopes and fears, their passions and
despondencies—and their strong emotions may sometimes interrupt the course of clear
thinking and sound practice. But science is also self-correcting. The most fundamental axioms
and conclusions may be challenged. The prevailing hypotheses must survive confrontation
with observation. Appeals to authority are impermissible. The steps in a reasoned argument
must be set out for all to see. Experiments must be reproducible.
The history of science is full of cases where previously accepted theories and
hypotheses have been entirely overthrown, to be replaced by new ideas that more adequately
explain the data. While there is an understandable psychological inertia—usually lasting
about one generation—such revolutions in scientific thought are widely accepted as a
necessary and desirable element of scientific progress. Indeed, the reasoned criticism of a
prevailing belief is a service to the proponents of that belief ; if they are incapable of
defending it, they are well advised to abandon it. This self-questioning and error-correcting
aspect of the scientific method is its most striking property, and sets it off from many other
areas of human endeavor where credulity is the rule.
The idea of science as a method rather than as a body of knowledge is not widely
appreciated outside of science, or indeed in some corridors inside of science. For this reason I
and some of my colleagues in the American Association for the Advancement of Science
have advocated a regular set of discussions at the annual AAAS meeting of hypotheses that
are on the borderlines of science and that have attracted substantial public interest. The idea is
not to attempt to settle such issues definitively, but rather to illustrate the process of reasoned
disputation, to show how scientists approach a problem that does not lend itself to crisp
experimentation, or is unorthodox in its interdisciplinary nature, or otherwise evokes strong
emotions.
(Broca’s Brain : The Romance of Science, Sagan, 1979, p. 82)

Talk about self-satisfied complacency ! If only that were what this sample really was,
so much the better would it be, that we could overcome with ease.
Before I saw the light I thought the world of Sagan, as no doubt I did of Darwin,
Dawkins and all the other fantastic voices for science, who always echoed my contempt for
religion and such like weak-mindedness. I was a dupe like everyone else.
 The Darwinian fraud is a monumental thing, the more you think about it, the more
fantastic it becomes. If we step back for a moment and think about it, the only thing to
compare it with is religion itself, which pervades the world it occupies. Darwinism pervades
the world it occupies, and if it is a fraud, as we insist it self evidently is, then this is truly
remarkable. But we know for certain that Darwinism is a fraud from the first moment,
because it does not include humans within its reach, and since humans are living things, this
proves immediately that Darwinism cannot be right. You would think someone would of
noticed this, wouldn’t you ?
As it happens I lifted a book from a shelf last night, 29/03/2011, called The Scientific
Origins of National Socialism : Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist
League, Daniel Gasman, 1971, and found an exquisite passage therein :

Following the teachings of Haeckel directly, the Monists insisted that for man the
‘same laws must be valid today which have regulated the life of other species for millions of
years.’ and these were to be found exclusively in the natural and not in the historical world. In
the construction of any science of society it had to be kept clearly in mind that man could
never hope to transcend his animal essence and character and escape into a deceptively idyllic
world free from the competition, conflict, and aggression that characterized nature. ‘Natural
selection in the struggle for life,’ Haeckel wrote, ‘acts so as to transform human society just
as it modifies animals and plants.’ There need be no disappointment in recognizing this, for
in fact man benefits from unfettered struggle. ‘Does not human nature,’ Dr. Johannes Unold,
the Vice-President of the Monist League pointed out, ‘lose its best characteristics and fall into
weakness and somnambulism when there is general happiness and a termination of the
struggle for existence ?’ It had to be realized that ‘every deviation from natural conditions
brings with it inescapably grievous punishment.’ Failure to follow the laws of nature directly
can lead to the ‘crippling’ of man and to the ‘deterioration of the individual and his family.’
For this reason biology had to ‘demand’ that sociology follow the laws of nature.
It would be difficult to overemphasize the significance of the acceptance in Monist
thinking of the literal continuity between the laws of nature and the laws of society. Any
comparison which they made between the social and the natural world was in no sense
analogical. Just as man was a product of nature so too was the society in which he lived a
direct outgrowth of the natural world. Neither history nor its institutions represented a break
or departure from nature in any way. And this position was maintained by Haeckel and the
Monists with the utmost seriousness and dedication. They held to no Hegelian ideas about
history as the process of the unfolding of reason, nor to any Marxian conceptions about the
conquest of nature by the social and technological forces of production, nor to any Comtian
stages of intellectual development. To the Monists, rather, civilization as a distinctively
human creation literally did not exist. ‘History,’ Haeckel wrote, is ‘wrongly taken to mean,’
the history of ‘civilization, morals, etc.’ What he meant was that the ordinary history of the
deeds, thoughts, and institutions of men was a pale and insignificant reflection of reality. For
him, any consideration of civilization apart from nature and its laws was simply not
worthwhile. Real history, he insisted, ‘joins what is called the history of the world to the stem
-history of the vertebrates.’ Sociology as an independent science of an autonomous human
realm was to him inconceivable. ‘When we take it in its wider sense human sociology joins
on to that of the nearest related mammals’ and all ‘social rules’ are ultimately reducible to the
‘natural laws of heredity and adaptation.’ For Haeckel, therefore, there existed no aspect of
social science which could not be understood and expressed in biological terms.
To be sure, the discovery of the animal nature of man and an awareness of its possible
implication for society was not limited to Haeckel and the Monists in the decades around the
turn of the century. To a large extent they moved along the same paths as those of Sigmund
Freud and his psychoanalytic followers, who under the influence of the new biology also
turned their attention to the importance of the biological and instinctual nature of man.
 Whereas Freud, however, sought to caution society against the pursuit of the irrational and of
the danger inherent in allowing man’s animal and sexual instincts to have free reign, the
Monists came to a very different conclusion. Since man is limited, they argued, by his animal
nature, he could only weaken himself by attempting to impose upon life an erroneous
intellectualism and rationalism. As a humanist, Freud felt that man’s rationality could
triumph over nature, although it is also true that he became increasingly and pessimistically
aware of the high price that would be exacted in human suffering for such a victory. For
Haeckel and the Monists, on the other hand, there could be no humanistic cultural triumph
over the forces of man’s animal nature and character. And it was this rather pessimistic and
cynical conclusion which served to distinguish Monist naturalism from most, if not all,
previous naturalistic attempts to explain man as an unique and superior creature of nature.
Thus, in advocating the literal application of the laws of nature directly to society, the
Monists believed that they had fathomed the deepest need of theoretical sociology, a
scientifically established guide to action and to cultural and social reorganization unhampered
by any humanistic illusions. ‘Until now,’ a leading Monist wrote, ‘those who spoke the most
about the ideals of mankind, knew the least about the true nature of man.’
(Gasman, pp. 34 – 36.)

This is the best item I have ever found, anywhere. I love it because it focuses in upon
the critical topic, as closely as it is possible to get. Discussions of this topic are exceedingly
rare. Gasman is utterly opposed to a scientific point of view, and from the way he tells it
here, with good reason, although he has no idea what that reason is, namely the fact that, as
understood by these Monists, the laws of nature appeared in a deeply religious form that
masqueraded as science, as they had been cast by Darwin, in terms of political competition
between individuals. That is the problem with the Monist approach described above, their
attachment to Darwin. Aside from that critical flaw, what the Monists give us, as portrayed
here by Gasman, is the true, the one and only possible, valid approach of science to human
society, once science feels itself empowered by a true view of human nature. It is all here in
miniature, the implications of Atheist Science are writ large in this passage. Except of course
Monist science was not Atheist Science, on the contrary, being based up Darwin’s ideas,
Monism was as religious as religious could be, without actually being religious. All of which
shows just how duplicitous superorganic dynamics are, showing how the English slave
quarter of Judaism creates the fake knowledge, and then the slave quarter of Judaism that is
Germany, picks up the baton and runs to infinity with the idea, without pausing to ask if it is
real. And yes, this is what created the Nazis, and therefore the Hitler Taboo under which
science labours now, so that science remains as none existent, nay more so, than before
Darwin was so much as a twinkle in his mother’s eye.
In another item I produced a few years ago, the English Monist Henry Bernard,
played a central part, because he saw the absurdity of applying Darwin to society and worked
out a new model of evolution that rejected Natural selection entirely, thereby allowing
humans to appear within nature, harmoniously. Having just discovered a means of
publishing my own books I am about to launch my first item, and then I will get the other old
material sorted for publication, including this one on Bernard.

There is something extremely fiendish about the way Gasman handles this subject,
which is how the establishment handled the subject. What we see throughout everything
portrayed by Gasman, is a relentless acceptance of Darwinism. Anything else may be
questioned, but not Darwinism. He is writing in 1971, and his work bears the hallmarks of
this phase of the control of sociology, where the period of subversion and annihilation has
been completed, and now it can be resurrected for appearances sake, while being treated with
absolute contempt, for the academic knows the job is done, there can be no defenders of
organicism in the post Hitler era, all they need do is trot off some platitudes and show a
cursory recognition of this bizarre and regrettable phase in sociological science, when
scientists were able and willing to treat society as being part of nature.
While this effort was being waged against science in sociology, the war of religion
against science raged on another front, as Hamilton invented the idea of kin selection to allow
Darwinism to apply to social structure. The idea of linguistic force creating all these social
phenomena is sound, even though we have just come up with the further elaboration which
makes this a ‘passive force’ akin to gravity. Although gravity is passive, we can still see it
working in the fall of an apple from the branch to the ground. Likewise, although linguistic
force is passive, we can still see it at work when we look at these dynamics of knowledge
formation occurring about a core idea. First a core idea is manufactured, namely Darwinism,
and this is set upon a pedestal, and made inviolable because it has been approved by the
theocracy as sterile in terms of the key facets of Jewish identity programming.
The next move is for uncompromising advocates of science to take up the Darwinian
cause. In Monism we see that did this to perfection. Gasman, presenting an historical
account of the ensuing intellectual journey whereby true science was frozen out, presented as
a history of how true science finally broke free of the initial excesses, has the barefaced gall
to tell us exactly what the Monists said in their uncompromising pursuit of the logic
unleashed by Darwin, and to indicate that this perfect logic, was ludicrous ! This is the
fiendish bit, here we see linguistic force in action, as we might watch an apple fall from a
tree, or even the active force of magnetism animate a pile of iron fillings.
This wilfully perverse attitude of Gasman’s, preserves Darwinism at all cost, and
attacks science that tries to apply Darwinism as false, without sparing a single moment to
consider whether the application of pure scientific logic might be valid, and the premise,
which is Darwinism, is the error. The result is that we end up with circles of linguistic force
represented in knowledge, where Darwinism is at the core, surrounded by science that is
contained, surrounded by myth which is unleashed in homage to Darwin, and the circles of
linguistic expression continue ever outwards. Gasman’s sociological history is one such
circle, Hamilton’s sixties travesty of science in the name of Darwin is another ring, Wilson’s
travesty of science in the name of Darwinism in the 1970’s is another ring, and they just keep
on coming. But, while the myths form huge rings, they are interspersed by crests of true
science, with which they resonate, but in antithesis. Hence, for example, Gasman
acknowledges Monism in order to denounces it ; Hamilton acknowledges social form, in
order to contain it ; Wilson acknowledges social biology in order to disempower it. In each
case, the wave of knowledge is made to tip its cap to reality, only in order to allow the onset
of ideas to flow away from the reality which demands some explanation. This shows us a
pattern of intellectual activity over the course of decades, which forever tackles a critical
problem, while never getting anywhere. And at the centre of the whole process is the truth,
which must be kept pressed tightly up to its initial point of subversion, so that Darwinism is
that initial point, and Monism is the immediate burst of truth, subsequently contained by an
immense swath of knowledge flooding all around, always keeping Darwinism at the core, and
always containing the truth within close proximity to Darwinism, where it had been locked in
place soon after the initial burst of linguistic force that was the Darwinian Deception.
And once we have visualised such a process of centralisation in knowledge, we
readily see how this same model of linguistic force represented in knowledge and social
structure, we soon realise that this model applies equally to the establishment of a
superorganic identity within a priestly caste such a Judaism, which always preserves itself at
the core of any ensuing knowledge, no matter what, and over time manages to formalise its
identity at the centre of an immense superorganic form even though Jewish identity only
exists as a small kernel within a vast expanse of biomass identified by a variety of other
names.
___

Back to the present.

As it is, the likes of Dawkins are the first in the cue demanding that the religious
principle comes first, that humans, alone amongst living things, are not subject to the laws of
nature, and can break them at will. Don’t ask me to dig the relevant quote out now, oh must
I ? This is going to take time. Meantime, returning to Sagan, here we see another strand in
the bulwark of Darwinism against science. How can we fend off this assault against reason.
We mentioned the eulogy to Darwin’s Natural Selection provided by that great towering
giant of science, Edward O. Wilson, a man who hates religion with a passion and pushes for a
naturalistic account of humans as hard as anyone could ever hope to do, in other words
another man earning his spurs as a great defender of absolute theocracy, a stalwart,
implacable enemy of real science.
With Sagan we have this elaborate ruse of pretending that science is so constructed as
to be independent of all constraints. He begins this fraud by explaining why science is
always flawed, thus laying the foundations for the defence of his lies, when contradicted by
facts. He tells us that scientists are only human, he does not suggest that science is up against
any institutional constraint, such as that posed by religion, despite the fact that religion has
been the absolute enemy of science since time immemorial, and religion continues to rule our
entire society with an iron fist, most especially his society, he being a Yank. And on this
point, as with Dawkins, Sagan builds up his credentials in this area, writing books that
expressly attack religion, such as The Demon Haunted World : Science as a Candle in the
Dark, 1996.
So these notable atheist/scientists, where relevant, defend Darwin to the hilt—Wilson,
Dawkins, Dennett—while attacking religion remorselessly. This means that the work of
Darwin, which was always cast as a direct attack upon religion, remains impregnable from
this angle. To get at religion, we must first destroy Darwinism. Thus, these Darwinists are
the Gatekeepers of the Theocracy.
Sagan says science is self correcting, and that nothing is sacred in science, which
obviously includes Darwin’s idea of Natural Selection. This is utter tosh. Neo Darwinism
shows how the scientific community have turned themselves inside out in order to preserve
Darwinism, anything other than face the one simple fact : that humans are part of nature.
They say humans are part of nature, what else can they do ? But, but, but, but, endlessly,
there is the ‘but’. Which means that humans are not, in the end, part of nature. These people
make me sick.
If we take this sentence :

Indeed, the reasoned criticism of a prevailing belief is a service to the proponents of that
belief ; if they are incapable of defending it, they are well advised to abandon it.

and consider what Sagan is saying here, and apply it to Darwin’s idea of Natural Selection,
we must ask what the defenders would be giving up if they abandoned Darwinism. If Natural
Selection is just science, and nothing more, then certainly, what the hell, Sagan is right. But
it is not, and cannot possibly be, for Natural Selection is what emulates human choice in
nature, allowing human choice to be segregated from nature, because it is clear that human
choice takes a very different form to Natural Selection. If Natural Selection goes, what
would replace it ? We know what should replace it, the idea that information is a force, but
then the substance of choice becomes free of any selective element, and becomes merely
mechanistic in a dynamic sense, on a par with any physical process of any kind. The flow of
information in living matter then finds no boundary when it crosses from the somatic to the
social, it just continues to function according to the same accumulative and dynamic
principles. By taking this sample on the Monists from Gasman, we can see how scientists are
obliged to reason if a membrane is not set up between humans and nature. It was precisely in
order to ensure that this free discussion could not happen that we had the world wars, the
Nazis and the holocaust. All of which worked a treat, and so the charade goes on, and on,
and on.
We know that Natural Selection is a contrived, political, really a religious principle,
so when Sagan asks scientists to consider Darwinism, by implication, he is asking the
theocracy to give up its defence against science, the only thing that allows society to exist in
the name of Judaism. This is no small thing, but Sagan has no idea this is so. Can all these
people be so corrupt, people like Sagan ? Well, they are programmed. The social structure is
created by nature to bring this state of affairs about, the state of affaires we describe in this
scientific context is no different to the one which pertained in the ancient world, in respect to
the issue of the earth’s place in the solar system. And at the end of the day, Darwinism
explains nothing, anymore than any lie explains anything. As is well known, if a scientific
theory is correct, it should tell us things that we did not know and could not know without the
theory. This does not apply to Darwinism, it cannot even explain why a talking mammal
would of come into existence !
None of these great advocates of science, these uncompromising enemies of religion,
seem to care about this. And yet there is one idea that allows us to explain these things, and
this is the idea we put forward in Atheist Science. And these academics are well aware of
this idea, so why do they not at least promote it ? Yes, it would mean calling the Jews the
master race ; it would mean saying the Nazis were the greatest saviours of the Jews ever to of
existed ; it would mean the holocaust in which six million Jews were killed in horrific
circumstances was a physiological mechanism protecting the master race from its slave host.
It would mean all of this, but hey, if it is science, why not ?
As to how not ? This is answered by Gasman’s piece. His discussion demonstrates
that this genuine science, what we call Atheist Science, existed before, and has been
suppressed by the rise of modern science in service of theocracy. You have to know what the
problem is, before you can control it. Certainly in social science the academics expressly
forbid this kind of discussion, and they are fully aware of why they do so, at a superficial,
historical level of understanding anyway. Sociologists love religion and despise science, this
is something that forms part of their training, it is impossible to find work by these people
that would contradict this statement, I have looked, and looked, and looked.

Dawkins

It took ages to find the relevant reference for Dawkins’ statement that humans are
independent of the laws of nature, but here it is, from page 201 of The Selfish Gene :

We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.

So many people have objected to this remark coming from Dawkins that he added a lengthy
note in reply. Critics, he tells us, say you must either be genetic determinists or advocates of
free will. He rebuts this by saying that “Genes must exert a statistical influence on any
behaviour pattern that evolves by natural selection.” (p. 331) Yet, he goes on, sexual desire,
created by genetic evolution, can be countermanded, as with contraception, when deemed
desirable. “What is dualist about that ?” he asks, over the page.

We, that is our brains, are separate and independent enough from our genes to rebel against
them.

I had to wade through five of Dawkins’ books before deciding to begin a methodical search
for this passage, during which time I found all sorts of fascinating bits coming from the Lord
of the Gatekeepers. He is a very exasperating man, but that is after all his job : to thwart
knowledge and understanding. He is the creator of one of the greatest ideas any organicist
could ever hope to of created, the idea of the meme, which implies that language is nothing
but an extension of genes into the social domain, yet despite creating this idea, Dawkins has
no idea that this is what it means !! This is truly incredible. But we can see from this idiotic
jumble of ideas remarked upon just now, that the man’s mind is in a state of total and utter
chaos. He just cannot be consistent. Yet, there again, I found this :

If we want to know where the truth lies in particular cases, we have to look. What the
Darwinian corpus gives us is not detailed expectations about particular organisms. It gives us
something subtler and more valuable : understanding of principle.
(Ibid., p. 233)

As ever with these damned priests, they take the essence of an idea and apply it to their lies
and bullshit. What Atheist Science does, is give us something that Darwinism does not : the
key, or principle, to understanding all life on earth. So how come Dawkins thinks he can get
away with saying his master provides exactly what we find he does not provide ? Dawkins
achieves this trick by simply starting from a false position which assumes the human
individual is the human animal and that human society is not part of nature, but a gift of
human free will, exactly as he says when he makes a link between brains and the genes which
create them, which decouples what brains do from what genes, statistically speaking,
designed them to do. The man is a complete tosser, utterly detestable.
Another little gem this miscreant came out with on one of his exercises in rambling
drivel, is this :

There is no doubt at all that remarks like ‘Darwinism . . . is a theory that has been put to the
test and found false’, coming from established biologists on the staff of a respected national
museum, will be meat and drink to creationists and others who actively have an interest in
perpetrating falsehoods.
(Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p. 284)

In other words Darwinism is sacred and cannot be questioned, because to do so plays into the
hands of our most uncompromising enemies, the religious fascists. This is a gorgeous remark
from Atheist Science’s point of view, because it employs the exact same mechanism which
creates the Jewish master race, and as such it shows the importance of extreme controversy in
the field of knowledge possession, where hatred creates passionate enclaves that are forced to
entrench their ground and refuse to budge on any account. And this position is no idle
musing of a senior scientist in the Darwinian camp, this attitude is drummed into all who
study science. They must resist anyone who questions Darwinism, and treat all such as if
they were part of the lunatic fringe, even if they are, like me, passionate atheists and life long
lovers of science who merely want to find complete answers that destroy religion, as science
must inevitably do, that are not to be found in official scientific dogma.
 Dawkins is one nasty piece of work. But he is a most admirable man to watch in
action on television, and it is impossible to doubt his sincerity, which only goes to show that
he is a mindless robot if ever there was one, and yet, what would I give to be as clever as him.
But it makes no odds, seeing the truth in a world overrun with authority and control over
knowledge, that goes way beyond anything an individual can compete with, has nothing
much to do with intelligence, because of course there is no such thing as an individual, the
requirement in order to see through this scam, is attitude. You need to be the isolated boy
who never got the message, who did not know the king was parading a new suit of cloths
woven from an ultra fine cloth, so fine it could not be seen.
The theocracy is naked to my gaze, and I invite all to see what I see, but the likes of
Dawkins is a hopeless case. He sees the invisible thread composed of an infinite array of
memes, like a blanket of the heaviest wool died the blackest black, and bound around his
head with the tightest of cords. Words, memes even, are everything to Dawkins, reason he is
oblivious to.
By standing as Darwinists opposed by Creationists a social dynamic is initiated. This
standoff is a key mechanism in human social dynamics, it is why dualism is so important in
our world, run as it is by an absolute theocracy based upon the Jewish identity. Each identity
has its message, and each message has it contrary form. By setting up opposing camps all
knowledge is controlled. What science does however, is to come along with a monistic view
that provides the key to all things, and then all dualisms are ended. Darwinism took
possession of the mirror image facing Biblical creation, namely evolution, and gave it a
political form through the mechanism of Natural Selection. Natural Selection is not a
monistic idea offering a key to all aspects of living form, as can be seen from Dawkins own
arguments noted already. A monistic, scientific model of life, cannot allow the decoupling of
evolution at the point where the human brain comes into existence, as Darwin freely
proposes. This in itself proves that Darwinism is false because Natural Selection is false.
Any system of knowledge that allows portions of its domain to be decoupled from the key
explanation describing that domain, cannot be true to reality. To say this argument does not
apply because the coming of human mentality represents a hierarchical extension of life
which breaks the link with genetics, is pure fancy and in realms of religion. If we treat the
human animal as a superorganism then this suggestion becomes unnecessary because we then
find we can account for all aspects of human life. To reinforce the logic of this argument we
only need consult Dawkins once again, where we see him stealing the true logic of science to
apply it to his lying bullshit, again :

Theologians worry away at the “problem of evil” and a related “problem of

suffering.” On the day I originally wrote this paragraph, the British newspapers all carried a
terrible story about a bus full of children from a Roman Catholic school that crashed for no
obvious reason, with wholesale loss of life. Not for the first time, clerics were in paroxysms
over the theological question that a writer on a London newspaper (The Sunday Telegraph)
framed this way : “How can you believe in a loving, all-powerful God who allows such a
tragedy ?” The article went on to quote one priest’s reply : “The simple answer is that we do
not know why there should be a God who lets these awful things happen. But the horror of the
crash, to a Christian, confirms the fact that we live in a world of real values : positive and
negative. If the universe was just electrons, there would be no problem of evil or suffering.”
On the contrary, if the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless
tragedies like the crashing of this bus are exactly what we should expect, along with equally
meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It
would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic
replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you
won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely
 the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no
good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A. E. Housman put it :

For Nature, heartless, witless Nature

Will neither care nor know.

DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.

(River Out of Eden : A Darwinian View of Life, 1995, pp. 132 – 3)

Yes Mr Dawkins, quite right, and what else ? Come on, think about it, it is staring
you in the face.
Memes, memes will behave exactly as genes do. Memes, expressions of linguistic
force in the shape of ‘knowledge’ that is, neither care nor know if what they communicate is
sane or insane. Knowledge just is, it has a biological function to perform as a programme
uniting individuals into an organised social body, or superorganic form, and we dance to its
music. That is why the moron, a highly paid, deeply respected, very articulate and
exceptionally clever journalist, writes the garbage he does, in an incredibly high brow,
important publication, only to garner a response form a very intelligent, well educated, deeply
respected moron, exactly as you recount in the piece we have quoted. All of which you, one
of the cleverest people on the planet, a complete and utter moron, do likewise, by tripping out
words mindlessly, without any comprehension of what you are saying, because these words
are being pumped through you, as surely as if you were a loudspeaker attached to a dope
head’s ghetto blaster.
And hence, to make the point for which this selection was actually taken, human
society is pervaded by knowledge of the most appalling kind, religion most significantly, as if
we were mindless robots, incapable of thinking for ourselves, exactly as would be the case if
we were mindless robots incapable of thinking for ourselves. Once again then, we find this
Gatekeeper understands the logical principles of good rational thinking, but he steals them
away to attach to his false foundation, based upon the adoption of the erroneous pivot of
observation which makes the individual the end point of human evolution, instead of the
social body, the human superorganism. This is not an either or proposition, any more than an
idea can be touted that says the earth might be said to go around the sun sometimes, while the
sun goes around the earth at other times. No, individuals do not exist, all there is, is the
superorganism, we are not individuals living in a social world of our own choosing. Only
when this superorganic pivot of observation is used to forge a key to human nature, can we
get a true science of human existence. It is the job of science as we have it, as it has been
fashioned by an absolute, Jewish theocracy, to ensure this never happens. Darwin is the pivot
of this fraud.

Hitler as a Gatekeeper of the Jews

It has been a long standing contention of mine that Hitler is the most precious person
ever to of existed from a Jewish point of view, once we understand that there are no Jews as
people, only Jews as constituents of a master organ of superorganic being. I have just been
updating a 2006 piece called There is no God, ready for publication by way of a print-on-
demand set up, and I will snatch a piece from there to make this important point now,
beginning with a passage from Hitler’s Mein Kampf :
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 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.
(Mein Kampf, Houghton and Mifflin, 1939, pp. 827 – 9.)

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.
 Chapter 6

My work

I began this piece a couple of months ago, and now I think I am done. I could expand
much more on these ideas, I could talk to you about how I think a new model of evolution
should be devised to include the existence of human society within its embrace, as befits the
above argument. To this end I would seek to make life synonymous with information, the
object of which would be to allow language to be incorporated in a seamless transmission of
organic development leading directly on from genes, and thus circumnavigating the
imposition of Darwin’s split from nature which allowed human agency to be invoked by men
like Dawkins. I would invoke the idea of society as a superorganism, where human
biological nature is seen to be corporate, by which we mean that human form evolved to
bring a true living organism into being at the level of social organization. We would use the
idea of information as a force directing the flow of information in life, from which we would
derive the idea of linguistic force creating all social structure, or superorganic physiology as
we might say. The individual person would be described as a sentient brick unit of
superorganic being, controlled robotically by a linguistic programme that obliged these units
to build superorganic physiology in keeping with the linguistic programme that had evolved.
Religion would be seen as the expression of the programme, and central to its formula would
be the objective of applying an incorporating identity to the sentient bricks. The required
complexity would be delivered through a hierarchical elaboration of the religious identity
programme, and the coming of a global human superorganism would be seen as being
realised through the evolution of the Jewish master race, or stellar culture, which draws all
human biomass into its orbit by sprouting subidentity versions of itself to enslave the human
biomass, hence Christianity and Islam come into being as the secondary and tertiary tier of
Jewish physiological hierarchy.
All of these things we could go into, but we will not, because I like the idea of
knocking off a quick summation of my ideas of the moment, for quick release and easy
consumption. Enjoy, and please do not choke on any of it, it is after all, simply true science.

What is the nature of this piece ?

I call myself a philosopher, an atheist philosopher. I present my ideas for the benefit
of fellow atheists who might be in the situation I was in all my life, until I discovered the key
to all true knowledge pertaining to human existence : the biological nature of human beings,
the corporate nature that says humans are superorganisms and individuals do not exist. This
is why religion exists, this is why we pay homage to God, and this is what humans are. Thus
we have the answers to the two questions that my life began with, as stated at the beginning
of this short item.
The knowledge presented here was created by me and is unique to me, it exists
nowhere outside my work, and it is correct science. Therefore if you seek ultimate
knowledge you have come to the right place, as long as you put science before all things and
you are of a sufficiently independent mindset to see past the establishment representation of
what science is. Science as it is given to us is represented as being no more unsullied by the
politics of human life than religion, as we saw from Sagan’s cringing words, it loves to
present itself as a search for pure knowledge, flawed yes, imperfect for sure, but forever pure
in its intention : no, definitely not.
Because I see the world of modern knowledge as utterly corrupt, being poisoned from
within due to its origins and location within the institutional framework of our ancient,
absolute theocracy, I care nothing for what anyone thinks of my ideas, I cannot afford to, for
any attempt to debate with others would simply lead to my being overwhelmed by the mass
of people who only seek advantage, in keeping with their sentient brick status in life. My
work is therefore intended to offer a lifeline to those alienated from our society, people like
me, especially those who call themselves atheists before all else, and who can make neither
head nor tail of the world in which we live. This is for you. No account of existence I have
found makes any sense to me, whereas this account that I have produced makes perfect sense,
although very little of its substance is presented here.

My work is not about philosophy in the familiar sense of an ethical search for the
good life, or for moral order. My work is akin to the philosophy of Ancient Greece, where it
was left to independent minded individuals to seek knowledge in the domain of reality that is
now owned by professional academics, especially those we call ‘scientists’. This ancient
style of philosophy is presumed to be redundant with the advent of modern science, but
therein lies the rub, we say, this is not the case, which is precisely why this issue of atheism
versus religion burns as furiously today as it ever did, the positive side of knowledge being
denied to science by society’s religious overlords.
My work is therefore a reaction to the failure of science to eradicate religion, a failure
to occupy the terrain of knowledge previously occupied by religion. This has left a void,
which despite the extraordinary attempts to cover up, left some, me at least, unimpressed,
such that I have discovered the true knowledge that should go where official knowledge has
been hammered home. My philosophy fills a void that many will not know exists, a void
where science should be, and where what passes for science pretends to be. As such my
philosophy of human nature, that I call Atheist Science, is really science in the Ancient Greek
manner, but not in the modern sense : based upon systematic observation, experiment and
analysis, organised by a cabal of professional academics, ensconced within a state organised
institution riddled with religious fanatics, the servants of absolute theocracy.

There is some ethical lode to my work however, my atheism is driven by the highest
expression of moral values any human can express : the desire for true knowledge above all
else. Truth is the ethical lode running through everything I say. There are many points of
contact with real life. A recent feature of English life has been the rise of a working class
reaction against the alien presence of Muslims in our society, in large numbers. The English
Defence League, like the British National Party, has a vein of ideology running though it that
is very appealing to an English atheist of the present day, or should be. But despite being
close to the base level of the social hierarchy the working class foundation, which lacks
intellectual finesse and evinces instead a vitriolic hatred in place of reason, amazingly
enough, has a highly religious idea at its core, seeing Christianity as a primary facet of
English culture ! Can you believe that ? This is a sure sign of the total failure of such
movements to understand the world in which they live, and instead to became agents of
linguistic force, working against the very thing they say they care most of all about ; Hitler
being the most extraordinary example of this mixed-up view of social identity in the self.
 There are no comparative intellectual movements, as we ascend the slope of
intellectual refinement attaining the middle reaches of society, so the expression of
sensibilities becomes more refined. Middleclass atheists there are, in abundance no doubt,
but an impotent, lethargic lot they are. Our theocracy has accommodated itself to atheism as
it has to science, it has in point of fact taken possession of atheism, as it has science. As a
consequence those who are atheists find themselves catered to, they have their mantra to
shout about, if they wish, but it is sterile, as it is supposed to be, as science is likewise. This
means that only a very few oddball individuals are likely to be fanatical atheists, like myself,
people moved to an intense hatred of religion, a resentment of the rise of Islam, and such like,
because they want to live in a secular society made for the individual, where they are free to
know reality for what reality is.
My work is too intellectual to form a connection with the likes of the EDL, but it may
connect with higher elements of national life that feel an urge towards the same sentiment.
Working class people feel a betrayal of their physical culture as Muslims have poured into
their areas and swamped them. Middleclass people are not exposed to this direct attack, but
they may feel a betrayal of their secular culture, and being unable to figure out a clear path
through the morass of modern intellectual life, that makes sense of the transformation of their
society into a deeply religious state, with severe laws attacking those who question the
sanctity of religion and the right of primitive religious forms taking root in our English world.
They may find a new direction in the thought I lay before them, which has never been
presented by anyone else, ever, the idea that despite all appearances, the only theme in
modern intellectual life that is of any importance now, is the age of old theme : the warfare of
religion against truth, or the war against science, as it now is.
The search for knowledge has to begin with an all out war against religion. We must
understand that every detail of modern life that purports to be a move towards secularism and
freedom, is an absolute fraud. There can be no accommodation between religion and truth, it
is one or the other. For science to begin to exist, religion must be erased from the face of the
earth. This means naming the targets we wish to exterminate : the Jews, in which we include
the Christians and Muslims. The Jews are the name whose eradication we must seek, for they
are the personification of the poison that is religion. The eradication must be by peaceful
means of course, the Jews are the master race to which all humanity is now enslaved, so that
we who would rebel have no power of might on our side. Spreading the truth as revealed to
you, by me, is the source of our power : the pen is mightier than the sword and all that. If
you want freedom, which is synonymous with access to true knowledge, then you must seek
the total destruction of religion, and in our world, religion means Judaism.

