Colonial Ape

THE

C OLONIAL

A PE

Presenting A

Complete Theory of Evolution

BY

Howard Hill

GODLESS HOUSE Posted to Scribd

Saturday, 14 November 2009

We are thus definitely driven to the conclusion that fundamental changes of constitution, raising what we have called the “level of life” by altering and improving the ground plan can only be brought about by colony-formation. The cell produces the Mollusc by colony-formation. But the Mollusc, being unable to produce a successful colony of Molluscs, is still a Mollusc and, in spite of a thousand superficial disguises, could never be anything but a Mollusc.

Henry Bernard.

CONTENTS PAGE

PREFACE

7

INTRODUCTION

13

Ch.

1

Bernard’s Philosophy and the Science of Evolution I Science : the means by which we know reality II Pragmatic Darwinism III Bernard and Haeckel IV Bernard’s works V Parallel plains of diversity VI Vanishing points of individuality

16 20 21 22 23 26 29

Ch.

2

Bernard’s Model of Colonial Evolution 1 Worthless Science 2 Creating a new God 3 A radical new theory of evolution

32 33 36 41

Ch.

3

The Importance of Racial Hatred 1 Identity and structure 2 Inducing social structure 3 Ibry updated 4 Classic anti-Semitism 5 Big brother 6 Homosexuality 7 The EDL—The English Defence League

44 54 56 62 62 70 76 80

Ch.

4

A Model Based on Forces 1 The common principle of life 2 Hints of frustration

82 85 88

Ch.

5

Biographical Insights Part 2 : A Miracle of Good Fortune 1 Bernard’s anthropology

92 95 98

Ch.

6

A Quick Appraisal 1 And so, on with Bernard 2 Our search for real science 3 Finding the impossible

100 105 106 108

Ch.

7

The Science of Evolution

110 111 112 113 116

1 2 3 4

Colonial evolution Confusion reigns The importance of dualism The good bits

PART 2

ESSENCE Ch.

8

OF

BERNARD

The Right to be Unemployed

122

1 2 3 4

Protesting the right not to work Reality check Conventional rebellion Why I hate Russell

5 Ludovic Kennedy Ch.

9

123 126 126 128 129

The Scientific Basis of Socialism — 1908 1 Dumbfounding the talking ape 2 The essence

130 133 137

Ch. 10

The Apodidae — 1892 1 Ancient equivalents 2 The book proper

142 145 146

Ch. 11

Belated Insights : Colonial Evolution Emerges

147 149 149

1 Genomic gates 2 Linguistic gates

Ch. 12

The First Rule of Life’s Evolution 1 Origin of language

152 154

Ch. 13

The Illusion of Individuality

158

Ch. 14

BNP on Question Time 1 Telling moments 2 Paki power within

165 166 169 170 171 173 174

3 Why Islam is evil 4 Wright wing reaction 5 A higher purpose 6 Feedback

PART 3

SECOND ESSAY

Ch. 15

The Coming of the Human Superorganism

177

Ch. 16

The Master Organ Makes its Appearance

189

Ch. 17

A Slave’s End

193 APPENDIX I

Full text of : The Scientific Basis of Socialism, 1908.

196

APPENDIX II Full text of : The Ethics of a Tramp, 1898. BIBLIOGRAPHY

226 229

PREFACE

I decided to write this book today, while reading a book which is without doubt the best piece of work I have read since, at about the turn of the millennium, I developed an interest in the idea that humans are superorganic mammals. Thus I came to regard humans as the mammalian equivalent of creatures best revealed in the form of social insects, like bees, ants and termites. On August 16th of this year I posted a work on Scribd called How Religion Survived the Coming of the Scientific Age, which argued that a true science of humanity would be based on the idea that humans are a superorganic species. Essential to the argument, was a theme developed on the basis of an explicit assumption that there is no God, qualifying the work as ‘atheist science’, as opposed to conventional science, that exists to serve the continuance of religion, which, by direct comparison could be called ‘religious science’, except this is confusing because people talk about the science of religion, it is best therefore, that we just think of what is called ‘science’ as more properly being ‘sterile science’, made sterile in order that it can exist in a world ruled by religion, what we call an ‘absolute theocracy’. A link exists between atheism and true science because religion is explained by applying biological science to humans, making religion exist for a precise, organic reason, that has to do with what we call the ‘corporate nature’ of human beings, by which we mean a nature expressed in the physiology of humans, which makes human form that of a ‘sentientbrick’, evolved to create an organic being at the level of social organization. The atheist theme declared that the age old war between religion and science was ongoing, though currently running on tick over because science had been brought to heel by

religion. The foundation of our argument developed from the fact that prior to the First World War the idea of the Social Organism dominated the world. We argued that religion always sort to subvert true knowledge, which inevitably threatened the mythological basis of religious authority, and that the supreme deception that had reduced science to servility today, was engineered when Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859. Darwin brought the search for a true science of life to an end by finally providing the desired science, but, in a form that was in reality, plainly false, and consequently a sterile science. We dealt with the falsity of Darwinism in a specific section of the work, under the theme of denying Darwin, and here there was a chapter entitled Denying Darwin : The Scientist Speaks. This brings us to the book in question, that inspired the writing of this new work. Some Neglected Factors in Evolution : An Essay in Constructive Biology, written by a scientist, a biologist called Henry M. Bernard, and published posthumously in 1911, by his daughter. This book most definitely belongs in the Denying Darwin section of my last work. But more than this, Bernard’s book is way better than the scientific work that we used for this section, which was by a man called Willis, a botanist, whose objections to Darwin led him to produce an alternative theory of evolution, that he called ‘Age and Area’. This alternative theory of evolution was based upon Willis’ observations and analysis of plant distributions, which could not be accounted for by the Darwinian theory of ‘Natural Selection’. I actually began reading Neglected Factors on the 18th October last year ! I was sidetracked by various other books. I persisted because my initial examination of Bernard’s book had impressed me, regarding the attention paid to human society in the latter stages of the work, despite its basic biological subject matter dealt with in the first part. This first part proved laborious, its substance was concerned with the internal structure of the cell, about which little was known, a limitation made obsolete today with the incredible revelations of the electron microscope, not to mention further developments relevant to the subject concerning the science of genetics, which has now come of age. Returning to this book recently, I started skipping the tedious material and soon reached the good bit. The book is happily divided into two distinct parts, and really, for our purposes, part two is the only relevant part of the book today, but it is substantial enough, and distinct enough, to be treated as a volume in its own right, although the truth is that the novelty of the argument in this second section means that time spent on the first part is not wasted, even if we would not want to study its contents too much. It does help us appreciate the author’s frame of mind, and with something as profound as a pretender to the true theory of evolution, we cannot have too much insight of that kind. Part two is called The Cosmic Rhythm, it has a short introductory chapter called Rhythmic Evolution—Introductory, starting on page two hundred and sixty nine. It opens with a quote from Herbert Spencer’s First Principles, Spencer’s philosophy makes a small, but highly significant, appearance in this section of Bernard’s work. The actual bit I was reading when the inspiration struck me to write this present work, based on Bernard’s work, appears on page three hundred and twenty three, where he explains that a mollusc is a mollusc, and always will be. The quote appears after the title page to this work. This passage struck me as a revelation, although the whole of part two has been a real treat, presenting something truly original to me, that has a real sense of promise, in terms of supporting my own conception of humans as a superorganic mammal, by offering an alternative theory of evolution to that of Darwin, that really serves as a foundation for my science of human nature. I never imagined that such a work could of existed, though an irrepressible hope is implicit in my tireless searching after this holy grail of human knowledge. Yet here it is, I’ve found it ! And it looks very promising, but we need to see how his ideas unfold as we get fully into the human situation. Preliminary approaches to the human context seem perfect, we could ask for no more clarity and forthrightness, despite the difficulty of the subject and the usual evasiveness that it always seems to induce in everyone

whom we might of hoped would tackle the problem of human biological nature truthfully. When called upon to place humans within his evolutionary scheme he does so with alacrity, exactly as I do in my own work. There are some slight indications that he is about to go adrift and start getting mystical on us, but so far—early days that it is—all is well, our journey into this great work of science is set fair for a glorious adventure, with, at last, the promise of landing upon shores anew, and sublime in the annals of intellectual knowledge. From his remarks on the mollusc I derive my title Colonial Ape, for his argument made me realise that humans, viewed according to Bernard’s theory of colonial evolution, are not so much to be thought of as ‘humans’, because they are in fact, more properly to be regarded as the ‘ape that became something else’. Yes, they are the ape that became human, but, as I say, within the descriptive mode delivering the theory of colonial evolution, humans remain apes, apes of a different kind, as they become ‘colonial apes’, apes that managed to become something new, a new kind of organism. That new kind of organism is a ‘colonial organism’, a superorganism, which constitutes a natural category within Bernard’s evolutionary model. Meaning there is nothing inherently unique about humans, in any radical or revolutionary sense, any uniqueness lies within the bounds of normality, part of the ongoing continuity in the realisation of life’s potential on earth. So that humans are literally colonial apes, as opposed to being humans. Humans are the ape that isn’t an ape, in a way that the mollusc could never become a mollusc, that was no longer a mollusc. We might say that, if an alien visitor to this planet, that could develop no more sympathy with us than we do with ants, were to classify life on earth, then we would be classed as apes, of a special kind, but apes, nonetheless. An alien, estranged from communication with us, would be unable do anything more than recognise that we are simply an ape category, specialising in social organization. This question of intercommunication is critical to the seriousness of this remark, it means everything. In all science fiction scenarios intercommunication is acute, however mediated, for the essential idea amongst fiction writers is always to find intelligent life, usually to hold up a mirror to ourselves, usually one that reflects a false, vain and religiously inspired image. How could anyone write a fictional encounter in which no communication took place between the aliens and ourselves ? The reason for such an imponderable proposition being real, is that humans are superorganisms, so that there is no such thing as an individual existing in their own right. Thus, all that we value is never what these values make it seem, because our values are functions of our linguistic programming, that implants bias formatting into our brains, bias formatting that we call ‘consciousness’. So that fiction, for example, has to be a flux of political/social motives, for it to be of any functional value within the human superorganism’s physiology. Hence a fictional tale matching humans with aliens that we could not relate to intelligently, would have no meaning. Only a real encounter of this kind could present us with such an incomprehensible match, where we meet an awesomely intelligent creature that can no more comprehend us sympathetically, than we can exchange intuitions with an insect. While supping a pint last night I was musing on the insanity of the idea that there are things that science cannot deal with. The philosophy professor at a local university where I attended a night class a couple of years ago came to mind, as he had stated categorically that science could not tell us everything, much to my anguish. Such stupidity befitted this man for teaching knowledge in a university, as a blind man is equipped to drive a bus through a city rush hour ! Or so we would think. But there he was, pumping out a message of inanity that eulogised ignorance, and slavish dependence, on him, as the embodiment of all knowing authority. Why do you suppose that was ? I objected and he said that science could not determine ethical issues, to which I replied that if science discovered a functional model of society that accommodated ethical dynamics, then it could. When we talk about the nature of humans relative to aliens, in relation to the function of our linguistic programming, we are

applying just such a functional model to ourselves. And it works perfectly, as we see when we talk about the things we value having no intrinsic value, but only a functional value, because of the value given to them by the physiological organisation we are part of. This detachment of value from reality is due to the fact that we do not exist, only the superorganism exists, and all it needs is unity. How it gets unity is irrelevant, if it gets it by our valuing ourselves as superior to others, fine ; if it gets unity by our valuing the ideal of perfect equality for all, fine. The vital ethical imperative is the functional illusion, but the ethical meaning is always a sham, a product of our linguistic programming. The main reason that some would give to counter this argument is the higher state of our world today as compared to the past, but such notions of superiority are pure myth, there is only one test of true advancement, and that is free access to knowledge, and no society on earth ever had less freedom to know the truth than we have today. Humans are not unique in being driven by functional illusions, all animals are driven to respond to imperatives for which they may give their lives, such as a display of plumage or antlers, where the colours or forms have no intrinsic value, the value being that which is realised in the physiology of the animal imbued with the characteristics in question. It might seem that we cannot be serious, to say that humans, with all their technology —putting aside any of the usual narcissism over our supposed higher moral accomplishments —could not be distinguished from the rest of life on earth, by any alien capable of evaluating life in any meaningful way. But the fact is that nature made humans to form a superorganism, and all our technology does, is just that, and nothing more. As such, human technology is no more fantastic or strange, than the miraculous physiology produced by the genetic coding of living tissue. Any alien unable to tune into our sympathies, would indeed be incapable of doing other than classifying our ‘fabulous technology’ as anything more than complex exoskeletal physiology, created by nature, which is exactly what it is. Though it has to be said, trying to envisage such a degree of alien intelligence, is difficult. But lets face it, here we are, as bright as a button, and yet we are incapable of seeing the most simple fact on earth, that humans are a superorganism ! Meanwhile we are entranced by the most obscene and disgusting ideas, as in religious myths. So while any alien intelligence would be obliged to evolve along certain preordained lines, in order to constitute intelligence capable of comprehending reality, there is still some room for degrees of variation in the disposition of a creature thus empowered. If we were not living on this planet, if we merely had the wisdom of science to act as our guide to reality, we could not begin to imagine the intelligence of which our world is composed, meaning : our human intelligence is the most alien intelligence that anyone only capable of thinking scientifically, could ever hope to encounter. And that is a fact ! I am of course thinking of the functional nature of weird things like religion when I speak like this. We often see hard line rationalists talking about weird intelligence as if it were simply pathetic, I do it myself, for fun, but this only serves to obscure the true nature of human intelligence as a biological phenomenon, and not an abstract of existence. This organic ‘human intelligence’ is often called ‘emotional intelligence’, as such it is as alien to that intelligence which comprehends nature ‘as it is’, as reality, that gives us science, as can be. But these two expressions of intelligence appear in ourselves, as a curious, contradictory combination. The reason being, once again, that we do not exist as ends in ourselves, we are units of an organic being, where language, which provides our comprehending power, because it symbolises external appearances, programmes us to serve a biological social function. But as animal organisms we are made of organic material, and for the purpose of this discussion it is the emotional component of our physiology that matters, because our linguistic programming stimulates emotional connections between us, as units of superorganic physiology, and in this way constructs superorganic physiology, by linking us to one another emotionally. We find Bernard speaking thus, when talking about the evolution of social bonding.

There was a delightful example of the two contradictory forms of intelligence taken from real life last night, that emphasises the dichotomy between our nonexistent selves and the real being, that determines all outcomes. Last night, 30/10/2009, Channel Four news reported that the government’s drug Tsar, the chief scientific adviser on drugs matters, had been sacked for making statements based on science, that conflicted with the government’s message on drugs. By saying that reversing the classification of cannabis, back to a higher level of danger was contrary to the evidence regarding harm, this scientist contradicted the message that the Brain wanted to deliver to the Organism, for reasons to do with the farming of the biomass. Providing us with an interesting example of an outright demand by politicians, that science be forced to confirm bigotry. Overt examples of this kind are as rare as hen’s teeth, so we are very lucky to find such crudity to point to ; our society is so oppressed by a state of normal ongoing corruption, that is professionalism, that most people would never allow such conflicts to be aired in public. The message is kept sacred by our masters. And while this seems disgusting to us as individuals, living as ends in ourselves, it shows the true nature of what we are as animals, and what function knowledge and language perform in the organisation of superorganic physiology by controlling our consciousness and behaviour. Very nice, don’t you love it when the fascist pigs come right out and spit in your face, like the good little Nazis they are, instead of pussyfooting around pretending to be all sweet and lovely, while they go about their daily business of shafting you ? I know I do. As persons we cannot see outside the flux of consciousness that constitutes our thoughts, based on language, which is hardly surprising. But as language becomes more sophisticated, in keeping with the increasing complexity of the evolving superorganism, part of that increasing complexity includes organs specialising in linguistic acuity. Which basically means social structures emerge that serve specialised purposes by developing refined knowledge. As this knowledge developing process intensifies, it becomes possible to distil knowledge that is less and less linked to the emotional imperatives of our organic physiology. Nonetheless, this condensing of linguistic information into an ever purer form, eventually giving rise to ‘science’—which is knowledge detached from all emotion, or bias— is contained within specialised social structures, and serves the being of the superorganism. Refined knowledge does not exist to empower the individual, emotional person, who is consequently alienated, in the truest sense of the word, from this synthetic linguistic representation of reality, which is cleansed of emotion, emotionally functionless, but precise in its representation of reality. Anyway, what all of this comes down to, is that viewed according to intelligence that seeks to interpret reality accurately, and without any kind of bias, humans are colonial apes, and that is that. At this stage the above remarks on the transformation of species into other forms, contrasted with an inability to make the same transition in most cases, will seem mysterious. The mode of expression being unfamiliar. But the ability to transform is made important in Bernard’s scheme of evolution, precisely because of its contrast with the more usual inability, of most other like kinds of creatures, ever to be the basis of such radical transformation. For this reason the above discussion directly contrasts the inability of the mollusc to change into a colonial form of mollusc, alongside the ability of anthropoid mammals to become colonial apes, in human form. All this may seem a curious way to talk about creatures, but in fact the very idea of animals evolving into new species, inevitably involves the potential to juggle descriptions in this way, especially at those points where we are seeking to identify and describe the cusp of transition from one form of animal, into a radically new form. According to Darwin’s theory, the process of transition is occurring uniformly across the whole range of species, all the time, altering its pace here and there, as and when relevant factors serve to induce a differential in the evolutionary process. But not so with Bernard, his theory of colonial

evolution is wholly different. It acknowledges the Darwinian dynamic, encompassing it within a model based primarily on major transformations, that occur periodically, such that the Darwinian component is reduced to a subsidiary role, as the phases of major transition become the real engine of life’s evolution. It is the consequence of this transitional mechanism, that I am giving expression to when I blur the distinction between humans and their progenitors, finally deferring to the prior form in the renaming of the human species as a type of ape, in preference to calling them a distinct kind of animal, implying they are no longer apes at all. This deference toward the ape acknowledges the special status of humans, as one of the rare kinds able to form a radically new, colonial form of organism, but this rarity is part of Bernard’s scheme, part of life’s uniformity, and not in any sense a radical break from nature, not in any real way unique, that is. It will not be lost on my readers, how well such a readjustment in the naming of our own species severs all connection with our cultural past, so self centred as it has been, and sets us blissfully adrift on a sea of knowledge, that is pure science ! Freedom at last. Where pointlessness must be the precursor of freedom for a science, seeking to emerge from the age old oppression of religious anchors, pinning the mind to ground from which none may dare seek an escape. Now we are no longer human, we are free !

Introduction Friday, 30 October 2009, having finished writing this work yesterday, and just begun my first reading of it today, I only just got around to running a web search thus : “Henry M. Bernard”. I got ninety four hits, and as a result six PDF documents gave me a selection of Bernard’s various papers, plus seventeen web pages, containing various bits and pieces and references. I also found a reference to a 1983 volume dealing with anti-Darwinian theories from around the turn of the nineteenth century, a book I could no doubt of benefitted from looking at before posting How Religion Survived, but one I certainly need to see now.

The Eclipse of Darwinism : Anti-Darwinian Evolution Theories in the Decades Around 1900, by Peter J. Bowler, sounds excellent, and is something to desire if it is going to give us any kind of response to Bernard’s ideas. I did find a reference to a review of Bernard’s Neglected Factors by a curiously named McM J. P, it is only one page and I will have to request a copy from my local library next week. There is clearly a lot of ground work I could still be doing to get a handle on important aspects of the job I take on here. All of which embarrasses me, and makes me feel foolish. For this reason I have decided to add an introduction to follow the above preface, the purpose of which is to restate clearly, at the outset, what the nature of my work is. It is amateurish. This sounds bad, as ‘amateurish’ is a derogatory term. However, in a world of professionalism, corrupt and, as the word says, ‘professional’, i.e. ‘done for money’, being an amateur can be taken to mean ‘pristine’, as in ‘bereft of corrupt influences’. Yesterday I had to attend a preliminary interview, to induct me into the next round of abuse I am obliged to face as an unemployed person, having faced many such rounds before. As it was explained to me that I must work, that I could not just sit about doing nothing, I replied that I do not do nothing, that I write, and I post my work on the net. My inquisitor asked if I was paid for my work, and I told him I was not interested in being paid. This makes all that I do worthless— to the world—but it is clear that if people are paid for producing knowledge that is critical to the existence of enclaves of age old social power, as in religion, that work must be corrupt, otherwise religion would be no more. Payment is not given gratis, it is payment made for services rendered. There is no escape from this conclusion, since if science were not corrupt then, no matter how amateurish and incompetent I might be, the gist of what I say is exactly what professional scientists would also be saying. And they do not. I mention below that Charles Babbage wrote a work appealing for government to make science a profession supported by the state, Reflections on the Decline of Science in England, and on some of its Causes, 1830, bemoans the lack of good science done in England, as compared to other nations. He begins his account by discussing the state of chemistry, and naming a great cause of the day : confirming the validity of the Atomic theory. Trouble is, once the grubby little swine who dole out the taxes they rake in, get their maulers on the fabric of knowledge creation, such techniques serve to empower them, as sources of wealth, while the higher aspects of science, vastly more important, not so much because they have no such wealth giving value, but because they are the essence of knowledge that gives life value, are made to serve a political master as the relevant institutions become the poodle of perverts, who always rule society, everywhere, in all ages. This work is not a technical treatise, it is a philosophical treatise. It claims to be science because it fills a void in scientific professionalism, whereby technique is everything and synthesis is forbidden, as we saw in the case of the drug Tsar, reported on last night’s news, as having been sacked for synthesising real life conclusions based on scientific data. Scientists are desired by the theocracy to produce facts, that can serve as a means of serving absolute power, what they are not allowed to do is to produce knowledge that contradicts that function. This point was well made by last night’s news story, and it is for that reason that I have found myself devoting my life to the search for the void in truth, which has always been screaming out to me to fill it. Having filled the void for myself I now seek to offer that filling to the world, courtesy of the web, by writing these works. They do not need to be technically erudite, they just need to be potent in terms of producing an alternative message, able to smash Judaism to pieces, a message that anyone, even the uneducated, can easily understand, if they want to. ‘Able to’, does not mean to say ‘will do’, but that would be nice. This is why I concluded How Religion Survived by saying that everything I had gone to a lot of trouble to say, could be forgotten about, all the controversy and nastiness I was obliged to bring to the fore, could be put to one side, because—I was simply delivering One message—and that was all. This is the nub of the issue concerning the war between religion and science, it is all

about the Message. The message of Judaism is simple and relentless : the individual is a sacred object, an end in themselves. The message of science is the antithesis of this religious message, it says : human nature is corporate, meaning there is no such thing as the individual, existing as an end in themselves, the human superorganism is all there is. By denying us the truth Judaism makes us its slaves. In this way the superorganism takes the form of Judaism, by carrying the Jewish identity throughout its living fabric, that is you and me, and since we belong to the superorganism, ipso facto we belong to Judaism ; and that is all there is to it. So, once again : we are only saying One thing. It is the message that you need, not the detail that the message contains. Think of it as our masters want us to think about drugs. They know that taking drugs is natural for humans, an aspect of human corporate nature, to do with creating hyper sensual states of intense social bonding—What, you thought drugs were a poison ; you did not realise that humans evolved a symbiotic relationship with psychic stimulants ? Silly billies ! Really. But for purposes of a modern slave state, where we are managed like cattle, by people who are themselves part of the herd, and only follow the programme appropriate to their elite place in the physiological set up, drugs are part of the management strategy, precisely because of our evolved relationship to drugs. This is why religions make a point of banning some psychic stimulants while approving of others, thus incorporating an important social bonding mechanism into their slave making programme. The Jewish slave programme concocted for the Islamic slave brand of Judaism, forbids the Muslim cattle from enjoying alcohol, and instead we see the coffee shop serves this physiological function of the superorganism, along with an elaborate ritual of smoking tobacco in a hookah, during which pastime, men commune with one another. In terms of serving superorganic physiology the coffee house is the same thing, though to us it looks very different, and no real comparison, as our public house, which is a far richer and more wonderful environment, characteristic of Northern Europe, rather than the arid African desert. It is because Europe is undergoing a deliberate process of restocking, with cattle bearing the Islamic imprint, that the fabric of our British social structure is being systematically cleansed from our society by our owners, acting in the guise of corporate capitalism, giving us ‘what we want’. This is a sore tragedy for those of us who have watched the process for half a century or more, and now see it picking up its pace, as the collapse of our way of life seems nye on complete. Accordingly the priests who own and farm us, deliver a message that contains all sorts of guff about drugs, all of which is lies and fiction, but the key thing is to understand that : we do not take drugs ! End of story. That is the message on drugs : leave them alone, all of them, including fags and drink. We are here to be productive farm animals, livestock, that is all. Likewise, the scientific message coming from the theocracy, in the shape of Darwinism, is also a fabricated message of pure fiction and lies, but it carries the Jewish message : the individual is sacred. Our message strives to encase strictly true statements of fact, but where opinion and sentiment is contained herein, it is meant to be informed by the principle of the One message we seek to deliver : human nature is corporate. So the contents of our message are always true, even when the substance is amiss, because the core of our message that informs all our thoughts, is true. But limitations in terms of power and resources means our efforts are bound to be left wanting, but not out of malice, as is the case with the false knowledge fed to us by the social powers that own and farm us. A book like that of Bowler’s, that I became aware of just half an hour ago, is bound to be an attack on true science, in the name of ‘religious science’, furthering ‘sterile science’ that is. It is valuable to find such a book and to see how the professional scientific priest carries out their religious duty to suppress genuine knowledge. But we can be sure that after I have forked out a precious twenty quid and waited a month or more for my first edition to arrive from America, it will only warrant half an hour glancing through it, selecting a few passages for discussion, and then being chucked back onto the mountain of crap that our theocracy churns out in the process of preserving its absolute authority over our minds, or our

‘souls’ indeed, one might like to say. One of the web pages I took following my search for stuff on Bernard threw up an opportunity to buy an item by Bowler called Are the Arthropoda a Natural Group ?, in The Journal of the History of Biology, 1994, which identifies Bowler as being from the Department of Social Anthropology at Queen’s University of Belfast. It is nice to see he is a scientist, and one dealing directly with the subject of human nature. We must suppose he has seen Bernard’s ideas on humans as a colonial species in Neglected Factors, and we can but hope to find some interesting remarks accordingly. Why do I feel no great sense of expectation on this score however ? Experience tells me to expect nothing ; the best we can hope for is a cursory whitewash. My work is not aimed at professionals, they are beyond reason, their domain is that of a priesthood, it is impregnable to reason. In order for my work to make any sense it must be aimed at that elusive creature who is epitomised by yours truly, since I live for knowledge, for truth, for atheism. My work is the fruit of that life, and I offer this fruit to others who desire it, as I have desired it. This warrants no reward in material terms, this is a labour of love ; not a love of any one, but the love of a thing : the love of freedom, known by way of the truth. Yesterday, at the slave enforcement centre for the criminally unemployed, operating a system pioneered by the Americans of course—a society founded on slavery—I was told that my lonesome efforts are all about pleasing myself, which I rejected, pointing out that my work was for the world. I told the women interrogating me that she would not recognise this unless I had accolades to show for it ; in other words, unless I were paid by the authorities that rule our world, and hence did not need to endure the abuse she was paid to inflict upon me, as she explained to me how their well established programme would force me to work in a menial, minimum wage jobs, and any resistance on my part would not be tolerated, and would lead to my meagre means of existence being terminated. We are trapped, so that we are either made corrupt, and handsomely rewarded ; or we are abused, and despised. Such is our much vaunted civilisation in 2009, a century and a half after Darwin poisoned the wellspring of our souls, that is the pool of true knowledge that only science can reach into.

Chapter I Bernard’s Philosophy and the Science of Evolution

We can begin by saying something about the man. The work in question is an edited edition, published posthumously, as we have said, the editor being his daughter. From a rummage of books available on the internet we can see that father and daughter worked together on the publication of some works. Only two copies of Neglected Factors are available to buy, cheap enough, they are both in America, where my copy also came from. This is an American publication. I am surprised that no digital copy is available for download, but a search of the British Library’s public catalogue makes no mention of Neglected Factors either. There are a few technical items by Bernard available for download, to do with his work as a practicing scientist.

Matilda Bernard’s preface tells us about her father. We learn that he studied under the famous German professor Ernst Haeckel, who was a prolific writer of works concerned with my core interest, human nature viewed naturalistically. When proposing to think about the philosophy of Bernard, we do not mean to suggest he was a philosopher as such, we mean philosophy with a small ‘p’. In his preface we have a statement on the nature of the work, how he characterises it, stating the cautions he feels it necessary to make concerning a work as broad as Neglected Factors. Accordingly we can relate his outlook to ideas of our own. As stated above, my ideas are based on an ‘atheist science’ outlook, necessary in a world ruled by religion, where we must be clear from the outset that we reject religion before we even begin to do science, and this must apply to all science, at all times. In How Religion Survived I commented upon Willis’ failure to recognise that the reason for all his difficulties as a scientist, were because of the war between religion and science, and the same blank is evident in Bernard. This is where Darwin was so crucial to the preservation of religion in the scientific age, so called. By producing a scientific model of evolution, which left religion intact, Darwin decoupled science from religion, he set science free to go its own way, to all appearances. Prior to Darwin we find science forever tangled up with religion. When saying this it is important to understand that the intellectual world was pregnant with evolution, bursting at the seams, it just could not get the right formula out there, until Darwin came along. Religion is still being impressed onto science wherever possible, yesterday, 31/10/2009, I was watching a snippet of an interview with David Attenborough talking about his natural history documentaries, and he said he gets a lot of people writing to him to ask why he does not give any credit to the Lord who made all nature within his nature shows. This high priest of the theocracy was very kind and gracious to these vile religious freaks, and mouthed off some vague waffle about a worm eating a kids eyeball, proving God did not exist, instead of just saying that religion is the antithesis of science and must be kept as far away from true knowledge as possible. While sorting out some of the downloads I took from the net last week, I noticed the following passage that I liked, and it seems to belong here. The theory of organic development which, as early as the beginning of this century, was put forward by Lamarck and Göthe as the only possible explanation of all biological phenomena, and hence also of anthropological facts, has been placed on a basis of mechanical causality by Darwin’s theory of selection. In zoölogy, which, in the first instance, is more affected by this progress than all the other sciences, Lamarck’s and Darwin’s theory of transmutation or development forms already a basis which is indispensable. In fact, it is now generally acknowledged as the basis of zoölogy ; for it is the only one that completely explains all the general phenomena of zoölogy, while its opponents have not been able to bring forward a really scientific explanation of a single one of these phenomena. If, now, the doctrine of Lamarck, Göthe, and Darwin, that all animals are descended from one common type, or from a few such types, is really true, and it is beyond all doubt ; and if, accordingly, this doctrine of transmutation is a great general law of induction, then we must set down as an inevitable consequence of it, as a deduction following necessarily from it, the conclusion that the human race also has arisen in a similar way, by the long and tedious path of organic development and transformation ; that it likewise, through “natural selection in the struggle for existence,” has gradually developed itself through different stages from low animal organisms, and immediately from a class of mammals resembling the apes. How this highly important conclusion has been established on a positive basis by all the general facts of zoölogy and anthropology, and especially by the history of the

(embryological) development of man in particular, I have shown in detail in my General Morphology of Organisms, (Berlin, 1866, Vol. II, pp. CXLI, 423, 432.) (Haeckel, Editor’s Preface to On the Origin of Language, Bleek, 1869, pp. vi – vii.) Firstly, the actual reason for posting this passage just here, is the reference to two men who made the demand for an acceptable theory of evolution inevitable : “as early as the beginning of this century”, around about 1800, in other words. Thus making intellectual life pregnant with anticipation of a theory of evolution. The resulting pressure of new ideas had a major impact on society, causing immense ructions in the form of radical philosophies, that posed a serious and active threat to the established order. Meanwhile, the history of Darwin’s theory reaches way back before its publication, it was formulated some two decades before it was published ! Why was that ? All sorts of excuses that fit the official model are used to account for this weird fact now, but according to our ideas this delay makes perfect sense, for it gives time to let the enemies of religion play their hand, until it is clear that the pregnancy of evolutionary ideas has reached full term, all contenders for the prize having been seen, now the fake theory, formulated by the forces of theocratic order to serve as official science, can be released. And all history from that time on, shows that Darwinism has indeed been artificially maintained by academia, working in conjunction with the machinery of intellectual propaganda that pervades our world. Whereas all objections are likewise suppressed, as we are demonstrating in this very work. Bowler’s work mentioned in the introduction deals with the mountain of antiDarwinian work appearing around 1900, but his work is about the way these scientific attacks on Darwin caused a new formulation of Darwinism to emerge, modern Darwinism. Why, did Darwin’s name have to be preserved at all cost ? Because his model preserved a message of the primacy of individuality, and given that the truth totally negates this lie, it is clear that Darwinism must indeed be preserved at all cost in order to prevent new ideas placing the reality at the core of a theory of life, which is exactly what Bernard does in his theory of colonial evolution. Yes, the history books do tell us that Wallace forced Darwin’s hand, an odd set up in itself ; and no, we do not want any suggestion of grand conspiracies. But life is a conspiracy. Religion is real, it exists, and religion can only exist as long as science does not exist. And since, as is continuously cried out from the rooftops today, Darwin’s science is supposedly the greatest science of all time, it is obvious that the dominance of this science must be key to religion’s survival. In addition, the history of how Darwinism came to be is so peculiar, so weird, it is laughably obvious that it is a fraud from beginning to end, once we have our mental spectacles properly adjusted to see the light of deception bouncing off this sham science. At no time in the history of civilization have new theories, no matter how true they were, succeeded at first in obtaining the stamp of approval of mankind. They required the aid of time to force an ingress into the minds of men and become accepted as fundamental truths. The fates of the authors were therefore similar to those of their theories and even worse. As the theories had suffered from tyrannous criticism, ridicule and every possible biting sarcasm, so were their authors subjected to similar ordeals to which were yet added unfounded accusations and calumny. Instead of appreciation, the theorist received scorn and hatred, instead of encouragement and approval, reproach and misjudgement.

(The Primary Cause of Antisemitism : An Answer to the Jewish Question, Abraham Schomer, 1909, pp. vi – vii.) Snatching this quote out of the blue, while sorting out a couple of books taken from the net last night, we find the context is completely different to the one in hand ; the book is just a Jewish diatribe on reasons why there should be a Jewish homeland, so it means nothing in itself. Yet the comment applies across the whole range of public expression, where any cause for concern amongst the establishment exists. Taking such a forthright declaration to back up our claim that Darwinism, presenting the most controversial idea of the scientific age, has met with the exact opposite response to that described by Schomer, being, from the outset, made sacred and irreproachable, as we can see from the way Haeckel talks about Darwinism’s untouchable status above, just one decade after its creation in 1859 ! And it has remained a sacred science to this day, as all the fuss over Darwin during this 150th anniversary year of 2009, demonstrates. Darwin was selected by the theocracy as a young man, to create the theory of life, being only twenty two years old when he was chosen to go off around the planet on the Beagle. Nice and young and innocent, a perfect dupe for the miscreants who organise our affairs to keep the people ignorant, and the priests in power. H.M.S. Beagle—note a Royal Navy ship—set out from Plymouth with Darwin aboard in 1831. That is how early the plan to impose a fake science of evolution was being worked up. And as we have just seen, the theory was produced immediately after the voyage ended, in 1836, if we assume it was ready two decades before publication. He actually presented the theory before a meeting of scientists 1858. One of the fascinating things about Charles Darwin is that he really does seem to have been one of those men whose careers quite unexpectedly and fortuitously are decided for them by a single stroke of fortune. For twenty-one years nothing much happens, no exceptional abilities are revealed ; then suddenly a chance is offered, things can go either this way or that, but luck steps in, or rather a chain of lucky events, and away he soars into the blue never to return. It all looks so inevitable, so predestined ; yet the fact is that in 1831 no one in England, certainly not Darwin himself, had the slightest inkling of the extraordinary future that lay ahead of him, and it is next to impossible to recognise in the brooding, ailing figure of the later years this blithe young extrovert on the brink of his greatest adventure — the voyage of the Beagle. Events moved so quickly that he could hardly take in what was happening. On 5 September 1831 he was summoned to London to meet Robert FitzRoy, captain of HMS Beagle, a ship which the Admiralty was sending off on a long voyage round the world, and the suggestion was that Darwin should be offered the post of naturalist on the voyage. It was an astonishing idea. He was only twenty-two years old, he had never met Captain FitzRoy, and a week ago he had never even heard of the Beagle. His youth, his inexperience, even his background, seemed all against him ; yet against all these odds he and FitzRoy got on famously and the offer was made. (Darwin and the Beagle, Moorhead, 1973, p. 19. First pub. 1969.) These two paragraphs open this account of the voyage of the Beagle. If we love fairy stories we may feel a tingle of delight run through us as we read these exciting words of joy and happiness. If, on the other hand, we are realists, who understand the horrors that have

ensued from making Darwin the high priest of evolution, these same words will induce a sickening in our minds, making us feel close to vomiting. Behind them, we will see the craft of ‘vicious evil’ that animates every detail of our lives, where nothing can be left to chance, where all must be controlled. Lives that are spent under the cosh of an absolute theocracy, that brooks no freedom of any kind, except that which it hands to us on a plate, to serve its purposes. Of course, as the sociologists say, we do not feel these all pervading constraints because we take them as normal, until that is, we don’t. How can we be so oppressed and at the same time, feel so free ? Well, how do we live under the weight of fourteen pounds per square inch of atmospheric pressure, to which we are entirely oblivious ? We have a physiology forcing outwards to meet the atmosphere, imbued with senses adapted to this normal state of being on earth. Likewise for our social medium, which is met by our consciousness. That too is adapted to the normal conditions of life, to which consciousness relates. Such that constraints are experienced as supports. Like a seatbelt that fastens you in your car seat, is this bondage ? no, it is a safety measure intended to help you. When I was a youth we did not have to wear seat belts, now it is a criminal offence not to. So is the enforced wearing of seat belts now an act of bondage ? no, it is a safety measure for our benefit. Not really, the situation must change once the law makes something mandatory, or prohibits it, but the supporting spiel justifying any law is the law maker’s propaganda. The law maker’s agenda only ever concerns collective organization, individual states of well being are never of any concern to the state, except as a pretence to the contrary, necessary to achieve collective ends. Seat belts are a small example, but one that holds within it the crucial nature of our conscious relationship to social constraints, where we lose freedom of choice, but still buy into the propaganda of freedom, even as the knot bites ever deeper into our nonexistent individual being. Constraints then are not constraints to our conscious minds, on the contrary, they are vital elements of what makes us free. It is a well worn track of moral philosophy, dealing with the need for regulation, that allows us to be free by protecting us from the wanton ravages of wayward elements. But such philosophising never gets to the biological basis of these social dynamics, as we atheist scientists do when we discuss everything in terms of nonexistent individuality and the reality of our corporate nature, that makes the superorganism the only real human being. When we come to religion this relationship between our mental states and the social milieu, in terms of freedom versus constraint, is made starkly manifest. This is so in Christianity at any rate, because here freedom is a basic principle of the creed, yet, if we know what religion is in general, and what Christianity is specifically, then we know that in fact, what a Christian calls ‘freedom’ is more accurately described as ‘slavedom’, in reality. When we move from minor details of practical life, such as wearing seat belts, which show how our attitude is attuned to the impress of authority, we get an inkling of how it can be that a whole world is built upon this critical relationship between personal consciousness and core authority, such that a total inversion of reality is enacted, as in becoming the slaves of an alien culture, whereby we become free ! Christianity is an indication of the true potential of this obedient mentality of the animal, we humans really are. The issue of contradiction in Christianity’s case is resolved by cancelling out both artificial opposites, ‘freedom’ and ‘slavery’, and recognising that people are components of a superorganism, wherein all social relationships are ultimately material, physiological, and in no ultimate sense conceptual, because there is no such thing as a conscious individual existing as an end in themselves, where consciousness is an end serving the individual, so that all such reasoning on the matter is irrelevant as a conclusive explanation of human existence. 1. Science : the means by which we know reality

The significance of the ship that took Darwin on his fact finding mission being a military vessel, is that this scientific mission is thereby shown to be an establishment project. Why would an establishment based on religion want this knowledge ? The very idea is absurd. Except, it wanted the basic facts, so that it could control the output generated by those facts. We must remember that science is a product, not a process ; science is not a method, it is a synthesis. Science is not a way of doing things—a method—as the theocracy says it is ; science is a way of knowing things. Specifically : science is a way of knowing reality. To which we must add, in so far as the word ‘reality’ means anything : science is the only way of knowing reality. This is made plain by the quote taken below from The New Truth and the Old Faith, where the author says science is a way of interrogating reality, and reality, as nature, cannot lie, so that scientific errors are errors in our method, or our interpretation of our method’s results.

As we tend to emphasise from time to time, it is a feature of the religious programme that we are all subject to, that renders religious people avaricious for all knowledge. Not because they want knowledge per se, quite the opposite being the case, but because they want to protect their power based on myth, which requires them to take possession of all knowledge of reality, in order to keep ahead of the game. This is what this state sponsored expedition, seeking knowledge from which to formulate a theory of evolution, was all about. The religious effort to take possession of the theory of evolution, that was coming one way or another, meant this knowledge had to come through the medium of religious authority, exactly as it did. There is nothing wondrous or serendipitous about the emergence of Darwin’s Origin of Species from the linguistic flux of the times, ready as the times were for the idea of evolution. Although we can see from Moorhead, this is the kind of gush we are expected to swallow, in keeping with Darwin’s whole notion of chance in the production of life. The creation of Darwinism was a cold, hard, mechanical process of manipulation and perversion. How else can a priesthood maintain control over the world ? That said, nature is the ultimate dictator of these things, nature made humans, made religion, made the priesthood and therefore made fake science. The conspiratorial dimension is built into the structure of the superorganism—the church, the state, the military, the media—all aspects of social order are permeated with religiously minded minions, trained as academics but imprinted with religious affiliations, so that the end result is not conscious, it is just relentless, and inevitable. Each individual acts like a miniscule switch in a complex circuit board, only selecting other ‘switches’ of the same kind to work with when building the circuit board that is a social institution. All of which switches then only let one kind of message pass through them. Each switch, each person in the social structure that is, only has to take care of their own action, and the rest will take care of itself. This is why the basis of human order is that : there can only ever be one message, though that message can take a myriad of forms. This is Hitler’s golden rule. All is as it has to be with science, facts are facts, we atheists just tell the tale from the outside looking in, as opposed to the usual way, which is from the inside looking out. Needless to say, a person like myself hates this deception, I am a radical ousted from the system by virtue of my own antagonistic disposition toward authority, so I must exist on the periphery of society. I cannot be a ‘switch’ in the circuit board of a social institution. I cannot be trained, so that employing me in any place that matches my natural abilities is impossible, because whenever the message came to me I would short-circuit its transmission. But this corruption and abuse is how nature ordains it should be, and even I must admit it has to be this way, because we are colonial apes, so we must live by these devious means ; because we are not humans, so we cannot choose to live according to reason and truth. ‘Reason’ and ‘truth’ are ideas that exist to enslave us to the system, a particular cultural device featuring in our world, they are not real features of our world, and never will be. 2. Pragmatic Darwinism

Our theocracy would not of created Darwinism if its hand had not of been forced, is what we are saying. And I must say, that never, in all my life, have I heard Goethe credited with contributing to the rise of evolutionary theory. This is what we get from drawing on the work of an early German evolutionist, who was familiar with the roots of the idea, that have receded from view today. But it is of real value to know where the pressure for the creation of Darwinism came from. It is for this reason, because of the force of naturalistic ideas pushing the religious authorities ruling society into splitting science from religion, that men of a generation or two after Darwin, and thenceforward indefinitely, men like Willis and Bernard, could work as professional scientists, paying homage to Darwin as a professional scientist, while opposing Darwin in the spirit of free science, without making the connection between the original scientific impetus still driving their own, now radical ideas of evolution, and the switching of mainstream scientific ideas along a track determined by religious necessities. In effect, looked at like this, Darwin takes on the appearance of a Gatekeeper of the Theocracy, a main information switch, which is precisely the term I apply to one of his most important current disciples, the Oxford professor Richard Dawkins. Although I give Dawkins this title because of his work as an avowed atheist, which is so evidently a sham, to me that is, though Dawkins himself may not know his atheism is hollow. The trouble for genuine science was, Darwin’s science being deliberately sterile, it made no attempt to understand life in such a way as to include humans as we live today, and hence a wilful act of subversion at its core impacted on a whole host of minor issues. It was this problem that created the profusion of anti-Darwinian backlashes by the end of the nineteenth century, that had to be overcome by reformulating Darwinism, just as priests have been reformulating mythology since specialised modes of slave making first brought civilisation into existence. 3. Bernard and Haeckel Aside from our initial reason for taking the above passage from Bleek, we have several more reasons. The statement closing the above paragraph is directly contradicted by the quote. I say Darwinism was sterile, and excluded humans from its scheme, whereas the passage from Bleek quoted above proclaims the exact opposite. Haeckel says Darwinism advanced the initial conception of evolution by providing a truly scientific theory, one that explained the mechanism of evolution. What is more, he says that Darwin’s account is established beyond any possibility of dispute, ever. This is exactly the message that Dawkins continues to pump out relentlessly today, with equal fatuousness. And finally, Haeckel indicates that Darwinism includes humans entirely within its embrace. Another fatuous statement that Dawkins mouths at us whenever he gets the platform, and one as obviously untrue today as it was one hundred and forty years ago. So, all in all, the quote above well and truly slams our argument that denounces Darwinism as a sham, and modern science is in total accord with this early proclamation on Darwinism’s perfection, and continues to show complete antagonism toward any opposition to Darwin. But, if we turn to How Religion Survived and look at the section dealing with denying Darwin, we find the piece on Fleeming Jenkins incontrovertible proof that Darwinism was a fraud, which was also published one decade after The Origin of Species. So, just as with religion, detractors aplenty there were, but none could outlast the staying power of a theocracy embedded within exoskeletal institutions designed to outlast any disaster, while other arms of the institutional network made sure that disasters occurred, that swept all that lay outside the preserved zone, away. In general terms then, we can see something interesting in this passage, but there is more to it than that. The crucial point for the purpose of our current work, is that the author of the preface was none other than Ernst Haeckel himself. This has to be of interest because of the relationship of Bernard to Haeckel, it must be of benefit to have in mind something of

the outlook of this great man of his day, and to develop our thoughts regarding Haeckel and Bernard’s relationship to him. Haeckel is a tricky customer to get your head around. He looms large on the scene of nineteenth century evolutionary science, once you start to get into it. He appears as the great German promulgator of Darwinism, the German equivalent of Huxley perhaps. But at the same time, and the reason I am always curious about him, he branches out into all sorts of fields, especially philosophy, even including religion and the nature of existence itself within his field of expertise. So we get the impression he might favour organicism, he was labelled a monist, which tends to be associated with organicism. But I never manage to find anything in his work that captures my attention. Meanwhile, we get this sort of thing from Haeckel : his stalwart defence, and promotion, of Darwin. Which is very disturbing, and to any atheist scientist this must count severely against him. However, in the light of our present work, centred on Bernard, we approach Haeckel from a different angle. Early on in his introduction to the second part of Neglected Factors, where Bernard explains that ideas concerning colonial evolution have been extensively examined previously, but their potential has not been appreciated, he specifically names the work identified by Haeckel at the close of the above quote. Bernard says that Haeckel’s General Morphology of Organisms includes an extensive account of colony formation in terms of structure, but does not recognise “in colony-formation anything more than a constructive principle, a principle of somewhat frequent occurrence but without special significance in the evolutionary scheme.” (p. 299) I can find no English version of Haeckel’s General Morphology, so we cannot look for ourselves. So it appears, that from our point of view, Haeckel was a typical priest, not a true scientist like Bernard. He supported authority and convention, and however unconventional he might of appeared to be, it was all smoke and mirrors, that ultimately led nowhere. In terms of Bernard’s relationship to Haeckel, we thought the wider viewpoint of his mentor might indicate why Bernard had developed radical ideas of his own, because Haeckel was on the periphery of scientific orthodoxy. But if we conclude this was not the case, then we can say that Bernard was breaking away from Haeckel as much as he was freeing himself of the suffocation of Darwinian ideas too. So this has been something of a diversion away from the narrow track of Bernard’s story, but a worthwhile one, we think. 4. Bernard’s works Yesterday I ordered a book by Bernard on the net, and it has just arrived in the post, now that is what I call service ! This volume was priced at £7.50, plus a few quid post of course, its just a couple of lectures, but it was the only original copy available, so it is a nice find. The name ‘Red Flag’ for the book dealership, might explain why such an obscure book would be undervalued despite its obvious rarity, assuming they specialise in socialist material, where I, of course, am not interested in it from that angle. I also picked up a cheap copy of one of Bernard’s technical productions on corals, which is very impressive, and while searching for more volumes of the same set, of seven, five being by Bernard, I found one of the print-on-demand publishers is offering his socialist work, even though it is not available for free download, from whence I imagine POD people get most of their titles. The Scientific Basis of Socialism : Two Essays in Evolution, 1908, looks excellent. Given what I have just written this morning, above, we can immediately extract a pertinent quote from this latest acquisition from the forgotten age of organicism. The first essay aims at showing the part colonies as colonies have played in the evolutionary record ; while the second carries on the idea and sketches in outline

the rise and subsequent development of human societies as colonies serial with other evolutionary colonies, as one might sketch the rise of any other organism which happens to be built up, say, by cells or polyps. In this morphological sketch of the gradual development of human societies we concentrate our attention especially upon the women, who may be regarded as what they essentially are—the female glands of the organism. Every naturalist knows that anatomical descriptions may with great advantage be made more interesting and pointed by concentrating attention on some central part of the mechanism. All attempts to apply the prevailing doctrines of evolution to the phenomena of modern human existence, political and sociological, have hitherto been not only purely speculative, but disastrous in their conclusions. The progress of animal life has been, so far as modern evolutionary doctrines can tell us, purely automatic, mechanical, and morphological. Prior to the advent of human societies no trace of the evolution of the psyche was visible, though it now plays so tremendous a part in our lives as men and women. It seems as if some great gap in evolution had taken place ; as if the “organic” morphological series disappeared ages ago into the prehistoric darkness, from which an entirely new order of evolutionary factors emerged, a new order inasmuch as the psyche now seems to be sitting at the helm. Although writers have been busy, speculation has so far entirely failed to link the present order on to that which we have been studying since the days of Darwin. Herbert Spencer emphasized this gap by calling the earlier animal and plant evolution “organic,” and the present, “superorganic,” and this is where the matter has been left. Biologists have failed, on the one hand, to show that “organic” evolution yields any clue to the origin of the psyche, and, on the other hand, to link human societies on to the great morphological series which constitutes all that could be learnt of evolution prior to the advent of mankind. The existence of any such tremendous gap is, however, simply incredible. The great evolutionist Haeckel ignores it, and even seems to try to ignore the vastness of the change that has taken place in the vital factors. He postulates a psyche in the smallest cell, and regards the great development of the psyche to-day as a natural development of a physiological function of protoplasm. But the great distinction between the conditions of the earlier “organic” evolution and the modern social evolution cannot be so easily disposed of. It demands explanation, and until we can either explain the earlier in terms of the later, or the later in terms of the earlier, the gap has to be recognized. This is what we here attempt to do. This gap between “organic” and “super-organic” evolution is not the only failure in the evolutionary doctrine of to-day, there is also the great gap between “inorganic” and “organic” evolution. We lay no stress upon this earlier gap here. It is only a burning question to the philosophical biologist, whereas the gap between “organic” and “superorganic” evolution is a stumbling-block to every single human being conscious of life and agitated by the mysterious conditions which prevail. We mention the fact here because our thesis shows how these three— “inorganic,” “organic,” and “superorganic” evolution—may now, if our suggestion as to the enormous part which colony-formation has played is correct, be conceived of as one continuous process, and, if so, we have confirmatory evidence for our case. If our new suggestion can accomplish so much, both reader and writer gain confidence to go on. (The Scientific Basis of Socialism, Bernard, 1908, pp. 7 – 10.) This is to die for, I am in seventh heaven, incredible, if I had one wish to make from God, it would be to find such words—too much !

Noticing the remarks on Haeckel I only intended to copy them, so that we could add detail to the above remarks on Bernard’s view of Haeckel. But upon checking where to begin and end, then making my scans and final selection, we could but take this opening passage in this fuller form. Seeing how staggeringly good this man was I have one regret, followed by a related sigh of relief. He actually begins by telling us that his first essay is a brief abstraction from “a treatise on “A Periodic Law in Organic Evolution,” . . . . the publication of which must still be for a while delayed” (p. 7). This tells us the title he had in mind for Neglected Factors at the time of making these speeches in 1908, which is nice to know. A title emphasising the discovery of the most important law of nature, makes more sense, since he did actually publish a brief statement entitled Traces of a periodic law in organic evolution, in 1907. Such a title would be more positive than emphasising the failure of science to notice that which he believed he had first discovered. So Neglected Factors might be how his daughter felt she would present his work following his death, where the emphasis on ‘neglected’ is in keeping with seeking to call the scientific community’s attention to ideas of one of their own who had recently passed on, prematurely. Given how exquisite and unique, and precious, we must find this man’s words, it is so sad that his book was not published in his life time, not sad for him, but for us ! That said, what a relief that his daughter was in a position to give the world the fruit of this man’s incredible life’s work. Darwin must pale into insignificance compared to Bernard, in the light of these few words quoted above, given what we already know in terms of the true corporate nature of humans, and the way of the war of religion, against science. I feel so lucky to of found this book, there being only one original copy available to buy, and no indication of its existence that I would of known how to access. True, as it happens, POD copies are available, but how do we know when books of first importance, like this one, have slipped passed us ? No doubt professional academics interested in my subject would know exactly how to discover, and access such material, through the closed shop of their academic institutions. The nature of which keeps raw knowledge in, tapping only suitable distillates thereof, made especially to intoxicate the helpless minds of the intellectually dependant world beyond academia. Just look at the gush the world is awash with in this sickening year of celebration, one and half centuries on from Darwin’s publication of his monstrous Origin of Species. There is a movie to be released about now, about Darwin, it plays on the struggle between his conscience and the threat his ideas posed to religion. His great great grandson, an old geezer, was on BBC Breakfast Time this week, today being 23/09/2009, and he said that following Origin’s publication, a number of scientists thought they could get away with carrying the banner of atheism under the cover of Darwin’s book, but that Darwin himself did not want this. The movie makes Darwin say “If the world were to lose all religion, we would be left with nothing but bestiality.”, or something like that. Which his living relative says the propagandists manufacturing this piece of religious fiction, made up ! Except he, continuing the family tradition, obviously, did not speak of the movie as propaganda, since in this show he was making himself part of the propaganda flux, that helps the religious solder bind us all in enslavement to its authority. Having taken more than the passing remarks on Haeckel, in which Bernard shows serious contempt for the man, saying he “seems to try to ignore” this most important issue of colonial evolution—thus affirming our conclusions that Haeckel, like most scientists, was an enemy of science, serving the theocracy covertly—we find so much more fascinating material in this brief selection, from this master organicist. We have a first indication of the feminist vein in this short work, a curiosity as far as we am concerned, but just the kind of idea we find some Victorian intellectuals getting enthusiastic about. It is worth commenting upon just now however, because we have his daughter to thank for publishing his main treatise, and his appreciation of female prowess is perhaps evinced by the evident collaboration between these two, already mentioned above. The other obvious example that springs to mind, of just the same kind of filial attachment to

an eminent father, occurs in the field of atheist politics and socialism, with Charles Bradlaugh and his devoted daughter Hypatia, contemporaries of the Bernards. The relationship between Bradlaugh and his daughter seems obvious enough from the way she continued in the same rationalist vein, publishing books of her own, but recently I happened to take a copy of a catalogue of Bradlaugh’s library from the net, made following his death, in which the introduction by Hypatia exudes the sentiment of devotion. The last paragraph taken above, has two charming aspects, firstly it freely talks about organic and superorganic evolution, arguing that evolution must be a continuum embracing all aspects of life. Secondly he makes the excellent point that to anyone who is interested in any aspect of human existence, the disjunction between humans and life must be of major concern. To think of such ideas being freely shared in an open society in 1908, we cannot help but understand the immense value of the murderous devastation of Europe soon to be unleashed, which would forevermore make any such thinking utterly impossible, thus preventing ideas of the kind we develop concerning religion in general, and Judaism, Christianity and Islam in particular. Bernard was an Englishman, or British at least, but the only copies of the book located by me being American publications, meant there was reason to wonder. With these two speeches we find him in England, and signing off his preface, presumably at home, in Devon. This is a minor point of interest, but by no means irrelevant to the wider story of organicist science. Why do we find no English printing of Neglected Factors, was there one ? There is no doubt that as an Englishman, the existence of America is an incredible boon to the philosophical adventure that has become the passion of my later life, without the American extension of our culture the intellectual panorama open to me would be sorely depleted. This is not just because of any specifically American contributions to ideas, but because they freely reproduce English work, and thus create a pool of affordable English books that are often unobtainable in England, or else excessively expensive. As in the course of our daily lives however, this exchange is a two edged sword. For the Yanks corrupt, as much as they augment the good that is British culture, and it is usually the bad that we feel acutely, so we should be aware of it even when expressing our thanks for the positive in the ‘special relationship’. We should mention a telling, pertinent example of Americanism in relation to this subject of cross-cultural feedback, namely the intellectual current set in motion in America, by Wilson’s publication of Sociobiology in 1975. Initially wonderful, but eventually disappointing, this spark of freedom in science retains a value for the way it recapitulated the old war of religion against science, that had been done and dusted by the beginning of the twentieth century and only awaited the coup de grâce, from which Wilson’s work seemed, at first, to threaten some kind of resurrection. As regrettable as the repetition of defeat for freedom is, sociobiology has proven to be an incredibly rich source of information and knowledge, by way of real events rehashing old quarrels, but in a later phase when the theocracy thought this issue was dead and gone. Yes, a damnable thing, but excellent too ! This eruption of free thought in science, shows how science lies dormant even now, and must do so forever, as long as truth is capped off by a scab of sterile science. And if it is not true to say this event could only of happened in America, it is true to say that we get no such loose cannons in British universities—our rebels are carefully crafted to mimic rebellion, before real rebellion breaks out, as with Dawkins—and the fact is, it did happen in America. 5. Parallel plains of diversity Returning to Neglected Factors, we come to the first great advance in evolutionary theory to be found in Bernard’s work. The diagrammatic illustration appearing at the start of

this work is a summary of how the process of colonial life evolves, and it includes the Darwinian dynamic within it. This allows us to understand how Darwin pulled off the extraordinary trick of decoupling science from religion by producing a convincing scientific account of evolution, while still leaving modern human existence out of his scheme. In other words the style of the Darwinian deception was that of a ‘lie by omission’, so that what was told was vaguely plausible, but not when presented in isolation from the wider aspects of the subject in hand. We see Haeckel giving his wholehearted commendation to Darwin’s theory, but later on we find a student of Haeckel’s, that is Bernard, indicating that Haeckel also took superficial notice of pressing questions, while failing to develop answers to the obvious underlying matters raised by these questions. Haeckel, we conclude, was the German Darwin, the German deceiver, the Gatekeeper of the Theocracy standing post before the German unit of the global Jewish superorganic being. Shown again below, this time with subtext, we have a flow diagram of sorts, indicating parallel periods of horizontal evolutionary development, that occur consecutively, with each successive period replacing the one before, in a series that is allied to an ascending hierarchical evolutionary development, of increasing complexity. The horizontal arrows indicate plains of evolution, where species diversify according to one primary mode of organic being, dispersing across all niches, in accordance with the Darwinian theory of natural selection. But the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection can never raise the bar of complexity onto the next hierarchical level, where a parallel phase of redistribution across the earth ensues, but only after a new and more sophisticated transition has occurred in the primary physiology of life. A transitional development not driven by ‘natural selection’, but rather, by ‘colonial evolution’. In How Religion Survived, under ‘Denying Darwin’, I had a chapter called ‘The First Fatal Attack’, which looked at an essay by Fleeming Jenkin, published in The North British Review in June 1867, called The Origin of Species, in which this engineer offered some penetrating criticisms of Darwin’s account of natural selection. Without consulting this essay now, which would be ideal no doubt, I sense something about the description of Bernard’s theory that we have given above—where we say natural selection could never raise the complexity of life onto a new plain of parallel development—resonating with the particularly critical feature of Jenkin’s attack, where he said that the mechanism of natural selection would always tend to end up working against itself, in such a way that its power of effecting major change would be limited. In effect, what Jenkin was describing was a selective mechanism that could only act upon one plane of organic complexity, because of its tendency to reduce all individuals to a common base line ; that would be the real effect of the selective mechanism Darwin made the basis of his theory of evolution. This plane of complexity trap, is reflected in Bernard’s statement about molluscs that can diversify to kingdom come, but they can never escape being molluscs. At no point do I ever pretend to venture onto the turf of professional scientists, because I have neither the native mental acuity for the technical task, nor the requisite training and knowledge. So I do not pretend to assess these technical matters myself, but only to remark upon the synthetic implications which have been deduced by some, and can be followed, as a result, by anyone capable of following a logical argument. I act as one who is approaching the matter from a broad philosophical perspective, in which the conflict over scientific knowledge is deemed paramount, and hence such incidents in the history of knowledge are relevant to the philosophical argument that says favoured ideas are supported, while contrary ideas are suppressed.

(Neglected Factors, p. 323) In terms of the question in hand, Darwin elucidated a closed, or limited aspect of the true nature of life’s evolution, which only applies within each hierarchical band of life’s physiological level of complexity. According to Bernard the Darwinian mechanism, acting uniformly across all species via the selection of small, point by point variations, is never capable of making any major transformations of life, of the kind we know have occurred periodically down the ages. So that, given that humans represent just such an act of transition, of the kind that natural selection cannot engender, and Darwin’s model of evolution describes the way all life has evolved, relative to each other as organisms of a like kind, it follows, inevitably, that Darwin’s account, no matter how true within its own limited sphere of observation and analysis, will not be able to cross the breach that does indeed exist between all former life, and human life, because humans are a new kind of organism. The disjunction however is not absolute, obviously, but as long as scientists are grounded by the anchor of Darwinian short-sightedness, there will never be any way to transcend the evolutionary plane interceding between humans and the rest of life on earth. This is a major insight into evolution, that we could only see courtesy of Bernard’s guiding hand, because an experienced technician, a professional scientist in other words, is needed to make such clear, and scientifically valid insights. According to this reasoning Darwinism comes into its own as a model of competitive development, leading to heterogeneity and its concomitant physiological complexity, as seen in popular representations of evolution, to which we always object strenuously. But, in How

Religion Survived I am sure we included a description of my own model of how evolution must be conceived, according to the principle of force, relating to the potential energy of life. Our usual model envisages evolution being fuelled by the pursuit of energy, so that organisms are viewed as ‘engines’, consisting of structures that evolved to access and utilise energy. The periodic transformations of life, such as that which brought mammals into being, we describe in terms of life fashioning a new ‘life engine’ by evolving a form in opposition to an energy gradient. The resulting form, when perfected, would therefore of ascended the energy gradient to which it was opposed, by evolving a structure allowing it to access the latent potential energy of life, represented by the energy gradient the life form had ascended. Once this ascent was accomplished, a new life engine would exist, and, relatively speaking, all of life’s niches would then be comparatively void of life—relative to the capacity of that new engine to access energy. So that the new life engine could then descend the global energy gradient, by adapting to all of the world’s niches, ousting established life forms as it went. It is this descent upon a world type scale, using the word ‘world’ in a sense relative to the nature of the engine in question, that leads to the appearance of parallel plains of evolution. Colonial apes are in fact the first organism to evolve a true capacity for world wide distribution, which is a result of this colonial species’ structures being composed of extremely large units of superorganic physiology, that build and occupy vast exoskeletal structures, forming something approximating to ‘land reefs’, where huge cities constitute hubs of exoskeletal organisation, within suitably benign environments. It is the creation of exoskeletal fabric, and the possession of physiology evolved to occupy such fabric, that gives these marvellous creatures the capacity to disperse across so much of the land surface of a geographically diverse planet. 6. Vanishing points of individuality With Bernard’s assistance, our conceptual model can be refined and associated with real scientific observations of life forms, of exactly the same kind of validity as those upon which Darwin based his miscreant theory. We can say that Darwinian evolution, in the process of evolving diversity according to one fixed physiological pattern, eventually builds up a head of steam, so to speak, which induces a limited number of specific forms to evolve toward a new physiological kind of organism. We then integrate Bernard into the picture, for he explains that the trick now, is for an unspecialised form of the prevailing physiological type, to evolve toward a colonial form, in a process which he calls ‘colonial evolution’. These colonial forms are those which may ascend an energy gradient, to use our terminology, where the ascent, according to Bernard’s logic, is made possible because it occurs from within the physiological environment of extant being, by an adjustment of internal physiology that is the exact opposite of competitive evolution. In other words it is cooperative, or, we might even venture to say, altruistic evolution : where individuals evolve toward a common object of integrated unity, leading to the existence of a new type of organism. The relevance of this point in terms of life evolving toward latent potential energy, is that whereas Darwinian natural selection is opposed to the external environment, from which the evolving life form must extract energy, Bernardian colonial evolution is directed towards, or draws upon, an internal physiological environment or potential, where the organisms concerned are driven to work together, toward achieving the same end, that of accessing external energy more efficiently, but now for the benefit of all involved in the ‘enterprise’ of gathering energy from the maximisation of the latent potential of their own physiological forms, acting in unison. Although, it is clear, that in this process the cooperating individuals literally disappear from existence, which just goes to show how our mode of thinking about existence is wholly out of step with this far more powerful

conception of evolution. It also indicates why our lives, as individuals, are so oppressed and meaningless. This mode of evolutionary development obviously requires a special set of circumstances, and it is these which Bernard became familiar with during the course of his professional work, as he states in a note on page ten of his Scientific Basis of Socialism :— The writer has had special opportunities of studying this phenomenon of colonyformation, having been entrusted for thirteen years by the trustees of the British Museum with the task of cataloguing their vast, unworked collection of Corals at South Kensington.