Calling for the eradication of Judaism is a crazy, scary thing to do, which, in itself, is
telling us something, why should the Jews come in for such special protection ? Yes we
know all about the Nazis and the holocaust, but still, why should the Jews come in for all this
attention ?
The point about Atheist Science, is that it explains every last detail of human
existence, there can be no question about human life that cannot be answerable with absolute
certainty by science, once we have the true conception of humans as superorganisms in place.
Thus the call for the eradication of Judaism is not a political call, it is an academic call. If we
reveal what Jews are, we destroy Judaism, this is in fact why the Nazis came into existence,
to protect the Jews, which is precisely what the Nazis do, to this day, Is that not what we are
proving now ? The greatest protection the Jews have against the revelation of their status as
the true master race, which we all exist to serve, is the Hitler Taboo. Hence we go all out for
the jugular, no holds barred. To pussyfoot around with the Jews is a big mistake, because
these people cannot be beaten, because these people are the superorganism, and we are part
of that organism, so we have to tell it like it is. In point of fact we do not anticipate victory in
any sense ; we do not expect science to come into being ; we do not expect religion to die ; or
the Jews to fade away ; much less be destroyed. We merely talk the talk of such ideas, in
order to unleash the true knowledge, for those who wonder what it is.

Why say something so terrible at all ?

We are, after all, atheists. As atheists we are inevitably seeking an end to religion,
otherwise our atheism means nothing, we may as well be religious freaks. Atheism is not just
another point of view, another believe, part of the multicultural landscape, as the propaganda
stream delivered by our the media often tries to make out. Calling for the eradication of the
Jews is the worst thing we can ever say, as atheists, so we may as well get the job done and
cough it up, that way, no matter what, there can be nothing worse to come from our camp.
Why say it though ?
The fact is that a proper science of humanity, which is the corollary of atheism, must
lead to the decodification of Judaism, so it all leads to this one searing end—the need for
Judaism to be eradicated, if humanity is ever to be free. That is it, there is no avoiding it, so
best said and be done with. Added to which, given the core element of our message, that the
whole of society has been turned inside out simply in order to allow religion to survive the
coming of science, the blunt revelation that science was heading towards the destruction of
religion, a fate religion was preserved from by the occurrence of two world wars, the rise of
the Nazis culminating in the holocaust, plus the massive effort within the institutions of
theocracy dedicated to knowledge control and social management, leading to the formulation
of Natural Selection by Darwin, this extraordinary claim requires something dramatic to
balance the magnitude of our assertions, to explain why they would occur. Here is the
counterpart to that claim. If science runs free and unhindered, wherever investigation should
take it, it leads remorselessly to this end point—the eradication of the Jews. This conflict is
not a product of modern science, this is an inherent characteristic of Judaism, that must go
back to the origin of Judaism as a master, slave making identity programme. It therefore
follows that the essence of Judaism, is a knowledge controlling regime.
All of which explains why anti-Semitism intensified at the relevant time, when
science burgeoned in the late nineteenth century, ending this bout in 1945, from which point
our masters, the Jews, have run amok, making hay in our world, leaving us powerless against
them, as we have been for a long time now. But this outcome is driven by nature, not by the
Jews themselves. There is only what nature gives us, the only question is whether we know
this or not. If we are atheists we must want to know this. I have never met anyone who
wanted to know this stuff, most people are terrified of such statements, which is good, in
terms of validating our argument, it explains why religion persists when everything beyond
its own construction, says it should not.

A belated point of interest cropped up this week, today being Wednesday, 16

February 2011, with a documentary on BBC 2 called something like, The Most Dangerous
Man in Europe. I did not watch it, but I caught a few snippets. This was about the Dutch
politician Wilders, who is calling for a ban on the Koran and such like, a group that the EDL
has established firm links with. The especially interesting thing about this show was the link
they made between Wilders and the Jews. This ties in with the oft repeated refrain that the
EDL is not racist, as it has various creeds and kinds under its banner, including Jews. I’ll bet
it does. Given the structural importance of racial hatred to the master race, the Jews, we are
able to understand why, from a strictly scientific point of view, these unexpected
relationships should always appear in such contradictory places, whether it is Marx and
Lassalle as founding fathers of Socialism, when Jews were such notorious capitalists, or
indeed some dark links between Jews and Nazis. Wilders’ movement offers a beautiful
insight into how hatred between races and religions is the nectar upon which Judaism feeds.
Keep stirring the pot, the one thing the Jews do not want, is for the pot of hatred to go cold,
for that would be the end of their game. From a Jewish perspective, Atheist Science is
knowledge at absolute zero ; perfect and complete, knowledge at an end, of no further use to
those who seek power from the generation and control of knowledge. This can never be
allowed to happen, there must always be a void, a blank, an unknown, a mystery, waiting to
be filled by the degenerate, the psychopath, the criminal, the insane, the Jew ; or whatever
religious core happens to be able to come to the fore, but that would be the Jew right now,
and forever more, as things stand. So nature has ordained it, and so we are stuck with it, for
we are all Jews now, like it or not, know it or not.

Wednesday, 16 March 2011

Silver, lining a dark cloud

I have been watching a wonderful situation unfold in Japan this week, as one nuclear
reactor after another explodes and brings this devastated country to its knees. It is horrible to
say, but this is good news, and the proof of it is the fuss and bother seen over the nuclear
debate which all commentators freely admit, was dead and gone until last week. There are
over 400 reactors at present and over 200 planned, with eleven new countries set to join the
nuclear club, there is no choice because this is the only way to provide the kind of energy
levels our Western lifestyle needs, that everyone now thinks is their right.
Because we are slaves of an organism created by nature, we have no means of making
rational decisions, there is only one decision nature knows : grow as far and as fast as
available energy will allow. Rationally, there is only one solution to all our problems, that is
to set a limit on the world population, and enforce it by any means. This is the one idea we
never hear mentioned, at any level. Population poses an incredible problem, everyone says it
all the time, and there is only one solution mentioned : provide more houses, more food, more
power, more, more, more.
Consequently, this nuclear calamity is a good thing, because it is the only thing that
will do anything to make people aware of the limits surrounding us, before we crash headlong
into them.
One reporter yesterday, interviewed an English author living in Japan who writes
about Japanese subjects. He said that if one shred of good were to come out of this disaster,
it would be the new, positive view of the Japanese, which is being seen in reports observing
the calm dignified way the people are bearing up under the strain of this last week. So he has
the right idea, wrong subject.
Meanwhile more good news this lunchtime, Wednesday, 16 March 2011, with another
explosion at the nuclear facility being reported and real difficulty facing the idiots trying to
manage the problem they have created. Serious levels of radiation forced the workers away,
and hair pulling attempts to dowse the nuclear furnaces with helicopters used for forest fires,
soon abandoned. I tell you, lower global populations, that is the only possible answer.
 Chapter 7

An Interlude with Astrophysics

From time to time I find my brain exercised with thoughts of physics, most especially
to do with gravity. Looking at some old material the other day reminded me that it was a
copy of Lilienfeld’s 1873 item Human Society is a Real Organism, that brought home to me
the importance of thinking of ‘force’ in relation to sociology. No doubt this got me thinking
about linguistic force, which has now matured into my fuller idea of society as a body
composed of sentient brick units animated by linguistic force, organised by a linguistic
programme with religion as the primary element thereof, that imparts identity to individuals
to provide the superorganism, God if you please, with its One identity, thus making the living
superorganism real.
I recently had some innovative ideas on the nature of linguistic force, but before we
get onto them, lets see how my ideas were running just prior to that inspiration :

08/03/2011 20:32 – I just watched the 700th Anniversary Edition of Sky at Night and most
enjoyable it was, but one question asked, How does gravity bend light ? Perfect !
Scrambling to get paper and pen to make notes, my concentration wavered, but Patrick
Moore said “Gravity is that force which gives matter mass.”, which I thought was nice
because it seemed to say what I had said above, under the subheading Seeing through God’s
eyes, but coming from an expert it was too evasive, because circuitous. The specialist in
cosmology said photons do not have mass, they have energy, which is clearly something to
know if one wants to toy with these ideas. And finally the new boy on the block, Brian Cox,
who is currently delivering a documentary series on the universe, threw in a thought I do not
recall hearing before, which is that light does not experience time, everything happens
instantly from light’s point of view. Thus, where it would take light two million years to get
from the Andromeda system to earth, I think the example was, travelling at near light speed
this would seem like a quick journey to a person, but we would find two million years had
passed on earth, whereas to light arriving here, its journey is instantaneous, the journey takes
no time at all. Mmm, tricky one that. Surely the speed of light, means that it takes light two
million years, to make a light speed journey of . . . Need something more there. Einstein . . .
never mind. The point of interest was gravity and its effect on light. There was some
discussion of extra dimensions, where the question of gravity leaking from our three
dimensional universe towards another separated by an intervening extraspacial dimension
was raised, in relation to why gravity is so much weaker than any other force. One thing at
least, going by what these astronomers had to say, the question is open to anyone to guess at.
Meanwhile, Moore’s comment is surely identical to my own :

Gravity must ultimately derive from the inner mass of the subatomic particles which gravity
itself acts upon collectively to form massive structures, it cannot be that gravity exists aside
from the substance it acts upon.

Gravity is that force which gives matter mass.

 This gives us a definition of force, such that a force is : that which causes, is
associated with, or expressed by, any phenomenon of accretion.
The emphasis upon accretion suits the explication of gravity, but it really derives from
the use we have made of the idea of linguistic force in Atheist Science, which is all about
creating superorganic physiology by acting upon the units of the same that linguistic force
relates to, the individual sentient brick units of human substance. Using such a definition we
would have to say that dynamic expressions of force are sub-expressions of the attribute of
accretion. So that Newton’s laws dealing with motion apply to objects impelled to accrete,
that have not yet done so, or have been released from a prior state of accretion by the
application of dynamic force. In a dynamic state objects move with an equal and opposite
force to that which released them, until they fulfil the imperative to accrete, and lose their
dynamic motion by meeting an equal or greater opposite force, as in a stationary mass of a
like kind. With which they then unite, fulfilling the imperative to accrete and thereby
releasing the force, or excess energy associated with them, into the mass they have joined, in
an act of summation increasing the energy of inertia of the total mass.
The energy of inertia is therefore gravity, in the case of matter ; while in humans the
energy of inertia would seem to be identity, since identity is a product of linguistic force
directed toward the accretion of superorganic physiology. So identity in society is akin to
inertia in physics, interesting ; that could work as identity imparts stability and resistance to
social form, and eventually is made to give way when alternate identity based social masses
collide.
The purest expression of this social force is identity, as in Jewish identity, which
every human on earth is now inducted into, making one global human superorganism the
present physical status of the human animal. By inertia we mean a state of combination
relevant to the force and its associated unit, the sentient brick. In humans this gives us the
series : linguistic force – sentient brick – superorganism. The isolated, idealised individual,
would then be operating in a maximally dynamic state, as a free particle, but in its natural
state of combination within the social mass they would be in a state of inertia, or none
existence, as an individual. The ideal state does of course never exist, the individual always
constitutes part of a social mass, even when alone and isolated physically, hence we say there
is no such thing as a human individual, as in a person. In this none existent state the quotient
of linguistic force associated with the individual’s material being, accretes to the social body,
and becomes the possession of the superorganism in precisely the same way that the quotient
of gravitational force of an atom, belongs to the accumulated mass of the body it is accreted
to, which ultimately allows a massive object to bend light. We might see the massive object
of Jewish civilization as bending the stray particles of individuality toward itself, since
nothing can escape the domination of this culture across the globe.
So if you thought our indulgence in astrophysics a little beside the point in a treatise
on human nature, I hope these last remarks have pulled you back into orbit about the
argument in hand. As the new boy on the block says in his documentary on the universe, we
are of the universe, down to the very last detail of our being ; though I am certain he has no
idea just how far this vision can be taken if only we stand upon the correct pivot of
observation, which is that of the superorganism. Never mind the material constituents of our
being which are the limit of Cox’s vision, the forces of nature can be made to course through
us, and not just through our veins, but through the neural networks of our brains !

The nature of force is of critical importance in science, and by finding a natural force
responsible for that most intimate of natural phenomenon—the society in which we live—we
are able to feed this understanding back towards the more tricky areas of physics that seem so
abstruse. The difficulty in understanding cosmological scale phenomena, has always been
the barrier set up between ourselves and nature, due to the decoupling mechanism which
allows the human superorganism to grow according to its own needs, and thereby create
society by separating individuals from nature, as it were. Only by seeing this natural
phenomenon of society correctly, can we hope to understand the nature of existence beyond
ourselves. So far science has had this approach all about face, it has sort to understand
everything else but society, thereby preserving a state of total ignorance with regard to our
own nature in order to preserve the Jewish identity, derived from religion, as created by
linguistic force. Atheist Science changes all this.
Moore is saying that gravity creates mass, and hence matter. I am saying that gravity
is mass, possessed of a force. Gravity is energy, under inertia, would seem to be a way of
expressing this idea better, because this combines the two ideas of gravity as a binding force
related to matter, and the accumulative quality of gravity in relation to large scale mass
phenomena. The introduction of the idea of ‘inertia’ into this model is intended to bring into
the picture the dualism of the matter-energy relationship, whereby energy can be thought of
in its purest form as particles of light, photons, which, under inertia, become mass, which.
upon accumulation, simultaneously transforms photons/pure energy into gravitational force.
I am not sure that physicists consider photons, that is light particles, to be the equivalent of
energy, but that is how it sounds to me when it is said that photons have no mass, they are
only energy, so I am applying my logic to that standard, not to mention that photons define
the universal limit on velocity.
This triadic scenario manages to emulate that of superorganic physiology that we have
outlined here, whereby linguistic force generates a core identity that has two subidentity spurs
that act as positive and negative counterparts of itself, the dynamics of which, rotating about
the stable unchanging core of identity, cause the superorganism to amass as one unified body
composed of an infinitely complex array of subidentities all attached by linguistic force, by
culture that is, to the triadic framework of macro physiology, as seen in Judeo-Christian-
Muslim culture. Thus in physics photons as particles of pure energy are the master element,
which upon accretion spawn two sub-elementary forms, mass and gravity, from which all
universal forms arise over time, as photons, pure energy that is, undergo inertial influences
causing the universe to condense from a state of perfect entropy consisting of nothing but
photons, into one of decreasing entropy due to an inertial trigger, the big bang, setting off the
collapse of pure energy into a manifestation of matter existing within an all pervading flux of
gravity, which exists weakly throughout all space, and intensely within spatial foci, called
‘matter’. The universe, having been catapulted into a state of low entropy, bringing us into
existence, now looks to us to be characterised by a remorseless descent towards a perfect
state of entropy once again.
And black holes, what of them Mr. Clever Clogs ? Gotta leave something for the
experts to do, we’ll examine that at the 1000th anniversary of Moore’s show. Then again,
while we have steam up. These would then be gravitational vortices, where inertia had
runaway with energy, taking gravity beyond the realms of mass and energy . . . no, still need
to think monistically, in terms of one all existing thing. Photons of pure energy, light, subject
to inertia due to their interaction with each other, causing vortices of gravity, induces energy
to condense into matter, so that gravity is then an accumulation of the vortices of energy
causing inertia, which, in black holes, reaches an intensity that exceeds the energy of
unbounded photons. Thus black holes are vortices of pure energy, where no photons exist,
and no mass, because these expressions of energy have been forced into a hyper energized
state beyond the speed of light, hence : black holes. So, the black hole horizon is the point at
which energy exceeds the speed of light and, in terms of three dimensional space, vanishes
into a point. What cosmologists say, is that gravity becomes so strong that light cannot
escape, but I wonder if they are missing a trick here, and understanding is all about adopting
the right perspective. Of course they use mathematics to come to their conclusions, whereas I
use pure, unadulterated commonsense, born of atheism. Atheism without maths is
undoubtedly limited, but maths without atheism is certainly worthless in the long run.
What would greater than light speed look like ? What does the idea mean ? It is
nothing more than a bit of spiel following a logical train of thought. The issue becomes, what
is speed ? If light experiences no speed, always covering any distance it travels instantly,
then speed can only be a by-product of mass, hence we experience time and variable rates of
motion because we are mass objects. Black holes seem to breach all these familiar terms of
reference.

Whatever forces balance the accumulation of mass, they leave a state of tension in the
intervening space, through which gravity appears to exist in an emanated form, seen in the
way vast reaches of space act upon physical phenomena, like light particles, as if space were
curved. We may liken this scenario to the operation of linguistic force. Language is real
enough, whatever view we want to take of its nature we must all agree on the general aspects
of its existence. Language has a physical manifestation and influence that is interspersed like
that of gravity, by a zone of intangibility, lying between a source and its influence. This
interstitial zone exists when the influence of a given point of communication is extensive,
because the reason for the resulting uniformity of ideas across a population loses the
tangibility seen in interpersonal communication. Thus we end up speaking of the contagion
of ideas, to evoke the way a mass social movement such as that unravelling in Muslim
countries about the Mediterranean area right now, ripples through a population. We can see
people speaking of their ideas and desires, we can study the historical origins of the same,
and their active counterparts in societies about the globe, but somewhere in-between lies the
invisible spectrum of linguistic force that allows the ideas on paper, or in active speech, such
as ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’, to suddenly animate a whole mass of people, and to appear
where they had not been seen before, ever. This is linguistic force emanating through a social
fabric and galvanising it into a centralising mass rotating about one set idea, such as the idea
that ‘Mubarak must go’, ‘Gaddafi must go’. Whatever the slogan the idea is identical, and
the expression of linguistic force this uniformity reveals, though still intangible as a force, is
palpable.
There is an emerging interest in the dynamics of linguistic information within social
bodies, this weekend, today being Monday, 04 April 2011, Contagious Ideas : On evolution,
culture, archaeology, and Cultural Virus Theory, Ben Cullen, 2000, arrived. It is an awful
book, what it is really all about, is the Gatekeeper’s grand meme idea, you know, Dawkins.
Consequently an item which raises the all important topic of ideas as natural phenomena, is
utterly trashed by being immersed in a thick, intellectually debilitating goo of Darwinism,
which makes the whole text unreadable. But the interest is there, and a particularly pleasing
aspect of this interest is the way it is cropping up in archaeological circles, where people are
seeking to make sense of human forms which, unbeknownst to them, are actually the
fossilised remains of once living human superorganisms.

The key to understanding this contagion of ideas, lies in our description of their
influence in the example of the moment, when we say a contagion is running through
‘Muslim countries’. This identity parameter defines the established expression of intensified
linguistic force contained within the human biomass within these territories, constituting a
society that has been created by linguistic force, through the medium of this Jewish slave
identity programme of Islam. This indicates why these social segments of the Jewish global
superorganism all experience a similar kind of oppressive social structure in this region, and
why the influence of a strain of linguistic expression from another part of the Jewish
superorganism, none Muslim, should be able to reach a pitch were its expression in one place
within these comparatively oppressed Muslim areas, resonates across an extended Muslim
region, resulting in the social animation we have witnessed, and are witnessing now. This is
just the kind of model of linguistic resonance that we need to understand why the Nazis came
to the fore to act as the saviours of the Jews, when science revealed the true corporate nature
of humans and it became a publicly known fact that the Jews are the master race, to which all
humanity is enslaved. The only way to cap this scientific knowledge off, was to make a
taboo of it, which Hitler did by enacting the holocaust. The best book revealing the truth of
this outcome, for no one actually describes the holocaust in these scientific terms apart from
myself, is Human by Nature : Between Biology and the Social Sciences, 1997, an edited
compilation that has frequent references to the Nazi Taboo, as Atheist Science reveals the
horror of Nazism to be. The Nazi association with the organicist idea of human society is
made a caution against biological ideas in social science, even though social science is a
branch of the biological sciences ! A fact well known before Hitler put the matter beyond
discussion. According to Howard Bloom, in his Lucifer Principle, 1995, which I happen to
be reading at the moment, there was some movement towards resurrecting this genuine
science (see page 52), and this is why the Human by Nature was published no doubt, to review
the situation. But this is the establishment pretending to tackle an idea which still cannot be
tolerated in an absolute theocracy such as ours. I find it curious that Bloom identifies
Thomas as the point of revival for organicism since Thomas’ work, though delightful in this
regard, is a bit of mere ephemera. E. O. Wilson’s Sociobiology is surely the true point of
takeoff, and one very much overrated at that. But for all that Sociobiology says nothing of
any moment that I can see, with regard to organicism in sociology, it undoubtedly ignited a
wave of interest along exactly those lines.
At last, inspired by its inclusion in the bibliography to my There is No God, 2006, I
hunted down Thomas, and while I am delighted to see how good he is, I am also gratified to
find that my recollection of the item was basically accurate. The title of the relevant piece is
On Societies as Organisms, which is great, but it consists of just five pages, mostly about
insect society, but with a few choice remarks on the light shed on humans by the insects :

It may be our biological function to build a certain kind of Hill.

(Lives of a Cell, 1980, p. 14.)

Which sounds to me like our frequently uttered chorus : human nature is corporate, meaning
that individual ‘sentient brick’ form evolved to bring a living organism into being at the level
of social organisation. Perfect! But hardly enough to credit the author with resurrecting
sociological organicism.
Notice, while I love providing direct quotes to allow people to know precisely what
the flavour of any work I refer to is, and why it impresses me, Bloom does not do this, nor
does anyone else, quite as much as I do. The reason to take notice being, that I would so love
it if when not only referring to specific works, people routinely gave samples of what, in
philosophical terms, can often become obscure, since books of any philosophical merit may
not mature to their full status as interesting items, for a many decades, or even centuries. It
makes life easier, it allows us to know just what an author has in mind, so we may judge for
ourselves. See how much better it is just having one line from Thomas, the title of the
relevant piece, plus added details, none of which Bloom provides.
Strange the significance professional academics find in the least statement, while an
eternity of work generated as a consequence, in the new field of Sociobiology and so on,
never seems to unlock the nature of the issue one iota ! They may as well just of ignored the
matter, and we would be none the worse for it, save for myself that is. I consider the surge of
interest in organicism following Wilson’s 1975 publication, a great boon to my argument that
organicism of old was the real science, now suppressed and subverted, but impossible to
forget.

Forces then, by their very emanative nature, do extend beyond the limits of the
physical forms they create. When accretion due to a force reaches a limit, consolidation
occurs, and excess force extends about the unified object. Consolidation due to a limit
implies the existence of internal pressure, and this tends towards structural reorganization
leading to the accumulation of inner force, which in turn requires physical release, as in a
supernova, in the case of some celestial objects. In human forms internal restructuring leads
to greater physical extension about the core point, as with the creation of Jewish culture
organised to generate new structural representations of itself, such that Christian and Islamic
identity spurred off from Judaism, to allow a triadic macro physiology to ignite a further level
of superorganic development reaching global proportions.
Life is created by the force of Information, which has its origin within the structures
of biochemical composition that have the capacity for creative self replication, delivered by a
structural code that is the physical manifestation of the force of Information. Extended to our
level of existence this force of Information becomes one of Linguistic form, which has its
seat within our bodies, that were generated by the force of Information. Gravity-Information-
Language are part of a hierarchical structural continuum, that ultimately boils down to
nothing less than the universe itself. The common thread linking these features of the
universe together are their pivotal role in the formation of material structure, whereby they
arbitrate the forms produced through the mechanism of projection, which we describe above
in terms of ‘emanation from within delivering effect from without’.
_______________

A new theory of universal force evincing active and passive dynamics,

applying Einstein’s 1915 Theory of Special Relativity to the formation of human
societies

Its alright folks, you do not have to drop everything and runaway behind the sofa, its
quite simple really. First thing we need to do, is to be clear about what it is that Special
Relativity bequeathed to the world in terms of everyday understanding. March is drawing to
a close, and this month two programmes have been screened by the Beebe which dealt with
the topic of gravity, which my writing of An interlude with astrophysics above, caused me to
be especially keen to pay attention to. The first show primed me, but did not quite get the job
done, failing to penetrate my consciousness inspirationally. But the following jolt of realistic
knowledge coming not long after, threw my mind over the edge, and new understanding was
born. Eureka! I cried, like a great forerunner of myself once did, only unlike him, I was not
in the bath at the time.
You see folks, the damn thing is, this gravity stuff, it makes no bleeding sense. Its
this force business and gravity, it just will not do, and truth is, we didn’t need an Einstein to
tell us that, its obvious. But its all very well things being obvious in a negative sense, the
trick is finding out what is obvious in a positive sense, as well illustrated by my own
revelation of human corporate nature that solved the lifelong mystery of why religion existed
and what humans are by revealing that humans are superorganisms, and we, you and me, do
not exist.
 What these two programmes succinctly laid before us, was the simple idea that
gravity, was not a force. Not a force, perfect, absolutely bloody perfect. This is the bit that
commonsense could get all on its little lonesome, but could not quite put together, without
being told why gravity was not a force.
It is not as if I had not heard of bent space before, who in the twenty-first century has
not heard of that ? It is just that I had not yet got my head around the idea, because it left my
addled mind struggling with the mystery of just what it was, that was bent ! Actually the
second programme dealing with gravity, was called something to do with nothing, and the
next show was anticipated by asking what would be left inside a box, if everything inside
were taken out ! I fancied seeing that, but nothing came of it, he must of fallen into the box,
for I have not seen the man since. Dangerous stuff this nothing, someone wrote a play about
it once, so I heard.
The key insight here, is ‘falling’. Take my word for it, it is falling that you need to
get a grip on if you would understand the force of gravity, which isn’t. You can see in the
subheading above how I have used the idea of ‘falling’ in the new conception of universal
force, by using the word ‘passive’, which is in direct contradiction to the attribute of a force.
The secret was in the apple all along, it just took a little time to shake from the tree of
knowledge. What transpires, is that mass bends space, causing mass to fall along the
resulting lines of curvature. Simple really, I do not know why Newton could not just of said
that in the first place, and left his patent clerk nemesis to get on with some useful work filing
crank inventions. Anyway, all that is history, now we have a true view of what is what we
can apply it to ourselves, with a Special Relativity of Society.
Much of what constitutes the acquisition of knowledge concerns the attainment of
familiarity with the unfamiliar. It is all about getting to grips with the unknown, to make it
known. In the first of these two science programmes the presenter, Brian Cox, declared that
what he was putting before us was obscure, but true ; the idea of curved space-time he meant.
Because I have long worked with the very stuff of our own world through the intermediary of
an equally obscure idea, that of society as a superorganism, my efforts to find a familiar way
to understand my own reasoning, has tended to draw the unfamiliar in my view of our
everyday world, towards the unfamiliar in the most exotic areas of hard science. This is why
the unlikely subject of astrophysics should of made an appearance in what purports to be an
essentially sociological treatise.
Because we have built our argument of the superorganism upon a materialist basis
which introduced the idea of a force creating all superorganic form, we have jumped the gun
somewhat in the lack of any good everyday conception of just what a force is. It has long
been obvious to me that the force of gravity represents the natural counterpart in the physical
world to the force of linguistic form in human social life. More than that I have not been able
to say, until now, until that is, I became enamoured of the non-force of gravity, which
perfectly suited my needs for a none forceful conception of the linguistic force of human
social order. As ever in this game of knowledge, it is all about placing yourself correctly
within the scheme of things, which really comes down to finding the correct location within
the web of meaning produced by the power of linguistic force that carries us, and imparts to
us all that we may do, and know.

It turns out then, that gravity is not a force, and this raises a fascinating scenario of a
kind that we in Atheist Science are rather familiar with, because of our efforts to explain how
linguistic force creates superorganic physiology, and indeed, how the force of life, the force
of Information, creates biological form in its entirety. This has to do with the inner, effecting
the outer : the active, impelling energy to the passive, where passivity must be deemed a
comparative term, being an attribute of energy in a state of mass. The act of impulsion
applied to energy in a state of mass, is structural in nature, as can be seen from the idea that
mass bends space : this is a structural statement. From the structural effect of mass the
passive force of gravity arises, whereby mass accumulates in a self organizing manner, and
spatial curvature intensifies as it does so. Thus we have a coordinated feedback process
which makes the entirety of a system self organising, to use a phrase which seems to of
acquired a recent popularity amongst some academics, not least those who seek to apply
physical mechanics to life, including society.

This view of space-time applies to society.

At first sight the mind may baulk at this suggestion, but once we have the neat
description in hand, that relates mass to cosmic space such that a passive force is seen to be
the result, we have a basic principle of creation from which to work. And it seems to fit the
bill just right, when we come to making sense of that which we have already surmised with
regard to society created at the behest of language.
Considering this idea in general, what we are saying is that gravity conceived as a
passive force, becomes something far more than it has ever been seen as before. The reason
being that with our attempt to apply the idea of passive force to linguistic force creating
complex social structure, we end up by making passive force into a structural force. Which,
working backwards, can only mean that gravity is a structural force too. Should we now
speak of a ‘structural’ as opposed to a ‘passive’ force ? Maybe, but lets not rush things, we
do not want to bamboozle ourselves with a flurry of words, we want our words to tease out a
useful train of thought.

Lets just think about how, exactly, this structural force of gravity, comes to work its
magic on human social form, via the expression of language. So here’s the thinkin’. We
have already developed the idea that genetic evolution produced physical forms defined by
their linguistic capacity, to these we give the snappy name of ‘sentient brick’ forms. These
‘persons’ speak, as a bird flies or a fish swims, speaking is what they do because they must.
From this understanding all else follows concerning human sociability. Because our
physiology forces us to speak, it also forces us to develop language. Language is an
information routine, flux or programme, existing within social space, from which the person
derives the particular form adopted by their linguistic physiology due to the chance
occurrence of their existence within a given spatial location, within a social space. It follows
from this description that language must of evolved in conjunction with linguistic capacity,
and hence the social space occupied by individuals was directly created by genetic evolution.
Last night, 04/04/2011, a philosophy lecture from Harvard was screened on BBC
Four, I think it was, we have mentioned this series before. Aristotle came up, and the lecturer
stated that Aristotle tells us in book one of his Polis, that the polis existed before people,
which is as perfect a statement that individuals do not exist, as we could ever hope to find,
without having the matter actually stated precisely. The argument concerned the need for
political society and how people were made for political activity by virtue of their natural
gifts, most especially their power of speech and its associated sociality. Any person who
could live without other people would of necessity be either a beast or a God, he said. All of
this is wonderful, but the failure of this perfect insight to get us anywhere in understanding
ourselves scientifically, comes from the fact that Aristotle was being human, not studying
being human. Thus he was making out an intellectual argument for the status quo in social
structure, and this is why he continues to be studied to this day, unchanged, to preserve the
legitimacy of our ruling social order. Even so this was a delight to hear, and we can see in
Aristotle’s observations the idea that human nature existed before people, which is to be
understood scientifically in terms of human linguistic capacity and human sociality, existing
as biological phenomena relating to human biological corporate nature, which makes the
human animal a superorganism, not a person. The culmination of Aristotle’s thoughts can
only be that the human animal is a superorganism and the person does not exist, but Aristotle
went nowhere near such an idea, and nor has anyone else, before me. I have a copy of
Aristotle’s Politics and the relevant passage appears in chapter two, its only short and well
worth glancing over.