From which he determined that an exceptional degree of plasticity was the essential prerequisite in a form with the potential to go colonial, and these are arguments that he sets out to present to his audience. As we have noted, it is his unrestrained desire to embrace all life which makes his ideas forbidden, and hence so delightful, and useful, to us. Until now all our avenues of research have been chasing down people with an interest in insect superorganisms, notwithstanding that the obviousness of corals as an equally interesting route toward the same goal, has been long standing with me. It is also true that some early commentators, such as the Frenchman Alfred Espinas, bring up these other kinds of superorganisms in their works on animal sociology. It is fascinating to find this wholly new venture into ape sociology coming from a student of corals. This is a really important gap to fill in the history of organicist science, a gap I did not have the faintest idea existed until just the other week ; and I have been relentlessly looking for material of this kind for nearly a decade now ! It is really well hidden, the power of the priesthood to hide true scientific knowledge is awesome. This is why the trick is to put ideas of this taboo kind aside completely, and to mention them as little as possible. That is what made scientists in America so hopping mad at Edward Wilson when he blundered into the truth via his study of ant life, and then had the audacity to present his ideas to the world in his Sociobiology : The New Synthesis. Clearly such an internal rearrangement, producing a new species formula, as that envisaged in colonial evolution, cannot be conceived of along the lines of natural selection, for it does not involve competition between either species, or alien environment, but rather competition for increased efficiency, within the paradigm of a single uniform species. Once colonial form has been achieved, a new primary form of organic being, a new life engine that is, has been formed, according to Bernard’s ideas, though ours differ somewhat, as regards the point at which a new life engine is deemed to of arisen. It is possible I am not quite grasping Bernard in some aspect, which leads me to wonder about this. For us the transition is the appearance of mammal physiology, which then has the latent potential to produce a colonial form. Whereas for Bernard, the transition is the point at which a new colonial organism appears. As I say further below, it could be Bernard’s ideas need the introduction of some increased degree of subtlety, presented by a professional atheist scientist. But for now, a hierarchical step has been transcended, in a wholly un-Darwinian fashion—although clearly the genetic underpinnings of the organic process that we now know all about today, must be operating in colonial evolution too—so the new life form can commence descending the energy gradient, dispersing freely across the globe, in obedience to the familiar competitive principles, as set out by Darwin. Darwin’s principles now come into play, because the evolutionary dynamic is now opposed to an external environment. Bernard rather nicely describes these new life forms as aliens, which then proceed to replace all former life. This idea is implicit in our reasoning, and when we come to modern human life the idea of ‘alien supplanting’ takes its natural place in the more controversial aspects of our science of life. Reading this account of colonial evolution versus Darwinian evolution, we can see how this new description reaches into the sociologist’s domain. We have just set up a

dualism whereby life evolves by setting inner cooperation against outer competition, and really, this is the key to understanding human society too. Human society is all about defining who is in and who is out. It is the application of this principle to cultural mediums that has led to the evolution of society from the primary condition of feral life, to that of civilised worlds, now dominating the whole planet under one uniform identity. So the Bernardian model really does embrace sociology, even though its development is based on the evolution of corals. Bernard then, comes to our rescue, in our efforts as philosophers of human nature, by offering us profound scientific ideas developed before the Great Cleansing of 1914-18. But there is no expansion of the argument to embrace the contentious issues of a war over knowledge, due to the role of knowledge in the organic life of humans. Bernard explains the Darwinian failings in academic terms, he did not see the deeper aspect of the issue, but then he was not looking for it. After all, imagine living in a time when atheism was rampant, where men like Bradlaugh were at war with the religious establishment, and making real progress. Today all this agitation is long dead and gone, the oppressors have restyled their grip on society, chocked off the problem at its roots by introducing Darwinism and making all true knowledge taboo, through vicious anti-Semitism and the like kind of miscreant devices. There is no war for freedom today, because we are so crushed, the abject defeat of freedom is so complete, that we have no idea we are crushed ! This is an example of what Bruce Lee in Enter the Dragon, when dealing with a nasty bully, called “The art of fighting without fighting.” Where the abuser makes the victim work for them, which looks good in a movie where the hero helps the weaklings. But in this case we, the human race, are the victim of the theocracy that owns and farms us. The art of bringing us to heel is performed by an ongoing war of knowledge subversion ; interspersed with terror, as in world wide war, and now global terror ; plus periodic bursts of institutionally organised, and state sponsored disorder, as in the current economic crisis we have endearingly learnt to call the Credit Crunch. Sounds like a snappy little chocolate bar ! “Daddy, can we have another credit crunch, please.”

Chapter 2 Bernard’s Model of Colonial Evolution

I have never found any work that seemed to say something more on the topic of human corporate nature than I had to say myself, so that all works up until now have been utilised to service, illustrate and validate my arguments. The above presentation of ideas is a continuation of this process, applied to Bernard. But in Bernard we have something completely different to anything I have ever seen before. Although I feel committed to his main work, published posthumously, I am rather taken with the short presentation of his ideas given in life, in the shape of the two essays I received only yesterday. In starting this second chapter, I have decided the way to proceed is to work through my notes, that I always take when I read anything. As I sit and read steadily, thoughtfully, making sure I am reading—that is thinking and taking on board what is being said, and not skipping—I record any thoughts prompted. If I find my mind is not on the job, that I am skipping, I assume I am lacking sufficient energy for the job, and I stop reading. Some books offer lighter reading opportunities, being descriptive rather than philosophical, though I rarely read fiction. I add emphasise to notes that I think especially worth picking out if I return to them later on. With this work being so important, the correct procedure now, must be to read through all of my notes while referring to the text, and to select and comment upon everything that seems pertinent. The purpose being to extract the technical reasoning applied to Bernard’s account, which is the fruit of a life’s labours, produced by a professional scientist, a biologist, who was right in the thick of the age of freedom, the organicist age, the true scientific age. Written by a man who was, for once, actually attuned to that age. A man whose brain was not stuck in the dark ages of primitive thought, that is the quagmire in which most people who ever lived, or who will ever live, are obliged to live out their lives, like salamanders evolved to live in a lightless cave, or shrimp fed by a volcanic ocean vent, people who are lost in the light of their own world’s darkness, incapable of imaging anything beyond. Well, that is the plan, lets see how we do. 1. Worthless science

We begin on page two hundred and seventy one of Neglected Factors, where Bernard acknowledges the prevalence of natural selection, but proceeds to explain that as valid as this idea of evolution no doubt is—as far as it goes—nonetheless, it is essentially worthless. Darwinism is too vague. So many fundamental questions about the nature of life, and the elements of life, are left dangling. “In face of these questions we are left bewildered.” What hard rules are discerned by Darwinian based science, are negative. They do not tell us anything from which we may build theoretical systems. We know nothing of the forces that started and that still maintain the stream ; nothing of the positive constructive laws (if there are any) which, given the underlying, driving force, have directed and still direct it toward higher forms. Is the direction straight, and the speed of progress uniform, or has the advance taken place in immense undulations, as Herbert Spencer suggested ? We are far from having solved these problems or those still subtler ones in which the psychic element, which is somehow mixed up in the stream, is involved. We do not know whether the positive driving forces can be accounted for simply as complex expressions of chemical affinities and repulsions,—whether such purely physical forces are alone sufficient to account, as the so-called materialists assert, for the beauty and perfection of the adaptations of means to ends so abundantly revealed by life, or, whether, among the elemental forces of life, we must assume the co-operation of some psychic concomitant such as can certainly be recognised as playing an important part in the evolution of human societies to-day. These are some of the problems that confront the present doctrine of organic evolution. We have passed the stage of triumph over the discovery and now, after fifty years, stand on the brink of the stream, conscious of a deepening ignorance. What we most need is to be able to read some clear and intelligible order into the stream ; such an order, if we could only find it, would surely, in time, reveal to us some of the fundamental laws of life. (p. 272) Fifty years since Darwin discovered the mechanism of evolutionary development, and all there is to show for this greatest ever scientific discovery, is an ever deepening sense of ignorance. Yes ! And one hundred years further on and that ignorance has been bolstered a thousand fold. Now is the point at which we need Bernard to indicate that the war between religion and science is the obvious impediment to scientific progress. I know that above I have excused people of his time for not thinking this way, but in reality this blind spot still remains incomprehensible to me. It always makes me suspect such a ‘fool’ must be complicit in the effort of the priesthood to preserve society, as is. Are we to suppose that academics and interested thinkers, of whom there were so many, never debated whether religious interests were not still a hindrance ? Did a man like Bernard—as we say of all such people when we talk about their work—when thinking of issues of this kind, not see that if he was successful, that is, if others accepted his ideas, then religion was stone dead ? There is one organicist thinker who looms large in the final death throws of real science who expressly declined to pay any heed to religion, “Religion I leave gratefully to the theologians” (Bio-Politics, Roberts, 1938, p. xiii.) ; much to my intense annoyance. What hope is there for science, for truth, when people kowtow to theocracy in this way ?

I recently examined a book taken from the net that was addressed to just this question, as to whether religion could survive science. It was written by a man who adored science, but who wanted to see if his love of the unfolding science of his day could still leave room for the usual brain dead garbage of religious belief. His aim then, was to show that science did nothing to undermine belief in anything, no matter how insane and contrary to nature that believe might be. What a fabulous book I thought, it was everything I had ever dreamt of finding, if, that is, it were only written by an atheist. But no, it was not. As if ! The present is an unquiet age, a period of transition, in which the new truth, or what seems to be the new truth, is undermining the foundations of the old faith. There has been a logical scepticism in all times, but positive science is a new agent in the world, an agent whose results cannot be argued away ; and whatsoever in the old order of ideas is inconsistent with these, must of necessity fall. The strength of positive science lies in the fact that Nature is ever present to give it proof. She has been in the past a silent witness of the fancies and contentions of men ; but now they have learned to question her, and to every appeal she answers truly. Nature cannot lie, and any error in science must arise from our interpretation of her oracles. Therefore, since there can be no discord between physical and spiritual truth, the things that are true in religion must not conflict with the things that are true in science. (The New Truth and the Old Faith, A Scientific Layman, 1880, p. vii.) This is a delightful passage for our purposes, for a number of reasons. Firstly it is a nice concise statement of the pivotal state of the times, as they pertained to the conflict between religion and science. Within which we find buried an exact emulation of a more precise, critical statement getting at the nub of what How Religion Survived was all about, which is the sheer impossibility of religion and science both existing in the same society, at one and the same time. My usual reference for this purpose is taken from Lubbock’s PreHistoric Times, page nine of the preface, where he says “Fully satisfied that Religion and Science cannot in reality be at variance . . .”, first published in 1865. And now we have the exact point remade, thus : — since there can be no discord between physical and spiritual truth, the things that are true in religion must not conflict with the things that are true in science.

This is a self evident fact, and it arises, exactly as this anonymous author says, as a consequence of the staggering power of science to ‘know reality’, in such a way as to allow no contradiction, no doubt, and no other ‘way of knowing reality’, apart from science. Obviously, when these priests make these points they do so through clenched teeth, their intention being to admit what all know, because they cannot avoid doing so, with a view to proving it wrong ! by giving off effusive lashings of lying trash. We can see from Lubbock’s words that he was preparing the way for lying trash, as he made it plain that lying was now impossible ; and the same applies above, where the prose indicates that ‘discord cannot exist’, rather than saying ‘religion cannot now exist’, which latter statement would of been the only true statement to make in this context. But when did a priest ever let the truth stand in the way of their proclamations ? Today such lies are no longer required, the Great Cleansing of 1914 – 18 made it so that no one any longer knew what science was ; while the second sweep of 1939 – 45, placed a cap on ever going back to what science was, by means of taboo. As a consequence, what everyone knows today, is that there is no inherent conflict religion and science whatsoever,

because they each concern themselves with entirely different aspects of reality : science with that which can be proven, and religion with that which cannot. What a load of shit ! Hence it is so nice to reach back to before the cleansings, to sample the breath of an age when lies were damned to hell, and truth rose above the stench of religious oppression. And that is what we are doing when we find admissions of the kind we are relishing now, from a time when the war of religion against science was in full flood, because science existed for real. This is then a very nice statement, appearing superficially to befit an atheist. It proclaims a fact that we only have one other precious example of, from Lubbock’s PreHistoric Times, where we see the point upon which our whole philosophy rests, stated plainly : religion and science cannot both exist at the same time, in the same society. Both Lubbock and our anonymous author above, state this principle as a preliminary to showing that science and religion can live in harmony. But they begin by noting they cannot be opposed to each other. That is priestcraft for you, with words anything can be done, you can even have your cake and eat, if the words that say you have done so, are all that count for anything. Following the above passage the author proceeds to outline the details of religion’s relentless war against science, providing a perfect start for an atheist treatise. But his object is to show what science can tell us, with a view to showing that science cannot tell us everything, therefore we know all that religion says, is true. The usual garbage, but of course we only find fabulous scientific treatise of an atheistic bent, like the one quoted above, written by fanatical religious maniacs. Why do you suppose that is ? Because the priest wants to steal the atheist’s argument and invert its product, that is why. And only religious priests have the power to publish work in an absolute theocracy like ours ; as Hitler’s Golden Rule tells us : there can only be One message. Which is exactly the same method we see used in science, where facts are commandeered and put through a mill to make them support a science that is sterile, in respect to the religious mythology upon which the essence of the living superorganism depends for its being. This mythology is the expression of linguistic force that creates the human superorganism, which is the natural form of the colonial ape. As regards the scientist, they are not allowed to say that anything is true, other than that which they can prove in a materialistic manner. Then they are accused of being materialists ! Anything other than this, not prone to physical manipulation, they are not allowed to discount. Those are the rules laid down by the theocracy, when it established the terms and conditions applying to the scientific age. When I told a young scientist about my ideas recently, at a two week session for the unemployed, and stated that it was obvious that science and religion could not both exist in the same place and time, he kindly explained the above to me. He prattled off the mantra about how science was a technical skill, and hence the limitations placed upon science that meant my claim was not in fact correct. These people just drain the spoon of the hand that feeds them, and never think anything of it, never question, never wonder, just absorb and repeat. I tried to explain to someone a decade or so ago about the meaning of words, how we cannot just accept the meaning as it is given to us, and he looked to be in anguish just trying to think about what I had said, How could we use a word, and then not accept the meaning of the word we had just used ? Help. I was equally pained at his idiocy. But, on the same theme, when I made a similar remark to some young men in the pub a month or so ago, they too asked how you could reject the meaning of words given by authority. To wit I later thought of the old adage “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” We all know this saying, and this saying is making precisely the same point specifically, as the general point I make here philosophically. We cannot passively let authorities take possession of words, because this is the foundation upon which they build the programme that enslaves our minds to their power. This does not mean we have to rewrite the dictionary on a daily basis, it just means we need to possess the gumption to think about what is said to us, in terms of the reality that is touched upon. Sadly this is easier said than done, we are trained to take words at face value, to give our personal authority to another, in other words.

2. Creating a new God We have already had cause to mention the great swathe of dynamic atheists fighting on the front lines of intellectual freedom. If not the scientists, if they would not deal with the war between religion and science, that was so obvious to the religious miscreants of the day, What of the atheists ? Would they not get to grips with the subjects we say the scientists should of been dealing with ? Since I have spent years seeking out the relevant scientific works of organicism that pervaded the age in which Bernard worked, I have long asked this question, and all I can do by way of providing an answer is to say that the closest I ever came to identifying someone who I thought might of made just such a contribution, didn’t. One example of a book that represented somewhat lighter reading than I usually peruse, was Mind in Animals by Ludwig Büchner, 1880 ; first published in 1876. In many ways the really intriguing thing about this work is that it was translated by Annie Besant, whom I think of as a figure in the rationalist movement, and this book is the only indication I have ever found that atheists were aware of organicist ideas and the idea of the social organism, and its links to the wider pantheon of human social life. The only other field we find rationalists leaning towards, where organism finds expression, is in socialism. But the problem here, is that organicism is given a political interpretation by socialists, as in communism and its counterpart, fascism. In these ideologies the collective, in one form or another, becomes everything and the person is reduced to nothing. This tells us something about what it means to be a living person, in that knowledge must always be functional, people just cannot relate to pure knowledge, the truth simply does not interest them. A fact to which I can attest from years of disappointing experience of trying to communicate with people. ADVERTISEMENT. ___ IN issuing, under the name of the “INTERNATIONAL LIBRARY OF SCIENCE AND FREETHOUGHT,” a series of books of which the present volume is the first, the FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY desires to place at the service of English Freethought the weapons wielded against superstition in foreign countries as well as those forged in England itself. The writings of foreign scientists are not as well known in England as their merit deserves ; there are some valuable text-books—such as those of Gegenbaur and of Thomé—which have their place on the bookshelf of the student ; but the aim of the FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY is to issue such works as will reach the general reader, as well as the scientific student, and render Büchner, Häckel and others as well-known to the English public as are Huxley and Darwin. German science is one of the glories of the world ; it is time that it should lend in England that same aid to Free-thought which in Germany has made every educated man a Freethinker. France will contribute to this new library some of the works of her leading sceptics ; and Italy, also, has furnished help to Freethought which will not be forgotten. English and American works will not be excluded, and it is hoped that a real service will be done to progress by thus popularising in one country the knowledge gained in many lands by the earnest searchers after truth. (Büchner, follows title page.)

You can see from this advert how I got, what is the only impression I have, of atheists taking an interest in real science. Except, unfortunately, that is not what they did. Besant is most famous for her association with theosophy, which is too weird to contemplate, I just cannot even begin trying to think about that garbage. So as wonderful as the general vibe of atheism is during the nineteenth century, it never becomes a philosophical, intellectual or scientific force outside its narrow focus upon the iniquity of direct religious oppression, such as blasphemy laws and the like. Which helps explain why science was so readily subverted by religion. What is theosophy ? I ought to have an answer to this on the tip of my tongue, it keeps cropping up. Have I ever even checked it out ? It sounds disgusting, and I think it is picked up by esotricists, who are another screwed up bunch of nutters that make Christians look sane ; I just do not want to go there. One of the most curious pieces of organicist reasoning I have ever found appears in the work of an esotericist called Ouspensky, in A New Model of the Universe, 1931. I have a copy of this book because I found it on a market stall in town a decade or more ago, but it was a brilliant chance find, because inside there is the weirdest description, of insect society as a human-like intellectual phenomenon, that you could ever wish to read. This is enough to put anyone off esotericism, and calculated to bring organicism into disrepute at the same time. The one positive thing we can say about this terrible piece of writing, is that it is an additional proof of the all pervasive influence of organicism, still hanging on at this time, but becoming deeply perverted by highly deranged expressions of priestcraft, to which people are naturally prone. The sentiment expressed in the above advertisement, is exactly what ought to of been stimulated by the contemporaneous rise of science and atheism. However, curiously, this link never arose, the one link that ought to of come, didn’t. The dominance of Darwinism played a huge part in this draining of atheistic sentiment, by short-circuiting the natural force of interaction between science and atheism. Because Darwinism was sterile science, akin to a dead battery. From the outset Darwin’s ideas carried no potential intellectual force within it, none that could carry knowledge onto a new level of understanding, such as atheism implied must arise due to the arrival of the scientific age. This thought mirrors the dynamic relationship set out above, in Bernard’s model, concerning the way Darwinism was confined to the operation of evolutionary force within a circumscribed setting, a structural status-quo, acting within one plane of existence only. Such that Darwinian dynamics could never cause a transitional break to occur between extant social life and future social life. Now we see that Darwinism as an idea, could not, by the same token, induce a concomitant rise in the intellectual state of society, such that science would become the ‘way of knowing’, and religion would fade away. This further illustrates the inevitable link between science and religion, whereby the two cannot exist in the same place, at the same time, save where science is made impotent in respect to both religion and ultimate knowledge. It is funny to voice these ideas as we listen today, to the moaning about how atheists crept under the banner of Darwin’s fabulous new science of life, to make Darwinism an aid to their cause. Ha ! What a laugh. Man, it is incredible, you just cannot get the better of the linguistic flux flowing through the superorganism, it changes its tune like a river flowing through a landscape, only we are as pebbles in the path of that river. Our place in the physiology created by linguistic force is so fleeting that we have no idea what is going on. While the flow of ideas adapts seamlessly to the circumstances in which it finds itself, never caring what it says, just saying what needs to be said at any point in time. Like a perfect politician, always flowing with one idea in mind—the preservation of the superorganism— which means the preservation of power, of religion, and the subversion of knowledge. Today’s mass propaganda presents Darwinism as an object of atheist manipulation, which is said with regret today, as a mark of contempt for ‘pathetic atheism’, because Darwinism has done its job, science is comatose and religion is back on top. In truth, it was Darwinism that subverted atheism, dissipating its natural interest in science, and so perverting atheism just as it perverted science. Atheism and science go together, if one rots, so does the other. Every

which way the priesthood turns, it cannot put a foot wrong, while the enemies of priestcraft can do nothing right. The main reason being, that as soon as scientists show their faces, a priest steps into the breach and becomes one of them by donning a mask to match the true face ; and likewise with atheists, communists, fascists, or anything else. Wherever power coalesces, there a priest of the theocracy will be found practising their trade of social perversion. Darwin remains the great hero of atheists to this day ; despite what his relative said on television the other day, about Darwin not wanting his work to fuel atheism ; and despite history showing that Darwin was an enemy of radical politics and all such like antiestablishment movements. And despite the fact that, notwithstanding the so called stupendous science of Darwin, Science today, knows nothing about human life as we live it, so that religion is free to plague our world today, more than at any time in the past. Given that Humanism is a blatant atheist fraud, we now must think of all public expressions of atheism as a fraud too, just like the atheism of Dawkin’s today. There simply is no real atheism promoted by any public figure, or organisation. Masks are all we see, though we never recognise them as such. The fact is that unless you work out the knowledge we are providing here and elsewhere, for yourself, where are you going to get it ? Knowledge requires an institution to collect and disseminate it, and this is shown quite well by Bernard’s work. Magnificent as it is, without being picked up and made much of by a group, it just amounts to one man’s spittle deposited on the stage of life, spent in passing, and lost in the dust. The same will apply to my efforts. The same applies to the great Russian organicist Lilienfeld, who, in a late essay on organicism in sociology, Zur Vertheidigung der Organischen Methode in der Sociologie, (In Defence of the Organic Method in Sociology) of 1898, lamented that it is no use writing a load of stuff, if no one ever reads it ! This is why the theocracy ensures that institutions manage the impulse toward atheism, to shut out any real atheist influence coming through the institutional establishment from genuine atheists, like me, who would not be seen dead associating with any atheist institution as they exist, because they are fake. They follow a Christian Humanist line and they adore Darwin. One English atheist organisation has been infiltrated by a homosexual influence, imposing an alternative primary agenda. I do not give a toss if the church hates queers, or if there is any other kind of religious influence spoiling society. It is important to understand how religious freaks direct law making in such a manner as to increase the ability of the theocracy to enslave people to religious identities, as with the creation of academies at present, that is a new kind of senior school. This political dimension of religious fascism matters for obvious reasons, but the moral mechanisms of religious orders cannot become the primary levers of an atheist political movement. If they did so, then this would suggest that if religion updates itself, that will be good enough, and we can then all live happily forever after. And that is exactly the strategy that the theocracy adopted while under intense strain, during the bulk of the last century. But this is no use, as we can already see, as soon as possible the theocracy wants to get back on track, forcing its way toward an absolute dominion over all things, as far as it can possibly go. Atheists must seek the total annihilation of all religion ; anything less, is meaningless. What I want is freedom of thought—science—and an end to religion. And that does not mean being given a dummy to suck that tastes of science, it means the real thing ! A world that tolerates religion in any form, is unacceptable to me, and only an organisation with these political objectives, primarily, the total destruction of religion, would qualify as an atheist organisation as far as I am concerned, and such does not exist anywhere on earth, and never has. And probably never will, sadly. The presence of religious corruption is everywhere. Would you believe, when I went to the philosophy evening class held at a university campus a couple of years ago, that I have already referred to above, to try and make a connection with my philosophy, and to benefit from the philosophy offered, the one goby idiot that dominated the group by shouting out inane comments all the time, was a loud mouthed Christian ? If I tried to attack something

along atheist lines, where I hoped to provoke thoughtful responses in the group by making comments of a kind they had never heard before, he immediately bellowed out against me, kneejerk style. He did not think about what I said, he just rejected it, in exactly the same way I would reject religious dogma as facile. But then I would not attend a church group and argue with the teaching in such a venue. This religious fascist’s response to me just set up an argument, and spiked my guns. I was lost, since I find such a group setting incredibly difficult and unpleasant at the best of times. I left after the first class of the second round of classes, because I did not want to be in the same room as this religious freak. He won, these pigs always will win, that is why they run the world. Such a nice friendly fellow he was too ; if we had had freedom from prosecution for one minute, I’d of happily snapped the twat’s neck. This imposition of religious fascism wherever freedom of expression is practiced, is the religious slave’s job. The priest must leave no place free for freedom of expression, to make sure their message bullies all other messages out of the world. And this is of course something they are proud of, they want to spread ‘God’s message’, to save the poor atheist, and so on. And the institutional structure of academia is so constructed as to facilitate this corruption, by having no bar against religion ; which of course would be inconceivable in a world like ours, where religious freedom is the primary quality of what our fascist dictators call ‘freedom’. Any society that does not outlaw religion is, by definition, a fascist dictatorship. For this is the same as not outlawing Mob violence. The state then becomes nothing more than a means of preparing society for the exploitation of the Mob, which in this case, means Judaism. Everything is controlled, except the Mob, i.e. the religious cohort. And that is why science is powerless to defend itself from the kind of religious corruption I have just described meeting with, when I tried to engage with people intellectually at a university campus. A Christian in such a setting is simply a mob member, and that is exactly how this ‘nice man’ behaved, it is how these nice people, always behave. It really is a damnable thing nature has done to us, making us into such bleeding insects. Because of the corruption of social fabric by religiously impregnated mammalian insects, we have been forced to create ‘atheist science’, as something quite separate from the corrupt science coming from institutions that tolerate the presence of people who are religious, as in the evening class described, which inevitably makes any real science impossible. If science and religion were to really exist side by side, then academic institutions of all kinds would have to be duplicated, so that schools, universities, government department, publishers and television broadcasters, film makers and so on, ran in parallel. Where all would be as it is now, except there would be two alternative state structures, still within the one state, both doing the same job as is done in society now, but where one allowed religious expression and the other did not. An obviously absurd state of affairs ; and so religion continues while science remains dead, along with all freedom. But within universities and schools, this split is vital, and possible, if we are ever to be free. We have religious schools and universities today, so why not schools and universities that are avowedly atheist, and who will not tolerate any religious presence of any kind, or recognise the work coming out of religious foundations ? Religion is after all nothing more nor less than a higher form of racism, and schools do not tolerate regular racism, because of course they honour religious factions instead of skin colourings. Valuing religious based racism makes sense socially, as it facilitates enhanced physiological complexity. But we are not concerned with the social order that nature made us to construct. We do not want to let the river of human nature flow as it sees fit, we want it to flow as we see fit. We are concerned with knowledge as a value in itself, a value sensed by our power as sentient beings, and made sacred by the projection of true knowledge into a body of linguistic force, to which we all owe our sense of being, and freedom—or would do, if given a chance. Valuing knowledge in itself, as a sacred entity, is as close as we can come to realising the impossible goal of being ends in ourselves, because true knowledge is an abstraction of our human nature that can only be valued by us, as individuals. Knowledge

exists to create the superorganism, but the truth of such functional knowledge is meaningless, since it only exists to work us individuals into a physiological unity, to which we mean nothing more the bricks in a building. This is why the religion our world cannot exist without, is both sacredly functional and obscenely false ! In effect, as atheist scientists, we are making scientific knowledge the embodiment of the divine—we are creating a new God for ourselves. To do this, we need an academic structure which excludes, and does not recognise the main structure, and only accepts atheist academia as valid. Only under such conditions could we expect to find true science nurtured. This new God would be universal, it would be incapable of generating identities, because it would be the same to all. Our new divinity would be the foundation of a new superorganism, in perfect keeping with the biological parameters that have made us the colonial apes, that we are. This God, this body of true knowledge, a summation of human existence as projected through the sum of our lives, would breath life into us and make us as close to being divine, as we are now made base, due the oppression of the Jewish vision of God, once glorious, let us concede that much, but now, long since past its sell by date. It is time for the ape to metamorphose, once again. Last night, 27/09/2009, there was a programme on Channel Four called The Genius of Charles Darwin, I had no intention of watching it, but at one point I switched over during an intermission in some movie, and what was there, gawping at me ? The Gatekeeper. Out of the African night stared Richard Dawkins’ face, and from his mouth came the usual drivel that this man likes to pump out, about the misery of life for all creatures in existence, except humans. As proclaimed by Darwin, life for animals is a horrendous nightmare, he told us. Fraught with pain and fear until, mercifully, the dreaded moment finally arrives, when the animal is slaughtered, in the final act of horror that personifies life, that is, painful death. In Dawkins today we have the officially induced welding together of atheism and science, according to a system set up by the theocracy one and half centuries ago, through the creation of sterile science. And all the poor fools out there, everyone except me, as far as I know, sucks this nonsense in, and believes it. Animals do not have to work like robots, equipped with an incredible brain, yet forced into drudgery and boredom ; unless humans get their hands on them, and force them to take a human role in life. Animals are not ordinarily killed by their own kind, nor imprisoned, nor terrorised. Animals enjoy the bounty of life allotted to them, and if some are killed and eaten, and many must live by their wits, so what ? Try being human, then you may know what misery really can be. See the essay in appendix two, The Ethics of a Tramp, for some alternative notions of what makes life worth living. The more I see of the Gatekeeper, the more I grow to hate this man, and all he stands for. I see a sparrow hawk hunting in my garden, and occasionally making a kill, but for the most part the birds, which constitute most of the wild life in our town gardens, enjoy a full life. To make out that life is one long spate of terror, because life evolves by virtue of the selective process identified by Darwin, is as sick and intellectually delinquent as any religious dogma ever concocted. Bernard was, above all else, inspired by an intense hatred for this nasty vision of life derived from Darwin, it is not the right reason to promote a scientific manifesto, but it is sure one we can appreciate and be thankful for in some sense, if that is what it took to get Bernard to give us his new science of evolution, as divinely inspired, by our new made God by science. 3. A radical new theory of evolution Bernard : —

It was during my study of the stony Corals, also, that the method by which each unit in turn produced an organism of a higher type than its own, and introduced a new and higher period, became clear to me. Colony formation was seen not only to yield, by the Darwinian method of variation, an endless variety of forms which have gradually settled down to their various environments, but always, sooner or later, to have succeeded in producing a certain kind of colonial organism capable of starting a new period of organic life, all the organisms belonging to this period differing in type from those belonging to former periods. That colony formation has played a great part in evolution has, of course, been recognised before, but never, so far as I know, has this special kind of colony formation been accorded its right place as the essential factor in periodically raising organic life from one level to a higher one. (p. 275) This paragraph declares the discovery of a new, complete, theory of evolution, as indicated in the extended title to our work, The Colonial Ape. Its potential Bernard : — In the following chapters this periodical rise in the level of life will be traced step by step, from the simplest known living form up to Man, the highest organic unit, the unit by which the human colonies or societies of to-day have been built up. Each unit in turn and the period it starts will be discussed ; it will be found that all the units have certain characteristics in common, characteristics indispensable to the work of producing a different type of organism. Each evolutionary period also, it will be found, can be described by the same formula, the processes in all cases being essentially the same, although the factors involved become increasingly complex. (p. 276) The above quote follows directly on from the previous quote. Here we see man brought into the picture immediately, without any fuss or fanfare, this is absolutely as it should be, fulfilling the promise of science to reduce humans to perfect harmonisation with all life on earth. Its significance Bernard : — My scheme does not in any way discard the present doctrine of descent, on the contrary it includes it ; neither does it deny the cell doctrine, although it modifies it. It is chiefly in the stress it lays upon colony formation, a factor well known to the morphologist but never yet accorded its full value by the evolutionist, that it differs from all former schemes. Colony formation, by periodically complicating the approaches to harmony between organic life and its planetary environment brought about by natural selection, is shown to be the chief constructive factor in organic

evolution,—the great force which starts period after period of a great evolutionary rhythm. In this way the modern view is transformed in an almost startling manner. (p. 277) This paragraph effectively says the model of evolution about to be explained, is the holy grail of biology, the completion of Darwin’s work. From our perspective this is certainly the holy grail of our efforts to develop a philosophy of human nature based on atheist science, that recognises the only possible way to account for humans in naturalistic terms, is to assume that humans are a superorganic form of mammal. Bernard promises a theory of evolution based on the idea inherent in colonial forms, involving the integration of ever more complex units of being. This is the only possible foundation, based on scientific method and observation, that could possibly underpin the idea of humans as superorganisms. Naive pleading Bernard : — Coherence is one of the acknowledged tests of truth, especially in the case of events following one another according to fixed principles. I believe that my scheme will be found to be remarkably coherent and I hope that it may not only illuminate many of the dark places in modern biology, but may also be of some use to the psychologist and the sociologist. (ibid.) This brief plea for scientific recognition, closes his chapter introducing the second part of Neglected Factors. Where have we see the likes of this appeal before ? That’s right, in Willis. Both of these scientists devote their energies to tackling the terrible shortcomings in the primary theory of evolution, upon which the integrity of their sciences depend. Both find similar kinds of solution emerging from their efforts to correct the flaws inherent in Darwin’s so called science. And both make this same kind of plea to their fellow scientists. Willis also claimed that consistency was a primary quality of scientific knowledge, and claimed to of provided the consistency that was lacking in Darwin’s theory, across the whole panoply of life. Both scientists hoped that their breakthrough would now, at last, allow the students of human nature to bring humans into the fold of life. And so, by the same token of naive faith, placed in the independence of science from social authority, both of these men fell at the final hurdle. This sort of advance and correction of a great scientific theory, is precisely the kind of thing we would expect to find occurring in any scientific field, where a lone individual had made a remarkable transition in scientific thought, in one great step. We would expect the next generation or two of scientists, to take the radical new ideas in their stride, and to perfect them. But in Darwin’s case this has not happened, Darwinism remains as perfect as the day it was born, and beyond any possibility of correction. That said, there has been a programme on television during this September 2009, called What Darwin did not Know. I did not waste my time listening to the priest’s monotonous drivel, although I suppose that was an error given my reference to the programme now, because I cannot tell you what sort of additional ideas were being touted, to give the impression that Darwinism is at the forefront of living science. But we hardly need to watch such a programme to guess what they would of been

saying, and what they would not. They would of been talking about genetics, first and foremost, and what they would of been sure to do, was to protect the sacred core of Darwinism, that preserves the principle of the individual as an end in themselves. Ensuring that religion is safe from a sterile science, that offers no means of accounting for a biological foundation to sociological forms. As this is my first reading I can update the above remark by saying that yesterday, 03/11/2009, I ordered a copy of Bowler’s book, mentioned above, from America. It will take a month to arrive, so I will be forced to post this work before I can examine Bowler, but its subtitle indicates that challenges from the likes of Bernard were taken on board by the scientific community and eventually gave rise to a reborn Darwinian model of evolution. We do of course here such phrases as ‘Neo-Darwinism’. But no one talks about Einstein giving rise to a reborn Newtonian physics, a ‘Neo-Newtonianism’. The very idea that Darwin’s ‘natural selection’ could survive a true recognition of ideas such as these of Bernard’s that we are studying now, is pure nonsense, of the usual arrogant kind that we find coming from the scientific priesthood. Even so, it would of been nice to actually look at what Bowler said, rather than just confidently anticipating him without even looking at his drivel, no matter how certain we can be, from seeing countless previous examples, of the fact that all this academic’s book will do, is adhere to the One message of the Jewish master identity—the individual is scared.

Chapter 3 The Importance of Racial Hatred

Evolution, as a global theory about the processes that permeate “nature,” involves a drastic departure from previous theories and ultimately requires a substantial revision in views of nature and culture. Because the counterposed concepts of nature and culture entail moral and political considerations, evolutionary theory could have had immense social consequences. Social Darwinists and strict creationists were quick to point out this possibility in the nineteenth century, and the continuing struggle between evolutionists and creationists over the teaching of evolution in the public schools shows that the issue is not dead. Nevertheless, and although evolutionism has indeed revolutionized views of nature, it has dealt successfully with nonhuman nature only. In the study of human beings, the trajectory of evolutionary theory has been obstructed not just by antievolutionists but by many scholars who believe they are applying evolutionary theory to the study of human beings. Evolutionary and antievolutionary views of human nature, though quite incompatible scientifically, can and do coexist.

(The Taming of Evolution, Davydd Greenwood, 1984, pp. 19 – 20.)

The substance of this chapter has just burst out of me, while seeking to address the very important topic of Bernard’s failure to address the war of religion against science, in relation to his effort to produce an all embracing theory of life. It is in keeping with my atheistic style, but slightly out of place in a work purporting to deliver a theory of evolution. Plus, it recapitulates the general tenor of my last work posted to Scribd. Still, I’ll not cut it out, I’ll just explain that really, this question is of supreme importance where all science is

concerned and I choose to give it a catchy title, as provocative as I can make it, without being rude. Years ago, when I finally realised what the answer was, as to why religion persisted while science failed us as a source of ultimate knowledge, it soon occurred to me that the real issue in all of this, is not the difficulty of discovering true knowledge, not at all, the difficulty is in fighting your way past those who have an interest in preserving false knowledge, and really, that is what the contents of this chapter are all about : how they spin their evil web. So however much recapitulation of ideas there is here, these thoughts are rewritten afresh, in response to the present effort to deal with Bernard’s work, as such arguments cannot be repeated too often, in a slave society like ours. ____ How curious this lack of awareness for dealing with the social consequences of their scientific offerings is, amongst scientists. It prompts us to a legitimate consideration of the importance of state sponsored hatred, which plagued the times in which Bernard and Willis lived. Because this socially pervasive intensity, surrounding matters of identity, is what we believe created a force field of taboo, containing the linguistic flux of science within the core generator of knowledge, which was scientific investigation. Assuming some familiarity with my previous work, I will launch straight into the statement that linguistic force creates superorganic physiology, and therefore, according to this reasoning, the physiology that is created, in the form of social structure, must involve areas of free growth encouraged by unconstrained linguistic force, contrasting with various degrees of stunted expression, ensuring superorganic physiology cannot accrete where it was not wanted. Thus religion flows freely, depositing superorganic physiology accordingly, while science is constrained, so that no social structure grows at the behest of science, that is not dictated by principles conforming to religious needs. Thus, when we theorise about how we might create a new God by projecting scientific knowledge into a body of unified information, as we did above, we are seeking to exploit this linguistic force for alternative purposes to those which Judaism established when it created its mythologically constituted cultural identity, forming a programme generating superorganic physiology, along lines indicated by the growth of civilisation in the Middle East five or six millennia prior to the present time, when Judaism is just coming to full term as it now fills the world and owns all humanity. The surest sign of this global status are the series of global wars occurring in the name of Judaism, the two world wars, plus the ongoing global war of terror, which will run and run, until the world is firmly settled under the dominion of the Jews, and peace reigns in Israel. Al Qaeda may portray itself as the deadly foe of the Jews, as did the Nazis, but in both cases, nothing could be further from the true position of these structural elements of Judaism. According to the current ruling fiction, science is free. So that no genuine science exists due to the fact that genuine science is not recognised as science by the academic establishment, which is in effect a covert theocracy. Covert because the religious presence spread throughout every minute detail of superorganic structure, wherever social power might reside, is concentrated where power resides most, which means that science can nowhere exist freely, irrespective of the idea that it is allowed to exist. In the thick of this question is the matter of organicism, and religion. Why did organicism disappear from science ? Why does religion persist ? The priests worked hard to give the appearance of a legitimate scientific dismissal of organicism from the realms of science. But this was a pure sham, organicism was ousted by the use of stealth force, by supplanting it. Meanwhile, there is no pretence about the fact that any inclination to resurrect organicism is absolutely frowned upon. There are enough examples of this taboo openly expressed, for us to assume it is common knowledge amongst

those interested in sociological matters. This taboo was even mentioned in a Channel Four documentary on science and race just this week, today being 04/11/2009, though of course it was done in a manner that justified the taboo in the light of the Nazi horrors, and implied that since this can now be discussed, we are now free from its constraints. The subtle lying is relentless. Without going any further then, the mere existence of this taboo against using biological imperatives as the foundation of sociological ideas, means we have all the excuse we need to argue that modern science is a total fraud, engineered by the theocracy, that rules our world covertly today, under the guise of a sham democracy. What makes our democracy a sham ? The existence of religion, that’s what. Take the Catholic aversion to abortion in relation to a democratic process. Such a religious imperative creates a bias amongst a ‘free’ population, which means that when the population votes on the subject the outcome can be determined by the religious code. So religion imparts a bias to the population, which is therefore not a democracy, because each person’s vote is not of equal value, because Catholic dupes are pre-programmed to oppress the free expression of the unorganised populace. In other words, for a democracy to be a democracy every person must think and act as an end in themselves, taking no influences as to their decision making from anywhere, other than themselves. This describes an ideal democracy, but the point of delineating the ideal, is to indicate how a covert theocracy works through the medium of a ‘free democracy’. Political leaders know this sort of thing perfectly well, and this is why they devote their lives to organising the subversion of society through democratic means, which are called open, honourable and legal. Fighting for what we believe is what we are supposed to do in a democracy. If we want cannabis to be legal we just need to get churches, schools, businesses, police organisations, political parties and the like to become part of a movement organising for this end, and then we can reach our goal. Except we cannot, we can only ever fight for things which our masters want us to have. That is how a democracy works, that is why the political parties are a farce. They forever talk about the huge differences between them, which is insane, there are no differences, none that mean anything real. We could not abolish capitalism ; we cannot even get out of Europe, even though a huge number of people want this. All of which is fine, we are not writing a political treatise here. But, the same process of insidious, unacknowledged control, works where knowledge is concerned. Firstly because religious people are in control of the social fabric, and secondly because the arts of social management applied in areas of technical interest, such as drug enforcement, are equally applicable to the control of knowledge, in that political masters are already attuned to controlling people through misinformation, and have no qualms about using such methods wherever it suits their bias agenda. And this is how we come to be enslaved to a covert theocracy, ruling in a ‘free and open democracy’. We might argue that, as with cannabis, as with Europe, in the end the country has to function as a whole and most people want drugs to be illegal, and want to be in Europe. And by the same token most people want religion to be viable, and therefore, if asked, would you want science to be subverted and suppressed, secretly, in order to protect religion, all my investigations carried on as I go about my life, definitely indicate that people want to live a lie, and hate being told the truth, in terms of scientific absolutes of the kind we are concerned with here. I have no dispute with the idea that atheism, or science, are despised by nearly all humans, all the time, and always will be. But what we want is science, and hence that is what we are talking about here, not reality as defined by social realities, but reality as is. And right now we are trying to get our head around why Bernard failed to take account of the wider significance of a real science of evolution, such as he sort to promulgate as a consequence of the insight he gained from years of detailed work spent classifying colonial molluscs, corals that is.

Below I mention the fact that a recent fracas over some remarks by the government’s chief scientific advisor on drugs, had created an interesting opportunity to examine the ins and outs of the attitude of politicians toward science. This row has become even more interesting with other advisors resigning in protest and a number of discussions taking place on TV. A quote from Winston Churchill was repeated in the Commons, to the effect that “Scientists should be on tap, not on top.” These sick degenerates, our masters, could hardly say what I want to say about them, any better. There was another little curiosity in the news yesterday, 03/11/2009, that I must mention. A man used recent legislation designed to protect religious beliefs, to gain an affirmation from the law that his belief in global warming was as valid a belief as any religious belief, and should be protected by law accordingly. He won his case, much to the chagrin of the religious freaks who rule our world. They make these civil laws to force us to respect their sick religious codes, they don’t expect these privileges to be given to all and sundry, and that is precisely what they said on TV. Interestingly the cleric on Channel Four News last night told the environmentalist dude that he was playing a dangerous game, because people would say “Oh, so global warming is a myth, just like any religion !” And that is exactly what I had said to myself, “Why would anyone want to vindicate science by claiming it was as valid as religion !” Insane. I was fascinated to see the cleric point this out. The other interesting point was that this character kept saying that his belief in global warming was a philosophical belief based on science. Now that caught my attention because it sounded like a perfect description of our idea that humans are a superorganic species of mammal, which might also be called a philosophical belief based on science. This phrase ‘philosophical belief’, used in this context, effectively to describes a scientific fact, that is not a fact that science can prove through the only official means available to it, as allowed by the theocracy, i.e. via repeatable laboratory experiments, or physically demonstrable observations that all can see occurring before their eyes. So this man is trying to make genuine science official on a political level, against the resistance of the religious priesthood that own and farm society, exactly as we try to do according to our own atheist interest in human nature, and hence we recognise the significance of the linguistic device he has concocted to serve this purpose. But as the cleric pointed out, you have to watch what you are doing when you go about coining phrases like this. Although of course this man could of spat the caution back in the cleric’s face, by saying to him that his so called misuse of the legislation designed for religious beliefs, is what the priests should of seen coming when they ordered politicians to create such sick and depraved laws in the first place, instead of allowing freedom of thought and expression alone. But no, as soon as the priests get an inch of freedom to impose their fascism on us, they want to take a million miles. So, ‘philosophical belief’, my verdict ? I would say that the idea of calling the primary foundation stone of atheist science a ‘belief’, is to be avoided. That humans are a superorganic species of mammal, properly called a colonial ape, is utterly undeniable, as surely as no one two thousand years ago could of, legitimately denied, that the earth went around the sun. Our atheist science is science, and all we need is to keep saying this until we set people free, and rid ourselves of the religious science that currently passes for science. No word games for us. In How Religion Survived I deal extensively with the consequences of making humans part of nature by declaring that humans are mammalian superorganisms. These consequences are horrific. But what makes them horrific is the history of this period in which Bernard and Willis lived and worked. We are talking about anti-Semitism, Nazism, Fascism, World War, the holocaust and the general madness of the first half of twentieth century.

The truth is that if racism did not exist, it would have to be invented. Who would have to invent racism ? The state, of course. Who is it that is forever in a position to benefit from such nightmares ? Obviously those who put a stop to them, or put these horrors in abeyance. The obvious response to this suggestion is that horrors happen, hence organised defence is needed. True, but if, for some reason such important horrors as racism did not happen, then they would have to be made to happen, so that states rooted in religion, as all states in the world are today, can exist. This particular kind of twentieth century disease, racism that is, especially of the anti-Semitic kind, would certainly have to be conjured up from somewhere to provide the force needed to create and sustain modern theocracy. We learn to trust the powers that be, and here we are asking that people understand the origin of the powers that be. It is in the nature of human social life that as we compete for advantages, so we learn from our fellows, and authority is the product of learning process that is biological, in exactly the same way that genetic evolution can be called a learning process, a trial and error process. So we are not invoking any moral conception here, we are just saying that this is how superorganic physiology evolves. For good identities to evolve, bad identities must come into being at one and the same time, it is a law of the physical universe, you cannot have ‘up’ without ‘down’. The reason for bringing up such an unpleasant topic now, is that we have seen how one organicist, Morley Roberts, left religion “thankfully” out of his argument, despite the impossibility of having his argument without religion playing a pivotal role in it ! And now we find our hero of this piece, making the same dumb mistake, that of failing to recognise the critical issue regarding his claim to include humans within nature. But all about Bernard at this period, if fellow scientists of one kind or another were dead set on ignoring the meaning of their knowledge and discoveries for religion, many others, the politically minded, were not. Politicians are the mouthpieces of society, but they have no interest whatsoever in what is literally true, they have one agenda only : access to, and the exercise of power. We are in the wonderful position today, right now, of hating our politicians. But these lying, thieving scum, are just as nice, honest and wonderful as any other politicians that have ever existed, at any time, in any society. Politicians are the lowest form of human being, that is why they are the most honoured and adored of our society, because that is the peculiar nature of humans. This perversity is a product of the fact that there is no such thing as an individual, so that powerless individuals admire individuals who have power focused upon them, they want to be like them, they want power for themselves, just as those who have power do. Power is the most precious thing, all that matters is getting it. All that matters is getting power, so once you have it, no matter how you get it, or what you do with it, everyone will adore you. Point to one person, from anywhere or anytime, of which this is not true—don’t waste your time trying, it is not possible. Success breeds adoration. We love our abusers, we have no choice. As our discussion of atheism’s digression into bizarre forms of reasoning and spoonfed science, in the form offered by the official state machinery, in the form of Darwinism, indicates, the change in fundamental ideas about the nature of existence, moving people away from religion, did not drive people toward hard science, but rather pushed them toward political formulations of the new ways of thinking. Because they looked for ways to make these ideas serve their search for social power. Humans evolved to think this way, to see things as if they themselves existed as ends in themselves. This is the way the human animal thinks, but a scientist cannot think this way if they would know what humans are. This personalisation of science led to political expressions of organicist ideas, like communism, socialism and fascism, all of which derived benefit from the now popular conception of society as a social organism. But organicism also led to anti-Semitism, or so I believe, although I must say I have not one iota of direct evidence for this statement, much to my frustration, and not withstanding that I have long sort a plainly stated link between the idea of the social organism and the true nature of religion, and hence of Judaism. The general idea of a social organism, seen as being realised in the political, national identity of the state,

automatically made the eternally alien Jew, a parasite. So again, this outcome was a perversion of organicist science, for the true form of the human superorganism is defined by religion, that means it is defined by the Jewish religion in our Christian world, obviously. But as obvious as this is, no one spotted it in Bernard’s day, they all followed the normal brain-dead mantra of individualism, manifested at a collective level in political movements and structures. Had anyone of pointed these things out Christianity would of been untenable and Judaism would of come to a dead end. It follows that Judaism needed anti-Semitism like a fish needs water. So no Jewish sociologist, such as Durkheim, was going to save the Jews from anti-Semitism by pointing out that the Jews were the master identity in a superorganic being, and not a parasitic race. Indeed, although Durkheim is credited with being overly organicist in his early work, he wrote a piece on Lilienfeld, the most notorious of organicist philosophers, whom we have already mentioned, and he dismissed Lilienfeld’s ideas completely. Unfortunately we have no means of studying Lilienfeld’s work, and Durkheim’s criticisms are beyond our reach too, the one being entombed in German and the other locked up in French. I did machine translate Lilienfeld’s 1898 defence of organicism several years ago, but you can only take so much from such an effort and I do not make any use of my efforts in that regard. Durkheim is credited with being the first functionalist sociologist, and when we say racism would have to be invented if it did not exist, we hark back to Durkheim’s functionalism, as he famously said that crime would have to be invented if it did not exist. Once we know about Durkheim’s early interest in organicist work, we can see how his functionalism was a perversion of true organicist science, helping move sociology away from a genuine science of society and toward a sterile science safe for religion, by capturing the essence of a real science of sociology, such as we find in Lilienfeld, and casting it in pseudo rational form. If we cannot read Lilienfeld, how do we know his material was so good ? His first major work on sociology was Die menschliche Gesellschaft als realer Organismus (Human Society is a Real Organism), published in 1873, and for me the title alone is good enough to make Lilienfeld the best sociologist of all time. But he is identified as being the only person ever to conceive of society as a real biological entity, as opposed to using the idea with some degree of analogical meaning. The pseudo rational form then, acts as a cut off point for the academic priesthood, who can talk of Durkheim as the first to come up with really mechanistic ideas about society. He is then promoted to the status of a genius, exactly as they did with Darwin, so that historical accounts of sociology henceforth, never have to mention the real pioneers, men like Lilienfeld, they just begin with people who were already fully paid up members of the scientific priesthood. In this manner bodies of information built up by directing and managing linguistic force, are constituted so as to facilitate their budding off from the main rootstock of the initial open expression of linguistic force, thus forming a means of obtaining social authority over knowledge, which is critical for maintenance of social power based on religion. So when we speak thus of an isolated topic we mean this process of isolating knowledge from reality, to be related to an established body of information, namely that of religion and cultural identity as already established. It follows that in order for Durkheim to serve this gatekeeper function for the theocracy, by keeping people away from even knowing a true science of society existed, his mechanistic ideas, though nonetheless pseudo scientific, must still be superseded, and be made to look as though they are the extreme limit of mechanistic science, which science no longer ventures near ; even though nothing could be further from the truth, and Durkheim’s ideas are not science in any sense of the word, for they are not based on the idea that society is a real organism, which is the minimum starting point for any science of human society, as all people knew perfectly well when Lilienfeld produced his magnificent work. So Durkheim’s ideas are termed too materialistically extremist by ensuing generations of sociologists, and this moves sociology a few more steps

away from reality, away from sociology’s own true history that is, and further toward the sterile ground where we find ourselves today. Clearly, for a fake science such as sociology, which is the absolute pivot upon which the war between religion and science rotates, the true roots of sociology are its most dangerous challenge, they must be severed, and lost. It is for this reason that our work tends to involve an immense amount of effort spent trying to recover this lost material, and organising its restoration to its rightful place as the forerunner of modern atheist science. The process of knowledge subversion centred in this case on Durkheim’s misanthropic efforts as a professional academic, shows how, as we keep saying, that all things, even arch enemies, are made to come from within the bounds of the One message, so that we never find any fundamental conflicts in science, no breaches of the Golden Rule that will pose an absolute threat to religion, as science use to do before Darwin put the nail in the coffin of science. What we are saying, is that as scientific ideas began to apply pressure toward discerning the true superorganic nature of humans, the product of this pressure led directly toward the destruction of society. Which, logically speaking, is exactly what anyone who knows anything, would expect. Resistance to this pressure then prevented destruction of the establishment by diverting the true expression of science applied to humans, into an alternative, political form. If we peruse the literature of the period, with a view to pinpointing the impact of science on religious questions, we frequently find references to the requirement for a new religion, taking account of the new science, a ‘religion of the future’, becomes a phrase of lament for an old kind of certainty, expressed via the new way of knowing. I never delve into these works because they sound religious and irrelevant to my main purpose, but for the present object of discerning how scientific insight became diverted into political expressions of human nature seen naturalistically, such works form part of the picture. We have already quoted from a work that discussed the clash between old faith and new ideas. In times when writing was prolific, you would think we would be able to find direct evidence of such major connections as I proclaim here, but we do not. Yet it is not only in the absence of statements concerning the nature of Jews, understood according to a naturalistic interpretation of human nature, that we find stark gaps, but in the exact area we are currently addressing, the same applies. Scientists are face to face with the consequences of the war of religion against science, but not a dickey bird do we hear from them on the subject. All because of Darwin, and his decoupling of science from religion. So if these professionals will not break ranks, what of other commentators, not bound by the constraints of professional strictures ? Nowhere is there any discussion of the war of religion against science, as it impacts on the science of the day. I spotted a catalogue of freethinker’s works for sale the other day, pre Second World War, that offered a collection of works uncontaminated by the oppression of orthodox views. This is close to what we want, but I bet that if I bought it I would find nothing of any interest whatsoever. All my searching has never turned up anything that is truly outside the sanction of the One message, there is nothing that breaks Hitler’s Golden Rule of power management. Durkheim then, is the famous sociologist contemporary with Bernard, often described today as the first functionalist sociologist, and one of the best insights of a functionalist nature that he ever bequeathed to modern sociology, is the idea that if crime did not exist, it would have to be invented. The reason behind this curious statement is that it is crime that justifies law, and, more particularly, from a sociological viewpoint, it is the fact that wherever possible, people will exploit those who have accumulated wealth through an investment of time and effort. This predatory behaviour obliges people to form societies in which order is established and maintained according to custom. According to this reasoning, it is thanks to crime that society exists, for crime provides the motive for people to acknowledge a ruling authority, for the collective good. The claim made here, that if racism did not exist, it would

have to be invented, merely adds a nuance suited to the context of our discussion, to this now old sociological truism. But this Durkheimian functional mechanism is imbued with political invective that lends itself to religious sensibilities, whereas we want a biological mode that is strictly scientific. Therefore we want to make this two directional mechanism three dimensional. In other words instead of imagining societies accumulating wealth and provoking criminality, which in turn induces authority to develop, we want to replace this linear conception with one that says that from the outset, and at every point in the developmental history, there was a feedback dynamic here. And if we take this approach then we are in a better position to argue that the moment that new ideas in the form of science began to threaten the social order, that established order was ready and waiting with responses that would lead it out trouble, as we have just been describing above. What we are driving at here, is that there are good reasons why scientists trod a straight and narrow path, because of the vitriol of impassioned argument that they inevitably became involved in if they strayed to either side. Roberts hints at the possibility of such a reason for avoiding religious subjects, when dealing with human nature from a naturalistic standpoint. But aside from this one comment, I have no other such direct remarks from the organicist period, that expressly affirm the unpleasantness inherent in trying to tackle religion from a naturalistic point of view. Only in the modern, Wilsonian phase of organicist revival, do we find a direct scientific expression of the need to treat religion as taboo, from an organicist perspective. Herein is a delightful example of the value of the resurrection of organicism in the 1970’s, if only for it to be wrapped up in bunkum and sunk without trace once again, in the following couple of decades. In the meantime some precious gems of organicist and anti-organicist reasoning were fashioned, with which we can delight ourselves today. And here is one such gem, it is anti-organicist, masquerading as organicist in intent, an example of duplicitous priestcraft, as ever.