Genetic evolution is active, we can say that it forces structural development to take
place because it develops physical forms. The social space that exists between people, and is
defined by the presence of people, is a physical form too, as surely as the space lying between
celestial bodies, that only exists because of the matter it ‘contains’. There is a sense in which
all there is, is space, given that physicists love to harp on about the fact that atoms are
virtually all space, contained by an arrangement of dynamic particles. This idea also applies
perfectly to social space conceived of as a solid living body, a superorganism composed of
cellular objects, persons, whose dynamic presence contains a social space that it defines, just
as the presence of atomic particles contain firstly atomic dimensions, and then molecular
space made up of elements and their compounds, leading to a state of substantiality which
sees more massive objects like people to come into being. So we could just think of space as
the norm, and matter as finely distributed irregularities occurring in thinly dispersed
concentrations. This view is important to social organicism if we think about the puerile
criticism offered in the days when organicism ruled the world, prior to the Great Cleansing of
1914, when it was always being said that the only real thing is the person, and the social
organism could only be an analogy because it had not consciousness and such like attributes
of being. If we give an intellectual bias to the alien domain of infinite space in which we
appear as anomalies, then this attitude lends itself to the view that a superorganism, in whose
space we live out our fleeting, meaningless existence, is the real deal compared to ourselves.
A very precious item arrived from Germany today, it must of come into view last
week as product of examining Gasman’s work on Haeckel. I ran a search for monism in the
book dealer site last week and a single copy of Monism as the Goal of Civilization by
Wilhelm Ostwald, 1913, cropped up, at a fair price, and although only a short essay, it has
some very nice material of a kind we suspect existed in great profusion at this time, but is
very rare, and extremely hard to access now. I have already decided I must read this item and
make notes to place both conjointly in a PDF document on the net, but meantime, get a load
of this, the closing paragraph :

Proceeding along this pathway of thought, we have come to recognize that the
highest values of Christianity, the kindness and love of the individual towards his
fellowman, do not yet represent the highest ethical ideal which mankind can attain.
Monism leads far more to the perception that the individual is more and more a mere
cell in the collective organism of humanity. Accordingly, the evolution of kindness
and love, the evolution of the spirit of self-sacrifice and devotion to the great whole of
humanity, becomes more and more a demand of the energetic imperative, therefore an
immanent demand of our whole Monistically ordered life. Only through the fact that
we have come to recognize kindness and love as a necessity for community life, for
the social organization of mankind, has there also been gained by the individual the
sole sure and immovable foundation. That we practise mutual kindness and love, is no
longer the demand of a Godhead standing outside of ourselves, which has once for all
 transmitted it to us by an unverifiable revelation ; but it is a demand of scientific
intelligence. To it, of course, only those can belong who dedicate themselves to
Monism unreservedly and without any remnants of dualistic thinking and feeling.
With the increased broadening and deepening of this intelligence we see arrive the
Monistic century, which will not remain the only one of its kind. But it will
inaugurate a new epoch for humanity, just as two thousand years ago the preaching of
the general love for humanity had inaugurated an epoch.
(p. 37)

As ever this is not as categorical, not as stridently atheistic and scientific, as we would
like, but it is exquisite nonetheless ! Firstly we have the observation that humans are
superorganisms, vaguely asserted, sadly, but still delightfully. Then we have the general
assertion that God is the superorganism. For the first time ever, this gives us evidence that
the idea of the social organism directly impinged upon the idea of God in a positive sense,
proving that God did not exist by showing what ‘God’ is in reality.
Now I ask you, was not every bit of the misery and devastation of the First World
War—and tenfold more—worth it to ensure this utterly devastating truth was smashed to
smithereens, and scoured from the annals of Western Civilization where, to religion’s great
dismay, it had taken root, and could not be opposed by any means short of deep physical
cleansing of the core social fabric ? Say no to this, and you are calling for a world in which
religion is impossible : a world where no Jews exist ! And if no Jews exist, that means no
Christians, and no Muslims exist either, you cannot have these two with out the first one. I
do not believe there are any people who want this, not really. Apart from me, of course.
On the back of this insinuated proof that God does not exist, because It is a
representation of the superorganism to which we none existent beings belong, he speaks of a
new age ideology, Monism, arising from the true knowledge of human corporate nature, as
revealed by science. How appropriate that a none existent being should conjure up a vision
of a real ultimate being, the superorganism, in a none existent guise, in order to keep that
which alone is real, in existence, by retaining its key attribute, the attribute of being
unknown. Knowledge of the superorganism, as provided by unimpeded intellectual freedom
in the nineteenth century, and by me in the form of Atheist Science, is unknowable, because
knowledge exists to create the living superorganism by creating a flux of information
incorporating individuals into the flesh of the superorganism. The reality of the
superorganism must be forever unknown, otherwise we cannot be part of it via the creative
dynamic of linguistic force, which generates knowledge in order to make the superorganism
real by acting as a social binding force, uniting individuals into a social body in keeping with
the function of their somatic physiology. This is why Atheist Science is unknowable, so that
when this knowledge was known, as we can see from Ostwald that it once was, devastation
must ensue in order to return the biomass to a functional state of ignorance where knowledge,
as in religion, can perform its function of galvanising sentient brick activity into forming a
superorganic being.
Not only does Ostwald give us this superb material, but he also talks about sociology
as the supreme science, and speaks about the way religion has relinquished its grip upon
biology, albeit reluctantly, but not yet relinquished its hold on sociology. So in 1913 it was
well understood that science did not exist in sociology, and this of course is because
organicism, which was eradicated by the Great Cleansing of 1914 – 18, was not accepted by
the theocratic establishment which controlled the academic institutions. The corruption of
sociology is on ongoing project, it was in full spring when I went to college in the mid 70’s,
where the subject was corrupted through the grants system doling out money to any tosser
who would take up sociology, and it rages on today on the back of this investment in
sycophants, as sociologists faun over religion while spitting teeth at any suggestion that
science should be allowed entrance into their precious domain of human sanctity.
In terms of understanding the intervening history of knowledge in our society, it is all
important that these ideas were locked upon in German intellectualism, to which no ordinary
English person had access, because no relevant works were translated. After the initial Great
Cleansing came Hitler and the Second World Cleansing which utilised the genuine science of
organicism to inform its ideology, after academia had dissociated itself from this true science.
Then this scientifically based political ideology singled out the master race for special
attention, to ensure the whole linguistic identity programme of the world would be locked up
tight, abolishing science, and giving immunity to the Jews as the foci of religion. It is no
accident that the Germans personified the political expression of organicism applied to
society, and thereby produced the Nazis. But crucially, Darwinism served as the sacred key
to organicism. In the essay quoted above we find Darwin set upon his pedestal, as it is falsely
claimed that religion had relinquished its grip upon biology. This was not true, not at all, and
there was no reason to think it was, for it was Darwinism that prevented Monism from
incorporating society into biology, thereby protecting religion from science by interposing a
sterile science of evolution between religion and freedom of knowledge. It is exasperating to
see that here, in the furthest perfection reason has ever attained, in the ideology of Monism,
this point was not seen. Especially since Monists like Haeckel did inspire followers like
Bernard into rejecting Darwinism as they made Monism the key to understanding society,
and sort solutions that avoided Darwin’s separation of humans from nature by making
human’s a kind of ape, rather than a mammalian expression of superorganic being as seen in
insect life, as any real science must accept is the only possible valid idea of what humans are.
So we struggle on in a mindless, stupid world. Tonight’s Channel Four News,
Tuesday, 05 April 2011, had a special on the ever increasing class division in British society,
giving more of the same old drivel, making out this was regrettable, instead of someone
appearing as a sociologist, to explain that individuals do not exist and it is vital that massive
inequality should exist. Which is why the fascist socialist party, New Labour, has just spent a
decade and a half working tirelessly as the representatives of the working class, to grind the
poor into poverty while force feeding the rich with all the power and wealth they can. This is
how society works, communists do it, fascists do it, devoutly religious . . . – you name it – if
they are in political power over society, they maximise poverty, degradation and ignorance
with a vengeance, while increasing exclusiveness for the few to its maximum possible extent.
It is nature, it can be no other way. Nick Clegg, deputy leader of the coalition, of all toffee-
nosed gets to spout off about this, said it would be terrible to say that someone like him
cannot seek a better world for the underprivileged, just because he is one of the elite. Thus he
does his job of pretending there is a relentless effort to change the eternal and unchangeable
order laid down by nature. It is utter fucking shit. Nothing ever changes. There would be
hell to pay if it did. Clegg’s emotional response to the journalist’s question is so typical of
the level of communication coming from our fascist leaders, whose appeals to a justification
that refuses to acknowledge reality are always covertly based on the sentimentalism of our
Christian slave programming which says all is peace and love and things can be better, when
your dead. Only they bring this heavenly principle down to earth by making out things can
be better if we trust in the smooth talking degenerates that abuse us ; how I hate, loath and
despise these fucking creatures.
Meanwhile, John Snow, the journalist, threw in a subtle challenge to the experts on
social injustice, by saying, with a wry smile, that people love a hierarchical system, they
voted for it, he said. There was a lot more to that observation than meets the eye, as it was an
implicit ridicule of democracy. Snow mimicked the pat line which says people have
positively chosen all that happens to them by placing a cross against a candidate twice a
decade. Which is true, just as a slave freely chooses to serve a master who may do as they
please with them if they are not obedient. The specialist had to both admit the point, while
denying its implication, which, taken altogether, veered towards the secret of our miserable
existence by indicating that any pretence born of our political system, that we have any say in
what we get, is just that, hollow.

As the hominid capacity for articulate communication increased, so the complexity of

social space increased. This process gave rise to a mammalian superorganic life form, which
is a space containing individual people, just as the galaxy we live in is a space containing
galaxies. And so, just as celestial space is bent by the mass it contains, so the social space of
superorganic being is likewise bent by the mass it contains. Thus linguistic force, creates
social form, all social form, of all kinds, ever produced. And like celestial space, social
space, being created by the biomass to which its existence relates, expresses the exact same
tendency to distribute mass in an accumulative fashion that leads to clumping of the biomass
within social space. In other words, social space tends to cause the human biomass of which
it composed, to aggregate into ever more massive and complex structures. But, as with
gravity, linguistic force is not a force, in the strict sense of the term, because it does not pull
people together. What linguistic force does, is to increase the sophistication of social
structure and intensify the biomass in those regions favouring such growth through the
availability of the latent potential energy of life. Linguistic force accesses this potential
energy, causing the biomass to increase and intensify its complexity. This build up in mass
and complexity bends social space, and causes adjacent biomass to be drawn into orbit about
any engorging social vortex.
Just as superorganic life is represented by a religious priesthood in terms suited to
their mythology, in what we call ‘history’, so the priesthood has a branch of superorganic
physiology, that we call ‘economics’. These two mythological branches of academic
knowledge control, come in many guises, and the relevance of history has long been put in
doubt by advancing science, but if we assert that the superorganism is truly a living animal
created by nature, then economics must go the same way as history, and in the preceding
paragraph we get some idea how that might happen, by extending the reach of the biological
form of humans to include the space coming under the direct manipulation of human effort,
and bringing the environment within the constitution of the living human superorganism.
Economists would argue that human settlement takes place where it may be supported, not
due to some imperative derived from human physiology. That is all very well, but it ignores
the fact that time and time again, humans have exploited environments to the death, or more
to the point, to desertification. This indicates that human settlement is not a rational process,
but rather, it is an entirely natural process, just as with history, where the record shows that
we keep on fighting wars, even though the one thing we hate above all else, is fighting wars.
Explain that if you can. Bloom ends his Lucifer Principle by saying this is the great problem,
yet to be solved. The true explanation is : that we do not exist, except as part of a natural
process embodied in a mammalian superorganic being, so that war is not a problem, it is part
of a life process. War may end when the potential of human corporate nature reaches the
maximum extent of its release, it had better, as the only alternative is our old friend
desertification, this time on a global scale.
What priests call economics then, where people exploit resources, is really about a
source of latent potential life energy which fuels the expression of the linguistic force
inherent in human somatic physiology, allowing this social force to generate increased
superorganic form. Energising linguistic force is a physiological process that increases
growth and complexity, which is accommodated in a linguistic form that gives us the
sophisticated representation of this process that we find in academic mythology. As ever, the
priests who work for the absolute theocracy ensure that our understanding of reality is always
inverted, so that what nature does to us by virtue of our sentient brick status, is always made
to look like we are doing for ourselves. To grasp this point better we may adjust our
conception of ourselves as inert sentient brick units of superorganic being, to see ourselves as
active ‘sentient carts units’ of superorganic being, which the superorganism controls by
always making us feel as if we are pulling the horse, the superorganism that is, which is in
fact, always pulling us. This is what all knowledge does in the end, make us think we are the
directing objects, when this is not so, because language, through knowledge, controls us, we
do not control language, and ordinarily we have no idea what the knowledge we interact with,
really is. Humans did not make themselves, they were made by nature, and all that humans
do is a product of this primary fact.
This is a descriptive account, and people may find it suggestive, but no one is going to
accept on this basis, that this description is in point of fact correct. And we mean it to be
understood as correct. This comes back to the original point of departure, the passive nature
of gravity that means gravity is not a force of any kind, but a structural manifestation of a
force. And so it is in human society. Linguistic force is not a force at all, it is the expression
of an underlying force, that forces people to speak and generate languages which in turn
generate social space, which space is in point of fact is literally, what we in society know as
‘authority’. And if we think about the curved space which gives rise to what we call
‘gravity’, this space could also be likened to the closest thing to a universal authority, that we
know of.

Social space as authority

If we were to describe celestial space as ‘authority’, how convincing would this be ?

Pretty convincing, allowing for the habit we humans have of naming things for the attributes
they have in common, in this case the idea of space obliging matter to coalesce, has an air of
authority about it.
Authority exists in society, and in societies like ours the question of what it is and
where it comes from, has exercised the philosophically minded from time to time. And now,
at last, in the grand age of Special Relativity, we have the beginnings of a true answer. The
atomic processes that arrange the material substance of the universe all ‘make sense’ to the
elements taking part in the process of accumulation, where ‘making sense’ means the
molecular and chemical formulas add up, giving us the variety of elements we find in nature.
In our social world, the same arithmetic applies. The arrangement of the human biomass on
the planet follows lines of force organised by language, and the social structure generated by
linguistic force. The structure of the Muslim territories bordering Europe are of a highly
regular kind, and their recent agitation has thrown up certain novelties which we can use to
illustrate how lines of force organise social structure in a manner that makes perfect sense to
all the elements taking part, and looking on. Libya is the hot potato of the moment, and its
dynamics are all perfectly well ordered, given the chaos of civil war. The main strands of
linguistic force playing out now, consist of the state machine under Gaddafi, the main
biomass of the state, and the advanced community of world powers. Each of these three large
scale structural forms are animated within a social space, and the movement associated with
this animation is very much about ‘authority’. The authority comes in a whole variety of
forms, it may be seen in a bombing raid by the allies seeking to contain Gaddafi, or, as in a
distressing little scene yesterday, 27/03/2011, it can even be seen at the microscopic level
where a wronged women used the authority of the world’s media lodged in a hotel to faceoff
the seriously menacingly authority of the Gaddafi regime. Since then reports have varied, it
now being Friday, 08 April 2011, the last report said she was going to be tried for defaming
the honour of the soldiers who raped her, by reporting them as rapists. Sounds about right.
Fat ugly bitch, has she looked in the mirror lately ? She should of been grateful that any man
would deign to shag her twat, and instead she has the gall to complain, incredible ! It is an
honour to be raped by guardians of the law that protects women from violation, what kind of
education are these women getting ? We were treated to images of our own show trial here in
England yesterday, with a policeman who murdered an innocent man in the street in full view
of everyone, standing up at an inquest into the man’s death and explaining how the man he
pushed violently in the back was facing him at the time he gave him a gentle nudge !
Denying the reality of the whole scene on record and clear for everyone to see. But if a
policeman in our free country, run under the rule of law, says black is white that, from the
law’s point of view, means black must then be regarded as white. Pigs are the same the
world over, it goes with the job, and all governments are Nazi establishments in spirit, if not
in name, for the same reason. Don’t you hate the law ? Our problem is that we just cannot
get it into our heads that we do not exist, we are the property of the superorganism,
represented by the state, and the superorganism can do whatever it likes with us. That is how
nature made things to be, and you cannot argue with nature. We were made to endure a bad
life in society, and that is what we get, and it gets worse with every century that passes. Roll
on our extinction, eh.
At all points in our world, just as in the subatomic world of matter, our activities can
be reduced to a formula of an ‘authority kind’, if we exert ourselves to perform the task.
Often an effort is not necessary because as soon as we move the slightest distance from our
most personal space, authority galvanises us. Language is the most intimate expression of
this ‘galvanising authority’, telling us what we may say, and when we may express our
authority against another, who encroaches upon our authority by pushing the expression of
language beyond the structured norms. The mass expression of this dynamic, which is a
serious problem in society today, created by the legal structure and its operators, comes under
the heading of ‘political correctness’. On the Wright Stuff on Channel Five just now,
08/04/2011 10:02, we have been treated to a discussion about ‘wimpish teachers’, after a
school in Lancashire went on strike yesterday because children were not being disciplined.
The teachers phoning Steve Wright’s show said that Ofsted regimes and red tape were
imposing a kind of political correctness, where a school needed to appear to be good by not
stacking up statistics that indicate mayhem in the school, especially such things as exclusions.
This difficulty is probably down to the American culture of litigation against rich organs of
state or business, where lawyers sue anyone with any money, whose underlings transgress
service expectations in a culpable manner. Yesterday we also had four Kenyan Mau Mau
from the fifties in London, seeking compensation from the government for their treatment
when fighting for independence. It is not about the money they say, they just want an
apology, this being the usual verbal formulation in these circumstances where massive
compensation is sort. But the reason the lawyers bring such people here is because our state
sits on a bottomless pit of gold, and this ruse is a new way of extracting our nation’s tax
revenue out of the state coffers and into lawyer’s practices. I suppose we should not mention
that Jews and the master race link to law here, but I just cannot help having this culture pop
into my mind as I think about how lawyers act as puppeteers working a state by means of
law, paying homage to which, is at the very core of Jewish identity programming, and as such
makes the Jewish identity the specially adapted culture that it is, adapted to be a priestly
culture within any national type state organization, and this is the root of Jewish cultural
power, that channels linguistic force through the regulation of society, by means of law.
 We are not so much forced into any given motion relative to the social body we are
part of, most of the time, as the function of linguistic force is to create a social structure, and
despite all the evidence to the contrary, the really defining attribute of social space is its
harmony, peace and cooperation, that it contains within itself. So authority does not tend to
push or pull us. It is more correct to think of ourselves eternally falling along a social
trajectory that we hardly ever even know is there. We do not routinely go about telling
people to piss off and go to hell, so that, just as with gravity that keeps our feet on the ground,
we do not feel the social force, which in point of fact, ensures that this is so. And this social
force is really linguistic force, whose impress is imbued into our physiology as surely as our
adaptation to gravity is likewise. We even have a saying for this normal state of
accommodation to the ever present force of linguistic authority, we call it ‘going with the
flow’. If we think about it, we might almost say that most of philosophy, and not a little of
religion indeed, is about attaining this higher state of being, where we harmoniously fall
along the lines of linguistic force so effortlessly, as not to even know we are falling at all.
Like a space station plummeting to earth at thousands of miles an hour, day after day, but
never being one bit the worse for it, because it has no idea it is falling at all, since, courtesy of
the Special Theory of Gravitation, the planet also falls endlessly onward, so both objects keep
pace with each other accordingly, as indeed they do with all other objects in the entire
universe, even though this connection is only realisable intellectually, its connection being
beyond physical identification.
This universal reach of gravitational force, that can only be understood intellectually
because of the scale of the universe relative to our planet, is of pertinence to our constant
refrain that the seemingly insignificant Jews are the master race, whose cultural agenda all
humanity now exists to serve. For our biomass is set in a social space constituting a flux of
linguistic force, whose infinitely penetrating authority cannot be seen by any physical means,
because compared to each individual, the vast reach of global society is so vast that the all
pervading connectivity, its driving force and resulting structure, can only be known by
understanding ourselves according to intellectual principles, based on scientific knowledge
that places us in nature. This is Monism, but not as a derivative of science, seeking to evince
some new religious enlightenment such as we find argued in Monism as the Goal of
Civilization by Ostwald, 1913, that I got from Germany this week, but straightforward
Monism drawn directly from science, describing the interconnected of all things.
So it is with people in social space. We are objects made to form social space, a space
that exists as a flux of authority that is as real as can be, relative to the forms of matter that
we humans are. We emit our own quotient of linguistic force, and we respond to the flux of
linguistic force within which we exist. The evangelising expression of a Christian is a
biological expression of this authority of social space, it exists within a supermassive social
structure and it actively seeks to go out and draw human biomass into the reaches of the
biomass that is Jewish. Space, language, force, religion, authority, all sorts of ideas can be
made aspects of the universal space within which we exist. We, down to our most intimate
details, can be connected to the dynamic physical processes of the universe itself, courtesy of
the idea of falling along trajectories of authority that constitute space-time, each as befits its
own likeness within the pantheon of universal existence.

Reading light

27/03/2011 22:55—I just watched the last in the Wonders of the Universe series,
BBC 2, called Messengers, presented by Brian Cox, and I am filled with another new insight,
eh, what about that ? It never rains but it pours.
 As part of my reasoning about linguistic force I have long since extended the idea of
language creating biological structure backwards through the evolutionary process, towards
identifying Information exclusively with life. I have tried this idea on one person, who
disagreed, insisting that information existed in none living zones also. Unfortunately trying
to have a meaningful discussion with this person was difficult, when I discovered he was only
making up to me because he just wanted to nail my arse, I realised the nature of difficulty in
this case, he was only engaging with me in the first place to butter me up, no wonder he was
impossible to engage with properly. People, man !
But still, there is an issue to be resolved here, or there was until Cox’s piece tonight,
now another profound deep thingy, bites the dust. Light is packed with information, this
information appears as colours, it also appears as heat, radio waves and so on. Which would
seem to validate my admirer’s reasoning, and invalidate my great idea that the essence of life
is Information. Not so fast, I ain’t given such a good idea up that easy. What makes
information, information ? Answer : reading it ! The wavelengths of light are not
information until they are read. Such a statement may immediately raise that ugly
philosophical notion of things not existing unless they are seen, Berkley ; or that other
madness about the impossibility of seeing anything truly because of the perturbations of
observation, Heisenberg.
I do not like mystification, I like simplicity. The fact is that we interact with reality
through a medium of consciousness that is language, and it is our contention that the purpose
of language is not to give us a true picture, but rather a functional picture that allows us to
perform a role within the physiology of a living organism. Which is implicit in the idea that
language creates social structure, or superorganic physiology. One of the main features of
this linguistic process is therefore to induce a state of consciousness in us, that delivers the
requirement for malleability in sentient brick units of organic architecture, that will
nonetheless result in our being set within a stable structure. Consequently the linguistic flux
within which we are bathed, constantly forces us to assume that reality is what linguistic
meaning says it is. Hence we use a word like ‘information’ to describe the most special
quality of light, and we wonder if information can exist outside living matter, and thereby we
are forced into a ludicrous conception. All because conceptions are born of the inherently
cursory mode of linguistic expression that pares down reality to a finely edged tool of
meaning, slicing consciousness into narrow slivers suited to keeping us in our place within
the superorganism by making meaning everything, and reality nye on impossible to see
intuitively. To see reality intuitively we must be able to erase ourselves from existence, as
can be seen from this discussion, where it becomes plain that we are imposing ourselves upon
our interpretation of reality when we carelessly describe light as carrying information, as if
this capacity were a quality of light, rather than an attribute of ourselves as living entities,
which is what information must always be, because no life means no information. Light did
not carry information until living matter was induced from inanimate matter by the very act
of reading light.
From this self negatory model of information we derive a fundamental conception of
intelligence as a mechanistic attribute of matter, since we have just reduced what is always
taken to be a physical process of energy transference, to one of apparent sentience, whereby
the creative response of inanimate matter to the stimulation of light under appropriate
conditions as found on earth, is now represented as a point of origin for the components of
sentience, since this invokes the initiation of information, its reading and the consequent
organic development based upon this new information reading process of Life. When we
talk about linguistic force creating superorganic physiology, the idea is extremely difficult to
accept as literally true, but we must mean it to be so, otherwise our whole scheme of human
corporate nature looses its scientific validity, which we most definitely mean it to have, since
there can be no other way to understand our human mode of social existence in this universe.
Finding the essence of linguistic capacity in the point of origin of life itself, therefore extends
the logic of making Information the creative principle, or force, which shapes all living form.
Thus instead of intelligence being a special gift of humans, it becomes what our organicist
argument has been driving at all along, an aspect of the dynamic life process, which is why
linguistic force can be said to create social structure viewed as superorganic physiology. Not
being inclined towards any kind of mysticism or sentimentality myself, I have never favoured
the religious sounding idea that the whole universe is a form of sentient entity, a kind of
consciousness, which one hears from time to time in connection with organicist thinking. But
once we have made society into a living thing holding the content of our consciousness, and
now we have reduced sentience to the mere reading of energy waves of light, we have to
admit that more poetic intuitions have already empathised with this idea in a variety of ways.
We do not mean to overreach ourselves in this sentimental way however, and must warn
against such mythmaking interpretations of Organicist ideas as a form of the mental
corruption of real knowledge, inclining towards priestcraft.
Having taken this discussion this far, reducing human sentience to a physical process
initiated along with the inception of life, then in terms of understanding the nature of our
form of sentience based on language, we might just note the nature of authority appearing
within this model. Authority is central to our personal relationship with the social world we
live in, and this has led us to the idea that authority is an attribute of language, whereby the
imperative to use language that is inherent in our sentient brick physiology projects a
linguistic programme into a social space that is created by this act of projection, whereby
linguistic force creates and maintains superorganic being, thus creating social authority as an
attribute of language belonging to the superorganism, as personified in ideas of the spiritual
and divine, insinuated into the social structure which is in reality the physiological form of
the living human superorganism.
Our linguistic programming obliges us to think of the resulting social authority in
personalised terms, although authority is always invested in a social structure demarcated by
some form of identity, that may be characterised as religious, political or economic. The
individuals carrying identities which fit them into these categories—as arbiters of authority
we may call them ‘priests’—are therefore guardians of the authority which derives from, and
therefore ultimately belongs to language, as a supra individual attribute of human corporate
nature. With this new view reaching back to the origin of life itself, in the reading of the
energy waves of light, we must see what we call ‘authority’ as an attribute that also comes
into being when inanimate matter starts to read light energy in such a way as to create living
structure. That structure’s occupation of what then automatically becomes living space
constitutes the abstract principle of organic authority which comes into being in our human
world, as social authority, identity that is, ultimately, Religion. So authority is a quality of
Information, which is itself the essence of living matter. And in making out this argument,
we have now traced the nature and origin of religion to the foundation of life itself, by
making religion an expression of this quality of authority linked to organic form, that is
derived from the reading of light, which brings what we call ‘information’, or ‘knowledge’,
into being. Not bad. As ever, we ordinarily invert these conceptual relationships with reality,
so deeply insinuated into us are these basic attributes of living matter that we can hardly be
expected to do otherwise, without some far reaching model of life, a Relativity of Life
comparable to the conceptual transformation brought about by Einstein’s Special Relativity
of Space.

Light may well have an infinitely complex structure, and that structure may well
constitute information once we know how to read it, and indeed, before we know we know.
But we would be getting ourselves in a mess to think that information is information before it
is read. Which is of course exactly the situation we are in today, just where the priesthood
likes us to be, in a mess instead of in control, that way the ones who create the intellectual
mess are inevitably the ones in control of knowledge, since their mess is all we end up
possessing as wisdom.
So the upshot of all this, is that we now have a whole new bright idea, the idea that
life is a passive force ! Let me rephrase that. Life is information, that is Atheist Science’s
definition of life, so what we are saying, or should say, is : Information is a passive force.
Living matter is the material acted upon by this passive force of information, in a process that
coalesces life forms out of inanimate matter. Thus light, relative to life, is the active force ;
just as DNA is the active force creating linguistic physiology that imparts a passive force
organising human forms to create superorganic forms. I like that, and that was an unexpected
fruit of sitting down to watch this excellent programme tonight.
I started to have an inkling of these ideas right from the off as Cox talked about the
nature of light as a medium of information, but then things really started cooking when he
said that this special attribute of light might of had a crucial role in the evolution of complex
life. This suited me perfectly, but I must just say that Cox, coming at the issue from a
physicists point of view, had a severely limited conception of the ideas he was grappling with
here, and completely failed to realise the potential of what he was saying. He was bogged
down in the material manifestation of light sensitivity in organisms, whereas we are
captivated by the theoretical potential of understanding the nature of the relation between
light as a medium of information, and the formation of living matter itself, never organs of
vision. Our idea is as far in advance of Cox’s, as the Tomahawk cruise missiles hitting
Gaddafi Ville tonight, are from David’s sling shot.
‘Information’ only becomes information when it is read, and what living matter does,
is read information. This is why life is based on the reading of a genetic code, the act of
reading is what characterises life, and this essence of life is embodied in the chemistry of life
that is read in the process of delivering life forms. Thus the essence of life is information,
and information is an attribute of living matter that only comes into existence with the
appearance of living matter. The genetic process is essentially a reading process, in keeping
with the origin of life as a process involving the reading of light energy, that renders light
energy into Information. Inanimate matter becomes animate by reading the energy of light.
The first steps in the evolution of life involve the organisation of this energy reading process,
so that a structural reading equivalent to the spontaneous use of language leads onto the more
elaborate structural transcription of a genetic code, as the proto elements of living matter
learn not only to read, as a form of language like communication enabling matter to become
self making, but to write ! Genetics, according to this idea, is the beginning of what we all
self knowledge, where matter comes to know itself by laying down a code for its own
fabrication. The establishment of genetic codes for the building of life forms, emulates our
sense of self awareness, for that is what genetics does, it recognises the ability of the first
biological forms of living matter to read the energy waves of light, and thereby construct
themselves on the basis of capturing the energy contained in radiated light. Genetics then
formalises this reading process, by transcribing it. The point about what Cox calls
‘information’, as seen in the wavelengths of light, is that this information is in reality an
energy spectrum. So now we have indicated how to trace the formation of society at the
behest of linguistic force, right back to the origin of living matter on earth. If our ideas are
scientific, then this continuity is mandatory, not fabulous.
There is a possibility of seeming too anthropomorphic in pushing this model of life
based upon our human experience of sentience to the limit in this way. But this arises from
the conscious effort to apply science to our most intimate attributes of self, and in reducing
our most personal qualities of speech and thought to nothing more than physical processes
relating to the internal physiology of a living human superorganism, it is only to be expected
that we will find these abstracted versions of our beautiful selves manifested in life itself,
eventually, appearing right back to the point of origin of life that has so eluded modern
scientists, bound up in servitude to religion as they are.

Special relativity of structure

Two types of force are envisioned, passive and active, or perhaps we should say two
states of force : active, as in magnetism, which pulls ; while passive, as with gravity, falls.
Active force seems to be a micro property of matter, which once formed creates macro
properties where passive forces operate. In the realm of life genetics would seem to
constitute a micro force actively impelling macro level living structures to form. Once life
forms come into existence as macro level scale entities, their material existence has
consequences derived from their structure that impel passive effects that are not driven
directly by the active force of genetics, but which nonetheless derive indirectly from genetics
in such a way that macro level phenomena are entirely determined, albeit in a statistical
fashion, rather than a mathematical fashion, by underlying micro level forces. Behavioural
effects fall into place according to a statistical pattern of interacting forces, arising from
population and environmental dynamics, rather than being driven on a mathematical basis
determined by fixed lines energy distribution. Given that we want to make human society a
biological organism, a superorganism created by Nature, this direct relationship between
macro and micro level force is important to establish, so we need to be able to say that
genetics control that which it has no direct influence over with. For example, genetics makes
humans build houses, as surely as genetics makes birds build nests. We make this link in
humans by recognising the biologically creative nature of language, as a direct extension of
information from genetic to linguistic modes. Applying the argument we have just stated, the
effect of genetic imperatives, the genetic force, is mathematical ; while the effect of linguistic
imperatives, the linguistic force, is statistical. How does that proposition sound ?
In point of fact genetic effects are obviously variable in such a way that they can only
be predicted on a statistical basis, and conversely, once we have asserted the biological nature
of language acting as a force, its effects also become fixed, with variations, in a like manner
to those of genetics, when viewed relative to the object of linguistic force, which is the
superorganism. Thus language creates superorganic identity in the form of religion, for
purely physiological purposes relative to the superorganism. Which means that everyone in a
given region will be of a fixed range of religious identities, but if we focus in randomly upon
any given individual we will be unable to predict which variety of the superorganic identity
spectrum will apply to them, giving us a kind of sociological version of the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle I suppose. Thus we could say that such and such a percentage of the
superorganic biomass in a region is Christian, but we could not say who each Christian was
by name and address. These of course are the inevitable scaling effects of mass phenomena
occurring where integral units are integrated into complex wholes.
The truth is that I am toying with ideas that I know are essential to science, but that
are entirely beyond my ability to understand, I cannot do maths. So I am going to have to
leave these speculations in the form of this ghostly apparition of an idea, while doing the best
I can to play with some the implications of this kind of reasoning. In principle I believe that a
monistic model of existence is the only possible view conforming to reality, so I like the idea
of reducing all dualisms to a common basis. Even so, we seem obliged to reason by way of
dualisms, so if that is the limit of our animal intelligence, so be it.
 Behavioural effects are biological in nature as they are a direct consequence of the
genetically impelled creation of life forms, behavioural indeterminacy does not represent
some kind of free action on the part of living things genetically organized. Behavioural
effects are impelled by virtue of the fact that life forms are obliged to act according to the
landscape created by the force affinity inherent in their own biological existence which
constitutes a biosphere, the resulting process arising from the existence of life impacting upon
life, is what we call ‘Evolution’. Darwin rendered this self impelled process as Natural
Selection, the life domain’s equivalent of gravitational force reaching across the pantheon of
life forms, uniting all life in one process. Natural Selection has been identified as the force of
evolution by E. O. Wilson, but not by us. For Atheist Science the life force creating life
forms must be reduced to a uniform force for all life forms, which we denominate as
Information, brought into existence by the transformation of inanimate matter into living
matter through the etching of complex molecular structures by light waves, until the point
where this shaping of organic molecules created structures that could read the light waves in
such a way as to enable them to organise their own growth, by turning the passive reception
of light energy into an active process of creative formation : Life.
Lets continue unravelling this idea. Bearing in mind what we have just been saying
about information being inanimate matter’s reading of energy waves, which gives rise to a
structural encryption, a formula for making life forms, we have here a model for the
transference from active, as in energy, to passive forces, as in information and its associated
structural forms. According to this idea, energy can be viewed as cutting a landscape through
fundamental particles, as if wavelengths of light fall upon an atomic landscape like rain upon
the land, cutting channels that represent energy flows, resulting in forms that, because of the
primary level of the atomic substance, leads to the organisation of molecular scale structures
which passively respond to the information patterns cut into the atomic level structures which
they themselves are. This is a form of self awareness therefore, as these passive responses of
proto living forms existing at the microscopic level represent some of the first interactive
behaviours, behaviour being the action of living forms that is enabled by the existence of
information associated with being alive. This description evokes the evolutionary dynamic of
development by competition, as it talks about organic forms that are formed to respond to
energy and to one another in terms of access to energy, which makes awareness of self and
others a fundamental mechanism related to gaining accessing energy. Darwin perverted this
mechanism into a form of political competition based on human social behaviour, whereas it
is really all about the influence of energy on life forms, and the urge of living matter to
exploit latent potential energy of life. The basic building blocks of life are brought into being
by the action of energy raining down upon elemental matter, making life a passive response
to radiant energy. This passivity remains an eternal feature of life, just as passivity remains
an eternal feature of the universe in terms of the influence of gravity. Life does not fight
itself for survival, life flows along lines of structural weathering produced by energy patterns
appearing as living forms : the stream of life. This view may not suit our experience of what
life is like, but if we want a scientific understanding of what life is, then we need some such
model that fits life into the grand scheme of cosmic energy and mass.
The molecular reading of light waves, culminating in an organic code for scripting the
structure of living forms based upon the use of light energy, that initiated the whole process
of life making, makes genetic codes the engines of an active life force, expressing the
creative power of Information that the reading of light waves brought into existence. In
keeping with this attribution of an active force to genetics, we have just said that genetic
codification arises from a passive exposure to light energy, so that active creates passive, and
passive creates active expressions of force, thereby driving universal structure through an
infinite series of hierarchical levels of development. The shift from using light energy
directly, to using plants as a potential source of life energy by evolving animal forms, shows
how a new hierarchical level of organization based upon genetics, initially established to
utilise light energy by formalising the reading of light waves, continuously unravels a spiral
of energy potential, an image nicely emblazoned in the spiral form of DNA. How else could
this transition from none life to life based on the energy of sunlight, have come about, other
than by light’s presence bringing something into being in relation to its own existence, that
did not previously exist ? The invocation of some kind of dualism in the fundamentals of
existence seems to be unavoidable, even though an ultimate belief in Monism seems
mandatory for anyone holding to a scientific understanding of reality. We must suppose that
it is the act of perception which imparts bias, leading to the apparent dualism of an otherwise
continuous uniformity.
Our idea that genetic force is an active force derived from an initial living structure
impelled into existence through the passive exposure of organic molecules to a rain of stellar
energy, under suitable planetary conditions, is a general mode of reasoning that suits an
organicist sociologist’s agenda. It allows us to think about a linguistic force in the same
terms as a genetic force, in the sense that the evolution of a universal code of life constitutes a
physiology of information : a genetic code from which a genetic force emanates, to create
living structure. This chimes with our idea that genetics has produced a linguistically
empowered physiology extending the reach of organic being across a super individual space,
to form a superorganism, whence linguistic physiology is described by us as the source of a
linguistic force, that creates superorganic form. Here we find a structural continuity between
the way life has built itself up from its earliest unifying origins in genetic codification, to its
most recent, as seen in human social life. Thus the reading of light waves enables structure to
form in such a way as to utilise the energy of light by forming structures that capture that
energy, enabling creative behaviour to ensue, thus bringing Information into existence as the
essence of life, associated with the creativity of novel structure derived from the coming into
existence of Information. Living structures thenceforth give rise to engines of information
which appear as sequential links in a hierarchical chain of life, giving creative expression to
the force of information in a series of living epochs familiar to palaeontologists and
biologists. Evolution consists of the ever increasing development of engines of information,
and the information they produce, genetics is one such engine, human linguistic physiology is
another. This model allows us to continue the comparison with creativity born of genetics
and linguistic capacity, whereby genetic force impels the evolution of physiology able to
create superorganic form, by creating an engine of linguistic force, whereby linguistic force is
viewed as an active force driving human evolution towards the ever greater expression of
more massive and complex superorganic form.

The above reasoning indicates that while genetics relative to life may look like an
active force driving the formation of living form, genetics are the product of a passive effect
due to energy acting upon elemental matter at an atomic level, to produce elaborate molecular
forms from which the genetic pattern is constituted. Which goes to show that understanding
reality is all about attaining the correct pivot of observation suited to the principle employed
in understanding a process. An idea we are very familiar with in Organicism since the war of
religion against science insists upon treating all things from the point of view of the
individual as an end in themselves, while in point of fact the individual does not exist at all,
since the individual is a cellular unit of superorganic being. Clearly we have a series of forms
appearing in a structural sequence, given that we can speak of inanimate matter, organic
matter, living matter, genetic life, continuing onwards to all that we are familiar with. It
follows that according to where we place ourselves in the series of transformations from one
order of existence to another, our perception of active versus passive impulsion will be
determined, exactly as we have just seen in relation to whether genetics is seen as an active or
passive life force.
From this side of the divide genetics appears to be an active life force directing the
form life will take. With the dualistic model of creative forces which sees active forces
creating forms that impel passively by sheer force of their material presence, we have worked
our way back before the origin of genetics by thinking in terms of life’s origins being denoted
by the process of inanimate matter reading energy waves of light such that matter formed into
regular structures capturing light energy. As these structures multiplied they formed the first
elements of life that actively drove the evolution of genetic forms, which, once established,
impelled life forms to come into existence in a passive manner due to their physical
interaction at a behavioural level, until the elaboration of life was so far advanced that
genetics took on the appearance it has for us, of actively driving the formation of life, which
has been rendered into the force of evolution by Wilson, developing Darwin’s idea of Natural
Selection.
Gravity is not a force, it is a consequence of the effect of matter on space, causing
space to curve so that matter falls towards foci of mass distributed throughout an open
continuum of space. If we apply this passive principle at a structural level within the fabric
of matter, we are able to think of gravity like properties operating at all hierarchical levels of
material structure. Thus atoms are made up of nuclear forces that actively create atomic
structure leading to a variety of material elements, which then form compounds in which the
resulting passive force that we call ‘gravity’, takes effect.
It is really at the level of human society that we become most interested in these ideas,
so we must jump from physics to biology, to the appearance of life at least. Here we have the
material manifestation of information particles, genes, which act as a force of information
directing the formation of living structure. We have already reasoned that genetic structures,
genomes, constitute engines of information which generate a force of information that creates
life form, or physiology. Once living structures have an affinity for each other on a multitude
of levels, as members of species and as predator prey or co-members of an ecosystem, these
macro level structural relations have all the appearance of being driven by a force, if looked
at from the correct perspective where individuality is minimised and general characteristics
are brought to the fore. But we do not ordinarily think of these structural consequences as
being the expression of a force, but rather as the product of instinctive triggers or behaviours.
However, coming to the human social domain, in order to bring humans into the realms of
nature on a par with all other living things, we need to bring in the idea of force relative to
social structure, and hence in Atheist Science we have recognised that a linguistic force
creates all social form. This linguistic force derives from the engine of information which is
the linguistic physiology belonging to the somatic body of the human individual.

In making a natural force the arbiter of all our conscious actions, we have found
ourselves obliged to find out just what the nature of a force is, and this has led us to the
position of seeing two types of force, as stated above, so that large scale forces are a product
of small scale forms, that is to say, large scale forces are structural in nature, gravity and
linguistic force being examples of such. They are nonetheless real for being passive, because
they are as certain a consequences of the physical structures they relate to, as any supposedly
active force found in subatomic structures.
Our somewhat convoluted reasoning has made genetic force out to be passive too,
even though shaking off the active idea of genetic influence is uncertain, due to the physical
manifestation of genetic information in genes, which seems to make genetic influence
deterministic, and therefore fixed and active. But all forces must have a material form
associated with them, hence we are able to say that the human form, because it carries an
engine of information, constitutes a particle of linguistic force, which finds its culmination in
superorganic form. I came across a quote from the famous German philosopher Goethe the
other day : “matter can never exist or act apart from spirit, neither can spirit apart from
matter.” (Monism, Haeckel, 1894, p. 50.), which shows that the general idea we are playing
with here, is a long standing point of logic arrived at by philosophers.
Science does drive us towards a monistic view of everything, which means we must
assume that any dualism thoughtfully worked out above, is really the manifestation of an
underlying, or all embracing unity, that we cannot quite conceive of. If we read Haeckel’s
essay on Monism as the belief of a scientist, we find this intangible dream of a unifying
monistic principle underpinning everything, which seems to be best visualised by him, in the
idea of an all pervading ether. This idea brings us to the second excellent programme I
watched last month, March 2011, where the subject of this universal ether, the void of space,
was discussed according to the current ideas provided by quantum physics. This revealed
that empty space consisted of a dynamic flux where matter constantly comes from nothing,
by borrowing energy, which it pays back almost instantly, thereby keeping the energy
account stable, obeying the laws of physics.
This is a very curious view of universal reality at its most fundamental level, and it
has the bizarre result of unifying dualism in a dynamic process that involves being and
nothingness, at one and the same time. Which is not quite the monism we were thinking of
perhaps, but which is quite neat, nonetheless.

Force and matter

Within a few days of finishing the above discussion of active and passive force I
finished Haeckel’s Monism and found an interesting diagram in the end notes :

(Monism, p. 106)

The delightful aspect of this diagram in relation to the above discussion is its use of an
active versus passive dichotomy. In the diagram the contrast is more basic as it really
distinguishes between energy and matter, making energy a force and matter inert. The whole
point of our reasoning is to allow a linguistic force to make sense as a natural force, by
indicating that inert matter engenders forces acting across space, as certainly as any active
force. So our dichotomy is not of a simple kind, as in energy versus mass, but rather it
concerns the subtle dichotomy of active force versus passive force. The overt statement
found in the diagram makes it easy to pick up this potential point of confusion, and make the
matter clear.
Nice to see that he has gravity on the side of inert matter, not alongside active force,
all that is missing is the recognition of information as the life force, and hence linguistic force
as the social force. But when it comes to structure he is clearly thinking of mass as solid,
which causes problems when trying to argue that a human society is one integral living
organism. This is a pity because we also found a useful idea in the modern knowledge that
even the atom is composed mostly of space, and in this very work of 1894 we find the same
principle evinced : “He [Vogt] regards the atoms of mass (the primal atoms of the kinetic
theory of matter) as individualised centres of concentration of the continuous substance that
uninterruptedly fills all space” (p. 103). In other words, matter is made up of empty space ;
that is what he would of meant, if he had known what it was he was trying to say.

Its that time of year again, Yippee! Hot sunshine sees me back in the greenhouse,
reading. Having just knocked off a couple of short items from the old era of real science,
before the Great Cleansing of 1914 – 18, I turned to the expensive pile I accumulated last
year as I hit upon the new school of information and complexity, applying to evolution and
society. Self-Organisation and Evolution of Social Systems, now there is a title to conjure
with. The trouble is this is a book of essays by diverse authors, and I hate that when I buy a
really telling title on a rare subject, because the contents never have anything to do with the
subject of the title, and this is no exception. As I delved into this book this afternoon,
Tuesday, 19 April 2011, I had an initial positive idea gained from the opening blurb’s talk
thus : “individuals are governed by simple rules, their interactions with each other and their
environment lead to complex patterns.”, and the first essay I decided to read Self-
organisation in language by Bart de Boer, which gave the definition of self-organisation as :
The emergence of order on a global scale through interactions on a local scale.
This put me in mind of the passive force of information in life, since we have argued
above that the generation of living forms carries with it an implicit interaction that makes
these forms act upon each other in accordance with the dictates of a unifying force, which
when we come to the human level, where an individual form has evolved to exploit this
interactive passive force of association, to the maximum, a superorganism created by
linguistic force is the result.
Getting into this work has been slow going. The essay on language left a lot to be
desired and I followed it with one by David Sloan Wilson on Natural selection and complex
systems : a complex interaction, which was decidedly aggravating, but it did point out a
volume with an anti-Darwinian twist from as recent as 1995, which I ordered last night. Then
I dipped into the introduction, and the first essay. The introduction describes this book as the
only one of its kind to bring together a discussion of “aspects of social behaviour through
interaction with the environment in the entire range of organisms (from single-celled
organisms via slugs, insects, fish and primates to humans.)” (p. 1) Which is immensely
appealing in terms of trying to argue that humans are part of nature, something which religion
will not allow anyone to argue officially. The only way to argue this point is to say that
human individuals do not exist, only the superorganism exists, for only then can we be
reduced to entirely organic entity, as created by nature to form a social body.
 In keeping with their fine boast chapter one is From unicellular to multicellular
organisation in the social amoeba Dictyostelium discoideum, by Cornelis Weijer, and it is an
intriguing looking piece, describing how a disparate mass of cells unite to form a structural
hierarchy enabling a breeding form to arise. The especially nice aspect of this account that I
picked up at a glance, is the description of a master component that tells cells how to
coordinate their behaviour purposefully, just as we find in human superorganisms with the
likes of Druids and Jews acting at the behest of linguistic force, for which they act as the
coordinating material centre.
 Part 2

Practical Atheist Science

 Introduction

According to the rules laid down by the absolute theocracy which controls all
knowledge in our society, science must be practical, it is this rule which allowed degenerate
academics like Gould to describe religion and science as two separate magisteria, in other
words, two diametrically opposite, but nonetheless equally true ways of knowing one thing.
But this is religious bullshit of the most vile kind, as this means, since there can only be one
way of knowing reality, that science does not exist, except in the sterile form of a practical
art.
That said, while we define science as a way of knowing reality, it goes without saying
that in order to know reality science must recognise reality as the sole authority in existence.
Atheist Science is really just Sociology, as formulated in an absolute theocracy that has
manufactured a fake Sociology to replace the original true form, which it has destroyed and
made taboo through the general application of Social Darwinism to human society. We want
to make Atheist Science a practical art in that rarefied field of application that singles out the
specific definition which Atheist Science gives to science : as a way of knowing reality. In
order to do this, we must apply Atheist Science as a way of knowing reality, to religion, as a
false way of knowing reality, disguised as science. In order to do this, we first need a suitable
piece of pseudo scientific work, directly occupying that intellectual space in the collective
mind of superorganic being, which would be occupied by Atheist Science if we lived in a free
society.
Accordingly we present an Atheist Science analysis of Howard Bloom’s Lucifer
Principle. When I read any book I make notes, it allows me to preserve the thoughts
prompted by a book, which would otherwise come and go like the wind. Such efforts are
mostly worthless no doubt, since I never refer to these notes at a distant time. But this habit
offers a method of providing a practical application of one way of knowing reality, directly
applied to a counter way of knowing the exact same thing, in this case the idea of the human
superorganism, which Bloom makes his own while still adhering to the traditional mantra of
the individual as an end in themselves.
This is how we propose to make science as a way of knowing reality, into a practical
science, by taking the essence of the war between religion and science as two diametrically
opposite ways of knowing reality focused on the exact same fact of reality, and seeing how
religion on the one hand, and science on the other, reads the lesson of reality offered by using
this key fact of human corporate nature to interpret the panoply of associated facts, history,
politics and the like, emanating from this key fact, which, on this occasion at least, both the
religious view and the scientific, utilise as the one true position from which to interpret all
aspects of human life. Admittedly Bloom pretends to be a rationalist, an atheist even,
following a scientific path to knowledge, so we make him out to be a priest of the theocracy
by virtue of the fact that his ideas always maintain the reality of the individual as an end in
themselves. This false pivot of observation—individuality—is the key to religious
mythology’s viability as a source of political power, centred on religious identity. Part of our
project is therefore to show the covertly subversive nature of Bloom’s work as that of a
fraudster feigning devotion to science ; while the other part of our effort must illustrate how
Bloom’s primary mechanism of subversion focused on the reality of the person, causes the
interpretation of social matters to take one form, a political form, while a true scientific
account takes another, quite opposite form, that negates the individual and their politics, and
transforms everything about society into a biological account of superorganic being.
By this means we will show in a practical manner, how religion rules science by
setting up an acceptance of both modes of understanding reality at once, a position we have
seen openly espoused by Gould, by using the idea that religion and science equate to two
alternate pivots of equally valid observation, from which to view reality. Bloom works from
this dualistic position, using both points of observation simultaneously, treating both the
individual and the superorganism as equally real. This absurd contrivance is what makes his
work unique, for ordinarily the only valid stance accepted by science is the religious stance
that says the individual is the human being. Atheist Science rejects the religious stance
entirely, hence the agnomen distinguishing our science from the official science of our
absolute theocracy, thereby denouncing the dualism which allows the theocracy to pretend
science is now free, and insisting that all there can be is a science which observes nature in
relation to human existence through the prism of superorganic being, which alone is real, the
individual being a physiological unit of superorganic being.
So Bloom displays the dualism of religious duplicity in all its glory by making out
that both the individual and the superorganism are real simultaneously, and these notes will
be concerned to pick up this duplicity. In imposing this ludicrous interpretation of organicist
ideas Bloom has an easy task, given that everyone in society at large buys into this duplicity
without a second thought, it seems natural and right, we know that we are the human being,
but we also understand the overawing influence of society. Therefore a real exertion must be
made by science to take a contrary view, in full awareness of the need to disabuse people of
this happy misconception, if science is to be heard. For this dualism is a most gratifying
illusion to suffer from, allowing as it does for all to continue as it has always been, and for
nothing new to be learnt from science about who and what we are. All that is real is the
superorganism, the individual does not exist, that is the task for science to understand, and
teach, thus making religion impossible, and so transforming everything.
Some specially selected comments on Bloom’s efforts, serving as recommendations,
declare his work incredibly brave, and if he had employed the critical element of his work as
real science, it would indeed be immensely brave. But this pretence of bravery, like his
whole argument, is a sham, precisely because, as he gives himself up to science with one
hand by acknowledging the superorganism for real, he takes back with the other by always
finishing with the individual as the only real end point of all human action. Thus keeping the
account on a even keel, ensuring that in the end nothing changes, the force of evil is real,
even if it is transposed into the being of the superorganism, so we still need religion to protect
us poor frail individuals from the evil arising from Nature’s mindlessness, applied to
ourselves. Thus the individual, in the end, is empowered, and made the end point of authority
and self determination. It is certainly a clever, and most curious effort at duplicity.
Describing this method of giving with one hand while taking with the other reminds me of
the description of the cosmic flux existing throughout all space, which has matter appearing
from nowhere and disappearing again instantly, as described above, to keep things always
remaining the same. In Bloom’s work then we see this quantum action appearing in the guise
of information as linguistic knowledge, Quantum Knowledge, where the empty space of
social being is filled with the expression of linguistic force in the shape of meaningless
knowledge, which comes from nowhere and vaporizes spontaneously, ensuring dynamic
stability remains eternal, allowing change without change to rule our social world.
It is only fair to point out that credit for our opportunity to engage in this practical
science must be given to Bloom, without whose magnificent efforts at knowledge perversion
focused bang on target, we would have nothing to work with. To my knowledge Bloom’s
work is entirely unique, outside my own. No one else has attempted to use the idea of
humans as superorganisms to formulate a modern account of human existence. Lets run a
search for Howard Bloom on Amazon books, because Amazon searches inside books, and
this should reveal if anyone has taken notice of Bloom’s argument in any later work :

20/03/2011 10:44 – as of this point 176 results, 131 with quotation marks restricting the
search. The Dark Arts of Immortality by Shott seems to like Bloom’s reasoning about
memes, but it follows the individualistic line and makes religion out to be an aid to the
individual. This Amazon thing of viewing books inside is incredible, I love it !
Evolutionary Leadership by Merry uses content from Bloom’s Global Brain, and here
we find the superorganic imperative coming to the fore as there is talk about perpetual change
managed by regulators within living systems that sense a need for change. All this is a long
way from what we are looking for though.

20/03/2011 11:48 – Three books later, bought that is, I found nothing ; an interesting
operation though. Lots of praise for Bloom’s work, all to do with the idea of a collective
mentality shown in the usual manifestations of globalisation. Not one single reference to his
idea of the human superorganism, which it has to be said, given his evident fame, is quite
astounding. Talk about a collective, seemingly wilful, mass blindness. The idea that humans
are a superorganism ought to explode in the mind of anyone who reads it, as the final
attainment of absolute knowledge pertaining to human existence, but no, nothing, dead, dead,
nothing, no sign of any intelligent life anywhere on the planet.
I did snap up three books, one on crossing the boundary between biology and
sociology was only a tenner and is obviously germane to Atheist Science ; but it will be
nothing. Then a 2003 bit of disgusting priestcraft setting out a specific idea of how humans
created their own evolution by harnessing a whole new phenomenon, not a force, but
synergy ! Utter shit, but spot on subject and cheap enough to be worth looking at what these
twisted cretins are spewing forth at the moment. The only item which chimed with Bloom’s
use of the idea of the human superorganism was Integral City, about the city as a living
organism, it will be crap just as Bloom’s magnificent work on the human superorganism that
we are about to delve into in detail now is crap, but at least this last volume is right on
subject. It was the only thing that in any way, shape, or form, showed the main theme
running through Bloom’s work that makes him of so much interest to ourselves now.

The notes

These notes are just as I wrote them while reading, as per my usual practice, with a
little tweaking and a few additions taking advantage of the copying process. It follows that
on their own they will be useless, as they are intended to capture my thoughts while reading,
where I ordinarily write the page number and the response which has been prompted. But
this is what makes this section a practical in Atheist Science, where I apply my Atheist
Science mindset to the analysis of Bloom’s application of the religious attitude rooted in
individualism, applied to the core idea of Atheist Science, which is the idea of the human
animal as a superorganism.
You must therefore equip yourself with a copy of The Lucifer Principle in order to
make any real use of this section. After reading my main works you can use this one to test
your own success in attaining a genuinely scientific view of human, and hence, your own
nature, by making notes of your own on passages and comparing them to mine, to see if you
have picked up the inherent flaws in Bloom’s religiously inspired interpretation of facts, as
compared to my solidly scientific interpretation based on the knowledge that individuals do
not exist and all there is, is the human superorganism.

I know nothing of Bloom, I have imagined him a kind of layman within the field he
covers here. Scanning Amazon just now threw up a couple of pointers, he was described as a
‘biologist’ and also as a visiting professor in a New York university, I think it was. So there
we have it, a professional scientific priest of some kind, which rather raises the question of
what he was about in publishing his Lucifer Principle based on the idea of the superorganism
in 1995. It can only of been an act of dissimulation, nothing else comes from these academic
sources when dealing with the subject of human nature. My own view of this period is that it
was rippling with the impact of Wilson’s Sociobiology. We can see this ripple moving
outwards from the date of publication in 1975, in what is essentially an American intellectual
movement. We have items like Human Nature and History : A Response to Sociobiology,
Kenneth Bock, 1980, Bock’s name appearing on the front cover of a further stepping stone in
the decoupling move away from scientific truth, the most significant of all, written by a
layman predecessor of Bloom who produced that most rare item, a book talking about the
idea of the human superorganism directly, The Social Organism : A Short History of the Idea
that a Human Society may be regarded as a Gigantic Living Creature, George Maclay, 1990.
This amateur production probably explains my inclination to think of Bloom as an amateur
too, the title Lucifer Principle, fronted as an explanation for evil, has all the appearance of an
amateur production, rather than that of a professional biologist, and I have seen nothing to
contradict this appearance.
The ripple may be regarded as having petered out, having extended its reach into a
full-blown dissimulation that we see in all this talk of self organization, information and the
meme. Now there is no need for such direct sorties into the open jaw of truth as this
miscreant presents us with, that we are about to examine here. Because this phenomenon is
almost entirely American, we cannot help but see this curious manifestation of pseudo
scientific work extending Darwinism into the realms of society, as a feature of American
culture. I would suggest this is a product of the intensely religious nature of American
culture, combined with a formal commitment to freedom of thought, which sets the two
protagonists in the war to control knowledge, religion and science, so much at loggerheads,
that the absolute Jewish theocracy is obliged to adopt this curious strategy that other cultures,
such as ours, would simply prefer to leave alone, as far as possible.
It is hardly my place to reflect upon the origins of my own ideas in quite the same
way, but nonetheless, it occurs to me that our society is far more moderate in its subjection to
religion and hence more open to secular ideas, and hence the fact that it has taken an English
atheist to debunk the greatest English fraud, as in Darwinism, seems about right.

Last night, 18/04/2011, I watched part of The Genetic Code on BBC 4, a delightful
programme on evolution, such as I have never seen before. Darwinism was not bombarding
us, but it was there, poisoning the whole tenor of this brilliant science, imbued into its very
soul. Thinking about how I have denounced Darwinism continuously, I felt foolish in the
face of this matter-of-fact assumption of Darwinism as real, as blasé as an astronomer
presumes to treat the earth as a globe in motion about the sun, combined with exquisite,
penetrating scientific knowledge of reality. What would anyone think reading my genuine
science, when faced with this monumental science provided by society, so brilliant, but
asserting the exact opposite idea : that Darwin was the great genius of biology ?
Natural selection is the key phrase in the Darwinian mantra and the presenter used this
phrase once, at least, to indicate that this mechanism was not forward planning. Prompted by
this powerful matter-of-fact affirmation of Natural Selection, I asked myself what was wrong
with this phrase, and what I would need to do to cleanse the false model of evolution from
official science. My solution was to think in terms of Natural Variation. The machinery of
genetics is what it is, as also the process of transformation that evolution refers to, so the nub
of the matter here, comes down to the message delivered by the terminology our priests use
to control the meaning of knowledge. I have just finished reading a couple of short monistic
essays by Ostwald and Haeckel, and skipping through Strauss’ The Old Faith and the New,
1873. All these works set Darwin upon a pedestal, but the latter work is a tad more
informative about what it was that Darwin actually achieved, it talks about how Darwin did
not invent evolution, he just polished off the idea by providing an explanation for how
transformation could take place. In the context of the time of its creation, the idea of natural
selection is not clever, any idiot could of come up with such an explanation, and it most
definitely is not scientific, but rather it is a travesty of scientific reasoning. The most
exquisite new fact delivered last night was a description of the four fold transition that
massively increased genome size, bringing spinal forms, vertebrates, into existence. From
then on the genetic process, evolution, used one set of genes for all vertebrate variations it
produced, adjusted by a timing mechanism. Set to slow you get a medium length human
spine, set fast you get a long snake spine. The priest said this indicates that Natural Selection
does not plan organic development, timing shapes form to suit the environment, which to me
sounds like a force of information shaping the fit between form and environment, where
‘natural selection’ so called, is not the point, this is a biochemical process related to the
driving force of energy relative to life form.
There is absolutely no reason for following Darwin at all, he contributes nothing to
our understanding of evolution whatsoever, it really amazes me that no one recognises this.
Perhaps the book I ordered last night will contradict this idea somewhat. This show ended by
discussing what makes us human, and admitting that while we knew a lot, there was so much
more to know, and we had no idea why we came to be as we are. This followed a pathetic
discussion of a divergence into chimpanzee and human six million years ago, which threw us
into meiosis and genetic hotspots. It was idiotic, as ever focusing upon the physical structure
and ignoring the process. Hotspots in genomes are gene swapping sites within the genome
sequence, indicating where speciation had taken place. So what ? How does this structural
fact tell us why speciation takes place ! Idiots. And of course, despite the vastly more
complicated knowledge being spewed forth nowadays, the message remained exactly the
same as it has ever been, we know nothing, nothing about why. Not knowing why in science,
is vital to the preservation of religion, because it allows God to be the ‘why’, or even just
ourselves to be the ‘why’. Atheist Science promotes a model which answers the ‘why’ by
saying that evolution is forward moving, toward the exploitation of the latent potential
energy life, whether that potential lies within a life form or the environment. Thus the
speciation that produced chimpanzees and humans was driven by the impress of mammalian
form against an environmental potential inherent in the form itself, like the expansion of a
balloon that is driven by an internal pressure which allows the balloon to expand because of
an elastic potential in the balloon itself. Mammalian form contained the potential for internal
complexity to increase to the superorganic level that we see elsewhere in life, and this is why
speciation took place. The work mentioned above on Self-Organisation, edited by Hemelrijk,
is all about this potential inherent within life forms, causing individuals to unite into
structural forms denoting a social, because interactively generated, structure. With Darwin
this cannot be seen because the individual is made an end in themselves beyond which
Natural Selection cannot see, so that religion is protected along with the integrity of the
individual as an end in themselves. With Atheist Science this ruse is made transparent, and
religion is killed.
 Next week they are going to discuss to what extent we are what our genes make us.
This is pure religious propaganda bullshit of the worst kind, in the form of a gorgeous
scientific presentation of the most wonderful kind, as ever from the BBC. This is how our
f’ing priests manage us like sheep, while using our taxes to do it !