PREFACE Human By Nature—Between Biology and the Social Sciences is an unusual book with an unusual history that deserves a short narrative. When I first conceived of the project to convene biologists and social scientists for an academic year at the Center for Interdisciplinary Research (ZiF) to discuss their differences and agreements, and perhaps also their mutual agnosticism, the working title of the project was meant to be provocative : Biological Foundations of Human Culture. For political-historical and methodological reasons, this theme invites scepticism or worse. Social scientists would not only point to the catastrophic consequences of “biologization” during the Nazi regime in Germany ; they would also warn against reductionist effects of any attempt to explain social phenomena in terms of biology. The sociobiology debate still looms large. However, this was precisely the challenge, and even the adventure : to delineate a theme that among social scientists is fraught with historical and political taboos, but that would provide an opportunity to open the way to a host of new insights from other disciplines into human cultural evolution. (Human by Nature, in the preface by Peter Weingart, p. vii, 1997.) I have to say that I absolutely love this book, its useless and nasty, typical modern science, but it is absolutely bang on subject for us, and that is something so hard to find. This is the aftermath of Wilson’s Sociobiology, as the above quote indicates. But just look at how clear these miscreants are, that it is to the Nazis that science must defer when defining the

terms of any science of human nature ! Incredible, but there it is, written plain enough for all to see : without the Nazis, religion, and therefore Judaism, as the master identity giving rise to our dominant religious forms, would be long since dead and gone. Because science would of erased it in the process of showing that humans are a colonial ape, whose life on earth, in all its detail, can be accounted for in purely naturalistic terms. In the aftermath of the religious backlash against science, following the crimes of the Nazis bogymen, it is relatively easy to see the intimate relationship between Nazism and Judaism in these purely functional terms. But the fact is that it was just as easy to see the same connection prior to a backlash that inverts the direction of linguistic force, from one of advancing knowledge to one of capped, suppressed knowledge. However, the reality is, that for the most part, we can only appreciate the validity of ideas in retrospect, basing present caution on lessons learnt from the past. As exasperating as it is, no one can claim credit for anticipating a disaster, thus enabling people to avoid it, by then saying “See, I told you it would happen, and look, now it didn’t ! ” This obstacle to affirming cleverness by avoiding trouble, is a bit like the priest’s trick regarding the idea that you cannot disprove a negative, such as proving God does not exist. Of course it is easy to prove God does not exist, but it requires a circumvention of the logic imbued into the ordinary means of communication, such that we base our proof on the recognition that language is symbolic, so that things are not necessarily what they are said to be, thus our task is to decode the symbol. Frustratingly, this means that any shift toward correctly anticipating the nature of human life, as revealed in science, peacefully projecting society toward an advanced stage, where humans voluntarily give up their old interests, could never win out over the violent backlash that says “See where these ideas lead, they must be crushed.”, thus letting the status quo settle back on what it had been prior to the advance of science, into intimate areas of human self knowledge. The only example of this kind of thinking I can provide concerns H. G. Wells. In a piece of anti-Gentile writing called The Invisible Man : The Life and Liberties of H. G. Wells, 1993, Michael Coren talks about Wells’ attack upon Judaism, that described Judaism as a backward ideology, which its adherents will not give up, thereby causing all sorts of problems for the world, and failing to move toward a future world, guided by modern ideas. Coren calls Wells’ an anti-Semite, something he can get away with thanks to the Jew’s greatest ever ‘friend and ally’, Adolf Hitler. But the truth is, Wells was dead right. If the Jews had listened, and abolished Judaism voluntarily, letting Jewish identity recede into the past, as so many other cultural identities had done before, the horrors resulting from self knowledge provided by modern science, would never of occurred. In other words it is not scientific knowledge that causes the problem, it is the resistance of vested interest that engineers the appearance that science is a dangerous foe of society, while all along the real culprit, obviously, is the biased ‘knowledge of identity’, which is religion. The Jews, who are responsible for the horrors, by failing to act in the interests of humanity, by giving up their religious identity, are empowered by these same horrors that their behaviour has caused. While the great secular prophet Wells, who warned and prescribed solutions, is labelled a miscreant by the real miscreants who are our masters, by virtue of their hold upon the body of the superorganism we are all part of. This is how the dynamic of superorganic physiology plays out through the mechanism of personalised logic, that creates our so called consciousness, as a result of the linguistic flux working its way toward forming a superorganic being, that we have not the least notion exists, save via the sick, degenerate ideas of the priests, who force religion down our throats, while keeping true knowledge as far away from us as possible. Hitler then, we can regard as the founding father of our civilisation, if we deem the birth of the Jewish global civilisation to follow on the heels of the last world war, marked out by the foundation of Israel, as the centre piece of Hitler’s new creation—the home of the master race. Why the Iranian leader would want to deny the holocaust, beats me. He said

just the other day, today being Saturday, 26 September 2009, that the holocaust was the excuse for creating the state of Israel, so that, by denying the reality of the excuse, he justifies the refusal to recognise the right of Israel to exist. OK. But this strategy is like the wind trying to win its bet with the sun by blowing a man’s coat off, where the sun gets the man to remove his coat of his own accord, and wins every time. The apparent enemy of Israel is seeking to obtain his result by fighting with his foe, who will naturally resist. Whereas, if he wants to really show where Israel is at fault, as regards the right of the Jews to impose a homeland upon Arab territories, all he need do is show that the whole purpose of the holocaust is to create a taboo, thus protecting the master race from the enslaved host, that host being the Christian and Muslim societies in which Jews live. But then, to destroy the Jews by this means, by telling the truth, he must first destroy Islam, and this he does not want to do. Just as Hitler did not want to destroy the Christian faith ; just as our right wing parties in Britain today, do not want to destroy the Christian faith either, as they launch their hate campaigns against the Muslim presence here. The key to understanding this cooperative dynamic, existing between ‘arch enemies’, is that all these motive ideas arise from, and adhere to, the original message, which is the Jewish identity. Therefore no matter what, or who, wins or losses any particular battle, Judaism is preserved, and so are all of its variations. The antagonism, no matter how real in terms of blood and horror, is fake, politically speaking. The real nature of internecine behaviour between foes of a cultural likeness is physiological. A bit like rutting animals, where the fight strengthens the species, it does not exterminate it, although it may kill the losing party. Where religion and culture is concerned extermination is very much the order of the day, except where Judaism and its derivatives are concerned, here extermination is the threat when horns meet, but never the outcome. The idea of the tension is to create a state of complex unity by exterminating true divergence, such as occurred when Central American culture met Judaism, its superorganic body was sucked into Judaism in the form of the Christian slave identity, Judaism being the unifying key. The ever present tension then, is a physical expression of the binding power of religion, which is ordinarily only acknowledged in its positive form. Any pretence of total extermination of one of the parties to the tussle, as with the Nazi’s solution to the Jewish Question, is facile, and could never happen ; it may be possible on a localised scale, but such partial cleansing of the superorganic physiology is always ultimately constructive, as Jewish history proves many times over. The principle behind this constructive function is rather like leaving ground fallow, to be returned to at a later date when its substance has reinvigorated itself after being cropped, so that it can be reworked, because Jews do have a special physiological role in the superorganic body bearing the Jewish identity. And likewise, as with the absurdity of Nazi rhetoric about exterminating Jews, the inane outbursts of the Iranians has the same ring of hollow hatred about it, that has no meaning, and makes no sense, until we understand that humans are a colonial species of ape that forms a superorganism. Which currently takes shape under the identity umbrella of Judaism, whereby various internal physiological structures find expression through the tension of racial hatred. Bear in mind when we talk this way about the hollow nature of the threat arising from people like the Nazis, we are not saying that these people do not cause physical mayhem, far from it. This destruction is all part of the act, and it could be likened to the tilling of the soil in land left fallow, making the social biomass pliable after a long time left in a settled cultural condition, making its social fabric open to an influx of alien influences, and such like necessary operations, prior to a further round of cultivation and exploitation. The mayhem releases the accumulated potential of linguistic force that is implicitly held in a social structure that is created from the impress of linguistic force, so that linguistic force can then start taking effect again by building new, invigorated superorganic physiology. We are saying that protestations of hate are always hollow, they never develop serious objections to

the existence of the Jews, nor any real model for the advancement of society toward a world in which Jews do not exist. Hitler appeared to propose something approximating to such a world, if only in so far as the German was to replace the Jew as the new incumbent master race. But viewed so coldly, in keeping with a true sociological science, an atheist sociological science of course, such a scheme is utterly ridiculous, and must of been obviously ridiculous to those who manufactured and promoted it, no one capable of being so clever, can be that stupid. We veer toward an imputation of conspiracy if we push this line too far, and that is forbidden territory, because it lays us open to our enemies mindless attacks. But the point is that all overtly anti-Semitic regimes or factions, have always been void of substance. Their mindless hate and practical evil are all to no purpose, save that of serving the Jews by enabling the Jews—who really are the master race —to feign a pretence of being the poor victim, entitled to the protection of the host’s law, during the calmer phases of life, the happy periods of ‘cultivation and exploitation’, which by far outweigh the periods of chaos that keep the Jew’s privileges in place down the millennia. These descriptions of Judaism sound wicked, indeed they chime very well with classic anti-Semitic work of the pre world war years. But an elite class has always ‘exploited’ any advanced society, and it has done so under the guise of ‘most sacred’, as in monarchy and such like. The only concern of the people is supposed to be that life is ordered. According to this tradition, although there are significant differences when the model becomes more organic and thus removed from consciousness, the principle of Jewish parasitism remains of the same kind as that of any elite order. And the Jews have only obtained this status because their culture best releases the potential of the colonial ape’s corporate nature. Added to which, it is the efficiency of Jewish culture’s exploitation of human nature that has brought the astounding modern world into being, and whatever misgivings we must have about this world, it is truly remarkable in so many wonderful ways. I trust it will be clear when I make complimentary statements of this kind, that I am no Jew hater, nor any other kind of hate monger either. I hate dead cultures that live on, smothering the world. I hate those who hate me—one has to. But what I am all about, is the love of freedom, identified through the love of knowledge ; where knowledge is recognised in one form only, that of science, because we define science as : the means by which reality is known. 1. Identity and structure By fabricating an independent identity, fashioned upon an already extant identity, we make all resulting varieties dependant upon the one original identity, as long as the original persists. Yet at the same time, we make all identity enclaves the mortal enemies of each other, even as we make all inherently the same, and therefore part of one identity. And that is the essence of a human superorganism. This pattern of social complexity reflects the arrangement that Bernard discerns in nature, regarding the evolution of life by a series of major transitions, creating a base line of uniformity, which is seen in culture, in Judaism, followed by an unlimited extension of Judaism through countless expressions of the base form. The capacity for extension is increased by establishing primary exoskeletal frameworks, which we see in the two major extensions of the base form, thus Christianity and Islam extend the reach of Judaism, giving the Jewish superorganism its standard tripartite physiology, that can be detected in comparable arrangements from cultural history. In offering the above description we do not pretend to be fixing the parameters of a physical process. We are using our knowledge of reality as it is, as regards the way religion develops complex social structure, and trying to make this reality connect with the biological underpinnings of life, that we find discerned by Bernard. The reaction of religious identity enclaves is to deny their dependence upon their rootstock, this is what we see when Christian

or Islamic anti-Semites declare their hatred for the Jews. But, as we have been saying, this never proves to be real, and by ignoring the front that the these organisations put out, and studying the events over the full term of their existence, we get a true picture which can be made sense of when we apply a scientific method to the study of human beings, that we have a key to understanding by knowing that human nature is corporate, because humans are a species of colonial ape. Bernard promises to explain human evolution. However, without developing an atheist approach to science, which recognises the role of language as the information medium delivering organic energy to the living form, thus identifying the true role of knowledge and hence religion in the evolution of human superorganic physiology, all of which should be evident from the outset, because the war between religion and science should be made plain at the beginning, there is no prospect of his model coming to the sort of conclusion that would allow it to constitute real science, in completion. We must therefore provide the missing element. And it is for this reason that we mention atheist science, the war of religion against science, and the reason why racial hatred, in all its forms, is vital to our well being, and our life within civilisation as we know it. As can be seen from the way we handle these taboo issues, the worst ‘enemies’ of the Jews, are always their best friends, in reality. The Iranian leader whines on about the holocaust and the state of Israel, the Jews boycott his speeches in the world assembly and bomb his war machine. And what does all this serious stuff do ? It creates a no go area for thinkers. Faced with such real horrors, such terrors, all must conform, or else be labelled some kind of miscreant. Perfect, exactly what the doctor ordered, such that, if race hate did not exist, someone would just have to invent it. It is highly provocative to name Hitler the founding father of Jewish global civilisation, but, that is what he is. Just as we were forced to reveal elsewhere that the reason for the mindless destruction of the First World War, which appeared to be nothing but senseless destruction to no purpose, was anything but pointless. For it allowed us to return to the bosom of our slavery to Judaism, by destroying organicist science and all that this knowledge threatened against the master race. So once again, we must reveal that Hitler’s apparently senseless war, has a hidden purpose too. Like that of the First World War, this purpose was vital to the ongoing existence of Judaism. Both world wars were absolutely necessary, without them life simply could not continue on earth, from a Jewish perspective. The idea that the world wars saved our civilisation is not radical, it is convention. Yesterday, 04/11/2009, on the Wright Stuff on Channel Five, they were debating the right not to where the poppy celebrating warfare, and some right wing women gave us a tirade on how it was a disgrace that anyone would even think about the matter. Without the sacrifice of those we remember when we wear this symbol of jingoistic pride, our world as we know it would not exist, she exclaimed. Watching such moronic displays of mindlessness is like seeing a cartoon come to life, it makes you feel as if you are living in some kind of nightmare. Yes these wars did make the continuance of our slave society possible, just when we were becoming free, so that now we live in a world in which people are free to practice religion, but nothing else, that is true—so what is good about that !! Stupid ignorant cow. And today these lunatics are talking about a nineteen year old student facing jail for pissing on a war memorial. Great, take a piss for me. Who do these fascists think they are, building their triumphal monuments in public squares ? A toilet is all such edifices to the glory of war are fit for. But not to the liberal fascists on Wright’s show, no, they think war is wonderful and should be celebrated. Who asked you to fight wars for us ? Not me, if you want to go and kill people, begin at the Houses of Parliament, then I will offer praise and respect. Fight for something real, not for coin and for reasons so far away from anything you can comprehend that your ignorance reduces you to nothing more than a robot. But if you must be as robots, then don’t demand that we all cower and grovel in honour of your depraved sacrifice, a sacrifice to yourselves, to your own egos and interests, that does nothing for us who would be free. Both my parents served in the armed forces during the Second World

War and they were not sentimental about any aspect of warfare. It is easy for people to exploit these wars once time has moved on so far that all real sense of what these things meant to take part in has been lost, and that is what our masters and their cronies do today, now war is suddenly in vogue again. As we make these outrageous statements, do you see, this is what war and conflict do, they inflate the intensity of emotion onto a level that brooks no contradiction, that makes dissension impossible. It is this intensity that makes hatred so precious to our masters, it is a sure way to control us. I see the people who go to war as being like sheep, with no idea why they fight, just acting in obedience to their colonial ape instincts, so that they are to blame for empowering our masters in this way. So I am damned if I am going to sympathise with these people when they get blown up for being such idiots ! Yet, fact is, even I have had a moments experience of warfare conducted on my soil, in Brighton when the IRA failed to kill Thatcher—useless bastards—the attack was celebrated on TV a few weeks or so ago so I suppose this was the twenty fifth anniversary. I stood on the beach and looked at the Grand Hotel the next morning, sombre experience, it made me feel that at times like this we could not argue, we just had to do what had to be done. But all such an experience does, in the end, is to teach us how precious hatred and warfare is to those who own and farm us ; just as it teaches them that they must always have a war to fight somewhere, and of course they do, don’t they. 2. Inducing social structure I utilised a Jewish humanist work in How Religion Survived, called Exodus to Humanism, by David Ibry. At the time I had barely dipped my toe into this work. After posting my piece I returned to reading this book, but unfortunately it was one of those items I wanted to read, but couldn’t. In this case because the content, composed as it was of pocket biographies, was so obsessed with Jewish sorrows that it disregarded the subject of ‘atheism’ as a broad intellectual topic, which Jewish experience could be related to, as having a common cause with Atheism as reality. This is one of those occasions where we are prompted to make the admonition “Its not all about you !”, except here the rebuke applies on a collective level. I was not seeking an insight into Jewish experience, I was seeking an expression of atheism identical to mine, coming from a Jew, showing how this impacted on a Jew’s sense of self and how it caused an atheist Jew to respond toward the Jewish religion. Atheism describes the reality of existence, for everyone, because there is no God, it is therefore a factual state of being. Atheism is not personal, nor political, it is not about an individual’s place in the world, it is about the place of the world in existence. Therefore, when adopted as a personal point of view, atheism must be identical for all atheists, at all times, because it is a response to reality, or else it is nothing, which would make it meaningless. Indeed, if atheism is reduced to a shallow expression of personal belief, then it amounts to nothing more than an equivalent of a religious belief, exactly as religious freaks love to say it is. But these Jews, corralled into one text by Ibry, just wanted to reduce atheism to another vehicle of communication through which to promote the Jewish project. Certainly, any intellectual idea may impart an identity to those who acknowledge it, and thus define a group, and hence a political entity, because that is how linguistic force creates superorganic physiology in a supermassive superorganism, based, as ours is, on a religious identity package. But the atheist ideal should dismiss the idea that atheism is a political vehicle, and insist that it is an intellectual view of the state of reality. Which will then, inevitably, have political consequences, because we live in an absolute theocracy where such alternative knowledge is forbidden, and because humans are a colonial species of ape, whose colonial structure is created via linguistic force, derived from the physiology of individual form. The political repercussions of atheism viewed as a scientific fact, are a product of social authority

being based on religion. The politicisation of atheist science is an artifact of the structural effect of linguistic force, acting as a medium of superorganic being. In a world where religion no longer existed, atheism would be the norm, and as such it could impart no identity to any group, and neither create nor augment social structure thereby. Being an atheist would then no longer define individual identity, and no longer impart structure to the superorganism’s physiology. As it is, because linguistic force creates social structure via the pattern of religious forms, when atheism becomes an established point of view within society, it merely augments this religious mosaic of social structure, and hence it becomes categorised as just another religious form. Ibry’s Jews worked atheism on this basis, treating it as a branch of Judaism ! This discussion indicates that the social identities of individuals, and superorganic physiology, are two interrelated aspects of one process, as we would expect if linguistic force really does create organic social structure. The latest book to arrive at my door from America, is The Origin of the Inequality of the Social Classes, by Gunnar Landtman, 1938. I have scarcely looked at it, but there is a good deal about the delineation of structure via mediums of identity. Thus we have chapter five, Social Differentiation as Influenced through Trades. Here I noticed descriptions of how the smith was regarded as unclean in certain African cultures, which reminded me of the Pacific island cultures and the taboo regarding the touching of chiefs. Obviously by 1938 the struggle was well under way to cleanse the human sciences of any genuine scientific influence, so no one at this time would of tried to treat society as an organic unity, in which language acted as a force delineating structure. Hence we find a nice book like this, full of detail about how structure arose in seemingly bizarre ways, that appear as nothing more than a collection of fascinating facts, strung together by thin air. But the air in a human setting is never thin, it is always packed full of information, which directs the flow of human energy, and hence the deposition of socially organised matter. It is not the features of social differentiation that we see with our eyes that create the extended, elaborate social structure. To think this way is like asking what makes a chicken’s egg roundish, and answering that it is the roundish shape of eggs that makes the chicken’s egg roundish ! That it is insane. The causal loop takes us nowhere. The point is, that the linguistic physiology of humans forces people, all people, in all times and places, to organise themselves via the attributes of their collective activities that distinguish them from one another. After all, a smith is a smith, and that is a distinction of note sufficient in itself, so why the heck invent an elaborate rigmarole around the matter, as complex as any religious myth ? Clearly some force is causing this elaboration to happen. This force, is interpreted by our scientifically modelled priests, as a psychological effect, but what causes psychological effects ? The answer is linguistic physiology, which imparts a linguistic force to human action, a physiology which is the basis of the colonial ape’s, colonial nature. Today’s world is riven by a major theme of politically correct terminology, so that normal modes of speech, whereby lower orders composing the mass of the population freely classify one another, have become semi racist. An example is calling people from Liverpool ‘Scousers’, which can be used negatively, just as ‘queer’ can be when referring to homosexuals, although both these groups happily apply these terms to themselves as well. The reason why a familiar British mode of speech, that labels people from certain places via a somewhat dubious agnomen, has taken on a disturbing hue, is that the normal extension of this mode of categorisation becomes racist when it is applied to the alien hoards foisted on our society by our masters, since the close of the last world war. So that the indigenous population’s normal colloquial term for an Asian, which is ‘Paki’, suddenly becomes a racist term of abuse, because of the special status accorded to the alien in Britain, by the state. But the truth is, we have always interacted through such expressions of ‘abuse’, so this is another example of the importance of ‘racial hatred’, occurring at a lower order of linguistic force, as an expression of the power of linguistic force underpinning these modes of social exchange.

Now however, our masters have a special reason for stamping on the habit, as they seek to induct a non European human kind into the fabric of our ancient European culture, as their project to Islamify European culture is nurtured from its more fragile stages, toward being more firmly established and respected. All of which is part of the ultimate project of creating one uniform global society, under Judaism of course. Language being the key to all of this interaction. English linguistic regionalism is an interesting subject because it is so obvious to we English ourselves, simply because of the peculiar range of accents we carry : — The rich variety of dialects in England, of which we are all aware, can in large measure be attributed to the simple fact that English has been spoken in the country for upwards of 1,500 years. Even in North America, where English has been in use for some 400 years, there has been insufficient time for fragmentation of the language to occur on the scale to which it has occurred in England, although many regional varieties have transplanted to the New World. Yet it is not the time-scale alone that has resulted in such a wealth of dialect. Language, like culture, is always changing, becoming the property of succeeding generations who alter it to suit their own purposes. To understand the dialect situation in this country we must look not only at the number of years that the language has existed here but also at what has taken place with regard to the language during those years. Forces may have acted, and indeed have acted, to suppress the trend towards dialectal development. That these forces were weaker than the forces working for the growth of dialect is an important feature of the history of the language at various stages of its evolution. (An Atlas of English Dialects, Upton and Widdowson, 1996, p. xi.) Obviously the priests responsible for the interpretation of meaning, are, by way of their training, committed to the suppression of science as a ‘way of knowing reality’, as they automatically adhere to the One message formula of Judaism. So we do not concur with the notion that language is the ‘property’ of any people, or that language is ‘used’ by people according to their circumstances. Such an idea is errant nonsense, as anyone truly interested in being honest to a scientific agenda would immediately recognise. They use the ‘talk of science’, but not the ‘way of science’. Even so, the observations can be taken at face value, and we sample them here because we want to suggest that the instinctive identification of regional groups by specific terms such as ‘Scouser’, is a facet of mature superorganic physiology residing in an important territory, that is a comparatively small island resting on a continental shelf, that places England in an important position adjacent to the peoples of the continent, and, as it has turned out, the world. My own regional accent is a source of amazement to me, I am only aware of it when I hear a recording of my voice, or when I hear Terry Christian speak on TV. It is fairly rare for me to hear my own voice, mercifully, but it always takes me by surprise when I do, it makes me wince with embarrassment, as it is completely alien to my ears ; and I only lived in Manchester from the age of three to thirteen. I suppose this alienation from ones self, is what comes of moving away from a dialect area that has stamped its mark upon you, whereupon you do not get any regular feedback telling you how you sound. This social bonding effect is in fact the critical feature of racial identity —dialect obviously being a facet of racial dynamics—it is the reason why colonial apes have evolved the linguistic capacity—that is symbolic capacity—to produce racial varieties spontaneously, wherever a stable population occurs. So that individuals living within a localised territorial zone of superorganic being, confirm one another’s status as ‘belonging just where they are’, and nowhere else. Obviously one does not normally sense ones own

social identity, one is blind to it, it becomes significant only by way of contrast with others who are then of a ‘none self’ category. It is this dynamic of structuration occurring across a human biomass that creates a mammalian superorganism. Modern master organs have evolved to manage these racial dynamics according to specialised programmes that direct linguistic force along more complex lines of organisation, within which racial parameters of identity serve as powerful lines of linguistic force, available for the core organ of social power to exploit. The master organ of Judaism exploited racism big time by manifesting itself in the shape of the Nazis. This saved Judaism from destruction by returning the biomass of Europe to a stable attachment to Judaism, and by erasing freedom of thought from society, as manifested in science. The process was stabilised by infusing Muslim slaves of Judaism into the decaying Christian slave population of Europe, thus changing the nature of the European slave population forever, while still preserving the all important Jewish slave nature of the European biomass. This is what we keep saying the process of superorganic growth is all about : the management of social identity destruction across a range, contrasted with social identity construction to a purpose. And before anyone imagines we have forgotten our main purpose here, we have not. We need to understand why it is so important to our society to suppress science, and only by appreciating the full sweep of the social dynamics involved in the formation of a superorganism on a global platform, which Judaism evolved to create, can we hope to appreciate how, and why, it might be legitimate to speak of the First World War as the ‘Great Cleansing’, that was carried out for one reason, and one reason only : to get rid of the newly emergent knowledge of reality, as personified in the work of the greatest scientific visionary ever to of lived, Henry Bernard, the man whose work we are studying here. We have incidentally made an important point in the above discussion. The fact that we are not conscious of our social identity other than by contrast with those who are not of our own social kind, is of major importance in terms of producing the peculiarly intense, sometimes vicious responses, that colonial apes have towards alien members of their own species. The point being, that there is no rational formula involved in the acquisition of social identity, it is simply a deep rooted sense of who we are, imbued into our very being, that is threatened by any alien social identity, that really does threaten to destroy our identity, just by being there. So again, it is the biological function of alien master identity programmes, like that of Judaism, to facilitate the smooth running destruction of indigenous identities, in order to facilitate the well being of a super massive superorganism, built initially upon the basis of military conquest, but then settled by means of identity management processes. And the fact that social identity acquisition is mindless, having no rational component, because its real nature is subliminal to our consciousness, is what makes it possible for any suitably fashioned linguistic programme to form the basis of a powerful social identity, a slave identity indeed, as we see in the case of Christianity and Islam, the prime slave identities of Judaism. These religious extensions of racial dynamics do not need any rational substance, indeed rationality is anathema to such identity programmes, as we indicate when we say a God projected via the medium of science, into a body of knowledge from which we could all draw our social identities, would be incapable of producing identity matrixes because its product would always be the same for all. It is a constant source of amazement to me that our voices can both generate, and then pick up, such a subtle inflection as that carried by a regional accent. Because we know that humans evolved to form social organisms, in which the delineation of the superorganism as a unified whole is the prime objective, and we know that it is the natural force of language that creates all superorganic physiology, from a shoe lace to a space shuttle, we naturally attribute this remarkable ability to imprint a regional accent, to the functional operation of linguistic force, seeking to delineate physiological structure across a human fauna occupying a given territory. It follows from such a proposition that age as a measure of biomass stability, would indeed tend to increase diversity along precisely those lines recognised by Willis, in his

botanical work giving rise the Age and Area theory of evolution. Likewise, when forces are induced to act in opposition to this natural trend, as a slave biomass is corralled under one master identity for example, as when the Jews invaded Europe and made it a Christian slave territory of Judaism, via the agency of Roman military prowess, it follows that elements of the primary intensification process based directly on racial parameters, will be counterproductive to the object of the new master linguistic identity programme. So the newly enslaved population will be forced to desist from obeying the naturally operating linguistic force, that causes them to recognise different types of people via categories that mark them out as aliens, on the basis of race. Instead they will be forced to acquire a slave identity, that is Christianity, that will then act as the recipient of the natural expression of racism, making the newly acquired slave identity sacred, and all else alien ! It is from these factors of superorganic physiology that the mechanistic elements of the Christian slave identity are procured, such as moral vectors that make the object to be worshipped a peasant Lord, where the people are to see themselves as sheep served by this Lord, plus a whole host of similar linguistic mechanisms suited to the new linguistic object of racial force. The other day, today being Friday, 06 November 2009, I watched part of a programme called The 1920’s in Colour, about the archive of a Frenchman who sought to preserve a record of world culture through film and photography, the programme was a repeat. The bit that caught my attention was shot in Africa, where a Catholic priest got on famously with the natives, enabling a film crew to record voodoo worship practices. The priest recognised voodoo as a true religion, and he saw that the mode of worship lent itself to the conversion of the new found slaves of Judaism to the Catholic slave identity, because they were already trained by their native religious identity to recognise certain religious symbols in common with the Catholic identity programme, such as a male and a female divinity, and to obey a divine authority. When the man showed his wonderful material back in Paris, the true brethren of the church were horrified, and had the man punished. But for our purposes this insight into how Jews absorb none Jewish biomass via the medium of slave identity programmes, is most instructive, as I am sure you will agree. Once the Romans had severed the head from the resident Northern European superorganism, by hemming the Druids in Anglesey, and then terminating their existence, this left a decapitated biomass, ripe for implantation with the Jewish slave identity. As with the Africans in Albert Khan’s movie, this population will of been suitably trained by Celtic religious identity programmes to receive the impress of a master identity programme. This was also true after the Jews took possession of South America, via the agency of the Spanish. This natural state of preparation pertaining to civilised populations, is a product of the colonial ape’s corporate nature. Lilienfeld notes the similarity of civilisations in different parts of the world that never had any prior contact with each other, as he reaches for an expression of the science of human nature that we provide here, but he fails to grasp the physiological source of these historical realities, by failing to get to grips with the biological nature of the human animal. Following the twentieth century wars that the priesthood mounted against its own slave biomass, not for the purpose of conquest obviously, but to allow a reconstitution and invigoration of their power, that biomass has had their enslavement to their alien style identity rejuvenated. The slave attachment to Judaism had been decayed by the naturally occurring linguistic process of intensifying structural delineation over time, that occurs spontaneously in any stable human biomass, due to the action of the linguistic force that creates all social fabric. Hence the indigenous population of Europe, as Nick Griffin calls us, now, in the immediate aftermath of two world wars, constitutes a freshly enslaved population, for the purposes of this discussion, and of course Griffin wants us to be enslaved to Judaism, if he did not then the establishment would not allow the existence of his British National Party. So, because we are to all intents and purposes a freshly enslaved population, we are becoming ever more exposed to our master’s requirement not to use differentiating linguistic mechanisms, by simply following our instincts. Instead, as we are being trained to suppress

this simple expression of a natural urge, we are simultaneously being given alternate linguistic instructions to obey, that our old master’s identity programme calls ‘moral’. This indicates where moral mechanisms derive from, of the kind we are familiar with, that are highly elaborate and philosophical. And why nature produces these moral imperatives, in order to facilitate the transition from one level of superorganic being to another, from one based on simple racial linguistics, to one based on refined, complex linguistics. And we may finish our response to the above piece on English dialects, by saying that we certainly do approve of its authors discussing linguistic dynamics in terms of forces that may tend in a certain direction, while also rippling along opposite lines to that of the main flow. By identifying different modes of social identification according to a uniform model, based on linguistic force, we are able to discern the intensity of linguistic force in relation to the magnitude of the social structure that specific terminology relates to. So that we talk about the normal habit of localised terms of ‘abuse’, such as ‘Scouser’ or ‘Geordie’, which carry no major force because they relate to stable structures. But the term ‘Paki’ has an immense force, because it unites the whole of the indigenous population in contrast to the massive body of aliens imported from Asia by our masters for the express purpose of corrupting our native culture, and thereby reversing the centuries long drift away from slavery to Judaism. Thus it is possible to relate the intensity of linguistic force to the quantity and nature of the biomass it relates to, and recognise different categories of meaning accordingly. So that parochial modes of delineation, raised to a national level, become major sources of friction, that the masters organising society are perfectly willing to outlaw by means of linguistic strategies, directed by the machinery of state, or the nervous centre of the superorganic body. It is our linguistic physiology that forces us to delineate ourselves in these ways, just as it is the physiology of birds that forces them to fly and the physiology of fish that forces them to swim. Think of the fascinating way that accents deliver structure across the most minute distribution of a social body, something we have no control over, and something of real significance in our social lives, in terms of our personal sense of identity. Giving us a further proof of the presence of linguistic force, delivering superorganic form by orchestrating individuals within an exoskeletal framework.

3. Ibry updated Our criticism of Ibry’s offering on the Jewish path to atheism, is not specific to Judaism, it applies, for example, to that other famously oppressed minority, homosexuals. They too want to make their antagonism to religion a defining attribute of atheism. In these two cases, for wholly different reasons, atheism means something quite special, because of the impact of religion in the experience of these two groups, Jews and homosexuals. For Jews religion is essential, for homosexuals religion is mostly negative. These influences justify a political interpretation and representation of atheism, on a political level, as a response to the political nature of religion. But this is of no concern to us, here we are concerned only with the reality of atheism, and hence only interested in atheists who recognise atheism as an expression of reality, and wish to deal with it as such. Political consequences follow, and are very important, but first we need to know what is true, and to establish the right to know what is true, even when it is atheism that we want to promote.

Ibry’s work was exactly what we might expect of a piece of Jewish apologetics, just crass snivelling about how hard done by the Jews are. We may suppose this was a sincere expression of how Jews feel about their place in the world. Whatever, it meant that the book was for Jews only, it could not be regarded as a valid attempt to communicate with scientifically minded atheists. Skipping toward more promising material at the end, I did however finally manage to discover what the Jewish argument was for preserving Judaism, even as an atheist ! Atheist Jews based their determination to remain Jews, despite being atheists, on the classic position of all elite orders of humanity, such as monarchies. They said that Jewish history had been so profound, so important, so ancient, that it was too precious to be let go. An argument befitting the master the race, but not convincing to the radical who wants freedom from the master’s clutches. Obviously there is no sincerity about such an argument, it is the usual priestly stuff, concerned with one thing only—power. 4. Classic anti-Semitism To look back on the great upwelling of work proclaiming the Jewish master plan now, it is astounding to see so much open protest along these lines, which we should now revisit, briefly. But, just as with those examples given above, where we make the Iranian leader today the best friend Israel could ever wish for—because of his vicious, insane anti-Semitism —so we find, that wherever we look, the voices raised against Jews in the decades leading from the nineteenth century up to the outbreak of the Second World War, all these voices were also friendly to Judaism in exactly the same way. By attacking Judaism in this rabid manner, the power of Judaism in the world is stoked. This curiously inverted dynamic can be traced back to the basic physiological dynamics that we discussed above, in relation to the linguistic force causing differentiation to increase over time, so that this natural process is damned, as it were, by creating an overriding identity of social power. In effect, what we are saying, is that the power of Judaism derives from its cultural expression of linguistic force, being held back by a dam of linguistic force, realised in the expression of anti-Semitism. All of which reasoning is in perfect keeping with the idea of linguistic force building social fabric. The end result of this conception is to impart an image of Judaism existing as the ultimate linguistic dam, holding back all humanity ; from which position Jews are able to control the flow of energy coming from the whole biomass of the planet, which runs through the sluice gates of capitalism, which is focused upon the existence of the Jews. This is how important racial hatred is ! And remember, this work is about Bernard’s model of colonial evolution, which would of revealed these facts as surely as night follows day, because if scientists viewed human society as a colonial organism they would be bound to apply this kind of sweeping analysis to its history and politics. Now do you see why the world wars, the holocaust, 9/11 and the newly started global war of terror, are all as peanuts, compared to the rewards ? Not to mention the last five thousand years of history, composed mostly of tales of warfare and exploitation, all of which lead to the same end. I recently obtained a copy of The Secret Powers Behind Revolution : Freemasonry and Judaism, by Vicomte Léon de Poncins, 1929—a copy once in the library of the famous American anti-Semite Revilo Oliver—and on page ninety two, we get this : — Aim of Freemasonry. The aim of freemasonry is to change the present civilisation, which is essentially Christian, to set in its place a masonic world based on atheist rationalism.

When I read these words I thought, fabulous, I should of become a freemason a few years ago when I got the chance, sort of, or at least I met a geezer in the town’s Oxfam shop, while I was checking out the book shelves, who said he was a freemason. I said to him that freemasonry was a Christian organisation and I was an atheist, and he told me that you did not have to believe in God to be a freemason, which would seem to confirm the general idea we are coming across, that freemasonry is supposedly not a religious movement. We are however not convinced, and as far as we are concerned, it is. The proof of the pudding is to be found in the substance of freemasonry, its structure, membership and activities ; about which I know next to nothing, and care little. Even if freemasonry welcomes atheists, that does not mean it is not a Christian organisation, if only things were that simple. As we have seen, the fact is, Christianity is not even a Christian organisation, because, Christianity is in reality a Jewish organisation. Thinking about these things now, it is quite odd the things that people do. I am not a joiner of groups or parties of any kind, and I cannot even begin to comprehend the mentality of those who are, it is like trying to imagine fancying men if you are heterosexual, you just can’t do it. Intellectually you can reason about these things, but you cannot feel the mental state that a different kind of individual feels. Formal participation in groups is however not a function of personal choice or personality. In so far as it is personal, it is primarily a function of the individual’s place of origin within the physiology of the superorganism. Informal association, such as following a football team, is part of the continuum expressing colonial nature, but different from being a member of a church, political party or such like, not completely different, more a variation on a structural theme. No one chooses their general cultural form, and the special activity of becoming a freemason, or the like, can be associated with particular cultural imperatives. There is a saying that suggests what we have in mind here, “It is not what you know, but who you know.” Being placed by circumstances of birth, into the more exclusive structural elements of superorganic physiology, by going to privileged schools for example, automatically makes you a member of club, where the benefits of the saying just given, are built into your life’s package. This is the kind of set up that makes for the existence of organisations like the Freemasons, and hence, conversely, my place within the general population means I was always programmed to think of being one in common with everyone else, and never to think of seeking privilege through mechanisms of exclusivity. But these mechanisms are in any case structural, being vital to the superorganism, they have nothing to do with the individuals who become part of these structures. Who the individuals are is wholly irrelevant, all that matters is that they are there, animating the structure. It is not the people that are important, the only thing of importance in human existence is the superorganism. Of course it is from this principle that fascism arose. Hitler’s philosophy is full of expressions of this scientific principle, made real in political dogma. But the reason for this political perversion of science, is the existence of a theocracy, which would not allow science to express itself openly, causing plain scientific facts to be subverted and eventually made taboo. So that now religion remains the only way of expressing the reality of human nature as a superorganic being, in which only the superorganism matters, as embodied in the theocracy, that represents God. The lesson to learn from the induction of Nazism due to the Christian resistance to science, is that if scientists do not face up to the social consequences of their scientific insights, by taking on society, by fighting for the right to do science unhindered by religion, then in trying to do science without engaging with these concerns, they just leave the interpretation of science to the criminals, who always run our world, because we let them. Scientists, just as they must be atheists, so they must be freedom fighters too, because if you want knowledge, then you have to fight for it. Letting someone like Hitler pervert science just in order to keep humanity bound to Judaism, is the most vile crime of human existence, all the more so because this hero of our world is made a hero by being a monster. But it is all down to science, and this damnable failure to take on religion, while religion, for its part, never lets go its grip on the throat of science, for a second.

We must understand that the culmination of the perversion of science, in Hitler, due to the subversion of knowledge by religion, is only the end point in the story, the final bursting of the pustule of religious oppression. Everyone took the idea of the social organism at face value and accepted it, and hence they naturally tried to build a social model based on the reality of scientific insight, realised in this crude representation of reality, that said society was a social organism. So the scientific insight was a total failure, because it failed to destroy the core of society, the religion that rules us to this day. The only thing that science really impacts upon, when it reveals that there is no such thing as a person, that there is only the superorganism, is religion. And no one, not a single person so much as even thought about this, as far as we can tell. Even in Bernard’s case, it would seem the great man himself, despite presenting the first ever genuine theory of evolution to world, ends up presenting his ideas in a popular form, under the banner of a political scheme. The real social culmination of his ideas ought to of been expressed in an atheistic attack upon religion, exactly as we provide here and elsewhere. When we say “It is not the people that are important, the only thing of importance in human existence is the superorganism.” we are stating a simple scientific fact, just like saying “The earth is not stationary, it is spinning.” In ancient times people argued that the earth could not be in motion because if it were, all would be chaos. But this is not so. When the idea of the social organism became accepted, people responded as if this meant we no longer possessed a sense of individuality. Herbert Spencer, the great prophet of the social organism, killed off his own idea, as Roberts says of Spencer in Bio-Politics, because he was horrified at what his insights meant for individuality. This reaction is crazy, it is a total misapprehension of the meaning of true knowledge. The first thing to understand about reality, is that it does not change just because our ideas of it change. But this is a very hard lesson to learn, simply because, as individuals, we are just too thick to be able to comprehend such an excruciatingly profound idea. We give the appearance of being clever critters because, like parrots, we can repeat anything we hear, but that is pretty much as far as it goes. So that, even the great intellectuals, who fashion knowledge, seem only to be stitching a quilt for a mind, and are incapable of getting the hang of what it is they are really doing. The realisation that humans are colonial apes is a recognition of reality, it does not mean that we suddenly become mindless, in some startling sense, we remain exactly as we have always been. This knowledge does however give us an opportunity to approach our world differently. Firstly it allows us to understand how our world has been created through the medium of religion, so that we can understand religion in its fine detail, as a purely functional linguistic product. Thus armed, we can rewrite the linguistic programme, extracting the crude religious elements, while taking our cues from the way nature has achieved a social end through religion. Or that is the kind of subtle response we could give to the scientific revelation of human nature. But this kind of response is barred to us if religion hangs on, as it has. And this is why the realisation of the meaning of the insight that humans are superorganisms, was thwarted, and its functional product emerged in a crude, erroneous and dangerous form. Always keen to pull works from the million books project, I have been busy during the last fortnight doing just that. One title I hit upon recently looks to me to be the best, if not the only work I have ever seen, that almost discusses the war between religion and science from an atheist, or rationalist viewpoint. The Churches and Modern Thought, by Philip Vivian, 1906, is published by Watts, one of the few dedicated rationalist publishers ever to of existed in Britain, and it asks just the kind of questions implicit in the argument we present, concerning the war between religion and science. It falls seriously short of a true study of this ongoing conflict, as far as I can see from glancing at the digital copy taken just last week, but it does ask important questions derived from the idea of this conflict, where science might be presumed to destroy religion, such as section three of the conclusion, Should the Truth be Told ? But overall, this book constitutes classic modern atheism, where rationalists shape

their atheism in direct response to religious ideas. Not until I put pen to paper has the world ever seen any true atheistic writing, of a positive kind, wherein religion is explained in none religious terms. Certainly much guff has been produced based on psychological assumptions, where individual motives serve as the basis for religious belief, but this approach is ludicrous, and obviously a product of priestcraft. Poncins’ book is a classic piece of anti-Semitism, and it is, as can be gauged from the brief quote above, a Christian diatribe. I usually use World Revolution : The Plot Against Civilisation, by Nesta Webster, 1921, to illustrate the fact that anti-Semitism is a Christian duty, but it is nice to have a new volume to select from, the more examples the merrier. And there are plenty more in the same vein. Likewise, an equal mass of literature has been pumped out on the opposite side. I was using a bibliography in one such work about Judaism last night, to pull down as many books on the Jewish Question as I could find on the Million Books Project, there were quite a few. As I placed them in a folder I glanced at some of the more promising looking works, and found that the Jewish riposte to the Christian anti-Semite took precisely the same mode as we find in the puerile, but all too deadly tiff, going on in the Middle East today. Both parties act like they are playing a game : stags locking horns in the rutting season. One thing is for sure, there is no reason to these arguments, no factual debate, these are formulaic battles, postures, political tussles of an animal kind. All such arguments obey the Golden Rule of conforming to one message, and thus all head, ultimately, toward one eventual outcome, Jewish domination of all humanity, in the end. Because none break with the foundation stone upon which Judaism rests. Only by diverging from that foundation stone—which requires organicist science—can the viability of Judaism be brought to an end, thus causing the world to evolve according to a new, non Jewish imperative. Judaism is the centre of all things because Judaism is the core identity of the superorganism we are all part of. It might seem like we have drifted from our subject, that your guide is just mounting his atheist hobbyhorse once again, and ranting on and on, laboriously. So lets get back to where we started, which is the absence of attention paid to religion, and the religious consequences of genuine science applied to humans. As we encroach upon this topic we enter a minefield of debate, which is made real by the actual consequences that arise from that debate. In Britain today we have laws against freedom of expression, that are a reaction to the consequences of discussing these types of questions. For these sorts of reasons we can understand why it is that scientists like Bernard and Willis did not take their reasoning to its natural conclusion, in their promulgation of unconventional science. But unfortunately, to avoid the natural culmination of their reasoning, is simply to avoid science itself, as we can see from a book like Human by Nature, which makes a virtue of obeying taboos fashioned by Nazis, serving as an excuse for not doing real science, and then pretending the science they do, is still, somehow real ! Conversely, this failure of professional scientists to take science to its natural conclusion, shows just why making mayhem is an essential tool of the state, aiding the theocracy’s effort to control knowledge by suppressing science. We have to remember the key principle of superorganic beings : there is no such thing as an individual existing as an end in themselves. The corollary of which, is that the only human organism is the superorganism. So that all things common to human existence exist in order to serve a function in the physiology of the superorganism. It follows that the directing force of nature, that creates all elements of human existence, is focused upon the superorganism as the sole end point of human existence. So for those people who love to ask the inane questions, What are we here for—Why do we exist, or What is existence all about ? There you go, I have answered your question, we sentient organisms exist to create the mindless object that is the human superorganism. End of story.

Really, this alternate conception of human social being, is identical in its contrariness to the struggle between the geocentric idea which ruled among the ancients, and the heliocentric model now accepted by us moderns. The superorganism is the equivalent of the sun, the individual is the equivalent of the planet. The superorganism is the centre about which all individuals orbit, but the model forced upon us by the theocracy, says that each individual is a sun in their own right, that ‘just happens’ to be drawn into a common orbit with their fellow suns, that results in a unifying and empowering social order ! Note the role of chance in this ludicrous model, that is imposed upon us by the academic world today, and understand from this, why Darwin made the model of life a product of pure chance. Because this ensures there can be no continuous link established between all natural forces, and destroys any possibility of generating reason in emulation of the unified forces of nature. Indicating what corrupt, nasty, degenerate minds, our most honourable ones have. Our heliocentric social model, that makes all individuals subservient to the superorganism, tells us that all aspects of human nature, such as the ubiquitous urge to differentiate between ourselves and others, which is so intense that it produces racial forms that make us appear to be different kinds of animals, is a function of the colonial ape’s superorganic nature, racial instinct is not an expression of personal inclination. Where we see deliberate efforts being made toward suppressing this racialising urge, as in anti-racist laws or multicultural agendas, these are movements feeding off racism, but doing so by working in the opposite direction from racial affirmation. Such antiracist forces are made the basis of racist power by the evolution of identity packages based on language, that we know as religions, which find their form in a text, rather than the flesh, plus cultural symbols of religious identity. It follows from what we are saying, that racism is essentially a tool of the modern state. Racism was first employed by Christian European states, and its opposite expression is now used by the same states as a means of attacking indigenous European populations, that the priesthood want to change back into solidly based religious entities, by introducing massive numbers of Muslims into the fabric of the European biomass. Along with a smattering of alternate identity forms, all based on textual fabric rather than flesh. The state loves to conflate these two primary features of identity, the racial and the linguistic, in order to give more potency to the Islamic identity, that all European people feel a natural, intense hatred for. Obviously hating a religion is not racism, the very idea is ludicrous, nothing could be more natural and good from a modern European perspective than hating religion, any religion—such hatred is the essence of what makes European people modern—but that does not stop the law in Britain saying that the expression of such hatred is a crime, and of course the main reason for the world wars was to push Europe back into the dark ages, and a great success they have been. The addition of minor religious elements helps create a viable social alloy, fashioned through wilful acts of war, alternating with a contrived imposition of alien laws, laws against free speech, and laws giving special rights to aliens. Yesterday, 02/10/2009, the news announced that a Sikh police officer in Manchester was awarded £10,000 for being asked to take his rag off his head during riot training. This idiot said that his religion forbade him removing his head bandage in public ! The man is rendered idiotic by his religion. Sick, too sick for words. Who cares what some primitive, stupid religious formula says ? To hell with it. Makes me mad. Meanwhile, here are we, the true inheritors of British history, the British people proper, and we are barred from access to true knowledge. Our science is a perverted mess of garbage, and all our political leaders are religious bigots and religious fascists of the first order. To hell with them all. State support for Sikhism is sick. Who wants to see people on the streets of Britain parading their symbols of religious fascism ! I do not want to look at a police officer with a turban on his head and be obliged to treat him with respect, it is an insult to my intelligence to expect me to do so, and a degradation of my secular culture. The fact is that the turban is

religious regalia, out of place in modern society, in European society, and if these aliens are to be forced upon us they should give way to modern values. But no, that is not what happens, modern values, hard fought for, are trashed in honour of far higher slave values, of harmony and love for each other, so that racism can be remade in a higher form. State support for any religion is depraved, but the theocracy is rubbing our noses in it when it supports the right of people to wear blankets on their head, in official positions, something which applies equally to the Muslim female headgear, and worse. These dress codes are pseudo racial symbols, nothing more and nothing less. Modern religion steals the power of racial identity by breaking with race, through the abstraction of identity by means of linguistic symbolism. Then religion so formed, recapitulates the race making process of differentiation, while adhering to the Golden Rule of social power. First we homogenise, then we heterogenise. This is the power of life, the process of evolution made manifest. So that all resulting religious forms are evolved in obedience to the one idea, that of a religious text, by proliferating variations on a textual theme, which then imparts its racial power through symbols added to the body through cultural action, rather than genetic variation. The cultural deposition of linguistic symbolism, or creation of form via linguistic force, reinforces the textual link between the linguistic programme imprinted upon the brains of the slaves attached to the religious order, arising from the creation of a text block designed to impart social identity to a biomass. These founding identity text blocks are always associated with some prophet, as in the standard Jewish formula, sometimes historical and sometimes pure fiction. In many ways this is a wonderful example of biological evolution, but not when you are stuck in the middle of it, and sucked down a vortex of primitive stupidity, when you thought yourself better than such animality. When I see the token Sikh on television, I always think what a plonker he looks, and how obscene it is that such people are being rammed down our throats by the priests who hate a free society, who think we are morons they can treat with contempt, and who will not tolerate freedom in any form. But the multicultural alloy is a highly robust compound, in terms of law making strategies, aimed at controlling and farming huge masses of people. It can be defended on fabricated principles of justice, that are rendered in the form of multiculturalism, as law makers argue for inclusion and tolerance. How do we go against that ? By demanding the right to hate good, intelligent, hard working people, who happen to come from other cultures and want to be left in peace to continue to follow the sacred rules of their homeland ? Quite, the defenders of freedom are screwed every time by the realities of religious oppression. But again, as we said regarding the modern Jewish power of taboo, set against legitimate critiques of Judaism, these antiracist laws owe their power to the Nazis, to Hitler and the evil perpetrated by Christian states placed in the hands of such monsters, for just long enough to fashion this lode stone of power, ready for the Christian hegemony to utilise in the modern era, as it has proceeded to do, relentlessly. In this way the priests have destroyed our free, atheist world, and recovered their slave, Jewish world. The important thing to keep in mind when thinking about the state, is that the state is not made by humans, it is made by nature. Therefore many activities of the state are bound to appear disgusting, insane and malicious to individuals. We see this in the way the state uses racism, first one way, then the other. If we ask why the government complains that its biggest expenditure is on benefits, and all the while it draws huge numbers of immigrants inward, to take all the jobs residents will not do, we have to understand that these outcomes are not dictated by human reason and purpose, but rather they are dictated by natural forces to do with the formation of living physiology, realised in a human superorganism. Likewise, the same applies when it comes to the nanny state as discussed on today’s The Big Questions on BBC 1, Sunday, 04 October 2009. Two police women, single mothers, were on the show and I just caught the end of their statement, about how they had been forced to give up

looking after each others children because they were not professionally qualified carers. The story had been reported recently so I had the gist of it already. The audience moaned about the ingress of law into personal areas of authority. Between them they raised a number of the central issues relevant to the debate. But there was no scientific dimension, no professional sociologist, nor any philosopher spoke. Obviously no professional sociologist could be of any use here, because they are programmed by their training to think individuals are ends in themselves, and therefore people make the state, and pass all its laws. But the key factor to understand when discussing these excruciating conundrums, concerning why the state acts so robotically, is that the human superorganism is driven towards its growth via a force that relentlessly acts in one direction, and one direction only : this unidirectionality gives a fair meaning of the word force. Treating the previous work’s presentation, How Religion Survived, as a preliminary to the philosophical ideas expressed here—now supported by the root stock of solid science provided by Bernard—as a statement already elaborated, we can say that we have established the point that we regard the Jews as the true master race. Although this status is obvious from many familiar facts of history and ongoing reality, it is still a tricky idea to pin down and to be categorical about. But using the powerful concepts introduced into our thinking by Bernard’s model of evolution, where the basic principle involves the evolution of a higher order of physiological complexity realised in a state of homogenous order, that then disperses through the environment in a heterogeneous profusion, all acting under the impress of the original state of homogeneity which gave the new burst of heterogeneity its beginning, we can say that what this ‘master race’ status applied to Judaism means, expressed in the abstract terminology of science, is that the Jewish culture is the realisation of the homogenous condition, from which all cultural forms that exist today, have been derived. Don’t get confused about ancient cultures such as that of China, by thinking it evolved separately. China had a long and independent past, but communism inducted China into the Jewish fold sixty years ago, and now this induction is coming to fruition as China converts into a full blooded Jewish slave structure, by going capitalist. We make this point about Judaism’s status as the homogenous progenitor of all social form today, because herein it is implied that a force has allowed this status to perform a unifying function, as social structure has been grown according to a set pattern, as Judaism captured all the people of the earth, by bringing them into the orbit of its culture, and hence condensing all human biomass on earth into one global, superorganic form. From this it follows that there is a far bigger agenda active in the behaviour of state systems, something way beyond the knowledge of any human, or group of humans, always forcing states to evolve according to a fixed pattern. And this force is the ultimate directive source of all that states do, whether it is erupting into bouts of murderous racial hatred, or graduating into periods of beneficent paternalism, or insidious lordship. The driving force determining the outcome of all conflicts and contradictions is, What does this conflict mean for the growth of the Jewish superorganism, and its path toward total domination of the universe ? Thinking big now. The old chestnut that priests liked to roast when faced with organicist ideas a century or more ago, asked how a social organism could be a reality, when it must be insentient. And here we have the audacity to say that even the most immediate, personal and direct actions of politicians, are not actually the conscious actions of the individuals who perform them ! What on earth can we be thinking ? The solution to this conundrum is perfectly simple, the problem is that the solution derives from atheist science, and without doing so, it cannot be derived at all. The whole point of Judaism attaining master status, by serving as a homogenous foundation for later diversification, is that the Jewish cultural formula delivers a programme of superorganic formation and growth. So that the Jews maintain the programme by being Jews, and as elaborations bud off from Judaism, giving rise to Christendom and Islam, the same core

programming is passed on from one primary structure to another. Consequently, the Christian and the Muslim, in their turn, by acting in obedience to the imperatives of their creed, compliment the Jewish programme from which they originate, and to which they are still intimately, and irredeemably connected. So that without thinking, they automatically follow ‘God’s will’, and deliver outcomes that serve as the expression of the superorganic being’s sentience, even though this being, taken as a whole body, has no sentience independent of that expressed by individuals, of any kind whatsoever. This argument practically means the word ‘sentience’ is an illusion, like the word ‘God’. Sentience refers to something real, but its meaning does not reveal the reality of that which it names. And as weird as this conclusion might seem, the fact is that Bernard’s account of colonial evolution ought to lead to similar conclusions about all life, wherein sentience is deemed to be dispersed throughout the organism, perceived as a colonial entity, even when we come to higher orders of being, such as mammals. This sort of emphatic and all embracing account of human nature, does beg the question, What are we to do then ? As if we may as well do nothing, and what will be, will be. But to respond this way is not sensible. The point of science is that it reveals reality, it does not change it. By revealing the true nature of human existence we learn that certain parameters of our existence are required, such as a programme delivering social order. From that understanding we are enabled to devise secular models and programmes, thus advancing our ability to live lives that are informed by our consciousness, because we know what the purpose of consciousness is in reality. This ought to make it possible for us to rid ourselves of the more damaging aspects of the naturally engendered programme, that requires racial hatred, and such like phenomena, in order to do its constructive work by breaking down order, prior to re-establishing order on the same footing, but with a slightly different form. We demolish before we rebuild, because that is what nature makes us do. 5. Big brother The last point we need to bring to mind now, a slightly unnerving thought, it has to be said, is that we live in a world that has recently undergone a revolutionary transformation of an unparalleled kind. We are so close to this revolutionary transformation that we are not able to see its effects, although it has been commented upon extensively for several decades now. The previous manifestation of the revolution we have in mind, was the industrial revolution, which radically changed the way we live. The debate in the Big Question forum today, broached this topic. A lady defending increased involvement of the state in the most intimate aspects of our personal lives, someone who earned her living from such intrusion, said that the world had changed in one generation, so that while her mother spent two weeks in hospital after giving birth, now a mother is sent home after a couple of days, lost, alone and afraid, left in the thick of her ignorance. Traditional support systems are no longer present, women are supposed to work as men do, and so on. These conditions are the unfolding aftermath of the industrial revolution, still playing out in major ways, after two centuries of drastic change. But the industrial revolution has shifted exponentially, through the coming of the technological age, which is turning into an information age. The point being that, as all human artifice delivers exoskeletal form to the superorganism, whether it be a flint hand axe or a space shuttle, there is no difference in this essential regard, so, with the ability to produce exoskeletal structure mimicking the nervous tissue of a somatic organism, the coming of a superorganic form that really is integrated as intensely and as completely as a somatic organism, is simply waiting to be realised. And such a scenario bodes ill for what we today call individuality. And it is this, the power of the state to interfere through its ability to tag everyone, thanks to information technology, namely intelligent tools, that is computers, it is

this which is driving the creation of laws of the kind people are looking at in bemusement, while looking on dumfounded, unable to say anything but “What !!” Empowered by technology the state has to use this power, it has no choice. The state is made by nature, and this technology is made by nature. Nature cannot be expected to step back and take into consideration the misgivings of some primitive object that it evolved over a 100,000 years ago to act as a unit of superorganic being. The impact of this new exoskeletal potential is being seen everywhere. The ability to track vehicle tax, now extended to insurance, means new laws of an unbelievably swingeing kind have been brought in whereby vehicles are taken away and destroyed. Genetic profiles are already a big subject. The threat of identity cards looms over us, and for no reason other than the fact that the technology exists to allow them to be made real, and the power this gives the state to interfere in our lives ; although the fabulous joy of global terrorism, only possible due to the vitality of racial hatred, is the ticket used by the priests to force this issue upon us. We already live in a world ruled by surveillance cameras, something people thought impossible a decade or so ago. Criminals are policed by being tagged. The potential of information technology is only a few years old and already it is rampant, and we ain’t seen nothing yet. The individual, so called, will be a very different thing in just one century’s time. There was a report this week about how babies born today will stand a good chance of living to be a century old ; big deal, Who cares ? But have we had any similar insights about how babies born a century hence will have no concept of individuality, will not understand the meaning of the word privacy, and indeed the word may no longer be part of the English language by then ? And how we are powerless to stop this happening. Of course we haven’t. All the while there will be those who promote these changes, like the professional parental trainer on TV today. There are always excuses. But the changes will be determined by one thing, and one thing only, the force of growth delivering an ever greater superorganic form. Wherever decisions are to be made, Do we enable an alien to wear weird clothing even when it conflicts with our normal uniforms of authority, or do we maintain our social values and order ? There can only be one outcome : religion trumps sanity and decency defined by national culture and sentiment, because the wearing of religious symbols is crucial to the constitution of the Jewish superorganism. This is about the superorganism, not the person. The individual Sikh happens to benefit, this can be represented as a personal triumph for him, but it is not, he is a tool of the superorganism that has brought him here to serve exactly this biological function, to impart control to the social biomass, via the medium of Jewish religious form. We have noted when talking about Herbert Spencer, how the scientific revelation of the social organism eventually brought home the undeniable fact that there is no such thing as an individual, existing as an end in themselves, which caused a reaction against science, that reaffirmed social authority vested in the individual, so that ideologically, the state was made to serve the individual, and not the other way about, as reality proves it to be. So it is very strange that since it is religion that really steals our individuality, this we do not mind at all. The reason being that religion takes possession of us at the subliminal level of consciousness, formed by the acquisition of our native language. As a consequence it is fair to say that we love life only when in a complete state of blissful ignorance. And this is how the future will pan out regarding the shrinking of that which is so precious today, our personal autonomy in the matter of our intimate affairs, as the state robs us of our last atoms of freedom, tomorrow. Of course it is true that the disappearance of the supportive fabric of times so recently bygone, has left people lost in terms of essential knowledge about how to manage their lives. But who destroyed the social fabric ? The state of course. It was the state that licensed the bulldozing of tight knit communities, and still bullies people into leaving their beloved terrace homes, and transfers them to other places inherently hostile to an intimate, supportive community network. The state facilitated the building of high rise flats, the bane of working class society. Now they pretend that this was done to help people live in better conditions,

and it was an unforeseen tragedy that these places became evil hell holes. What kind of idiot would think you can put poor people in high rises buildings—battery hen cages—and not produce a soulless mass of people ? It allowed the train network, an inherently social network, to be destroyed so that the inherently anti-social private car, could take the world by storm. The consequence of which, was deeply corrosive of traditional society, as it allowed supermarkets to replace local, privately owned shops, and led to the loss of public houses on mass, and all this sort of cleansing readjustment. All of which disempowers the individual, by creating centralised corporations, that facilitate centralised government. Once again, pulling from a number of different directions, we see that the force creating superorganic form, moves only in one direction. But the knowledge of this social change is wrapped up in lies about how people make their world, and how sad it is that some good things are lost, and how important it is that now the people vote for changes so that the government can fill the void where social structure has, tragically, disappeared ! And we, thick idiots that we are, buy this line. It is easy to claim that the private car empowers the individual, and I certainly love having a car, but that does not alter the fact that it empowers the process of centralisation, far more. The government outlaws smoking, Why ? What business is it of the state’s if people want to smoke ? We are property, cattle, and we are farmed by the state, so the cost in illness due to cancer, because of the state funded health service, makes the bureaucrat think they have the right to pass laws to force us not to cause them this unnecessary expense. And that is it, and that is all of it. The state does not give a toss about any individual’s well being, although it pretends to. Of course they concoct lies to make their fascism seem good, they say that most people who smoke want to give up ! Ha, they say whatever they want. Lets spin the dice and see where this effect on well being gets us, as an expression of state motivation. We have already indicated that the coalescence of social infrastructure is allowed to go any way big business wants it to go, and to hell with where that takes communities. But there are two major social issues rattling our brains in recent years. Obesity and binge drinking, with all its associated grief. These problems are of recent origin, Where did they come from ? The answer is blindingly obvious, though in a million hours of debate and coverage you’ll not see the truth hinted at, or hardly ever. Obesity is due entirely to the structural changes in society. I happen to favour the idea that it is the way feeding ourselves has been reduced to an industrial process, where the supermarkets become as feeding troughs. Where the only thing that matters is how to feed us most efficiently, so that processed food is made available because that serves the corporate machines making and supplying our feed, and we have no choice but to eat what we find in our troughs—the supermarkets. Although, as ever, a huge ongoing wave of propaganda makes out that we are the decision makers, and the ‘service providers’ are just that—service providers. Imagine if farm animals could talk our language, what would we tell them about the reason they live in farms ? That’s right, we would tell them what we get told ourselves. Does that tell you anything ? No, I thought not. There was a programme mentioned last week, today being Sunday, 08 November 2009, about some bloke who thinks that supermarkets have arranged for food to be produced in ways convenient to themselves, and he is asking, Does this mean they have compromised on the quality of our food ? This is so insane a question it is revolting to here it even being asked. You may as well say that car manufactures have lobbied for more roads, but does more roads mean less land without roads on it !! This is the crap we get beamed at us on TV. Never have I heard supermarkets as elements of the social fabric blamed, in principle, for the lifestyle problems we all face today. The subject is broken up, the problem of couch potato lifestyles lived by individuals sat in front of the TV, or at the computer, is made paramount. The supermarkets and their suppliers are brought into the picture in terms of how they might label foods to show sugar and fat content, so that we, the real powerhouse in this

world, can make the choices we need to, in order to stop ourselves falling victim to our own propensity toward idleness. In other words, the emphasis must always preserve the idea of the individual as an end in themselves, but not so crudely as to forget to mention the real power in all of this, the corporate machine. So, the bottom line is, that obesity, a huge problem the state wants to solve, was created by the state, as the ultimate guardian of social order. But the officers of the state do not see that, and nor do we. So what of the pisshead problem ? Our traditional way of drinking has been smashed to pieces since the end of the last world war. Brewery amalgamations not only alter the localisation of authority vested in the social infrastructure, smashing it and transferring social power over our communities, and all our lives, to a tiny number of capitalists, it has the same impact on what we drink as we have just noted with regard to what we are fed. As shops became supermarket feeding troughs, so pubs have become nothing more than drinking troughs. We are fed piss, and so we become pissheads. But there are a number of related structural factors surrounding this problem, all of which have been created by one thing, and one thing only—the state. And now, having trashed our social world, the state is livid at the result, and it wants to attack us anyway it can, to stop our delinquent behaviour. This is like delinquency induced by bad parenting, occurring on a national scale, because we are being parented badly by a nanny state that is abusive and evil. There is just one subtle but telling point I would like to make about the chaos regarding drinking disorder, violence and young people drinking on the streets. Bearing in mind I have lived my life in the public houses of England, so I have some idea what I am talking about. It use to be that we started drinking in a local pub well before the legal age, in my case at fourteen, where we just had a couple of pints and a game of arrows. This is a pattern applying everywhere, but it was stamped on a dozen plus years ago, as the law was suddenly enforced rigidly, and hence the kids appeared on the streets. Despite all the drivel talked on this subject, I have only ever seen this enforcement of the law mentioned as a causative factor, if I remember rightly, by Terry Christian on the Wright Stuff, earlier this year. Christian, a Mancunian, is famous as a former presenter of youth culture, so he, like me, would know about these subtleties of our drinking life, from the inside. This grey area, which tolerated underage drinking in pubs, allowed adolescents to grow through a process of initiation into adulthood. Allowing them to do things which only adults were allowed to do, before they were adult, which we all know is one of the spices of life for a young person at this transitional stage of life. This allows them to make trouble, without making trouble—by this process of induction, social custom demonstrates the art of fighting, so to speak, without fighting, whereby teenage rebelliousness is accommodated, rather than attacked—and thus the child learns to feel the privileges of adulthood, and so, before they know it, they become guardians of adult values, and hence emergent adults, instead of delinquent antagonists of something they have never been given the opportunity to feel the meaning of. Obviously the ability to work an informal system like this required a traditional pub system, where a landlord had real authority. Rather than the industrial commercial system, which is our social world today, run by salaried managers and minimum wage kids, all of whom know nothing and care less, because they are simply there to channel huge amounts of money from the cattle, to engorge the infinitely extendable pockets of bankers, and such like elite filth, of our capitalist world. A system that channels money, also channels authority in the same direction. Rights of passage are something we associate with tribal life, but in this case we find some kind of remnant of them in modern civilisation, but not anymore. The bastards that farm us have found ways to pour acid on the social fabric, cleansing it of all such subtleties of dispersed authority, vested in the amorphous fabric of society. Surely there is nothing as horrific to the state as the very notion of ‘amorphous authority’ ; the idea smacks of a stateless world, hints that such a thing was once, and could be again. If only ! And this is why our society is sanitised and inhuman today, as far as I am concerned. There is no place

for subtlety in law, and as the law squeezes ever tighter about our throats, this means there is no place for subtlety in our lives, as our humanity is rung from our bleached, yet still breathing carcasses. But nothing can be done about this. This is what Jews evolved to bring into being, the maximal potential of human nature to produce a superorganism, and that is what Jews do, just by being Jews : a dispossessed alien order, from which all such alien order as we have been describing, derives today. At the heart of all this soulless oppression, is religion, because Jews are a material expression of linguistic force, made manifest in religion. The state facilitates the destruction of society because that is how state power is increased, that is the capitalist programme written into the Jewish culture, unfolding in full bloom, since the modern era began a few centuries ago. The state, we may say is a machine, but in truth it is a physiological entity. It has a structure which predetermines all of its activity, the activity runs on, it picks up sensory data in terms of feedback, which lets it know how things are going, and then it reacts to the effects of its own actions. So the destruction of social infrastructure leading to its reorganisation in more impersonal, user unfriendly ways, is superorganic physiology doing its own thing. Then, the inevitable feedback revealing social dysfunction and personal disarray, tells the brain-state that something is wrong and it must take measures to force the biomass into a state of harmonisation with the new conditions which have caused the problem. No, the state, the powers that be, screw up society, then attacks the individual, to make them conform to the screw up. So the bad behaviour, the obesity, the drunkenness and such like, these are good things, just like war or terrorism or racial hatred, these are levers that empower the state to force people to come into line with the structural reformations that allow society to be farmed ever more closely. It serves no purpose to think about the true cause of the problem, which is capitalism, and ultimately Judaism, or even human nature, if you prefer. The show must go on, and there is only one road to follow, the road to Jewish nirvana, the total domination of all earth, under one God, the God of the Jews. I am sure I raised the subject of stealing social authority from lesser bodies, and garnering it to the centralised social structures elsewhere. It is a process that would seem to be at the centre of the process of modernisation, as we know it in the modern era. I would suggest the notorious land grabbing enclosures of the eighteenth century are a classic case in point. Also, whenever the topic of clearing the Scottish Highlands of its indigenous crofters comes up, as it often does in history programmes, people who lived independent lives fishing and such like, who were forced from their homesteads by the Lords of the estate, in order to raise sheep, I think this again is a blatant example of cultural cleansing, aimed at the same purpose or clearing pockets of independent life, in order to leave all people dependant upon modes of living that suit the management systems of which the state structure is composed. Sticking closely to the official line however, the historians always present this history as the product of individuals motivated by greed, or taken with mistaken ideas about how life on their lands would be improved. This is individualism showing itself as a vital ploy in the priests armoury, serving to disempower people by misrepresenting history as always beneficent, even when it is anything but. And conversely, showing how absolutely vital the preservation of individualism is to the preservation of power as we know it, because it is the basis of all deception, and hence why the true organicist science of the nineteenth century, which allows us to talk as we do here and still make sense of things seemingly senseless, could not be tolerated. The forces of the state operate on a generational time scale, and if you want to know what the agenda is, you must learn to think on such a time scale too. At the heart of all social processes is the move to disempower the individual, because the authority vested in the individual is real, existing as a packet of social energy. If the individual can be dispossessed of authority, in any way, then this leaves a latent source of potential energy that the state can take possession of, and then return to society in a modulated form, over which it then has

control. The creation of supermarkets where once there were shops is a perfect example of this. In the case of pubs it is only because of the coalescing of breweries into giant corporations that laws such as the recently imposed law against smoking could be imposed upon us. Fools think this is good because smoking is bad, but they miss the big picture, which then reveals itself in the absurd way reported on TV today, where two women are forced to hand their children over to state sanctioned institutions, rather than look after them themselves. It is all part of the same process, and it is limitless, there is no end to it. It is perfectly feasible that in five centuries time people will live in a world so technologically empowered that the government will dictate all births, all rearing, all breeding, all careers, and so on down to the most minute details, as if we were all living on a space ship like the Starship Enterprise, run by a captain, where the whole world was an artificial domain, where what we call freedom now, would simply have no meaning to the slaves of that time. But, it has to be said, they would no more know their loss, than we know ours today. That is evolution for you. If this argument on the loss of individual authority were to be appraised by the public, it would draw plenty of argument claiming the opposite to be true, that people today had more individual freedom. This may be so, it is debatable. But ‘freedom’, in a discussion of this kind, is not the same as ‘authority’. Note, the crucial point about this process of garnering authority, is that the state first deprives, and then returns authority. In the process the state modulates authority so that conformity reigns, and it is the conformity of action across a population that represents the power of the state. And of course, in the capturing of all sources of knowledge, which are then redistributed in a homogenised form, the state organised control of knowledge is just one part of this social modulating process, which has given us Darwinism as its greatest act of subversion of personal authority. Forcing us all to conform to a major lie, in order to retain harmony with the main medium of conformity, which is identity, provided by religious knowledge. Put like this, the regulation of behaviour is akin to a tax system where authority is the medium of value, rather than money. Such a system is incredibly invasive of personal life. A tax system is taken for granted these days, but history tells us how resentful people were of the tax collector in former times. Tax collecting is an invasive system that has lost its acid effect today because the world has become shaped by the acid of invasion inherent in taxation, so much so as to leave no aberrant pockets of resistance. Now, when we find ourselves likening the advance of law into the most intimate nuances of our personal lives, such that we discover the same dynamic as that modelled by a tax system, but now focused on personal authority, we discover something significant, whereby the mechanisms of superorganic growth have shifted from tax-materialism accretion, to an authority-essence system of accretion. It is clear that a tax system targets material wealth, and I am not sure what equivalent attribute the system garnering personal authority can be said to target, I might use the word ‘spirit’ or ‘soul’, if these terms were not fraught with religious overtones, so I choose ‘essence’, meaning the essence of being is what the state has now learnt to take from us, and hand back in a nice mellow form. When we talk this way about our world, a very strange simile in the world of our insect fellows comes to mind, creatures like the honey bee, the termite and the leaf cutter ant. These creatures manufacture a food that does not otherwise exist, and then share it out in common. Why do they do that, do you suppose ? With the above reflection on the true nature of our social world, where we find the idea of garnering authority inherent in the existence of discrete individuals, followed by the return feeding of that authority back to all, in an homogenised form, thus making a central, colonial authority a reality, therein we find a precise emulation of our social behaviour occurring in other colonial species. Shock horror, imagine saying that our fancy social world, with all its morality and high mindedness, is about nothing more than what these lowly creatures do in their nests simply in order to obtain

social order ! What these insects are doing when they reduce their eating habits to one uniform food, is effectively unifying the authority of all related individuals, to make superorganism the sole repository of authority, or as we would say, of social power. And once we have gone that far in our reasoning, given the above discussion on modern modes of food manufacture and supply, we suddenly find ourselves becoming scarily like our cousins in the insect world. This is why we colonial apes are forced to rely on processed food that we hate, and that harms us, but all the while we are forced by all available means to consume what is manufactured for us. Yesterday, 08/11/2009, I watched a new Time Team, or one I had not seen before, of a dig on Bodmin Moor, Cornwall. They dug a 500 yard processional walkway and some houses. They explained that the area had been forested, but clearing in the Bronze Age, some 4,000 to 6,000 years ago had cleared the land of trees and made the soil acid, so that since then it had been good for nothing. The usual desertification process wreaked upon a landscape by the colonial ape species. They talked about the construction of this impressive monument, the walkway, leading up to a nearby peak, in personal terms about what these people felt awe inspired by, but imagine if scientists who actually understood their subject, the colonial ape, produced these programmes, instead of ignorant people who, aside from the techniques of archaeology, know nothing whatever of the nature of their subject ! How extraordinary would that be, atheist scientists would explain all such behaviour in terms of the dynamics of colonial ape physiology, seen in terms of superorganic being. The building of ritual structures would be seen for what they are, just like their equivalents that occur, completely independently, all over the surface of the planet. They would be seen as the material manifestation of human corporate nature, the equivalent of which occurs today in grand shows like the Olympics, a secular occasion of great ceremony and fanfare, that invites all the segments of the Jewish global monster to come and share together, in a spectacle so boring and meaningless to individuals, but just what the superorganism ordered. 6. Homosexuality The shifting of authority away from individuals and toward a core authority is revealed starkly in the modern insistence that we must all think correctly, or else. The shift in presented as a defence of the integral individual from the amorphous masses, but it is nothing of the sort. It is the realisation of a core authority, that defines an exclusive priesthood which manages its own identity on the basis of identity dynamics that colonial apes generate spontaneously, as they create in and out categorisations to form a superorganic physiology. Last night’s Newsnight on BBC 2, 06/10/2009, visited the Tory conference in Manchester, and they had some famous queer git on the show because the Queer mob have boycotted the attempts of the Conservatives to come out all gay friendly, while at the same time associating themselves with European parties that hate queers. The actor Stephen Fry said that being nice to queers was all that the people of Britain cared about, and the Tories should recognise this. Gay rights is a major channel for linguistic force, imposing conformity on us today. This is a very interesting subject from a sociological point of view, because once we have recognised that humans are superorganisms and there must be a master organ, homosexuality is an obvious focus of attention, along with Judaism, such that we might make homosexuality the precursor of Judaism. So the topic fits well in a chapter on the importance of racial hatred, as it too involves pro and anti reversals concentrated within the core organ of social power, such that it engenders a screw effect operating within the core of the biomass, driving the whole superorganism along a given path. From this we derive an idea as to how sources of contention emerge from the genetically induced fabric of the biomass, to provide motive power for the state to impose uniformity on our minds, in a process of garnering authority to itself. The point being that homosexuality defines an exclusive identity in

exactly the same way as religion does, thereby spontaneously creating an exclusive priesthood within the biomass that wants power in its own name. One thing of great importance regarding male on male sexual instincts, is that this can only be accounted for by realising that humans are a colonial form of ape, wherein there is no such thing as an individual existing as an end in their own right. Hence homosexuals were an inevitable product of human corporate nature, since they are the perfect means of creating a priesthood, an elite caste, genetically. Such normal sterility, evolved to a wider purpose, is found in other colonial animal forms, such as bees. In the ancient world sexual affiliation between men was at the heart of power, then, as via an inversion of social dynamics such as we describe above, whereby antiracism exploits racism, so anti-homosexual laws exploited homosexuality, in a negative mode. Thus, the linguistic pattern of identity we find in Judaism, takes power from the genetic pattern of identity found in homosexuality, and the process of evolving a priesthood, and hence a superorganism, advances a stage and extends its reach. But today homosexuality has been released from a millennial long constraint, and immediately it is bouncing back to its natural place in the superorganic order of things. So that queers cannot help striving to be our masters once again. Why ? Why can queers not just be queers, it is legal, there are no constraints, why don’t they now just get on with their lives ? Well, therein lies the nub of the matter. Being an arse bandit is not what homosexuality is really all about. Homosexuality evolved to create a master class, and it is these wider attributes of the homosexual complex, that we see manifest in the relentless political push for everyone, not just to tolerate homosexuals, but to become homosexuals themselves, if only in spirit, by, at the very least, being in awe of their beauty, magnificence and superiority. Homosexuals do not want to be tolerated, they have to be adored. Anyone who has ever met a homosexual, and not swooned over them, will recognise this description, or else my experience is somehow not indicative of the norm. A couple of nights ago, today being Friday, 09 October 2009, an episode of a whacky comedy called How Not to Live Your Life, had the main character pretending to be gay. I caught part of a scene in the bedroom where he said “What, you thought I was gay !”, to which the homosexual replied, with great indignation, “Why, are you offended !” And this is how queers behave in real life, as if they are entitled to treat all men as if they are fair game, such that straight men should accept their advances with the same good grace as a women receives the advances of a man. Meanwhile the, perhaps lesbian dimension of feminism, has imparted a generalised tendency in the relations between men and women, whereby a man’s advances to a women are to be regarded as automatically offensive, unless clearly invited. Hence we have sexual harassment laws, and the like. Thus, taken over all, the drift of sexual dynamics across society has swung away from heterosexuality as the norm, toward homosexuality as the norm, because it is male sexual energy which defines the normal state of sexual relations, since women would never take the lead in sexual encounters, come hell or high water, as the inherent attributes of their gender prevent them from doing so, because females, being the incubators, are the catch, while men are the catchers. A homosexual would no doubt say that so called ‘straight men’, who find themselves targeted by queers, must be displaying a sexual ambiguity leading to confusion, as was implied in the comedy sketch mentioned above. But whatever the excuse or explanation, these are the conditions of social affairs in society since the removal of constraints upon the open expression of homosexuality, which arise from the reality of men on men sexual orientation, derived from the corporate nature of colonial apes. The whole point being, that homosexuality sets up identity gradients, creating structural differentiation in the biomass, which is crucial to the evolution of the superorganism ; and religion of the modern linguistic kind, emulates the same process. Hence there is a direct physiological link between extant religious forms and homosexuality, which accounts for the extreme passions built into these religions with regard to homosexuality, that clearly indicate that homosexuality is the antithesis of modern religious identity programmes.

Homosexuality then, although primarily, or initially genetic in its origins—as indeed all animal behaviour must be—induces a cultural ripple of its essential elite identity nature, extending beyond the natural confines of what we call ‘homosexual’, imparting a social identity that has all the qualities of a linguistic identity programme, in terms of engendering an exclusive minor group within the main biomass, that has a political instinct for self preservation and advancement built into it, crucially, the nature of homosexuality being what it is, creating bonds between powerful males, emulating those between powerful males and women—the incarnation of social dominance, for the male—so that homosexuality spontaneously induces a master caste within the superorganism. We may imagine this biological effect emerging from the exceptional growth in the biomass, induced by the development of fixed territories, where subsistence by cultivation causes the population to increase exponentially, removing the pressure on sexual reproduction to maintain the biomass, homosexuality always being a latent potential of the colonial ape’s corporate nature, of course. At an advanced stage, where civilisation has been developed on the back of homosexuality, as implied by this scenario, the screw turns, so that an anti-homosexual master caste evolves, and thus Judaism, or its equivalent, comes into being. This is not necessarily a fixed, universal pattern, but homosexuality is clearly of major importance in the higher development of superorganic form. Judaism today, in its Christian form at least, obliges us to imagine that humans have evolved to be a superorganic being in a moral and intellectual sense, separating us off from nature. But in truth, the idea that the highest expression of evolution is the evolution of homosexual males, is a far more likely story, if less palatable to many, although, no doubt delightful to some of the fruits of human nature. It is a different world. Last night, 9/10/2009, two men, thirty something, came into the pub in town holding hands and then stood at the bar hugging and kissing like two young lovers. They were soon joined by a group of blokes who looked like regular lads. I do not recall seeing men affectionately kissing like that, in a regular pub, before. Gay marriage, as much as I find the idea revolting—I do not much care for the idea of straight marriage— certainly serves as the strongest possible social affirmation of gay love. From that point of view I suppose one can see why queers want to marry, though any other, less political reason, requires me to stretch my imagination ; I’ll not bother. It is impossible for me to imagine what it would be like to live in a world where same sex love is taken to be as normal as boy-girl love. The ramifications are so far reaching that trying to imagine it, is wholly impossible. Last night’s experience however, nudges one towards the effort. The induction of former master identities into a social fabric, bodes well for atheist science. It suggests that the multicultural world of toleration might be real, and not just a mechanism of religious fascism, exploiting the idea of equality as a means of imposing ever greater degrees of uniformity, under its vile authority. But of course, as long as free access to knowledge is totally banished from our slave world, we can scarcely begin to think about what such a society would be like either, can we ? ______ Returning to the subject of garnering personal authority. People, in many ways, may continue to do what they have always done, in one form or another, and because the state now enables all to do the same thing, as a consequence of its social modulation process, people, taken as a whole, look more free. But this egalitarian freedom is dished out by the state, and comes at the cost of personal authority. And this tends to mean that if all can now do what anyone can do, then, at the same time, all must do what any must do, such as work nine to five, and so on. And thus nature invents the ‘rat race’. The question then is which do we value most. Whether freedom to do what we are told we can do, in a manner that makes

us all the same, is preferable to personal authority. Where the latter must result in a differential ability to choose, that means real freedom, but inevitable inequality across a whole population. From this discussion we begin to suspect the modern emphasis upon freedom and equality is just a linguistic device used by the priests to con us into giving up our personal authority, because freedom linked to equality, is the natural product of state enforced conformity. As usual, they just think of nice ways to describe the nasty things they do to us, and nasty ways to describe those of us who do not like those nasty impositions. A cynical riposte to this line of reasoning might say that if we are just pseudo sentient lumps of animated matter, what difference does it make how we come to do what we do, as long as we accept what we do with contentment ? And this is precisely how everyone does in fact act. They conform and welcome the con, because to do otherwise is to condemn oneself to a life of perpetual misery, fighting something that cannot be successfully opposed. But it must be evident from all that has been said here, that there are considerable ramifications to this process of state induced social modulation. The sole reason we have delved into any of the content of this chapter, is to get at why Bernard does not make the war against science, mounted by the state acting as a machine serving religious authority, central to his argument. Because the one key ramification of social modulation, is the control of knowledge, ensuring conformity to one pattern, the pattern delivering superorganic physiology, the religious pattern. Atheists are anomalies, as scientifically empowered individuals we prefer a life of misery, we are like the Christian martyrs, people who will joyfully burn at the stake in pursuit of a pointless endeavour, in order to proclaim the desire for freedom, realised in access to true knowledge. And that is why we concern ourselves with that which no one else gives a fig for. We have seen how the modern scholar is fully aware of the dynamic of taboo surrounding these topics. Although they too ‘do not seem able’ to make the conceptual reach implicit in Durkheim’s functional insight into sociological processes, indicating that taboos are politically valid responses to real life situations, being manifestations of linguistic force, sustaining superorganic physiology by reinforcing the delineation of established social structure. The state of course cannot switch from being open and democratic to being covert and sadistic, just like that. The state, in Machiavellian style, must transfigure itself, and that is what the rise of fascism in certain European states, following the First World War, did. Briefly the machinery of theocratic order was handed over to madmen, they did the vital work of fracturing society, then the reigns of power were handed back to the regular lunatics, ripe for refashioning along old lines. In this way, the organisation of theocratic power managed the transition onto a global stage, engineered during the scientific age. Speaking of scientific ages. Last night, 25/09/2009, the visit of a saint’s remains to Liverpool, was in the news. Some 28,000 people visited the casket, in the Catholic cathedral. Don’t quote me on that figure, I think that is what was said, but it does not seem possible. But it was a popular circus. This is where we are at today, we Europeans are as basic and primitive as the most primitive humans ever to of walked the earth—tragic, sick, disgusting. And lets not forget that our last prime minister converted to Catholicism after leaving his post. That is the kind of person we have leading us in this so called scientific age. A man who, when asked what he thought of the teaching of Creationism in a school near his constituency, said he thought it was just fine ! No wonder the Jews and the Americans love him. And now we can report, today being Saturday, 03 October 2009, that the word is, if the result of the Irish vote on the European treaty, that took place yesterday, goes the way the priests want it to go, Blair’s position as president of the Union will be announced before long. Tragic, I’d as soon have Hitler ruling Europe as this foul, vile excuse for a human being. Monday, 05 October 2009—a Yes vote, would you believe it, how did that happen ! And sure enough, the first topic on the pundit’s lips was when Blair was going to take up his position as EU president.

Monday, 09 November 2009 : well I am happy to say that people in Europe have shied away from our resident religious fascist. Probably because of the helping hand given him by the fat headed Cyclops Gordon Brown ; with friends like that, who needs enemies ! ______ We have gone about this topic at length, the reality of our nonexistence as individuals, is obviously a core part of our subject. In the amalgamation of the philosophy of atheist science with Bernard’s lost science of evolution, the contents of this chapter represent the pivot about which these ideas rotate. Why was Darwin’s carefully crafted scientific fairytale made paramount, while Bernard’s perfect science was completely disregarded ? This is a major question, there is no bigger question in all of science, as far as we are concerned. As I have said before, soon after I discovered the true solution to the problem of why religion persisted in the scientific age—because humans are a superorganic species of mammal—it became clear that the real problem of science is not discovering the nature of reality, but combating the social consequences of this reality, which makes the existence of science so difficult. So this chapter has been about impressing on ourselves, a real sense of a social flux, ever present, forcing all things to move in one direction, this being the physical environment that Bernard’s ideas had to contend with. They were fashioned, they were published, but the force of religious oppression, like a heavy atmosphere unfelt by those accustomed to it, would allow this tiny bubble of reason to do no more than form. Whereas the conformity of Darwinism to the constitution of that oppressive atmosphere, meant its bubble was allowed to inflate to the point of filling the social atmosphere totally, a fact which in itself enhanced the oppressive condition of the social atmosphere by leaving no place for true science, such as that of Bernard. It is bound to seem very bizarre the way we freely put the Jews into the frame when talking about the forces governing modern society, notwithstanding the explanation already offered regarding our conviction that the Jews are the master race. This is a topic we need to keep on top of, because it is so controversial. Remember that the whole point of atheist science, as promulgated in these works, is to reduce humans to purely biological terms. With this in mind, I have just read the chapter on the third, polyp stage of life, in Neglected Factors, and the way Bernard explains evolution at this level, lends itself so well to the way we talk about the evolution of Jews as an expression of human corporate nature, unfolding the latent potential of that nature in superorganic form. We may discuss this in detail further on, time is actually against us I am afraid, but the fact is that we should be able to describe the evolution of modern human society in exactly the same manner that a scientist like Bernard is able to describe the evolution of animals like corals. We must keep this fact in mind at all times, our ideas are in no way anti Jewish or anti religion, they are quite simply scientific. 7. The EDL — The English Defence League A new organisation has hit our TV screens this month, the EDL. This is a right wing Christian organization, dedicated, according to its own account of itself, to one thing only : attacking Islamic extremism. I am writing this passage because BBC 2’s Newsnight did a piece on them last night, 12/10/2009. They first hit the news a month ago, after a violent disturbance in Birmingham, occurring when Islamic fascists turned out to oppose the EDL’s march. Last week they staged a demonstration in Manchester, which was contained by a heavy police presence, helped by the Muslim cohorts failure to take up the challenge.

In appearance they are typical white, working class, skinhead thugs ; nasty, ignorant, violent, and most unpleasant, typical Nazis. However, while they are associated with the BNP (British National Party) by the media, they themselves have gone out of their way to disassociate themselves with any racist agenda. In the piece last night the reporter attended a swastika flag burning ceremony in a warehouse, with a score or more of these tossers wearing ski masks. It is all crass shit, as usual. But the really interesting thing is that this is a white, right wing, British, Christian organisation, where we place the real emphasis upon the Christian feature of the agenda. At the flag burning, intended to show that they were not Nazis, there was a banner on the wall, partially obscured, that said “Support the Right of Israel to Exist”. You would of thought this banner would of been the most significant item in the room, the one thing of interest capable of inducing the reporter to ask what that was all about. Not a bit of it, all he wanted to know was why they did not show their faces, as if he was there simply to do the investigative work of the police force. I could not get a proper view of the banner because it just appeared accidently in the background, in so far as the cameraman was concerned anyway. How strange is that ? Given that we live in an absolute theocracy, where the primary object is to manage the public information with regard to religion, not strange at all, but in terms of having an interest in what is interesting, it is extremely odd. A youth, a professor who had made a special study of this kind of organisation, was consulted. He clearly had no idea what he was talking about, not once did he mention the fact that EDL was a Christian organisation, as indeed we also find where any discussion of the BNP is concerned. This evasion is quite deliberate, as with all the propaganda and corrupt information we receive from the state machine. But once again, we find race /religious hatred, invoking mindless violence in defence of the Jewish master race, simply erupting from within our slave biomass. How weird is that ? Why does it happen ? Terrorism has always been a part of the Jewish social scene, it occurred in Jerusalem before the Romans closed Israel down in A.D. 70. Terrorism then took the form of random street knifings. Anyway I just wanted to take notice of this new Jewish menace amongst us. And since writing this I heard, from the same baby professor, that the anti-Semitic BNP have been fielding Jewish candidates ! Jeremy Paxman said this movement was clearly tapping into something within the public domain, and he asked what it was. The lad replied that a recent survey indicated that two fifths of people thought even mild Islam presented a threat to Western Civilisation ! No, you don’t say, there is a surprise. Unfortunately, much of this intelligent sentiment will be stolen by the Christian slaves of Judaism, indeed that is why Christians create this kind of fascist organisation, to rob society of its resentment against its slave status. It makes me think these EDL Christians are quite possibly young Jews, especially since they will not even reveal themselves. Someone has to have a really deep motivation to go out and organise themselves in this way, I would not do it, so who would ? Well, there are plenty of people willing to be politicians, so as impossible as it is for me to understand the mentality of such people, that makes me weird, not them, they are more or less the norm, and it shows in the demented form our society takes.

Chapter 4 A Model Based on Forces

Bernard begins chapter fifteen by talking about the nature of the cell, a discussion in which he freely uses the idea of force directing the organisation of life.

CHAPTER XV THE CELL DOCTRINE, ITS VALUE AND ITS INADEQUACY

LIFE, with all its startling phenomena is, at present, only known to us in association with a complicated substance for which the name of Protoplasm has been universally adopted. From its purely physical side, protoplasm may be described as a very complex grouping of chemical elements, and the forces it displays are the resultant of the various chemical interactions of these elements. The living substance, so far as it is a substance, is a complex of chemical atoms so arranged that their natural forces may follow in the order necessary to produce the phenomena which, on the physical side, we know as Life. The substance is living only so long as this unique complex of forces is displayed ; it is dead when this order is broken ; between these two states, a condition of quiescence may be found which is called suspended animation. Protoplasm has the power of assimilating the elements it needs in such order that the interaction between them maintains its essential life force, and it can get rid of the waste. The materials of protoplasm, therefore, are always new ; that is a condition of its life ; what remains through all time is the resulting force ; it is this which never dies out. Protoplasm, further, grows at the expense of other substances and builds up the forms of life. (Neglected Factors, pp. 278 – 9) The internal structure of a cell displays force, derived from the contents of its body. This idea can be related to the idea of linguistic force relative to social being, where the individual is the cellular unit whose display of social forces are derived from its internal physiology, namely the physiology of speech, with all its related infrastructure. Each unit in Bernard’s ascending hierarchy of life forms, should therefore express the basic life force of information through a new structural medium, which gives rise to the new form associated with each increase in unitary complexity, or each new level of complex homogeneity, to get in the swing of Bernard terminology. As such we are delighted to see this emphasis upon force at the root of life, displayed in Bernard’s model of life. He proceeds to introduce the idea of life at its most basic level, along with a brief comment on how we became aware of the nature of life as a scientific phenomenon ; later on he makes some interesting comments on how nonlife became life. For now we get a slight indication regarding the tension between religion and science, so we will quote the relevant passage, even though the reference to religion is made irrelevant as soon as it is mentioned, thanks, implicitly, to Darwin ! What the first complex of atoms and molecules was like, whose aggregate of chemical interactions represented, in its purely physical aspect, the vital force, we do not at present know. But above this original protoplasmic mass there are long series of forms varying to a marvellous degree in size, shape, and internal structure. The first of

these to become an object of study to Man, who is but one of them, were naturally the larger forms that could be examined with the naked eye, and crude attempts were made to arrange these according to their external resemblances. When, later, living forms were compared with the remains of extinct forms found embedded in the rocks, a progressive degree of complexity was discovered in them, the simplest forms coming first and being succeeded by others with continually more complex organisation. This recognition could not long remain barren ; it was bound to suggest that the forms of life had descended one from another by the known processes of reproduction, the younger forms undergoing changes by having to adapt themselves to changes in their environment. If so, all living forms could be arranged in definite sequences, the relation between the links being the natural relation of parents to offspring. This theory of evolution, however, clashed with the generally accepted cosmogony of Moses, and consequently did not gain a wide hearing until, in the middle of last century, Darwin suggested a very simple and intelligible method by which the progressive differentiation might have been brought about. No one now doubts that all the forms of life on the planet to-day are the direct descendants of those that went before them. Every one now knows that, as we go back to these earlier forms, we find ever greater simplicity until we arrive, theoretically, at one type of organism as simple as is compatible with the manifestation of the essential activities of life. This simplest of all organisms is rightly claimed as the common ancestor of all the forms of life that have yet appeared. These momentous conclusions were not, however, based solely upon comparison and classification of the forms of life as whole organisms. It is doubtful whether these alone would ever have justified such a sweeping generalisation. They also largely rest upon a comparative study of the textures of the living organisms. The first step in knowledge as to the structure or texture of the living substance must have been made long ago when it was found that the bodies of men and animals consist of flesh, bone, sinew, etc. At this stage it remained through ages until, within recent times, anatomy became a science, and the various tissues in complicated organisms, such as the mammalian body, were more closely studied and classified according to the differences they presented to touch and sight. (pp. 279 – 80) I was not going to take the bit about how our knowledge of life accumulated from next to nothing, but this preamble includes a statement to the effect that once the relevant observations about life had been accumulated they presented an irrepressible social force, and this can be related to our preceding discussions as to why the theocracy was obliged to accommodate this force, by facilitating a scientific voice modelled on their own needs, and hence Darwin came into being. Bernard is setting out the history of the modern life sciences according to the standard dogma, whereby he freely accepts the mantra of Darwin as being sincere, even though he was here engaged in the act of supplanting Darwin. But without recognising the true subversive nature of his great predecessor’s work, it was not possible for Bernard to see that his act of replacement could never be realised, ever, not by him, nor by anyone else : no matter what any scientist ever did, or said, for all time, Darwinism must remain sacrosanct, just as, one and a half centuries on, we know its sanctity has indeed only intensified. Darwinism is nonnegotiable science, religious science in other words. And this is the first thing any would be life scientist must understand, in other words it is the job of science to erase religion from the earth, in the process of doing real science, or ‘atheist science’, as we call it here, for obvious reasons.

In effect Bernard was the first ever atheist scientist. Only he held this position because of what he unwittingly sought to do, and the means he used to do it, which were sound and had the potential to achieve the ultimate goal of atheist science, and not because he actually knew what he was doing. As such Bernard was an unwitting devotee of atheist science, and in the end, as we shall see, this meant he was a devotee of religious science, just like everyone else. As in all wars, you are either for one side or the other, there is no sitting on the fence, as all warriors know, the neutrals passively aid the war mongers, in their war against those who would be free. But his example proves, more than anyone else’s, that atheism must be made an overt feature of any biologist’s attempt to supplant Darwinian science. Bernard is therefore on the path to atheist science. Why did he not see that the description he himself provides in the above passage, carried within it a tale of treachery, that had bearings on the way Science was handling the science he was dealing with ? Later on he talks about a predecessor, dealing with the subject of colonial evolution, a German called Altmann, and he describes how this man was hindered by the inability to discern certain details, that Bernard makes the basis of his own insights into how life’s structures interconnect to create extensive forms. This obviously accords with the idea that science advances when it can, through observation, and this lends credence to Bernard’s continuing faith in scientific independence and freedom. Soon after Bernard’s death in 1909, the First World War came along, and all such ways of thinking as he displays in Neglected Factors, based on the idea of the social organism, were eradicated. From that point on no science of humanity could ever exist, not under the regime imposed by the priests, and indeed we have remained as ignorant about our own place in nature as the ancients, right up to this very day. Some might even say that philosophers like Plato indicated that they knew humans were really a form of colonial ape indeed, as the logic of such an idea is imbued into his work on society—The Republic being the work in question— and as such the ancients were vastly in advance of modern science, as regards their understanding of what human beings really are. The modern sociologist who insists that the psychological and moral life of the individual apart from the social organism is an unreal abstraction is merely returning to the standpoint of the Greek who could not conceive man as a moral being outside of the polis. (Plato : The Republic, Paul Shorey, Vol. 1, 1937, Intro, p. xxvi. First pub. 1930.) Neglected Factors is the work we are concentrating upon, but in the course of delving into this work, we naturally seek other traces of Bernard’s mind, deposited by his pen. Amongst the scientific remains of this man’s life, we discover enough material to indicate his place within a scientific community that affirmed his faith in the sanctity of scientific method, as opposed to its corruption by allowing one scientific model to become the personification of that method. It is in the later stages of his discussion in Neglected Factors, where he reaches his fifth element of colonial being, in which the human becomes the unit of corporate formation, that we discover the real barrier to Bernard’s full realisation of a true atheist science. Here we find Bernard corrupted by the emerging science of psychology. The above passage sets the seen for Bernard’s speciality, which begins with the minute study of life at the cellular level. His idea of evolution does not make cytology its model, it is founded upon his study of corals, and is termed ‘colonial evolution’. By saying that the momentous insights provided by Darwin did not serve as the sole source of observations vindicating so sweeping an idea as that which claimed all life to be a uniform phenomenon of physical existence, related to the wider pantheon of material existence,

Bernard sets the scene for his theory, which extends Darwin’s theory of natural selection into those areas that Darwin’s work never took him, because Darwin was focused upon the macro features of life, that Bernard had said were the first most obvious aspects of life to attract attention. Hence we do find quite a nice introductory build up, explaining just where evolutionary theory was, how it got there, and how it could be taken further toward an ultimate stage of completion. 1. The common principle of life Bernard : — In the beginning of the nineteenth century, the compound microscope brought new worlds into view, not the least fascinating field for exploration being that presented by the various textures of the body. It was not long before a great generalisation was announced,1 viz., that all these different textures, or tissues as they are now called, of the life substance admitted of analysis on a common principle. Very minute “units of structure” had been discovered, and out of these, it was said, all tissues are built up. Each unit was thought of as living in living tissue, the life of the units causing the tissue to live, and the death of the units resulting in the death of the tissue. The differences between the tissues were accounted for by the different modifications and arrangements of the units. Impregnated with lime salts, and thus hardened, some units form, by their union into masses, the hard bones ; others, drawn out into contractile threads and arranged into bands, form muscles ; and, still further lengthened out for the conveyance of stimuli from one part of the body to the other, others become nerves, and so on. Each of these units, or “vesicles” or, as they were ultimately but very infelicitously called, “cells” was therefore to be regarded as an elementary form of life, and this idea was strengthened by the fact that the microscope brought to view thousands of minute living things in every stagnant pool, creatures that were nothing but single “cells” living free and independent lives. As the “cell doctrine” developed, it was taught that the larger organisms, such as men, birds, reptiles, trees, grasses, were cell-states or cell-republics, their component units having to a great extent given up their freedom and become modified and specialised, some in this direction and some in that, in order to form organs each adapted for some specific function. The “cells” which were supposed to build us up were thought to enjoy all the advantages and to suffer all the disadvantages of belonging to a rigid but highly efficient community. ¹ Schwann’s Mikroskopische Untersuchung über die Übereinstimmung in der Struktur und dem Wachsthum der Thiere und Pflanzen was published in 1839. (pp. 280 – 281) This passage gives us a wonderful description of cells viewed as units of living beings, perfectly suited to a physiological interpretation of persons as units of societies. We can readily see how vastly more interesting and convincing a biological theory of life is going to be, when based upon such fundamental objects of life in general, as that of cells, than the objects which Darwin produced from thin air, as it were. It is obvious that the correct place to begin any theory of evolution is with the basics, with the evolution of life itself, and thus the fundamentals of living matter have to be the starting point of any true

theory of evolution. We never see any of this kind of hard, gritty scientific discussion, in anything Darwin knocked up while swanning around the planet, picking up baubles and pontificating on life’s harsh reality. As atheist scientists we have grown accustomed to decrying the blatant oversights of Darwin, in failing to treat humans as part of nature, other than in the most meaningless sense, exploiting attributes that any fool could see, regarding our large scale physiological features, showing as they do, that we look more like apes than ducks, goats or what have you. With the aid of Bernard’s approach, we begin to understand that this stupidity on Darwin’s part, applied at the opposite end of the scale of life too, for not only did Darwin simply ignore human society, treating it as if it did not exist, neither did he tackle the basics of life’s evolution, to do with the building blocks from which higher forms of life are constructed. And as we have just seen, the minutia of life’s history had been known long before Darwin bothered to publish his gush in 1859. There was no legitimate scientific excuse whatsoever, for anyone seriously pretending to provide a scientific theory of life’s evolution, to fail to take the knowledge of life’s microstructure into account at this time. All of which failure was because, whereas Bernard was a true professional scientist, Darwin was nothing of the sort. Darwin was a spoilt brat, a ponsey toff, prating around at science. He sailed about the globe picking up samples, making drawings and then concocting pretty notions about how life evolved ! We say ‘pretty notions’ because, while ‘nature dripping in blood’ is a colourful image taken from Darwin’s model of evolution, based on the idea of a deadly competition for existence, the fact is that in terms of how humans think about life, this blood thirsty, cruel scene, is a pretty image. An ugly image, from the perspective of human sentiment, is the one we present here, courtesy of genuine scientific reasoning, that makes persons nonexistent elements of a mindless superorganism. Now that is horror for you. Yet when we say Darwin’s failure was due to his amateur status, where does this leave the reception he received from the wider world ? How come no one else spotted the oversights ? Why was it that men like Huxley jumped on the Darwinian bandwagon, and all and sundry swallowed what was self evidently a load of juvenile nonsense, the work of a showman, not that of a technician or a scientific genius ? And what about a century and a half on, when science has extended itself so far beyond what it was, as to be a vision of a very different kind. Why is it still the case that Darwin’s idiocy is the greatest thing known to science ? Because, the scientific community is rotten to the core, because we live in an absolute theocracy, that is why. Look at what happened just a couple of days ago, today being Sunday, 11 October 2009, Obama won the Nobel prize for peace, just a few months after becoming president of America ! The man can’t even pass a simple piece of legislation providing for the underprivileged masses of his own country, despite a commitment to deliver basic health care for all being a major plank of his election campaign. Insanity, obscene insanity, perfectly in keeping with the universal corruption of reason, perfectly in keeping with life in a soulless, worthless theocracy. Sick. By seeking to lay a solid foundation to evolutionary ideas, we find the first ‘great generalisation’ arising, not from looking at life in the large, but from looking at life in its minutia. This is exactly what we would logically expect from within the scientific world. Bernard has already called the theory of evolution a grand generalisation, and here we find another one, based upon the first observations of the cell, arising from the fabulous visual power of the compound microscope. How could Darwin hope to provide a true generalisation defining the way life evolved, without taking on board this prior generalisation about the ‘common principle’ of life, whereby ‘individuals’ united to form further levels of organic being, producing a hierarchy of life that is the very essence of the evolutionary process ? This idea led naturally to the accommodation of human society within a uniform model of life, and indeed, it is because these new ideas about the fundamental structure of life, were familiar to all with an interest in life, such as the great English philosopher Herbert

Spencer, that the idea of the social organism took a firm hold on thoughts about just what society was, and what people were in relation to this organic conception of society. But not Darwin, oh no, his mind was completely uncontaminated by any such scientific knowledge about the fundamental nature of life. We find no such criticism of Darwin in Bernard’s work as we offer above, but Willis certainly did descry the Darwinian model of evolution, precisely for treating life as if it was composed exclusively of the animal kind, something Willis, as a botanist, naturally objected to. But the truth is, that Bernard could of made the same criticism of Darwin, with equal justification, though on these different grounds, regarding the failure to focus on the foundations of life when elaborating a theory of life’s evolution. Darwin’s theory is inherently political, and not at all scientific. I have to say, I have never read any of Darwin’s works, and the thought occurs to me that he did write a book about coral reefs, discussing the formation of atolls and the like ; Didn’t he ? I guess I am jabbering away about Darwin’s failure to discuss the lower level of life’s evolution, which Bernard is focused upon in his work, because the only aspect of Darwin’s theory that we hear about is his discussion of natural selection, taking place at the level of life within which we exist, as conscious beings. I feel sure I am not making an ass of myself, but I did just wonder what Darwin dealt with regarding the corals, so I thought I should mention this thought, and maybe I will see if I can download something and take a look. But I am sure Darwin did not extend his theory to the reaches of lesser life, beyond the ordinary view of the layperson, whose ideas about the nature of life were evidently all that Darwin was concerned to control. My 1901 copy of The Descent of Man has an advert for Darwin’s other works, facing the title page. Here we find his Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs listed. Taking a copy from the net reveals it was published in 1842. Darwin indicates that he is not interested in coral reefs as a phenomena of life, for he says he will not be paying any attention to the polyps that form coral reefs. In fact this is really a work of physical geography, or geology ! Which says it all as far as Darwin and science is concerned, his motto was evidently : ‘Skin deep is deep enough for me.’ The obvious point of difference between the two approaches to life, the macro versus the micro, is that the macro treats life as we know it, therefore taking life as it is seen at face value. The habit of taking representations of reality at face value is always a point of criticism in modern sociology, as far as atheist science is concerned, of particular importance where topics such as human intentions, or the meaning of any given religion is concerned. Sociologists like to say that the unique thing about their subject, is that they do not have to simply examine their subject matter, they can actually ask it to explain itself to them ! Idiots. This is of course a perfect approach for subverting science, by sustaining socially driven human motives instead. This makes opinions self justifying in science, which obviously makes science nonexistent. But there is no reason why the same criticism should not apply logically, when it comes to viewing life undissected, as it appears before our eyes. Whereby we might say that the appearance of life itself, is a deception of precisely the same kind as that which a self promoting message offers in the political world of human behaviour. Why should scientists expect to be able to take life as it appears before our eyes, at face value, when their object is to understand life as part of the continuum of universal existence, that has only been revealed via the analytic method of science ? Such a passive, sponge like attitude is worthless as a means of creating scientific knowledge, and as a consequence we have Darwin’s dead-end science to show for it. While conversely, the micro approach to life, necessarily deconstructs life as we know it, taking for its subject matter those elements that it is in the nature of science alone to reveal, namely that which is beyond the senses, unaided by the scientific method. Such analysis automatically reduces its subject to an extension of the natural, material world, that has come to be known by the interrogative scientific process. We see this consequence arise immediately from Bernard’s work, as he makes the transition

of life from nonlife, the natural starting point for his discussion of the colonial model of evolution, which seamlessly runs on to embrace all life, including that of human life as it appears before our eyes today, but now open to an established pattern of dissection, and so to inclusion in the material world, right down to its last detail. Bernard regrets the fact that the units of organic being came to called ‘cells’, and we should say why he did so—as he doesn’t—it is because the word ‘cell’ is loaded with the imperatives of individualism, which of course suited the priests whose religion is based on the idea that people are individuals, whereas the imputation of isolation thwarts the smooth conception of life as a living whole, flowing seamlessly from its origins to the present. This is a further sign of how the war against knowledge is conducted through the medium of language, the enemies of science, the professional academics, are always seeking to get hold of consciouness at the subliminal level, whereby people are made defenceless against priestcraft, because they cannot think without words, as the lexicon implanted in their brain is crafted by priests to ensure that even when they do think freely, they don’t. And then finally, the above selection has a nice description of familiar bodies, as social domains populated by cells, reflecting the organicist logic, which indicates that everyone at this time knew society was an organic entity, a social organism, a true conception that no longer exists anywhere, and is strictly taboo in science, which is the very place where it belongs ! 2. Hints of frustration There is a point of interest to be found at the close of the chapter we are currently dealing with, where, on page two hundred and eighty four, Bernard describes difficulties involved in the idea of the cell, seen as a unit of structure. He says that the problems “have even raised, in minds capable of independent thought . . .”, which is a curiously biting remark, wholly out of place in a scientific treatise. Which suggests we have here an expression of frustration at the kind of difficulties he and his like minded friends must of endured when seeking to promote ideas diverging from main stream orthodoxy. Of course the work was published posthumously, he might of cleansed his own text of such indiscreet remarks before publication had he been around ; I know I do that when I go through a first draft with a view to presentation before the public, honestly ! In which case, we can be thankful for such hints, being the exact kind we desire today, given that there are no overt complaints about an ongoing struggle, as in unrestrained science versus establishment science. The implication that there are fellow thinkers who can reason independently, puts me in mind of a further point of interest along these lines, which came to my attention the other day. I was checking out the first volume in a series of seven, most of which were written by Bernard, where, on the first page of the preface to volume one of a Catalogue of Madreporarian Corals, by George Brook, 1893, it says the project was enhanced by the contribution of material from various naturalists, “especially from Dr. Guppy, who collected in the Solomon Islands” (p. iii.). Guppy was one of Willis’ collaborators, who provided a piece included in Willis’ first book, Age and Area, 1922. In his own work, such as Observations of a Naturalist in the Pacific Between 1896 and 1899, volume two, 1906, by H. B. Guppy, we find slight hints of a divergent view of evolution, from that promoted by the theocracy under the auspices of Darwin. Since writing the above paragraph I have ordered a copy of The Eclipse of Darwinism by Bowler. We cannot have too much material evincing the true culture of science, that opposed the theocracy’s scientific machine. Society was imbued with science, people lived and breathed the air of freedom, this was death for the priesthood, and all their descendants

who farm us today. Such that the only possible solution for the Jewish theocracy that rules our world with an iron grip, was to send in the grim reaper, to harvest a great swathe of our wonderful European society. This was the only way we could be saved for continuing enslavement to Judaism—we must take every possible opportunity to sense this reality, for it accounts for everything that is of interest to atheist science—the horrors of the twentieth century, the dire state of our world now, with its inhuman debasement at the hands of the priesthood, and the ongoing war of religion against science. It is nice to develop the sense of a diffuse body of thought, permeating all sections of the life sciences, in open conflict with the crude Darwinian idea of natural selection, primarily, for our purpose, because this gives us solid evidence of the desperate need for a European wide decimation, cleansing academia of such freethinking men, exactly as occurred in 1914-18. This destructive cleansing acted in conjunction with a parallel act of methodical cleansing taking place within the institutional arena, relating to the human sciences, which saw the demise of the organicists from sociology. None of these innately atheist scientists, sadly, ever came together in life, but they did so in death—in the death of their diffuse network of genuine scientific knowledge—in the sense that both fields of expertise, found the life sciences and the human sciences, shared the same fate of annihilation by the priesthood, for exactly the same reason, that of posing a threat to religion by failing to follow the path laid down for the life sciences by Darwin. When we see the fleeting, but telling declarations in Willis, about the applicability of his ideas across the entire range of life, and we find the far more fulsome application of colonial-evolution to humans by Bernard, it really is exasperating in the extreme, that these scientists did not refer to the work of the organicist sociologists. Nor do these latter people, in their turn, seem to take any notice of what was happening on the ground, so to speak, in what was an implicitly allied branch of their own sociological science ! And this failure to communicate across the unnatural divide between the human and life sciences, is made manifest in the idea of a project called the Biological Foundations of Human Culture, described at the opening of Human by Nature, 1997, where the author speaks of his tentative effort at trying to bridge this barrier. It seems it is left to us atheist scientists, revivalists of the first true science of human nature, to discover and record these lost threads of genuine scientific thinking, that existed contemporaneously, yet all the while oblivious to each another. Clearly it is unreasonable to expect sociologists to work backwards from sociology to biology. But these biologists, naturalists and botanists, were openly expressive of their belief in having discovered fundamental principles of life, that had direct implications for sociology. And they expressed a desire that these connections would be picked up by their fellow academics. Today we have seen that a book like Human by Nature has to be produced as an act of defiance, spurred on, it has to be said, by the impact of the most unwelcome eruption of Sociobiology. But in the period of interest to us, you would think this collaboration between the hard life sciences and the human dimensions of life, would of been more obviously desired, and open to a hearty welcome from a solid body of professional sociologists. But I’ll be hanged if I can find the least hint of such collaboration. Talk of the biological foundations of sociology there is, but nowhere do we find a man like Bernard working with a man like René Worms. The best example of the kind we have would be Espinas, I suppose, who included animal sociology in his definition of sociology in its entirety, I think. Today, for example, while reading Bernard, I came upon a most remarkable description of physiology revealed at the lowest structural level of life, that of the cell. We may get to this part eventually, but on page three hundred and fifty one he talks about cell nuclei being attracted to the openings “in which food stuffs were present to attract them.” What we have here, is a description of internal physiology evolving its complexity by a process of competition, just like human social competition, to allow a specialised body of

cells, or persons, to hog the richest source of nutriment, upon which the whole body of the organism they belong to, depends. In other words, we have here the makings of a cellular master race, manifest in the earliest beginnings of life on earth. This is a revelation of sociological dynamics appearing at the most basic level of biology, and this ought to of been picked up by people like Worms, who professed a firm belief in the idea of the social organism as real. And there is much more to this section. Bernard speaks about how the basic structural parameters of life were indeed laid down at this earliest, cellular level of evolution. An idea that tallies perfectly with the fact that genetic codes are identical in kind, in all life on earth, from microbes to humans. Thus, what seems like a crazy notion, that the same forces that produced the Jewish model of existence in human society, are found replicated in the earliest examples of complex cellular life, becomes absolute commonsense, a forgone conclusion. Worms did publish a short piece entitled Les Principes Biologiques de L’Évolution Sociale, The Biological Principles of Social Evolution, 1910. This sounds very nice, but what does it say ? Here is a list of the contents :— TABLE DES MATIÈRES Pages

CHAPITRE I. — Biologie et sociologie............................................................. I. — Relation générale de la biologie et de la sociologie................................... II. — Division mécanique et division biologique de la sociologie.................... III. — Principes biologiques en statique et en dynamique sociales................... CHAPITRE II. — L'adaptation........................................................................... I. — Importance de l'adaptation sociale. Ses caractères généraux................... II. — A quoi, dans la vie sociale, l'individu s'adapte........................................... III. — Comment il s'adapte................................................................................. IV. — Dans quelle mesure il s'adapte................................................................ V. — L'adaptation des groupes.......................................................................... VI. — La croissance et le déclin......................................................................... CHAPITRE III. — L'hérédité............................................................................. I. — L'hérédité conservatrice du type ancestral. Ses rapports avec l'éducation. II. — L'hérédité novatrice : la transmission des caractères acquis..................... III. — L'atavisme................................................................................................. IV. — La variation individuelle dans l'hérédité.................................................... V. — L'hérédité des aptitudes et des situations ................................................... VI. — L'hérédité des groupes............................................................................... CHAPITRE IV. — La sélection........................................................................... I. — La théorie de Darwin..................................................................................... II. — La lutte des individus dans la société.......................................................... III. — La lutte des groupes................................................................................... IV. — Avenir de la concurrence et de la sélection. ............................................ V. — Portée limitée de la concurrence et de la sélection. Prééminence de l'adaptation................................................................ CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... I.— Parallélisme des lois de l'évolution sociale et des lois de l'évolution organique. Parallélisme des méthodes qui peuvent servir à les étudier......... II. — Identité des principes généraux qui dominent ces deux évolutions.

7 7 13 17 23 23 26 29 34 38 43 49 49 56 60 64 67 74 77 77 84 91 98 106 111 111 116

I leave it to you to make what you can of this alien language, but safe to say there is no reason to think Worms has turned to the likes of Bernard for his inspiration, which is a pity, but no surprise. Not only has this organicist work never been turned into English, neither is it currently available for free download. There is one expensive copy for sale, at £100, a copy that appeared not long ago, and the only copy I have seen since buying my own copy several years ago, for £60 ! As ever then, junk science floods the world, while true science is left to die, and rot away. A modern theocracy does not need to periodically burn the entire stock of human knowledge, in a great Alexandrian style conflagration, since, as in all things, techniques are far more sophisticated today. A steady smouldering, combined with a relentless sublimation of gush into those sacred places where knowledge should be, is quite as effective, if not more so, since it seems that no one even notices the modern way of burning science at the stake.

Chapter 5 Biographical Insights

Yesterday, 07/10/2009, I reached page 377, where Bernard refers us to an article of his, then page 379 gives two more references to his work. As it happened I had just bought the only original copy available of the book he was indicating, The Apodidæ, from an American dealer for £17 + £7 post, not bad. So now I decided to see if I could find the other two items, and then I finally got it into my head to see what I could trawl from the net about Bernard. This was a useful exercise, I found a list of naturalists which identified him as a British Naturalist, 1853 – 1908. It is about time I got those details straight. (I now know this was wrong, 1909 being the year of his death.) I have been trying to garner bits and pieces from any stray comments I have come across, one such being in a book called The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, which is the item Bernard refers to on page 277. His article appears on page 509 of The Annals, (Seventh Series), No. 36, December 1900, A Suggested Origin of the Segmented Worms and the Problem of Metamerism. While trying to locate this item I first took the next volume and searched for Bernard, and found this closing paragraph to a short piece. It is not my intention here to enter further into a consideration of the morphology and relationships of Moseleya, as the elucidation of these questions will, I hope, be undertaken at the much more competent hands of Mr. H. M. Bernard. (On the supposed Rediscovery of “Moseleya” in Torres Straits. By S. PACE, F.Z.S. &c. in The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, No. 37, January 1901, p. 387.) Nice, I thought, as it gives some indication of the esteem the man was held in by his colleagues. Bernard’s work for the British Museum speaks for itself, certainly, but the more rounded the picture, given that we are engaged in a major piece of work based on Bernard’s own work, the better our job will be. In an Alfred Wallace resource, I found this : —

A letter to the zoologist/socialist Henry Meyners Bernard responding to an essay Bernard had sent along for comment. The letter remained unpublished for many years, when a transcription of it appeared in an article by A. G. Cock entitled “Bernard’s Symposium—The Species Concept in 1900” printed in the March 1977 issue of the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (Find at — http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/wallace/S712AM.htm) I ordered a copy of Cock’s piece from my local library today. There then follows a nice transcription of the reply Wallace sent to Bernard, with a diagram. From the letter it seems Bernard is denying the possibility of defining species, which sounds rather antiDarwinian. The piece by Cock should be interesting because it looks as though it is about a symposium Bernard was organising on the subject, for which he was seeking Wallace’s views. This link with a most famous figure from the history of evolution has give us a window on an otherwise obscure man, no doubt academics could write a detailed biography on Bernard if they wanted to, but that is out of my reach. However, I finished reading Neglected Factors yesterday, 12/10/2009, and began his short publication The Scientific basis of Socialism, where the first essay Colony-Formation as a Factor in Organic Evolution, had been read to the Linnaean Society, Thursday, May 7, 1908. The Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London being readily available I downloaded them to see what record there was of this talk, it is listed, but not published by the society. However I noticed a record of a special award being given to Wallace and another fellow of the society, so this explains why Bernard would be writing to Wallace, they were members of the same scientific society. Also there was a list of all the members who had died since the last annual meeting, and some obituaries, which made me take the next volume, but I cannot find any notice of Bernard’s demise in either volume, which is a pity because the obituaries make nice little pocket biographies. I did find this slightly obscure entry in a page my search led me to : — [From.] — Biographical Etymology of Marine Organism Names. B Henry Meyners Bernard, 1853-1908, published on scleractinians, i.e. catalogues of certain families in the collections of the BMNH [Goniopora bernardi Faustino, 1927]. Running a search in The Annals named above, threw up some indication that Bernard may of given his name to a few species of corals or such like critters, and this item just above is evidently saying the same thing, except this is a genus I suppose, though I do not actually have any idea how Latin names are organised. The item from Natural Science, July – December 1898, A New Reading for the Annulate Ancestry of the Vertebrate, was readily available and easily found. Both these articles printed out poorly straight from the PDF format, in which I obtained them from the net, so I turned them into text in Word. In the process it became clear from the essay in Natural Science that Bernard had begun to develop his model of evolution early on, such that we can imagine a natural progression from the more ancient and minor life forms to man, happening gradually, but inevitably. He indicates that his ideas concerning the manner of evolution in minor life forms, caused dissension amongst his colleagues, he actually begins his piece by saying, “The question of the ancestry of the vertebrates being still unanswered, anyone is at liberty to make suggestions.” (p. 17) I suppose that today we could use the exact

same sentence, merely substituting the word ‘human’ for ‘vertebrates’ and the word ‘nature’ for ‘ancestry’. Thus — “The question of the nature of the humans being still unanswered, anyone is at liberty to make suggestions.” Hence, while these additional materials add detail to the technical arguments Bernard based his thinking on, which might interest the modern scientist wishing to evaluate Bernard’s colonial model of evolution today, we find more fleeting, but still useful elements in these items, making them nice to find, and delightful to be able to get hold of in a jiffy, right from where I am sitting in my little home. There are however still items that elude me, one at least : the Natural Science essay refers to an article in Nature, 1894, expressing his rejection of the inheritance of acquired characteristics, but I cannot find this edition of Nature, and I have no title to request a copy. In general, while this trawl of the internet dragged up very little, we are obtaining a few details and impressions of a man who was a figure of note in the scientific community about the turn of the last century. More will no doubt arise as opportunity allows. With this input of biographical material on Bernard, we can return to the central question of Bernard’s failure to recognise the ever present constraint of wider social interests, as personified in religion, as a major factor causing problems for scientists who wanted to include human society within the compass of science. We have already indicated that Bernard was part of the established scientific community, so that he would not of felt the difficulties that we see as an intractable problem, now that science has been eradicated from society. He could write in scientific journals while at the same time producing socialist material based on his hard biological science, without incurring any difficulty, that is as yet apparent to us. As I have now reached the fifth stage of Bernard’s model of colonial evolution, where the human is the unit of colonial advance, I am in a position to say something more about this man’s work. Tragically, the moment Bernard hits the human domain, he goes all potty on us. This is a devastating blow, and we will have to see where his descent into mysticism takes us when we look at the work in detail. For now this overreaching of the bounds of legitimate science, has to be viewed as the real reason why he did not set science against religion. Yet, that said, this diversion looks like an evasion of the clash, and if we interpret it as an evasion, it goes to show just how powerful the forces guarding religion from science were, such that rather than take real life as a model to be explained in terms of modern science, as was, the most willing exponent of science applied to humans, nonetheless crumpled before the awesome power of the theocracy. Instead of meeting the challenge, Bernard invented a fake dimension of reality to take the place of religion—or more specifically of language actually —where he then let his imagination run wild. Like creators of masterly disguise in literature, who fake the social world in order to speak of real affairs after a fashion, Bernard’s ‘psychic dimension’, is but an unwitting satirical perversion, of a scientific kind, induced from him by social pressures, because he could not draw sane conclusions, and was forced to go off the beaten track of reason, when applying a true model of life’s evolution to humans. It will therefore be our task, to lead his superb ideas back where he could not go, along the path of reason and true science, drawing the conclusions that he should of drawn, but could not, because of the force of oppression inherent in a society where religion determines the nature of freedom, delivered by the process of social modulation, imposed by the state.

Part 2 : A Miracle of Good Fortune

Today, Tuesday, 03 November 2009, I picked up from the library a copy of Bernard’s Symposium—the species concept in 1900, by A. G. Cock, published in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, March 1977, and it is absolutely incredible, way better than anything I had expected. The beauty of the piece is that it provides us with our first insight into who Bernard was. Cock noticed that despite being a member of the Linnaean Society Bernard was, unusually, overlooked when it came to any notice of his death, something we commented upon above, and speculated about. So Cock also found information on Bernard in short supply. The first glaring error he flags up in our work, is that he says we must assume that Bernard’s co-worker was his wife, not his daughter, as I assumed ; or did I, where did I get that from ? My notes may record where I got this idea. I have just run through the preface to Neglected—it was quite interesting actually, worth going back to—but no sign of her status here, so I am at this minute downloading some of their collaborative material to look for clues. I sure went overboard on that daughter business though, blabbing on about the father and daughter atheist duo, the Bradlaughs, ah well. The other item we ran with that Cock draws differently, is the nature of the relationship between Haeckel and Bernard. I of course had no idea about Bernard’s wholly different life story, outside science. For Cock, knowing Bernard’s early life history, it was natural to question the nature of his time spent in Germany, and indeed Cock makes little of any suggestion that there was any direct relationship between Haeckel and Bernard. All of which goes to show how vastly superior a work seeking to emulate my efforts would be, were it produced by a true intellectual, by a professionally trained atheist scientist in other words. But, unfortunately professional academics are rotten from the inside out, so, if the truth is what you want, you must just put up with my amateur efforts, at least they are real. But I have to say that having read most of Neglected Factors and his Scientific Basis of Socialism, I still feel there may be more to his relationship with Haeckel than Cock thought there was. The miraculous dimension comes from the fact that it was an unusual set of circumstances that made the otherwise obscure Bernard, a worthy subject for a later academic to make the focus of his efforts for a spell of academic inquiry. And we are most grateful to Cock accordingly. Bernard wrote an essay on the naming species which was circulated to a variety of notable intellectuals of the day, each of whom produced a written response and then returned the bundle to Bernard, who forwarded the augmented lot onto the next contributor to be. The matter came to light as the collection of responses was found in an envelope “among the papers of the geneticist William Bateson” (p.1), which was marked “Bernard’s Symposium”. Frustratingly, the original essay was absent, which seems rather odd, but Cock felt this was not an irremediable stumbling block, as Bernard’s work could supply a good idea of what the essay must of contained. Note that where I found out about Cock’s work via the material on Wallace, this source mistakenly says Cock provides a transcription of Bernard’s letter, he does not, and they also imply it was intended for Wallace only, which was not so. Cock says that Wallace was the only one of the participants not to of had a university degree, but that today he would of been the most famous, and indeed, Wallace is the route by which I came upon this valuable information.

This then, is a brilliant stroke of luck, and still there is more ! Cock provides a reference to an obituary notice, which I will order on my next visit to the library. Not only that, but his piece gives us the first confirmation of the year of demise, I have so far been taking it as 1908, but it was 1909. Exactly one century prior to our discovery of the greatest ever scientist’s fabulous work, the man who finally solved the problem of the ‘theory of evolution’, and why Darwinism was inapplicable to humans, and hence what human nature truly is. In addition, Cock provides a very extensive bibliography of Bernard’s works, and it is long, fifty three titles are listed in all ! And I am not sure if I have not already dropped on a couple that are not there, I would have to check, but time is short so this is not a priority. Turning to the essay, it is thirty pages long and most of it is concerned with the responses to Bernard, who only attracts special attention because of his pivotal role in bringing together these more typically interesting characters from the period. Consequently I have only read the page and a half biography of Bernard that opens Cock’s essay, but this is a real delight. Here I am imaging Bernard as an English kid, who went to school, then onto university, and so became a professional zoologist. But his story is far more colourful. Given the reason we find him so fascinating, because of his unique projection of biology into the realms of sociology, although this is in general keeping with the times in which he lived, this was taken way further than anyone else came close to, so this added colour revealed by Cock, is really how it should be. Would you believe it then, it turns out that Bernard was a ruddy vicar ! Stone me. If that don’t take the biscuit. He began life as a mathematician, in his student days, and it had crossed my mind that he spoke about aspects of his work in terms of mathematical validity, that told a none mathematician like me, that he perhaps understood maths for himself. Although his work is never mathematical, only in the diagrams he presents do we find an overt use of mathematical conceptions, and these are diagrammatic, not technical, and hence accessible even to the likes of myself. Though I must admit, skipping through the preface of Neglected Factors yesterday, one thing I noticed is that we are told there, that he was a mathematician, so I missed that important detail on my first reading. This excursion into religion gets more interesting, even though Cock could not be more sparse with his information. We learn that Bernard did actually become an atheist ! Hallelujah brother ! Or at any rate Cock says that around 1888 Bernard “lost his religious faith” (p.3). But then, intriguingly, he goes on to say there is no further record of Bernard having any “regular paid employment”, which Cock takes to mean that Bernard had either inherited, or married money. Then Cock imagines that if this is so, this might mean he changed occupation because of economic factors, and not for religious reasons. Which suggests he remained religious, as Cock seems to leave it—or, it may mean he was never religious, and only took holy orders as a means of obtaining a dossey life style, exactly as Darwin planned to do before he was seconded to the propaganda wing of the theocratic machine. And this is after all, the reason that all priests, of all kinds, become priests, as we keep on saying, especially when we talk about professional scientists, so they can live a comparatively privileged life, blessed with a high status and no requirement to do any real work, just to be adored while they doss about and exploit the rest of us. Last night, 10/11/2009, I watched five minutes of the last quarter hour of a Horizon programme on BBC 2, about how and why we talk. It was a complete and utter load of shit, there is no other word for it. These lunatics, degenerates, criminals, i.e. the scientists prating on about why we speak, should of worn dog collars, watching them made me want to puke. They actually designed their crass lies to say that we evolved the capacity to speak as part of being modern human, which would be about 120,000 years ago, and we began speaking some 50,000 years ago ! as indicated by the explosion in technological artifacts. Do they imagine birds evolved wings and wandered about on the ground for tens of thousands of years, then

finally decided they might as well use them ! No, so where do these morons get off making out that colonial apes were free to behave is so insane a fashion ? As we have said before, these degenerates must break the line between humans somewhere, to allow the mythological notion of freewill and choice to continue, as a now scientifically validated basis for our modern life style, and this is where the religious freaks do this within science today, at the juncture where we had the power to speak in place, but no use for it. Then, after tens of thousands of years, we discovered that we liked being slaves : some people wanted to work in fields and down mines, while others liked organising harems and living in palaces. So we decided to use the staggering investment in linguistic physiology, that nature had taken hundreds of thousands of years to create, so that we could party. We began to speak so that we could each take on roles that would allow us to express these personal desires, and thereby distinguish our personal contribution to life from that of everyone else !! Sodding f’ing bleeding—if I could drop a nuclear bomb on all the places where these miscreants come from or reside, I would. Which stinking hole of a religious university were these cretins taken from ? Makes me livid to see such fascist propaganda lies touted as my beloved science, and all thanks to the kind of freedom Hitler bequeathed to us all, by rescuing the Jews from atheist science. Really, this is a fabulous piece of work by Cock, it adds so much depth and interest to our subject, where before we had nothing beyond the material in which we were directly interested. It is clearly of great significance to the nature of our argument, asserting as it does, that Bernard took science to a new level that the times were pregnant with anticipation for, but which tragically never appeared full grown, and was guaranteed never to appear again because of the Great Cleansing that erased a huge proportion of the biomass that had been joyfully infected with genuinely scientific sentiments. According to these few hints on Bernard, we can now say that he appears to fit the bill perfectly as a man of his times—the age of freedom of thought, the age of the idea of the Social Organism—he was the perfect vehicle of scientific revelation. Accordingly, he preserved a sterile connection with the old faith, because the old faith maintained its grip on the exoskeletal fabric of the superorganism, while his essence, his heart and soul, were in tune with the new age, already arrived in embryonic form, and near its full term. Bernard, alone of all who have ever lived, gave birth to that embryo of scientific enlightenment in his last, precious works. But the birth was still born, because immediately afterwards the miscreants that always rule our world took matters into their own hands, as they smashed their own collective being to pieces, but only in the sense that a snake tears its skin asunder, in order to be reborn in a new skin of its own likeness once again. It was the likes of Bernard that was shed by the theocracy in the Act of Great Cleansing, as history shows perfectly well. The idea of Bernard coming into a fortune, sufficient to sustain him without working, also chimes with a discussion we will be coming to shortly, where we consider Andreski’s idea that with the demise of the man of independent means, post World War Two, the possibility of anyone thinking independently had also passed into history. It certainly seems that Bernard wrote what he fancied, notwithstanding that we find him falling far short of what we would of had him conclude, and we may imagine that he was able to be as adventurous in his thinking as he was, because of his wealth. Further to this line of reasoning, we may suppose such wealth would offer an answer as to how come his eccentric work was eventually brought to press. Lots of new possibilities appear, to fuel our imagination, as we seek to explore the wonders of this great man’s stupendous work. One more curious hint along the same lines, comes from the letter written to Bernard by Alfred R. Wallace, which closes thus : —

P.S. Do you know any rich man who will help to form an advanced Colony in a lovely district near London, “The Chiltern Hills.” I have found an old house there I want, with an estate of 230 acres suitable for a dozen good houses. If so please send address at once.

When I read this I thought “How odd.”, why should this question be put to Bernard, who was just some lackey at the British Museum ? But with this suggestion that Bernard was flush, it makes a tad more sense. Do we suspect that Wallace was playing on Bernard’s soft spot when he used the word ‘colony’ ? It could be. 1. Bernard’s anthropology Now I have to report another insight into a topic I freely ran on about, solely on the basis of my interpretation of Bernard’s ideas. It turns out that while searching for books that Matilda Bernard worked on, to see who she really was, I have found that these two translated a work of anthropology called The Structure of Man : An Index to his past History, by R. Wiedersheim. Unfortunately the Bernard’s did not write the preface to the translated volume, damn ! But this book is especially relevant to the criticism I made of Bernard’s seemingly total ignorance of physical anthropology, as I had it, given the way he speculates upon how a colonial ape form would of evolved, as based on lessons taken from human physiology. It appears now that he was bang up to date, so it must of been the anthropologists that were hopeless, which is probably the case. None of them ever came anywhere near recognising what was obvious to Bernard, which is that humans are a species of colonial organism. The title of Wiedersheim’s book suggests that he wants to read our physiology as a means of describing the course of our evolution. This can be done in accordance with the dictates of the One message, and obviously this is what science does do, but tragically it is also what Bernard does, and we may assume therefore that it is what the likes of Wiedersheim did. But naturally, when you work out a wholly different message, and you understand that it is the message that is the crux of the matter—providing the pivotal point from which all reality is viewed and interpreted—then you should use the same evidence, but run it through a different translator, as it were. The translator of your new message, that says evolution was due to a rhythmic process inducing transitional events of a colonial nature, is the one to use, as opposed to the filter that makes everything accord with Judaism, by making the individual the sacred object to be preserved at all cost. In my little rant against the material in the Horizon programme last night, the issue is all about the message as a filter of interpretation. The scientists are committed to viewing the person as the human being, an end in themselves. They do this even when the mere fact of language’s existence is proof, all on its own, that individuals are not ends in themselves, and that the human organism is a superorganism composed of ‘sentient bricks’. This is how corrupt science is, and its corruption is due to the imposition of the One message, instead of the development of a true independent science. What we can say with certainty therefore, is that Bernard had ample opportunities to see the light, and he failed completely. He did not realise that the issue in science was all about the message, which is just another way of saying it was all about the war between religion and science. And now we come to make such points while being aware of his background as a professional cleric turned atheist—for lets go with this conclusion, since his work does seem to freely dismiss any possibility of a divine presence, even in human affairs, far more so than anything I have ever read before, since he implicitly provides the proof that God does not exist, by completely accounting for modern human existence within an entirely naturalistic paradigm. So that now we can ask why, with his religious background, and the rejection of religion that seems so evident, did Bernard not have the war between religion and science uppermost in his mind ? Why was he, a late comer to science, so crushed by the

Achilles’ heel of science, that forbids any thinking beyond a tight limit set by the theocracy, that prevents scientists from saying anything that smacks of intellectual synthesis, as opposed to assembled technical evidence, which religious authorities do permit scientists to engage in freely ? It is almost enough to make you think . . . . nah ! he cannot be regarded as a corrupt scientist, as a priest like Darwin or Dawkins. But, we may think that his agenda was never scientific in a full blooded rationalistic sense, and was always tempered by his religious core. This is why he turned his religion into socialism, and then wrote a purely scientific treatise that had absolutely no references to socialism in it, but was called The Scientific Basis of Socialism ! Cock refers to the fact that he was taken by surprise when he belatedly examined this latter work, and found it to have more to do with Bernard’s science than he had imagined. Indeed. Well, we are putting some flesh on the bones of the man, and this is nice to do, but we have already recognised Bernard’s shortcomings, and so there can be nothing radically new for us to discover that could have any direct bearings on our evaluation of the man’s work, it is brilliant, perfect in its conception, but lame in its execution.