There is a linguistic view of the issue discussed above, that is worth reminding
ourselves about. The central idea of Atheist Science is that linguistic force generates
superorganic physiology via a linguistic identity programme, that organises sentient brick
behaviour. To this end linguistic force creates authority in social space by controlling
meaning centred upon pivotal elements of a knowledge form, which has at its core a social
identity. The way to understand the extraordinary state of affairs in science today, where
Darwinism rules the world of these otherwise brilliant people, has to do with this control of
meaning imbued into the language we speak, so that linguistic force controls our thoughts
subliminally, no matter who we are, or how apparently intelligent we appear to be.
Accordingly, the Natural Selection paradigm presents a whole body of meaning
coming under the umbrella of Competition. This can be understood in terms of the mantra of
Individualism that does the same thing in a broader aspect, which we talk about all the time.
In both cases the attitude is entirely false, being a total inversion of reality, expressing the
creative function of linguistic force realised in language, whereby bias meaning creates
physical structure about an identity that obtains linguistic authority thereby. Attaching the
power of linguistic force to an identity through bias meaning, is what creates social form
realised in political power. The idea of individuality is imbued into the lexicon of our normal
speech, channelling our consciousness and thought processes in a functional way, that makes
us think we exist in our own right. In science Darwinism performs the same mental focusing
function, hence from the Natural Selection principle, an array of meaning loaded terms arise,
that maintain the original bias towards competition, which is itself a sub-expression of the
main Individuality bias of common Jewish slave language. Hence when reading any relevant
piece of science, we will find authors declaring their work in keeping with Darwinism, such
that their theories describe outcomes that conform to the goal of fitness, and the like :

Genomic self-organisation and mutational ‘priming’

The concept ‘adaptive mutation’ is, partly for historical reasons, a taboo in
evolutionary theory. Discussions about the concept often get bogged down in statistics of
insufficient data. More interestingly, genomic studies suggest both mutational and gene
regulation mechanisms which could yield equivalent phenomena within the framework of
Darwinian evolutionary theory. Mutational mechanisms include the repair mechanisms which
may be switched on and off, and which may affect certain genes more or less (we will not
consider those here). Moreover, it seems feasible that gene regulation networks are such that a
variety of mutations cause them to switch between ‘adaptive’ attractors. The experimental
results of Ferea et al. (1999), mentioned above, which show that a few mutations cause a
massive change in gene expression, an increase in fitness, and a switch from one metabolic
pathway to another, suggest such an attractor switching mechanism, that can be triggered
either by physiological mechanisms, or, in other circumstances, by evolution. On a different
scale, recent phylogenetic studies indicate that ‘major morphological inventions’ may not be
monophyletic, but reoccur several times within certain lineages (and never outside these
lineages). Similarly niche filling differentiation (speciation) can re-evolve on islands (or in
lakes) repeatedly, even starting from different ‘seeding’ species/ecotypes (Givnish and
Sytsma, 1997).
(Self-Organisation and Evolution of Social Systems, 2005, p. 178)
 The above is tending towards an anti-Darwinian stance, but in reality work like this is
ultra Darwinian because it seeks to maintain Darwin, not to ditch him, so that it wants to keep
Darwinism even when elaborating arguments that seem to transcend the Darwinian paradigm.
Why ? This means that no matter what new knowledge comes forth, nothing will ever result
in a new, none Darwinian theory of evolution. Science would not do this in any other field.
The answer is that Darwinism was the keystone put in place to preserve religion in a
scientific age, exactly as has happened since its introduction into science in 1859. Central to
achieving this dogmatic fixation is the role of Darwinism in creating a standoff between
science and religion, whereby biologists are trained to defend Darwinism without thought or
reservation, as the keystone of their subject within an antagonistic world. To think about
letting Darwinism go is to raise the spectre of weakness kicking off the whole controversy
over evolution once again, which might even be tantamount to admitting that religion was
right all along. A ludicrous fear by now we would think, but that is how this frozen mindset
in science feels, when we try to get a handle on it. But really, there is much more to this
situation. A most curious antagonism is made crucial to the preservation of a monumental
fraud, which destroys that which passionately holds onto the fraud, as if its very existence
depended upon it ! This appears to be a kind of collective psychological dysfunction, except
this dysfunction is not detrimental, it is vital to the health of the superorganism, because it
keeps individuals enclosed in a state of blind ignorance due to the possession of immense
knowledge, which just happens to be wrong. Linguistic force produces these group mental
effects because meaning becomes contorted in complex ways that make any logic based on
fact, aside from imposed meaning, impossible to follow. Leaving authority free to say what it
likes and individuals, even a host of brilliant scientists, incapable of thinking for themselves
and seeing past the invisible threads of carefully contrived deception.
The result is ancient religious dogma appearing in the guise of modern sophisticated
science, all by virtue of the power of linguistic force, which exists to create superorganic
form by creating knowledge to coordinate social consciousness, not to impart knowledge to
individuals. Priests of the Jewish theocracy making up the higher echelons of Western
civilization acted as the mechanisms of linguistic force that approved Darwin as the new
science. But these people were victims of linguistic force as surely as the rest of us were the
victims of linguistic force channelled through these priests, in a more or less deliberate act of
manipulation on their part. Thus in the end it is linguistic force that creates social form, not
any of the agents appearing in the guise of priests, of any kind.
There is just one positive thing we might say about this exasperating state of affairs.
This explains how it was that in the ancient world everyone obeyed the command to see the
earth as being at the centre of the universe, even though any idiot of an intellectual rank could
see this was not so, and people proved this in written works that were destroyed and
denounced by the greatest minds. Two books arrived from America yesterday, they are
available online but I liked them, and the only way to really appreciate a book is to have it in
yours hands. Science and Superstition, 1913, and The Great Unconscious, 1908, by Samuel
Stevens, are nice little evocations of a love of science combined with a hatred of religion.
The sad thing is that Stevens falls into the same old trap of believing the Enlightenment
hype :

Seeking to understand the order of Nature — infallible standard of thought

and action — the empire of Science is everywhere being extended over the dark domain of
superstition and ignorance.
Among its greatest achievements thus far has been the establishment of the fact of
natural evolution in place of special creation. In ascertaining this and other fundamental facts,
modem science has forever eliminated the supernatural from the universe, — thus completely
shattering the foundation of religious orthodoxy.
 (Science and Superstition, p. 25)

This is the hope, but it is an illusion, and in the earlier work, we find the problem laid
bare :

Controlled by no hierarchy, free from fanaticism and crime, fearless of facts—the

object of Science is not to conceal or evade, but to enlighten and improve the condition of
mankind in every way — moral, mental, and physical ; in developing and utilizing the
material forces of Nature, in lessening disease and alleviating pain, in lifting the burden of
toil, in giving a clear and exact interpretation of all phenomena, and demonstrating the why
and wherefore of all things.
(The Great Unconscious, p. 80)

Prior to this he echoes the sentiment found in Lubbock’s Pre-Historic Times, 1865,
when he says “there can be no contradiction between Science and true religion.” (p. 79),
which is a terrible thing to find stated in a book apparently proclaiming a love of science and
an uncompromising hatred of religion, there is no such thing as ‘true religion’. But the above
quote indicates that this man thinks that science cannot be corrupted, and this naivety, so
pervasive at this time, in the aftermath of Darwinism, seems more and more suspect as we see
it laid before us in one work after another. This is the lie still told today, and what this lie
tells us, is that if science is to be perverted, it must of been done at the outset when laying the
foundation stone of science. And that is exactly what we find was the case, and this is why
we find that come hell or high-water, scientists just will not give up on Darwin.

Some comments on the notes

Monday, 11 April 2011 – I am currently transcribing the notes for page one hundred
and seventy one, where I notice the deep commitment of Bloom to the idea of the
superorganism. This puts me in mind of a somewhat startling revelation I only discovered
after finishing the book and reading the credits which, uniquely, appeared at the back ! I feel
sure I have never seen that before. Added to which, acknowledgements are something I
never, ever, read, but in this case it struck me straightaway that they would be fascinating,
and they were.
What most captured my imagination was the thanks given since the first inception of
the idea for this work twelve years previously, twelve years ! Published in 1995, this means
he had fully developed the idea of the human superorganism by 1983. This is highly
significant. The Sociobiology project was launched in 1975 when Wilson published a book
of that name, and the explosion of neo-Organicist thinking that Wilson’s work ignited has
been a matter of great interest to me. The furore unleashed against Wilson immediately,
evidently echoed a full understanding of the meaning of the Sociobiological project amongst
academics, which constituted the Hitler Taboo with its foundations in a genuine of science of
human nature that understood that humans are superorganisms.
All this has been obvious to me for ten years or more now, but what I have never been
able to find is any work of an organicist nature, nothing expressing the idea of the human
superorganism. It is fascinating the way sociobiology took off, but it was always fatally
flawed right from the outset, from the moment it left Wilson’s hands, because it
acknowledged Darwinism as science and stuck to the false principle of Natural Selection like
a Mad Muslim women and her veil ; which thankfully has just been outlawed in France
today, now we just need the sick depravity of Islam itself to be outlawed, and we will be
getting somewhere.
 If Lucifer Principle had been published in 1983 it would of been highly significant
because of its close proximity to Sociobiology, which obviously prompted its creation. The
fact that the idea was fully formed, but made no appearance for a dozen years or more, is
significant, and fits in with the true nature of the work as revealed in its devious form. The
object was to let of steam. It always amazed me that Sociobiology should of inspired the
organicist idea anyway, since it never said much, but I suppose I have always been missing
the wood for the trees, i. e. the title ! The title all on its own speaks volumes to those in the
know, which is not me. I was not one of those who understood the need to suppress the truth
for the sake of our enslavement to Judaism, or to avoid resurrecting Nazism if you like, which
is the same thing turned about. For me, I expected the contents to mean something, to say
something. The bloody title means nothing to me, and indeed right up until this very moment
I have never grasped the idea that the title alone might of meant something to anyone.
Strange now I think about, but I just do not think in that devious way, I like things spelt out,
if we are going to engage in a conspiracy of silence, then I need to be told about it ! See, this
is where I get confused between legal theft committed by businesses and criminal theft
committed by thieves, I have never have been able to get the hang of that subtlety, which
seems glaringly obvious to most people. Just because something is legal, if it is taking
advantage, why is it not still a crime to the ordinary person ? That’s my excuse, and I’m
sticking to it.
There were a few early indicators of some organicist ideas emerging from the
Sociobiology school, but to my mind the 1990 publication by Mackay on The Idea of the
Social Organism, is the only direct evidence to of materialised in the form of a whole book.
This work struck me as being just like that of Bloom’s, being all about letting off the pressure
of an idea that was unspeakable, while pretending to speak about it favourably. And here is a
thing, how come that having discovered the idea of the social organism myself some ten
years ago, and then having searched relentlessly for all the intervening years, for anything in
anyway relating to this topic, how come I never turned up Bloom’s work, the most perfect
work of all, the only work to use the idea of the human superorganism in earnest ? If my
sweet butt had not of attracted an ardent fan last summer, I might yet be in total ignorance of
Bloom’s fabulous piece of shit. A compensation for putting up with the being the love object
of an arse bandit, that fully compensates me for the offence given by the same. But really,
how did I miss it ? The fact that I did, tells us something, this book was meant to be there,
but not meant to be found. You understand this don’t you ? The idea always occurred to me
with MacKay’s book, it was rare and obscure, but I found it early on, when it became the
most expensive book I had ever bought at £60, and it was rare. It pretended to be written by a
long-time admirer of the idea it discussed, an amateur indeed, like me, but it was not at all
favourable and it was pretty shallow. It always struck me that it would sit on a shelf available
for any professor to make use of if he had a pesky runt of a student who raised the spectre of
society as a biological phenomenon, in a too literal sense. They could be directed to this
obscure item written by an amateur, and thereby feel their urge satisfied, without it being
stimulated. The idea had been considered and dismissed, so this work acted as a safety valve
for the brain swollen by intimations of true knowledge. And that is precisely what Bloom’s
piece seems to do, though in a far more punchy manner.
This is the subtlety of knowledge control. This is what universities really exist to
achieve as structures within an absolute theocracy. There needs to be an eradication of the
truth, combined with a taboo ; the truth needs to be replaced with some pap, and an escape
valve is needed for those rare occasions when the truth occurs to the new generation.
Eradicate – taboo – substitute – release valve ; these are the main structural elements of a
knowledge control system, and they are all there in abundance in the case of modern
knowledge dealing with human nature, as they would have to be since religion continues to
rule our world, and this can only be so if true knowledge is controlled.
Internecine warfare – Hitler – Darwin – Bloom ; these are the actual forms that this
dynamic takes in our Jewish culture. We put warfare first and Darwin later to indicate a
dynamic relationship rather than being hidebound by a temporal scale, as Darwinism really
came into its own after the cleansing of real knowledge from society by warfare opening the
way for a cultural remaking in which Darwinism was vital. Multiculturalism became the
token culture supporting the wedge of Islam hammered into our world after our Jewish
masters smashed us to pieces through warfare, and Darwinism was essential to the
continuance of religion in a central role in our society allowing Islam to be introduced,
dragging us back into abject enslavement to Judaism. All in all, this really is a remarkable
natural history of our kind.
 Lucifer Principle, 1995, Bloom. Started reading - Thursday, 24 February 2011.

Page

2 Bad things are natural – what is their positive function ? This is the crux of this work.
A good starting point, of sorts, only flawed scientifically speaking, since the argument
could go anywhere from here.
________________
Nature loves evil, using it to enable humans to develop complexity. Nice idea and
potentially accurate, depending on how he uses this insight. Of course there is no such thing
as ‘evil’ from a scientific viewpoint.

3 * If we change ‘nature’ to ‘superorganism’ then the idea that the urge to create the
superorganism causes our evil propensities, hidden within his rather personalising
terminology, is perfectly accurate and a nice observation.
___________________
* From the beginning of history – blinded – this is a telling statement re. the official
bias of Bloom towards the integrity of the individual as the ideal end. A proper scientific
approach seeking to make sense of evil would recognise that this perennial blindness
associated with a highly positive effect empowering mindless unity – i.e. formation of a
mammalian superorganism, can only mean that there is no such thing as a human individual,
as in the person. Bloom reveals the catastrophic weakness in his approach right from the
outset therefore. He indicates we need a new way to understand ourselves – true = science –
but already we know he is a charlatan leading us on in order to ensure we never find that
truth.
* Then we get the first Organicist gem – a reference to the social organism and its
physiology ! This is the best sentence I have ever seen anywhere outside my own work.
Shame we already know it is a fraud.

4 Second form of organicist term – social beast. It seems he is determined to validate

evil ; there is no individualism without taking this approach. Therefore we see that despite
these initial preferences to recognise a corporate nature forming a true superorganism he
obviously considers the individual to the only true embodiment of the human being.
______________________
Bearing in mind that we have already seen that his ‘Nature’ is our ‘superorganism’, he
is right to say we must understand our flaws – first of which is religion incidentally – so we
may ‘outwit’ the superorganism we are enslaved to. His closing observation that evil is
Nature’s alter ego is typical Jewish (Freudian) bullshit. Evil, as indicated here, is the being of
the superorganism to which we belong, just as divine goodness. Evil and good do not exist.
All there is, is physiological function, to which we, as sentient brick units of superorganic
being, are constantly subject.

5 Pathetic deference to political correctness – this man is hopeless and could never get
us anywhere.
* Attacks individualism – and Wilson ! Yes, but rich coming from a man who has
already revealed he is an absolute and uncompromising individualist. He must be going to
say we are both individuals and superorganisms – a familiar self deception seen when I try
my arguments on people.

6 The reality of groups as ends in themselves is noted – made a key – YES – but not to
the LP, which is a meaningless conceptual trick. Behind the LP is the reality of the
superorganism, but it would be absurd to say the reality of groups is the key to understanding
the reality of groups ! Which is what we get when we decode Bloom’s rigmarole into a
scientific form cleansed of linguistic artifice.
_______________________________
While denouncing individualism, he says he loves it – exactly as I always do.
Rightly attacks the idea of the individual in science, but fails to pull away from the
idea with any definite clarity, and chooses to blur the issue by considering individuality in
general, instead of recognising the special case of humans as superorganic species.

7–8 * YES * Perfection in his closing promise.

9 Nice description of unifying essence – entelechy, but being caste in the form of such a
new and strange word is likely to obscure rather than enlighten. We’ll have to see what use
he makes of this insight into structure and essence.
________________
This definition of ‘culture’ as a wave effect is also fine, but again, where is he going
with it ? It evokes the idea of contagion I have noted in my current work, Atheist Science, as
seen in relation to the ongoing revolution in the Middles East and N. Africa.

10 * Ah right, entelechies combine individual actions !

NO, absolutely not, this makes the individual the end point for which entelechies, as
he needlessly calls them, exist. The true nature of an entelechy is that of a ‘force’. Force is
the property inherent in the nature of the unit upon which it acts to form an entelechy. The
nature of the unit is denoted by the character of its structure. The nature of the human
individual is corporate, because the human individual is a unit of corporate being, whose
nature is realised in the living superorganism ; what Jews and their slaves call ‘God’.
Inherent in the corporate nature of humans is a binding force generating superorganic
physiology, this force is manifested in the behaviour of language use, hence the force which
produces a human entelechy is linguistic.
Thus the ‘entelechy’ or ‘force’ derives from a unitary structure, and has the object
arising from the unifying process as its natural end point – this is what makes units, be they
water or humans, units of an entelechy – or greater whole, or end. This is obvious, and can
be interpreted in no other way, yet this man does not see it. Why ? Because he is part of the
entelechy, not a detached observer of that which he names in this unnecessarily odd way.
____________________

He asks the telling question – what animates collective unity in humans ? Excellent. But
then he offers 5 answers, uniting them under the heading of evil – Lucifer Principle.
NO – we must discover the force inherent in the structure (physiology) of the biologically
evolved unit of this social dynamic. So what are the 5 principles ?

1) The selfish gene that manufactures individuals.

 NO ! The individuals – you and me – are the robotic, expendable units that
produce human superorganisms. Once again we see that the ultimate logic – never
stated – as with all these commentators - that informs all his arguments as he makes
out the idea that society is a superorganism, is that the individual is real and the only
thing that matters – because that is what we ourselves think, as proven, presumably,
by the way we object to the things we do, that he summarises in the idea of the LP.

2) Perfect, but in complete contradiction to 1), as just shown.

3) Wow, he really goes some here, in his determination to defame nature and
exonerate the sacred individual. The meme ? What the fuck is a meme ? Why
express yourself in this way, as with entelechy all such over complicated terminology
does, is to add layers of conceptualisation to reality, causing obfuscation. A ‘meme’
is a unit of language, so lets be clear, what we are talking about here is language. And
if we substitute ‘language’ for ‘meme’ we cannot then make out that humans have
ideas of their own. The only rational extension of the idea of Dawkins’ meme, is to
see linguistic force creating a linguistic programme controlling robotic units of
superorganic being.
Adding priestly venom to his corrupt drivel, Bloom sneaks in a quick stroke of
flattery to the sick and depraved societies that are the slaves of Judaism, calling them
on the one hand sublimely wonderful (tolerant of diversity), i.e. Christian slaves of
Judaism, and on the other unconscionably evil (intolerant), i.e. Islamic slaves of
Judaism. So the Jews have their 2 opposing satellites, like a 2 edged sword, they can
scythe humanity apart, by lashing this way and that with their tongue, and reshape
humanity as they fancy, growing a human crop and harvesting it, time and again.
Divide in order to conquer, placing yourself in the middle to reap the reward of
ensuing competition. This is the macro triadic physiology of human superorganic
being, in action.

How wonderfully appropriate it is that Bloom is a Jew.

4) This is where he surreptitiously accommodates the facts which should of been

rendered in the place occupied by the meme which supplanted the idea of linguistic
force. For this reference to a social mind, is really an allusion to a linguistic identity
programme controlling sentient brick activity, to form the superorganism he has just
noted exists in his second principle.
If he had just one key, the idea of the superorganism, and made that the
touchstone for all arguments, then he would inevitably see what I see, but instead he
makes the superorganic dimension just one factor of existence that humans must
contend with in life. This proves he is not taking the idea of the superorganism at all
seriously, which makes you wonder why he put so much effort into its explication.
But that is priests for you. Without these impulse to manipulate people there would
be no religion, so this urge to fabricate self gratifying knowledge that makes others
admire us, is clearly an essential facet of human corporate nature.

5) Again this representation – a pecking order – is an unnecessary superfluous,

that can only create confusion and obfuscation. All we need is the one revelation he
makes in point 2, and all else follows from that. The pecking order is simply the
hierarchical physiology of the human superorganism, enough said as a general point.
11 * These 2 ‘simple ideas’ are nothing of the kind. They are a manipulative game plan
exploiting a key scientific idea – that humans are superorganisms, not individuals. This One
simple idea is conflated into Five, in order to gain control over scientific ideas, to serve the
fascism of religion – Judaism. Yet he concludes with another sublime statement – a force
exists within us ! Yes, a linguistic force, an expression of the force of life that is Information.
But he will not say this, he will discern a force of Nature that culminates in evil – lets see.

19 Interesting account of group dynamics in a crucible, under the intense pressure of

linguistic force. Bloom’s representation is bias towards Judaism however, as he describes the
insight provided in terms of instinct revealing underlying biological machinery. This is a
terribly subtle perversion of science, tweaking things enough to keep the lie of human
individuality true to itself.

20 Worth noticing his commitment to exploiting political correctness toward religious

sensibilities and the weak mindedness that slaves of Judaism are trained to possess by their
slave culture, as he irrelevantly makes the killing of humans the culminating abomination in
life. Obviously it is the ideas – Judaism prime amongst them – that are the ultimate
degradation. But in either case, from a naturalistic stance, such points are beside the point,
we are not here to moralise or commiserate, but to know and to understand.
_____________________
* Asks the real question – How do thoughts animate collective action ? In other words,
How does linguistic force create superorganic physiology ? The answer being, because we
do not exist, other than as sentient brick units evolved to create living beings at the level of
social organization, driven by an engine of linguistic force, the linguistic physiology at the
core of our individual form.

26 First reference to physical anthropology firmly based on the religious principle of the
individual as a sacred being making its own world.

27 But this sacred being has to contend with its evolutionary roots buried in lizard life
and beyond. Usual pathetic religious shit. Typical dualism of priestcraft.

29 More of same religious garbage – Humans have defied nature by creating ideals –
ideas of peace – which they can now set about realising – yeah – by working as slaves of
Judaism to ensure no human lives that does not support the Nazi state of Israel as first nation
on earth. Don’t worry Bloomy old boy, we’re getting there, a millennium or two and the job
is a good’n.

33 Not forgetting the presentation of a white feather to any able bodied man, by women
of the first and second world war period = coward, get to the front ! Better dead than that
insult.

35 Concludes this delightfully entertaining chapter by making sure we get the message
that his argument is all about the human individual as an autonomous being existing to serve
its own ends – but seriously compromised in its ability to do so according to the moral values
it loves, because of evil buried in its origins. This lament for love imposed on the righteous
human is how the master Jew nurtures the degradation of its slaves – thereby suppressing our
ability to fight for freedom from Judaism, although making us driven to fight for the moral
principle of love ! In effect this account of feminine guile sounds like a formula for master
race domination, where the Jew takes on the persona of the hard done by defenceless female
underdog, that must be protected by the male elite – i.e. the Christian and Muslim slaves of
Judaism. Males are the slaves of females, Bloom nicely delineates the curious dynamics of
this pas de deux.
Saying this might hint at why the Christian slave dogma is so appealing to women, a
thing I could never understand since it has traditionally been so abusive of women, making
them virtually subhuman relative to men. It clearly embodies something of the feminine side
of social power, making men take one wife is of course an obvious act of authority taking
possession of women, and then handing them out to the worthy and obedient, which also
ensures that the women thus delivered, are subservient to the man who takes her. All in all a
neat arrangement of the natural order of human gender dynamics, so as to make them serve
the Jewish priesthood by controlling a shackle for slavedom made by nature. Laws on age of
consent, which are a self evident farce, denying young people the right to access sex for years
after they have become sexually functional, are a further example of this process of slave
control through sex control, rendered into moral venom of the worst kind, this is why the
religion we know is so obsessed with sex, because this empowers the priesthood by
establishing a natural slave order that conservative governments today, still long to exploit
through legal sanction and reward, justified in the terminology of social cohesion. I hate this
kind of thing, but that does not mean it is not a valid expression of our biological nature.

36 This is such bland Darwinism as to incline me towards skipping, but he does argue
later on that superorganisms compete, so we want to keep track of how he works out his
inherent contradictions. Violence is about organizing social physiology, which involves
some attention to competition related to procreation, but as ever, correct interpretation of the
facts requires knowing what object – force, essence or nature – a system has at its core. Only
by getting this right can analysis lead to a scientific – unbiased – end product. Bloom uses
the key – the superorganism – but not as an essence, key or definition of human nature, but as
one factor of nature that humans are subject to. In the very act of saying society or humans
are superorganisms, he manages to say they are not, by making this observation an aspect of
Nature applied to humans, not the nature of humans themselves, which is their individuality –
to Bloom.

39 He has an amusing, easy reading, entertaining style – primarily because he is full of

crap and is saying nothing. He concludes by putting all this brutality and infanticide down to
sex drive, need to procreate, and hungry genes looking for wombs to infect. This will not do,
it is rampant Darwinism and says nothing about the core idea underpinning his Lucifer
Principle : that the human animal is a superorganism. The key factor here is that langur
behaviour is confined to the social group, while that of the humans takes place between social
groups. This is key because to humans those of a sufficiently different social identity are
regarded as not being human at all, which is an appropriate response given that individuals do
not exist, so that identity belongs to the superorganism, and the superorganism we belong to
is the only one which can be a valid being possessing the same self as our self. Which is of
course why humans eat other humans, as if they are animals, at a certain stage of natural
development, because that is indeed what they are ; or employ them as slaves, or inferior
workers, as prostitutes and such like, at more developed stages. Even multiculturalism
maintains a battery outsiders – paedophiles for instance – that are not considered human in
the full sense we all take to apply to ourselves, within conventional, law abiding society,
which emphasises the humanity of those within – sex being eternally useful in these structural
respects. This is all about defining the superorganism and has nothing to do with individuals
at all.
40 ‘From nothingness and energy’ – how can anyone heading for publication allow
themselves to sound so stupid ? He can only mean ‘from energy’, nothingness cannot be a
contributing factor along with energy in the creation of matter. Where there is energy there
cannot be nothing ! The wondrous mechanism used the power of information, the latent
potential of which lay in the structural complexity laid down by the power of electromagnetic
forces.

41 A silly description of life’s origins preserves the mystery of life and explains nothing
– deeply religious and utterly unscientific. Life is information and the transition from none
life to life can only of been a simple, inevitable process, shifting remorselessly in a direction
predetermined by the elements from which life eventually arose. This process did not mimic
a big-bang, by way of a popping together of building blocks waiting to meet. It involved the
gradual intensification of structural combinations expressing the force of information in latent
form – induced by solution in water. Informational structures eventually evolved a stable
replicating programme – the precursor of the linguistic identity programme that causes people
to combine mindlessly into superorganisms.

44 Nothing jarred at my senses here, the gist of the selfish gene scenario is amusing and
correct, as far as it goes. However it simply goes nowhere. We know that genetics serves
Darwinism, so it must be wrong to make genes the be all and end all of life, as Bloom does
here. By creating the fiction of the selfish gene Dawkins extended the fiction of natural
selection, to keep pace with modern scientific facts, and Bloom is applying this invigorated
formula to pursue his culturally programmed Jewish master agenda. The point is that genes
are units of information, and therefore they are not the end of a process, but elements of a
process. The ends of any process constitute a whole that cannot be reduced to any other
whole, or superseded by any other whole – hence they are an end. In the case of humans the
superorganism is the end of human existence, not genes, not individuals, not societies, not
religions – just superorganisms – composed of these elements. Judaism is the personification
of the superorganism to which we all belong, and that is why the Jews are the master race
within our world, because it is their culture which has been the foci of the linguistic force
generating the form of the living superorganism extant today.

47 Termites and humans juxtaposed – nice.

______________
Darwinism = individualism – YES. This is the single most important fact pertaining
to evolution – one absolutely never mentioned by anyone, other than me – until now. A sign
of this man’s exceptionally devious approach to human nature, for we have seen all the way
through that he is as committed to the idea of the individual as it is possible to be. We can be
sure he will vindicate this now – lets see.
And there you go – the very next sentence, not the only thing. Indeed, not any thing.

48 * Social organism of which we are a part ! YES. Utterly unique outside my work.

49 * Classic * - We are part of an organism, and occasionally obliged to put its interests
before our own !! Insane gobbledegook – make up your mind, which is it, are we individuals
or not ? Obviously he is trying to have it both ways, a typical ploy of the priest, as seen in the
idea that atheism is just another belief, a point of view, which allows atheism to exist
alongside religion, thus leaving religion in charge by default, since religion occupies the
structure of society. Here the same ploy allows corporate being to run parallel with
individuality, whereupon the status quo in knowledge remains unchanged, allowing sacred
individuality to continue being the accepted norm because organicism has not been truly
represented, but only toyed with in pretence of openness.
_________________
* NO! Bastard. We are all evolutionists within science, no other stance is possible, but
competition has absolutely nothing to do with the creation of new species. Evolution is a
force and, contrary to Wilson’s bullshit, competition, as seen in natural selection, is not a
force, but a mechanism. (You can find a section entitled The Forces of Evolution on page 75 of
Wilsons’s The Diversity of Life, 1992.) The force of evolution is Information, it acts like a
pressure building latent potential of life and then releasing it when novelty peaks, unlocking a
portal to a new spatial (environmental) dimension of life energy – as when mammalian form
came into being, a potential subsequently released when the curtain dropped on dinosaurs all
of a sudden.
___________________
* According to the . . . – Very nice. ‘Party line’ indicates that evolutionary theory is a
political, not a scientific mantra – YES. But instead of explaining how this subversion of
science occurred, he excuses it. Saying this is due to arbitrary twists in the advance of
evolutionary science. Ludicrous, lying shit.

50 Idea of a checklist shows how Darwin’s theory was always a political accommodation
of new facts, that his fact finding mission captured, in order to allow an acceptable scientific
explanation of life to be foisted upon society, thereby preserving religion.
___________________
There is no reason at all why this view of the facts about species transformation
should lead to this highly political interpretation. If we assume life is a form of matter
created by a force – Information – then there is no need to see competition as the key factor,
but rather the pressure of information seeking to exploit available energy so that new forms
change the landscape – as when silicon chips appeared, making valves redundant technology.
This was not competition, it was a flow of novel information along a trajectory of knowledge
which deposited new material forms as it went. This naturalistic model does not lend itself to
a validation of the hierarchical social structure however, where competition is everything, and
therefore it would never of been approved of by those select people on Darwin’s list. Hence
science was subverted by religion in a diffuse, but totally effective manner.
* And there we have it stated in black and white – Darwin named his theory of
evolution after the artful practices of humans seeking to manage life for their own ends !
Condemned from the outset, by his own mouth – Darwinism is politics – pure and simple.

51 * Again makes the most important criticism of accepted science following the ‘party
line’ – the individual is everything. But he continues to follow the same the line himself. His
suggestion that Darwin considered the idea that humans were a superorganism is not true,
these references to Origin and Descent need glimpsing at, but there will be nothing there.
(The best book taking an organicist stance and condemning Darwin for not doing so is The Natural
History of the State by Henry Ford, 1915.)
___________________
His description of the backlash against Wynne-Edwards anti-Darwinian science is
nicely stated, it reminds me of the furore in America in ’75 when Wilson published
Sociobiology. This antagonism should tell us something, but not Bloom, its all innocent,
good intentioned disagreement to him, tosser !

52 Nice observation on Gould’s resistance to true science – I hate Gould, he was a major
enemy of science working within science.
_________________
Note on Weber and Depew is interesting, sparse, but references to organicism at this
time are precious.
________________
Shows that Hamilton’s work was just more Darwinian bullshit pumped out to
maintain the theocracy’s defence of religion against scientific knowledge of human nature.
_____________
Checking the notes on this page I saw a note described as a personal communication
between Wynne-Edwards and Bloom. That is something, who is Bloom that he has such
links to notable people in this field ? His acknowledgements are at the back, should be
interesting.

54 Heroic effort to protect Darwinism from altruism – says this as if this is a schoolboy
game of one-upmanship, instead of what it really is, the war of religion against science.

55 * Apoptosis, fascinating, first significant new idea this man has given me. That is no
small thing, to give me anything. It comes from the direct relevance of his book to Atheist
Science.

56 * MAJOR * Individuals are cells of superorganisms ! YES. Most important thing

said yet. As before, immediately negates its significance by lamenting our instincts not being
geared exclusively to selfish ends . . . NO! One or the other. Finding we are geared to a
corporate agenda proves that there is no individuality i. e. individuals do not exist – as ends in
themselves. Therefore not geared to ourselves at all. Its obvious, its vital, its profound, its
impossible to miss, and he misses it. He continues to have it both ways, leaving the one way
accepted by the world, still valid, and the truth he is espousing falling by the wayside, making
all his efforts apparently worthless. Then follows the ultimate chapter title.

58 Yes, Wheeler created the term ‘superorganism’ and I have Thomas’ book, which has
a delightful essay on humans as ants which mentions the taboo against making this
observation. I am surprised at Bloom crediting Thomas with resurrecting organicism though,
as the work is too slight to be worthy of so grand an accomplishment. Despite Sociobiology
having nothing of any great moment that I ever saw, it was the publication of Wilson’s
famous book that re-launched the modern form of organicism, seeking to apply biology to
sociology once again. He might also of discussed the matter in terms of human society and
noted the 1917 essay by Kroeber, The Superorganic, which ousted the idea from
anthropology that Bloom says Thomas restored.

59 Ace, the sponge and the bucket made me laugh.

61 Fortunately I have a pathological hatred of all social contact beyond one on one level
exchange, and I love being alone – but within society. True isolation messes me.

63 There is just one consolation I have developed to console people from the horror of
real knowledge having to do with our none existence, such that we might ask why bother
with life ? Each other. We live for each other, it shows in everything we do, it explains love
of drama, music and celebrities. Its what we, as individuals, are made for, and the pleasure of
another is all we need. With others we are content, without them everything is meaningless.
65 The emphasis on loss of meaning due to loss of social connection is suited to Atheist
Science, but such a heavy emphasis on it smacks of the old individualism of which we are so
wary. It needs to be summed up by a scientific principle – the individual, in short, does not
exist.