Chapter 6 A Quick Appraisal

Tragically, my life as a philosopher is approaching a full stop, for half a year or so, at least. What ? You’ll somehow manage without me ? Well I am so glad, but the tragedy is mine anyhow. There is a most delightful observation, in an almost delightful post World War Two sociologist’s work, to the effect that we now live in a world where freethinking is ruled out of the equation, because of an ever increasing efficiency of the state in exploiting the social biomass. Or that is what his remarks amount to from our viewpoint. Andreski is awesome ! I will quote you a couple of bits, although, annoyingly I did not make a note of the bit I really want in the book itself, and now I just cannot drop on it. The book in question is Social Sciences as Sorcery, by Stanislav Andreski, 1972. Basically he says that he wonders where free commentary will arise today, given that their are no gentlemen of leisure who have

nothing better to do but ponder upon the meaning of existence, whilst being free to do so without any need to worry about their wherewithal. I have found the answer to this in the dole system, but the state has finally invented ways to make sure that even if we do not work, then neither shall we have the liberty to use our time freely. Thus the plebeian gentleman of leisure, as I might describe myself, has lost the pillar of liberty that allows him to be a true philosopher, as I have now come up against that hindrance once again, right now. As a consequence I must ditch my intended approach to this work, that would of seen me devote the next six months of my life to writing this book, and instead condense its completion, after a fashion, into a few weeks. I have gone through Andreski’s book page by page and I can see nothing about the sentiment I was looking for, its very strange, I do not see where else I could of read this version of a lament for freedom. This book of his is just superb. When we think of all that we have to say about how the key science, which the theocracy homed in on for eradication and total subversion, was sociology, it really is something to find a modern sociologist damming sociology for being all that we say it was deliberately made to be. That said, Andreski himself is no better than any other sociologist, except in the matter of his condemnation of sociology. He never gets at why sociology is corrupt, indeed there is one point in the book—which I have not read—where he says : — Since no group can exist without individuals, while no human individual can exist without a group, so-called methodological individualism can be accepted only as a programme to study collective actions by analysing them into their individual components, which need not involve us in the sterile ontological debate about whether it is the groups or the individuals that ‘really’ exist. (p. 183) The key point to state here is—‘really exist as an end in themselves’. It is the ‘end in themselves’ that matters. Where we to look at a house and ask, Is it a pile of bricks or a structure ?, if pushed, we are forced, logically, to concede that it is a collection of individual bricks, since the bricks do have an individual identity. Does that mean when trying to understand the architecture we can make no valid decision about the nature of the building, whether we must treat the whole from the perspective of each individual brick in turn, or whether we may make the bricks subsidiary to the whole and effectively ignore the bricks, as bricks, altogether ? Of course it damn well doesn’t, the question is so facile as to be meaningless ! So why the hell should it be any different for a sociologist, a natural scientist that is, when examining society ? This idiot, the best ever post world war scientist by an infinite degree of separation from his fellow kind, does not have a clue that this solution, to this critical issue of his subject, exists. Of course the difference between the brick and the person, is that a person has a ‘mind’, and the Bible tells us that the individual is therefore God’s creation, made to be responsible for its actions and hence answerable to God, and it is to this religious principle that our radical, atheist seeming scientist, unwittingly defers in the above quote. The above selection is actually a gorgeous comment to find, as horrible as it is, it is light years ahead of what we would normally find in any modern work of sociology. I have not read the before or after, I just noticed this item yesterday, while looking for the remark I mention above. But, as we can see from Bernard’s work, whether humans are a specially evolved superorganic form of mammal, or a divinely created organism, where each person exists each in their own right, is of paramount importance to science, and hence dismissing a determination of this matter of priority as ‘sterile’, is the same as saying there is no need to be

scientific in social science. Which attitude is one of the major flaws, amongst many, that Andreski is having a go at in this fabulous, albeit flawed book. Now I want to give you two small portions from Andreski’s closing chapter : — Provided some freedom of expression remains, we have reason to hope that no branch of learning will come to a complete standstill even when its main trunk succumbs to decay ; because, even during the ages of deepest ignorance and superstition, indomitable spirits with a natural bent for rational inquiry continued to crop up and add a brick or two to the edifice of knowledge. What made their cerebrations more effective in the long run than the efforts of the vastly more numerous priests and mystagogues was the fact that the products of rational thought are cumulative, whereas mystic visions, fads, stunts and phantasmagorias not only add up to nothing, but even cancel one another out and merely sway minds to and fro, hither and thither. Though cultivated truly only on the fringes of various establishments and counter-establishments (if not by complete outsiders or even outcasts), while befouled in the centres of pomp and wealth, the social sciences will no doubt continue to progress if civilization survives at all. But rather than a resplendent ‘take-off’ the most we can legitimately hope for is a slow and intermittent cumulation of uncertain and often reversed steps forward : a process resembling the work of Sisiphus or the cleaning of the stables of Augeas rather than a triumphant blitzkrieg. (Andreski, pp 232 – 233.) When condemning the Gatekeeper of the Theocracy, Richard Dawkins, in relation to his fabulously nasty outbursts and extended attacks on religion, voiced in the name of atheism, we invariably say, “Yes, very nice, we get it, you are an atheist and you hate the fact that religion rules the world, while science has no ability to attain wide acceptance, and so on. So bloody what, enough bleating is enough. If you are going to mount the public stage and rant like this, then tell us something that we do not know, tell us why things are as they are.” And now we find, regarding the only man ever to attack sociology as atheist science requires sociology to be attacked, just as with our would be hero Dawkins, so it is with our would be hero Andreski. The damn tosser just tells us everything we already know about the worthless state of sociology in particular, and society in general, but without ever indicating any reasons for the eternal difficulty, and hence he gets us nowhere, end of story. All we want, is to know Why ? This notion that there have always been freethinkers augmenting knowledge, even when fascism has been most suffocating, is puerile trash. The enlightenment was a release that suited the theocracy, when undergoing the shift from global limits set by European geography, to global limits set by the reach of the planet. The need to accommodate major new sources of information about reality, and to develop a new sense of occupied space, is the only reason the priests relinquished their grip on truth. Now, having taken the world as their domain, they have found the new limits at which to set the reach of science, to suit the current status of their purpose. Nothing can break through this fascism. If the twat understood that humans are a superorganism—which it is his job to understand—and hence that there is no such thing as a human individual, then he would understand why these dynamics are as they are. Instead, just like Dawkins, and Bernard come to that, Andreski, just wants to play naughty boy conformist, not naughty boy for real. The questions he should be addressing here, as a sociologist intent on dealing in scientific truth is, What is human nature ? What is the human animal ? What is knowledge ? He handles all of the correct

subjects, he is a bloody marvel, in appearance, but he does not base his ideas on the critical fact of human nature being corporate. Hence, he fails to achieve anything, because he simply observes the world from the place where all priests stand to observe the world, from the place that says the individual is an end in themselves. He is useless, but wonderful to find, and to read, bits of. With regard to this question of truth as an inherently stable form of knowledge, compared to myth, we really must say something. The very existence of a church, a priesthood, and the perennial persistence of warfare and other modes of functional social chaos, have been brought together into a model of superorganic physiology, in a previous work, where we indicate that the world wars were essentially all about bringing the biomass back into a firm state of attachment to Judaism. According to this model, the essence of what Andreski recognises, but wholly misrepresents, as an inherent tendency for knowledge to be preserved in some forms as opposed to others, is crucial. Only, where we make the model explain why insane religion lasts for millennia, even enduring unscathed in a scientific age providing stupendous knowledge of reality ; while truth as a medium of popular understanding flounders hopelessly, Andreski chooses to proclaim, like some religious freak of the worst kind, that merely by being true, knowledge aggregates and becomes irresistible. Thus he makes knowledge a self sustaining quality, and fails to make any link between the existence of institutions and the preservation of knowledge, which is a remarkable oversight given the existence of churches and universities. When we analyse a small piece of his work like this, he suddenly becomes a monstrous figure, a true enemy of science. But the subtlety of this error, embedded as it is within an admirable piece of anti-establishment work, allows us to see in Andreski a most telling example of unwitting conformity to the priesthood. Despite his antagonism to the priesthood he cannot help himself serving it, as all who have a public voice must do likewise, because all are duped by the linguistic programme that has given them the mind they must live with forever. In this sense Andreski becomes a rather fine example of exactly what the establishment wanted to bring into being by manipulating sociology over the course of decades, namely the emergence of sociologists who simply have no connection with science, of any kind. So that even when excellent in their logic and insightful in their observations, they could only produce abstract accounts of society, that are unattached to any dimension of reality, from which absolute statements of truth could be derived. Were Andreski to possess the key to understanding all things pertaining to human existence, namely the knowledge that humans are mammalian superorganisms, then he would not say such stupid things about the reason why freethinkers eventually triumphed over priests, as in factual knowledge being cumulative, whereas false knowledge goes nowhere. He would know that language is a natural force that creates social structure by inducting individuals into the fabric of the superorganism, by delivering a linguistic programme, a living programme carrying an identity. As such, knowledge is not meant to be cumulative, it is meant to be here and now. This is why we say that, when arguing that religion and science cannot exist in the same society at the same time, that we know that science does not exist if religion does, because all that religion needs to do is to be there, whereas science needs to be a true representation of reality in order to be science. What else is there at the same time as religion is irrelevant, if religion exists, then it rules all—identity is, and that is all there is to it —while science needs to be there alone. Religion versus science is not about falsity versus truth, it is about identity versus truth, and the reactions of individuals concerning these matters, tells us loud and clear which matters most, and it is not truth. Andreski sees that science as we have it is not truth, that is what his book is about, but he has no idea why this failure occurs, So what damn use is he ? The only use he is, is as an indication of the problem, and the same applies to Dawkins. But as ever with such people, they tend to take the sting from the problem, and thus act like servants of the theocracy by pretending to be the rebels many people feel in need of. Such rebels function as gatekeepers by providing a

public ‘wail of anguish’ for the gross obscenity we all see, but these wailers never actually act as genuine public adversaries of the establishment would, because they never answer the question Why ? The last block of inane profundity he heaps upon us in the above selection, is nice because he speaks of sociology be preserved as a true science “on the fringes of various establishments and counter-establishments (if not by complete outsiders or even outcasts)”. And here we are, the atheist scientists, people who have recognised that for science to exist scientists must take the war to religion, and make the total eradication of religion from the planet, the primary goal of science. We are not part of the establishment, indeed we are not we at all, ‘we’ is just me. And I am the ultimate outsider, the self-made outcast. So I like this comment. The rest is taken only for completeness, it is more of the same lame drivel, invoking the mighty will of the sublime, Christ like individual, striving against the odds, achieving little, and getting nailed for his troubles ; puke ! All in all then, a very nice selection from one of the most magnificent of our modern sociologists. And now, his closing words are a must : — Apart from the consequences of almost everything becoming a part of the entertainment industry and being affected by the methods of high pressure salesmanship and advertising, another unexpected influence has begun to operate in the fields we are discussing. It seems that since they have become an established occupation, the social sciences have begun to attract the type of mind which in the olden days would have taken up dogmatic theology or preaching. This has been an unfortunate change, because the old theology and mysticism (regardless of which denomination) were linked to a moral code, whereas the new cults enjoin no firm rules of conduct, adherence to which was the price for an opportunity to satisfy a desire for the kind of admiration normally bestowed upon the licensed interpreters of the Holy Writ. Instead of entertaining visions of a final victory of reason over magic and ignorance, we have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that the norms and ideals which permit the advancement of knowledge have to be defended in every generation against new enemies, who reappear like the heads of the Hydra as soon as others are decapitated, and who employ ever-new labels, catchwords and slogans to play on the perennial weaknesses of mankind. Whatever happens in the instrumental exact sciences, we can be sure that in matters where intellectual and moral considerations mesh, the struggle between the forces of light and the forces of darkness will never end. The pioneers of rationalism inveighed against the traditional dogmas, ridiculed popular superstitions, campaigned against priests and sorcerers, and castigated them for fostering and preying upon the ignorance of the masses — hoping that a final victory of science would banish for ever the evils of unreason and organized deception. Little did they suspect that a Trojan Horse would appear in the camp of enlightenment, full of streamlined sorcerers clad in the latest paraphernalia of science. (Andreski, 237 - 8.) Again, he is oblivious of the bigger picture, as to why sociology, of all the sciences, after making a true start courtesy of Comte in the 1830’s, went to the dogs and became corrupt. He does not realise that this corruption from within, was engineered by the social powers that be. During the seventies, when I went to college, sociology was being wilfully corrupted by the hand out of grants to any dickhead who wanted to doss at college, as

sociology was the subject of choice for such people. I think this was generally known, to some extent, it is a little difficult to recall exactly now. I vaguely remember meeting a maturish student, married, with a kid, who, if I remember rightly, told me in no uncertain terms, just how sociology worked, as a doss. I think I remember being intrigued by this, and puzzled. Then we did not know why, but now we do ! Whether he knew why or not, Andreski does make the observation, and this is worth having. When we talk about this corruption of sociology by the grants system, this is a rather subtle method of corruption, it is institutional corruption of a peripheral institution by the core institution of the state, and exactly what we would expect from a theocracy, which is use to working via infiltration into the secular reaches of social order, carrying a subversive agenda, albeit the age old agenda of the state. This layering of institutional order whereby a core power corrupts the outer extensions via control of fiscal powers, is like the idea of the freemasons existing as a uniform body made up of a hierarchy of discrete authorities, which none of the lower orders even know exist. It is therefore perfectly in keeping with the subtlety of priestly corruption. As we can see from the divisive issues existing between biology and sociology, made plain in the book Human by Nature, there was no lack of awareness from the academic establishment regarding the desperate need to suppress all true science in sociology. By handing out grants to all and sundry, the student population was degraded, in terms of moral fibre, as represented in devotion to integrity. This is no criticism of the individuals who would accept such offers, indeed it goes to show how valuable it is to a fascist authority to have an endless pool of intelligent, civil and capable individuals, who have no concept of integrity. This is why criminal behaviour is so precious in a Jewish slave body, and why we are all taught, through the medium of popular culture, to admire the successful criminal as the ultimate hero. On The Weakest Link on BBC 1 today, Wednesday, 14 October 2009, a question put by Anne Robinson asked what it was that some famous bloke said only a bean head wrote for any reason other than, the answer being money. And it is such people who are always ready to answer the call to arms, from a theocracy handing out sinecures to those who will take a reward in return for obedience, and ask no questions, while caring nothing as to why. Writing is a worthless occupation, unless it pays, in other words. Which must mean that knowledge per se, has no value. This monetary corruption acts in turn as a deterrent to any individuals who do actually have some prior ideas about the nature of sociology, and who want to treat it as a true science. Discouraging such people, shooing them off toward alternate subjects offering better prospects of doing real science with regard to human nature, as with anthropology, which is what I studied, though here too our deviant masters had done their insidious work, to perfection. And so, with these musings from personal experience in mind, we can say that what Andreski’s incredible work does, is to describe the consequences of this establishment corruption, achieved by manipulating the reins of power in a most devious, sick and depraved way, as befits the religious freaks who hold the reigns of power in our world. The second paragraph of the above quote, has potential. The same blind, stupid errors are there, where he thinks the game is all about human avarice, versus human failings and inadequacies. But he unwittingly invokes the notion of a human nature, inducing a process that forever repeats itself, and if he were not a twat, he could of asked himself, Why such a process exists ? Instead of just mindlessly dredging up the lessons imprinted upon his brain at Sunday school, or wherever, telling him it is all about good and evil. And his final words ? Well I like them because that was me, that was me as I had been created by my secular, freedom loving society, before I saw the light. I too suspected nothing, until I saw everything. 1. And so, on with Bernard

Bernard’s Neglected Factors is so good I am wondering quite how to convey an adequate degree of praise. I have written seventy three pages of notes on the second section, which is all we are concerned with here. I would like to spend six months, a year if necessary, using these notes as a guide to working my way through his book : that would be heaven on earth, to me. But, Bernard lets us down. He collapses just when we want him to be strong. As a consequence, it is possible for me to try and give an off the cuff appraisal of his work, without at the same time offering a close analysis, and still provide something worth putting online. After putting How Religion Survived on Scribd nearly two months ago, I was happy to sit here and do my thing while being oblivious to the world, until I was ready to present this piece. But if I must now spend three months in purgatory, which fried my brain the last time I was tortured this way, under the same ‘help scheme’ two years ago, and is already making me shudder internally just to think about it, then I feel I must present this work before my torture begins. Afterwards, I will hopefully return to my notes on Bernard, and spend the next year making of this work what I would want to make of it now, because Bernard, is to die for ! 2. Our search for real science We will assume that anyone who looks at this will of looked at How Religion Survived first. We therefore start from an understanding that humans are to be viewed as the product of nature, just as much as any other living thing, in every detail of their existence. The question of interest for us is therefore, how to explain human existence accordingly. Taking society at face value, we would buy into the idea that we live in a free society, that has achieved freedom, against the odds, by separating out various zones of authority in order that the business of life could be conducted, while the imperatives of freedom, so long fought for, because so long limited by the business of life, had been secured to itself, safe within its own domain of existence, as it were. To wit, science was one such enclave of sanctity from oppressive authority, the epitome of that enclave of freedom, in fact. Belief in this freedom is the prime imperative of our British, if not indeed, our so called ‘Western’ culture. How Religion Survived is in effect a treatise on our awakening from the delusion of freedom found. If we take the remarks from Andreski, readily to hand above, we can accept that if some sort of freedom was once realised, it was always under the duress of an ever present struggle to prevent that freedom from persisting, coming from the powers that rule society. Thus, as Andreski intimates, we must just accept that as far as knowledge is concerned, there is no end to the struggle, and the essential bones of contention will always be fought over. If freedom has its victory, then it can, in the nature of the thing, only ever be partial, and temporary, and it is always liable to a total reversal. This is because knowledge has a genuine biological function, and as such its possession is the key to human life, in keeping with the way nature made humans to live. Knowledge is therefore something to be fought over, and always will be. This is essentially because there is no such thing as an individual existing as an end in themselves, and it is the true end in itself, the superorganism, which is created by means of linguistic ‘knowledge’ uniting hapless individuals into power blocs, which does empower persons individually, as units of collective integrity, within which it is obvious that knowledge is the unifying element, where the factor of importance is not ‘truth’ but ‘bonding power’. Despite my manic condemnation of the Horizon programme on TV last night, described above, when the question as to why humans talk, was given a categorical answer, the answer given began by being perfectly correct, before quickly drifting into absurdity, of course. The scientist said language existed to form social bonds, which is all we are saying here. The difference is that the delinquent academic made the bonds

expressions of a conscious desire, whereby humans decided they could develop valuable social roles via structural bonds based on an innate linguistic acuity that hitherto, no one had found any use for ; which is rather like saying the cart has wheels and can roll, so it goes looking for something to push, and finds a horse ! We see the same things, we just see them differently. Certain things are necessary to undergoing an awakening from a monstrous delusion on the scale of the world. Before you can see anything, you must see everything. In other words—first you must see the light—the penny must drop—you must have a moment of revelation, when all becomes clear. Your eyes must be opened, or, more correctly, your mind must be opened to reality. This means you must discover the true solution to the question in hand, you must realise what human nature is, for real. What this revelation does, is to put a logical key in your possession. From that point on, any idea that comes your way can have the key put to it, and the key can only ever give a correct answer, in so far as you have sufficient information and acuity to work the key properly. Obviously once a key is a matter of public knowledge it becomes subject to an onslaught of corruption, it can no longer serve as an inspiration, and hence the special power of revelation only applies to the shedding of slavery to a social wide delusion, imposed by authority. In other words a key to knowledge can be wilfully misused for the usual purposes of knowledge control. But for the sincere seeker after freedom of thought, from these beginnings it becomes possible to shed the imposed blinkers of culture and ongoing propaganda, and thus we can produce a work of awakening such as How Religion Survived. We should note in passing that religious identity programmes also require a key to interpreting reality in order to know how to subvert the truth, whatever form truth takes, thereby providing the means to keep public knowledge centred on its priesthood. Priests therefore fashion and maintain a false key with which to interpret reality, that key opens the door to social power by subverting true knowledge. Thus Judaism is a key, a key which is transmitted to the Jewish slave identity programmes of Christianity and Islam ; and the same key is passed onto science, via Darwinism. We say the key to Judaism’s power appears in the form of the mantra that demands that : the sanctity of the individual viewed as an end in themselves, is always supreme. This false key has power because it directly subverts the exact opposite, true key, and thus secures the power of superorganic being for Judaism, instead of for all humanity, as we seek to do here via our atheist science which wants to see Judaism eradicated from the face of the earth, so that all people can be free under atheist science. This will mean the total extermination of the human species, but you can’t have everything ! We must be aware of the magnitude of the subject we are dealing with here. We live in a scientific age, an age of knowledge so stupendous as to be mindbogglingly incredible to think about, if we make a serious attempt to do so. Because we must have the key before we begin to work out any details, this means there is much to do in terms of understanding just how science could come to be degraded in such a way as to ensure that not one iota of freedom exists today, anymore than freedom existed in the most oppressive societies ever to of existed on earth. The control of true knowledge is a fascinating story, it is the story that How Religion Survived is intended to direct attention towards, and to explain. But this emphasis upon how the deception was created, means there are two facets to the subject. First, there is our awakening, as we wonder how we have been so deceived and manipulated, How was this possible ? This is a major topic, of great fascination and interest, and rather tricky to tease out too. While in the course of unravelling the story of the world wide deception, we begin to realise that we are consumed with the deception, and we scarcely think about the real science, about what would of been, if freedom really had come to be a reality, as we are tricked into thinking it has.

The search for real science is always implicit in the relentless effort to examine as much material as possible, that might in any way have a bearing on our attempt to apply our key to an understanding of how we were deceived. But the search carries us hither and thither, from one place to another, left, right and centre, and in this searching, searching, searching, science is just one piece of the jigsaw, as far as the question as to how we were deceived is concerned. Aside from the need for a first act of awakening, there are preconditions related to the act of awakening ever occurring, and these play an important part in the story. There is a need for an implicit denial of authority, and hence a predisposition to resist authority, to fight the forces that have been the source of the deception. The existence of this prior antiestablishment attitude means that we can do a great deal to elaborate original work, revealing why the deception occurred, and why it occurred in precisely the way it did. In the course of which argument, we find ourselves venturing inevitably into all those dark dark places, that have been constructed as part of the fabric of deception, to keep people out. The world of taboo. Thus we come to understand that any hope of finding any actual science, of the very kind that the deception was set up to erase from existence, set up by all the powers of all the world, is simply not going to happen. So we never imagine that we can find a lost science that actually says all that we say now, from a philosophical perspective. We just do not imagine that such a thing ever saw the light of day, not in a public form that we have any chance of discovering. 3. Finding the impossible I don’t know what to say. This is so awesome for me. There can be no experience on earth to compare with discovering the true science, written in full, that all the world has gone to so much trouble to ensure could not exist. We could degrade ourselves by saying that to slaves of Judaism, discovering the original tablets handed to Moses, bearing the hand on God upon them . . . would mean ecstasy ; and many religious freak movies have played out this kind of sick fantasy theme. We do not want to draw on the culture of such vile degenerates for our precious moments of self indulgent joy. Not long ago I saw something on TV about an old text that was found in a monastic library in the Near East, that had been reused, velum being hard to come by priests recycled old secular or pagan texts by writing over them, and the text underneath was mathematics. An academic said this was an early rendition of one of the great ancient mathematicians, and he drooled over the idea that it might even be the hand of the great thinker in question. This is nice, but still, in the end, this is far short of what we are talking about here. The single most important branch of our labours as atheist scientists, involves our quest to rediscover the application of the key, as it was applied when it was the main solution to all things, when an ephemeral moment of freedom existed, before being closed down, and its fruits suppressed. The key is : that human nature is corporate, meaning that human physiology evolved to form a superorganism. The original discovery of this key was expressed in the idea of the social organism, and it gave rise to a scientific sociology called Organicism. Thus, the most precious thing we can ever do is to find anything of an organicist nature from before the Great Cleansing of 1914 – 1918, which terrible event constitutes the cusp of transition from freedom to darkness, as unwittingly hinted at by Andreski when he speaks about the inevitability of “the struggle between the forces of light and the forces of darkness” never ending, where certain issues of business are concerned. Today, Wednesday, 11 November 2009, the lying propaganda bullshit on TV, has shown the Queen celebrating Armistice Day, the day that all the freedoms we enjoy today were secured for us to enjoy !— the high priests of this obscene ceremony declared in his sanctimonious tones, the true voice of a devil if ever we heard one. These slavish dupes are so repugnant, in their sick displays

of ignorance and arrogance. And the people soak up this poison like a sponge, just because of the relentless propaganda in the shape of news about ‘our boys’ being blown up in Afghanistan ; insects, bloody insects. The idiots do not realise this is the point of the war, not to fight for the Pakis. The war is fought to give the priests here the levers of power they need to keep us in check, as they transform our world into a Paki land, a Muslim society where fascism is free at last, and does not have to play games to be in power, it just stamps its authority openly. Yesterday a news item spoke about the president of Afghanistan attending a meeting of Islamic states at which some fifty eight nations were represented. Fifty eight ! It makes the pit of your stomach turn to think of so much of the world enslaved to Islam, we have no hope, the Jews find Islam the finest slave identity, and so we cattle are doomed to have it as our very own implant, soon. Surely it is better that humans should become extinct ? Can anyone doubt it. Bernard’s Neglected Factors, I have to say, has taken me rather by surprise. There is no precedent for his work. He does talk about predecessors in the same line of reasoning as his, regarding the science of colonial life, and he uses Herbert Spencer as an ever present touchstone for his reasoning as to the wider implications of his interpretation of evolution based on the science of colonial life. But nowhere is there anything that remotely resembles the upshot of Bernard’s work, which presents a whole new theory of evolution that encompasses all of life, and especially the life of modern humans. It really is a one of, an anomaly, a quite unique piece of work. We do not really want to make this a study of Bernard as an anomaly. We want to get at his science. We recognise in his work the true science of evolution. How Religion Survived played out the implications of realising that humans were a superorganic species of mammal, leading to the most controversial discussions it is possible to imagine. We cast ourselves first and foremost as atheists, we called our philosophy ‘atheist science’, the true science opposed to the official science, the ‘religious ‘science’ that is maintained and promulgated by the universities, as institutions serving an absolute theocracy. Hence we were dead set on seeking to destroy religion as part of our scientific work. We therefore had no qualms about breaching taboos and speaking the unspeakable. It follows from this, that we know where any scientist pursuing science without limit, must find themselves. Bernard followed science without restraint, to its logical conclusion. But then he took a dive. We must understand the man as an individual set in a social context, in respect to his failure to interpret science truly, despite discovering the key and applying it correctly at all times, and in all places. So, because Bernard acquiesced in the demand for obedience to theocracy, in the end, despite producing the greatest piece of science the world has ever seen, we do have a two part dimension to this, the scientific contrasting with the social and personal.

Chapter 7 The Science of Evolution

COLONY-FORMATION AS A FACTOR IN ORGANIC EVOLUTION*

IT is now more than a hundred years since the Evolution of organic life became a

recognized scientific hypothesis, and the search for the mechanism of the requisite changes in the forms of life became keen. Solution after solution was offered, but none gained general acceptance until that suggested simultaneously by Darwin and Wallace, exactly fifty years ago. The painstaking researches of Darwin proved beyond doubt that organic changes were a fact, though how they were induced was not clear. It would seem that organisms were regarded as objects floating free, and undergoing slight structural changes. But it would be more correct to regard them as if solidly embedded in their cosmic environments. And it occurs to us that variations brought about in this way cannot by any means be selected. Yet here was an apparently adequate explanation of Evolution, and it was welcomed and energetically endorsed by men of such calibre as Haeckel, Huxley, and Herbert Spencer, and in these days is the recognized doctrine. But we are now daily becoming more convinced that these natural variations have not yielded anything like a complete solution of the problem, and that the two Darwinian factors—small structural variations, naturally “selected”—are not enough to account for the phenomena. It may be that some other factor has been overlooked. I wish to suggest that this factor is colony-formation. Now of course it is ridiculous to say that colony-formation itself has been overlooked in the face of all that Haeckel has written about that phenomenon, or of Professor E. Perrier’s Book on Colonial Animals. It is the part it has played in Evolution which has not been sufficiently appreciated. * This essay was read before a meeting of the Linnæan Society, on Thursday, May 7, 1908.

(The Scientific Basis of Socialism, Bernard, 1908, pp. 12 – 13.) This is how Bernard opened his talk to the prestigious scientific society he was a member of, a talk given in the year before his premature death at the age of fifty six. These two short paragraphs set the scene, as regards the science we are so overwhelmed to of been

fortunate enough to of discovered. A century earlier the demand for a theory of evolution became apparent. Fifty years ago this demand was met. Now that demand was felt once again, as the earlier solution was found to be worthless. And so it was that Bernard presented the true, final, complete solution to the problem of life’s evolution. In my reading of Neglected Factors, when I came to the portions that led me to consider this matter, I wrote notes exclaiming how obvious it was that Darwin’s model was superficial, while, by contrast, Bernard’s was fundamental. Had I set about producing the full work that I wanted to, you would have a lengthy account, in all its details, of both what Bernard says, and how I responded as I read his work. Plus any additional thoughts enabled by the more systematic and thorough effort of turning such work into a more finished product. As it is we must be more succinct. Darwin looks at animals much as anyone looks at animals, and he devised a plan that matched what we see all about us in daily life. Bernard looked at animals as only the scientist can look at animals, and while Darwin certainly took the geological record into account, Bernard reaches right back into the origins of life via the derivation of living fabric from inanimate matter, and this Darwin does not do. The result is that Darwin gives us a political theory of evolution, while Bernard gives us a technical theory of evolution. Needless to say, politics is not science, whereas technical treatises are science. We have said enough about the fact that Darwinism is not science in How Religion Survived, and why such a monstrous imposition as Darwinism was vital to the continuing existence of society as we know it. Bernard does not delve into such matters, he treats the uselessness of the first accepted solution to the problem of life’s evolution, as legitimate, and gets on with the job of tackling the scientific consequences of this unrecognised problem. 1. Colonial Evolution As we have said, Bernard calls his model of evolution ‘colonial evolution’, and we can see why from the above quote, it is because the dynamics of colonial formation introduce a special factor into life processes, that, when taken into account, allows a complete theory of evolution to be worked out, making Darwinism superfluous as a theory of evolution ; though his natural selection mechanism did indicate the underlying genetic process, which enables the construction and transformation of living matter to take place. This materialistic dynamic is however not the explanation of living complexity, because it cannot be used to explain all that living material is capable of. An inadequacy in the science that was of course no accident, because of the political ramifications of this knowledge in our lives. The nub of Bernard’s theory involves a cycle of evolutionary development, whereby periods of uniformity rotate with periods of diversity, as already described above. Bernard establishes his scientific model within the first four phases of life’s hierarchical physiological advance, as identified by studying colonial formation. The preface to Neglected Factors makes it plain that the primary ‘neglected factor’ in evolution, is that of Periodicity. In the process of developing his model of evolution he picked out key factors in the process of colonial evolution, regarding the necessary attributes of the units of colonial being, factors relevant to the unification of discrete units of life into integrated organic wholes. Accordingly, when moving onto the all important last phase of colonial evolution, as so far attained by life, where humans become the unit of integration into a higher state of organic being, Bernard has his general physiological guidelines to direct his thoughts on how humans fit in with his model of colonial evolution. Perrier’s name appears in the above quote, and he was an important figure regarding the science of colonial evolution. He wrote a book called Les Colonies Animales et la Formation des Organismes, Edmond Perrier, 1881, it is not available in English, but it is free to download. My PDF copy indicates it has eight hundred and twenty eight pages, so it is a substantial piece of work. It is clear from this title that Perrier is a predecessor of Bernard,

working in the same vein. I just ran a search for Espinas in Perrier’s work and got no hits, which surprises me. I just wanted to say that the French established themselves quite favourably in this line of genuine scientific work, and with the organicist school of sociology led by René Worms being contemporary with Bernard, it is a shame that the French have followed the same degenerate path of erasing true science from their slave society, just as we have. I just purchased copies of the Catalogue of the Madreporarian Corals in the British Museum of Natural History, volumes five and six, written by Bernard, as were volumes four, three and two. These works are available to download for free, but I like to obtain original copies of important works if I can, it certainly adds substance to ones appreciation of Bernard’s professional work if you can see the product in the lump, these books are big, ‘folio’ I think the term is. The preface to volume five acknowledges a debt of gratitude to Perrier, for giving Bernard access to the collection of corals at the Museum of Natural History in Paris. Perrier held a post at the Paris museum, and notice of this collaboration gives us some additional sense of the position of orthodoxy under which Bernard will of felt he laboured, along with fellow professionals, all working toward a shared scientific goal. This is a very important thing to be clear about as we study Bernard today, for his ideas would be regarded as way off the beaten track today, and indeed the dealer from whom I got the book which began this current adventure, after complimenting Bernard’s early work in Neglected Factors, talks about how he went on to “correct Darwinism with a dollop of Panglossian teleology”. Where he got this criticism I do not know, he may of felt qualified to make it on the basis of his own slave programming. According to Hitler’s Golden rule of social power, there can only be One message, in our slave world that message is indeed Darwinism, and these pre Great Cleansing workers, following an inherently different, scientific line of thinking, arising from the hard won conditions supporting freedom of thought, still existing at that time—just—had to be removed from the key posts they held within the social infrastructure, and prevented from inducting other scientifically minded followers into the continuance of their genuine work : the Great Cleansing of 1914 – 1918, did that job magnificently ! 2. Confusion reigns Our primary object, however, is the establishment of a new evolutionary principle which can be applied to the conditions of human life without reducing us psychically to despair, as does the existing evolutionary law which necessitates a lifeand-death struggle between human beings. (The Scientific Basis of Socialism, Bernard, 1908, pp. 10 – 11.) If we turn once again to the more succinct version of Bernard’s ideas, found in his lecture delivered in 1908, we find the published volume has an introduction that concludes as quoted above. This declaration of intent is fraught with difficulties. Firstly it condemns Darwinism because it is morally bereft. As to this, if he realised that Darwinism was not really science at all, but more properly religion in disguise, this would of told him why so called science had produced such a monstrously obscene rendition of life. Whereas religion, always being the height of evil, inevitably produces ideas that are monstrous. So if he really objected to the innately evil nature of Darwinism, all he had to do was to show what Darwinism really was, by showing the true source of its reasoning. This he gives no indication of understanding at all.

Secondly, I might of removed my far too long chapter on the importance of racism, if I had produced a full version of this work, because I might of found it too distracting from the main thrust of the book, and too much of me. But in this vastly reduced format, in light of this confession of wilful bias on the part of Bernard, I rather think a full account of how important science shows hatred on a broad scale to be, is important, because the one thing Bernard does not do, is to show how ‘evil’ is revealed to be functional, by a true science of human nature. This contrast between our true and ‘utterly revolting’ work, as compared with his collapse of truth just when it matters, and hence ‘worthless’ work—worthless without our coming to its rescue a century on—allows us to see just how tricky the production of a true science of humanity can be. We would argue however, that unless we recognise the true reality of life’s challenges, how what we regard as ‘evil’ is vital to life as we know it, then we have no means of moving beyond that kind of evil, which is just what Bernard wanted to do, but thought he could achieve by ducking the issue, and concocting a ludicrous interpretation of science. And so this brings us to our third point concerning the above expression of bias intent. Bernard wanted to obtain a deeper scientific grasp of human nature, in order to present a model of life that was more conducive to traditional moral imperatives. This intent is a complex compound of motives, and it would take some working out to consider all of its implications and ramifications. But at rock bottom, as we have just indicated, we can do no better than to maintain that in order to make social progress of the kind Bernard expresses a desire for, somewhat of a utopian kind, we must first make intellectual progress. We do not make intellectual progress by refusing to admit to the negative aspects of reality. Such manipulation of the truth is what religion and its bedfellow, politics, are all about ; but not so with science. Bernard followed the conformist route by selling science out to religion. The same principle of a need for ‘real truth’, not ‘happy truth’, applies in any technical field where a happy outcome is desired. In medicine progress could not be made in the important area of hygiene until doctors had been forced to overcome their egos, and admit their dirty hands were killing patients. In social life the same stricture applies, we cannot perfect our social order until we have recognised that religion is the ultimate evil on earth. Ducking the issue by inventing an alternative soporific to lull people into being obedient slaves to a new shade of ignorance, will not cut it ; that should be obvious, one and a half centuries after Darwin foisted his malignant tripe on us. 3. The importance of dualism Just as a key is vital to decoding a deception imposed by the powers that rule the world, so dualism is vital to setting up such a deception in the first place. Priests must know these tricks, they never fail to apply them. Bernard is no exception, sadly. What Bernard is at pains to do when he hits the fifth domain of life’s evolving hierarchy, is to delineate a scientific equivalent of the religious division of man from nature. This is truly disgusting, heartbreakingly disappointing. But this diversion into the tactics of priestcraft cannot be said to denote an open affiliation to a religious order in Bernard’s case. The reason for his duplicity and treachery towards himself ! is to be found in the passage above, where he reveals a political ideal informing his life—expressed in socialism—so that he declares a desire to make the necessities of life more palatable. The fact that Bernard found his social cause in a modern alternative to traditional moral schemes is significant. This meant he could stick to the directives indicated by his scientific model of colonial evolution, even when dealing with human social existence. This would not be the case for anyone toying with the idea of the social organism, while still trying to duck the question of where this idea inexorably leads, because they are a Jesus freak for example. Religious people always try to take over any ideas that come from science, and

the idea of the social organism is no exception. I have a book called Religion and Science by P. N. Waggett, 1904, that is intended to help priests defeat science, and it contains a chapter called The Study of Society as an Organism, which does not denigrate this strictly materialistic idea, on the contrary, it uses it for religious purposes. Obviously any correct scientific analysis of reality can be perverted to fit in with Biblical mythology, and the idea of a social organism has long be linked to Christian ideas of social order, going back well before science indeed. St. Augustin’s City of God, completed in 426, is the classic piece of Christian theology that organicists refer to in this regard, if I remember rightly. The modern introduction to my copy taken from the net, indicates that its subject matter is about the pivotal time when the slaves of Judaism in Christian form, were being transformed into the masters of the world, as the Roman slaves of Judaism, as a crude pagan form of slave body, having completed their term of service to the master race, were being phased out. Just as we Europeans are being phased out today, our work of advancing Judaism across the world being complete, to allow the more heavily oppressed, and hence more advanced, being more functionally slavish, Islamic slaves of Judaism to replace us. We may suppose that when the fresh batch of Christian maggots were being produced, they were fully as functional as our contemporary Muslim suicide bomber. Hence just as the devout Muslim willing blows themselves up to unwittingly advance the Jewish global dominion, so the Christian use to volunteer to feed themselves to the lions in order to unwittingly further the same end. No wonder Judaism advances remorselessly ! What we find with Bernard then, is that he has an expressly social agenda, not a specifically religious agenda. This still causes him to go crazy and start mimicking a religious lunatic, by fabricating dualistic systems that allow him to preserve the sacred qualities of humans, while at the same time imposing the newly discovered rules of colonial evolution upon his analysis of human social dynamics. But of course religion has always done just this, in its advanced forms certainly, for a religion is nothing more than a natural expression of the linguistic force that creates social structure. A religion is therefore simply a linguistic programme, containing instructions for the creation of social structure, while carrying an identity component, because the structure in question is organic and living. Religion is politics, and so, if you want to make politics, you must concoct religion. This is why even atheist ideological regimes, such as that of Soviet Russia, ends up being as religious as it is possible to be, although in truth it began by being as religious as it is possible to be when it kicked off on the basis of Marx’s communism. All of which only emphasises the point we are seeking to make, that when doing science, the key is to do science, and not to conflate what you do, with anything else. What Bernard did by way of invoking dualism, was to invent a new physical dimension to the universe. Yes, we are not kidding, that is exactly what he did. He did not begin by describing his madness in these terms, although he did actually get there eventually. This is so tragic, it is enough to make us weep. He fabricated his new dimension from the contents of the linguistic flux of the time, that was pulsing through late Victorian society. The linguistic loom of culture running at that time was spinning a tapestry of deception, as ever, and Bernard added his ideas to the flowing picture. The damnable thing is, that there was a natural phenomena crying out for his attention and recognition, but rather than take what was to hand, he substituted a lunatic idea, taken mainly from the poison that is psychology. We have long insisted that the main weapon of attack developed by the theocracy to subvert and discredit the science of sociology, correctly based on the implicit fact that humans are a superorganic species of mammal, was psychology. The point being, that psychology treats the individual as the foci of psychological states, which makes an implicit assumption that the individual exists as an end in themselves, even when subject to subconscious phenomena which link essentially to collective dimensions of existence, the idea that the individual is the centre of interest never fades. Psychology does for mental

phenomena, what astrology does for celestial phenomena, it makes reality personal, irrespective of reality. And so it was that psychology also did the same thing for Bernard’s science of colonial evolution. However, while this must be a disappointment, as we noted above, we could hardly expect ever to find a scientist presenting a true account of human nature, exactly as we have reasoned such an account must be, and then carrying their conclusions to the full expression as we do, by revealing that the Jews are the master race, and the Christian and Muslim social orders are but hierarchical layers in a superorganic physiology, all of which is Jewish. That idea, I am sure, has never seen the light of day before I started hitting the keys. But I said it of Kidd, regarding his Social Evolution of 1894, and I’ll say it of Bernard, the basic groundwork for coming out with this conclusion is all there in his work. Bernard goes way further Kidd, his work being of a very different kind. But because Bernard is presenting a piece of professional scientific theorising, his work is far more consistent and far reaching. He does nonetheless save himself from committing social suicide, by figuring out the best way to deal with the human dimension according to the usual evasive method, by concocting a ‘fairy story’ that elevates humanity above the known dimensions of existence, making humans supernatural. Only in Bernard’s case, we have the peculiar stratagem of devising a supernatural state on the basis of a scientific theory ! Giving us a supernatural state of nature. Only of course Bernard was not presenting it like this, he was making out that the psychic dimension he envisioned was real, and should be looked for by science. There were contemporary discoveries to validate this approach, the discovery of radiation being of just this kind, revealing to the world a force of a remarkable nature that had never been suspected, which had incredible implications for our understanding of the material world, and may well be thought to project our awareness into the realms of a hitherto unknown dimension of reality. Which, in the light of nuclear physics, it did ! Even so, that does not justify Bernard’s aberration. The sort of evidence for a psychic dimension that convinced him, was the undeniable fact that telepathy was real ! The fleeting examples he gives are absurd extrapolations from everyday experience, such as the curious feeling of déjà vu that we all may have on odd occasions, as the mind plays tricks on us. Reading this part of Bernard’s work makes me cringe. I wish I did not have to say this now, it does me no favours as I strive to validate Bernard’s science, representing it as the greatest science ever to of been created, anywhere, by anyone. Still, who was the greatest lunatic ever known to of walked the planet, and not to of been put in a straightjacket ? Yep, Sir Isaac Newton, arguably the greatest scientist of all time. We have to try and understand just what we are talking about here. In our work we freely conceive of language as the expression of a natural force, a physiological attribute that evolved as a primary medium of superorganic being. This is obvious, commonsense indeed, although it still took me years of working at the idea of humans as superorganisms before this clear sighted idea crystallised in my brain ; now I wonder where I would be without it. To me it seems obvious that Bernard should of seen exactly the same thing. The mad thing being that he is consumed with the idea of a need for some means of communication to exist between people, but for the life of him he just cannot conceive of any means known to man, whereby two people can communicate with one another !! Can you believe it ? I am reading this stuff and trying to force a telepathic message back down the tramlines of telepathy, one hundred years into the past, to say what about speech, Do you think it might be possible for two people to communicate by talking to each other ? Hell’s teeth !!!!! I just don’t know, I really just don’t know. How the heck did he manage to think about all this stuff without ever once wondering what language was, and why we had evolved the power to speak ? In fact there are clues as to why this glaring oversight was made, to do with his attitude toward the individual as an fallible unit, wherein language existed to gratify

the personal ego. At the same time, I think, the ideas which come so naturally to us now, thanks to the modern science of genetics, were not available to Bernard, so that conceiving of language as a programme delivering information to an organic being, by organising people into a tightly bound body, was just not on the cards. So while we may pull our hair out in dismay at this unwelcome twist in the argument, we can, reluctantly settle down, and find ways of making sense of this terrible tragedy : the loss of a fully formed science of human nature, not to mention a complete theory of life’s evolution. Yesterday, 16/10/2009, was gloriously sunny, I sat in my greenhouse, sunbathing you might say, and read the first essay, and part of the second, reproduced in The scientific Basis of Socialism. These lectures were given in Bernard’s last year of life. The first essay recapitulates, from our perspective, in miniature, the whole of his main work. Wherein we find some remarkable, uninhibited expression of his ideas, that does not come across in the much fuller, but posthumously published treatise Neglected Factors. So much is this so, that I developed the feeling that these little pieces must be regarded as precious keys to his main work ; a vial of the essence of life that did not make it through the portal of death, but which he left behind for us to use as a sprinkling of much needed essence of Bernard, able to bring his posthumous work back to life. Not least is the instant appearance of language as a means of communication, befitting his theory, hallelujah ! 4. The good bits Having scuppered his own theory by turning linguistic force into a psychic dimension, Bernard is then safe to apply the logic of colonial evolution as worked out in reference to the first four levels in the hierarchy colonial of physiology. What this means is that he continues to make gorgeous observations of exactly the kind we wish to see, talking about the organisation of social structure in accordance with the demands of his theory, but without ever being obliged to play out the consequences of this insight in the real world of here and now. By promulgating the idea of a new psychic dimension appearing along with the evolution of humans, he is able to apply a traditional style of interpretation whenever he thinks about the meaning of the colonial theory of evolution as it applies to human beings, because he is able to put off the consequences by saying that humans are just part way through the process of realising the full integration of the individual, into the social organism. This idea that humans are only part way formed is familiar. It appears as a regular evasive device, allowing the application of science to humans to be ducked by saying that we do not have to think about what humans are now, because they are not a finished product, even if we are pretending to apply a naturalistic model to ourselves ; very sneaky. We frequently state that science must, at all times, treat reality as complete, to do otherwise is little less than pure insanity, in terms of what it means to do science. Science looks for variations in degrees of completeness to build a picture of a whole process, but each stage is regarded as complete in itself. This is what scientists avoid doing when dealing with humans, treating humans as being implicitly without a biological nature, because they are assumed to be free and self made. It really is incredible that this puerile degeneracy can pass unrecognised. By contrast, we make the medium of communication, fulfilling the imperatives of colonial evolution—language—and in so doing we place this physiological attribute at the heart of what it means to be human. Hence we make language a natural force and explain every detail of life as we live it, according to this insight. So, while at first sight it is gut wrenchingly disappointing to find Bernard diving into madness the very moment that he enters the human domain, because his scientific theory is solid, and he sticks to it, we find

ourselves readily able to use his ideas without alteration, by grafting on the idea of a linguistic force, in place of a psychic force, in the upper reaches of his discussions. I indulged myself at one point while reading his work, I often write pencil notes on the blank end pages, but never within a book, except on this one occasion. I felt that Bernard had written the essence of the proof that God does not exist, although, of course, he does not crystallise his words thus, he leaves them fluid. The first two sentences of the last paragraph quoted below, is the bit I identified as giving the essence of the proof that God does not exist. We prove God does not exist by showing what God is in reality. Here Bernard argues that what all religions allude to, and what we call ‘God’, is the reality of the unseen, but intuitively sensed psychic dimension. He says the existence of religion is positive proof of something real existing, namely, the “psychic element in the environment”. This argument is identical, in both its sentiment and its construction, to our claim that religion identifies the superorganism, and calls it ‘God’. Our idea is vastly superior to Bernard’s however, and this is because we identify something which is tangible as the reality which goes unseen in religion, that is the intuitively sensed reality. We would not speak of intuition however, this is needlessly vague from our point of view, because we know that all knowledge is a product of linguistic force. So that what Bernard calls ‘intuition’ is simply the experience of the core linguistic programme, acting on our brains, to make us conscious of something that we cannot know directly, without the aid of atheist science that is. Linguistic force is the tangible element of reality, that we only know as language, and do not appreciate as the disembodied force it truly is. ‘Disembodied’ in respect to our bodies, although in fact linguistic force resides within the body of the superorganism it creates ; just as the force of gravity resides within the mass of a planet that it creates. In claiming that the human organism can advance into the psychic environment, I am assuming that the character of the environment demands such advance, and we must therefore first look a little more closely into the question of the existence of a psychic environment. Some kind of psychic environment there must be as soon as human beings form organised societies in which psychic intercommunication becomes essential and gradually develops for the greater efficiency of the social organism. The closer and more organised the society becomes, the more does the life of each unit consist in the adjustment of his psyche to that of his social environment. Here then we have a psychic environment arising within the social organism from the mutual activities and overflowings of the psyches of the individuals constituting the society. Each individual lives in an environment trembling, we might say, with the vibrations started and maintained by the nerve energies of the other units ; each member of the society has, as it were, a psychic web woven round about him and his psyche is stirred by the psychic storms in the minds of others. Of the vast realm of the psychic, the region which lies nearest to us is that of our fellow-men, and it is in this region, that of the psychic relations of man to man, that we seem, as we shall see in a future chapter, first to see new possibilities in the way of experiments which may enable us to advance to new knowledge of the social psyche. The human mind, however, seems at all times to have intuitively postulated a larger psyche than that discoverable in our fellow-man, as the most important element in the psychic environment. I use the word “intuitively” with a definite meaning. For, if the human mind is a psychic perceptive organ, like the eye, for instance, it sees much more than it understands or can take in. Any glimpse of life shows, if I may say so, far more than we ever see. Man is born, for instance, and comes into life—that is all we see ; he dies and goes out of it—that is, again, all we see. But the psyche knows that life came from somewhere and that it goes somewhere, and that “somewhere”

haunts the mind. Nothing was seen but the absence of anything where continuity demanded that something should be, but this is, in itself, a negative perception. That we have some evidence more satisfactory than such merely negative perceptions in favour of a psychic element in the environment is, however, I think, shown by the existence of religions among all but the lowest races of mankind. As the psychic perceptions of the units of the social aggregate developed under the influence of social life, some mysterious psychic element was dimly apprehended by them. That these dim perceptions found very varied expression is just what we should expect. The same diversity occurs with regard to the nature of any mysterious physical object at too great a distance to be seen clearly ; speculation runs riot as to its real form and structure. The many and varied religions which all postulate some psychic element in the environment may, I think, fairly be claimed as witnesses to the existence of such an element. (Neglected Factors, pp. 441 – 443.) While extracting this delightful nugget for comment, the preceding text and a little following, seemed worth taking too, as this is rich in material concerning the idea of the psychic dimension, that we have just been discussing. The first brief paragraph above is a reference to his idea that all features of living organisms arise to aid the organism in exploring the environment. As life increased in complexity, so the complexity of the environment it had access to increased at the same time. This idea seems somewhat odd to us, being an odd way to interpret life’s evolution. I wonder if this was playing up to the dominant spirit of Darwinism, which made the environment the foil that species responded to. But the principle at the heart of this idea is something we have made central too, only we have always sort to speak in terms of force and energy, rather than form and environment. Thus we have argued that life must evolve in response to latent potential energy. That can be a potential relative to the environment, or a potential relative to the increased complexity of organic form. In this way our model accommodates a curious sense of being inside out, all at once. Which, however curious to think about, because we are so use to compartmentalising things, is in fact just how we should think about a process such as evolution, that we exist within. We do not want to reinforce a sense of the life we are part of, as distinct from a physical environment we live within. We want to enable ourselves to view our own beings as part of the external, physical environment, that we are ourselves part of, when, that is, we seek to understand the process that creates us. We want to remove the natural sense of separation imposed upon us by the linguistic programme that gives us our weak minds, weak when viewed in terms of a capacity to think scientifically. In other words we want to create a new linguistic programme, at the core of which is a scientifically empowered intuition. Our two alternate modes of adaptation fit in with Bernard’s idea of life evolving in unity, firstly, that is, towards an increased integration of units, to create enhanced complexity resulting in a new unified organic form ; while the other mode involves the complimentary evolution of established unity, toward increased diversity, which is a response to the environment. According to our energy based view, the increase of complexity displayed in new rounds of diversification, whereby new types of life appear that are able to explore ever wider reaches of the environment, is the same as Bernard, except the increasing access to more diverse environments is a reflection of the urge of living matter to seek out potential sources of life sustaining energy. So that we have an alternating ‘seek and exploit’ dynamic, that relates to the emergence of unity followed by diversity, all occurring under a general process of expansion and increasing complexity. The first sentence of the second paragraph is a blinder : —

Some kind of psychic environment there must be as soon as human beings form organised societies in which psychic intercommunication becomes essential and gradually develops for the greater efficiency of the social organism.

Eh ! What about that then ? Do you see what we were talking about ? All this guff about the role of psychic intercommunication, its necessity to the very existence of organised societies, and its role in generating the physiology of the social organism. I mean, this is a dream, this man is so close to us. Yet, because he stubbornly refuses to identify communication with the power of speech, and instead conjures up the world of psychic phenomena, we are left with a mangled science of human nature, sublimely wonderful, yet shot through with pellets of mindless drivel, meaning nothing, and creating holes in the logical structure wherever really biting sense should be. I mean, I love it, how can we not ? But oh how painful to see. Still, it hints at the underlying force of the malevolent, theocratic linguistic flux, that still managed to ensure, that for all this effort, realised in an age when the social organism lived, no one could bring themselves to even think about a true rendition of science applied to humans. And so to the next sentence : — The closer and more organised the society becomes, the more does the life of each unit consist in the adjustment of his psyche to that of his social environment.

This is important because it shows how Bernard is refusing to apply the ideas he has made fundamental to his theory of colonial evolution, at the human level. Here he makes the individual an integral unit existing in its own right, a flagrant contradiction of his main idea, that he wrote this work to present to the world. He does say something once or twice about this contradiction, arguing that matters changed when humans came into being, but this just trashes all the good work done in seeking out a means of reducing humans to part of nature, it is a terrible waste. Added to which it is just not correct. The assumption he is making, is that in more primitive societies people were less constrained, and indeed this idea of the unruly nature of the human individual is central to his thinking about society. But this is all nonsense, and not warranted by any proper study of anthropology, or such like work, available at the time. For example The Native Tribes of Southeast Australia, by A. W. Howitt, 1904. My attention to the relevance of this work, to the discussion of society as a social organism, came from a quote in The Natural History of the State, by Henry Ford, 1915, page one hundred and seventeen. Here Ford quotes Howitt, saying “the social unit is not the individual but the group”, and on the next page Ford says Howitt believed “the state of society among early Australians was that of an ‘Undivided Commune’. Why is it that these first organicist thinkers, scientists who veered toward sociology or vice versa, simply never seem to of taken much interest in those materials which were available, if they only could of connected with them ? I suppose it took me thirty years to discover sociology, and that only happened after the penny dropped. Here at least we find a political scientist—Ford —reading anthropology. I no sooner wrote the above commentary on Bernard, when I found a section in The Scientific Basis of Socialism saying exactly what I am saying above : — The ordinary person, accustomed to the individual freedom enjoyed today under wholly different social conditions, cannot, without an effort, look back to the times of these infant or larval societies when individual freedom was reduced to a minimum, that is, was almost nonexistent.

(Scientific Basis of Socialism, p. 45.) What has gone wrong here, is it me ? I only repeat the second sentence before condemning Bernard for failing to understand that primitive people were tightly bound, because this is implicit when he talks of increasing social complexity increasing the degree of bondage. But it is the whole of this paragraph that evokes a sense of the binding force being resident within each individual, who emits that force such that it links magnetically with the individual components of psychic force, coming from all the separate units all around, thus resulting in a biomass locked into a social kind of magnetic flux. Rather than deciding that at best I am guilty of misunderstanding, and that I should cut the above commentary, I have left it, and instead added the sentence from the lecture given in life, as an indication of how I found myself interpreting him as being ignorant of certain basic facts, that in actual fact he was very well aware of, but which had not been given in the posthumous presentation of his work. But now we can just drop the subject, it was hardly of any great significance in the first place. The last paragraph, where we find ideas that are tantamount to offering the proof that God does not exist is very nice, of course, but basically, it is evident that he regards religion as a product of individual intelligence. An expression of flawed, intuitive reasoning, due to the obscurity of the subject relative to ordinary powers of comprehension. Bernard does not see religion as we see it at all. We see religion as the product of linguistic force, identical to the same product, arising from the same force, that is found in insect superorganisms, where the substance, from which their analogue of our religion is composed, appears in the shape of a pheromone produced by the queen. Religion has nothing whatsoever to do with individual intelligence, in any way, shape or form. It is for this reason that intelligent people are usually the very ones who are deeply religious, to all appearances at least. Because it is they, the priests, who must pump out the message which in humans is the analogue of that which an insect queen produces on her own, from her body. Perhaps we can usefully recall our discussion of the role of homosexuals above, and say they evolved to pump out a pheromone analogue to unify the superorganism, and this is why queers provoke the biomass to agitation when they are not in a position of established political dominance, over the biomass. This would explain why queers are either oppressed, or oppressive, but never quiescent and uniformly integrated into the biomass, within which they do nonetheless, always constitute a definite and natural element.

PART 2

ESSENCE OF

BERNARD

Chapter 8 The Right to be Unemployed

Wrestling with the problem of my impending three month attendance at the detention centre for the criminally unemployed, that is, people who are classed as long term unemployed, making me unable to crack on with the long and pleasantly arduous task of creating this work, as I would wish to do, I have come to a new decision after reading two thirds of The Scientific Basis of Socialism yesterday.

This living essence of Bernard is so good, rather better than his Neglected Factors, albeit insufficient on its own as an explication of his theory of evolution, that I have decided to use it for any further commentary presented here. Then I will scan both works, and turn them into word documents to be posted on Scribd, as neither of these books are available for download at present. I only intend to reproduce the second part of Neglected Factors. This is today’s plan, we will have to see how it pans out over the next two or three weeks, as I finally lose my freedom to another term of detention. Detention is made to mimic work, it is not a prison, in case the terminology I use to talk about these government help schemes had you wondering—although these venues most definitely do feel like a prison to me—I dread them. It is out of a clear sense of how horrific a real prison is, that I wish to expressly indicate that I realise these state sponsored centres of abuse, are nonetheless not prisons. The rack of state torture has more notches to turn than I have ever yet, experienced, mercifully. The basic drudgery of turning books into text, which I enjoy doing, is something I can manage even while subject to the mind numbing conditions of unemployment detention. It is merely a question of whether I can get away with doing my own thing or not. They do not like you being constructively occupied while being subject to a regime of mental torture, designed to beat you, psychologically, into submission. Whereupon you will finally accept your place as a slave unit, and get to work, no matter how horrendous the job, or how minimal the wage. Remember the movie where Bond had to resist being tortured, or The Ipcress File is a better one, starring Michael Caine, where he used a nail taken from the bed he was dumped on between bouts of brain washing ? Well, my habit of working on text reproduction serves as my nail, preserving my sanity by recovering a little of my time, that the state maliciously robs me of, by forcing me to attend a punishment programme for the unemployed, for no reason other than sheer hatred of individual freedom—the hall mark of our democratic state. The joy of being unemployed is that you have your time, and presumably our masters have figured this out, hence they spend hundreds of millions of pounds taking that time away from us, just to make sure we are not rewarded for failing to be productive slaves. Naturally, since these law makers can say whatever they like, and are answerable to no one for what they do—no one whose lives they effect that is—they just give their sadistic schemes fancy do-gooder titles, like New Deal, and use the state’s organs of propaganda to talk about how they are helping save the poor unemployed from becoming a lost generation, blah, blah, blah ! They announced the last quarter’s unemployment figures today, Wednesday, 11 November 2009. Youth unemployment is still on the up and approaching one million. The lackey journalist on BBC 1 spouted the state’s propaganda message, saying that it was this figure that was most worrying, in case these young people became another ‘lost generation’, as we have seen before. The lucky bastards, lets hope so, another herd of cattle escaping the drudgery of the state constructed, capitalist machine of exploitation. Give me poverty any day of the week ! Capitalism has nothing I want, and, more to the point, plenty that I do not want to contribute my blood, sweat and tears to. 1. Protesting the right not to work Have you ever heard a well argued, lengthy defence of the right not to work ? If so you have heard something I have not. It is a legal requirement of receiving benefit, that claimants try to find work, so in reality, too strong a suggestion that you do not want to work, period, would disqualify entitlement to benefit. Then you would have to work ! I did once hear a lackey of the propaganda machine on Newsnight, many years ago, ask a minister, “What if a person just does not want to work ?”, which I thought was ace. The minister simply dismissed the question as a father would calmly and succinctly decline to allow a small, difficult child, a request to pee his pants rather than go upstairs to the bog. No, not

work ; that we do not do. Yet to me, a world in which no one works, a utopian ideal I know, but still, it must be the ultimate goal of a modern society. This does not mean people do nothing, far from it ; do I do nothing ? I work tirelessly to help the whole world move toward a brighter future, free from the menace of Jews, Christians, Muslims and their ilk, what higher goal could any human have in this world today ? Not working in our society, means not being a slave. It means people only do what they want to do, with the proviso, that they do what they must, such as using the toilet when necessary. How can you have a free society in which people have to work, or starve ? When we see the credit crunch bringing images of abandoned building projects to our screens, we sigh with relief, thankful for a bit of respite from the ceaseless exploitation of our social environment ; idleness is indeed something to be praised. Many years ago I saw an advert for a work by Bertrand Russell, offering a detraction against working, but I never came across it, though I would of been curious to take a look at the drift of it. Let me see, . . . where was it now ? On the back of the dust jacket to Authority and the Individual, 1949, is a volume entitled In Praise of Idleness, that must be it, lets see if it is on the net for free. No. But there are eighty eight copies for sale, starting at £4 for a late reprint. The second copy gives a list of contents, and would you believe it, there is a chapter entitled Men versus Insects ! Superb, this I must have ; probably about the economics of pest infestation in apples, but we will see. Bloody hell, what do people do to their books, I set the search for 1940, as it was first published in 1935, and that left eleven copies. Then I ticked ‘dust jacket’ and that left one, in America, at £22 + post. Guess it will have to be without the jacket. Would you believe it ? I was only joking, but a review on a book selling site says he looks at everything, even insect pests ! Struth. This, as usual with Russell, does not seem to be what I want it to be, it is not a defence of the right not to work, or a critique of over working, it is, apparently, “a collection of essays in which he espouses the virtues of cool reflection and free enquiry”. I don’t like Russell anyway, we can scrub round that purchase. Despite my coping strategy, my last round of torture two years ago, caused such a nervous reaction that it took my body a full year to recover from what was the worst illness I have ever had in my life, indeed the only illness I have ever had as an adult. That is how much good these do-gooders are doing me. The only illness if you don’t call things like getting your appendix cut out an illness ; it was women troubles caused that upset, I think. Who can figure those ways of the mind ? “Work you little shit, work you little shit.” that is all they have to say to my agonised pleas for mercy. No, not the women, pay attention, she just said “Why me !” What a fucking life. And now its happening all over again, not the women shit, once only for that, never again. Its no good, I’m getting too old for all this rebellion crap, time to die. These fuckers don’t give a toss, they just want you to work. I saw some art exhibition on tele the other day, where people walked into a giant metal box to experience total darkness, allowing the visitor to really feel what it means to be alone, arrgh, how sweet ; fuck knows how much such shit costs. And all I want is a pittance, so I can present philosophy to the world. Is there any way for anyone like me to get money in this world ? Like fuck there is, that is the whole point of an absolute theocracy like ours, to make sure that no one like me—a lover of truth—can ever be free to think, and so, to speak. Instead they take all the money there is, and feign freedom by giving it in shed loads to twats who talk out of their arses ! But you see, it is as we discussed above, the garnering of individual authority, to be dished out in modulated forms determined by the theocracy. The state doesn’t want aberrant units doing their own thing. The state wants units working within a tightly structured framework, emulating what it means to ‘do your own thing’ by doing things that are in keeping with the Golden Rule, demanding conformity to the One message. This big box of darkness might look like a load of expensive ‘head stuck up your own arse’ kind’o crap, but it isn’t. Like all public art, it is nasty propaganda, dressed up as fun. In this case rendering psychology into an art form, and as such doing valuable work for the theocracy, by

emphasising the individual as an end in themselves, in all sorts of subtle, even contradictory ways, just like the message says should be the case, at all times—they know what they are doing. And they mean to make sure none of us get away. Last night, 25/10/2009, while scanning a few more pages of Neglected Factors, I had a Channel Four programme running behind me called Not Forgotten : The Men Who Wouldn’t Fight, presented by Ian Hislop, a liberal leftie member of the theocratic priesthood, just the kind of priest I would naturally admire and share common values with, if I were ever inclined to admire public voices, and to be so bland as to say they represent my views. Listening to how conscientious objectors were imprisoned for refusing to fight in the disgusting war that we call the Great Cleansing of 1914 – 18, that destroyed our freedom and made us the abject slaves of Judaism that we are today, it struck me that these men were in the same position as myself, as I face another round of state sponsored abuse, because I am unemployed. There is nothing remotely equivalent about war and work, in terms of the demands its makes upon those who participate in these two fundamental social behaviours. Just as there is nothing remotely equivalent about a prison and a training centre. But the sudden sense of a common predicament that came over me, I would express in terms of the sense of absolutism, leading to the punitive measures taken against these would-not-be warriors and those who, like myself, find themselves in the position of those who could-not-be employed. State absolutism, relative to the refusenik stances of ordinary people, is born out when the state imposes its stamp of ownership on us, by asserting its property rights through forms of enforced detention, in one case, simulating work with a monotonous detention regime, and in the other, simulating war with a brutal imprisonment regime. As Hislop pointed out, many would say that the men who would not be canon fodder, deserved all the misery they got. And most would say that if people fail to take part in the normal requirement to work, since most people do work, so they too deserve as much misery as can be heaped upon them, under the guise of justice befitting our social order, which does not sanction out and out slavery. It is a lesson that we learn early, from school, that since most people obey whatever orders are given them, and retain their self respect by repeating the slave mantra—that what they do is just—so it is that the majority of cowardly slaves who conform, hate those who rebel and refuse to do as they do. It being easier to hate fellow powerless slaves, who would make us feel uncomfortable if we let them, than to hate the overlords that abuse us all, against whom we can do nothing. So we nonconformists do not get sympathy from our fellow slaves, far from it. Because humans evolved to be slaves, so that once a slave system is up and running, human slaves police themselves, like sheep hefted to the fells, where all the shepherd has to do afterwards, is come and get his meat. And that is what we see in these circumstances, where those on the periphery fall out of line with those who would-be-slaves. So, while we live in a world where the social programme insists we are free individuals, existing as ends in our own right, when push comes to shove, and the will of the recalcitrant individual meets the will of the state, the machinery of state shows that the linguistic programme is just words, and nothing more. The social programme adds extensions to its routine, that justify the action of the state in treating people like property, by defining those it attacks as some kind of miscreant form. But still, these trials of life can tell us the true story about who and what we really are, if we care to know it. Where do people come from who are prepared to treat people like this, as property ? If we look at what we call the extremists, people like the Nazis and the BNP, we find our answer herein. As I said, Hislop is a leftie type, like me, and when he refers to the alternate views about how conscientious objectors should be treated, suggesting some think they got what they deserved, those who think that are, by definition, on the conservative side of the political spectrum. I naturally hate such people, I do not really consider them to be human. I

regard them as animals, and I would certainly erase such people from the face of the earth, if I could. My desire to destroy these people puts me, superficially, on a level footing with them, as in, being like an animal. The difference between us being, that the progenitors of these Conservatives started the problem that is our traditional society, and they maintain it. They do destroy people like me, all the time, since conservatives, by definition, always rule the world. Modern history teaches us that after a brief and meaningless effervescence as a political party, i.e. from 1900 to the 1970’s, the lefties, under Tony Blair, reinvented themselves as socialist conservatives, in order to obtain power. They preserved a socialist appearance as nothing more than a sop to the masses, a pretence that we still had a two party system, because change was necessary, even if it was a hollow pretence of change, after the nightmare that was Thatcher. But no one is fooled, we all know that we have a one party state, appearing in the shape of a two faced monster. So in reality I am nothing like these Conservatives, because where they desire to enslave, I desire to be free. Traditionalists begin from a presupposition of assumed superiority, which gives them rights of ownership and privilege, and we see this attitude when we listen to the BNP Christian agenda, presented by Nick Griffin, that we touch on below. But for our purposes, with regard to the free study of human nature, which is all we are concerned with under the remit of atheist science, when we talk about people who are prepared to impose their agenda on everyone, in this arrogant, vicious way, we are also discovering where the people come from within the social matrix, whom we are really interested in, that is people who would think nothing of perverting science in order to preserve religion. It is this last point that makes the comparison between conscientious objectors in war, and refusenik types in peace, meaningful in our work here. Because a comparison of moderate ongoing manipulation of the population, with how society works under extreme pressure, helps us understand dynamics operating under milder conditions, where we would not normally be able to appreciate the logic that science tells us we should be using to understand how our world works on a daily basis. And really, this is how science studies all aspects of reality, by seeking out extreme cases, to provide clues to underlying processes that are not noticeable under ordinary conditions. 2. Reality check For people faced with this kind of irrefutable science, the question is, What can we do about it ? That is not our main concern, as atheist scientists we merely want to know what is what. But when we come to these intimate questions as to how we live our lives, and how the State imposes itself upon the unwilling, the question people should be asking, both as scientists and as individuals, is, Where on earth the state machine gets its motive force from, its sense of direction ? This is not to be interpreted as a superficial question, that would be to ask a self answering question. We do not want to know why the machine wants to force its property to work or to fight, that is obvious. The question is, Why does the machine orchestrate work and warfare along the lines of social force, that it follows ? Why does it promote religion and suppress racism. Or, when I was a child homosexuality was illegal, yet tonight a vicious homophobic attack on a twenty two year old man in Liverpool is in the news, and the government has promised new laws to make verbal abuse of queers illegal. The state just cannot do enough to emphasise how precious homosexuals are to our society. Talk about chopping and changing ! What on earth is this about ? The state is psychotic. This is all about finding ways to attack groups. As long as the state can induce hatred amongst a moral majority, then it can secure its power base, which is always based on bigotry and ignorance, of one form or another. The one thing the state cannot allow is true knowledge, because then there is no hatred, all is equal, and so no power gradient exists to be milked by the state.