68 I’ve never read a description of my own lifelong personality before – take my word
for it, stoicism works, it confounds more emotional types when you do not show fear. When
a child the saying was “The quite ones are the worst.” Yet I am intensely, privately,
concerned with what others think, and that is why I hate society and love being alone. It
resolves the extremes of any innate personality structure.

69 Interesting observation that psychology is anathema to the science of human nature

because it is a science of the individual as an end in themselves. Yet Bloom indicates this
need not be so – very good.

70 Denounces individualistic science, then prevaricates - NO! This is his flaw, he fails to
understand that there must be an essence, a nature, a human nature, and this means one black
and white answer to the question he deals with. Humans are either individuals or
superorganisms – they cannot be both. Here he says they cannot be what the scientific ‘party
line’ says they are – individuals – therefore they are superorganisms – but this he dare not
say, despite the blurb on the cover declaring this work as an ‘act of astounding intellectual
courage’ – it is more like unabridged treachery and cowardice to me – a betrayal of science.
Closing paragraph is delightful. But without the simple grasp of what the human is he ends
up waffling and missing the point of his own excellent arguments. Self destruct behaviour
viewed in a social context comes down to one thing when discussed in terms of suicide – it
indicates the power of the group to engender conformity, that is what is built into our organ
of linguistic force – our brains. It is not about group survival – a purely Darwinian idea – it
is about the group however, and how it is formed. His arguments straddle two contrary ideas,
that of Darwinism and Atheist Science. Hence he is the best, while still being worthless, at
the same time.

73 Nice quote from Feynman.

IDENTITY – the key to superorganics. Begins by making the important point that
simple identity level human superorganisms – tribes, see themselves as human and all other
humans as animals. This is because the individual does not exist and all there is, is the
superorganism – but Bloom has no idea this is so, he remains marooned in the mentality of
individualism and thus has no idea of the meaning of these perfectly selected observations.
Which goes to show how hard it is to see through the membrane of false knowledge set up by
linguistic force in the shape of our linguistic programme – culture.

74 Seemingly small point, but actually one of major significance. Allows spontaneous
clumping about a common identity to be the means of forming superorganisms at all levels of
human social order. NO! Stupid. His argument deals with simple creatures – sea anemones,
but it needs to reach beyond, to complex somatic analogies such as a body composed of cells
that divides into an array of organs and structural tissues. Hence the clumping about a
common identity is anything but the same at all levels of biological organisation. As we
move up the scale of social complexity we find the simple clumping about a core identity
producing a true superorganism at the tribal level becomes something very different later on,
as tribes become differentiated into organs within a common superorganism. I cannot believe
he does not see this, later discussions recognise this dynamic implicitly, where slave religious
identities are created by invading cultures i.e. Buddhism.
_________________
Brings animal communication into the discussion of identity but fails to regularise the
idea in biologically, physiologically scientific terms, by indicating this shows the presence of
an organising force of identity – linguistic force.
___________________
Repeats the critical error noted just now by saying leaders shape ‘social organisms’.
As it happens this is precisely what the Jews did do ; his own example. But there can be only
One, and the Jews have enslaved all others to their identity by fabricating organs of
superorganic being, not dispersing independent superorganic beings in their own likeness.
Hard to imagine Bloom would reveal this most dangerous fact, but did he really know it
when writing this ? If not, why not ?

76 This Jew manages to slip in a holocaust tale, forgetting to point out that to Jews we,
the rest of us, are all cattle – no more Nazi state has ever existed on this planet than modern
day, democratic Israel. He forgot to mention these facts however.

77 For me this topic is all about the Jew’s manufacture of slave identities that turn on
their masters routinely without ever actually doing the Jews any long-term harm, and
consequently ending by empowering them. This is a form of the mechanism alluded to
earlier whereby internal units of identity are incorporated into a superorganism, which Bloom
seems suspiciously oblivious to. But we can see how the topic of human corporate nature is
hotting up here.

79 “Cloud into a social mass” = igniting a spark of identity within a flux of uniform
linguistic force. The quantity of linguistic force is at a maximum, pent up, and only needs
igniting as structural pressure causes friction. We have seen this in Muslim lands this Spring
2011. Linguistic force is contained within a biomass and only needs its charge to be released
to provide energy to the trigger by directing a flow of linguistic force – like an energised ray,
a laser of linguistic force. Establishment structure is the machinery that controls such
emissions and the reason why state structure forms the major element of superorganic
physiology, that we like to think we make, but which in fact is made by nature, completely
beyond our awareness. This is why states are so oppressive and always our enemies, as
experienced at a personal level, unless we buy into the propaganda that the machinery pumps
out at us ceaselessly, telling us we need it.

83 Just been writing about perceptual windows, re. seeing through God’s eyes, in current
work, Atheist Science, so nice to see Bloom employ something like it here. This is, for me,
all about the slave identity programme expressing linguistic force to create social structure –
i.e. insiders and outsiders.

84 Firmly roots Nazism in individual psychology – instead of allowing it to be

normalised by recognising its function within a superorganic being bearing a Jewish master
identity.

85 Again makes fascism a flaw of individual psychology instead of understanding that

individuals do not exist, only the superorganism exists and it wants uniformity so, having
programmed individuals to be fanatically religious, it exerted linguistic force into discovering
atheist enemies. It happens all the time ; this is a weird example by English standards, but it
sounds about right for America. The idea that this behaviour is a form of perverted sexual
expression is the most contemptible idea yet – Freudian shit. We may concede that sexual
repression in Jewish slave ideology creates the strategy of hunting for perverts in none
Christians, but that is far from leading us to the individualised interpretation sanctioned by
Bloom

86 I see religion imbued into every detail of life – media and politics especially.
Christians make no bones about wanting to rule the world in service to their Jewish masters.
Muslims insist that society must be ruled by Jewish slave laws. Jews obviously, by
definition, do the same. So to these people that Bloom talks about, any social activity that is
not propaganda working in their slave making cause, is riddled with anti-Christian
propaganda. That is because we live in absolute Jewish theocracy where nothing is tolerated
that does not conform to the requirements of furthering Jewish power. Hence science is
religion, and the war of religion against knowledge is perpetual. By denying this Bloom
serves the theocracy, exactly as Dawkins does when he rants against religion but pretends
religion is a perversion of human nature.

87 Culminates this terrible chapter with an appalling conclusion making individuals

responsible for the creation of a superorganism by expressing a perverted desire for personal
gratification ! This is so twisted, Bloom at his most contemptible. The superorganism is all
there is and these behaviours are part of a perfectly normal and healthy expression of the
linguistic flux as it appears in the global Jewish superorganism at the seat of its slave power –
America.
This is the most important insight into the disingenuous nature of Bloom’s work, for it
is self evident that the idea that humans are superorganisms and individuals cells within
superorganisms, which is what this book is all about, makes it imperative that all aspects of
human existence are natural, healthy and normal. But Bloom, like so many of his
predecessors, like Lilienfeld, and contemporaries who comment upon the same subject,
completely fails to see this. Instead of this fabulous insight answering all things by
destroying every vestige of the beliefs upon which our society is founded, it just adds to the
mountain of garbage knowledge telling us nothing, other than the usual crap that says we are
wonderful, if frail beings.
Things are bound to get mixed up here because America is the crucible of Jewish
power, and social dynamics have to be kept swirling about the subject of religion in order to
keep Jewish master authority in the driving seat. This is why America is so weird, in
Western terms, as regards its primitive fixation upon religion, which all other Western
nations have shifted away from more completely as part of their commitment to scientific
knowledge, and the associated secularism in politics.

88 * The dynamics of social hatred rightly picked out as being of critical importance in a
work which sees that humans are superorganisms, and he asks the correct question – what is
the natured of hatred ? Answer is already given by Atheist Science, it builds superorganic
physiology by delineating structure. The initial imperative to define the primitive mono-
identity superorganism generates coalescence under the hyper-fuelled circumstances of
civilisation, causing the same drive to allow compound superorganisms to evolve, with
complex structure existing under one identity, with each broad structural component being
segregated from the others by an intense charge of linguistic force. Now lets see what our
would be leader into self knowledge, says hatred is !
FRUSTRATION — Fucking tosser ! Frustration is what he gives us. Frustration is
an attribute of individual being, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the human animal’s
behaviour, as expressed in the social physiology he has just described, where biomass
aggregates into a unified body with a structural hierarchy delineated by competing
expressions of linguistic identity.

89 Again this abject tosser makes pent-up sexual frustration the origin of social
structure ! Incredible, its like reading some twaddle from the middle ages.

90 Uses the ant as a comparator for human behaviour – nice to see, but no doubt this will
not result in any meaningful comparative insights. Ooh! Well slap my thigh, wa’d’ya know,
I like the comparison, at first at least. Individuals are born equipped to fit any place in the
superorganic architecture – yes, an important principle of our none existence as individuals,
followed up without pause with the assertion that failure to be made the keystone in an arch,
we – being individuals evolved to act as ends in ourselves, that have been commandeered into
forming superorganisms against our will, feel frustrated ! SHIT. Then follows an almost
sublime statement declaring that the superorganism determines our life experience,
immediately made base by the prefix “In some ways”.

92 Uses the ant comparator nicely once again. Not sure what to make of this description
other than the general support it lends to the idea of a sentient brick form evolved to create a
living organism at the level of social organisation. See Thomas – humans have to form a Hill
of some sort. (Lives of a Cell, 1980, p. 14)

93 Again manages to make these mechanisms driving the creation of superorganic

physiology a feature of deeply personal attributes. The truth is that our personalities are
distinctly fixed by genetics, and any given human biomass will have a normal distribution of
types – I guess – from psychopath outsider to psychopath insider, with a bulge of normal
social types filling the midrange. The structure of the superorganism will determine which
individual gets to experience a full expression of their innate traits and this is what causes the
dualism of nature versus nurture, where the expression of a genome is determined by the
place a social cell finds itself located, within the superorganic physiology to which it belongs,
by the chance circumstances of its birth.
When observers experiment with human identity dynamics they alter one key
parameter – the social structure, and thereby force the native distribution of a group to realign
itself as noted by Bloom. This is all about the physiology of the superorganism and has
nothing whatsoever to do with individuals, their variation, qualities, ambitions, desires,
frustrations or otherwise. There is no such thing as an individual. There is only the social
structure – the superorganism – which is why any group of people will always spontaneously
configure a superorganic form the moment they are set loose together, in an unorganised state
which demands they constitute a group.
The business of men all wanting a harem of the kind Sultans of old possessed is a
total distortion of the facts. This imposes a highly personal, individualistic idea of what is
happening here ; a lascivious idea that is intensely appealing to the testosterone oozing sex-
buds of masculine imagination. Bloom no doubt hoping we will be too stimulated to think of
noticing the inanity of his reasoning. But when Hitler or Mussolini attained comparable
dominance they did not express such a desire, they acted in accordance with the dictates of
linguistic force which created the structure they were selected to rule – by the structure, due
the flukes of nature – that gave them their all powerful positions. The fact is that Sultans had
no choice but to possess harems because that was the form the superorganism to which they
belonged happened to take, they were the expected status symbols. Nice form though !
NO! NO! NO! Jesus shit, can I take anymore of this ?
 Hatred a by-product of human corporate nature, serving as garbage utilised by nature.
Well that is it, this is a low point, a kind of absolute zero for intellectual integrity, in the
context of the argument he is professing to promote – a scientific venture into the forces of
history. Things cannot get any worse than this gross misrepresentation of the organicist idea.
The one golden rule of science, that must be acknowledged by all scientists, everywhere and
always, is : everything is good. By which we mean all things are as they are meant to be –
from a natural point of view. To think otherwise is to give a bias interpretation oriented
towards ourselves, as pivotal foci oriented towards a central place in the universal plan –
exactly as Bloom does here. I had no intention of reading this work, it was obviously shit
from the first viewing, as expected. I decided to read it because of its uniqueness as an
exposition expressly asserting my atheist philosophy of the superorganism, without the
atheist imperative. Having begun, I am typing up these notes for presentation on Scribd to
provide a detailed example of how my true science meets this closest imitator, so I must now
finish what I have started.
_________________
Of course this idea that skeletons were the fortuitous by-product of a necessary
development is typical Darwinian crap, applied at one hierarchical level up, on the usual
genetic zone of application. It maintains the principle of evolution as a chance affair, even as
it links this ludicrous idea to the evolution of life via strategies necessary to continuity. In
other words this miscreant of knowledge, is now ducking and diving all over the place as he
runs off his web of spiel to bemuse and confuse us. Cellular superorganisms were driven
towards land by the imperative to exploit latent potential energy of life – photosynthesis
having created aquatic plants it was only a matter of time before terrestrial forms evolved,
and the animals pursued them.

94 The idea that anger and fear, emotions for short, create cohesion sustaining a
superorganic form is a travesty of the precious logic that this argument runs through his
fingers like sand, instead of the gold such ideas really represent. Language is the bonding
agent and emotional expressions are the functional expressions of linguistic force that
language evolved to create, which is why hatred is ubiquitous in human life. Emotions are
part of the genetic substructure upon which linguistic physiology was erected by integrating
emotional fabric with the evolving linguistic physiology of the brain, so that emotions
become servants of linguistic programming. On the Big Questions show this morning
13/03/2011, they discussed the sectarian hatred generated by religious schools and a very
sweet seeming religious journalist closed by saying religion imparts wonderful values and
there should be more religious schools of all denominations ! See – hatred is precious, we
cannot get enough of it, because it is good for us ! Only a religious freak could say such a
thing.
_______________
* Another classic Bloomian perversion of the cart pulling the horse kind, as hatred is
made a source of identity, instead of linguistic force being the source of identity creating a
linguistic programme which includes hatred amongst the mechanisms organising our sentient
brick forms. He is really getting into his priestly, not to say Jewish stride now.
_______________
As to the closing paragraph – oh yes – think only of the Jews and anti-Semitism, as
personified in the Nazis and the holocaust – no better example of people being led by the
nose has ever been concocted – Israel is their reward – not bad.
_______________
 Next section title uses the word ‘inventor’ in conjunction with man – anathema to any
true science of humanity, especially aggravating in a work pretending to know that humans
are superorganisms and therefore invention cannot be real.

97 Most important topic, approaching which is one of the joys to be derived from
Bloom’s work. After cursing him down the banks, we ought to say we are nonetheless most
grateful for his efforts, whatever the nature of the flagrant lying behind their particular form.
He begins by laying the foundations of his religious argument before continuing, whereby he
allows himself to have individuality and corporate nature simultaneously – an obvious
impossibility in reality. Second paragraph perfectly evokes the creative power of linguistic
force generating superorganic physiology. This cannot last. His next chapter shows his total
lack of a coherent model of human nature, causing him to think of language as existing in
some kind of self contained vacuum. Most bizarre, this is the fruit of a juvenile, highly
stunted imagination, stimulated into creative dynamism by the novelty of a new idea –
Dawkin’s meme – which is gobbled up wholesale, without giving the subject the slightest
thought. Conversely I have perceived that humans are superorganisms created by linguistic
force which, in conjunction with the idea that evolution is driven toward a goal of accessing
or exploiting latent potential energy of life, can only mean that linguistic force existed
millions of years before language, and only peaked in our sentient brick form in the final
stage of our evolution. Once formed this model can be seen to be little more than
commonsense, as informed by the usual outcome of scientific method applied to nature.

98 Description of memes creating a superorganism is fine. However his lead up to it was

lacking a crucial preliminary observation – the sea of brains in which memes swim,
sometimes blossoming into ordered forms, occur in conjunction with elaborate machines – us
– evolved for that very purpose. His approach mimics Dawkins’ gross individualism of the
gene as an ends in themselves, making the memes appear as independent units possessed of
some magical force that happens to act on people. Nothing could be further from the truth,
this is simply a grand version of inverted dynamics employed continuously by priests in the
work of controlling knowledge to sustain religion. Gravity exists in atoms, genes exist in
cells and language exists in persons – in each case inner presence projects outwards to create
combination, revealing the presence of a force – hence matter, life and society, come into
being.
_________________
Again conflates individualism with organicism, here by making Marx a creator of
knowledge by acting as a medium for pre-existing memes. Idiotic. A linguistic identity
programme controls all sentient brick behaviour to organise a superorganic physiology.
Judaism is the core identity and Marx ran the Jewish identity programme in the newly
evolving flux of early nineteenth century Europe, to produce a new version of the ancient
Jewish series of slave identity programmes – which is why Communism was just one more
obscenity in a long line of Jewish obscenities, viewed personally, but otherwise serving to
extend the growing form of the Jewish global superorganism, under the influence of linguistic
force as it manifested itself in the new age of scientifically driven technological advance.
The key here is therefore identity, associated with superorganic being and organised via a
linguistic programme. Memes are a superfluous nothing thrown into the mix to turn a
scientific idea into a religious form, as dictated by Darwinism. Virus of the Mind, 1996,
arrived an hour ago, and follows the same Darwinian method, but it expressly employs the
idea of programming, setting itself up as a self-help guide on how not to be programmed !
Fucking tosser ! This is all new shit to me, how have I missed it for so long, I knew about
memes a dozen years ago ?
99 This picture of the Communist meme bursting into existence and clinging to life,
desperate to spread, is utter puerility, too pathetic for words. Communism is a Jewish slave
identity, nothing else, and as such ‘Communism’ was already ruling the world before it came
into existence, and only represented a new twist in the ruling linguistic identity programme
created by linguistic force. (This idea is in keeping with the principle that linguistic force
shows itself in the evolution of human sentient brick form, long before humans empowered
by speech came into existence. Evolution in Language by Bichakjian, 1988, makes neoteny
the guiding process creating sentient brick form by controlling the expression of genes to
extend the childhood phase of the hominid form to create adults retaining a juvenile
appearance. Presumably personified in our nakedness.) I just received a book about memes,
Thought Contagion by Lynch, 1996, which takes this idea of the meme hosted by a
population and explodes it into a whole new branch of knowledge – showing what linguistic
force can do completely unaided by reality, working from the tiniest fragment of language
existing in the form of a key – such as ‘natural selection’, ‘survival of the fittest’ or ‘meme’.
This is disgusting drivel.

100 Meme spread with explosive force amongst a pulverised biomass, stripped of their
linguistic identity programme by the effects of major warfare conducted by the state, against
its own people. By ‘state’ we mean the hegemony of Christian slave states of Judaism. This
vision of war used to homogenise a biomass and change its identity model, while still
preserving the original religious identity, is useful, once I have explained it properly.

101 Again, this fractured view of linguistic force is informed by age old religious bias
towards individuals as ends in themselves. Each new sequence in the superorganic identity
programme, such as Communism or Christianity, extended the continuity of the prime
identity – the master identity of Judaism, leading to one global superorganism bearing the
Jewish identity. Why does this master of modern organicism not see this ? Because he is a
Jew ?

103 This discussion is nice, dealing with corporate identity. But straightaway we find the
exact same fatal omission here as previously when discussing language in humans. He places
the parameters of identity in the social/cultural domain and makes this fluke of circumstance
the means by which rats act as superorganic forms of a mono-identity kind, tribal. But, as
with language in humans, the inclination to utilise information carried by the social
environment is dependant upon the physiological machinery the rats are equipped with. They
do not choose to behave socially by forming insider/outsider groups, anymore than birds
choose to fly or humans to speak and form social groups, based on linguistic identity
programmes that we call ‘religions’.
* How utterly bizarre it is to make the organization of superorganic physiology – as in
social structure – a device for identifying genes ! Insane. By this means the priests of
Darwinism force the ‘round facts’ that should inform a true science of human corporate
nature, to fit into the ‘square pit’ of the Darwinian pseudo science of human individual
nature. Too gross.
(In keeping with his own observations about religion—just coming—stupidity
sustains bonding, where truth undermines it, hence the success of Darwinian science,
supported as it is by the absolute theocracy ruling our world.)

104 * This is facile. Undaunted by the blatant contradiction of facts, these vile intellectual
degenerates push on, they have all the power and there is no opposition to prevent this
obscenity against knowledge. So now memes have become detached from the genes they
originally existed to reveal !!! For fucks sake. Arrrrgh!

105 * Transferable religion * There you go – a slave making identity – Nice ! However
Bloom gets there, and whatever he sees when he arrives, he does arrive. This is the critical
point I was wondering about from the outset – how does this man cope with the obvious slave
linkage between Judaism and Christianity ? He manages it by a curious concoction of ideas.
Starting with classic Darwinism centred on genes, he transfers the natural selection
mechanism to linguistic form as in a gene-meme compound ; then he breaks the link and
allows a gene-meme compound to persist (Judaism), while spawning entirely new and
independent superorganic forms composed of a purely memetic foundation. Its all such crap,
so beyond the pale of reason as to confound comprehension, other than by recognising it for
what it is, pure, unadulterated Judaism, keeping religion alive by subverting true knowledge
at the forefront of science today. In this case by abusing the idea of human corporate nature
existing to form a living human superorganism. Noting that this slave making identity
mechanism had numerous examples—he mentions only one—is crucial to a scientific
understanding of what is going on here ; though Bloom only wants to take notice of this fact
in order to guard his bullshit interpretation from obvious challenges by giving it a rounded
appearance.
* ‘That intangible tie was a meme.’ – NO! It was a linguistic identity programme,
which all humans have to have, but in this case it was a slave variety of a common kind,
inevitable wherever civilization has developed because of the extent and complexity of
superorganic physiology requiring delineation into a triadic macro hierarchy. This particular
slave identity being Jewish, which the Jew is not willing to say, even though it is obvious.
* ‘when Paul separated genes and gods, he helped unleash a force that would bring
together superorganismic groupings’ – This is an incredible statement, just when on the cusp
of the greatest ever insight of an atheistic nature, where recognising that gods are
superorganisms in reality, and one God is the preconception of a global superorganism, thus
providing the proof that God does not exist, he manages to express the reasoning leading up
to this profound conclusion in some vacuous statement about genes separated from gods,
leaving superorganisms to run free. Too much.

108 * The power of linguistic force has nothing to do with generating truth, it generates
linguistic identity programmes that cause stable bonding amongst large numbers of sentient
brick units of corporate being. Thus identity is central to the power of speech. This is
superb, but only because I have rendered his miscreant drift into a coherent scientific
description. This is indeed why religion rules and science does not exist independently of
religion, because generating social structure is the function of linguistic physiology, not
generating truth, which is an artifact of our individuality. Truth is not functional because it
does not lend itself to bias associated with complex structure based on identity, whereas lies
do exactly this. Lies allow a multitude of ultimate answers to one question, from which each
answer can generate a separate identity – see quote on page 102 – How many gods ? – an
infinite number, because each ‘god’ i. e. identity, delineates an enclave of one unified
superorganic being.

109 Marxism – showing all the more how Marx’s Communism was nothing more than
another version of the Jewish religion.
___________
Final paragraph is interesting but needs the usual earthing with atheism, to make
scientific sense. The power of linguistic force – meme – is seen in Darwinism’s ability to
turn the scientific establishment into an organ of absolute theocracy, not a superorganism, but
a vital structure within the Jewish superorganism’s physiological structure.

110 To say humans are drawn to ideas is to say humans are individuals and memes do not
exist, but then he says memes do exist. Ideas flow through sentient bricks as an information
flow organising brains into a pattern predetermined by human sentient brick physiology,
which evolved to bring a living being into existence at the level of social organization.

111 * Instantly I read the word ‘sorcerers’ I knew precisely what we have here. The
sorcerers were the priests, the elite master identity of the complex yet pre-civilized, yet still
agriculturally based, superorganism. A superorganism can only have one identity and that
identity is always a religion and this example shows why – they all shared a common
linguistic based idea of existence which overarched their tribal identities.

112 * ‘Did not know the magic was worthless’, the ‘illusion of belief’ and the ‘idea of
control’, all interpret religion in terms of the individual as an end in themselves, for whom
religion is a tool helping them cope with an aspect of life. Such interpretations are the
priestly ranting of a Jewish mythmaker earning his dues from the host he parasitises. These
behaviours are animated by linguistic force in the process of superorganic being.
______________
Indicates how another Jewish priest, Freud, touted the same bullshit, justifying
religion while proclaiming atheism.

113 And again, interprets experiments on rats in terms of the rat as an individual entity
living in isolation. But the real significance only arises when we include the experimenters in
the experiment ! The need for control shown by immune system collapse in victimised
individuals indicates the roots of a biological social physiology, since social pressure is
applied to social creatures constantly, as surely as atmospheric pressure is. Thus our
emotional need for approval is more than an egotistic fancy, if we get ourselves alienated we
are in dire danger of self destruction prompted from within our bodies – which is just what
the superorganism needs to sustain its integrity by rejecting none conformist cells. This
explains why such unanimity exists in the strange circumstances described in India, if anyone
had disparaged the sorcerer’s power the collective disapproval would of taken its toll and
reinforced the belief. Hence, in Bloom’s account, we see the usual logical inversion of
reality, whereby a physiological process evolved to control individual behaviour, is
interpreted as being developed in order to give individuals an illusion of control possessed by
themselves ! Tosser.

114 The need to feel control is just the same, it expresses a need to be safe which means
knowing what society expects from us, so that we can comply with its demands.

117 Our decent into abject slavery increases year by year, accompanied by the propaganda
of freedom – typical lying bullshit of a Jew priest who lives to make slaves of the host
biomass, and perfects their parasitism by trying to make our exploitation invisible to us ! It
works too !

118 Darwinism is the hammer fashioned by the theocracy to allow intellectuals to discuss
science freely, sure in the knowledge that this hammer would crack no nuts.
119 Adopts a religious stance making individuals manipulators of religion, instead of
seeing religion as an expression of linguistic force that organises sentient brick behaviour, to
create a superorganism. Interesting to note the usual tactic of dual authorities opposed to one
another, while both serve of the same identity = Judaism. Here Pope v Emperor, = Nazi v
Communist, Labour v Tory, Christian v Islam – always with Judaism behind the scenes – as
Hitler would say – pulling the wires.

121 Again makes the illusion of control vital to individual survival, rather than
interpreting the illusion as a galvanising expression of linguistic force, which it really is.
_____________
Fundamentalists believe Christ is a key empowering them – no, the power comes
from the acquisition of a powerful identity – the slave identity of Judaism, that provides
sentient brick physiology with an identity, which it has to have in some form. Christ is the
ruling identity in America, so there are no choices, only varying degrees of expression, of the
impulse to express sentient brick psychology.

122 * No! Here he takes the essence of corporate being – religion – and makes it a device
of personal well being, that becomes exaggerated into a social force of immense power. This
is utter trash fantasy, designed to hoodwink the slaves of Judaism into thinking they are
individuals and religion is a human flaw that, as individuals, we do not need to come under
the spell of. This is all about face because the individual is the unspoken key informing
Bloom’s interpretation. Use the real key, the superorganism, and everything is inverted back
to how it should be. Individuals do not exist, all there is is the superorganism created by
linguistic force, which produces an identity programme in the shape of religion that
constitutes the core authority that shapes all social structure in its image, making society the
property of religion. Thus religion is the ruling force in society, and the Christians who
overtly proclaim this are acting according to reality, but priests seek to subvert this
knowledge in order to empower religion, exactly as Hitler describes the Jews doing in Mein
Kampf, forever manipulating popular movements and setting one section of society against
another, to suit their own purposes as the master identity at the core.

123 * Very important * There is nothing radical here, but in the context of our subject
this reference to experts applying the illusion of control by giving the impression of accessing
hidden knowledge, is really the very nub of the question. There is such a thing as hidden
knowledge, that is what science reveals. But in the context of illusions managed by a
priesthood, the veil they pretend to reach beyond is exactly that which has been generated by
linguistic force to create superorganic form, that these professionals then make their living by
acting as servants of.

125 This observation of social authority linked to the command of obscure knowledge is
nice to see, but his interpretation is not. He makes this a personal matter on all fronts,
orchestrated by the demands and desires of individual psychology. In terms of the
superorganism this must be seen as the sentient brick imperative to act in response to
linguistic force as surely as mass must act in response to gravity. Gravity is not a force
existing separately from mass, it is, according to Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity
(1915), the curvature of space arising from the presence of mass that results from mass
attracting mass to itself. In the same way linguistic force is a property of sentient brick
physiology, such that the use of language generates social authority which accumulates social
structure about itself in a gravitational like manner, so new knowledge represents the
accretion of social mass that intensifies linguistic force and causes the core authority in
society to add structure and complexity to itself. The pedestrian explanation given by priests
is merely a disguise suiting their purpose as servants and beneficiaries of core power. Bloom
says that the peasants recognised the elaborate knowledge of astronomy possessed by priests
and extrapolated that they held the key to all mysteries of real relevance to them. What utter
f’in bullshit, too contemptible for words. This is a biological, natural system, in which
consciousness of any kind plays no part – not in the past, nor in our present, sadly !

126 Yes we are more pathetic now, thanks to our enslavement to Judaism, than ever
before. I would like to point to Darwin’s natural selection as the ultimate delusion foisted on
us by our priests as this is a delusion of the scientific age, the one epitomising our state of
ignorance today that someone in the future will, hopefully, disparage as he does Watson’s
behaviourism here.

127 Again, puts cart before the horse, makes our individual powerlessness the source of
priestly power, as we seek the illusion of control over that which we do not understand. NO!
Look at the examples he chooses, they are telling. They all involve the desire of authority to
manage its slaves by interceding in an area of intense emotional force. Medicine concerns
life and death, and child rearing is the key to possessing slaves by controlling their identity
implantation process. If I had a kid now and I wanted to apply the values I grew up with in
the 50’s and 60’s, by letting them roam free and take themselves to school, I would be visited
by the police and cautioned, and if I did not kowtow to the paranoia of the masses with regard
to their fears for their little ones, I would be deemed unfit and my child would be taken away.
This is what these things are all about – centralised power and the management of the slave
biomass. There is no such thing as an individual and our free, independent society, makes
sure this reality is enforced because our society, is in reality nothing more than a
superorganism, and we do not exist. Hitler’s philosophy may be denounced for evincing this
principle overtly, but its only the far end of the normal, ongoing spectrum of linguistic force,
against which people have always been powerless, as nature intended they should be.

129 * Religion is nonsense but functional – YES. Judaism exists as a master, slave making
identity, because it perfectly emulates the physiological dynamics of human corporate nature
that builds the human superorganisms that are the only true humans in existence. This is the
most penetrating representation of nature’s mysteries and hence Judaism has incorporated the
entire human biomass of the planet within its identity and superorganic form – making the
global superorganism
____________
* Building these religions is how humans cope with life – NO! Tosser. This is how
linguistic force creates superorganic physiology, this is why no humans, e.g. Balinese
farmers, understand the linguistic identity programme they obey. Durr! Idiot.

131 NO! SHIT. A worldview/culture is a ‘grid of metaphors’ = a tool that conscious

individuals existing as ends in themselves – like the Balinese farmers or Indian bovinophiles,
use to go about their job of living. Infuriating shit. Humans are superorganisms. Individuals
do not choose to speak, to socialise or to worship. Linguistic force creates a linguistic
identity programme that organises sentient brick physiology to form the superorganism. And
that is it !

132 And now he conflates his rampant individualism with real science by recognising
priests as the organisers of the superorganism. Too bad, if painfully nice to see the phrase
‘social organism’ nonetheless. The priests are just a specialised bit of the superorganism,
which must exist if the whole idea of the superorganism is to mean anything at all.
____________
Yeah, and someday may even help us eradicate religion from the face of the earth,
especially Judaism, so that freedom, that great figment of Western imagination, may yet
become real.

135 ‘Problem solving abilities of world views’ ! Talk about sliding a round peg into a
square hole – perfectly done ! Would a physiologist talk about the brain as an organ
exemplifying networks evolved to offer problem solving abilities to the body, to do with
homeostatic functions etc. ? NO! So why talk about religions as problem solving
programmes ? They are not, indeed, if we must make problem solving central to religion
then everyone and their dog will argue that all humanity’s problems are created entirely by
religion – that evil is a product of religion, or of these problem solving world views, as this
horrible man calls religion. And let us be clear, all world views are religions, no world view
of any kind, including Communism and Darwinism, has ever existed that has not been pure,
unadulterated religion, they are all there to induct us into a common train of thought, which
always conforms to the needs of the core identity of Judaism. That is the problem, that is
why we need Atheist Science to establishment a new basis for universal freedom : the truth.

137 No! Idiot. Humans infer nothing, individuals do not exist so how can they infer ?
Words belong to the superorganism and as such these words are the primary existing form in
this arrangement, so the words induce the idea. Which, by the way, left me – an Englishman,
oblivious to the association between diamonds and bats – stone cold, until he explained
things. I am not programmed by the local Jewish slave identity programme, to recognise this
American slave identity routine.
* For religions (world views) it is not accuracy but utility that matters. This is exquisite
because it states the crucial reason why the false knowledge of religion always trumps the
true knowledge of science, by virtue of the biological function of knowledge as the bonding
agent of superorganic being. But Bloom has no idea of this, and means to suggest nothing so
remotely correct. He is just trying to justify the existence of religion by placing it in its
correct context – the social domain – while continuing to make it a tool serving the purposes
of individuals, existing as ends in themselves. Disgusting !

138 * NO! NO! NO! Arrrrgh!!! Look at this, from a man expressing the idea of the
superorganism. The pictures YOU build – NO, the brain is a passive hard drive evolved to
receive a linguistic identity programme that will direct every last detail of behaviour engaged
in, every millisecond of your life – any other idea is utterly insane from a naturalistic world
viewpoint.
___________________
‘Patched into . . .’ NO. Those things are recognised that stimulate our linguistic identity
programme, which does not include allusions to baseball in my brain because it was not
programmed by the Yankee version of the Christian, Jewish slave identity programme.
___________________
‘Much less makes sense of them’ NO! How does recognising a meteor as a portent make
sense of anything ? It is utter bullshit.
___________________
* ‘It is easy to see why . . .’ * This is total anathema to his whole argument. Here he
personalises and justifies religious belief in the strongest possible terms. Instead of
explaining religious warfare as obedience to a slave identity programme incorporating us into
a superorganism just as we see in insects like ants, especially of the slave making variety.

139 Now he is having a stab at atheism and saying it is just a belief as surely as any
religion is. Shithead – boy you gotta hate the Jews. Nothing could be more calculated to
make reading Hitler a joy, as I am now, than studying the work of a classic Jew liar like
Bloom – just what Hitler portrays perfectly.
* Amazing * This is so gross a distortion as to be sheer malignant genius. Neural
nets allow us to perceive forces of nature. Wow, that is an absolutely gorgeous idea, that
derives its apparent beauty from recognising, but not revealing, the true essence of human
nature. A ‘neural net’ is a linguistic identity programme. It is therefore the expression of the
force, the linguistic force, which we exist expressly to be attuned to. Thus Bloom sees the
truth perfectly, only to use his vision to create a total travesty of that truth. Showing us just
what makes the Jew the unit of a master, slave making identity programme, that so impressed
Adolf Hitler.

140 Society as a brain is good, similar to the idea of a superorganism as an information

entity, emphasising the content of brains – i.e. the mind. Bloom is however continuing to
keep strictly to the religious world view and keep well clear of the scientific conception of
society as a superorganism, something he talks about often, but applies never.

141 Intelligence equals problem solving ability he says, forcing the religious formulation
he has devised in his text. Better to say intelligence equals information handling capacity –
hence computers would possess intelligence, as they obviously do, being able to do things we
cannot, without their help !

142 This is a delightful description of communication. I can engage people’s interest with
my knowledgeable talk but because of my extremely controversial ideas I always scare
correspondents away when I take my ideas to their natural conclusion. And here we discover
the power of a taboo such as the Hitler Taboo protecting the master race, the Jews, from
science.

143 * ‘superorganism of which you are a part’ – divine statement, unique to me, save for
Bloom, but worse than wasted in Bloom, downright subverted and pissed in the sand of time.
As proven by the lack of followers in his intellectual footpaths, not one book having taken up
his lead in the use of this idea of the superorganism, the greatest idea ever possessed by any
human being – person that is. It goes to show that without atheism, all true ideas are as
nothing.

144 * The ‘social system’ – the superorganism. Sublime words seeping from a corrupt
cadaver.
__________________
* YES * The brain that decides on all large scale social actions is a brain composed
of the entire interconnected biomass. Perfect, as far as it goes, but fails to let this idea
culminate in a scientific conception of the human as a superorganism, where the linguistic
identity programme constitutes the mind resident within the sum of minds, from whence all
the individual brains, ‘social neurons’ that is, get their mental content mistakenly called their
‘mind’.
145 He sounds good here but sums up by portraying competing enclaves of social biomass
as competing enclaves, thus entirely missing the point. There is only one global
superorganism now, it bears the Jewish identity, and each faction within represents the
ongoing life process of consolidation occurring within that superorganism, beautifully
described in Hitler’s Mein Kampf in terms of Jewish machinations juggling these competing
interests even as Jewish intrigue creates the competing parties. Here we see a fine example
of that Jewish craft described so well by Hitler and demonstrated so perfectly by Bloom in
the production of this unique piece of work. I would say this work shows that Jews have no
idea what they are doing when they coordinate the activity of the superorganism about
themselves, they are just programmed to do it. Just as we are all programmed to do likewise,
to serve Judaism just as Hitler was, far more than most of us, more than most Jews come to
that.
________________
‘An ever more complex future.’ – well ? No, one unified global superorganism with
an ever more complex physiology, because more massive and extensive, but overall more
simple because ruled by one identity.

156 I think this brief passage must be the best so far. Nicely blends a description of ants
and men, in a manner it would never occur to me to attempt because I treat humans as true
superorganisms and need no analogies, only comparisons. But as a consequence this chapter
is delightful and the subject prevents him from going too far off the straight and narrow so he
finds no need to conclude by asserting the prime principle of human individuality, indeed he
concludes by leaving the male the forlorn puppet of superorganic physiology.

157 Wastes no time in getting back into his individualistic stride. NO. Linguistic force
exists within sentient brick physiology and projects itself into the super individual social
space where it is preserved as language and culture. This preservation constitutes a linguistic
programme which we call ‘authority’ and it belongs to the social structure, not to people.
People are inducted into the structure and serve it. The idea that Alexander was responsible
for Greek empire building is puerile and made all the more contemptible here given that
Bloom himself just observed a few pages back that nowhere on earth does an individual hunt
with tools they invented of made themselves, we are all part of the social structure in other
words. Alexander was of royal blood, taught by a great philosopher and appearing at a
pivotal time in the maturation of the Jewish superorganism as it existed at that time, in Greek
versus Persian form. So he was a product of the moment being carried along on the wave of
linguistic force as it rippled across an interconnected biomass at that time. The consequence
of Alexander’s actions were to create macro physiological order from the comparative
disorder that expanding culture – i. e. linguistic force – had caused across interconnected
regions. We can interpret this in Jewish, political, i. e. religious terms. But it is a purely
biological phenomenon, if not Alexander then Bill or Bob some time later, would of been the
catalyst for the ordering of the differentiated biomass now coming under a common linguistic
influence.

158 This is too bad for words. If this is the fruit of speculation Bloom style we are not
only better of without it, we are better of dead than having to endure it.

159 At least he feels the need to apologise for this shit. Given the, albeit idiotic theme of
this book – evil, it is worth noting his assertion that this novel addition to all the bullshit
about the evolution of human attributes – throwing – indicates the first point where his
Lucifer Principle kicks in by making inter social competition explain the value of ‘evil’
behaviour that is epitomised by religion.

160 Masculine expendability as he puts it, is best understood in terms of structure,

superorganic physiology where the organisation of a complex hierarchy had limited materials
to work from and gender division provided such a solid starting point that it even produced
homosexuality as a major mode of structural elaboration. Previously Bloom touched on
androgynous tendencies in males which included an aside on homosexuality, this seemed
potentially interesting but petered out before it got going so that I had nothing to say about it.
Still nothing to say.

161 Nice opening paragraph evoking the idea of linguistic force building to a head in the
hitherto nascent human superorganic form and unleashing itself in the expression of pure
linguistic force, as ideas culminating in the claim of Truth. And so it goes on.

162 Puppet of meme – i. e. of linguistic force.

163 I wonder if Bloom is aware of how much this chimes with Hitler’s most emphatic
protest against Jews, where he says their first great lie in the activation of their careers as
parasites is to present themselves as a religion, a Confession, not a race. But, Hitler says, a
race is what they are, a people, and it seems Bloom agrees.

165 The division of the Jewish slave identity of Catholicism in two, which became
warring factions, is another expression of what happened when Alexander went on the
rampage leading to a new imperial triad formed from his empire. This is linguistic force
expanding its reach and then collapsing and dividing in an act of consolidation and growth
that requires increased structural complexity. It is no doubt what caused Judaism proper to
divide into Christianity and Islam.
___________________
‘Welded into a social body by a meme’ – perfect expression of linguistic force
creating superorganic form by organizing sentient brick physiology. But Bloom does not
express this inevitable consequence of his reasoning. Which makes you wonder why he
bothered reasoning thus in the first place ? He is of course trying to extrapolate the essence
of the meme as a method of supporting the Darwinian obscenity against science. This is in
interesting in that it emulates my own method of seeking to make language a continuum of
genetic evolution, which is of course just the kind of disingenuous finesse that it is to be
expected a priest will achieve when they seek to follow the truth as closely as possible, in
order to subvert it.
___________________
* Each group formed a superorganism. NO! This is a gross travesty of the idea he is
exploring here. Both groups were Christian and all Christians are slaves of Judaism – i. e.
they belong to a Jewish superorganism – obviously, what does this Jewish tosser think the
Bible is ? Hence this split in a localised biomass was structural and all about reorganizing the
slave biomass about its Jewish core, exactly as occurred in twentieth century Europe when
the same slave biomass, on a continental scale, divided into Communism and Fascism and
waged world wide warfare to exploit the power of science applied to superorganic form.
When the dualism settles back into One, Judaism always remains undisturbed at the core.
167 Not a contest between men, indeed. But an expression of linguistic force generating a
linguistic slave identity programme that organises sentient brick form to create a living
superorganism at the level of social organization.

171 His titles are fascinating, they show how much Bloom genuinely sank himself into the
idea of the superorganism, his problem was that he viewed this idea from the false pivot of
individual being, an inherently absurd thing to do, but there is nothing new in such absurdity.
This title reminds me of my idea to think of knowledge as property as described in my
current work Atheist Science. Humans do not rally round ideas – linguistic force animates
sentient brick behaviour by stimulating sentient brick linguistic physiology to create living
superorganisms.
________________
To represent ideas as the expression of ‘hungry replicators’ is utterly facile. The only
justification for it is that of the priest-academic snatching a baton from a confederate in the
Darwinian school and running with it. The result is meaningless drivel.

173 Ooh, mystery of mysteries. Shit. Islam was as contrived as Christianity. Both are
Jewish slave identities created and managed by Jews as a method of organising a
supermassive complex global superorganism. Islam’s creation had nothing to do with the
Prophet – shit be upon him – anymore than Christianity was created by Jesus.

174 More precisely, being a slave of Judaism gives us immense power because the Jews
are the master race.

176 But, reincarnated as Hitler, that is precisely what Christ did for the Jews, by enslaving
the European biomass Christ delivered modern Israel as the centre of the newly arrived global
Jewish superorganism.

177 The mechanism is linguistic derived from evolved sentient brick linguistic
physiology.

178 Again puts individualism in charge over language, exactly as the latest book to arrive
begins by doing, The Last Civilization, Brough, 2010.

179 This is too silly – the meme has to have an object lying behind it and this can only be
the superorganism, so why doesn’t he say so ? Because all he is really doing is toying with
Dawkins’ pathetic extension of the Darwinian obscenity personified in the genetic code, that
supposedly proved Darwinism to be science.

180 Yes, perfectly observed in all but the final detail, the fact that behind all these memes
lies the One message of identity – Judaism. What on earth does he think Islam is if it is not
Judaism ? Islam ? Without Judaism, Islam is nothing.

182 Social groups are impelled to grow – interesting thought.

________________
What this is really saying is that structures are created by a force that induces
structural extension whereby the initial active force creates forms possessed of a passive
force causing all like kind of structure to follow the dictates of all mass within a curved space
– which is to combine equally Special Relativity of form. [Pardon me, I have been toying with
these ideas in my work Atheist Science last week and I do not know what I mean to say here, but
because these notes only makes sense in relation to the work as I was reading it, I will leave this, as
the alternative is to delete the whole sentence .] Human superorganisms do show this compulsion
to grow at the expense of their like kind, but this must be understood in normal biological
terms of life force, as seen in linguistic force creating social structure. The meme is a
Darwinian ploy seeking to capture linguistic force for its religious purpose of maintaining the
Jewish superorganism. But science must see beyond this trick – hence Atheist Science does
not accept the pathetic idea of the meme, let alone its combination with the ‘animal brain.’
________________
Such a subtle perversion of the real meaning of the human superorganism’s grip on
‘charismatic people’ is both enticing and infuriating at the same time. These powerful
individuals are units of an existing superorganism and they obey the programme telling them
to extend the superorganism, not to build new ones. All these people are slaves of Judaism,
expressing the One message of Jewish identity, albeit in a myriad of different forms. Of
course this Jew is not the person who is going to tell us that.

183 For ‘America’ read : ‘Jews’, ‘Judaism’, ‘Israel’.

_______________
Morgenthau’s political drivel – there is no ‘we’ or ‘they’, there is only the One
superorganism that all belong to, the conflict is the way the superorganism digests human
biomass and integrates itself in the manner of Bloom’s amoeba.

184 This interesting quote on Marx sounds like Hitler addressing fellow fascists on
Christianity. And it proves that Communism was always just a variation on Jewish fascism
exactly as Hitler said it was in his own version of the same One message of master identity.
_________________
Last paragraph – what he needs to pause and reflect on here, is where this behaviour
comes from in a world where animals are evolved natural forms – but he just wants to go
spewing forth his political diatribe.

185 Important we keep shouting as he keeps missing – internal strife – but what is he
going to make of it ? Nothing real we can be sure

187 Before and after Communism Russia was and is a Jewish slave nation – obviously,
what else could it be ? So talk of internal strife equating to one superorganism supplanting
another via the catalyst of ideology is puerile, Jewish mythologizing nonsense.
_____________
Its almost as if he is telling us the secret of Jewish power here by describing how the
dispossessed arising from living in a Jewish slave superorganism, are continually whipped up
into a tool of destruction allowing the power to be harvested and the slave identity to be
reorganized, while Judaism is forever kept the same – the outcast ever available for
retribution. Hitler brings the connection to the fore, but in doing so he does not explain it he
merely formalises the status of the Jew as master race, portrayed as eternal outsider and
victim, thus he throws the mechanism of defence just as the chaos is about to kick in once
again and allow the Jew to crop the slave biomass on the most massive scale ever – the final
decoupling act delivering Israel into their hands and making the whole world doomed to
slavery under Judaism.

189 No. It was the delineation of a new order of Jewish slave identity. Without the
tension born of conflict the core authority would not have the excuse to attack the slave
biomass and force allegiance to Islam – one side or the other, there was only one winner –
Judaism.

190 * And here we have it ! Relentless warfare of the elite versus the underdog that results
in an eternal state of order where an elite always rules a slave biomass, no matter who gets in
power, exactly as we have seen during my lifetime in England when, the moment socialists
finally came into power, society collapsed and the socialist reinvented themselves as ultra
capitalist Tories, and now the real Tories are back slamming the underdog while goading the
rich to get richer. Nothing ever changes. The secret of this dynamic changelessness is this
antagonistic dualism rotating about a fixed core of social power, and we find this structural
phenomenon everywhere that Judaism delivers the social order. Probably everywhere else
too if we could study none Jewish civilizations. And of course this is why Jew based global
terror Al Qaeda, has been created to replace the intermediate dualism of post war conflict, as
seen in Communism versus Capitalism.

192 This misconception is really unforgiveable. A new identity is an organ of a

superorganism, to call it a superorganism in its own right is to take the piss out of his own
idea of the superorganism. It is too pathetic.
_________________
This description of a war fought over knowledge as property is wonderful, if it was
applied to the religious enclave within academia supporting Darwin and aligned against
Organicism, it would be perfect. But it shows us how the process is managed. He even tells
us how these affairs are managed so as to represent the struggle as being between scientific
truths, while really this is a front behind which lies a superorganic manifestation – indeed,
Judaism, in the case of Organicism. And in terms of social science because we are in the
hands of the winners religion combines to wreck our world and science remains as far from
us as it has ever been from anyone.

195 * Important * This chapter begins in a familiar style but it actually picks up a theme
we have been calling for when we ask where he thinks all these meme organizing behaviours
come from. It is not Bloom’s intention to tackle this issue, he wants to ignore it because it
would destroy his whole approach fixed on individuals as ends in themselves, who fall victim
to superorganism making memes. But when he says the bodies are the gene’s machines, he
leaves a toehold for us to take advantage of by pointing out how absurd such a dualistic view
separating gene made bodies from meme made superorganisms, is. Clearly, if genes made
bodies, then they must also of made superorganisms, since the human superorganism is the
inevitable product of the social enabled body form. Certainly immense efforts have been
made to suppress this undeniable fact throughout modern times. But it is undeniable, which
is why Bloom just plays the blind ignorance card on this matter. This vision of the power of
superorganisms is perfectly appropriate – just look at the power of Judaism – it is awesome.
But Judaism is only the expression of human corporate nature as it appeared in the form of
the Homo Sapien genome maybe 190,000 years ago. Nothing has changed since the human
animal hit the pinnacle of mammalian superorganic expression by evolving to exploit the
latent potential life energy of mammalian physiology, except the actual superorganic form
has accumulated at the behest of the passive force of linguistic physiology, that obliges all
humans to seek to coalesce into a superorganic being. That process of coalescence under the
rule of passive linguistic force inherent in human sentient brick form is ongoing, and Judaism
is its maximum expression thus far.
* So linguistic force is a passive force inherent in linguistic physiology that was created
by the active force of information inherent in genetic codes – DNA. Thus DNA has produced
a dualism of active versus passive information to cause a superorganic form to evolve about
the core of knowledge that Bloom is discussing here, that is really all about identity.
Humans occupy space and because of their social nature wherever humans exist they
bring into being an extended social space – a territory – thinly occupied by human matter –
people belonging to the space. Special Relativity says matter bends space and causes matter
within any given space to coalesce into unified bodies, or minor versions thereof existing as
major satellites of one main such body. Applying this logic to humans we can say that
humans live in curved social space that interacts with adjacent pools and must reach stable
balance or tend towards coalescence. The force mediating this unification is derived from the
social nature of the human animal and centres upon the linguistic capacity. The
intensification of linguistic force is therefore directly related to the social mass and energy it
contains.

200 Offered in the context of an organicist discussion this story of adjacent social groups
in langurs is nice, it indicates the basic dynamics from which linguistic physiology would of
found the incentive to evolve in order to exploit the latent potential of life shown to be
inherent in the social physiology of these primates. Shifting to a human context, it is vital to
point out the crucial difference whereby language causes adjacent groups to become
structural components of one superorganism, not impoverished superorganisms existing in
their own right as Bloom insists upon making them out to be, as part of his effort to subvert
science and protect religion by pretending the physically defined block is always the
definition of an individual entity, whether as a person or a group. Not so, identity is the key
and there is only One identity in our world – Judaism. The passive force of language has
caused a unified first world order to come into being around Judaism, called Western
Civilization which is Christian. A further extension of this solid block occurs as the third
world and comes under Islam and all sorts of fragments exist as satellites of a system
galvanised about the active force of capitalism upon which most humans are dependant.
So we have active force (genes) → passive force (language) → active force
(money/capitalism). Thus superorganic physiology under Judaism spans the globe.
____________
Brings ants into the picture – always nice to see, = comparative sociology.

202 Yes, but where are the Romans today ? Extinct. Who owns the lands and people they
conquered – the Jews ! So who were the Romans ? They were slaves of the Jews, what else
could they be ? As we all are now.

207 A pretty tale but if the principle it is meant to illustrate is true then what of the support
for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan – why has it not wilted before the might of the Americans ?

209 Of course in a world run by thugs the ‘principle’ he espouses is inevitable and hardly
justifies the simplistic interpretation he gives it. But at the heart of this dynamic is the
driving force of the parasitic master identity of the Jew that just wants to own and exploit all
humanity for the sake of the Chosen.

210 * YES * This idea of a linguistic programme expanding and projecting the
superorganism as an expression of linguistic force is perfectly evoked in the opposite
paragraph, for all the flaws in Bloom’s use of the idea of the superorganism
* Hinduism * I’ve previewed this and it is where he should be picking on Christianity
as a Jewish slave identity – something he says nothing about. The beauty of this association
is that history allows it to be doled out in manifest chunks – in keeping with the idea of the
individual as material – i. e. materialist – entity. The Jewish slave maker identity is vastly
superior to this method and works behind the scenes – a wire pulling master identity
programme – to use the master of wire puller’s words – Adolf Hitler. This is what allows this
Jew to single out a none Jewish slave identity programme for ridicule while completely
ignoring the only one that really matters – his own master identity that created Christianity
and Islam as comparative slave identity programmes to Hinduism.

211 There is a similar story at the back of Judaism’s rise to prominence whereby feral
desert dwellers took over Sumerian civilization so completely, at about the same time as
Bloom’s story occurs, that scarcely a trace of the invaders remained, just some clues to do
with the linguistic transfer. I’ve often wondered about the relationship of this to the creation
of the modern Jewish master race, but it is hard to get tangible accounts suited to such
interpretation. A TV programme this week on BBC 2, March 2011, looking at the truth of
the Bible made the modern Jewish culture defined by its monotheism a product of
enslavement to the Babylonian empire two and half thousand years ago, prompting a
reformation of Jewish ideas that banished all gods save the one supreme male god, Yahweh.
But the Jews trace their special history back six millennia and it began with their emigration
from Sumer under Abraham – I think. So the Jews were established as a special people
adapted to a cultural form – civilization – long ago, and this explains their persistence as a
master race coming of age with the foundation of the Roman hegemony unleashing the
potential of a global superorganism.

212 It is easy to see how the Jewish slave identity programme both achieves and enhances
this caste system by unleashing it by creating identities linked by mythology enshrined in a
primary text – in triple series to match the identity triad of Judaism, Christianity and Islam –
so that each hierarchical platform could regard itself as the Chosen and at to dominate the
world accordingly, while all the while, unbeknown to anyone, apparently, all came back to its
point of origin in the end – Jerusalem – the heart of Judaism. Judaism could never be
destroyed by its unleashed slave bodies because the Jews always planted themselves within
these offshoots of Jewish culture, made in their likeness. To destroy Judaism, Christianity or
Islam would first have to destroy themselves and even when they give the appearance of
attempting this, in pogroms, they never succeed, all they do is spread the poison of Judaism
further and make it more vigorous. Atheist Science explains why this is so and in Bloom’s
Lucifer Principle we have a sterilised model of Atheist Science which comes very close to
doing the same, and never closer than in this account of Hinduism, for all that in the end he
tells us nothing.

Note :
Last night, 14/04/2011, a rerun of a programme on Ancient Britain on BBC 2,
considered the nature of the archaeologically elusive Druids. A specialist pointed out that the
interesting thing about the Druids is that they formed a class of people covering the whole
Celtic world, which stretched from Britain and across swathes of the continent. These were
priests and seers to whom even the kings would have to turn for council.
This tells us that a unified superorganism spread across the northern reaches of
Europe, lying adjacent to the superorganism of the ancient world. In the case of the Celtic
superorganism we have this emphatic statement that an amorphous ‘master race’ ruled the
whole social being, no matter what structural diversity was contained therein. These people
left us no history, so we are lost in terms of understanding the dynamics of this social order
directly. But assuming this order was a superorganism, we may compare it to that which
destroyed it by exterminating the Druids, and replacing them with Jews, the dispersed,
amorphous master race of Christendom that came after Druidism. This is why Christianity
was fabricated when it was, because it was impelled into existence by the passive linguistic
force bringing out the structural changes caused by the Romans taking the baton of Jewish
identity onto the next level of globalisation, which meant consuming the neighbouring
continental scale superorganism, which required a new slave identity to replace the biomass
of Europe’s attachment to Druidism, with an attachment to Judaism. And this is why
Christianity was successful, because it was a naturally created biological phenomenon
occurring in keeping with the dictates of nature, related to the dynamics of superorganic
being in mammals, as seen in ourselves.
Because we have a history of the ancient world superorganism, we do not hear of the
master race, the Jews, anymore than we would hear of the Druids if the Celtic world kept an
historical literature in which political records appeared. The master race necessarily lies
behind the scenes and cannot make an appearance in the major political actions of history,
because then they could not be an all pervading, amorphous master race—get it ? An identity
cannot be both a part, and a whole. The Jewish identity is the whole superorganism, and the
Jews do not form a part of the same, they have always been special, as exemplified in their
status as a Diaspora culture, but even now Israel is a special state preserved by Western
Civilization, so called. Political records are about the structural fabric of the superorganism,
the existence of the master race was meant to be kept secret, we may be certain that this is
why the Druids did not use a written language.
And therein lies the critical difference between the Jews and the Druids, the latter
relied upon the more frail secrecy of verbal knowledge to give them power, whereas the Jews
were able to create actual slave bodies in their own likeness by using writing to preserve their
master identity status, while designing second and third tiers of slavedom in keeping with the
intuitively understood demands of human corporate nature.
_____________________
What does this litany of evil remind you of ? That is right, the foundation of America
by the Jews, which deliberately employed this colour coding system to establish a Jewish
slave culture in the New World, and then removed this evil by engaging in an internecine war
which promised to relieve the evil so deliberately imposed for precisely the purpose, that
religious freaks knew perfectly well what was required, for a new branch of Jewish
civilization to be cast on a far shore. None of this elaborate history is a chance occurrence,
poor old Americans, in like manner to the Asiatic Indians before them, are swung from so
many threads by the modern Jew, they are bewildered and lost to it.

213 And once we know that the sole purpose of science today is to protect the Jewish
master identity, we become astounded at the huge mass of priests and all their institutions
existing for the sole purpose of controlling knowledge to make sure we can never know the
truth, so Judaism can persist, despite all its vile obscenity of ignorance, to rule our world and
degrade us. But, as Bloom says in this Hindu context, this apparent waste is nothing of the
sort, for these priests and the managers of linguistic force that creates all superorganic form,
without which the superorganism based on Judaism would not last a day. The Bible was of
course the manifestation of this technique, hence its extension to include the Christian slave
biomass and its replication in a slightly modified guise to accommodate the third pillar of
Judaism – Islam.

214 I love this tirade, but it is a bit fucking rich coming from an American Jew boy ! As I
say, the Americans today are in the exact same degraded position, here it manifests itself as
capitalism that allows a tiny group of super rich to lord it over society – always associated
with the Christian fascism that so characterises this disgusting society, and leaves countless
millions living in abject poverty, unsupported by the state they are forced to work as slaves
for a meagre dole enough to keep them alive. And these evil Yankee fuckers make trips to
Liverpool to see our unemployed and tell the Christian Nazis ruling us how they could use
their system over here and how awful it is that our communities have a way of thriving on
benefit, generation after generation – re. a piece on the regional news earlier this year. This
ideology of unrestrained free market capitalism then would seem to be the equivalent dogma
oppressing the Jewish American slave biomass today, that proudly boasts that it lives for
Israel !! Stupid fuckers. Or they would be stupid if they actually existed. But of course they
don’t. And that is why the Americans love being the slaves of the Jews just as the slaves of
Rome and the Hindu slaves loved being slaves too. The human superorganism is all there is
and we evolved to form a superorganism so, as he argued most appropriately in the preceding
chapters, all we want is to be part of the perfect superorganism and these strategies –
Hinduism and Christianity, that teach us to be servile dupes of a master elite, represent the
perfection of a linguistic slave identity programme generated by the passive linguistic force
that causes individuals to fall into social unity on an ever increasing scale, which these
monstrous ideologies facilitate, exactly as nature intended they should when she perfected
sentient brick linguistic physiology in Homo Sapien form nearly 200 millennia ago. The
most usual defence of Islam as a degrading ideology from a Western secular view, is that it
makes people happy, and likewise for Christianity where the refrain so often heard is that it
provides comfort for people, and indeed the usual general defence, found in Bloom too, is
that religion serves to help people meet the challenge of life. All of which is true, but why ?
Because individuals are sentient brick units of superorganic being, made to form a
superorganism the more gratified the individuals are who are integrated into it, even at the
most basic level of subsistence. Hitler even gives a direct statement on this when explaining
why people at the lowest level of society still feel a passionate belonging to a properly
constituted social order, showing the organicist informed outlook directing Hitler’s political
reasoning – perfectly emulating Judaism.

217 * Rampant individualism – applying the principle of the individual to the

superorganism and thereby ducking the all important facet of the human superorganism
relative to the person – its immortality, that is such a common feature of mythical religious
views of reality precisely because it is the prime feature of the true divine object. Given the
significance of the idea of immortality and divinity it beggars belief that this astute
commentator has not grasped that God is the superorganism – but he gives no indication of
this most important insight. This is perhaps the best grounds for calling him a priest seeking
to subvert truth and not just a dupe of superorganic being or his human nature.

218 Like ants – always good to see this comparison.

219 Well how about that, he is referring to the event I’ve just mentioned. But look how he
portrays it, with all the clarity of mud. As if the reason for this strange tactic was as he
describes it, this is like saying we attacked Saddam over oil – the same excuse is coming up
now over Gaddafi. No, we went to war in Iraq because Jews forced us to do so via their
puppets – our direct masters – Blair and Bush. My assumption has always been that the
Babylonian captivity was because the Jews were the master race and that is why they had this
special, bizarre treatment. Exactly the same reason they had the special, bizarre treatment
metered out to them by Hitler in the shape of the holocaust. Getting a handle on how the
Jews functioned as a master race at this time is tricky. I saw a documentary a couple of years
back about a famous story of a queen visiting Israel to obtain diplomatic wisdom in the face
of some difficulty and this seemed tailor made for my purposes. What I need is this story in a
book – did I write it up ? I certainly should of. The Jews were portrayed as the pivotal
culture in the region and a more clear conception of what this might mean in practice came
from a recent programme on Ancient Greece, which looked at the Oracle of Delphi as an all
important seat of political wisdom that everyone in the region consulted. The famous case
being that of the Persian Emperor Darius who was told that if he went to war a great empire
would fall, so he did and it did – his own ! There was more to the dynamics of these ancient
empires than we can easily grasp today and the interwoven nature of adjacent cultures does
suggest a place for an inner core, unofficial, acting as a secret mover of all things – and that is
the Jews and that is the reason why the Babylonians carted them off as one would any
valuable prize. In this case rather like an insect colony relocating the queen in order to boost
the fortunes of that particular wing of the nest, not realising the nature of the queen’s power
which meant the Jews had to be released, as they had been previously from Egypt and more
lately from Spain in the seventeenth century and Europe in the twentieth (Diaspora). Of
course the Jewish priests, like Bloom, always, always have some silly little way of
representing these dynamics to their charges – history they call it. It is this position at the
centre of a linguistic programme making Jews a foci of linguistic force that enables them to
be the wire pullers of the world, and it is because of this role that they made sure they were
given the onerous, degrading task of money lender, that no other being would be defiled by,
thus inverting the meaning of the attribution of real power to the Jews. This allowed the Jews
to nurture each power centre according to their fancy – just as we see described in Hitler’s
Mein Kampf but not described quite as it should be, such that it would actually compromise
Jewish power.

220 This is a nice little pocket history but I smell a rat, do you ? I think we will call it the
Jew.
_______________________
* It is clear that this ‘Persian superorganism’ was, even then, Jewish ! This is a nice
revelation, I have been looking for this insight for years.
_______________________
Look at the way he talks about this scenario, where these great powers, for all their
might carried a fatal flaw – isolation from their enemy — which kept them uninformed about
reality and wallowing in egotistical glories. The Jew always had the missing key, as they still
do, because they are made by their linguistic identity programme to disperse into civilised
hierarchical biomass in such a way as to act as priests, also called ‘masters’ by me or
‘parasites’ by Hitler, or the ‘Chosen’, according to their own identity programme. This is the
secret of Jewish power and this part of Bloom’s work has given me the summary of the
relevant historical material to help me formulate a conception of this earliest phase of the
global Jewish superorganism’s origins.

222 * No, fucker – never forget the Jew ! The wirepuller extraordinaire. Each of these
shifts in power from Sumer to Stalin, was just one rotation of a physiological cog in the
workings of the Jewish global superorganism – that is why we all come and go while the Jew
alone, marches ever onward. You can’t fool ‘em all, you ain’t got me fooled fucker.