As we have just been saying, at the heart of this process of relentless, state orchestrated abuse of the population, is a fixed agenda : the preservation of an eternal core authority, So where does this core reside in our society ? To begin musing about this, we can do no better than to bring to mind the idea discussed below, taken from the Star Wars movie, of the Metaclorians who live immersed within the fabric of the human body, connecting the consciousness of the human, to the Force. The Force in question in real life, is the force of human nature—we know this—it is the force that causes humans to form a superorganism. But we want to know how the force of human nature comes to be expressed in the precise manner in which we find it, first teaching us to hate queers, for example, then suddenly attacking us for hating queers. How and why does the human animal organise its physiological responses in this way, causing us much agitation, while obviously doing itself a lot of good by animating us and keeping us subject to its core authority, by never letting us settle into a stable cultural routine ? This has to do with specific identity parameters pervading our social world, which comes down to Judaism, to be most specific. But Judaism is a product of human nature, so the issue is not specifically about Judaism, it is about human biological nature. 3. Conventional rebellion The general suggestion that a person living today might have some cause for civil disobedience, as in failing to work, has no popular mandate now, and indeed it never has had. But me being the lone radical that I am, and growing up in the sixties and seventies, I did set out in life considering not working to be an act of rebellion in itself. I think the idea is perfectly logical, but it is also very much a product of the lax benefit system of those days, and the culture it induced in society, a laxity which certainly does not apply today. But in the seventies, when I was a young adult, the cultural revolution was very much in the air, especially if you were a hippy, as I was. Though when applying this description to myself, I would caution people over reading too much into it, as I was never a classic hippy type. I was drawn to the ‘drop out’, anti-establishment dimension, having an ingrained philosophical bent many decades before I had any idea what philosophy was. This cantankerous disposition of mine, only finally made sense to me a decade ago, since, having never grown out of it, I finally found myself emerging from my social chrysalis, into the full blown form of a philosopher, by habit, if not by accomplishment. It then struck me that my strange life made sense for the first time, right back to the year dot, to my very earliest memories of social strife and struggle : toddler truculence rules OK ! There is however a class of people who simply do not like to work, And who can blame them ? While my ethical take on this matter might be peculiar to me, there is an historical continuity in keeping with my over elaborated excuse for idleness—that I based on a moral objection to contributing to our capitalist culture—as became clear to me when I dropped on a short essay called The Ethics of a Tramp, in The Cornhill Magazine, May 1898, by F. M. F. Skene. The author describes how the tramp valued their lobo freedom over all homely comforts, and in total disregard of any hardship, displaying a philosophical contempt for everything that conventional society held dear. I was truly impressed. I thought it sounded like a eulogy to unemployment. I was suffering the strictures of a detention centre half a dozen weeks ago, when I found this magazine in a book shop. The discovery of a fellow cry of contempt for what was being done to me by the system, from so long ago, cheered me up, making me feel part of a long suffering body of humanity, and not the misfit my owners wanted me to feel I was. The really amazing thing was that this magazine contained an organicist essay, applying the principles set out by Benjamin Kidd’s Social Evolution of 1894, to Japan, and finding Kidd’s theories wanting, obviously, since Kidd’s ideas were antagonistic to establishment interests. Not that I mean to imply that Kidd’s ideas,

as recognised in this essay, were right. I paid no attention to this question, the point is, that Kidd was approaching the monumental insight that Bernard reached, only from the same social end that we approach it from. Kidd was adamant that human society is a social organism, and it is this fact that any sincere scientific interest in Kidd’s work would of picked up on. All in all a good find then, almost enough to make the f’in detention fortnight worthwhile ! I just have to mention this, I caught some moron speaking on a news type programme last week, talking about the current financial crisis. He was saying that something had to be done, that we live in a service economy, I think he was saying, and that if people are going to play their part as consumers, then we needed to get the economy back on track. Lunatic ! or what ? Play their part as consumers ! This goes to show what a deeply sick, degenerate society we live in. We do not consume in order to live, we live in order to consume. This is the antithesis of the hippy, drop-out culture, that I made my own when I reached adulthood. As we live in a consumer world, so it is that an ethical stance becomes anti-consumerist, it is how the wheels of social movement spin. There is no one ethical ideal, the forces of exploitation trigger the reaction against them, that defines what is ethical, and so our behaviour swings this way and that. The only eternal ethical ideal possible according to this logic, is that of perpetual rebellion against authority, and I second that ! 4. Why I hate Russell Russell is another gatekeeper of the theocracy, like Dawkins, appearing in the guise of an atheist. Looking just now for his diatribe on idleness, I checked a copy of his Basic Writing and found an essay called The Essence of Religion, which sounds fantastic, Right ? Now I am going to have a coffee while spending ten minutes reading bits of this essay. I will get back to you in half an hour, and tell you why he is shit as an atheist. Two minutes later ; coffee still hot ; I can’t read any more of this crap ; so I will make my report. The big paperback of Basic Writings is divided into sections, this essay is the first under the heading of The Philosopher of Religion. The section begins with a short passage, untitled, pumping up Russell as a deep thinker on religious issues, a man hard done to in a world animated by vicious, religious oppression. We begin : the first sentence is simply historical, confirming the decay of religion, much as Kennedy does nearly a century later (see below)—the essay was first published in 1912. The second paragraph begins with this sentence : — The soul of man is a strange mixture of God and brute, a battleground of two natures, the one particular, finite, self-centred, the other universal, infinite, and impartial.

(The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell 1903—1959, 1992, p. 565. First pub. 1961.) Ah, the good old dualism device. The essential item for any priest’s toolkit, for manufacturing linguistic garbage, without which humanity cannot be parted from nature. Sudden beauty in the midst of strife, uncalculating love, or the night wind in the trees, seem to suggest the possibility of a life free from the conflicts and pettinesses of our everyday world, a life which no misfortune can disturb. (p. 567.)

Twat ! Who does he think he is ? A sodding poet ? What is this crap ? Well, actually this drivel is supposed to be describing the infinite side of human nature, which is realised in religion. Thus the next paragraph, beginning shortly after this poetic sludge, states

precisely what the subject of the title promised to reveal—based on this verbal sludge, evidently. It is this experience of sudden wisdom which is the source of what is essential in religion. (ibid.)

We would be hard put to it, to find any more enthusiastic eulogy to religion anywhere, and here we find it in the work of the most notorious atheist of the twentieth century. Yeah right ! some atheist. This is religion, not philosophy. Now, my coffee has cooled, and I am well sick of Russell. What’s on tele ? 5. Ludovic Kennedy I just caught the tail end of a piece on Channel Four News last night, 19/10/2009, evidently announcing the death of Ludovic Kennedy, at the age of 89. A lady, I think from the Secular Society, was saying that because he did not believe there was a God, he considered it to be up to people to be good to one another. I have not heard anything of him in ages, but I do have a copy of All in the Mind : A Farewell to God, 1999. I have not read it, but just glancing at it now I see it is interesting enough. As we can see from the commendation given him by the women from the atheist group, he was a pretty tame figure, entirely in keeping with the One message of the theocracy, which makes people responsible individuals, and fails to take a scientific view of us as we are, here and now, as nature made us. Until we do that we can never do as this women said Kennedy thought we must do, because we will not know why we do anything, as we have done things so far, up until we pretended to take the reins from what are supposedly God’s hands. On page twenty one, after quoting an old religious verse about ‘the Holiest’ above and below, we have this : — A stranger from another planet might well ask of whom they were speaking ; and where his wisdom lay. True enough, but just like the famous atheist he then goes on to mention, Dawkins that is, Kennedy fails to take his thinking any further. It is just politics, there is no science. Certainly, without having figured out that humans are a superorganism, having such clear thoughts as we hint at here, is not easy. But this is where these famous idols of atheism come into their own, from the theocracy’s point of view, by pretending to ask the questions, and ask the questions, and ask, and ask, but never, ever, to give any answer. This is how atheism is disempowered as an idea, by sapping its energy, the energy of linguistic force that is inherent in all persistent ideas.

Chapter 9 The Scientific Basis of Socialism — 1908

The Scientific Basis of Socialism, 1908, is a most unusual piece of work, as we can see by taking a glance at the contents page : —

CONTENTS PAGE

PREFATORY NOTE .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

7

FIRST ESSAY COLONY - FORMATION

AS A

FACTOR

IN

ORGANIC EVOLUTION .

. .

12

SECOND ESSAY THE DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN SOCIAL COLONIES WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE WOMEN

AS

ORGANISMS,

I. Introductory . . . . . . . . . . . . II. The Position of Women in the earliest or Larval Stage in the Development of Human Societies . . . . . . . III. The Natural End of the Larval Period . . . . . . . IV. The Dissolution of the Larval Organization and its first effect,

37

chiefly upon the women . . . . . . . . . V. General Lines of the Reconstruction . . . . . . . VI. The Women’s Part in the Reconstructive Process . . . .

53 59 . 70

43 51

I am now going to use the notes I made while reading these two short essays earlier this week, to guide me toward providing you with an impression of the greatest piece of scientific philosophy ever produced, by anyone. A bold claim, but one which must stand for all time, because this work presents the culmination of the age of free science, appearing just at the peak of that age, and immediately before its collapse. The central idea of ‘colonial evolution’ that is presented in these two essays, brings to an end the possibility of ever going

further in the search for an answer to the ultimate question of philosophy : What is the nature of existence ? This ultimate question only has meaning in the context of human existence, and it is answered by giving a scientific, that is a naturalistic answer, to the question : What is human nature ? As we shall see from what follows, Bernard answers this question, completely. Not fully, it must be said, but completely. He does this by unreservedly treating human society as a superorganism, by this means we have a complete scientific rendition of human nature as ‘corporate’. However, we have to say, that recognising this fact can only be the beginning of a full scientific interpretation of what human nature means for an understanding of human existence, and Bernard manages to avoid this full interpretation, tragically, as will become evident. The scientific knowledge Bernard presents, is nonetheless the holy grail of all philosophy, all science, and even, one might say, the pretences of all religion. This last observation being offered with a caution, since religion is in no sense a search for truth or knowledge, of any kind. Religion is an intuitive expression of linguistic force, a culmination of that force in a linguistic programme that serves a purely mindless biological dynamic, that creates a living organism, the human superorganism. The reality of this mindless programme explains why religions are so banefully idiotic, and the advocates of religion rendered so staggeringly moronic, even when they are acclaimed for the highest accomplishments in terms of penetrating intelligence. Still, for the sake of completeness, we might make a concession, and include religious formulas within the remit of human searching after the essence of human nature, albeit in an instinctive, functional sense, not a true, honest sense, such as really applies to unbiased science only. When heaping such praise upon this little volume we must keep in mind that we do so because it was written in life, and that it only becomes all that it can be in conjunction with the more sterile, but fuller work, published after death. This little volume nonetheless neatly indicates why the biggest travesty of human existence was absolutely essential to the wellbeing of all humanity, and why we should celebrate the Great War of 1914 – 18, as a magnificent act of cleansing, a purging of all that had brought such monstrously perfect conceptions of reality into being, as that which Bernard gives us here. This suggests a curious logic. Like Douglas Adams’ talking pig, served in the Restaurant at the End of the Universe, bred to be able to speak so that it could implore people to eat it ; since it was only breed in order to be eaten, and must become extinct in a vegetarian world, so it seems we too must implore CND, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, to desist from its insane quest to rid the world of the vital capacity to commit genocide on a global scale. Without this power of rejuvenation being at our disposal, we will have no way to prevent the horrendous consequences of a burgeoning knowledge of reality, as encapsulated in Bernard’s little works, from pushing humanity toward suicidal freedom, whereupon we can do nothing but endure endless commentaries, revealing nothing but perfect truth, as revealed by reference to reality ; yawn, yawn, yawn. Reality ! I ask you, what sick mind wants reality to be the determinant of our knowledge of reality ? This must be our battle cry then : “Death to realists.” and “Global nuclear holocaust before truth.” Battle cries fit for a talking pig, the likeness we evolved into, things a talking pig can really love, because they are gorgeously insane. War, worldwide, massive, horrific war, we love war, we want war—when the time is right—we must have war whenever freedom looms, whenever truth threatens. That is our cry, for freedom from these people who just will not lie down and die, and let us be the mammalian slave maggots, that we were made to be, born to possess an awesome intellect, capable of being supremely, infinitely stupid ; not drudgingly, finitely clever. Possessing a bold mind capable of knowing that any number imaginable is the correct sum of 2 + 2, if that mind wills it to be so ; not a timid mind that gets stuck on the answer 4! ; like a tired old gramophone record that cannot get out of the groove of reality. Down with the timid, long live the bold, give us nuclear weapons, death to ourselves, cleansing, cleansing, we want cleansing, let us be slaves !

If all this curious logic seems farcical, it is not so, it has been seen, in reality. Words can indeed say anything imaginable, and for humans, that makes anything imaginable, as real as anything can be. You only need take the example of the Horizon programme discussing why we speak, aired the night before last and mentioned above. In this programme scientists linked ideas in a spiel so smooth that its chaotic clashing of logical imperatives was indiscernible to anyone who had not either discovered the truth independently, as we have, or else had the benefit of seeing our ideas. To argue that physiology of the most exquisite kind evolved, with great elaboration, coming to characterise the most incredible animal ever to of existed—but for no immediate reason—leaving its use to await the efflorescence of human self conscious will power, is pure insanity, promulgated by means of the highest intelligence, trained in the most munificent and powerful array of intellectual institutions ever known. Words can indeed say anything, make anything real, because that is the function for which the power of speech came into being, in order to let information create physiology in mammals, beyond the limit of the physically integral individual. I do not have any specifics to offer, because I have only ever heard it spoken, and that many years past. But when Rome was turning to decrepitude, built upon overt slavery as it was, the system had become so over elaborated that people of wealth and position in the community could actually still be the property of others, in law ! How weird is that ? As a consequence some were moved to write eulogies to slavery, somewhat along the lines of, “If this be slavery, then give me more of it.” That is the ‘talking pig’ that would be bacon, talking. The reality is exactly as we have painted it. When we, as a society, fight to preserve religion and sacrifice science, we are doing just what we portray in a sarcastic manner above. We defend the indefensible in this way because of the curious fact that we are units of a superorganism, that instinctively know that this is what we must do in order to enjoy the extraordinary power that we, in our Christian slave society, are the inheritors of, as the slaves of Judaism. We do not know all the ins and outs of the situations we find ourselves in, we just do what our corporate nature made us to do. Exactly as the lucky slaves of the late Roman Empire found themselves peculiarly privileged, because of their placement within an astoundingly powerful social system, despite the incongruity of their technical relationship to the central power of identity within that system. For the purposes of this discussion the Jews appear as the focal point of identity about which linguistic force has coalesced, the equivalent to that of the Romans, a foci of identity preserved within a social order that is overtly Christian, thus bringing into being the amazing global superorganism that we all live within. Although in actuality, logic tells us that the Jews must of been the true masters of Roman society too, so they cannot now be the equivalent of the Romans ; no other interpretation being possible once we have worked out the science of superorganic being as it impacts on our world today. So it is that when people cry out for their religion, as they do ceaselessly, they are taking the part of the ‘talking pig’ we portray here. And this is why Bernard’s magnificent science never saw the light of public acclaim—unlike Darwin’s worthless excuse for a scientific theory, that has been bathed in glory from day one to this day—and irrespective of the peculiar political twist Bernard gave to his ideas, which did the science no favours. Last night’s Newsnight on BBC 2, 11/11/2009, did a clip on what the ‘noughties’ had done for science, as the decade draws to a close. It was something of nothing, but they closed the clip at a new facility in Cambridge called the Darwin Centre, and as I looked at this awesomely fine piece of architecture, celebrating the greatest scientist ever to of lived, and thought about my near infinitely infinitesimal cry of foul against this fraud, I felt an impulse of stupidity, and thought how amazing it was that our world was so willing to pump up this man, a total fraud, a man who had done more harm to science than a dark millennia of oppressive religious ignorance. And here we were, building castles in the sky to him, precisely in order to ensure his evil work would continue to wreak its malice for centuries to come, keeping us ignorant and enslaved in the process, exactly as a true talking pig would

wish it to be. No, our celebration of this man’s work is not mistaken, it is not what it appears to be, but it is what we mean it to be. 1. Dumbfounding the talking ape From what we have just said above, it appears that it is the peculiar attributes of Judaism, as corporate identity based on pure language, or linguistic force, that allows a covert theocracy such as ours to come into being, where we think we are free and that science is free, but nothing could be further from the truth. Judaism, by generating sub-Judaic identities, creates a slave order wherein the master is often, though not always, unseen, although always resident. At certain stages Jewish residency occurs as an alien presence, experiencing varying degrees of accommodation. At other times there is no openly revealed presence at all, but a presence is still maintained in the form of a ‘ghost in the culture’, deposited within the biomass that calls itself by the name of a Jewish slave identity. America today is a case where the Jews are in overt control of a Christian slave biomass, though even here not in official control, so this condition still represents a degree of alien obscurity, denying the true nature of the master identity. Obviously Judaism has had a long history and no brief commentary is going to embrace every nuance of the conditions under which Judaism has existed as a controlling factor, in all times and places embraced by that history. All historical variations are however of a physiological nature, they are not changes of kind, as our political histories make them out to be. The knowledge of Judaism’s true nature is implicit in Bernard’s ideas, only, as he never got close to seeing the full significance of his ideas, these wider implications lay dormant until we came along. We discovered the same science independently, from the opposite end as it were, courtesy of atheist philosophy, turned atheist science. Which made us look at society, and at religion, and led us to the place that others had arrived at long ago, when science was newborn and still free. This physiological history is what we see revealed in the transformation of social orders, such as ours, that are based on Judaism, where the hidden nature of the ruling power becomes ever more perfectly disguised, or, if we prefer, ever more perfectly integrated into the organic being of the superorganism. We know there is a ‘secret’ force ruling us, directing all our moves. We know this force is ensconced within the religious framework ; we know it is ultimately linguistic in its nature, for we know life is information, and we know this hidden power is ultimately Jewish. But where this force resides within the fabric of our superorganism’s being, exactly, is a tricky call to make. To know this, we need hard science working on the job, and that is well and truly forbidden, thanks to the oh so precious phenomenon of racial hatred, in all its many wonderful manifestations, not least, that of antiSemitism. The covert nature of our theocracy is damn near perfect, apart from me there is not a single person on earth who knows that we live in an absolute theocracy, none that I know of, and I cannot imagine how any such people could exist. And that is the key to the perfect realisation of human nature’s potential, through the medium of linguistic force, manifested in religion : to make slavery appear as freedom in the minds of the enslaved. This blindness is of course what I want to disrupt. Even people who may of printed off a copy of How Religion Survived, and read it studiously, several times, even people reading these words now, can have no means of knowing what it is that I am telling them. People, as far as I can tell, simply cannot be told, this knowledge. Trying to tell people in our culture the truth, is like trying to mix oil with water, the problem being that in our culture, as rich in knowledge as it is, the truth is already known, that is what a free society like ours gives us, the truth. Ah yes, and did you know that pigs can fly ? As strange as this notion of an absolute inability to communicate simple truth in Western culture seems, it is in fact exactly what we find displayed in Bernard’s own work, for I assure you, he knew what I know—at one level he knew it—at the level of reality, of science. But the moment he tried to ‘think it’ in terms applicable to himself, he just could not

do it, he became, scientifically speaking, dyslexic. The thoughts would not come out straight, he could not rid himself of his own sense of existence, to free himself of the delusion that affirmed the reality of his own personal, nonscientific thoughts. It is as if he were consumed by Descartes’ delusion : I think, therefore I am. No ! Wrong, never could a person be more wrong. Descartes’ philosophy is a vindication of the means by which Judaism enslaves people by imposing slave identities from within, which is of course why, in our culture, he is regarded as one of the founding fathers of modern science, one of the greatest geniuses ever to of lived. Although to atheist science, he is just another nasty piece of work. You may ‘think’—as the linguistic programme running in our brains calls it—but what you think is never your own thoughts. All your thoughts belong to the human animal you belong to. I feel sure I am the only person who has the ability to be free of the grip of the being we call ‘God’ ; such freedom of thought does not seem special to me, in my head this is normality. If you can believe the earth is rotating then you have shown yourself capable of achieving this impossible feat, of thinking of yourself as nonexistent, in the context of the reality of humans as superorganic mammals. As easy as it is to me however, I seem to be unique in this respect. I think the key to this gift must be my uncompromising atheism. This is why we must build a new linguistic programme based on atheist science, wherein the reality of atheism is made a precondition of all knowledge recognised as true. Atheism must inform all our thoughts, at all times, if we would know reality. Is my ability to understand that I do not exist, a gift ? Yes, because it is reality, the ‘truth’ as we say, and being able to know the truth is a sodding gift in this world. Bernard seems like an atheist, but if he was, then he was a typical Victorian atheist, regretful and lost without his little Godypoose to cling to. So he tries to recreate the lost comfort zone on the basis of a new dimension of reasoning, derived from the new science he has discovered, which introduced him to a reality that no one else knew. This will not do, strident atheism we want, and nothing less. Atheism was all that Bernard lacked. Had atheism been his guiding light, the precondition of all reasoning informing his thoughts about his new insights into reality, courtesy of the scientific method, then he would be where we are now, only back then. Remember : science is a way of knowing reality. Science is not a method of examination, as the priests make it out to be. Bernard failed to understand what science really is, as a way of knowing reality. He conducted the examination, as a good scientist should, yet failed to appreciate the reality his method revealed as being just that : real. As it happens, there was a programme on BBC 2 last night that can be used here. Horizon, Tuesday, 20 October 2009, The Secret You. I had the TV on while turning Bernard’s work into text, and I dipped out of this show now and then because the presenter was irritating, and listening to scientific programmes these days is invariably annoying. But I dipped back in to hear a description of how knowledge is stored in the brain in bundles of neurons carrying concepts, so that whether a famous person is shown in image form or named in text, the same area of the brain is stimulated. I would of liked to of heard all of that bit. Then it concluded by saying that consciousness turns out to be a community of integration within the brain, where different sections of the brain exchange information. These ideas link perfectly with Bernard’s ideas as to how organisms evolved via the integration of units, reaching ever higher levels of physiological order. So that according to this idea, the brain may be regarded as a colony, a colony of neurons, which, again, we saw Bernard broach when he spoke of cell nucleuses aggregating toward the point in cell colonies where food was concentrated, near the openings. This cellular organisation of neurons would then represent the early origins of the brain as we know it now, as a neuronal community of consciousness. Thoughts are encoded in brain activity, so that consciousness is brain activity, and this tallies perfectly with our assertion that our thoughts are not our own, and that they belong to the superorganism we are part of. The thoughts that we have are not simply manifestations of internal physiological processes, they are manifestations of internal physiological processes reacting to external stimuli, making what we call ‘our consciousness’ a sort of plane of

sensation occurring between the superorganism’s micro processing structure (us), and its macro physiological being. It is as if ‘we’ were a slice of interference running through a beam reaching from the projector in a cinema, to the screen. The projector and the screen are the whole thing, the superorganism, in this analogy, and all the myriads of persons of which the superorganism is composed constitute the beam of light, that makes the ‘whole thing’ meaningful to us. But from the point of view of every vertical sliver of light, their sliver of the image is the only reality, as they think their absence would mean the beam itself did not exist. The essential point of such an analogy is to indicate the continuity and uniformity of all consciousness, in all humans belonging to the same superorganism. The mass of conflict in the world, as we have continuously discussed, creates an illusion of many different groups at odds with one another. But this idea of conflict belies the true nature of conflict, creating an illusion in each ‘sliver of light’, as to what they are, and what those they hate are. Because each cross section of existence only reveals the conflict, and not the unity it engenders, that runs through both sides of a conflict where participants have a common identity, as in the current war on terror where the Islamic extremists and the Western powers are both slaves of Judaism. The true unity only appears from the elements of cultural being when all ‘slivers of light’ are seen as one beam running in continuity, and only making sense in the continuity transmitting from ‘source to screen’. It follows that hate is vital to our well being. Without hatred we cannot love one another. This is so because the apparent antagonism is in fact a function of intense unification, in the sense that you cannot get closer to someone than killing them, so to speak. This idea of closeness emerging from human internecine activity, may apply at the individual level, but it most definitely is true at the group level, where humans naturally evolve cultural vendettas on the back of such behaviour. And we must remember that science tells us there is no such thing as an individual, existing as an end in themselves. Our modern global scale of warfare, although it looks different and more detached from such emotional passions as a vendetta, really is not, because this is still about the function of killing in human superorganic physiology, in which the feelings of the individuals through whom slivers of sentiment are relayed toward an unseen common end, means nothing to the forces of nature that created the human animal. Today then, it is because of the wars first in Iraq, and now Afghanistan, that we never hear any end of talk about Islam, something no one in Europe would otherwise give a toss about, and certainly is not interested in apart from the fact that we are at loggerheads with one another, because of the behaviour of our masters in the making of war and mutual destruction, essential to the burgeoning of the Jewish superorganism, to which we all belong. We can now adjust our ideas, by saying that our thoughts belong to the environment we are embedded within, to use Bernard’s terminology, where the cultural dimension of those environmental thoughts, is the consciousness of the human animal that we are part of. Now we have got to the point where we have removed consciousness from ourselves—we are after all nonexistent—and recognised that what we call ‘consciousness’, actually resides in the body of the superorganism, within which we are but units of physiological being. The big objection of those who opposed the idea of the social organism when it dominated society, was that this creature could have no consciousness and therefore could not be real. Now we have some idea how to show it is otherwise, and that it is we that are not real, as, in fact, we have been saying all along, but without even realising ourselves, just how far one could go along these lines of self negation. But we must understand that these shifts in the allocation of human attributes changes nothing that is real, just like discovering the earth was in motion changed nothing that was real. Such adjustments are all about altering our concepts in the light of scientific knowledge, which inevitably demands that such momentous shifts must take place. As we reveal the full consequences of understanding ourselves in the light of science, we can be more sympathetic to the first people who had to face up to this revelation, in the

nineteenth century, and who turned and ran from the horror of true knowledge, leaving us floundering in the dark today. Bernard gives us a unique insight into just how far science could take people, but he failed to attack the sacred aspect of life, that anyone listening to him will of sensed was bound to be torn to shreds by the reasoning he offered. As we know, Bernard came late in the day, when people were already very well aware of where these scientific ideas led, and this is why the great cleansing lay just a moment away, in the near future. Even as we express sympathy for a general feeling of trepidation amongst those faced with these epoch making changes in self knowledge, we nonetheless have to stick to our position, that the actual defeat of these ideas came from the establishment, from the machinations of theocracy. We must continue to think of this baulking at reality in terms of a war between religion and science, where a total victory for religion was achieved by subterfuge and world wide warfare of the most horrific kind. For the core of the superorganism is always determined to preserve itself, no matter what, that is what living things do. From this Horizon programme, it seems that before we can have thoughts, such as recognising a famous person, or a moral idea, or a crime, we have to have a portion of our brain’s neural mass organised into a concept pattern, that can be triggered when we see something, so that we can then feel whatever it is that the superorganism we are part of wants us to feel, so that we can then express our thoughts on the matter according to the needs of the superorganism. This describes in technical terms how we acquire our linguistic programme, or our ‘culture’, as the programme calls it. The thing that most amazed the presenter was that experimenters could say what decisions he was going to take, six seconds before he took them ! A pretty amazing thing it must be admitted. But this goes to show how, what we call ‘consciousness’, is just a skim along the surface of all that we were really evolved to be. By using Bernard’s science we can understand how we can be these curious creatures that think they know so much, but actually know nothing, because we do not even exist ! Obviously there has to be a core of conceptual ideas within the superorganic body, to be drawn upon by the biomass of which a superorganism is composed, for the purpose of building up neural patterns in individuals. This cultural, or linguistic core, is the brain of the superorganism. This is where the Jews come into being as the master race, the chosen of God, who lead humanity toward its destiny. The presenter closed by posing the question as to whether we could hope to resolve the mystery of what consciouness is. But he said that we do not even know what the question means. As atheist scientists however, we see no great difficulty in such questions, because we see no mystery in human nature, because we know what humans are. With the aid of Bernard’s ideas on how organisms evolved, which embraces human existence in modern society as a fully incorporated aspect of nature, we can answer this man’s quest, with absolute certainty. Or we could if we lived in a free society where religion is outlawed, making science truly free. Alright, too much chatter, I slipped some remarks on Bernard in there, quite nice ones I thought, but now we must get to the great man’s work itself. 2. The essence First, we may begin with this : — But not all forms of cell could build up colonies, for example, cells with highly specialized skeletons could not be efficient colony-builders. For let us be quite clear as to what we mean by colony-formation. The fact of a number of cells settling down side by side, even if by doing so they mutually assist one another in obtaining food or in other ways, is not what we mean by colony-formation. The conditions of

real colony-formation can only be fulfilled when the cells—or whatever other organism forms the unit—are organically united from the first, and consequently grow together, and together receive and respond to the same stimuli. A true colony thus consists of individuals so vitally bound together that they share the same life, in contact with the same environment, as far as that is possible to an organism occupying any appreciable space in a variable medium. The colony-formation of cells is brought about when dividing cells fail to complete the act of division and consequently fail to separate. Students of zoology will perhaps be disposed to dispute the point that the division in cell-colony-formation is ever incomplete. The point, I know, is involved in the intricacies of karyokinetic division. Our claim is that when cells are going to build up colonies, the central organ of the cell, the nucleus, divides, and then, before the cytoplasm has finished the process, the nuclei again divide. The result of a number of such incomplete divisions is a three-dimensional mass of cells, joined together by their cytoplasm, but each with its own nucleus. In this way, cell-colony-formation could take place, and in our view, without here going into more explanatory detail, did take place among cells, and, as a result of the process, a host of cell-colonies much larger and, in the multitude of their nuclei, more complex than even the most highly specialized single cell, were launched upon the sea of life just as, though on a higher level than, the more primitive cells had once been launched. A new and higher level of organic life, the Metazoa, thus appeared, and was solely due to colony-formation. (pp. 14 – 17.)

Here we get a definition of ‘colony-formation’, an extremely important idea to be clear about, since it is to be applied to the formation of human societies, in all their forms. The only interpretation of human society our masters allow us to consider today, is the one that Bernard’s definition excludes, the one that has society based on a Rousseauan Social Contract arrangement, where people settle down side by side and choose to work together. Bernard’s definition makes a true colonial organism one in which the units, of whatever kind, are “organically united from the first, and consequently grow together, and together receive and respond to the same stimuli”. This is an absolutely gorgeous definition, it shows us what this man was made of as a scientist, and how totally committed he was to the contemporary understanding of the idea of the social organism, which he had managed to apply to all life, and especially to humans. Magnificent. This clarity as regards the definition of a colony is so important, yet I do not recall its appearance in Neglected Factors. So unless I overlooked it in the larger bulk of material, which would of been a serious oversight on my part, we see in this portion of text, just why we should make these words published in life, represent the essence of Bernard, and how this short summary of his ideas, comes to be so useful to us in our examination of this great scientist’s potentially epoch making work. In terms of the application of his definition to human society, the phrase ‘vitally bound’ is of critical importance. It seems to emphasise physical unity, but in actual fact it does nothing of the sort, it means what he says it means, namely ‘sharing the same life’. No definition of human physiology could characterise human nature, as experienced in life, better than saying that all humans share the same life in society, as evoked in the saying, ‘No man is an island.’

In his recognition of colonial formation by incomplete division, we find the initial impetus to his reasoning, in respect to the crucial nature of evolution by this method of unifying already completely formed and independent organisms. Rather than seeing evolution as a process working continuously from the ground up, at the level of genetic variation, selected by the whole organism existing as an end in itself. So that according to Bernard, life advances by a process of denying individuals an integral ‘end in themselves’ status, that their prior evolution had culminated in, giving them a perfect form realised in a state of physical integrity complete in itself. In saying this, we see the crucial religious principle guiding human social affairs is traced back to the roots of Darwin’s conception of evolution, where individuality is made sacrosanct, as the highest expression of life. This is what makes Darwinism sterile science, or, as we prefer to say, religious science ; or simply religion, in another guise. In the final paragraph taken above, we find the important point made regarding how a new organism came into being solely by means of colony formation. That is without any mechanism of natural selection, acting as the determining factor in the evolutionary process, by weeding out the weakest relative to the strongest, in the setting of a testing environment. This is a direct refutation of the primacy of Darwinian natural selection, in the evolution of life. In terms of our idea of the evolution of life, conceived of in terms of ‘life engines’ ascending a gradient of potential energy, which is a logical, philosophical conception based on scientific principles, Bernard’s model describing the evolution of new life forms by means of incomplete cellular division, is in perfect accord with our force driven logic. By raising organic forms up a potential energy gradient, by exploiting the latent potential of physiology, as already realised in complete organic forms, made available to evolution as new unitary elements of life, we have an excellent conception of how life engines can be constructed in a manner like that which applies to the manufacture of circuit boards, linking units of energy consumption and modulation in ever more complex structural arrays. The culmination of this process being the sentient bricks of human social architecture, introduced in How Religion Survived, and the resulting human superorganisms, that are the societies these sentient bricks live within—from their erroneous point of view. The erroneous view arises because the individual units of superorganic being place themselves on a pivot of individuality, because of what they perceive as being their consciousness. But the superorganism is like the cosmos relative to the earth, so that just as the earth is inside the cosmos, and not its spiritual centre, for which the cosmos exists, so it is with people, they live within the superorganism, and they too are not the spiritual centre for which the superorganism exists. We can see how the exact same act of deception has been foisted upon the human biomass by the priesthood, in order to take the reins of authority inherent in a human superorganism. Bernard’s science would snatch these reins from their handlers, the Jews, and Darwin had been put in place to ensure this could not happen. Without a shadow of a doubt, and without any other contender being known, Bernard is the only person I have ever found whose mode of expression is in complete harmony with my own. It is a wonderful delight to work on his work, as an adjunct to my own work. Proceeding to the ensuing piece of text, following on directly from where the previous quote ends, we have this : — Now let us follow the fortunes of these new cell-colonies, or early Metazoa. Whatever were the forces of Nature which caused the Cell to vary so freely as to produce such a host of species, genera, and families of Protozoa, those same forces acted upon these undifferentiated cell-colonies, and since the latter are larger and more complex than cells, the number of possible variations would be greater. To start

with, for instance, there would be initial variations of size of colony, and difference of size might easily lead to differences of specialization. A review of the known facts leads us to believe that, after these undifferentiated colonies found their initial specializations, they had no power to change them fundamentally. Each might vary in small details apparently ad infinitum, but no organism could rise above itself by any natural process of variation. These primitive specializations appear to fall into four kinds, at least, four have survived ; the Sponges, the Echinoderms, the Molluscs, and the primitive Cœlenterates.* These four forms assumed by the primitive Metazoa have varied strictly in the planes or levels of their respective organizations with marvellous luxuriance. There is no natural selection of natural variations. Every natural variation is naturally selected. And each natural line of organization is carried out as far as it will go. No Sponge, no Echinoderm, nor any Mollusc nor any single Cœlenterate rises higher than itself. Not in one single case ! Look, for instance, at the Molluscs. There is hardly another group which has varied so enormously, even into Cephalopods, gigantic in size and marvellous in specialization, yet the variation is always in the same morphological plane. A Cephalopod remains no less a Mollusc than the very first Mollusc produced from the original cell-colony. And the same is true of the Echinoderms, the Sponges, and the single Cœlenterates. They all vary and vary, but, like the cells, never rise by any process of specialization above themselves. * In addition, there were doubtless many smaller forms produced by small colonies, some few of which have survived, such as the Dicyemidæ, which have hitherto greatly puzzled zoologists, blinded by the germ-layer-theory, which can now be shown to be superfluous.

(pp. 17 – 18.) This passage, in a very full manner, explicitly rejects Darwinism, and states that natural selection has no bearing on evolution ! Incredible. Imagine the reception given to such a lecture by the scientific audience listening to this speech at the Linnaean Society in 1908, if only we had some record of how they responded. No doubt Bernard’s views were well known to his fellow members, and perhaps this is why we find no mention of his death, and no celebration of his life, through the inclusion of an obituary in the annals of his society. Or maybe he was of too low a rank to warrant such a piece. But from a quick perusal of the Annals, I suspect that if we examined the records of the society, we would find Bernard played an active part for many years ; I must try and check this out some time. They do record the inclusion of Neglected Factors in the Society library in 1911, so he was gone, but not quite forgotten, as he came back to haunt them. I have visions of him lying on his death bed in convalescence in Devon, his daughter (wife ?) by his side, he pleading with her to see that his great thesis did not die with him, and she, promising faithfully, with true Victorian ardour, to be sure his work would be set before the world. A classic tragedy of being unknown, one without a happy ending, so far ; lets make the movie ! Neglected Lives, starring Bob Nobbins and Betty Bumscious . . . . at last, all is well in Happy Land. I have included the footnote because it describes a speculative theory as being made redundant, something he could of done as regards natural selection, but presumably did not dare to do. The mechanism of genetic recombination is of course real, but this fact in no way justifies Darwin’s interpretation of the transformation of life, as being driven by a process of ‘natural selection’. Once we have a true idea of the evolutionary process based on force, as we do in the case of colonial evolution, the theory of natural selection because null and void. ______

Note, Saturday, 24 October 2009. I am listening to Star Wars Episode 1 : The Phantom Menace, 1977, while scanning Neglected Factors, and the Jedi has just explained to the boy he found, with Jedi powers, what Metaclorians are, that is the creatures that give the Jedi their superhuman qualities. They are microorganisms that live inside Jedies, the Jedies being symbiotes with the Metaclorians. That is two life forms living in symbiosis, like bacteria living in the gut of termites, allowing the termites to digest the cellulose they take in by eating our furniture, for example. The Metaclorians communicate with the Jedi all the time, forming a link with the Force, and thereby giving the Jedi their direction in life, which is a perfect model of the Jews in our world : parasites, a master race, symbiotes, or an organ of superorganic being. Which is it ? Answer : the latter one. What a curious place for such an idea to crop up, and in such a strange form. Typical of these script writers though, they always have some weird agenda causing them to formulate the propaganda that the masses shall be programmed with, or have their resident programme, stimulated by. This is why all movies always constitute propaganda, produced by the theocracy. I hate to say it, but the Jews are famously intimate with the movie industry, as indeed they are with all the arts of slave manipulation and exploitation, it goes with the territory, the territory of having no territory, and residing in someone else’s instead. I ‘hate to say it’, simply because this factual accusation is a classic anti-Semitic slur from the Nazi period, but it nonetheless true for all that. So the Jedi, like the Christians, and the Romans before them, though apparent masters, are in reality slaves of the unseen voice within their bodies. Which is exactly how we would expect nature to form a mammalian superorganism, by means of colonial evolution. And to cap the story off, the boy is found by the higher one, the Jedi, in the position of a slave, living on an obscure planet, rather like being found in a manger, in a stable, in the middle of nowhere. Movies like this are highly religious in their nature, just dressed up to be a secular fantasy, rather like Darwin’s science, which is also religion dressed up as something it is not. A good lesson to learn, for the would be freethinker, is that all movies, are always, propaganda. The other interesting thing about this story line was that the Metaclorians sowed the seed of the infant human themselves. So that the newly discovered Jedi was the product of a virgin birth ! Interestingly the Christian slave identity of Judaism, could well be thought of as a virgin birth—exactly as it is symbolised as being—as the product of a Jewish prophet who was the son of God, i.e. born of the Jews, by way of a birth that did not involve biological insemination, but rather, just the sowing of a linguistic seed, an extension of the Jewish identity. Very nice. No one can really accuse the Jews of hiding their powers and their nature, it is just a matter of us plebes getting our hands on the truth, which is buried within obfuscation better than the proverbial needle in a haystack. The reason for such contradiction, being that the production of a linguistic key to social power, required that a true representation of reality be imbued into the key, to direct priestly behaviour purposefully, if unwittingly, in obedience to the master plan. And therein lies the perennial flaw in the master plan, whereby true knowledge can make the key to superorganic power evaporate, and hence science must be subverted at all cost, so that we have the eternal war between freedom of knowledge and religion, that Kidd, in his Social Evolution, made the central theme in human history.

Chapter 10 The Apodidae — 1892

I know we decided to focus on his two short pieces, to get the job in hand done quickly, but today, Monday, 19 October 2009, I started to read his The Apodidæ : A Morphological Study, 1892, and straightaway we find some nice early indications as to why this man became the greatest scientist ever to of lived, known or otherwise. While this is fresh in my mind, I would like to provide the relevant bits, and as this book is available for download in a digital format, it is no great sweat to sort this out. Shrewd conjectures have been made as to the possible derivation of the Crustacea from Annelids, but I am not aware that this point has ever before been worked out in detail, and I should hardly have ventured to undertake such a task had not my study of Apus forced it upon me. My original intention of preparing a comparative anatomy of the Apodidæ thus gave way before the more ambitious attempt to use Apus as a key to solve the hitherto unsolved problems as to the origin of the Crustacea, and the true affinities between the various groups. This resolution, however, was not formed at once. The book is written in the order in which the subject was worked out. The first part, which deduces Apus from a carnivorous Annelid, was all I at first intended to publish. Having never made a special study of Limulus nor of the Trilobites, I hesitated to discuss their relation to Apus, and my knowledge of the Crustacea was not sufficient to justify my attempting to form a genealogical tree of the whole class. I intended to content myself with an endeavour to show that in the Apodidæ the process and method of the transformation of carnivorous Annelids into Crustacea was still visible in almost every organ and system of organs. The

unavoidable conclusion from this would be, that Apus must be—for some groups at least—the original form. (pp. xiii – xiv.) This description of Bernard’s pathway toward becoming the first scientist to offer a true theory of evolution, equates to Darwin’s Beagle voyage, which served as the journey of enlightenment concocted by the establishment, causing Darwin to unexpectedly undergo a transformation into the greatest known scientist of evolution ; though in reality he is the greatest ever deceiver of science, a man selected by the theocracy to be the supreme deceiver of all time. Bernard’s journey to enlightenment is less glamorous, as we would expect of a true scientist, and far more telling, also as we would expect of a real piece of science, one inspired by reality. In such an investigation as this a writer is always open to the charge of having interpreted the facts as he wished to interpret them. I cannot of course deny that the speculation was of such absorbing interest that I was not indifferent to the conclusion, and that I therefore naturally seized upon the facts most favourable for the establishment of my argument ; but at the same time I am not conscious of having ignored difficulties. If, nevertheless, I have unconsciously distorted the facts in order to establish my conclusions, I comfort myself by the reflection that those conclusions are of such great zoological importance that they cannot long pass unchallenged. (p. xvi.) This is absolutely gorgeous. We can see the finely portrayed, ponderous genius of Darwin mirrored in this acknowledgement of the enormity of what is being set before us, giving us a confession as to the inherent fascination of the subject. This absorption in what nature has set before the man, echoes exactly what Darwin claims to of done on the grander, and irrelevant stage of life, where diversity that could be seen anywhere, was only seen in the rarefied setting of places like the Galapagos Islands, so that the chosen one could have the backdrop he was going to need, when the time was right for him to ascend to the throne the theocracy was constructing for him to occupy. Last night, 24/10/2009, I caught a few seconds of a programme called Autumn Naturewatch, on BBC 2, just where a man said that the sight of a pod of Killer Whales was the finest vision of nature, revealing the splendour of the seas, that one could imagine. To wit I said to myself, “Yes, just because you can see it, but what about all the minute creatures upon which the higher forms depend, that we cannot see, twat !”. How fascinating is it to think of the krill that feed the giant whales ? Once science has revealed them to us, that is. And this is just what we mean when say that Darwin was simply playing to the audience with his grandiose pantomime of world penetrating discovery. This is why his so called science has given us nothing but lies and bullshit, and an enduring enslavement to Judaism. The statement made above is of enormous importance in the light of Bernard’s future, as it has become of importance to us. If wrong, he says, in any way, his errors will soon be shown up, because of the supreme importance of the subject dealt with, to the wider scientific world. This hints at the realisation of his having already discovered the true means by which life evolves new organic forms. Of course his work never was challenged, by anyone. It was ignored, it was of no importance for science, such as we have it, because the theocracy had already got all the evolutionary theory it needed. The void in scientific knowledge had been

plugged, and nothing anyone ever said was going to shift the bung that Darwin had stuffed in that hole, where true knowledge should be. Perhaps it was being ignored that led Bernard to proceed along his own eccentric track, to the extraordinary, and quite unique degree that he did. Being unassailed, but certain in his objective, he took his idea to its natural conclusion. So that now we can discover his ideas, taken to the hilt, in so far as they could be in his day of overt religious authority, that was still stamped all over society. The cover stance we treasure today, provided by the theocracy, that makes us all so happy to live in a free society, was yet to be fully formed, it still awaited the cleansing act that would remove people like Bernard once and for all, and leave only that science which had been crafted by the sickest miscreants ever to of walked the earth. Bernard followed his eccentric path until death intervened, when his insights necessarily petered out, as he evidently had raised no band of followers, save his loyal daughter (wife ?), who rescued his manuscript, lacking his vitality as it was, and at least cast it in print, not for the world to see, but for us to find, a century on, as a precious vision of free thought, appearing in a world now lost in darkest hell. A happy hell, that we call heaven, so bereft of freedom are we, that we cannot tell the difference ! A trace was left then, in the record of dead ideas, for us to recover and use to aid our resurrection of the war between religion and science, that had, unbeknownst to Bernard, put paid to his hopes for his great discovery, as we take the war to the gates of hell on earth, where religion resides, in the hope of shifting this intractable desecration of our world, once and for all. It is fascinating to get into the background of Bernard’s scientific genesis and progress, to find such a similar mode of comparative development between him, the true discoverer of evolutionary science, and Darwin, the preeminent fraud. Obviously we only see Darwin as a fraud today with the benefit of hindsight, and we only do that because, as atheist scientists, we are aliens within our own society, where Darwin’s scientific status remains solidly entombed in establishment lies. Were the various criticisms of Darwin to of caused his ideas to give way to the likes of Bernard and Willis, then we would have a true science of humanity today, religion would be erased from the earth, and all would be well. We can certainly see how Bernard’s ideas could never be allowed to become establishment science. Had Darwin’s ideas of given way like so many others in the course of sciences’ history, then we would recognise Darwinism as a magnificent display of amateur, gentlemanly scholarship, in the great tradition of Western scholarship, from the time before science became an established professional pursuit. The incongruity of Darwinism’s persistence however, irrespective of all criticism or alternative advances in evolutionary theory, makes it clear that something is seriously amiss. But prior to our own time, it has not really been possible to catch hold of this incredible act of deception, it being so broad, and so deep, and surrounded by the distracting misinformation on the subject by Creationists, Nazis and intellectual pseudo atheists like Dawkins, all of which, by waging war on Darwinism, serves to make any legitimate attack on Darwinism get lost in the white noise of lunatic harangues. And I have found myself a victim of this very thing, when trying to offer my radical ideas on evolution and human nature to professionally trained biologists, who come forearmed against lunatics like me, and treat me accordingly, without pausing to listen, or to think. This is another variation on the precious value of the racial hatred theme, this time manifesting the dynamic of blind opposition to an identity, within the domain of ideas, which is not really any different from the domain of religious identity, it is, in the end, all about words. The theocracy’s deception then really has been a mammoth effort, and it has had the desired effect, until now. While rummaging around on the million books project last week, I dropped on a title by Babbage, arguing that the government must fund science, because science was becoming ever more important in national affairs. It sounded economic so I did not bother taking it, but

I should of, and will do, because this is an interesting time, in that it is pre-Darwin for example. It shows that science was not a professional pursuit in the early nineteenth century, and this is why we find a gentleman co-opted into the right frame of scientific pursuit to serve an establishment agenda, as in Darwin’s story. Whereas, after the Great Cleansing, all science was made professional, even sciences like that of sociology, which were not even fully acknowledged as science, and indeed are not seen as true science even today ! So while we have Babbage’s pragmatic, or overt reason, for funding science, we see how this legitimate cover hides a host of underlying illegitimate motives for making the same argument, the pursuit of which through the agency of the state, is what has maintained the theocracy in the face of the threat from science. 1. Ancient equivalents It has long been our habit to exploit the opportunities presented for comparison between modern conditions arising due to scientific freedom, and the first burst of freedom which we are so in awe of today that we count it as our inheritance, namely that which occurred first in Greece. Now that we have actually discovered a true modern scientist of evolution, we can take this process of comparison one step further. The clash between the heliocentric model of the solar system and the geocentric model, is the general setting for our comparison. Today we say the two equivalent, mutually exclusive alternatives, are the idea of the individual as an end in themselves, versus the idea of the superorganism. Only one can be right, and which is right is all important, despite what lame sociologists like Andreski say to the contrary, as we saw above. The ancient world’s equivalent of Darwin was Ptolemy, the greatest scientific astronomer of the ancient world, or so modern astronomers like to tell us. Which sounds familiar. But this idiot treated the world as the centre of the universe, just as his modern counterpart and fellow idiot, Charles Darwin, treated humans as if they were ends in their own right, so that he adapted all nature to fit in with this necessity. One man of ancient times is of great fame today, the ancient counterpart of Ptolemy, a man practically unknown to us, whose work, tragically, is unknown to us, his name was Aristarchus, his idea of a sun centred celestial domain was kicking about around 280 BC. Now, all of sudden, we have a modern counterpart of Darwin too, that is Bernard ! Now we may imagine how it will be in some millennia hence, when it is well known that humans are superorganic mammals, and, as Fleeming Jenkins predicted, as we described in How Religion Survived, Darwin is recognised for what he is, a man no more worthy of being acclaimed a scientist, than an ancient philosopher toying with notions of the four elements. So the derision can be spurned, that our claims for Bernard’s greatness must inevitably draw upon first being heard, in our sick, corrupt world. Now we can say that Bernard is to Darwin as Aristarchus was to Ptolemy ; and look at how we relish the idea of being able to read Aristarchus’ work today, as we can read that of Ptolemy’s. Yes, Bernard is the hero, unrecognised or otherwise. Does a good deed go undone if it goes unseen ? Some may think there is an intriguing question herein. But the real answer comes down to the conundrum over who and what we humans are. The deed is done, the great scientist is great, even when unknown. But because there is no such thing as an individual existing in their right, it is as if this reality, were nothing of the sort, because linguistic force creates the only human that is real, and that is the superorganism. If that means the force must say 2 + 2 = 5, then that is what the force says, and to all intents and purposes, that is then what is right, whether it is right in reality, or not. So it is that Darwin is the sum of five, for the equation two plus two, whereas Bernard is the answer four, but still it is Darwin that we all honour, while Bernard is unknown.

The only question left to us then, is whether we want a world in which the superorganism we are part of, tells us lies, or imparts to us minds that tally with the truth. For this is something that, just maybe, we can decide, and if so, then that is as close to being real, as we can get, as individuals. Still, what the fuck, who wants to be real when being false can get you a shag ; a nice house ; a desirable job, or some other sense of superiority ? Yeah, your right, screw reality, its overrated, leave it for the cranks. 2. The book proper By careful examination of the organisation of Apus, and a comparison of it with that of a carnivorous Annelid, it is possible to show, as will be done in the following pages, that Apus is perhaps the most perfect “missing link” which zoology so far possesses, perfect, not only because its morphology is easily deducible from that of a carnivorous Annelid, but also because the mechanical causes of the transformation are apparent. The Apodidæ will in fact be found to afford us the first complete illustration of the rise of one large animal class out of another by the simple and natural adaptation on the part of one single species of the latter to a new manner of life. Close investigation shows the Apodidæ to be both morphologically and biologically an almost ideal transition form. More or less satisfactory transition forms between most of the great animal classes are now known, but none has till now been discovered between the Annelida and the Crustacea. The object of this book is to satisfy this want, not by the discovery of a new animal, but by a new explanation of one long known and often described. The established transition forms between the other classes of the animal kingdom still leave much to be desired. Between the Protozoa and Metazoa the transition forms are either claimed by botanists, or else, however probable, are somewhat hypothetical. (p. 2) Here we have it indicated, from the outset, expressed in no uncertain terms, that this treaties is intended to present a new theory of evolution, although we only see this because we have read his later work, since here, on page two, the direction is so far, only implicit. He mentions the discovery of a “missing link”, but no ordinary such link, but rather a perfect example of evolution in action. Its all here already, the nub of his theory of colonial evolution. He is not offering a new form, but a new theory ! On page three he mentions that there is a great push to discover the roots of the Vertebrata. So he is not an isolated maverick—like me—working on the fringes of science, he is mainstream, as we can see from these observations of contemporary interests. Yes he is a throw back to olden times from today’s perspective, and we know how far science has moved on, but if you swallow that line, in a world where primitive religious ideas rule our lives, then it is because you want to be fooled, and do not care to know what is true. And we see that he already has his mind fixed on the transition between Protozoa and Metazoa, which his theory of colonial formation uses as one of the major hierarchical leaps taken by life. This work, Apodidæ, is clearly a very important piece in the study of Bernard, the greatest ever scientist, if we judge these things by the import of what the person discovers, and not by the impact.

Chapter 11 Belated Insights : Colonial Evolution Emerges

Today, Monday, 09 November 2009, I got a copy of a letter written to the editor of Nature called Has the Case for Direct Organic Adaptation been fully stated ?, published October 4th 1894. This is a most fascinating piece in terms of our efforts to examine Bernard’s work here. The fact that this insight is belated, in terms of our investigation of Bernard’s work, is not a disadvantage, it is fully appropriate to treat this material as belated in a positive sense. It comes to us late in our investigations, after having already completed the first draft of this work, hence it is belated, but it stands on its own as an historical insight into the embryonic roots of the ideas we are interested in, which only make a full appearance in the two later works that we focus on here. It does inspire some nice ideas, that are suited to a concluding chapter, but the essay nonetheless fits in well just after the above consideration of his main published work, so this is where we will fit it in. A well constructed academic piece, made to the standard pattern, would follow a chronological order, of which I most certainly approve, but find daunting to even think about trying to sort out. It would have biographical material early on, and it would show any early indications of the main idea to come, in the preliminary build up too. But this is an accessible work, I believe, and anyone interested can find the story, such as we have it to give, in these pages, and when all is said and done, that is all that is required. We should begin by stating what we believe Bernard meant by ‘direct organic adaptation’, and it is basically the old argument about acquired characteristics that we have to deal with here ; most unacceptable today, but until modern knowledge of genetics settled the matter once and for all, people just could not shake off this curious idea of action in life informing accumulative structural changes, that became fixed over time ! I myself find this fixation on acquired characteristics most odd, especially in one like Bernard, who had enough detailed knowledge of the nature of life at the cellular level, to of guessed that some material factors serving as a pattern for structural transformation, was the only possible explanation for the reality he struggled to understand. Indeed, as I cast aspersions upon Darwin’s work I often think that a team of people might of got together and figured out that some such genetic model underpinned life’s profusion, and designed Darwin’s fake model of the process of evolution accordingly, knowing that when scientific techniques caught up, Darwinism’s tenure over science would be affirmed, and ensured forever. But I never describe these suspicions as part of my reasoning, because they are blatantly conspiratorial, and as such utterly taboo in atheist science, because reasoning this way is to shoot ourselves in the foot, but still, the mind wanders in these directions. Be this as it may, while we find Bernard struggling to accommodate Darwin’s natural selection to Lamarck’s acquired characteristics, we discover how he really had all the clues, and while making wrong assumptions about the unreality of the direct adaptation of organisms to the environment, prompted by experience, he nonetheless shows how the two key factors in his later ideas were emerging from his efforts at this time, as he made colonial forms pivotal, and plastic qualities crucial.

But we do not get the express idea of colonial evolution just yet. He makes the conception of a colonial body, composed of many similar organisms, act like a living flux, forever impinging upon the environment. So that when change is opportune, it occurs spontaneously. Then it is fixed by the passive action of natural selection, which acts like a filter of organic forms, allowing the matrix of organic being to pass into existence, that can best access the environmental opportunities drawing the living flux towards it. This makes natural selection a passive mechanism, not an active mechanism as Darwin has it ; and hence a secondary mechanism, not primary, as modern science has it. The primary factor, that is forever active, is the nature of living matter itself, exactly as our ideas insist it must be ! The closing remarks inspiring this description of life as a flux of living matter, impinging upon an environment serving as the source of the latent potential energy of life, when interpreted in this way by us, deserves to be called ‘truly magnificent’. I love this essay accordingly. For the solution of many of the difficulties in evolution, we have then to look to the functional response of colonies of organisms, and of the living parts of such organisms to their respective environments. This power of adjustment accounts not only for the formation, but also for the maintenance of species. The force of Heredity has been overstated, while the power of immediate vital response of delicately balanced organisms to every slight change in the environment has been very much understated. If we keep in view the ever-recurring generations of plastic young, the direct stimulus of the environment is seen almost necessarily to be a force of prime importance perpetually overmastering the somewhat exaggerated rigidity of species attributed to heredity. There is no such thing as rigidity ; everything is rather in a state of flux. Is this unending variation, always in adjustment to the environment, due to Natural Selection taking advantage of the occasional accidental slips in an otherwise rigid heredity ? or, is it due to the direct response of organisms in a state of finely balanced equilibrium ? This latter, seems to me the more probable, the resulting structural modifications being, on the one hand, hindered by Heredity ; on the other, if the conditions require it, hastened and perfected by Natural Selection. This hastening action of Natural Selection leads inevitably to inheritance. (Has the Case for Direct Organic Adaptation been fully stated ?, Bernard, in Nature, Oct. 4th, 1894, p. 547.) So life impinges upon the environment, and is tested, those organisms more subtly attuned to the test, are selected for advancement, by the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection. And thereby, those minute variations they carry within, to their advantage, become part of the inheritance of posterity. And so life is transformed in response to the environment, and becomes adapted to the conditions presented to it, leading to the evolution of life that we see all around.

1. Genomic gates The Jacquard loom creates patterns in textiles by way of punch cards, which control the stitches that will be allowed, as the machine works. The basic idea takes a variety of

forms in early modern technologies. It is found in teeth placed on metal drums, that twang keys to play tunes in Victorian music boxes. A device that evokes the idea of a natural gate, is the spectroscope, that analyses wavelengths of light, thereby determining the elemental make up of cosmic objects. Extrapolating from this information, we can say that the elements, relative to light, constitute a gate revealing an energy pattern that the spectroscope allows us to see. In our super complex world, we have discovered a keys for producing structural complexity that are very powerful. But the genome is the natural analogue of these, comparatively puny efforts. Each species’ genome represents a ‘punch card’ delivering a given structural pattern. The punch card in a loom works by allowing or blocking stitches, and that is how we understand the process. But viewed scientifically, as a natural phenomenon, the workings of a loom must be understood in terms of matter versus energy, as manifested in structural outcomes. This approach gives us a scientific language of structural complexity, that can be applied anywhere. Thus we do not think in terms of specifics, in term of holes in cards controlling levers and stitches, to make up a pattern in an end product, a piece of fabric. We think in terms of the whole loom as being an energy system, where the pattern of holes in the card, either allow energy within the system to flow, or they block it. For our conceptual purposes this is all about energy flow, and nothing else. Thus a species genome is a complex gate, composed of many tens of thousands of levers—the genes—which either block or allow the flow of energy, to produce a pattern in living form. 2. Linguistic gates The idea that language can be likened to a loom, from which a cultural fabric is woven, is not unique to us : — Up to the very present day, the irons, the steels, direct and rule and change life as no Alexanders, no Caesars, no Jengis Khans or Mussolinis have ever done. You can see the things that arise out of iron from the first iron spear-head and the first axe to the steel rail, the battleship and the motor. You can see them tempting and obliging and compelling men to change their ways of life and their relations to one another. There were no particular iron-minded peoples. It was a matter of quite secondary importance to everyone but the gangs and individuals concerned, what collection of people first got hold of the new thing. . . . But the new history is not simply an account of the general material life of mankind. . . . Its subtler and more important business is the study of the development of socially binding ideas through the medium of speech and writing. How did language, speech and writing arise ? . . . The old-type historians have done nothing to show how the imposition of a language or a blending of languages gives a new twist and often a new power to the community’s mental processes . . . . A language is an implement quite as much as an implement of stone or steel, its use involves social consequences ; it does things to you just as a metal or a machine does things to you. It makes new precision and also new errors possible. H. G. WELLS, In Search of Hot Water (The Loom of Language, Bodmer, 1945, introductory quote.) This passage from Wells indicates the role played by language in producing the social world within which we live. But this description is that of a clever man, thinking like a man, all it does is to evoke the wonder of what is seen, and in no way even begins to discern the underlying depth to the vision of reality, that overawes its spectator. The truth is that language is simply a further elaboration upon the genomic gate already alluded to. The genomic gate threw its levers so that a linguistic gate could come into

being, and the linguistic gate merely allows energy to continue flowing onward, into a pattern that is now realised in social structure. It is the underlying genetic pattern, and the linguistic connection to it, that we find Wells striving to recognise in the above passage, rather as we have just seen Bernard struggling to recognise the true nature of evolution and, seeing so much, but in the end falling short of the true image, in the passage taken from him just above. All around people try to make sense of the life they experience, and they do so well, but what they need is a key. That key was the idea of the social organism, but possessing it was not enough, they needed to grasp its true meaning. Yet as long as religion rules our world that is not possible, because the powers that be will spin the loom to suit their purposes, and thereby smother all true efforts at understanding, in a blanket of ignorance and confusion. If we think back to the chapter on racial hatred, the central theme of our argument was the management of authority invested in the individual, existing as a materially integral unit, as a ‘sentient brick’ seen in isolation. This accumulation of authority in fact comes down to the capacity for action within the individual, it is therefore about energy. We indicated that the colonial ape’s nature caused individuals to be so formed as to be inducted into a superorganic physiology, that they were programmed to create at the level of social organisation. The induction process occurred in racial form, hence the proliferation of races, that was further shown up with extraordinary subtlety in linguistic form, as seen in English dialects. In fact we asserted that racial identity is a manifestation of linguistic force, because racial identity constitutes social structure, and it is a principle of our atheist science applied to understanding colonial ape nature, that all social structure is created at the behest of linguistic force. It is in fact the isolation enabled by linguistic communication between individuals, that allows sentient brick physiology to take on the racially distinct patterns which, as modern scientists love to tell us, in fact have no real functional significance in terms of survival. In other words : racial form is a product of linguistic physiology. So that our theory of human nature being corporate, tells us that it is a linguistic gate that produces racial form. It follows that a linguistic gate that opens the way to interracial living—multiculturalism—will dissipate the racial definition that it formerly proliferated under different conditions. Here we provide a definite functional explanation of racial form, explaining how it arises, and why, while at the same time incorporating the contradictory fact that racial identity has no bearing whatsoever on human survival, understood in terms of the Darwinian model of evolution that says form is related to the struggle for individual survival, expressed in terms of the fittest individual. It makes no difference to our explanation, that racial identity may proliferate or dissipate, since our idea of evolution is Bernardian, not Darwinian, and race is seen merely as an expression of a linguistic force that creates superorganic physiology, as befits the corporate nature of the colonial ape that is naked, and able to symbolise its corporate identity in an unlimited profusion of racial forms. This dissipation of racial identity empowers the master race, the Jews, and disempowers established enclaves of identity, like the Europeans, in all their varieties. Hence the master race was crying out for the Nazis, to bring isolation preserving racial identity, into disrepute, so that linguistic gates could be imposed by the European master slave authorities, serving Judaism, upon the Europeans themselves, thus causing the Europeans to bring about the destruction of their own treasured culture ! This forced the world toward a higher state of homogeneity, as dictated by the Jewish gate of linguistic identity. This is why the world wars, the Nazis and the holocaust, were developed by our masters, to serve a functional purpose that we can make sense of by understanding the nature of linguistic gates, relative to superorganic physiology. We got a little tortuous on ourselves as we made out that racism was the basis of power amongst those who fought against racism, we spoke of anti-Semitism making Jewish identity into a dam behind which the energy of the slave biomass was contained. Language was the gate responsible for this accumulation, modulation and exploitation of human energy. But this is reality, it is just a matter of finding the words with which to describe that reality, in such a way that people can actually see it for themselves.

These political ideas about race and religion, that are loaded with poisonous venom for us, are cast in a more abstract form when we represent the determining physiological structures as gates, producing the life forms that we see and interact with. This gives us a naturalistic model to make sense of good and evil social actions, all being functional, and directed at one common end, as determined by the unified action of the gates of information flow, that produce all life, and in colonial apes, occur as two primary, interacting gates, that of the genome and the language of identity. Wells makes the imposition and unification of languages a central process in the creation of society, and for our purposes, concerned as we are to account for the nature of the colonial ape, we want to focus this linguistic dynamic on a biological manifestation. Therefore we are interested in this imposition of language in relation to the identity of the superorganism, since identity is an attribute of life forms, identity being the very essence of information, and life being defined as information. Accordingly, for us, the imposition of language that is most important to recognise, is that which is seen in the imposition of Jewish identity, via the linguistic gates of Jewish theology and culture. The abstract idea of a ‘gate’ as a medium of energy patterns associated with material forms, is extremely powerful when we see what its technical manifestation can do in astronomy. Why should we not be able to apply the same idea to genomic gates and their related life forms, and linguistic gates and their associated superorganic forms ? According to this idea, Jewish master identity, as we rather crudely call it, is to be seen as a linguistic gate allowing certain structural elements to pass, while blocking others. Such an idea would cause us to view cultural expressions as mechanisms of the superorganic gate, and then we could identify such unitary gates as abstract units of structural formations, and relate cultures to one another on the basis of the number of linguistic ‘gatelettes’ they held in common. This would show the close match between Jewish, Muslim and Christian cultures, proving them to be in fact one cultural, one physiological entity ; in much the same way that genomes can be compared on the basis of genes held in common, revealing that colonial apes are close to anthropoid apes, and not wildly distant from bananas ! This idea of cultural gates composed of a host of gatelettes, lays the foundations for a purely mechanistic science of ethics, that explains why moral imperatives exist, what they do, and what their comparative values are. This is what the philosophy teacher I mention above, said science could never do. He was always talking shit, in this matter at least. ‘Memes’ come to mind here, and in association with this term, Dawkins comes to mind too—always an unpleasant thought. Memes are linguistic genes, transmitting culture. So we are doing nothing radically new here, we are merely doing something properly, that the priests have done badly before us—as they seek to smother, and we seek the light.

Chapter 12 First Rule of Life’s Evolution

In order to explain the rise of life above the level of the primitive Metazoa we have, as in the case of the cells, to appeal to colony-formation ; and once more, of

course, there are only certain forms which are able to produce colonies. The Molluscs, with their shells and complex organization, the Echinoderms, with their elaborate armour, were far too hampered. The Sponges, owing to their diffuse skeletons and diffuse organization, were able to bud and build up large masses, but these masses were as rigid morphologically as the smaller Sponges. They could vary and vary ad infinitum in small details, but not rise in the scale of organization. Of the primitive Metazoa, then, the Cœlenterates alone were able to build up colonies, and did so somewhat freely. The best known of their colonies are the Corals ; the Cœlenterates which built up these started colony-formation after having secreted skeletons in the shape of small basal cups in which they lived and into which they retracted for protection. But the presence of skeletons was, sooner or later, fatal to further progress. Hence the Coral colonies have been limited by their skeletons to varying, and varying in one plane into mere multiplications of themselves. Though condemned by their skeletons to stagnate, Coral colonies nevertheless raised life to a new level of organic life higher than that of any single Cœlenterate, and this rise was effected solely by colony-formation. But to rise still higher, the parent organism had to be quite plastic, otherwise there would be no possibility of it and its multiples being welded into a new and compact organism such as is necessary to successful animal life. We have further to note that, in addition to this condition of plasticity limiting the possibility of colony-formation, another cause of limitation arose as the organisms grew larger and more complex. The Cœlenterate differs from the Cell in having a definite axis and a mouth at one pole, consequently Cœlenterates were no longer able to build up three-dimensional masses such as the cells had built. The power of building up colonies was limited to those possessing such shapes as permitted the component individuals to live as individuals although united in one colony. (Scientific Basis of Socialism, pp. 18 – 20.) Plasticity is the basis of colonial evolution. Plasticity is the special attribute of the chosen unit, that serves to carry life from one major level of physiological being, to the next. The parent organisms of a corporate species must be plastic in their nature and form. Clearly this describes human physique perfectly. And, in terms of the coming of modern humans, plasticity must be the special quality of Jews too, as defined by their culture, which has now been transmitted to all humanity, making for a world that thrives on change, more change, relentless change. Change is the means by which the superorganism accesses and utilises potential energy, both of its own nature, and that of the space within which it exists. We sometimes read of the fossil like stagnation of Jewish culture, it has after all been preserved for millennia. But when we talk about the Jewish culture being plastic, we refer to a permanent feature of it fossilised rigidity. Jews preserve their culture while operating a strategy that allows them to adapt to any other culture they encounter, of a suitably modern kind, until, in fact, they came to be the creative foundation of cultures that incorporated none Jews, who then become Jews by way of a proxy culture, making them slaves of Judaism. With complex coelenterate physiology came a restriction on the manner of colony formation, that required the plastic unit giving rise to a new colonial form, to give rise to individuals that retained their individuality, even as they lost it by becoming incorporated into a new organic form. Here then we have the first signs of the human condition, where our apparent individuality is in reality but an illusion. Given the extreme importance of the tussle surrounding the discussion we engage in concerning the corporate nature of humans, the discovery of the juncture in life’s evolution where the illusion of individuality first appeared, and the reason why this apparent dualism was necessary, is of the greatest

significance and importance. Being able to discern such logical consistencies in Bernard’s scheme, goes to show how solid his science is as a proof and foundation for the sociology of humanity, based on the concept of the colonial ape. It is thus by colony-formation that we reach (I) the primitive Annelid from the Cœlenterate and again by colony-formation (2) the true Annelid, with its many annelidan segments, from the primitive Annelid, with its three or four originally Cœlenterate segments. Here a crisis arises, and I regard it as no small evidence of the general truth of our thesis that this crisis can be overcome. Let us, however, briefly glance once more at the first diagram (p. 15) that we have been slowly building up. In that diagram we have been analysing organic evolution into a series of vertical and horizontal factors. The horizontal factors are the original phyla of organic life. A homogeneous protoplasmic mass appears, and at once becomes subject to the Darwinian law of indefinite variations—due to the interplay between the organism and the cosmic environment in which it is embedded—and so on for all time, the complexity merely being increased and intensified, while the level of organization is not raised. Any rise of level is only brought about by colony-formation, represented in the diagram by vertical arrows. The result of such colony-formation is each time to pour out upon the world larger and more complex organisms, which, in their turn, come under the influence of the Darwinian laws and so on. On reaching the phylum of the true Annelida, we come to the crisis just mentioned. It is as follows :— The process of colony-formation, brought about at first by incomplete equal division called fission, later by incomplete unequal division called budding, has to come to an end, for, in sexual reproduction, which is the only known method of reproduction that remains, the division of parent and offspring is always complete. We have therefore arrived at a level of organization too complex for any further colony-formation of the old style, in which the individuals are bound to one another by physical strands and admit of being welded into new concentrated forms. (pp. 21 – 23.) The diagram referred to is the same as that inserted at the beginning of our work, taken from Neglected Factors. In this passage we have a succinct comparison of the contrasting nature of Darwinian and colonial evolution, and the bearings of these differences on the way we think about how life evolved. This is all about transformation, not competition. And we have a further elaboration of the previous observation regarding the requirement that from this time onwards, the integration of colonial units into superorganic forms, must take place via the unification of individuals that appeared physically, as ends in themselves. Here we have the origin of the sentient-brick of superorganic architecture, as spoken of in How Religion Survived, which would eventually realise the status of the human sentient brick of social being, as we know ourselves today. 1. Origin of language It follows that if we have worked our way up to the origin of the human sentient brick, that we must simultaneously of reached the point at which the origin of language can be traced. Bernard fails to make the transition to this suitably social model of organic form, and

instead chooses to use a vague psychological formula which leads him to identify this linguistic coming, as the arrival of the psychic dimension. This is crude and very poor reasoning, but at least he has the essential imperatives of the subject in his sights. The direct derivatives of the worms—i.e. the derivatives by natural variation —may be arranged in the following chief divisions. Besides all the different kinds of modem worms, we have the Crustacea, the Arachnida, the Insecta, and the Vertebrata, with doubtless some few others. Now, not one of these forms has been able to produce colonies on the old terms, in which the individuals, as already explained, were organically united by physical bonds. Consequently, one might think that all colony-formation was for ever at an end and animal life, above the Annelids, would have to vary ad infinitum as individuals. And this would undoubtedly have been the case had not that long period during which the Annelidan derivatives were being specialized produced a new, though at first a frailer, binding force. This force was due to the gradual specialization of the nervous system which is the organ of the Psyche. The new process bears a significant resemblance to the old. Just as the early organisms, in dividing, failed to separate completely and remained clinging to one another to form colonies, so, as soon as the nervous system had attained a certain degree of sensitiveness, a psychic clinging took place between the parent and its offspring, although, as the latter is the result exclusively of sexual reproduction, parent and child are physically distinct and separate organisms (pp. 24 – 25.) It is quite clear how this method of reasoning concerning the lower orders of life, applies perfectly to the idea of humans as colonial apes. The obstacle that individuality posed to any further advancement of life’s complexity, resulted in a drawn out period of specialisation in annelids, until a new method of uniting individuals into colonies evolved. This new method was the nervous system, the organ of the psyche Bernard calls it, although for our purposes, as philosophers working our way back from the conditions we find ourselves forced to work in, under the imposition of sterile science, where real science no longer exists, we are obliged to begin by recognising that humans are superorganisms, that language is the bonding agency of the superorganism, and hence, logically, language must be traceable back to the very origins of modern humans. We had only ever speculated as far back as our prehuman ancestors, seeing all modes of engendering unification, such as sweat production or naked skin, as being related to greater intimacy, being linguistic, or protolinguistic phenomena. But with Bernard’s insights working their way up from the very origins of life, and based upon the exact same principle of the logic of superorganic formation that we use, we can now say that where he sees ‘psychic’ we see ‘linguistic’ phenomena. This idea of psychic clinging is particularly relevant when we come to think about how the Jews came to be the unit of modern human colonial evolution, allowing them to create a global superorganism by generating two slave identities that cling to their cultural progenitors, as intensely as we could ever which to see. As epitomised by the American (Christian) fixation on the state of Israel as American society’s sole motivation for existence. This then is the foundation point of human language, exactly as we would expect to find regarding such an incredible ability appearing in animals, buried deep in the antiquity of animal physiology. This is superb. None of this simple, concise reasoning, emerges from Neglected Factors, this short piece written in life, seems to be the key to unlocking the full glory of the work given to us only in death.

From the Cell up to human society the real evolutionary rise has thus been due to a series of colony-formations. The function of horizontal variations seems to have been to prepare the units. In the phyla of the true Annelids, where organic forms were too complex and specialized to be able to build up physically united colonies, a pause took place which lasted long enough to allow some of these annelidan forms to condense their nervous systems. The derivatives of the parapodial Annelids achieved nerve-condensation by longitudinal compression of the ventral nerve chain, well seen in any comparative survey of the nervous system of the Articulata ; while the nonparapodial forms, in becoming Vertebrates, achieved a new dorsal condensation which formed the spinal cord. As soon as these highly developed, centralized nervous systems were arrived at, the psychic clingings necessary to continue the series of colony-formations became possible, and a new order of colony appeared—the social colony—in which the individuals are physically free, but psychically bound. (p. 26) The condensation of the nervous framework enabled ‘psychic clingings’ to occur, creating colonial structure. In other words this brought linguistic force into being, this was the beginnings of the physiology of the linguistic engine of life, that fuelled the coming of a colonial mammal. And we may note that it is due to the emergence of ‘psychic clingings’, or ‘linguistic bonds’ as we prefer to say, that an extension of ‘colony-formations’ could take place. In other words the expression of linguistic force creates superorganic physiology, as it has long been our habit to proclaim. Accordingly, as the new psychic (linguistic) dimension came into existence, so a new type of colonial form likewise made its appearance, the social colony, or as we would have it, the superorganism. In this new structural form individuals were physically, or as we would prefer, spatially distinct, but internally bound to each other, via the power of linguistic force, as surely as if they were bricks in a garden wall. And as the man says, from the cell right up to the arrival of our own kind, the whole of evolution has been but a series of colonial evolutions, nothing to do with natural selection, competition or anything else that the anointed high priest of evolution has been given the honour of dumping upon us. Nothing whatsoever, beyond some technical mechanisms concerning the underlying process, whereby we can say that the function of diversification, that alone is subject to any Darwinian like evolutionary process, concerns the preparation of the units of colonial evolution, which alone has any right to denote a scientific theory of evolution. The following is a direct continuation of the previous quote : — But this is not all the evidence for the great part played by colony-formation in Evolution, elucidating, as we have shown, every step of the ascent, natural variation accounting only for the preparation of the units. Beginning with the Cell, we have indicated the steps by which life appears to have been raised above it to the most recent of all colony-formations, the social colonies, of the Ants, the Bees, the Termites, and of Man. As for the cell itself, it has long been recognized in theory that it may have been the result of the colony-formation of a still smaller unit, the biophor (cf. the granula theory of Altmann).* In the work of which this is but a brief abstract, fresh reasons are advanced in support of this theory. Further, for all we know, this smaller unit also had a similar origin, until we get back to some purely inorganic molecule. But, be that as it may, we can now actually trace the evolutionary rise of

animal life in a continuous series of colony-formations from the minutest organic form, which persists perhaps in the smallest microbe, to the highest development of living forms, which is not Man, but human societies, and, from end to end, the mechanism of the rise has been alternately the preparation of a unit by natural variation, and the colony-formation of that unit with subsequent integration. A series of colony-formations has thus raised life from one phylum to the other, the phyla themselves varying only in horizontal planes. The endless “specific and generic variation” in these planes is all that we have hitherto recognized of the factors of Evolution, but we now see that the phyla represent the spread of the different forms of life over the globe, therein exercising their vital functions in so many attempts to equilibrate with so many planetary environments. So luxuriant have the variations been that they have not only obscured till now the other great evolutionary factor— colony-formation, but, at the same time, they have certainly increased the complexity of the cosmic environment for each new organism produced by colony-formation. * “Die Elementarorganismen und ihre Beziehung zu den Zellen,” Leipzig, 1894.

(pp. 26 – 28.) Humans are freely included in a social series along with insects, and we can hardly ask for more than this ! He explains that the logic that has the cell evolving by colony formation into higher forms, can be worked backwards into the origins of the cell, and he says these essays are an abstract of the work that will do just this, which is a reference to the work he never completed but which we know as Neglected Factors, and specifically to part one, which concentrates on this evolution of cellular form. And of course it is delightful to see a life scientist, seeking to expound a theory of evolution, thinking automatically in terms of life’s origins in inanimate matter. We may note in passing that in the editor’s preface to Neglected Factors, we are told that Bernard did in fact intend for parts one and two of that volume to be published as separate works, which is recognised here when we initially spoke of our intention to treat of part two on its own, as a book in its own right. Something present circumstances has caused us to drop, as we make an appraisal of Bernard taken from a broader, more fleeting sampling of his works. Now we have especially nice statements here. Firstly he says that humans are not the highest development of living form, but that human societies are ! Really, this has got to be the absolute pinnacle of human thought : the best sentence I have ever read, or will ever read. Following this gem, we have a delightfully succinct observation regarding the alternating process of evolution, which sees the preparation of units by a process of selection that we can call ‘Darwinian’, and that of colony formation which organises the important dynamic of integration. The word ‘socialism’ does not appear in these essays, they are not political at all, the title must of been an afterthought, to do with the publishing house issuing his essays perhaps. I have already produced a word document version of Bernard’s two essays, which will form an appendix at the end of this work, the word ‘socialism’ only appears in the initial titles, three times. But I would say that it is just here, in the above, more than anywhere else, that we find the underlying motive identified in nature, that vindicates socialism as the right mode of social existence, where nature is seen to be all about integration, and not competition, as Darwin had it. There is also an anticipation of Willis’ objection to Darwinism in the closing sentence, that says the profusion of life on earth at the level of the phylum, where Darwinian mechanisms operate, has obscured the real underlying force of evolution, that raises life from one phylum to another. Willis made this criticism in terms of his own specialisation as a botanist, whereby, he saw Darwinism as ignoring plant life when it came to formulating his

natural selection theory. We have said how this ‘blindness’ was no error, on the contrary, it is just what the powers that be had sent the young Darwin out to find. To see what appeared before his eyes, and to do no more than interpret life in a superficial way, exactly as the Bible likewise interprets life, in a superficial way, according to a whole load of preconceptions, imprinted upon the biomass, where the superorganism stores its consciousness.

Chapter 13 The Illusion of Individuality

If any doubt still lingers as to this reference of the rise of organic life almost entirely to colony-formation, it must be once for all dispelled when we glance at the vegetable kingdom. Let us go back to the unicellular plants, which greet the eye of the microscopist in such multitudes of beautiful forms, physically inactive and stationary, yet glowing with a green so vivid as almost to proclaim the presence of life. These unicellular plants represent a stage through which the whole of the vegetable kingdom must have passed, yet, search how we will, we cannot find any single cell on its way to produce a higher form. We do find, however, higher stages, but these, without exception, are all colonies of cells. Owing to the enormous amount of skeletal deposit which characterize plant life and the consequent rigidity of the plant organism, plant colonies are always immediately recognizable as such ; for the units have small power of flowing together, and thus there is little or no possibility of plant colonies becoming condensed into new and compact organisms as was necessary for animal colonies if they were to survive as animals. To this rigidity is due the fact that colonyformation, as the chief factor in the raising of plant life, is written large over the

whole of the vegetable kingdom ; every moss, every grass, every shrub, every tree is plainly and obviously a repetition of parts by budding—in other words, a colony. The fact that this is not so visible in the animal kingdom is due to the perpetual necessity for condensation and centralization requisite for efficient animal life. This concentration has again and again obliterated the colonial origin of the forms of animals sufficiently, at least, to have put evolutionists off the scent. (pp. 28 – 29.) This gives us a nice statement describing how plants are of their nature colonial forms, while animals have a nature based on the condensation and centralisation of their nervous tissue, which creates an illusion of individuality that obscures the true colonial nature of animal life, in that life only ever evolves by undergoing rounds of colonial evolution, which must inevitably leave their mark on all higher animal life. Of course if Bernard had recognised the role of individualist dogma in human society, then he would of seen that the preservation of individuality penetrated right into the psychic fabric that was responsible for preserving individuality within human organic, physiological unity. Thus the inability to recognise the simple truth is more than just a reasonable failing, as Bernard treats it, it is a necessary evil, part of being superorganic, in the animal kingdom. In the Horizon programme The Secret You shown yesterday, mentioned above, they began by looking at the ability of humans to recognise themselves, using the mirror test, which indicated that someway a little before two years of age, a human recognised themselves in a mirror. This ability is mostly confined to other anthropoids, if not exclusively. From our point of view this physiological ability to define a sense of personal self is of major importance, since the acquisition of such psychically enabled definition of the discrete self, underpins the ability to form a superorganism, even though, for us, it is exactly this ability which blinds us to our true nature, as units of a superorganism. Without the ability to create discrete units of superorganic being, there can be differentiation of superorganic structure, and hence no mammalian superorganism. The discovery of an emergent potential leading in this direction in our close modern relatives, suggests that the move toward a mammalian form of colonial unit, able to bring into being a true mammalian superorganism, became settled in the anthropoid line long ago. The ability to trace uniquely human qualities back through to the earliest periods of our evolutionary history, is exactly what we would expect science to enable, once it had revealed what the true theory of evolution is. As we made plain in How Religion Survived, Darwinism tells us nothing of this kind, nothing that, while radically unexpected in terms of our popular misconceptions, is nonetheless scientifically speaking, mandatory, for a profound theory of such sweeping reach. Hence Darwinism is an enigma, in terms its being a scientific theory of how life was formed. But once we have binned this nonsense, and replaced Darwinism with Bernard’s correct model, we see all sorts of amazing facts emerging, on the back of a rigorously applied scientific technique. All of which goes to prove that science is not a technique by which reality is known, but rather science is the means by which we know reality. Scientific method gives us detail, which we synthesise into knowledge. Without the synthesis the detail is meaningless, so it is the synthesis, not the detail, which constitutes Science, as a distinct feature of our social world. As ever where priestcraft is concerned, the essence is distilled from the form, and the form presented as if it is all that can be known. While the essence is discarded on principle, and ignored, so that only the representation of the essence of life preserved in religion, can be promulgated as an explanation as to ‘Why’ things are as they are. We see this distillation process here, in the Darwinian distillation of the mechanism, from the evolutionary process of life. And we see it in the general distillation of the scientific method, from the synthesis of

knowledge, based on that method. Hence we often hear it said that since no one can reproduce evolution in a laboratory, evolution can never be science ! Which is just the usual miscreant stuff pumped out by the priests. But when we turn to the opening pages of Bernard’s Apodidæ, we find that he does reproduce evolution in the laboratory, not by playing at God, but by finding the evidence of evolution in the structure of the life forms he examines, as surely as a chemist finds the elements by analysing his compounds. The following is a direct continuation of the above quote : — There is still one more argument, the weight of which is the more appreciated the longer it is pondered over. While the Darwinian law of natural variations has totally failed to supply us with more than detached fragments of the (organic) evolutionary process, colony-formation elucidates practically every step of the known ascent. And this superiority in supplying us with a fuller explanation of physical evolution is not all that can be claimed for it. Our physical frame alone is not our life, for inseparably bound up with it is the psyche ; the two can only be separated in thought. It is true that the physical frame may continue to perform its ordinary mechanical functions while we are unconscious. But no one now regards consciousness as the measure of the psyche. It is only one of its phenomena. Now, no theory of Evolution can be regarded as satisfactory unless it takes the development of the psyche into account as well as that of the physical frame. We do not see how, even if “the origin of species” had managed to show us a chain of variations capable of elucidating, step by step, the rise of the physical organism, such a series could have thrown any light upon the evolution of the psyche. But a series of colony-formations shows a line along which the psyche may have advanced in complexity at every step. In each colony, from first to last, we have a number of individuals organically united, each with its inherited instincts as an individual, and the problem, for animal colonies at least, has been how to organize the nervous system of each individual so that it becomes a part of a common central nervous system, so that the activities and functions of every individual should harmonize, enabling the colony to act as a whole and to respond as a whole to external stimuli. (pp. 29 – 30.) This continues to emphasise the theme of natural selection as an entirely failed theory, in contrast to that of colony formation, which answers all questions that we might desire to have answered. In fact colony formation answers rather more questions than Bernard appreciates, for we see toward the end of this passage that he discerns a problem arising for life, in terms of how to integrate increasingly independently defined unitary organisms. This is where Bernard goes off the rails. It is a pity, because this is also the very same moment that we want to heap praise upon the man for standing before a scientific assembly in London, fifty years after the publication of the Origin of Species, and denouncing the work as fit for the bin, and nothing else. Truly gorgeous, oh to of been there, how sad, we say again, that we have no record of the event. As with ourselves, so it is here, what is so significant about this rejection of official dogma, is that it comes with a fully worked out replacement. This is not a religious dismissal of science, like creationism, this a scientific dismissal of science that never was, or never should of been, and should not be now, though it is. We have just used a television programme discussing modern scientific ideas on the definition of the self, to enhance our ideas as to how a unit of superorganic being must have a deep sense of its own integrity, a sense of its being an end in itself, in order to serve as a unit of complex physiological structure. This seems blindingly obvious, but it certainly was not

obvious to Bernard, and here we see him say so, as he makes this a major problem for the evolution of colonial forms, a problem which peaks in humans. But it stands to reason that when we postulate the appearance of the nervous system as an organ of psychic being, intended to cause the spatially discrete unit to be nothing less than a brick within an extended organic architecture, that the same structure of consciousness that enables unification, must impart an illusion of independence, as a primary attribute of the exact opposite condition, whereby consciousness exists to link the unit to the colony. It sounds a bit contorted, but if we just refer to a common house brick we can see that it is the special quality of the strictly defined attributes of a unit, that makes the brick capable of being united with its like kind, into a complex architecture. This is what a nervous structure is, a structure imparting strictly defined attributes of a unit, equally to all units, becoming ever more strictly defined as the nervous fabric evolves to create units able to create colonial forms. If that finely crafted discreteness were not imparted to our intended ‘brick’, it might have any random shape and be useless beyond the limits of its own self perception, in which case it would not need an elaborate nervous system. In terms of an individual attribute, this is what consciousness is in humans, it is a finely crafted structure, ready for fitting the unit into the form it exists to belong to. Tragically Bernard actually makes this nonexistent problem, the culminating lesson of his theory, as applied to humans, since he concludes, at the end of the second essay, that the object of human superorganic evolution is to bring into being the individual as an end in themselves !! Insane. Gut wrenchingly bad. Actually it seemed that it was his emphasis on the psychic dimension which made this inevitable, and indeed it is the coming of this new dimension which does make the coming of true individuals, living in their own right, the pinnacle of evolution, for Bernard. But we find the roots of this inversion of superorganic logic begins here, where he identifies the need for evolution to get individuals, who are spatially discrete, to form integrated organic wholes. This is really just two different ways of saying the same thing, since the appearance of a psychic dimension, and the need to incorporate individuals who are spatially discrete into colonies, are synonymous factors seen from opposite ends, from the perspective of need, and the perspective of solution. As we have said already, it is a tough call for a person who is part of society to make, to actually take science to its logical conclusion. I have revealed my true social status above, I am privileged to be unemployed, my time is my own, I am answerable to no one, in any tightly structured sense. I am in a prime position to express individual freedom, without any regard to anything, other than what I think is correct, as determined by science—as far as I am concerned. The fact is that Bernard was not in that position, even if he was a man of independent means, he was part of society, where I am not. It is a bit much to think that he felt obliged to come out with a total perversion of his ideas, just in order to tow the religious line, but no other interpretation is possible to us. Reading his work is rather reminiscent of reading Edward Wilson’s On Human Nature, the snivelling retraction written in response to the backlash his Sociobiology had induced, following its publication in 1975. As with Wilson, Bernard talks so much crap that is a direct contradiction to the thrust of his main, impassioned argument. And at the same time, in Bernard at least, we find a steadfast adherence to the logic of the main theme, appearing intermittently, between bouts of snivelling crap. Today no one can go about saying the things we say here, that is why it has been left to us deadbeats to say them, because they are true, but no one in power can come out with the truth. In a sense, we could argue, in self analysis, that over time, the fact that there are aspects of reality that cannot be broached by any official parties, increases pressure on the resulting void, which builds up, and, while our social order is tight, and evolved to resist the possibility of the black hole at its centre being accessed by unauthorised people, nonetheless the ever present reality of this black hole in our knowledge, that just sits there, inert and stupid for anyone to see, if they only care to look, making its presence felt but never reflecting any light, never draws any comment, and then, in the end, creates us, the

freethinkers. This void, the inevitable consequence of a taboo that the master race cannot exist without, an important taboo therefore, is bound in the end to induce rogue elements, scum like us, drawn out of the matrix, to the point where we need to be dealt with. I noticed an advert for an upcoming documentary on Channel Four the other day, called Race and Intelligence : Science’s Last Taboo—screened Monday, 26 October 2009. How nice, doesn’t that sound good ! But it cannot be a real breach of the taboo at the core of society, that protects the Jewish identity from being decoded, even though this is what it would be if real science presented such a programme. It must in fact be a bit of fake light, for as we know, the black hole of a taboo can emit no light, and as long as the taboo exists all we will see when we look about us, is a strange effect. That of the black hole, plus the dark matter dispersed amongst us, none of which we can see, but we know is there, bugging us nonetheless. Perhaps in this black hole for a taboo analogy, we should make pseudo science like that of Darwin’s, or everything else we ever get today, the dark matter which makes up the bulk of the information jamming our circuits, rather as dark matter dominates the physical universe. Maybe that is what dark matter is, something to do with the presence of black holes, the counterpart that allows matter as we know it to exist. Still, astronomy being as sound as it is, if that were the case they would of figured it out by now, wouldn’t they ? Is that what bullshit knowledge is though, the counterpart to a taboo, where real knowledge is just that which can emerge from between the cracks, the lone, isolated balls of rock, orbiting predictably, but aimlessly ? I am listening to this programme now—it is nothing, just bunkum, in so far as its being a discussion about a ‘taboo’ goes. This is just the same old same old, the nurture versus nature debate, interesting enough in itself, except, this is a red herring put out by the priesthood. A platform for emphasising the existence of the individual as an end in themselves, a denial of our animal nature. Now he is asking if there is any scientific validity in classifying people according to their race. Race is something real ; what is not real, is the individual. So that race is identical to religion, race is an identity parameter of superorganic physiology. And that is all there is to this subject. But of course these people can no more discuss this, than the ancients could talk about nuclear physics, such is the primitive condition we are reduced to in the absolute theocracy we live in. According to Bernard then, there is no way that Darwinism can account for the evolution of the mind, whereas his theory does so quite naturally, because colony formation puts the evolution of nervous fabric at the centre of the evolutionary process in animals, giving it the role of binding colonies together, just as language, the pinnacle of nervous evolution, binds humans together. This seems fair, given the impossibility of accounting for the enormous human brain simply as a more efficient device for obtaining food. The logic of Bernard’s plan is profoundly more wonderful than Darwin’s, in terms of opening a gateway to understanding our remarkable abilities, in naturalistic terms. Continuing the selection without a break : — Every rising step in the series of colony-formations has been faced by greater difficulties in the way of achieving this necessary harmony ; every step found larger and more complex, and, therefore, if we like to speak in psychological language, more wilful individual units to bring into line. Every one will recognize this as also the great problem of human society. In this way we may see a continuous line tracing out the evolution of the psyche, and it runs through the series of colony-formations. The origin of language and of abstract thought, indeed of all the marvellous wealth of psychic phenomena which characterizes mankind, can be traced to the difficulty of attaining the desired harmony between the individual units of a colony in which the bonds causing the units to cling together are primarily purely psychic.

(pp. 30 – 31.) We see in the continuation of the passage discussed immediately above, that he elaborates on the difficulty evolution had dealing with individuality, and how this problem becomes acute in human society. For all that we must deplore this horrible degradation of his own fabulous organicist sociology, it is at this very point in his work that we find the one precious item that was completely missing from Neglected Factors, the recognition that humans can speak. This seems incredible, but nowhere in his main work, published posthumously, does he refer to language. It is truly incredible, as we have already mulled over above. But here, in life, we find the much needed recognition that language is a biological attribute, central to the evolution of human superorganic being. He speaks of tracing out a continuous line of the psyche, then he includes language within this continuum. This brings both ourselves and Bernard into exact coordination, making the contrast between us explicit. For him language is a feature of psychic being, for us language is psychic being, as he uses the term in his work. We would not touch such a phrase as ‘psychic’ with the proverbial bargepole, it is completely superfluous. For us language, because of its role in life, that we are familiar with on a daily basis, is the reality. So we would say that a linguistic force can be traced right back through the series of colony formations, not a ‘psyche’. And as we have said already, this gives us a handle on reality which Bernard was mercifully able to avoid obtaining, thus he narrowly escaped the nightmare of ‘coming out’ as a true scientist, living in a fascist theocracy. Of course we live in a fascist theocracy still, but times have changed, and no one would dare do what Bernard did now, but, as we have just been saying, fortunately, we are ‘nobody’. For us, after the major disappointment of the main text on colony formation, at last we find it stated plainly that language evolved to bring a superorganic form into being, the above is a joy to behold. Plus he freely includes all intellectual attributes under the same imperative, as in maths, music poetry and so on. Very nice indeed. I would just like to note that Bernard broached the question of a psyche being present even in the cell, and the bloke presenting The Secret You last night, that we have discussed above, also asked whether we might find consciousness in the cell. I find these ideas irritatingly silly. We find consciousness in the cell when we begin with language as a natural force, responsible for the creation of living physiology at the human level of social organisation, and then deduce from this starting point, that life must therefore be information, so that we can trace the essence of consciousness, which is also information, right back to the cell. But while we thereby almost concur with these silly statements, we do not in any sense make silly statements of this kind ourselves. We could even enjoy the flexibility of mind displayed in such silly statements, if it were not for the fact that with a little effort these issues could be finally resolved, as we have resolved them, instead of being dragged out of the frenzied mind to be hung up sopping wet, and left dripping on the floor, making a puddle of confused verbiage, designed for us to slip on, rather than to aid our advance to some conclusive goal. The reason we have been able to discover consciousness in the cell therefore, is because we have reduced consciousness to its lowest common denominator. And since the bloke fronting the piece of scientific propaganda last night is a professional mathematician, you would think he would have some sense of what reducing factors to lower orders of denomination might mean in reality. But evidently not, that is why he got the prestigious job of fronting such a show, because he is incompetent. The problem with mathematicians, and everyone else come to that, is that they are hung up on the reality of words, and insist upon taking them at face value. Which causes them to operate at the behest of the linguistic

programme running in their brains, instead of getting to grips with the linguistic programme and making it work for them. If you really want to be your own masters, as you keep whingeing on about wanting to be—he did last night—then do something about it, you idiots ! A different force of Evolution runs at right angles to these planes. This is the force of colony-formation, which brings one phylum out of the other. Its action has been already described. One point, however, must be further elucidated, or at least repeated : While the spreading horizontally of the phyla may be regarded as due to purely physical reactions, in this colony-formation, although the process is certainly physical, it is just possible to see a trace of psychical influence, in that the incomplete division of dividing organisms may be thought of as due to a clinging of the organisms to one another by strands of protoplasm, this clinging being possibly an expression of some psychic attachment. This is certainly the case in the human social colonies which are at the top of the series ; the complete separation of the offspring from the parents is obviously and admittedly delayed by a purely psychic influence. Besides, the primitive elements of the psyche were most probably simple attractions and repulsions, psychical accompaniments of chemical reactions. But whether or not we may trace the evolution of the psyche back to such very rudimentary processes in colony-formation as the delay in the completion of the processes of division in the individuals, the psyche may be certainly assumed to have been present during the integration of the units of each colony so that they shall all feel and respond in harmony to the same stimulus, which is the essential condition of any colony forming a new organism. It is thus along the vertical lines representing colony-formation that life climbs highest, meaning by life not only its physical, but also its psychical component. (pp. 32 – 34.) He is referring here to the diagram with which our work begins. Given the foregoing discussion, we can say that when he talks about a different force of evolution, that he calls a force of colony formation, this force is in fact what we have recognised as ‘linguistic force’. We have done this because, as students of human nature, recognising that humans are superorganic beings, we have worked our way back from the present to our origins. Bernard, moving in the opposite direction, from our origins to the present, has called the same force colonial. It is simply a matter of perspective, but the force is one and the same. We could call it social, or some other name maybe, but there it is, a very nice final selection to take from this truly incredible piece of work that I have, in effect been searching for solidly, for the last decade, and only had the pleasure to hit upon less than a month ago. Fabulous. When we see pieces of work like this, and think about the society in which such ideas could come from professional scientists of the highest rank, and be shared on a public stage and published in books, we have one of the most rarefied glimpses of how magnificent a time the late Victorian age must of been to live in. When the greatest empire the world has ever known, centred on London, where Bernard worked, gave a hitherto unknown freedom and power to its people. It is this special society that allowed such incredible ideas to come into being, ideas centuries, maybe even millennia ahead of their time. Ideas like this rose from a social flux that made people feel like all of history was being left behind, and while this posed difficulties, it also invited people to think of a bright future, with hitherto unimagined benefits to come.

Heartbreaking it is for those of us able to understand this history, we who are the inheritors of this legacy, but who live a century on, long after all such bright hopes have been crushed, because, in truth, the reality of the idea of the social organism, had never been grasped. Or if it was, those who grasped it were the ones who saw to it that its promise, which was a threat to them, was erased from our world, and instead they sold us down the river, and brought us to the sorry pass we are in today.

Chapter 14 BNP on Question Time

It must be apparent to anyone who looks at my work, that I am in the habit of dropping material from life, into the body of my text. My work is all about the science of human nature, so this method is valid. We live in a wired world, where the world comes to us, and my style reflects that fact. This is why I always freely insert dates along with these inclusions, something the computer makes easy, and allows references of a sort to be given. I then use the inclusions from life as samples to illustrate or illuminate my subject, which is the superorganism, and to aid my exposition, and I hope this all comes across, and works for people. This Question Time event is highly significant for us, as the following makes clear, I hope. Last night, 22/10/2009, Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party, a fascist Christian organisation, just like the Tory and Labour fascist Christian parties, only more forthright about it, was allowed a place on the famous BBC 1 slot, Question Time, much to the anger of the extremely nasty and violent anti-fascist fascists. By ‘fascist’ we mean anyone who wants to force their views on others, and to force others to comply with their views by using state force. By this definition, it is obvious that all those who wanted to deny this ‘fascist’ politician a voice are the real fascists : the BNP does not dominate our ruthlessly oppressive world, but the others do. What these anti-fascists mean by ‘fascist’, is someone who can be linked, by what they say, to Nazi style views. But as we have made clear, the reason for the Nazis, and indeed the reason for the BNP existing, is to ensure that ‘anti-fascists’ have a licence to attack freethinkers like us. Unfortunately, this is one time when it really is “all about us.” Remember : religion is fascism personified. All these menacing types come together over one thing : they hate freedom, as epitomised by freedom to know the truth. As atheist scientists we do not get hung up on the meaning of words as given by common usage. We consider what lies behind the meaning of any word that impacts on social dynamics, since we know that linguistic force creates social structure, and hence words must be laden with bias in order to perform this organic function. The essence of ‘fascism’ is the imposition of preconceived attitudes upon others. The fact that this name is given to a particular political stance from early to mid twentieth century European history, is irrelevant, because the

question is, What were these first fascists really, anyway, in terms of superorganic physiology ? The fuss and bother surrounding people like the BNP and their opponents, is just the social dynamic playing out the force of the taboo that makes Judaism, and its associated interests, untouchable. This taboo dynamic, is then a linguistic dynamic. It follows, that if linguistic force creates social structure, then all social dynamics must be manifestations of linguistic force. These high tension situations, involving the core taboo of social power—the black hole at the centre of the social biomass—evolved in conjunction with the master identity, to hide the real source of power ruling over society, which means they offer an intensely focused opportunity to study superorganic physiology in action. Hence our desire to drop everything, and take notice of this rarest of opportunities to study the ‘black hole’ of social power, in close proximity. Watching a programme like the one we are considering now, demonstrates this fact to perfection, as various individuals demonstrate their lines of structural allocation within the superorganic physiology, by emitting powerful messages running along strictly demarcated lines, all of which are meaningless drivel, beyond the structure which they themselves create. Fascists and anti-fascists, for sociology, must be regarded as nothing more or less than ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ linguistic polarities. We do not want any sentimentality entering into these discussions, since ‘sentimentality’, in one form or another, is precisely the charge these superorganic structures carry. The things these fascists and anti-fascist argue about, might be likened to viewers of the fashions worn by the king portrayed in the story of The King and his New Suit of Clothes, debating with passion, what the textiles and colours meant, whereas we know that the king in this tale was naked ! That is not to say that the questions we find ourselves wrestling over with deadly earnestness are not real and important, it is to say that these questions are not what they appear to be. These questions are capable of being understood at a more fundamental level, at the biological level existing beneath the political level, where we can discern the functional reason for our social behaviours. It is of course not in the interest of our masters to allow us to examine this subject however, because that would reveal where they derive their power from, which is of course ‘religion’, just as our proposed examination, is of course ‘science’. The imposition of preconceived ideas, which defines fascism, is what Griffin stands for, as it is, what all religious freaks stand for. All of which explains why Jews have been standing as BNP candidates, as we discovered yesterday, 25/10/2009, on a BBC 1 political discussion programme. As we have said elsewhere, wherever power emerges a priest will be found to take on the shade of that order, and thus to make it conform to the theocracy’s prime agenda. There is no defence against a strategy of this kind, it is how human superorganisms are made, via the impress of linguistic force. It is for this reason that we have to promulgate an atheist science, that directly attacks that prime agenda, i.e. sets science against religion, so that knowledge can be free for all. Leaving no place for those who would chain knowledge to their own cause, to their own identity, in other words. 1. Telling moments The most important thing about the BNP then, is that it is a Christian organisation. Just as the Nazis were a Christian organisation, and just as the only two political alternatives in Britain are likewise, rigidly Christian parties. There is no atheist or even secularist agenda in our politics. Which makes a joke of our being a secular society, a secular society would outlaw any kind of religious teaching as a first step in its establishment. But the BNP, like the Nazis, is the only public voice that comes close to speaking of the living impact of the questions that a true science of humans, such as we provide, makes known, and this is what makes the far right parties of great interest to scientists studying human nature. There was one telling moment last night when this relevance to science came to the fore. Griffin was

quite rightly pointing out to his detractors, that none of them would dare denounce the idea of an indigenous population in America or New Zealand, but they do this in Britain. He said the political elite had been committing genocide against the grassroots of the people, imposing a programme of massive cultural change without so much as a by your leave. This is truly gorgeous stuff, but of course the aliens who rob us of our culture hate this talk, and the audience was full of blacks and Muslims, and there was a young Jew who asked Griffin about his denial of the holocaust. Yet these miscreants who bleat about the horrors recorded in our history, are inflicting the same horror of cultural annihilation on us here and now, while spitting in our faces. True their method is by stealth, a process enabled by state machinery that evolved to allow this process to occur, but I do not see how gentle ethnic cleansing is any better than murderous ethnic cleansing, when all is said and done, though it is obviously a better method for the aliens to utilise. We must be aware that we are all part of one uniform biological entity, and none of us, ordinarily, has any idea what all these contentious things mean. We are all inducted into the physiological matrix, so that every person that speaks, whether it be Griffin, his fellow panellists, the protestors at the gates of the BBC or the members of the audience, all believe that their arguments are right and true. And since each has a different take on these aspects of our social life, each person is right, in their own way. One of the panellists voiced the multiculturalist mantra, saying that whether as fox hunters or whatever, we all end up in a minority somewhere along the line, so that we must respect the rights of others, if we would have our rights protected. But this fact is something we have pointed out elsewhere, when noting how the state oppresses us all by first oppressing one defenceless group, and then moving against another minority group. So that we recommend that we all fight against change of all kinds, and never lend our support to the state on any issue—utopian, I know. Remember that multiculturalism is not about helping minorities to be safe, or an underdog keep their rights. Multiculturalism is about allowing an alien minority to be treated as our superiors, because when all are defined as minorities protected by a supposedly neutral authority ruling over all, this multicultural mechanism cannot help but define what constitutes a legitimate group, and what does not, resulting in a social hierarchy, wherein in the most powerful sanctioned groups, become more equal than the less powerful. And this always means religious fraternities ruling the roost, which is of course why these strategies of imposing aliens upon a uniform society were introduced in the aftermath of a war deliberately designed to fracture the European culture, that was drifting way from slavery to Judaism. How can it possibly be in an indigenous people’s interest to allow vile and repugnant aliens, who are destroying the indigenous way of life, to be treated as their equals under law ? Here we are, rising up as the first ever atheist society on earth, and next thing you know we are thrown into a vortex of degeneracy, as religious forms long despised are made precious elements of our culture. It is too sick for words. The very idea of protecting alien groups as one of our own is insane. What this does, is to refresh the situation whereby the Christian slaves of Judaism reaffirm their grip on a segment of superorganic biomass that was slipping away from the Jewish core of superorganic being. And while we describe what happened in Britain after the last world war, the fact is that this ‘demolish and rebuild’ social strategy is an ancient method at the core of Jewish power, as we discuss when talking about how warfare is a vital feature of superorganic being, allowing the biomass to managed by a core master race. We can see how the priests acknowledge the true dynamics of the situation, but always from a false point of view that says people are ends in themselves, which takes power away from individuals and hands it to the state, that abuses us all as if we were nothing more than its property, which we are of course. Politicians are all here to ensure that we comply with that allotted status, as property. Politicians are always our number one enemy, no matter how much they present themselves as our friends. We are all wrong when we make our personal experience a validation of social reality in its entirety, there is, and can only ever be, one reality. The reality is that humans are a superorganic mammal, and the only way to

understand what is happening in society is to make a summation of all that is happening, and from that sum we derive one clear abstract statement, that recognises our nature is corporate. In this way we come to understand why things are as they are, and not just excuse things being as they are by conforming to a blissful state of ignorance, imposed upon us by our masters. Getting back to the telling moment last night, in response to the imputation against the government, to the effect that it was waging a war against its own people, David Dimbleby, the chairman, turned to Griffin and said “What, you think that governments are attacking their own people ?” To which Griffin said “Yes, unfortunately, that is true.” I absolutely loved this snippet, as you might imagine, for here we actually have a critical feature of a true science of humanity, poking through into the political domain, just because of the nonconformist stance that the BNP brings it to the table by raising the taboo, not to say near illegal question, of race. Dimbleby was amazed at the very suggestion, what kind of madness is this, the government at war with its own people ! Yet this idea is fundamental to a true science of humanity, that recognises that humans are a superorganic mammal, and the Jews are the master race. This snippet is perhaps far more interesting than I had realised until this moment, as I come to transcribe my thoughts this morning. We have made much of the fact that the idea of the social organism brought to the fore a realisation that all Jewish civilisation, even if understood as Griffin understands it, as Christian civilisation, was put under threat by this knowledge. But here we see the reason why this same expression of linguistic force focused conscious ideas on the state as a tool in the hands of the Jews, and thus manifested itself in what is generally called Fascism, culminating in the Nazis. For here, although he himself does not understand the roots of his own sense of self, Griffin recognises that a national government can exist to be at war against its own people, in preference to a host of aliens ! It is a truly amazing idea, and without the idea of the social organism, which indeed ruled the world prior to the Great Cleansing of 1914 – 18, it is impossible to understand how such a perversion of power can come about. Griffin, sad git that he is, thinks that being Christian is a defence against such betrayal. Whereas, the truth is, that it is being Christian that gives our society this kind of detached social machinery, that can be driven by alien imperatives working from within our own beings, through the very linguistic slave programme, that is Christianity. Obviously people like Griffin and Hitler are not really bothered about any of the things they talk about with passion, which is why they talk gibberish, all that concerns them is social power. But while mainstream politicians look more devoted to wider public interests than a mere desire for access to raw power, this is not so either. They are just the same as Hitler and Griffin, they just happen to be working in a different compartment of the Jewish theocracy, that is all, which is why their ramblings are just as much gibberish too, in the end. We have to understand that since the Jewish dominion of the world has been enabled by a creating sub Judaic slave identities, and by harnessing the precursor of the first of these slave identities to the Jewish cause of global domination, in the form of the Romans, and before that in the Greek form of Alexander the Great, and before that . . . and so on, there is a relentless physiological process at work here. The mature Jewish superorganism has developed a rigorous physiology based on highly organised linguistic force, which causes territories to be based on law, as opposed to geography. This gives us a model of state machinery, doted about the planet’s surface, like so many nuclear power stations. Only instead of distributing power, these state machines exist to harness the power of the human biomass, and make it all available to the Jewish core, now based in its own state in Israel. The force harnessed by these state machines, is the natural linguistic force of human corporate nature, that builds superorganic physiology, or ‘social structure’, as our Jewish linguistic programme calls it.

The consequence of this method of controlling the global human biomass, via a host of interlinked state machines, is that nations are built up through warfare, and then resident populations are subject to an alien administration. This is hardly a strange concept, what does Dimbleby think the Normans were, has the man never heard of 1066 ? This particular phase of alien overlordship is said to be the last time Britain was invaded successfully. And so it was, but if you can only see the robber who kicks you in the nuts, then the pickpocket and conmen of many guises, have an open field to continue abusing you at their leisure. And that is what a nation state can do, and that is what Griffin is rising up against, just as this is what the Nazis rose up against : the unseen alien within, the ghost in the machine. It is this fact, that both the German Nationalists and the indigenous British people are reacting to, the same process of ethnic cleansing, being conducted by the machinery of the state, that gives them a common identity that their detractors, the beneficiaries of our ethnic cleansing by our own nation state, are cursing. A further point came up as the show was closing. That nasty little man Jack Straw, threw in a side swipe at Griffin while some fuss was going on, so it was not a clear statement, but it seemed to be a direct response to the factual statement that Griffin made, that had so shocked the ignorant Dimbleby ; although we must note that albeit Griffin is passionately angry about the fact that our government is our number one enemy, Griffin himself has no more idea what the real reason for this state of affairs is, than anyone else does, apart from us of course. Aside from a couple of other simultaneous denunciations against Griffin, Straw called him a ‘conspiracy theorist’. This is very important to pick up on, for it is the standard mantra of the Jewish slave, who denounces any assertion that people work through organisations in a subversive manner, by calling people expressing such suspicions ‘conspiracy theorists’. I recall that many years ago Jack Straw made a remark on TV, that I went on to use in my arguments against the denunciation of conspiracy theorists. Straw had been speaking about a leak of information that caused trouble for his party in government, and he indicated a certain other party was to blame. When pressed about this accusation, Straw said that in the absence of evidence, when an event of this kind occurs, it is safest to assume that whoever benefits from it, is the person behind it. Yes Mr Straw, just so. The set up we are talking about here is vastly more complex, and Straw, as with all people, works on the premise that humans are individuals, who act as units of independent authority. So that when a suggestion is made as to a state working against its people, he takes it to mean that there are people in government who are consciously pushing such a subversive programme. This however is not what we mean when we talk about the direction of social transformation being orchestrated at the behest of an alien presence, operating through a state system, evolved to serve that alien presence. Griffin however would be coming from the same false perspective as Straw on this matter, so that Griffin would target wilful intent coming from an alien bloc, just as the Nazis did. The Jews are of course the correct bloc to target, but not in the crude sense that a Hitler or a Griffin would do so, but rather in the sophisticated manner we employ, as atheist scientists. We have no agenda attached to a social identity, but only an interest in knowing what is real, so we make no distinction between Jews, Christians and Nazis, other then the structural distinctions befitting a science of superorganic physiology. 2. Paki power within There was some Paki on the panel, introduced as the most powerful Muslim women in Britain ; a truly sickening thing, to think there are any powerful Muslims in Britain, but there it is, and as such a perfect example of how a state machine invites aliens to rule indigenous populations. When Griffin was making his remarks about the state committing

genocide against its own people, this Paki eventually cooked up a response. To wit she asked him if he knew the meaning of the word genocide, and when he said he did, she demanded he state it. Griffin said he knew the technical definition given by the United Nations, and as he tried to respond, inarticulately, she interjected in his struggle to bring up the definition, by telling him that it was an outrage that he should use the word in the sense he was using it. In other words, the Jews have a right to demand that they be allowed to exist, anywhere in the world, because they were physically attacked, but the British have no right to demand that they are allowed to live in Britain, according to their own traditions, without accommodating a horde of vile aliens, because they have not been physically attacked. So, according to this Paki, one of our overlords, who has a senior position in our state machine, the genocide of the British people by stealth, is of no importance. Even though it is the attempt to eradicate cultures that is the truly meaningful aspect of the term ‘genocide’. No one would turn round to the Jews and say “Look, those gas chambers were an offence against humanity, why don’t you all become Christians, then we won’t have this problem ?” Why not ? Because it is not the act of mass cruelty that is really important, it is the eradication of a culture that is made horrific by the use of a special term for such behaviour. And thus the aliens poison our world and destroy it, with impunity, because they drive the machine, for which we provide the power. 3. Why Islam is evil The next inquisitor we must take note of was the Muslim who put the question, “Why is Islam an evil religion ?” Griffin answered that it was because Islam was antagonistic to free speech, democracy, and equal rights for women. He said there were a number of passages in the Koran instructing Muslims to treat none Muslims—infidels—as subhuman scum. His attitude towards Islam was one of a truce, so that if Muslims were to stay in Britain they should stop trying to undermine our British values. We would of said : that Islam is evil because it is an immensely powerful religion, and since all religion is evil, it stands to reason that the most overwhelming religion, is the most evil. Plus, the manifestation of Islamic power takes certain material forms. Sheer numbers gives Islam a menacing presence on the world stage, as we see whenever a Muslim issue occurs in Europe. There is the case of a pregnant Egyptian women stabbed to death in a German court room, reported in last night’s news, 26/10/2009, also the Rushdie affair, and the Danish cartoons fiasco. It is already clear that we Europeans dare do nothing to offend our Islamic overseers. I saw a programme on TV the other day, where a couple of Pakis went to live on a working class estate in Bristol. They secretly filmed the abuse that some of the nasty delinquents levelled against them. In one clip some youths called the women a ‘raghead’, I thought that was great, don’t you just love English slang ? ‘Raghead’, what a perfect name for a Muslim, it will be my favourite term of derogation for this sick creed, from now on. Thank you for bringing this word to me Miss Raghead, as I am not stupid enough to go walkabout on such estates myself ! But then, in the cause of anti-indigenous propaganda, its worth it, eh. Needless to say I hate racist abuse as much as anyone, and I would be friendly and polite to any Muslims in my neighbourhood, all things being equal ; though I live in a still traditional part of England, where we, mercifully, have no overt Islamic presence, yet. It is a rule of my civilised upbringing that we do not abuse individuals for their disabilities, and being religious is a disability. While being a Muslim is a horrendous disability, in terms of the loss of humanity it signifies, a loss of humanity epitomised by the suicide bomber, if nothing else. We have a perfect example of how religion dehumanises people generally, from this week’s news, today being Friday, 13 November 2009. A sixteen year old boy raped a seven year old boy, and the father of the victim read a statement in court, asking for

leniency, because he and his wife were committed Christians, and they had forgiven the perpetrator. The judge let the rapist off scot-free, and a week later he raped a five year old boy. That’s religion for you ! Sick and depraved, it tears the soul out of anyone it touches. We must fight against the right of people to practice their religion, and we must speak of religion as ‘evil’, and teach people to hate religion as a public menace—but not as an individual evil. Striking a balance here is obviously tricky, and that is in favour of the fascists who rule us by means of religious oppression, backed by the machinery of the state. We fall into their trap if we abuse one religion only, so we must heap our vitriol on all religions. But that is no reason why we cannot identify degrees of religious obscenity. It is inevitable that if we live in a world ruled by Christian obscenity, which we had once hoped to eradicate, and then instead we find ourselves faced with the imposition of far worse obscenities, in the shape of much more aggressive and up front religious identity programmes, we are bound to be especially riled by the new master formulas threatening to deny us freedom of thought, in order that they can have freedom of religious practice—in our land. So we should express our hatred for these alien newcomers accordingly, and English slang is a nice, expressive way, to employ the linguistic force to this end. All in all then, last night was a most interesting window on the substance of our scientific sociology, bringing the underbelly of the superorganism close to the skin, for us to glimpse something of its nature closer to the surface, which it rarely reaches during peaceful times. I must say, in closing this notice of last night’s political moment, that I thought Griffin was excellent, like the liberals, who always say just what we all want all politicians to say, but who never get in power, Griffin could be more open about things than the mainstream politicians. A member of the audience questioned why anyone should trust his word, and he gave the one response that I would wish to hear, he said, “Why would anyone trust the word of any politician ?”, and he opened his arms and turned left and right to indicate all present. He was the best of the panel, a brilliant performance I thought, and I must say, that is the first time in my life that I have had a response in the real world, to the vote I cast in an election. It was because we voted BNP in the European elections, and they use proportional representation, that last night’s event took place. So I am one of the one million plus that we all have to thank for last night’s show. Needless to say I hate the BNP, but voting for the least revolting party is as good as democracy gets, it is all about trying to tease something out of the system. We succeeded on this occasion, and for what its worth, which is not much, that is at least something. 4. Wright wing reaction We now have the Wright Stuff on Channel Five, Friday, 23 October 2009, and some idiot is totally misrepresenting what the discussion was about last night. He just said that Griffin claimed the British population can be traced back to 17,000 years ago, but it was the black American women, introduced as the deputy director of the British Museum, who took us down that path. Obviously no one who was not a lackey of our slave society would be allowed a voice on any TV programme, so we need not be surprised at this stupidity parading itself on the Wright Stuff ; Wright and his crew are simply regular bigots. A caller says it was a witch hunt last night, just attacking the BNP, making Griffin a victim. It was a strange Question Time, the panel are saying. I myself did not watch it all, but I saw enough—they are saying Griffin was a buffoon—but this is the voice of bigots who would hardly say anything else. True, Griffin was talking shit, but show us the politicians that ever do otherwise. The point being, that what politicians say is simply designed to pander to a social bloc, and that bloc moos in harmony, according to how the words it hears stimulate the programme running in their brains. The programme in their brains being their

sense of identity, and hence the sense of meaning they identify with. All of which requires no actual sensibleness, of any kind. Next caller says it was a pantomime, a side show. Now someone has called in and said Griffin was bullied. Wright said if he thinks Griffin was bullied then he should spare a thought for the people Griffin would bully, and promptly cut this pro Griffin caller off. Fascist pig. This show is simply an extension of last night’s Question Time, out and out fascism by the non fascists, who think they have Good on their side. Now a lady caller is saying things that Wright likes. He is having a nice long chat with her. Wright really is a nasty piece of work, but, unlike Griffin, this creep says all the nice, politically correct things. But now she has compared Griffin to Joan of Ark ! Oh dear, she slipped that one in, caught poor Mr Pig Wright by surprise there she did. Now another lady caller says we do not have free speech anymore—you tell him dear —laws prevent us from making any comments that none whites, or homosexuals, might not like. Wright responds by comparing this restriction of freely voiced opinions, to making statements subject to the laws of libel. The idiot has not got the first idea what he talking about. Now he is saying that free speech comes with responsibilities ! Ignorant twat. Who needs people like Stalin and Hitler when we have smooth talking deceivers like good old Wrighty, to tell us how to behave ? She said that we should be able to say whatever we think, much to the dismay of this chat show host, whose role in society, we might imagine, is to facilitate free speech, but who, evidently, is in reality there to control and limit free expression. No wonder he is shocked at the idea that people should be allowed to express ideas not approved by the state, If we had this freedom, what use would society have for the likes of him ? The panel conclude that Griffin was made to look like a victim. Now they are ending, but they are coming back to it after the break. They have never done that before. They are probably going to find some favourable callers who will say what Wright wants them to say. Lets see what kind of calls come in after I have brushed my teeth. I knew this show would be a good follow up on last night’s event. The point that was being made about unbridled free speech, that Matthew Wright could not understand, and over which she could not express herself adequately, at such short notice on national TV, was that we should be allowed to say anything we want. So we should be able to say we hate immigrants, Muslims, Jews, queers or whatever, if that is how we feel about these people. And why not ? What is different about saying we hate Nazis and saying we hate Jews ? Except that we are the slaves of the Jews, and the Nazis are the Jewish bogeymen ? Vic Reeves is the twat who was going on about the 17,000 years nonsense ; he looks like a dork. 7.9 million watched Question Time, three times the highest ever previous viewing figures. Now the women on the panel is saying that the audience was loaded against Griffin, and she is right. Now Reeves is trying to downplay the viewing figures, saying this was because people like ‘car crash’ TV. The powers that be will reward him for being a good little lackey. Robin called after the break : Wright asks why he watched. Robin says he wanted to see Griffin storming off the set. This is exactly the kind of caller I expected them to sift out, he could not of been more articulate in his abuse of Griffin. There is a stroke of luck. Next caller watched to see Griffin be good, and to see him get knocked down. She thought the programme was contrived and she will never watch the programme again. So, another nicely selected, articulate condemnation of Griffin. She says he was made to look like a victim. The idea of the victim that all these lackeys hated, was expressed in terms of

making those who voted BNP, who feel like victims anyway, feel more justified in their support for the right wing party, saying to themselves that this is what we get when we try to speak. How these slaves of Judaism twirl in verbal contortions, as they strive to keep the linguistic force focused positively upon themselves. This is why they just prefer to shut out all opposition, by any means available. We have to remember that our masters caused the world wars and carried out the holocaust, just so these manic ‘haters of racism’ would be free to abuse racists in this way. These horrific historical events built up the pressure of linguistic force behind the Jews, and the new minorities that were shipped into Europe, precisely so that the indigenous Europeans could not raise objections to the presence of these aliens, on the basis of race. The world wars truly were a civil war launched by the whites, against themselves, but this expresses a mechanism of self destruction written into the Christian, Jewish slave identity, something Griffin ought to get into his thick head. That’s it. Now one of the regular panellists says Griffin should be on all the time because he cannot answer the questions, and looks like a fool. The women says not. Reeves says that people should be taught history properly in school—so that we can all be as knowledgeable as this tosser, I suppose. 5. A higher purpose The Wright Stuff reaction was totally predictable, there is no way you would ever get the views of the British people being represented on a panel show, within the panel. Only the master elite ever get to speak in public, and we must realise that these people get their priestly status and privileged position by being lackeys of the system, proven over time, whereby the system filters them into their positions of power. This begins from getting good grades at school, that is what examines are all about, training in obedience, not knowledge. What you learn is meaningless, that you learn what you are told, that is what matters. Obviously there are technical skills where some innate ability is required, but this is certainly not what matters in terms of the front men and women, that deliver the message to the slaves. Still, the callers were quite good. However, to try and cut through the red herring of race, we must realise that race is really about culture. It is just as Griffin says, it is about erasing the culture that grassroots people live within. Pubs are closing at the rate of fifty a week, a tragedy for ordinary people, but the elite do not give a toss. What these people do not realise is that we live in our communities, we are not globe trotters, we have not got the means to move here, there and everywhere, just as the fancy takes us. If aliens change the character of our communities, why should we welcome this ? I hate the idea of seeing ragheads in my community, and mosques. But there is a vast difference between what I think, and all this mess over the ethnic cleansing of my fellow people, which just cannot be helped. We, after all, are the slaves of Judaism, and this is something that Griffin regards as a good thing ! Though of course he has no idea what Christianity really is, underneath the skin, so to speak. My life long passion has been atheism, so I link my English culture to atheism, and it is from this presumption of atheism that all my ideas arise. This is expressed in the development of the idea of atheist science, where scientists must proactively assume that God does not exist, as the premise upon which real science is based. This assumption is required because we live in an absolute theocracy, where all science is religious science, which therefore requires science as science, to be atheist science, to stand any chance of defending itself from the corruption of religion. The upshot of all of this, is that we are not concerned with the political dimensions. These aspects of real life impinge upon us, we have feelings, but ultimately, we are above and beyond the nitty-gritty of these social realities. What we want to do, as ever, is to say why things are as they are. This is the criticism we make against all who stand up on their

podium and rant off about the difficulties of social life today. And that is what we aim to do, to explain why, and that is, what we do. 6. Feedback On the BBC news just now, it was reported that the BNP had complained to the BBC about the treatment of its leader on the show last night, which rather indicates that he not only looked like a victim, he felt like one ! It never occurred to me that Griffin was a victim, I just took everything we saw last night for normal, I saw nothing out of the ordinary. What were people expecting ? That just because the BNP, a hated political party, had been granted a place in the elite orders propaganda machine, that decades of hate would vanish ? Mind you that is what the women on the Wright Stuff panel wanted, she was adamant that the format for the show should of been as normal, and I must admit, without thinking about it, I had assumed that it would be. So I guess the fact that it was turned into an opportunity to grill a Griffin, is what all the fuss is about. Lunchtime News Channel Four—last few seconds. Griffin saying that 90% of these islands are still indigenous and the audience last night represented the population of inner London. Reporter said that he did not seem able to argue with them very well, to which he said “I was not allowed to.” BBC 1. Griffin to make a formal complaint about last night’s show. Not a normal Question Time, but more like a lynch mob. He was unfairly treated ; the reporter used the phrases ‘bear pit’ and ‘stitch-up’. Griffin said the programme was bias, and displayed the venom of the political class. Griffin had predicted it would be political blood sport, and he was proven right. North West regional news. Views from Blackburn. Visited a raghead, who they had on last night. She said the same thing that the Wright Stuff cohort had been saying, that the show indicated just what Griffin is. Two whites : one said Griffin was unimpressive, the other said he was right, and he was bullied, and that she would be voting BNP next time. In the evening news slot they said that the white BNP supporter they had shown last night would not appear, she had said Griffin’s declaration that he had shared a platform with the Klu Klux Klan made her feel she had been naive, and she would not be voting BNP again. This goes to show how useful it is to the establishment to have lunatic fringe parties like the BNP soaking up all the venom the indigenous population has against the aliens, only to draw it into this sick maelstrom of twisted thinking, which this naive women only now recognises. There are good reasons to hate the ingress of aliens, but we atheist scientists are the only people who know what those reason are, because we understand the deep underlying connection between the manifestation of historical events, and the underlying biological nature of human existence. We cannot complain against different races taking over our country. Nor can we complain about our lands becoming the land of a currently alien religion. We are trapped by the slave nature of our culture, and prevented from defending ourselves on this basis. But we can complain about these currents of social transformation in terms of the decay of our core values, centred on the idea of free access to knowledge, upon which freedom of thought depends, without which there can be no freedom of expression— and this, we do here.