224 Gives a pathetic Christian slave idea of what barbarity is, which suits his Jewish
master race agenda. We kill, torture, execute and terrorise in the name of Love, says the
Christian slave of Judaism – only barbarians who do these things in order to prevent us
loving them, deserve this name. There are no barbarians because there are no people, there is
only the organism made by nature. The greatest barbarian after all was Hitler and the sole
purpose for his existence was Judaism, that he came into existence to protect and serve in
obedience to the dynamics of linguistic force that created the Jewish superorganism by these
value laden structures of delineation, positing identity against identity. What does Bloom
think a culture is – a set of memes obviously, but what is it ? What is a Jew for example ?
Why do Jews have to exist ? Why can we not just have humans ? Answer : because there are
no humans and this requires that these humans have identities so they can be allocated to the
superorganism to which they belong. Barbarians therefore represent functional structure, as
proven by the eternal role Bloom so ably showed these radical outsiders have long played as
catalytic progenitors of major superorganic dynamics, utilised endlessly by the eternal core of
identity – the Jew, who proclaims themselves the bringer of all things gracious, in contrast to
the evil hands they use, but never are.

225 All of this completely ignores the fact that the Muslims exist for one reason only – to
serve their enemies, the Jews who made them in their image. And a dammed fine job the
Muslims are doing. Where would Israel be without 9/11 and the global war on terror it
initiated ? Religion in the West would have nothing to carp about and it would wither, and so
the Jews would lose the wires fanning through our power structure, that they pull to make us
dance.

227 This of course is all doing the Jew’s work, of spreading Judaism – i.e. Islam in this
case. The rise of the Muslim fundamentalist now, is because the foundation of Israel marks
the arrival of the global Jewish superorganism, making it the time for the third order to take
over the world and make it one under Judaism – in the guise of Islam. That is the purpose of
the third order – to become the main biomass of the earth. This is why the Jews gave it the
form they did when writing the Koran. The Jews must of written the Koran because it is a
garbled impression of the Bible – so even if no actual Jew came anywhere near the act of
writing, the Jews still wrote it as if by autosuggestion, if you like, the extension of linguistic
force – but the facts are there to see – take a look at the shit in the Muslim freak’s holy book
– pure, unadulterated Judaism.

228 When Saddam was removed and journalists entered his palaces one did a report
against a tiled backdrop behind a throne, showing the golden dome in Jerusalem and
intercontinental ballistic missiles firing off – a perfect representation of what Islam is for –
the extension of Judaism over the earth. This is linguistic force in action – not politics, not
evil, but human corporate nature as made by Nature.

229 And there you have it, exactly what I have been saying, the Jews created Islam for this
moment, to serve the consolidation of Judaism across the world following the foundation of
Israel – its happening, bang on cue and according to this insider’s knowledge, in a limited
sense it is what I can see with the aid of Atheist Science.

232 Standard Jewish slave programming – kill and incorporate. The way he talks about
the Muslims, look at what the Jews have just done – planted a new country slap bang in the
heartland of Islamic territory ! Stone me – unbelievable. Imagine if anyone else tried this.
The English tried it in Ireland 400 years ago and they were fighting a war for the first half of
my life as result, one that still has steam in it. The Jew though, no sweat, no one on earth can
compete with them and their insidious, single-minded evil.

233 This global plan of war is the inevitable end game of Jewish Chosenness – what else
could it be ? The Jewish slave identities have only ever extended their reach through murder
and mayhem, this is not religion, it is biology.
_______________________
It is fascinating to see how Bloom has suddenly turned his pretence of arguing a new
scientific idea into a Jewish propaganda rant against the Muslims, geeing the Christian slaves
along, pitting Christian and Muslim against each other so the Jew can duck out of the way
and collect the spoils of chaos as they fall.

237 Muslim superorganism – fails to see this is the third macro structural element of a
global Jewish superorganism – no surprise there.

238 This holier than thou argument relies upon the structural hierarchy allowing Jews to
separate themselves from everyone, and their executive Christians to separate themselves
from the military base of Islam. It is a standard political arrangement used in the West, to
keep the leader pure by keeping them ignorant of what their underlings are doing. Here we
see its expressions at its most extensive reach, which only the most knowledgeable of the
master classes in each group will understand readily – the need to know basis of the secret
society, personified in the popularised conspiracy model of Freemasonry.

243 No, no, no, - it is because they are the slaves of the Jews, just as we English were in
the Middle Ages – at a parallel stage of servitude, when the Jews needed a vengeful horde.
As applied in Rome two millennia ago too.

244 Begins with an excuse for mindless evil which is tailor-made to justify that most evil
of society’s routine behaviour towards the Arabs and humanity at large – Jewland Israel.
Much of the latter part of this work seems to of turned into a covert expression of Jew
politics.

245 Certainly a society cannot live on wishful thinking and a social structure has more to
it than we realise when we call for unilateral disarmament, as much as I like the idea myself –
old hippy that I am.

249 My relentless uncompromising attack on religion could be put into this category of
self destructive behaviour, but I am only interested in freeing science – the rest can take care
of itself afterwards.

252 This is one reason I never give to charity. Another is that charitable giving is a facet
of Jewish slave programming designed to indicate the sub-slave hierarchy so that Christian
slaves of Judaism – who do not know they are slaves and think they are superior to none
Christians, give charity to those in need whose societies their wars have trashed in a process
of enslavement. So actually this second reason is the same as the first. I was thinking of the
way charity scams such as Children in Need – just finished its annual mass gleaning – adopts
a secular front aimed at children and thereby draws all people into Christianity by the
backdoor – a kind of Trojan horse in reverse – instead of capturing your enemy by giving, it
secures its slave biomass by conning them into giving while placing any who resist in a very
tricky position, unless they really can see the deviousness of the whole act.

263 Nothing in this chapter, so much waffle.

264 Title has a nice Atheist Science ring to it, indicating a linguistic force directing social
action via a linguistic programme with a covert meaning. Good. Employs the standard
Darwinian deception to divert us away from the stark truth by saying we have most in
common with anthropoids, in terms of our nature. Not true. Our nature is corporate and only
true superorganic species like termites share this nature with us.

265 Yes ! Delightful definition of ‘peace’ and similar political verbalisations used by our
masters – he should know. ‘Justice’ – what does this definition remind us of ? That’s right –
Queers ; or women’s suffrage.

266 * Freedom = right to know what you are told ! Yes – i. e. as atheists we are free to have
science – the bullshit science of Darwin concocted by the theocracy to protect religion. In a
free society all religion would be outlawed because religion is fascism, as it is nature’s way
of enslaving individuals to superorganisms.

268 * Now in all this grim story telling we have a powerful idea – key to Jewish supremacy
over all humanity – that of shuffling internal hierarchies. This was the mechanism behind
Marxism and it was also the point of the two world wars, allowing the Jews to recover
dominion over secularising Europe by decimating society and bringing in their third wing –
the Muslims who the Jews are working tirelessly to place in charge of our English society –
keeping to what I know directly. Yet here we have a Jew endlessly pretending he hate
Muslims and support freedom. Don’t be fooled – understand reality, notably the fact that we
do not exist, only the superorganism exists and that bears the Jewish identity.

269 * This day of peace mantra is the expression of Islamic enslavement to Judaism – it
really expresses the mantra of Jewish Chosenness and I often refer to this fact that Atheist
Science cannot be known until the Jews have entirely turned humanity into Jews. An
appropriate observation in a chapter on the hidden meaning of words !

270 Jews – they were all slaves of the Jews.

273 Britain like America is a slave territory of the Jews, therefore these shifts are akin to a
grazing plan – the clockwork pattern of the marauding army ant colony springs most readily
to mind.

286 Most interesting aspect of this style of reasoning is that it indicates that the biomass is
a unified entity animated by linguistic force that readily sacrifices individuals to its needs for
galvanising unity when under stress.

298 He has produced an extraordinary nugget of modern jingoistic history and presumed
to explain its ins and outs in an ultimately naturalistic manner, based on the reality of the
human superorganism manifesting itself in a competing fauna of such superorganisms. I
dont’ think so. The thing that always fascinates me about interminable warfare, is why no
cultural unit – a nation these days – ever manages to keep its secrets, even when they are of
so complex a kind as those relating to nuclear arms. Because we know the Jews are the
master race and everything else exists to serve Judaism as such, added to the destructive
characteristics of the Jews down the ages, as the movers and shakers behind the scenes – the
wire pullers as Hitler has it – we know that the explanation is that an internal process of
manipulation takes place where constant competition of the kind culminating in eternal
warfare as described by Bloom here, does indeed occur because humans are superorganisms.
But there is only one global superorganism, it is Jewish and these historical – i. e.
physiological dynamics – are due entirely to the complex identity structure of the
superorganism possessed by One uniform identity – Judaism.
299 There is no such thing as a pecking order amongst human superorganisms, and indeed
we may assume the priests that have represented behaviour in terms of a pecking order
anywhere, have just been doing the usual, as personified by Darwin, by interpreting
everything according to the religious/political dogma of the individual as an end in
themselves. What pecking orders are, is hierarchical social structures, and where they occur
in a fully integrated social species like humans, these identity differences giving rise to
Jewish style historical mythology, are simply a physiological process allowing the
superorganism to thrive by growing and maintaining internal structural integrity centred on
Judaism.

302 The swinging pendulum was economic, as the right wing took control and tore down
the achievements of socialism by selling off the public sector and handing over all excess
wealth to the newly privileged. His cultural interpretation of these processes is more self
serving superficial politicking. The present downturn – by far the biggest in my half century
plus life, was created as deliberately as any human ever created anything – especially by
politicians who gave a free reign to bankers and capitalists of all kinds to run amok, while
they borrowed money to fritter away on money pits like the National Health Service, that
provides services so esoteric as to be insane – infertility treatment, sex change, organ
transplant, kidney dialysis – whatever happened to dying !! From Bloom’s account we can
see just how downturns play into the hands of capitalist pigs who cause mayhem while
getting rich and wreak havoc when society gets rich for everyone, so they can focus control
back on themselves and do the whole thing again. This is Judaism, capitalism, jingoism, all
round shitism.

308 This whole approach to world history is farcical, but here we find one example where
we are completely open to new influences and have consequently opened our land to the
ingress of just the kind of culture he talks about. In Pakistan this week, April 6 th 2011,
Cameron said English links to this disgusting country are unbreakable as we have one million
Britons of Paki origin. And you know what that means ? Muslims. We should of put our
gates up against these devils after the world war, but instead we opened them and flooded the
land with this obscenity and let out own atheist culture drown. Now why did we do that ?
Yep, there can only be one reason, to maintain our enslavement to Judaism. The Chinese
knew that they were facing a new viral infection – Judaism, and the only hope was to keep it
out. Instead China has become a Jewish slave nation and is now being farmed more
intensively by the Jews (capitalism) than anywhere on earth. Which our priests represent as a
good thing, but it is not, it is the worst thing imaginable. All this has nothing to do with
knowledge, there is only religion – the medium of identity, knowledge is a mechanism
subserving identity and the Chinese had no way of obtaining Jewish knowledge without
becoming Jews. The Chinese inception into the Jewish fold was managed through
Communism, but now it is fully Capitalist and soon the Jewish religious slave identities will
burgeon in China as they do in all Jewish slave territories eventually.

[Yesterday, 02/05/2011, they announced the assassination of the world’s most wanted man, Bin
Laden, in a secret mission against a fortified compound sixty miles from Pakistan’s capital city. This
is what Paki land is good for, Islamic terror, the basis of Jewish agitation in the world today. That is
why we prize Paki land.]

311 * Connected to the living being by invisible threads of linguistic force – YES.
____________________
 * Exactly – we are what nature has made us and nothing can change that. The exact
point I was making when I mentioned Clegg in my Atheist Science last night. The best we
can do, as ever, is to know reality and manage it. As the Jews do by being Jews – i. e. a
master identity, we need to free ourselves from this naturally produced way of knowing by
freeing science from religion, what Ostwald called Monism and I call Atheist Science.

312 What the fuck has all this about stress got to do with humans as superorganisms ? I
know he says it has, but it is pure gush.

313 Sadly I think he is right about the need to slave, just another unavoidable reality of
being none existent. The problem with work is that it is such a vile way to spend ones time.
He uses the elite as the model of working life, but this bears no relation to work as it applies
to almost all humans on earth – we are work fodder, existing to give privileged cunts like
Bloom the joyous life he leads – same old shit Aristotle was obsessed with in Politics, when
talking about why the elite should exist because they knew best how to organise society
according to the idea of the ‘good life’ – i. e. living off the back of slave fodder. They just
announced we can all work forever now, no more retiring at 65 ! Wonderful the journalists
say — fuckoff you f’ing bastards. All so the bankers can have more money.

315 No! Idiot. This saying refers to idleness induced by secure employment so that
people slow down in order to gain the most from the privilege of union or council worker
type employment contracts. These arrangements no longer exist for workers, governments
have become pots of honey guzzled by international corporations that make sure that
whatever funds a state department has, the corporation can just perform the required service
for exactly that amount – which is of course fed back to the politicians in any way possible –
bribes, party contributions, places on boards.

316 This is just slave dogma dressed up by a priest to sound good ! Sad thing is that this
shit works because it licences thieves to rob from people who just want to live and let live.

318 * Our nature as cells of a superorganism – NICE. Shame he does not take himself
seriously when he comes out with profundities of this perfect kind.

319 War will end when the newly realised Jewish global superorganism is fully integrated
– 300 years minimum to achieve this, 500 more likely, maybe one millennia. I’m just
calculating thus of the top of my head, but these figures feel about right, as baby’s bath water
feels about right when Mummy dips her elbow in it to find a soft bit to match the task. Think
about how Judaism has crushed humanity this far, especially since the modern era began.
Now consider how central to this modern phenomenon of opening up the world to Islam has
been. Here is the clue to a timescale. Now Islam has been unleashed, it is this terrible evil
that must become the norm, but moderated by the slave identity of Christianity. All this will
take time, generations must come and go. War will be essential to the continuation of the
Jewish project – I’m now thinking we had best add a nought to those off the cuff calculations,
three millennia minimum before war ends. Three millennia ? Boy that sounds a long time.
Do we have three millennia worth of war left in us ? I think the global war of terror mounted
by Islamic slaves of Judaism is a wonderful thing from this point of view, just what we need
and the benefits are pouring in as our advanced societies plummet into the abyss of ignorance
and degradation, so crucial to the existence of a happy well ordered world ready to be
managed by the Jews for all eternity henceforth – most especially when wars are done with –
by then we will be so far past freedom hell will reign on earth. That’s mammalian insects for
you.
* Our task is to outwit the Lucifer Principle. NO! Our task is to destroy Judaism and to
understand that this means to eliminate all religion from the face of the earth.

319 * Appalling. I love the sentiment, to put it into words in a book is outrageous,
especially one purporting to understand human existence truly. The most important
precondition to our realising the need to destroy Judaism is our realisation that being driven
by a master identity is all very well until it reaches the end of all resources available to it.
Here Bloom pretends that there is a safety valve for Judaism’s relentless exploitation of
human corporate nature’s potential to expand and consume. This is not true. All we have is
the planet. What is most likely to happen is that we will feed of each other as modern
industrialised states, as we have always done in a more disparate manner before, where
advanced consumed primitive. This is the real danger and it rests on the ever present urge of
Judaism to exploit, which rests upon the pyramid of Judaism consisting of Christianity and
Islam. Can Judaism reach harmonious balance ? Bloom has just set out an argument that
calls this death and offers one, absurd, get out. Judaism is the problem. We need science to
teach us how to enjoy what this Jew represents as rigor mortis. Me, I do.

323 * Nice statement of our sentient brick status, but not sincere, hence asked as a question
which assumes we exist, and answers it by showing we do not ! Tosser.
__________________
Talks as if Jesus existed even though proven long ago that he did not, pure myth
borne of the era, which Atheist Science explains by showing that knowledge is a binding flux
and has nothing to do with reality, and the Jews are the master identity where Jesus is a
device for hooking pagans up to Jewish identity.

324 Bear in mind when reading this contrived outrage, that Rome was a slave culture of
Judaism just as America is now—where Bloom writes today—and China will be tomorrow –
if she takes the crown of dominant military power – not sure the Jews will let that happen
though. Can the Chinese ever be as fully Jewish as the Europeans and their offshoot, the
Americans ? Doubtful. [But then ever, is a long time.]
____________________
Exactly – Rome realised the potential of human corporate nature – exactly as Judaism
does, its disgusting on a personal level, but once we seek to know ourselves scientifically this
level has no meaning and his discussion here nicely recognises that.

325 * The question to ask yourself now is what would happen if humans suddenly
vanished ? Think of the animals. Whoopee! all the vegetarian/animal rights nutters may say.
But when the tsunami did cleanse a strip of the Japanese coastline last month, March 2011,
one shot showed a farmer visiting his neighbour’s farm where cows stood abandoned in pens.
Not a happy fate. And that is the true meaning of the Jew’s abandonment of the slave
territories enacted by the fall of Rome – the domesticated hordes fell by the wayside. Today
swingeing laws crush the least signs of independence in anyone and the last time I had a run
in with a pig (police) he rebuffed my anger by saying we would be lost without them ! True,
because the ever ready spring of violent criminals they keep walled up in prisons would make
mincemeat of us because the law castrates us so we can be farmed by lawyers – priests –
Jews in other words.
[I’m contradicting myself here when I speak of the Jews abandoning pagan lands, since the whole
point is that they did not. The Romans receded leaving the Jews in place, hidden behind the veil of
their now resident, indigenous even, slave identity of Christianity. But the point is that these slave
biomasses were left to the ravages of the agents of Judaism which built the Christian territories over
the course of the next millennia and half. They had no core authority to allow them to develop a new
identity which would oust the Jews, and this of course was because the withdrawal of the Romans was
not what it is made out to be by history.]
_______________________
* So, following this disingenuous amelioration of the meaning of oppression, we have
perhaps the most perfect statement in the whole work, from a true science view – the
paragraph beginning “The superorganism . . .”. Here he is actually saying that our drive to be
part of a superorganism is genetic and we do not exist as individuals – this is damn near
perfect. But of course he does not mean it to be ! One wonders just what this man does mean
to say by employing this idea at all. In the end I see no point whatsoever since each time he
asserts it he has built in routines designed to scupper the real meaning of this perfect idea. It
is just priestcraft using true knowledge to serve its own ends, while taking care to see the acid
of truth only serves to cut out a better lie. [ The same method the Nazis used to produce anti-
Semitism which serves to protect the Jews from science while pretending to attack them .] The next
brief paragraph meets this requirement of countermanding the previous statement as he
indicates that humans evolved as individuals integral to themselves, that have now given rise
to superorganic forms that have a degree of automatism of their own that overrides our own
natural quotient of the same. This is such utter moronic trash reasoning as to demand our
most aggressive denunciation. Make your mind up. Which is it, did we evolve to form
superorganisms or didn’t we ? And if we didn’t then why do we !! Still, at least the twat
discusses the subject. Eh!
[Automatism is a prime attribute in the definition of life, see Evolutionary Systems, Vijver, 1998,
page 381. From this note Bloom seems to be allocating this attribute to human superorganisms .]
__________________
* “the idea, the meme” – No! Linguistic force.
__________________
* “peculiar pattern” – i. e. linguistic identity programme generated by linguistic force.
It is interesting to see how the same ideas emerge when the same key is used, i. e. human
corporate nature, even though Bloom’s disingenuous intentions mean that his creativity is
sporadic and disorganised, and never coordinated into a resulting model informed by science
based on this key, but instead adheres to the religious principle of the individual as an end.
_________________
* Meme as successor of gene is a perfect example of perfect logic poorly realised.
Meme (i. e. language) is the continuity of the gene, where both are aspects of the force of
Information that creates all biological form. Right or wrong my model is infinitely more
complete and coherent, i. e. scientific.

326 To me both ‘goodnesses’ can only mean religion and science, but there is no problem
here for me because I denounce religion as pure ‘evil’ – i. e. pure nature, and science as pure
‘good’ = ultimate individuality and freedom. Where ‘freedom’ is defined as access to true
knowledge, of which science is the only possible arbiter, because it alone recognises
authority in the determination of truth is located in the external world beyond that of personal
existence, which applies not only when it is the person we are talking about, but all the more
so for this reason, because the control of the individual by linguistic force is the point of
origin of the superorganism that enslaves us via the manufacture of false knowledge of
identity – i. e. religion.
___________________
 * The idea of nature weaving a struggle between religion and science into the form of
the superorganism, is a delightful vision of exactly what the external war of religion against
science really means. But we need Atheist Science to understand this. Bloom’s artful
description actually tells us nothing at all, until I give it rigor and explain the truth that lies
behind this insight.
___________________
His clear commitment to the idea of human corporate nature leads to this delightful
explanation of triadic unity, but we would expand its obscurity. The superorganism is all that
exists. The ‘idea’ is the linguistic force which creates all superorganic form, and the
hierarchy is the complex superorganic physiology generated by linguistic force, to produce
the global Jewish superorganism extant today. There, that’s much better. Now we have
something real to get our teeth into, instead of a load of prevaricating prattle about evil !
Instead we now have Judaism – something to aim at. It has been done before, but never
effectively, so now, post Hitler, we must try again, wary this time of just how devious and
resilient Jews are. There is only one force in this triad – linguistic force. The superorganism
is the object and the hierarchy (pecking order) is the structure. So force – structure – form =
the universal pattern of material being.

328 A curious little sticky note is fixed here that says ‘stimulus comes from other ideas’.
Does not resonate with the point of insertion to my mind, but at least it suggests that a
previous owner actually may of read the whole of this book.
* ‘Nature creates by . . .’ This brief paragraph begins annoyingly by invoking
Darwinism – i. e. competition, and then sets up society as an object of such rivalry, which is
fine, then excels itself by invoking linguistic force as generating an identity programme
creating superorganisms from a central linguistically defined core – or that’s what he says
after being corrected via the prism of Atheist Science.
___________________
Crucial point here is that human nature is social and while evil is a direct consequence
of our social nature, it carries with it what we perceive as its opposite – goodness. Making
this point is the best fruit of this work, except Bloom does not quite get there although he
does a good deal of groundwork allowing us to easily derive this most succinct lesson from
understanding our true nature as superorganic beings.

329 * I thought he was about to make an interesting point when he raised the prospect of a
scientific model as an inspiration for political life. No such luck. This passage follows the
theocracy’s line that makes out science really exists – it does not. The water incident refers
to the outrage of scientists at Harvard in 1975 upon realising that Wilson’s Sociobiology had
dared to suggest humans were animals ! The telling part of this paragraph is the indication as
to how religion continues to control science by remaining conjoined to it within the academic
institutions of the Jewish theocracy. Competition ensures that only science worshiping
Darwin ever has a say – no science would be tolerated that presented the scientific model
Bloom uses here to argue humans are superorganisms. The Hitler Taboo guarantees this, it
was this taboo that earned Wilson his unwanted soapless shampooing, delivered by anti-
fascist fascists, Harvard neo-Communists.
_________________
Democracy is the fascist regime used by the Jewish theocracy to order its slave
territories along political lines, this is why democracies don’t fight one another, it would be
the same as Jews warring with Jews. And, more importantly, this allows Jews to form first
world global organisations to war against third world slave territories, in order to consolidate
the world into a uniformly Jewish global state – exactly as we see in Libya right now. This
does not mean I do not appreciate the benefits of living in an advanced democratic society, it
just means I do not fall for the priestly patter imposing an idealised concept of our social
condition.
_________________
An extraordinarily facile use of Mead’s originally pathetic argument – classic
American puerility appealing to sentimental urges rather than intellectual arguments.

330 No! This is not the case. Warfare is a superorganic physiological process having to
do with growth occurring on two fronts, extension externally and integration to one authority,
identity that is, internally. Because the Jewish global superorganism was more massive come
1900 it could be galvanized about the core ideas of Judaism more efficiently and hence only
less than 100 million died in two world wars used by the Jewish priesthood to pull the
biomass back into line under the autocracy of Judaism. More efficient yes, more ethically
advanced – give me a break !
___________________
* No morality in nature – true ! Why is he telling us this, his text oozes the explanation
of moral imperatives most of the time, as he constantly makes it clear that individuals exist,
when they do not.
___________________
* More perfection – individuals do not exist. YES. But why is he saying this ? He is
like a man beating a young girls arse with a switch while explaining that beating girls with
switches is appalling and something he would never do !! His words simply have no bearing
upon his arguments. I listened to Clegg’s election broadcast for the Liberals last night,
7/4/2011, and while his seductive voice described his sublime desire to care for each and
everyone of us I thought about what filthy lying shits men like him are – the art of a priest is
as Machiavelli said, to lie without compunction. Which is a privilege of the unassailably
powerful

331 * YES * — Built into our physiology. This is a key idea, pivotal to a true science of
human nature and though it is nice to see this idea appear in the dying embers of this
exasperating piece, it would of been so much nicer to see this assertion open the work and to
of informed every last detail and its ensuing argument.
____________________
* So, like the good little Jew-boy priest that he is, he concludes his sermon by
beseeching us to be the obedient slaves our Jewish slave identity has programmed us to be,
not to fight against the sick depravity of religion embodied in Judaism, but to lie prone, and
let the Jews do what they will with us, as they have been empowered to do by nature, and will
do without pause or compassion, one way of another – there will be one world under
Judaism, like it or not, so you may as well like it as Tony Blair said a couple of years ago –
Israel is here to stay. Twelve years research and lots of help – ha! Compared to my equal
period and not one iota of help or consultation form anyone. Obviously help is something to
be avoided at all cost. It is an impressive list of names, to think these professional academics
were prepared to lend their weight to such a project is something. But it begs the question
why not one jot of material of a like kind ever makes its appearance anywhere outside these
pages, or those I write ? No one ever treats humans as superorganisms. Bloom doesn’t, but
he does openly espouse the idea, no matter how corrupt his representation of this idea may
be. Of course the corruption undermines the idea and this is what makes the inspiration of
followers impossible, leaving Bloom’s organicism as a hollow image of reality displaying the
absolute truth without any substance, so the idea can be seen, but not touched.
334 The resources behind this work are overwhelming – who is this man ? God incarnate.
How does he get to know one of these extremely important, powerful people ? I do not know
one single person to speak to and I have no idea how to find anyone. Incredible. And this is
the shit that such resources get you – its like using all the resources of NASA for a decade
and then unveiling a one mile square pile of mud at the end of it as your achievement and
contribution to humanity’s advancement. The man has even been given huge sums of money
to produce this bullshit, while I must duck and dive like a criminal scavenging about on
benefits to allow me to use my life in the war for freedom directed in the name of science,
against religion.
James Lovelock ! Isn’t that the Gaia twat that anyone I mention the idea of humans
being a superorganism to, always asks me if I have heard of ? Fuck me ! Hull – sociology
– Seeley – bees as superorganisms ! Too much. Barash, another name that crops up when
searching for good material – never proves of any real use of course, but nice to see, just like
Bloom really. Bloom seems to be the tip of the iceberg of the social movement I have been
keen to identify as proving the reality of Atheist Science, not by chiming with it, but by
showing that the organicist sociology will not go away because it is real science – but not as
Bloom represents it.

________

The one thing we can say about Bloom is that his central thesis, that we are evil
because we are sociable, is perfect.
 Bibliography

Appleby, Joyce ; Hunt, Telling the Truth about History, W. W. Norton & Company,
Lynn & Jacob, Margaret 1994.

Aunger, Robert The Electric Meme : A New Theory of How we Think, The Free
Press, 2002.

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.

Bichakjian, Bernard H. Evolution in Language, Karoma Publishers, 1988.

Bloom, Howard The Lucifer Principle : A Scientific Expedition into the Forces
of History, The Atlantic Monthly Press, 1995.

Global Brain : The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang
to the 21st Century, John Wiley & Sons, 2000.

Blute, Marion Darwinian Sociocultural Evolution : Solutions to Dilemmas in

Cultural and Social Theory, CUP, 2010.

Bock, Kenneth Human Nature and History : A Response to

Sociobiology,
Columbia, 1980.

Brough, Charles The Last Civilization : Is this the last civilization so far or the
last one forever ? An objectively sever look at our long past,
and future, made possible by the whole new science of social
evolution, Trafford Publishing, 2010.

Csányi, Vilmos Evolutionary Systems and Society : A general theory of life,

mind, and culture, Duke, 1989.
Cullen, Ben Sandford Contagious Ideas : On evolution, culture, archaeology, and
Cultural Virus Theory, Oxbow Books, 2000.

Darwin, Charles The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the

Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,
John Murray, 1900. First pub. 1859.

The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, 1901.

First pub. 1871.

Dawkins, Richard The Selfish Gene, OUP, 1999. First pub. 1976.

The Blind Watchmaker, Penguin, 1991. First pub. 1986.

River Out of Eden : A Darwinian View of Life, Weidenfeld &

Nicolson, 1996. First pub. 1995.

Dennett, Daniel C. Breaking the Spell : Religion as a Natural Phenomenon,

Viking, 2006.

Ellis, William The Politics of Aristotle or a Treatise on Government,

J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., 1947. First pub. 1912.

Ford, Henry Jones The Natural History of the State : An Introduction to Political
Science, Princeton, 1915.

Fuller, Steve Science, Minnesota, 1997.

Gaskin, J. C. A. Thomas Hobbes : The Elements of Law Natural and Politic,

OUP, 1999. First pub. 1994.

Gasman, Daniel The Scientific Origins of National Socialism : Social

Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League,
Macdonald, 1971.

Goonatilake, Susantha The Evolution of Information : Lineages in Gene, Culture and

Artefact, Pinter Publishers, 1991.

Haeckel, Ernst Monism as Connecting Religion and Science : The Confession

 of Faith of a Man of Science, Adam and Charles Black, 1894.

Hamilton, Marilyn Integral City : Evolutionary Intelligences for the Human Hive,
New Society Publishers, 2008.

Hemelrijk, Charlotte K. Self-Organisation and Evolution of Social Systems, CUP, 2005.

Henderson, Lawrence J. Pareto’s General Sociology : A Physiologist’s Interpretation,

Russell & Russell, 1935.

Hill, Howard There is No God.... But.... There is Something, Even Better!,

Posted to Scribd, 2006.

Hitler, Adolf Mein Kampf, Houghton and Mifflin Company, 1939.

Jevons, William The Principles of Science : A Treatise on Logic and Scientific

Method, Vol. 1 & 2, Macmillan and Co., 1874. PDF from web.

Kroeber, A. L. The Superorganic, in : American Anthropologist, New Series,

Vol. 19, Lancaster, 1917.

Lilienfeld, Paul von Die menschliche Gesellschaft als realer Organismus, (Human
Society is a Real Organism), E. Behre’s Verlag, 1873. Volume
one (of five) of Gedanken über die Socialwissenschaft der
Zukunft, (Studies in the Social Science of the Future).

Lubbock, Sir John Pre-Historic Times as Illustrated by Ancient Remains and the
Manners and Customs of Modern Savages, D. Appleton and
Company, 1890. First pub. 1865.

Lynch, Aaron Thought Contagion : How Belief Spreads Through Society,

Basic Books, 1996.

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

Merry, Peter Evolutionary Leadership, Integral Publishers, 2009. [Amazon]

Ostwald, Wilhelm Monism as the Goal of Civilization, International Committee of
Monism, 1913.

Pareto, Vilfredo The Mind and Society, Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1935.
First pub. in Italian, 1916.

Sagan, Carl Broca’s Brain : The Romance of Science, Hodder and

Stoughton, 1979.

The Demon Haunted World : Science as a Candle in the Dark,

Headline, 1996.

Salthe, Stanley N. Evolving Hierarchical Systems : Their Structure and

Representation, Columbia, 1985.

Shott, Ross The Dark Arts of Immortality : Transformation through War,

Sex, & Magic, Author House, 2005. [Amazon]

Schmidt, Oscar The Doctrine of Descent and Darwinism, D. Appleton and

Company, 1896. First pub. 1873.

Stevens, Samuel Eugene Philosophy of the Great Unconscious, Old Corner Book Store,
Boston, 1908.

Science and Superstition, Truth Seeker Company, 1913.

Strauss, David Friedrich The Old Faith and the New. A Confession, Asher & Co., 1873.

Thomas, Lewis The Lives of a Cell : Notes of a Biology Watcher, Allen Lane,
1980. First pub. 1974.

Vijver, Gertrudis, Van de ; Evolutionary Systems : Biological and Epistemological

Salthe, Stanley N. & Perspectives on Selection and Self-Organization, Kluwer
Delpos, Manuela Academic Publishers, 1998.

Weingart, Peter ; Mitchell, Human by Nature : Between Biology and the Social Sciences,
Sandra D. ; Richerson, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997.
Peter J. & Maasen, Sabine
Wilsons, Edward O. Sociobiology : The New Synthesis, Belknap Press, 1978.
First pub. 1975.

The Diversity of Life, Belknap Press, 1992.

Note : - [Amazon] – means details taken from Amazon, I have not seen a copy.