PART 3

SECOND

ESSAY

Chapter 15 The Coming of the Human Superorganism

Groups of semi-arboreal Anthropoids acquired the habit of foraging together beyond the edges of the great forests in which they were produced. Nothing more natural than that such foraging parties would, from time to time, be cut off, in which case the only chance of survival would be to cling together. All those in which the psychic bonds were not strong enough to ensure this would perish, but those in which the original psychic bonds were strong enough would have these clingings intensified, not only by the common danger, but by the obvious advantages of co-operation. We do not say that this actually was the way human societies were launched as organisms upon the sea of life ; some were launched one way, some another. But, once launched, no matter how, it is as easy to sketch the morphological changes they would have to undergo as it is to follow those of any organism of any other phylum. The general conditions are by no means specially recondite, and many facts can be adduced as evidence, among which the position of women in the past and in the present is not the least important. (Scientific Basis of Socialism, p. 42.) This crude anthropological fantasy goes some way toward explaining Bernard’s miserable failure to understand the biological function of language, in the context of human

corporate nature. This is a terribly crude, poor attempt at envisioning how a colonial anthropoid emerged from the original anthropoid stock. We would say ‘emerged by means of colonial evolution’, but it is clear that he applies Darwinian principles to this aspect of human emergence, since he talks about those ‘foraging parties’ isolated by chance, and consequently worked upon according to the fortuitous arrangement of their psychic equipment, would become the line leading to modern humans. This is pure Darwinism, and we would like to know what it is doing here in an inherently anti-Darwinian treatise on evolution ! As inconsistent and illogical as this use of Darwinism is, in a treatise on colonial evolution, it is in fact consistent with Bernard’s rendition of his own theory, at this point in his work. He allows for the operation of natural selection in the moulding of units of colonial being, which is what he is describing here. But we cannot be sympathetic to this interpretation, we want a model that envisages the organism evolving in obedience to an evolutionary force, that causes it to exploit latent potential energy, either in the environment, where the result is heterogeneity under the umbrella of a uniform physiology, or in the uniform physiology itself, which results in the colonial process of evolution that Bernard makes his own. There is no question of two modes of evolution, there can only be one mode of evolution. This passage provides a clear insight into how Darwinism can be contrasted with colony formation, and how Bernard failed to make a correct distinction between the two, at the critical moment when humans came into view. This failure meant that Bernard preserved Darwin, but added something, and we can well imagine how this was the only acceptable way forward under the oppressive conditions which apply in our open democracy, otherwise known by us, as a covert, absolute theocracy. Thus, when we see Bernard apologising in advance, should he of overcooked his ideas due to his enthusiasm for the general idea he had in view, we can say that he could in all honesty of begged forgiveness of a similar kind, for allowing himself to be biased by caution due to the pressure behind Darwinian ideas, forcing him to try and accommodate them, even as his natural inclination obliged him to destroy Darwinism. However, it is no small thing that he felt no need to acknowledge this travesty of scientific judgement. As we consider what we have just said about Bernard’s accommodation of Darwinism, we find something interesting emerging from our own discussion. In effect Bernard is creating a new science of evolution, but doing so by a partial separation from that established by Darwin. What does this remind us of ? That is right, Bernard’s observation that colonial evolution relies upon a process of ‘partial division’, first noted in the manner in which integral cellular entities came to be colonial cellular bodies. This is significant for our understanding of how religion survived the coming of the scientific age, our main theme in the last work posted to Scribd. We can see in Bernard’s case, that by advancing his ideas in this way Bernard offered the chance of preserving Darwinism. But this was a fraud, and had Bernard’s science of been recognised Darwin’s could not long of survived before someone pointed out exactly what we are saying here. However, the human superorganism, created at the behest of linguistic force, works like this all the time, by continuously pumping out new modes of expression that are only ever partially developed, in order that all resulting social structure can obey Hitler’s Golden Rule of social power—which is at the very heart of Judaism—and says that there can only ever be one message, though it may appear in a myriad of forms. Given that we recognise that it is a natural linguistic force that creates all so called artificial structure in human society, we would expect to find the same laws dictating the creation of organic fabric at the behest of genetic code, to be operative at the social level of organic being, dictated by linguistic code. So it is that Bernard’s theory buds out from Darwin’s theory, and becomes part of the mass of religiously perverted knowledge contributing to the structure of the Jewish superorganism. Instead of separating completely,

and giving rise to a wholly new superorganism, as we seek to do by leaving both Darwinism and Judaism behind. From the above poor anthropological reasoning, we may surmise that Bernard’s heart was not really in tune with the dimension of physical anthropology. But this failing really lets down the whole application of his logic of colonial evolution, so carefully worked out on the basis of his studies of the lower orders of life. This explains why he never grasped the relevance of language as a physiological attribute, so that he could not see the brain as the organ of language, and hence the organ of colonial being, a unit of neural activity that was the pinnacle of colonial formation itself. Meaning that humans are the incredible individuals they are, because each person effectively contains what can only be described as a living colony within their heads ! I suppose some brief statement as to the correct mode of anthropological reasoning would not be out of place here, although I am sure the general idea of how humans evolved from animal life was presented in How Religion Survived. The crucial point is to recognise that the emergence of animal forms is not a matter of chance opportunity, if it were then life would not be divisible into broadly similar types. Life has to evolve toward an opportunity presented by the latent potential energy of an existing system. Therefore it is not a case of proto humanoids being randomly selected, by a combination of chance and inherent difference, for a life of super empowered social living. Rather, it is the case that at all times, anything that increased Bernard’s general principle of unity, such as losing hair and developing sweat glands, making for a need to share communal nests and to enjoy close intimate association at a sensual level, would tend to carry other insipient attributes of sociality into the future. Think of an energy flux pressing against an environment and seeking to extract ever more energy from that environment, by altering the structural matrix of the flux. So that a social mammal would emerge from its original environment, into the social environment of superorganic being, remorselessly, increasingly and relentlessly ; without needing any irrelevant musings to do with entirely spurious, religiously inspired theories, needing to be incorporated into the logic of the process. The second paragraph taken above, is an odd job. The idea that the actual manner in which humans came to be a superorganic form of mammal is irrelevant to the ensuing interpretation of their physiology, is quite right. And it is nice to see him make the matter of fact claim that delineating the necessary evolutionary progression of human form, is a straightforward matter once we have recognised the key to human nature, that tells us human nature is corporate : meaning that human form evolved to bring a living being into existence at the level of social organisation. Then he takes a plunge off the deep end once again, by mooting some feminist inspired guff about the position of women in this process. Had he brought gender into the matter in terms of the emergence of a third, intermediate gender, as in homosexual men, then we would be cooking on gas, as it is, with these ideas backing us up, it is more like roasting a buffalo over a candle, in a howling gale. Continuing directly on from the previous quote, we have this : — § II. THE POSITION OF WOMEN IN THE EARLIEST OR LARVAL STAGE IN DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN SOCIETIES

THE

However human societies may actually have started, their existence as distinct organisms may provisionally be said to date from the time when, say, they emerged from the forests in small groups, at first timidly, and, later, more boldly, until they were finally cut off, as small separate colonies, from ever returning to their former arboreal habits. From that time human societies had to roam over the face of the earth in small compact bodies, perhaps as companies of cave- or rock-dwellers. The record

of these earliest men having been tree-dwellers is clear and indelible. We still keep the hand-like feet which convict us of being descended from apelike ancestors. We naturally conclude that human societies only began to be specialized into compact organisms after they left the forests, for it is hardly likely that primitive men learnt more than the very first rudiments of social life in the trees. Trees, with diverging branches, tend to scatter ; besides, if the early men were, say, half the size and weight of their civilized descendants, trees would offer precarious support to anything like a crowd. Caves, or the solid ground, would permit of the closer huddling and cuddling which played some part in welding infant societies into organic wholes. (pp. 43 – 44.) I took this piece because of the notes I made after reading it, but re-reading it now, though the same criticism has to be made about the poor anthropological reasoning, there is some rather nice musings here too. I especially like the concluding reference to the role of increased physical intimacy in the welding of mammalian superorganisms, something we like to mention as a pre-linguistic expression of linguistic force, that induces genetic changes, such as nakedness, and brings social structure into being. Bernard missed a trick by not speculating about the remarkable appearance of a naked mammal in relation to this factor of intimacy. Evidently his anthropological knowledge was severely limited, and no doubt he was largely dependant upon contemporary anthropologists for this knowledge, as we have discussed previously, above, where we mention the fact that he and Matilda translated The Structure of Man : An Index to his past History, by Wiedersheim. So he certainly did take a serious interest in physical anthropology, but to little avail, it must be said. Mind you, if he had all the resources of anthropology available to us today, that would not of made a blind bit of difference either, if, that is, he just took the academic product at face value, just as he appears to of been spoon-fed by the experts, when writing the anthropological snippets we recount here. The notion of becoming corporate only after emerging onto the savannahs, is altogether too dull. We want a dynamic model, that conceives of evolution as taking place remorselessly, because it has to, because the hominid line knew where it was going right from the outset. We want to hear him talking about the emergent colonial form of mammal, developing social acuity, come what may. Perhaps in a tree dwelling location, where the habit of nest making, induced a physiology of intense physical intimacy to augment. From which a social unity arose, that made for a compact group, that could then station itself on the ground, still within a wooded terrain. Thenceforward becoming territorial, so that increasing size would become valuable, and the true beginnings of hominid form, the upright posture, dexterity, an increasingly large cranium, would start to blossom ; aided by a shift toward an omnivorous diet, increasingly rich in meat, from scavenging if necessary, rather than the advanced techniques of hunting. Then the expansion onto the plains could of been supported as this physiological drift, supported by an ever increasing realisation of colonial unitary form —the coming of the sentient brick—caused the process of humanification to race along, unstoppably, as the true colonial ape came into being. Something like this is what we want to see, not some lame Darwin inspired story about moves hither and thither, allowing physiology to become free from former constraints, so that apes could choose to become human ! Which is where the tale told in the above quote is headed. And so we come to my notes : — Again very poor anthropological reasoning. This model is highly Darwinian, all about competition and the struggle for survival. I do not get it, why work out a model of gradual evolution and then fail to apply it when it really counts ?

The error seems to be jumping to the conclusion that humans are the homogenous colonial form, because the individual is the unit of the superorganism. Whereas my idea always thinks in terms of energy, where the new form constitutes the ‘life engine’ from which species are to be diversified, to fill all available niches, including that which is physiological in terms of the ‘engine’ itself, and results in a new superorganic expression of the new form of engine. So it is not the human unit that gives rise to the human superorganism, it is the coming of mammalian physiology, which gives rise to the human unit of superorganic being. So there is no distinction to be made between the individual as a unit of superorganic being and the superorganism, such as Bernard in fact makes. We see the bricks as part of the architecture, whereas Bernard sees the bricks as units of architecture, that are evolving to become separate from the architecture they are forced to build ! A completely insane notion, which is obviously a product of the impossible position any scientists find themselves in when touching upon the question of humanity’s place in nature, within our absolute theocracy, that has already answered this question to its own satisfaction, by placing Darwin upon an untouchable pedestal of scientific divinity. Thus it is that the arrival of the mammalian form represents a homogenous condition, a the peak on a global energy gradient. As the mammalian form descends the gradient species diversity ensues, one expression of that diversity being a colonial form of mammal — humans. I think Bernard’s basic model needs further degrees of elaboration, with more rounds of alternating evolutionary development than he has identified. This may negate his theory of colonial evolution, and instead affirm my idea of evolution simply being driven by force, where form evolves toward latent potential energy, and colonial form is simply that latent potential realised in the evolution of life itself. That is, the elaboration of life in response to the existence of life, as opposed to the evolution of life in response to the general physical environment, as distinct from the specifically living environment. Within the wider model of latent potential energy, we can include Bernard’s colonial evolution, and even Darwin’s natural selection. the point to be kept most clearly in mind is that each of these societies had to move about, as far as possible, as one compact body ; as such they occupied and perhaps fortified their hiding-places, and as such they fought dangerous enemies, and defended themselves when attacked. We may think of them as so closely united as to be able to act like one large single animal, as if a whole pack of wolves were condensed into one large, powerful wolfish monster. We put the case in this crude fashion because experience shows that the conception of a social organism as a single whole, though formed of many individuals, is not an easy one for the lay mind to grasp. It is absolutely essential, however, to the understanding of the evolution of human society, or, indeed, of any society. The ordinary person, accustomed to the individual freedom enjoyed today under wholly different social conditions, cannot, without an effort, look back to the times of these infant or larval societies when individual freedom was reduced to a minimum, that is, was almost nonexistent. (p. 45) He is trying to think of how unity came about, but he fails to think in terms of our evolved physiology, delivering the behavioural outcome that is social life. This is like trying to understand how flying might of come about without paying any attention to the possession of wings, and instead simply treating wings as being there, and then wondering how birds figured out how to use them ! This is a typically religious approach to these matters, it

preserves human will, and negates the idea of humans as products of nature. This is precisely the approach taken by modern scientists featured in the Horizon programme on why we speak, discussed above. In Bernard’s musings on human social life, human physiology is taken as a given, that need not be dealt with as a central feature of the question in hand, so that he goes on directly to ask how the relevant social behaviours were induced by environmental conditions, instead of trying to figure out why the physiology enabling these behaviours came into being by means of an evolutionary process. This is crazy, he should be thinking of evolved physiology, not the environment. And the same goes for the modern linguists, that call themselves scientists. He then proceeds to give a nice explanation as to why his description of how human social behaviour developed, is so crude. This tells us that ordinary people found it very difficult to understand the scientific fact that human society was a true, living, social organism, just like any other animal, because it was composed of individuals, and not least, because it was composed of them ! It is nice to find a statement on the wider reception of this idea of the social organism, from the time when this idea was widely known. The suggestion that lay people struggled with its reality indicates that the idea, taken seriously, was a creature of intellectual cognition, not communicable to the level of practical life. But what is so delightful, is that he then goes on to state how imperative a true grasp of the reality of the social organism is, to any scientific conception of human society. This is wonderful, and absolutely right. It is the absence of this idea today, that goes to show how bereft of science our world is, and how far we are subject to the oppression of an absolute theocracy. We have already dealt with his remarks on the modern condition of personal freedom, making it difficult for us to appreciate how far freedom was lacking in tribal settings. We indicated that without addressing the presence of religion in society, he effectively separated out that aspect of reality that demonstrated just how enslaved we still are today, exactly as members of lesser superorganisms were in the past. His failure to so much as suspect this subliminal world of the superorganism, controlling our minds through religion, indicates that our abject slavery today is in no way less than that of anyone, anywhere, from any previous time in human existence. Continuing directly from the end of the passage taken above : — No mass of units can live the life of a compact organism without organization and differentiation. Every single wild beast is an organized and differentiated mass. It has sensory organs to see, to hear, and to smell its prey or its foe, and teeth and claws for the fight, while all its most vital organs are arranged compactly in the place of greatest safety, protected not only by its jaws and claws, but behind bony ribs. It would be quite impossible for these early societies to have survived if they had been mere rabbles, without some such rigid organization. This welding of colonies into compact organized wholes for closer and more perfect adjustment to environmental conditions is one of the regular periodic phenomena of Evolution. Colonies of cells, for instance, have built up larger organisms which have now become so compact that the microscopic anatomist or histologist has to study the tissues very minutely to find out the fate of many of the individual cells ; some have retained their primitive forms almost unchanged, but others have become so highly differentiated as to be unrecognizable. The cell, of course, was, from the first, a very plastic body and lent itself readily to be modified almost in any way required by the developing organization. But the large and savage primitive human beings forming the units of these societies of men and women, how were they to be differentiated and modified so as to act together as parts of a perfect machine ? And yet this is what was demanded of them, or else destruction overtook

them. Only those societies, therefore, the individuals of which were able to subordinate themselves most completely to the welfare of the whole were able to survive. This subordination was, of course, no longer brought about by actual physical modifications of the units, as was the case in all the earlier more elementary colonies of the animal kingdom, but by nerve training. (pp. 45 – 47.) That no mass can exist without organisation is of critical importance, a principle derived directly from an emphasis upon colonial evolution, and so important in human sociology. Can you imagine any professional sociologist utilising this genuine scientific knowledge today !! As if. For atheist scientists however, this is a very important statement. From its logic, he rightly asserts that human superorganisms must of had complex cultural arrangements right from the outset. This kind of thinking has been largely absent, and we see no sign its logic being applied in his crude anthropological musings. Still, nice to see it making an appearance now, and after all no other human ever to of lived, before us, has even seen this much. All modern anthropologists know that humans chose to become social, chose to speak, and choose to do every last thing they do, except for some aberrant stuff that is a throwback to their prehuman days, such as fighting, raping, making politically incorrect statements and such like. Twats. It could equally be said, coming at it from the other end of the temporal spectrum, that the indelible presence of inequality in modern society, despite all the railing against it and the ruling Christian dogma of base level equality before God, proves that humans must be a colonial species. The lines followed by the differentiating process in the organization of human colonies would be, as nearly as possible, natural lines. Some one individual, endowed with superior intelligence and rendered wise by experience, would act as the coordinating brain ; the swifter, keener, and more daring young men would act as scouts to scent the prey or espy the whereabouts or movements of the foe. The sturdiest or strongest males would function as the teeth or claws for attack or defence ; while the females and the young, the most precious possession of the colony, would be placed in some central position of safety. The females and the young would naturally be together. We say naturally with deliberation, because although it is to us self-evident, we know that we are here on delicate ground, that many women resent the assumption that there was any reason for the narrower life of women from which women have suffered, and do not tire of asserting that it has been due to the tyranny of the stronger man for his own selfish pleasures. (pp. 47 – 48.) This passage is annoying because it follows modern lines of reasoning, that makes different abilities and attributes the bounty of the individual, so that the differentiation that he has just said is essential to the existence of any social body, is made a validation of individuality. This is a subtle point, but one over which there would be no confusion if we had the principle firmly in place that the human animal is the superorganism, and there is no such thing as an individual. Thus all functional interpretation would run from the logic of the superorganism as the only real entity in existence, the only focus of purpose or functionality, which this passage describing individual attributes, contradicts. It runs from the differential qualities of prized individuals, to the service of the resulting social whole. Although we may

assume that if faced with such criticism, he would say he never meant to detract from the presumption of the superorganic whole, coming before any suggestion that individuals existed as ends in themselves, since he does maintain this theme throughout all his work. Differentiation, to be clear, should be viewed as a quality of the superorganism, to which individuals are made subordinate, via the cultural impress of linguistic force, that exists because human, ‘sentient brick’ physiology, is the source of linguistic force. This is like saying that celestial objects are subject to gravitational force, which exists because the cosmic matter of which celestial objects are made, is the origin of gravitational force—which is true. The point being that forces are linked by a common nature to the entities they act upon, forces are not distinct from their associated objects. Hence, the source of authority from which differentiation under unity makes sense, is projected beyond all and any individuals, into the collective matrix of superorganic form, that is the social space composed of the sum of all individuals. Such authority as individuals then possess in life, is drawn from the repository of collective authority, this is how many people come to be so utterly powerless, while a very few, have power beyond comprehension. This should be obvious, but Bernard goes nowhere near any such solid mode of organicist reasoning. To understand this serious failure in the application of his brilliant science of life’s nature, wherein not only human nature is viewed as ‘corporate’, but the nature of life is made to appear corporate too—which makes perfect sense, since life appears in the shape of organisms !—we must remind ourselves that he had a political agenda, to do with discovering a more positive mode of evolution than the heinous one dumped on us by Darwin, the high priest of evolutionary science. If Bernard had not adopted this bias position, then he might of recognised the need to account for both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ aspects of existence, in equally functional terms. This scientific approach would of led him to recognise that while there were many functional roles we find positive, in terms of a corporate nature, such as those he lists, there are many aspects of social life that are highly negative, such as crime and homosexuality, which nonetheless play a positive role in social life viewed as superorganic physiology. We are obliged by current political considerations, to point out that we have not just made a homophobic comment. The question is one of perception, and while the legalising of homosexuality has meant that homosexuals have risen to the highest available status in our society—that of a hated minority, cocooned in the ivory tower of state enforced law—with special laws protecting it, the fact is that since most people do not like the idea of being fucked by men, unless they are women, homosexuality, like crime, must be regarded as ‘highly negative’, from the majority male point of view ; females having no right to give any input on this topic, since it is not their arse that is threatened, on this occasion. At the very least it would seem reasonable to say that, as with crime, it would be better if homosexuality did not exist, better for all, so that we just had heterosexual instincts, and no ambiguity over these basic biological functions. We made a similar point above when discussing Paki power, where we indicated that it would be better for all, if Jews did not exist. Yet no one would dare say such a thing, even though we know H. G. Wells did just this, and has been labelled an anti-Semite for his pains. By the same token then, it is accepted that homosexuals would never concede this point, nor politicians, and hence scientists would be forbidden to make this point too. Which leaves only us philosophers to witter on at our leisure. There is no such thing as neutral legislation. If laws are enacted to protect a minority from a majority, on the basis of specific identity parameters, as opposed to neutral identity parameters, where the focus is on class structures, such as ‘householders’, then the state automatically makes that identity band an organ of power, possessing a direct line of connectivity to the engine of corporate being, that is the state. This creates enclaves of vested interest in the power of the state, and we say that the state is always our arch enemy, and for precisely this reason : that it empowers aliens to exploit the majority. Minorities then become the core of the superorganism by default, and so a master identity is defined, which

gives rise to a master organ, embedded within the superorganism. As we have already pointed out elsewhere, the evolution of the distinct gender class of homosexual males, automatically causes this elite organ of superorganic being to come into existence on the basis of homosexuality. Once this dynamic of master identity formulation has been set in train, it provides the motive force to induce elaborations based on this physiological theme to exist. In other words homosexuality is genetic gate that opens the way to physiological machinery evolving, that can then be commandeered by a cultural, linguistic class, as opposed to a biological, genetic caste. Since linguistic force creates all social structure, it follows that this initial, genetic impetus, impels linguistic forces to coalesce social structure, and so Judaism arises from the genetic pressure wave of homosexuality. Where superorganic physiology is concerned, linguistic force is deemed to exist at a pre-linguistic, genetic level, because there is a feedback loop of definition operating between the force and its product, where linguistic force creates social structure, according to our model of human nature. The reference to pressure waves in cosmology, to explain large scale processes causing chaotic matter to coalesce into organised structures, is familiar to us today, and we see no reason why the same terminology should not offer a genuine insight into the dynamics of colonial ape physiology, given the historical, and universal predominance of highly charged behaviour, that divides neatly into the two opposite, yet in this case interrelated expressions, of chaos and order. The logic seen in these relationships assumes that common forms of matter are sustained by common forces, so that when a shock wave of energy commensurate with a force impacts upon the matter in question, the input of energy into the system causes an ensuing condensation of matter into a more highly organised state. This would be due to the increase in energy needing to be accommodated by a fixed quantity of matter inducing an increased density, hence dust clouds condense into planets, while colonial ape biomass condenses into more highly organised superorganic structures. It is from these physiological conditions of superorganic being that the likes of Judaism must of emerged then, as cultural replications of organic power originally vested in homosexuality. This seems a reasonable scenario to propose, as modern circumstances relating to the difficulty of accommodating homosexuality, which find resonance in the ancient world, where homosexuality became the norm amongst the elite classes, shows that homosexuals are not just another kind of individual, they are a special kind of individual, the existence of which induces a very definite functional effect within a superorganic structure. Last night, 27/10/2009, on Newsnight, BBC 2, there was some discussion bearing on these matters, concerning how religion conflicts with homosexuality, and how young people are now spontaneously reacting against the liberalisation of homosexual freedom. The commentators have no rational model to comprehend these dynamics, they see humans as individuals and simply oppose ‘religious freaks’ to ‘radical queers’, as if individual perspectives have anything to contribute to this discussion. Whereas we know better, because we know what reality is. By discussing homosexuality in this way, we discern something of how the superorganism must have differential identity groups, to give its power a means of expression through the engine of the state, that drives the superorganic being, as we know it today. This brings us back to our chapter on the need for racial hatred, it indicates why homosexuality evolved as a natural product of human nature ; and why Jews evolved for the exact same reason ; why Nazis evolved ; and why Muslims have been imported into Europe on mass, since the last great cleansing, that of 1939 – 45. The one thing the superorganism based on state machinery cannot tolerate, is equality of identity across the biomass. The more differential identity parameters, the greater the intensity of the state’s power as an engine of superorganic being. And these principles are all born out by our daily experience of life, and by the historical record of longer term social experience too. Multiculturalism is not seeking to impose equality, it is seeking to reinforce inequality rooted in biological differences, projected from race onto the cultural level of organisation, through the medium of linguistic

slave identities, that we call ‘religions’. If the state wanted equality across the board, it would simply begin by imposing one kind of school, cleansed of all identity differentiation, it would not go and move all its might to obtain the exact opposite ! In the above quote Bernard does actually show some slight willingness to run counter to contemporary sensibilities, when he says that despite the protests of the feminist movement, science must insist that the downtrodden position of women is a consequence of natural demands to do with the differentiation of superorganic physiology. This is a seed from which much fruitful thought might of grown, had he taken the hint from his own musings and considered more controversial kinds of social differentiation, as we have just done ourselves. § V. GENERAL LINES

OF THE

RECONSTRUCTION

It would be quite possible to sketch the processes of this morphological reconstruction of human societies from what we know of the ordinary laws of morphology, but, as a matter of fact, given the clue which is now in our hands, the social and political movements of the day show us exactly what is taking place. Before attempting to make this clear we pause for a moment to point out that we here find a solution of that greatest of all human puzzles—the history of man as read in records and monuments. For that history has been, without doubt, the one great “blot on Creation.” In spite of the reasoning powers which we possess, and of the nobility of sentiment of which we are capable, our history has been one long list of degrading superstitions and of heartless butcheries. To the ordinary evolutionist, with his limited notion of evolutionary laws, that history has been clear proof of the universality of the struggle, individual with individual. To us the explanation is different. We would naturally expect the units of human societies to be knit together so as to live at least as harmoniously together as, say, the cells which build up any other healthy single organisms, in which all are happy or miserable together, all rich or all poor, none in pain unless all are sympathetic. That is what we had a right to expect. We admit, however, that that is not the case, for the confusion and struggle of interests is so great that it seems at times as if all were against all, and as if human social colonies had, after all, ended in complete dissolution. Yet any such universal struggle is not only impossible, but is obviously not the fact, for social ties can be seen to spread like a network, everywhere entangling and confusing the struggling units. The greedier and less feeling units have been actually proclaiming the law of universal struggle, impatient of the disorganized remains of social bonds as mere sentimentality. Others, and fortunately the majority, have been appealing to these latter sentiments as the only factors which differentiate mankind from the wild beasts, and as those only which intelligent men should work to establish and maintain. Those only, indeed, are statesmen worthy of the name, who, while holding the reins of government and skilfully balancing imperative rival interests, yet have this for their aim. But the explanation of this confusion is now clear. The human colonies are undergoing a vast process of metamorphosis. After having, for an unknown length of time, passed through a larval period during which they were welded into highly efficient organisms in all essentials like vast beasts of prey, they have settled down to new habits of life, requiring an entirely different organization. The larval organs have, as is the rule in all such cases, to be modified, or may be even entirely resorbed and new ones have to take their places. The process is necessarily a slow and difficult one. The change from the crawling caterpillar or maggot into the moth or fly has taken place every year for so many ages that the transformation is now condensed into a

chrysalis stage, during which the animal is quiescent. There was a time with them also when each organism had to struggle through its changes, perhaps in warmer climes where summers were not shortened by winter frosts. But the metamorphosis of human societies is now being passed through for the first time, hence the long agony of the process while the larval organs are dissolving and the new organization is being established. All the politics of all the nations, both national and international, are to be interpreted in the light of this fact. (pp. 59 – 62.) This idea that it would be possible to describe human social development from general laws of morphology is undoubtedly the boldest claim ever made, by any scientist, regarding the true conception of human nature as being that of a superorganism. And his claim is correct. We follow out this argument when we reinterpret history, culture and religion, to show that the Jews are the master race, and that all gentiles are now Jews of a lower order. We can be sure that such consequences never occurred to Bernard, for his imagination was avowedly determined to seek out only positive interpretations of science applied to the human social condition, where destroying religion in this way would not qualify as an improvement on Darwinism, by anyone’s standards, if what concerned them was the brutality of natural selection. We see that he proceeds to consider history as recorded in our annals, and takes these records at face value, making no effort to reinterpret them according to his newly discovered science of human nature, but instead he just laments at the nastiness of our history, like a good little priest, that he sadly is, when all is said and done. The only reason Bernard gets our praise is because he worked when science was free, when the idea of the social organism was alive, so that he was working within the parameters of orthodoxy when he produced ideas that are now entirely erased from science, and completely taboo. Had this man been alive today, he would of been a line-towing lackey of the theocracy, as all professional scientists are. Then again, if I were not born one decade after the end of the last world war, and hence received my programme during the ensuing cultural revolution, teaching that rebellion against authority was good, at a time when pressures on people were relaxed following the cleansing effect of that wonderful war, I would not be the freethinking philosopher I am, I suppose. We are all creatures of our times, as many have noted before. Bernard has an opportunity to interpret bad things as functional, when he considers the topics raised in the above quote, but he fails to do so, and yet this is one of the most important consequences of science applied to humans, and as such one of the most telling pieces of evidence that a scientific pretence, is genuine. His attempt to analyse the reality conflicting with his theory, shows the fatal error in not concentrating upon the significance of religion as the essence of corporate bonding, wherein the wars and cruelties associated so often with religion, negate the meaning we individually give to nastiness, because all that matters in this corporate context is the unity revealed in the presence of strong religious ties. Thus we could say that nastiness is the essential ingredient of social unity, and this is so because it gives the meaning to linguistic force, expressed through the medium of religious identity. It really is extraordinary that people think they can apply science to humans while expressing a moral agenda. Bizarrely, it is Darwin’s wilfully religious science that presented a cold soulless science to the world, which made ruthless competition the be all and end all of nature’s way. But this was a cynical and perverted twist on the need for science to be cold and heartless. In Bernard we see how a true scientist, trying to be genuine, and not supported by the establishment in his promulgation of a theory of evolution, then tries to amend his genuine science, in order to redress the evil inherent in the false science that the theocracy has

imposed upon the world ! Blimey, our society is one screwed up mess. The only true evil is dishonesty, from a scientific point of view, and that is all there is to it. As hopelessly pathetic as this analogy between modern human conditions and that of a larval stage transforming into an adult is, we can, if sympathetic to his cause, see what he was trying to say. But it is just so hopeless—again it is all about an idea of life yet to be perfected, which is one of the most absurd, anti-scientific notions, anyone can ever have. We must always treat reality as if it is perfect and complete. To do otherwise is to shoot ourselves in the foot, before we even begin. Obviously the excuse for overlooking this vital scientific principle when dealing with humans, would be that we have been so transformed over the course of just a few millennia, but it is this very approach that renders science into religion, and it is the idea of the superorganism, as perfected by Bernard, that gives us an alternative scientific model, whereby we can disregard the difference between Australian aborigines and modern Europeans, for the sake of discussing humans as products of nature, where such differences as exist between these peoples, are such as to be of no significance whatsoever, regarding the question of what human nature is, and how humans evolved to be as they are, everywhere on earth, in Bernard’s day, and in ours too. Artificial accoutrements mean nothing in terms of these deep questions, whether a stone axe or motor car defines the culture, is irrelevant, and says nothing about human nature and the stage of human biological evolution. Social evolution, we must understand, is a facet of biological evolution, and nothing more.

Chapter 16 The Master Organ Makes its Appearance

The present situation thus becomes clearer. We understand that on the breakdown of the original larval and corporate system for provisioning the young societies, all those in commanding positions and who consequently had the power seized what they wanted, and reduced those who had nothing to the position of dependents. Rival chiefs tore society to pieces in their struggle for land and dependents. It was on the physical labour of these “dependents” that the rest of the community, in reality, depended. It was their work that fed the others, while they, in return for their labour, received but scanty fare, often accompanied by blows and indignities. But that, it may be said, was in the old days of brutal parasitism. Surely that is past now that we are “civilized.” No, it is worse than it ever was. Only the cruder forms of this parasitism have ceased to appear, so as to avoid popular irritation. It still exists, only now it has learned to disguise itself most subtly. It is no longer a king nor a group of nobles, but these have become embedded and thus screened within a large minority of the people themselves—a minority shaded off so gradually from the victimized majority that it becomes more and more difficult to discover where the “parasite” ends and the “host” begins. The parasitism is there, but hidden, and its methods are more subtle and efficient. Direct rapine, robbery, and tyranny do not appear to exist ; for evolution has, as we say, eliminated ways which led to spontaneous and violent reactions. All now appears smooth and fair under the guise of legal contracts and agreements, but the parasitism is none the less merciless. The result is that the parasitic minority, usually called “society,” lives wholly on the labour of the majority, who generally own absolutely nothing ; not only have they no land, but even the tools for the work they do are not their own. They have only their physical powers, and these, as a rule, are strained by monotonous toil from early youth for a subsistence wage. It is as if all who were not members of “society” were cattle, whose last hours of decay and death are opportunities for the more kindly members of society to cultivate the grace of Charity. It is one huge wrong, subtly devised, though no one has devised it ; it has come about by the gradual elimination of coarser methods. No blame attaches to anyone who, in the mere round of the life into which he or she is born, unconsciously helps to crush all that can be called life out of the majority. But there is one aspect of this question which cannot be forgotten. All the crimes of even the worst days of brutality and violence in the Roman Empire, under the worst of all the Emperors, are to-day overlooked, but one fact is never forgotten, and never will be forgotten ; it is held up for the everlasting execration of mankind : “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” (pp. 67 – 68.) Fabulous, he seems to be saying all we have been demanding of him. This makes parasitism a natural product of human nature and it indicates that the exploitative elements are in reality a finely tuned organ of superorganic physiology. This is so like our interpretations of the consequences of discovering that human nature is corporate, that we can but admire it. While still regretting that no one used this knowledge to attack religion, to point out that the Jews were the ‘parasites’, and the Christians were but slaves of the Jews, and that the resolution of this vile problem was an atheist world order, from which Jews and Christians were to be eradicated. Yet while no decent people drew this scientific conclusion, Nazis did. And this saved the Jews from extermination, by ensuring that in future the Jews would be empowered to attack any who dared go near this true knowledge, and so it has been, ever since.

Truly amazing, but when we get so clear a picture of the process as this, it begins to make perfect sense and look quite feasible. But he does not actually say as much, and what kind of curious conclusion is this, about Rome burning, it slips back into preacher mode again and tells us nothing, just a mumbling about the powers that be caring nothing for their cattle, I suppose. The organization of women for such an end may perchance be, or at least develop into, the new vital centre, whose wills and attractions will be able to change the personal greed which is now the chief, but inhuman evolutionary force, into a social force by enlarging the conception of self. Womanhood will be the centre from which alone the young generations come, the young generations, the desire of all eyes, in the light of which the love of gold, to be obtained only by injuring the race, will appear as a cruel, unnatural delusion. Round it the vital energies of the race, from the humblest manual toil to the highest flight of genius, will naturally, because under the magnetic influence of love, find their inspirations and their rewards. The days of the automatic woman, who was left to us, disorganized, individual, and savage among savage men when the old larval organization broke up, are now coming to an end. Whatever the evil she has wrought, on the one hand, by being the sharer of and panderer to man’s wilder passions, or, on the other, by being the too servile and submissive mother of children, she has wiped it all out by her sufferings. She has been the instrument for keeping alive the humaner instincts without which social life can hardly fail to be anything but devilish. She has kept these alive unconsciously and automatically without any real appreciation of womanhood. Now the women are waking up. They are learning to value their womanhood as the greatest and most beneficial social force life has yet revealed to Man. This, indeed, it is, for every man who is a natural man has, at some time of his life, to worship before it with the truest worship of which the heart is capable. The future of mankind depends less upon the intelligence or genius of men than upon the intelligence with which women are able, on the one hand, to free their womanhood from the slavish bonds that society has cast upon it when it was a doubtful blessing, and, on the other, gradually to learn to use it for the reconstruction of a human society in which there shall be no rich and no poor, at least in material things, and in which every child that is born shall be welcomed as a new “incarnation of the cosmic psyche.” (pp. 75 – 76.) This closing passage sounds very Christian, totally unscientific, and a complete contradiction of his whole argument, as he says forces are creating society that are unhuman, that can be corrected by the deeper humanity of women. Ah well, his effort was a nice try, he saw the science, for a moment, then lost it in the fog of consciousness that dooms all to a permanent state of blissful ignorance. Bernard did see the truth, but he collapsed when faced with the challenge of strict interpretation. This is not so surprising. But this catastrophe makes his scientific insights a counterblast to Darwin for all the wrong reasons, for reasons of moral and social principles, rather than simply reasons of science. Then again, is this perhaps not a true matching of like with like, as Darwinism never was science in the first place. Darwinism was science devised to serve a morally conceived social purpose—if we take faith in God at face value—bound up with the need to preserve religion from the corrosive effects of science. So that by taking his moralistic approach Bernard is simply showing us, in another form, how Darwin performed the same service to

the theocracy just fifty years previously. It is as if, had Darwin not produced a callous mantra, Bernard would never of sought to elucidate his true interpretation of colonial life, thus discovering the real forces of life’s evolution. Viewed in this way we reduce the science of evolution to a regular British tussle between left and right, nothing more than a political expression of human life, which, because Darwinism is a fraud, is all science is, in our miserable world. Do we find a slight, hidden reference to homosexuality buried in here, when he says that every man, “who is a natural man”, must worship womanhood at some point in his life ? This is how homosexuality was regarded, as being against Nature, for obvious reasons, to be fair. I only bother to tease this possibility out of his work because it is the most forthright and extensive discussion of homosexuality I have ever come across in a work dealing with humans, in any shape or form, from this period. And since we have made much use of the peculiar phenomenon of man on man sexuality, it is something to be able to say that this feature of life was perfectly well known to these would be sociologists, but, as with religion, they just would not touch anything that was taboo. It is funny to think about how different our world is, if measured by the ability to talk about homosexuality, as contrasted with Bernard’s day. Yet the truth is that this major transformation, is utterly meaningless for society as a whole. It signifies nothing of any importance in terms of tolerance, intelligence or knowledge, or anything of any such positive kind, even though this is how it is promoted by the priests. All that has happened is that while Bernard could not of imagined talking about homosexuality from a functional approach, today it is only a foolhardy person that would dare question the supremely divine nature of homosexuals. As a lady journalist found out a week or so ago after speaking in derogatory terms about the party habits of some young gay icon, who crapped out of this life at his home in the Balearics a couple of weeks previously. Apparently having drowned in his own vomit, while in a drunken/drug induced stupor. She was hounded to hell and forced to make a snivelling apology, as all and sundry rushed to say how cruel and ignorant this homophobic bitch was. No, our tolerance of queers, has simply inverted the moral polarity, the ignorance remains the same. Hate, mercifully, continues to be fully as potent as ever, so that our blissfully ignorant lives can go on as usual—thank goodness for the joy of hatred and intolerance. The really important thing about this transformation is that it shows, not how our intellectual astuteness can be changed, but how our structural hierarchy can be manipulated like malleable pieces, of a jellied jigsaw puzzle. Of course, when reading these closing words of Bernard’s, we must keep in mind that this was designed to be a talk given to a village audience. Which is an odd thought, life must of been fascinating before broadcast media came along and robbed us of a network of village halls, mechanics institutes and so on, where people of all kinds could come and impart their genuinely independent views on life. Not anymore. Although, for the moment at least, the internet looks like it might provide some kind of opening to free speech. I myself doubt its real potential though, free speech is after all anathema to religion, which will always find a way to fight back against freedom.

Chapter 17 A Slave’s End

We live in a slave society, though no one knows this, aside from myself, as far as I know. As an unemployed person I am uniquely privileged to experience what it means to be a piece of property. This work must come to an end because I am to be handed over to a private company, as a piece of property, belonging to them. It is an interesting experience to be treated in this way, not pleasant, I should say, but it leads to a most curious feeling, and this enables us to discern something that we could not otherwise achieve, namely the genuine slave status, applicable to us all no doubt, but buried within the fabric of modern superorganic physiology. When I was at the first interview for the New Deal programme last week, I was due to do a thirteen week punishment ordeal, and these lackeys of the priesthood questioned why the programme was not the twenty six version, that many do. I had previously assumed my age was the reason, but I had already become aware that this was not an absolute determinant. I objected to this idea of an extended period of abuse, and they said that they were quite within their rights to demand it. Two years earlier when I had been with these people, when conditions were lax, and just bearable, I had ducked out of the last week of abuse, much to their consternation, because then they don’t get paid for it. They contacted my owners and played hell, they wanted me back, I had not done my full term ; but happily my masters were satisfied. This experience made me realise that under such conditions, where I was forced to attend a private company for an intense period of abuse, I was, to that company, a piece of property. Today we have to watch dramatic enactments of dark tales of Victorian England to get the feel for the indentured dog’s body. But we see references to this iniquity in Bernard, and we also see that he talks about how evolution has caused the more glaring methods of direct abuse to be tempered, because they cause too much direct agitation. Today you have to take the slave drivers to the brink to make them show their hand. Then we discover what we really are. To these private companies, we unemployed people are like ore which they can mine for cash. The cash sums involved are very lucrative,

we unemployed dregs of society give these sick degenerates access to a seam of taxpayer’s money that is deep, rich and inexhaustible. For our owners, the state, love nothing more than abusing those who fail to pay homage to them, by working as willing slaves. Now my owners are set to give me away to the tax miners once again. And as I found last week, that same old feeling of being a piece of property comes flooding back, immediately we have to start handing ourselves over to these bastards. Come the revolution I think I would go hunting for these people and put them on the bonfire first, and, sad to say, I would enjoy watching their flesh melt, while their screams pulsed rhythms of pleasure through my soul ; an odd thought, as I never really feel any sense of rhythm, or any liking for music at all come to that. Yes, they are only slaves taking the masters coin, so that a slave class can be made to manage itself for the upper echelons. And it is the masters we really want to kill, but in any case I am just enjoying talking about what I like to think about doing to these people. This is the age old condition of humanity that we are use to hearing about in our histories, but which we imagine has now passed. But this is the thing, when the slave implant fails to take, when you do not buy into the crap, and when the system is so sophisticated that it no longer possesses the brute means of enforcement, even passive ones whereby people shift or starve, it is only then that we find our true place in the social order. And we are slaves, all of us, that is the truth. I have now had so many years of this abuse, and suffered increasingly as my tricks and Houdini like escape routes have withered and become untenable for me, that I am now faced with trying to grin and bear it. As an adult I gave up this tactic long ago, although I spent more than a decade, all my school years in stubborn, uncommunicative silence, as a strategy to avoid the abuse of the system against the person, to remain my own person. I shall have to try and think myself back into my defenceless childhood, lose myself in my inner depths, and breath deeply, and not think angry thoughts. But the key thing that makes me feel like property, and hence literally a slave, is the fact that I do not want to go to these slave management detention centres. There are few things in life that put most of us in such a position. There is school, certainly, but it would never occur to a kid to think that their being forced to attend school was tantamount to their being a piece of property, a slave. So there is something else that makes me say I am a slave, in the truest sense of the word, a piece of property. And it is the nature of the relationship between us, the enforced attendees, and those who are placed in charge of us. The critical factor here being that the New Deal programme is run by none government agencies, by private companies whose business is making as much profit as possible. Capitalism is slavery, is the only possible conclusion we can draw from such an experience, and we are all subject to the rigours of capitalism. After several years of working on her, I finally got my controller to say that here work place was a prison this week ! Yes, that is it. We want everyone to see the light, to start hating this vile society in which we live, and do something about it. The scum who own us have learnt how to keep us obedient by giving us just enough to keep us docile ; and that is to our bane. Better when life was hell for the plebes, and inspired radical reaction. We are so screwed today. Notice how the creeps working under the Creep of all Creeps, Tony Blair, use to try and promulgate the idea that we were all middle class now ? No, we are not. We are all working class now, its just that being a wage slave has been dressed up with a bit more shoddy, worthless tinsel, and like good little naked-ape slugs, all we need is to be drip fed the social sludge of the minute, and we are happy to hang off whatever teat our masters choose to run out to us. ______

Last night, 12/11/2009, I saw a new movie, 2005 I think, Scarlett Johansen I think the female star is, I am rather fond of her puckered pouters, swelling outward from a cute skewy face, lit by bright eyes—me and a billion other wankers. It was about people raised as organ donors, in the form of clones, that had to be fed artificial life stories because otherwise the transplants did not take. The Island, that was its title, so I wondered if it was based on the Dr Moreau tale, about making human-cum-animal monstrosities. Then I thought it was a remake of the seventies movie where a young couple escape an artificial world, and return to a destroyed Washington DC. Well, whatever it was intended to be, it was just the same old same old, apart from the little puckers of course. But it plays out the real theme at the heart of our atheist science, that this closing chapter invokes, in fiction, as do so many movies. Indeed it has been said to me, Why do I not write fiction ? I could not write fiction to save my life, I care little for fiction, I love science. And if so many people know what I know, but choose to present it in fictional form, because everyone really knows what I know, but hates knowing it, then I am buggered how to fathom that one. I leave you to your stories, and I offer the plain and simple truth, for those who want it.

APPENDIX

1

The Scientific Basis of Sociology

Reproduced by

Howard Hill

Godless House October 2009

Cover to the original edition.

THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF SOCIALISM

The Scientific Basis of Socialism TWO ESSAYS IN EVOLUTION

BY

HENRY M. BERNARD M.A.CANTAB.

LONDON

THE NEW AGE PRESS 140

FLEET STREET 1908

CONTENTS

PAGE

PREFATORY NOTE .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

201

FIRST ESSAY COLONY - FORMATION

AS A

FACTOR

IN

ORGANIC EVOLUTION .

203

SECOND ESSAY THE DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN SOCIAL COLONIES WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE WOMEN

AS

ORGANISMS,

I. Introductory . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 II. The Position of Women in the earliest or Larval Stage in the Development of Human Societies . . . . 214 III. The Natural End of the Larval Period . . . . . . 217 IV. The Dissolution of the Larval Organization and its first effect, chiefly upon the women . . . . . . 217 V. General Lines of the Reconstruction . . . . . . 219 VI. The Women’s Part in the Reconstructive Process . . . 223

The Scientific Basis of Socialism PREFATORY NOTE

THE two essays here published together had different origins. The first is a brief abstract of a treatise on “A Periodic Law in Organic Evolution,” the result of many years of original research, the publication of which must still be for a while delayed ; the second was, in the first place, rough-drafted for a village lecture on “Woman’s Suffrage.” The root idea is, however, the same in both, viz. that societies or colonies are to be regarded as organic wholes, and therefore that the treatment of individual men and women as distinct organisms, competing with one another for the necessaries of life, is unscientific. From the evolutionary point of view they are more than that ; they are primarily members of colonial organisms, and therefore one of another. The first essay aims at showing the part colonies as colonies have played in the evolutionary record ; while the second carries on the idea and sketches in outline the rise and subsequent development of human societies as colonies serial with other evolutionary colonies, as one might sketch the rise of any other organism which happens to be built up, say, by cells or polyps. In this morphological sketch of the gradual development of human societies we concentrate our attention especially upon the women, who may be regarded as what they essentially are—the female glands of the organism. Every naturalist knows that anatomical descriptions may with great advantage be made more interesting and pointed by concentrating attention on some central part of the mechanism. All attempts to apply the prevailing doctrines of evolution to the phenomena of modern human existence, political and sociological, have hitherto been not only purely speculative, but disastrous in their conclusions. The progress of animal life has been, so far as modern evolutionary doctrines can tell us, purely automatic, mechanical, and morphological. Prior to the advent of human societies no trace of the evolution of the psyche was visible, though it now plays so tremendous a part in our lives as men and women. It seems as if some great gap in evolution had taken place ; as if the “organic” morphological series disappeared ages ago into the prehistoric darkness, from which an entirely new order of evolutionary factors emerged, a new order inasmuch as the psyche now seems to be sitting at the helm. Although writers have been busy, speculation has so far entirely failed to link the present order on to that which we have been studying since the days of Darwin. Herbert Spencer emphasized this gap by calling the earlier animal and plant evolution “organic,” and the present, “super-organic,” and this is where the matter has been left. Biologists have failed, on the one hand, to show that “organic” evolution yields any clue to the origin of the psyche, and, on the other hand, to link human societies on to the great morphological series which constitutes all that could be learnt of evolution prior to the advent of mankind. The existence of any such tremendous gap is, however, simply incredible. The great evolutionist Haeckel ignores it, and even seems to try to ignore the vastness of the change that has taken place in the vital factors. He postulates a psyche in the smallest cell, and

regards the great development of the psyche to-day as a natural development of a physiological function of protoplasm. But the great distinction between the conditions of the earlier “organic” evolution and the modern social evolution cannot be so easily disposed of. It demands explanation, and until we can either explain the earlier in terms of the later, or the later in terms of the earlier, the gap has to be recognized. This is what we here attempt to do. This gap between “organic” and “super-organic” evolution is not the only failure in the evolutionary doctrine of to-day, there is also the great gap between “inorganic” and “organic” evolution. We lay no stress upon this earlier gap here. It is only a burning question to the philosophical biologist, whereas the gap between “organic” and “superorganic” evolution is a stumbling-block to every single human being conscious of life and agitated by the mysterious conditions which prevail. We mention the fact here because our thesis shows how these three— “inorganic,” “organic,” and “superorganic” evolution—may now, if our suggestion as to the enormous part which colony-formation has played* is correct, be conceived of as one continuous process, and, if so, we have confirmatory evidence for our case. If our new suggestion can accomplish so much, both reader and writer gain confidence to go on. * The writer has had special opportunities of studying this phenomenon of colony-formation, having been entrusted for thirteen years by the trustees of the British Museum with the task of cataloguing their vast, unworked collection of Corals at South Kensington.

Our primary object, however, is the establishment of a new evolutionary principle which can be applied to the conditions of human life without reducing us psychically to despair, as does the existing evolutionary law which necessitates a life-and-death struggle between human beings. H. M. B. TOR CROSS, DEVON, June, 1908

FIRST ESSAY

COLONY-FORMATION AS A FACTOR IN ORGANIC EVOLUTION *

IT is now more than a hundred years since the Evolution of organic life became a recognized

scientific hypothesis, and the search for the mechanism of the requisite changes in the forms of life became keen. Solution after solution was offered, but none gained general acceptance until that suggested simultaneously by Darwin and Wallace, exactly fifty years ago. The painstaking researches of Darwin proved beyond doubt that organic changes were a fact, though how they were induced was not clear. It would seem that organisms were regarded as objects floating free, and undergoing slight structural changes. But it would be more correct to regard them as if solidly embedded in their cosmic environments. And it occurs to us that variations brought about in this way cannot by any means be selected. Yet here was an apparently adequate explanation of Evolution, and it was welcomed and energetically endorsed by men of such calibre as Haeckel, Huxley, and Herbert Spencer, and in these days is the recognized doctrine. But we are now daily becoming more convinced that these natural variations have not yielded anything like a complete solution of the problem, and that the two Darwinian factors —small structural variations, naturally “selected”—are not enough to account for the phenomena. It may be that some other factor has been overlooked. I wish to suggest that this factor is colony-formation. Now of course it is ridiculous to say that colony-formation itself has been overlooked in the face of all that Haeckel has written about that phenomenon, or of Professor E. Perrier’s Book on Colonial Animals. It is the part it has played in Evolution which has not been sufficiently appreciated. To plunge into the heart of the matter, let us start with the most familiar living form, the Cell. Disregarding for the present its endless structural variations, we find it alive and free in two different forms : one, as a rule, stationary and coloured bright green with chlorophyll, the other mostly hyaline and in active pursuit of food. These are unicellular plants and unicellular animals respectively. We will here take the animals, with the special object of tracing the rise of animal life upward from these cells. We hunt the ponds and search the records, and, though we find endless varieties, species, genera, and families—in fact, variation practically without end—yet all the variation found is always in one plane. Now, if any of these variations had any disposition to rise out of that plane into a higher one, we should expect to find, if not the actual steps which succeeded in thus materially raising the level of life, at least scores of attempts which had failed, but still showed traces of the attempt. But nothing of the kind is to be found. The variation is, as we say, confined to one plane, and so completely as to justify us in concluding * This essay was read before a meeting of the Linnæan Society, on Thursday, May 7, 1908.

that, whatever the natural laws of variation may be, they possess no power to raise the level of unicellular animals above that of the single cell. When we look to the life above that plane, and ask how it succeeded in rising so high, the answer is at once clear and simple : it was by colony-formation. In Diagram I the bottom line but one—the Protista—represents the phylum of unicellular organisms, while the left-hand vertical arrow represents the rise of the primitive Metazoa by colony-formations of the cell. But not all forms of cell could build up colonies, for example, cells with highly specialized skeletons could not be efficient colony-builders. For let us be quite clear as to what we mean by colony-formation. The fact of a number of cells settling down side by side, even if by doing so they mutually DIAGRAM I

Diagrammatic analysis of organic evolution into two series of factors—a horizontal series and a vertical series. The former represent the different phyla spreading over the face of the planet, actively equilibrating with their environments, but not rising in the scale of life thereby. The latter represent colony-formations, which arise from some form of each phylum as a larger and more complex whole. These multiplying invade newer and larger environments, and thereby start new phyla.

assist one another in obtaining food or in other ways, is not what we mean by colonyformation. The conditions of real colony-formation can only be fulfilled when the cells—or whatever other organism forms the unit—are organically united from the first, and consequently grow together, and together receive and respond to the same stimuli. A true colony thus consists of individuals so vitally bound together that they share the same life, in contact with the same environment, as far as that is possible to an organism occupying any appreciable space in a variable medium. The colony-formation of cells is brought about when dividing cells fail to complete the act of division and consequently fail to separate. Students of zoology will perhaps be disposed to dispute the point that the division in cell-colony-formation is ever incomplete. The point, I know, is involved in the intricacies of karyokinetic division. Our claim is that when cells are going to build up colonies, the central organ of the cell, the nucleus, divides, and then, before the cytoplasm has finished the process, the nuclei again divide.1 The result of a number of such incomplete divisions is a three-dimensional mass of cells, joined together by their cytoplasm, but each with its own nucleus. In this way, cell-colony-formation could take place, and in our view, without here going into more explanatory detail, did take place among cells, and, as a result of the process, a host of cell-colonies much larger and, in the multitude of their nuclei, more complex than even the most highly specialized single cell, were launched upon the sea of life just as, though on a higher level than, the more primitive cells had once been launched. A new and higher level of organic life, the Metazoa, thus appeared, and was solely due to colonyformation. Now let us follow the fortunes of these new cell-colonies, or early Metazoa. Whatever were the forces of Nature which caused the Cell to vary so freely as to produce such a host of species, genera, and families of Protozoa, those same forces acted upon these undifferentiated cell-colonies, and since the latter are larger and more complex than cells, the number of

possible variations would be greater. To start with, for instance, there would be initial variations of size of colony, and difference of size might easily lead to differences of specialization. A review of the known facts leads us to believe that, after these undifferentiated colonies found their initial specializations, they had no power to change them fundamentally. Each might vary in small details apparently ad infinitum, but no organism could rise above itself by any natural process of variation. These primitive specializations appear to fall into four kinds, at least, four have survived ; the Sponges, 2 the Echinoderms, the Molluscs, and the primitive Cœlenterates.3 These four forms assumed by the primitive Metazoa have varied strictly in the planes or levels of their respective organizations with marvellous luxuriance. There is no natural selection of natural variations. Every natural variation is naturally selected. And each natural line of organization is carried out as far as it will go. No Sponge, no Echinoderm, nor any Mollusc nor any single Cœlenterate rises higher than itself. Not in one single case ! Look, for instance, at the Molluscs. There is hardly another group which has varied so enormously, even into Cephalopods, gigantic in size and marvellous in specialization, yet the variation is always in the same morphological plane. A Cephalopod remains no less a Mollusc than the very first Mollusc produced from the original cell-colony. And the same is true of the Echinoderms, the Sponges, and the single Cœlenterates. They all vary and vary, but, like the cells, never rise by any process of specialization above themselves. In order to explain the rise of life above the level of the primitive Metazoa we have, as in the case of the cells, to appeal to colony-formation ; and once more, of course, there are only certain forms which are able to produce colonies. The Molluscs, with their shells and complex organization, the Echinoderms, with their elaborate armour, were far too hampered. The Sponges, owing to their diffuse skeletons and diffuse organization, were able to bud and build up large masses, but these masses were as rigid morphologically as the smaller Sponges. They could vary and vary ad infinitum in small details, but not rise in the scale of organization. 1

This was assumed but not proved by Heitzmann (“Microscopische Morphologie, etc,” Vienna, 1883). My own detailed observations, which prove it, are not yet completed for publication. 2 Professor Sollas (Chall, Report, 1888, p. xciv) would regard the Sponges as colonies of a cell, differing from that which built up the other Metazoa ; for, according to him, though not according to Embryology, it already showed the Choanoflagellate specialization. 3 In addition, there were doubtless many smaller forms produced by small colonies, some few of which have survived, such as the Dicyemidæ, which have hitherto greatly puzzled zoologists, blinded by the germ-layer-theory, which can now be shown to be superfluous.

Of the primitive Metazoa, then, the Cœlenterates alone were able to build up colonies, and did so somewhat freely. The best known of their colonies are the Corals ; the Cœlenterates which built up these started colony-formation after having secreted skeletons in the shape of small basal cups in which they lived and into which they retracted for protection. But the presence of skeletons was, sooner or later, fatal to further progress. Hence the Coral colonies have been limited by their skeletons to varying, and varying in one plane into mere multiplications of themselves. Though condemned by their skeletons to stagnate, Coral colonies nevertheless raised life to a new level of organic life higher than that of any single Cœlenterate, and this rise was effected solely by colony-formation.1 But to rise still higher, the parent organism had to be quite plastic, otherwise there would be no possibility of it and its multiples being welded into a new and compact organism such as is necessary to successful animal life. We have further to note that, in addition to this condition of plasticity limiting the possibility of colony-formation, another cause of limitation arose as the organisms grew larger and more complex. The Cœlenterate differs from the Cell in having a definite axis and a mouth at one pole, consequently Cœlenterates were no longer able to build up three-

dimensional masses such as the cells had built. The power of building up colonies was limited to those possessing such shapes as permitted the component individuals to live as individuals although united in one colony. The Cœlenterate colony which we would suggest succeeded in forming an entirely new animal by colony-formation was small ; it was, in fact, a short linear series of three or four Cœlenterate units produced by posterior budding on a free-living parent form. These alone fulfil the conditions and constituted some kind of primitive Annelid, probably the creature for which zoologists have so long looked in vain, the hypothetical Urannelid of the Germans. In every way the Annelids occupy a very important place in the animal kingdom. It is highly significant that they, with their special morphology, should be the next animals after the Cœlenterates to be so obviously built up by colony-formation. It is significant that, after being three-dimensional, colony-formation should now have to be linear, and that this should happen twice. That such a form as a colony of three or four Cœlenterate units once appeared we can gather from the existence of Sagitta2 (the Arrow-worm), and from the fact that, when this primitive Annelid again formed long, linear colonies by budding, the budding units (as in the Scyllidæ) were no longer Cœlenterates, but short annelidan individuals with a tendency to form eyes and antennas at their anterior ends. It is thus by colony-formation that we reach (I) the primitive Annelid from the Cœlenterate and again by colony-formation (2) the true Annelid, with its many annelidan segments, from the primitive Annelid, with its three or four originally Cœlenterate segments. Here a crisis arises, and I regard it as no small evidence of the general truth of our thesis that this crisis can be overcome. Let us, however, briefly glance once more at the first diagram (p.203) that we have been slowly building up. In that diagram we have been analysing organic evolution into a series of vertical and horizontal factors. The horizontal factors are the original phyla of organic life. A homogeneous protoplasmic mass appears, and at once becomes subject to the Darwinian law of indefinite variations—due to the interplay 1

Unless it is true, as suggested in the “Brit. Mus. Madreporaria,” vol. vi, p. 20, 1907, that the larger coral stocks are, in reality, colonies of colonies. If so, the progress ends there ; for, as in the case of the sponges mentioned above, there is no more possibility of raising the organic level of a large mass than of a small one. 2 Of course, Sagitta is now highly specialized for its own manner of life ; but this solution of its origin is very probable while its ubiquity is a testimony to its being a primitive form.

between the organism and the cosmic environment in which it is embedded—and so on for all time, the complexity merely being increased and intensified, while the level of organization is not raised. Any rise of level is only brought about by colony-formation, represented in the diagram by vertical arrows. The result of such colony-formation is each time to pour out upon the world larger and more complex organisms, which, in their turn, come under the influence of the Darwinian laws and so on. On reaching the phylum of the true Annelida, we come to the crisis just mentioned. It is as follows :— The process of colony-formation, brought about at first by incomplete equal division called fission, later by incomplete unequal division called budding, has to come to an end, for, in sexual reproduction, which is the only known method of reproduction that remains, the division of parent and offspring is always complete. We have therefore arrived at a level of organization too complex for any further colony-formation of the old style, in which the individuals are bound to one another by physical strands and admit of being welded into new concentrated forms. From this time Evolution has to be carried on apparently solely by the ordinary processes of variation in the same plane. In this plane forms might acquire ever greater complexity of detail without rising in fundamental morphology, without any such fundamental advance as took place, for instance, when the Cell, by colony-formation, rose to be a Cœlenterate, or when the Cœlenterate, by colony-formation, gave rise, as just described,

in two steps, as it were, to the true Annelid. Consequently, all the higher animal forms which, during this time, were derived by the gradual modification of Annelids had, and still have, in essentials, the morphology of worms. In spite of their limbs and accessory appendages, they are as truly worms as the great Cephalopods, with their sucker-bearing arms and their parrotbeaks, are Molluscs. Nevertheless, the ever-increasing specialization of their organizations brought some of them gradually to a condition when colony-formation once more became possible. The direct derivatives of the worms—i.e. the derivatives by natural variation—may be arranged in the following chief divisions. Besides all the different kinds of modem worms, we have the Crustacea, the Arachnida, the Insecta, and the Vertebrata,* with doubtless some few others. Now, not one of these forms† has been able to produce colonies on the old terms, in which the individuals, as already explained, were organically united by physical bonds. Consequently, one might think that all colony-formation was for ever at an end and animal life, above the Annelids, would have to vary ad infinitum as individuals. And this would undoubtedly have been the case had not that long period during which the Annelidan derivatives were being specialized produced a new, though at first a frailer, binding force. This force was due to the gradual specialization of the nervous system which is the organ of the Psyche. The new process bears a significant resemblance to the old. Just as the early organisms, in dividing, failed to separate completely and remained clinging to one another to form colonies, so, as soon as the nervous system had attained a certain degree of sensitiveness, a psychic clinging took place between the parent and its offspring, although, as the latter is the result exclusively of sexual reproduction, parent and child are physically distinct and separate organisms. It was probably only under favourable conditions that this new psychic clinging showed itself strong enough to build up new colonies of individuals physically distinct, yet bound to one another by instincts. But the fact that this new kind of colony-formation took place almost simultaneously among at least three different derivatives of the Annelids, the Hymenoptera (Ants and Bees), the Neuroptera (Termites), and the * The controversy as to the origin of the Vertebrata cannot be said to be settled. The present writer has worked at the subject, and returned to the earlier view of their annelidan origin, but regards the non-parapodial worms as their ancestors (see “Natural Science,” xiii, p. 17, 1898). † Except perhaps the Ascidians as degenerate Vertebrata.

Vertebrata (Primates), in all of which the social bond is primarily psychic, however material it afterwards becomes for greater strength, is an endorsement of our view that such psychic colony-formations are serial with the early methods of colony-formation ; also that the instinct (if we may use the term) of colony-formation is in some way inherent in life, for it shows itself again and again in the evolutionary process, no matter what difficulties it has to overcome in order to achieve its aim. Indeed, though in our diagram we show, as a rule, only one arrow rising from each phylum, there is evidence that there were sometimes two or more, though seldom more than one was able to thrive and advance. From the Cell up to human society the real evolutionary rise has thus been due to a series of colony-formations. The function of horizontal variations seems to have been to prepare the units. In the phyla of the true Annelids, where organic forms were too complex and specialized to be able to build up physically united colonies, a pause took place which lasted long enough to allow some of these annelidan forms to condense their nervous systems. The derivatives of the parapodial Annelids achieved nerve-condensation by longitudinal compression of the ventral nerve chain, well seen in any comparative survey of the nervous system of the Articulata ; while the non-parapodial forms, in becoming Vertebrates, achieved a new dorsal condensation which formed the spinal cord. As soon as these highly developed, centralized nervous systems were arrived at, the psychic clingings necessary to continue the series of colony-formations became possible, and a new order of colony appeared—the social colony—in which the individuals are physically free, but

psychically bound. But this is not all the evidence for the great part played by colony-formation in Evolution, elucidating, as we have shown, every step of the ascent, natural variation accounting only for the preparation of the units. Beginning with the Cell, we have indicated the steps by which life appears to have been raised above it to the most recent of all colonyformations, the social colonies, of the Ants, the Bees, the Termites, and of Man. As for the cell itself, it has long been recognized in theory that it may have been the result of the colonyformation of a still smaller unit, the biophor (cf. the granula theory of Altmann).* In the work of which this is but a brief abstract, fresh reasons are advanced in support of this theory. Further, for all we know, this smaller unit also had a similar origin, until we get back to some purely inorganic molecule. But, be that as it may, we can now actually trace the evolutionary rise of animal life in a continuous series of colony-formations from the minutest organic form, which persists perhaps in the smallest microbe, to the highest development of living forms, which is not Man, but human societies, and, from end to end, the mechanism of the rise has been alternately the preparation of a unit by natural variation, and the colonyformation of that unit with subsequent integration. A series of colony-formations has thus raised life from one phylum to the other, the phyla themselves varying only in horizontal planes. The endless “specific and generic variation” in these planes is all that we have hitherto recognized of the factors of Evolution, but we now see that the phyla represent the spread of the different forms of life over the globe, therein exercising their vital functions in so many attempts to equilibrate with so many planetary environments. So luxuriant have the variations been that they have not only obscured till now the other great evolutionary factor— colony-formation, but, at the same time, they have certainly increased the complexity of the cosmic environment for each new organism produced by colony-formation. If any doubt still lingers as to this reference of the rise of organic life almost entirely to colony-formation, it must be once for all dispelled when we glance at the vegetable kingdom. Let us go back to the unicellular plants, which greet the eye of the microscopist in such multitudes of beautiful forms, physically inactive and stationary, yet glowing with a * “Die Elementarorganismen and ihre Beziehung zu den Zellen,” Leipzig, 1894.

green so vivid as almost to proclaim the presence of life. These unicellular plants represent a stage through which the whole of the vegetable kingdom must have passed, yet, search how we will, we cannot find any single cell on its way to produce a higher form. We do find, however, higher stages, but these, without exception, are all colonies of cells. Owing to the enormous amount of skeletal deposit which characterize plant life and the consequent rigidity of the plant organism, plant colonies are always immediately recognizable as such ; for the units have small power of flowing together, and thus there is little or no possibility of plant colonies becoming condensed into new and compact organisms as was necessary for animal colonies if they were to survive as animals. To this rigidity is due the fact that colonyformation, as the chief factor in the raising of plant life, is written large over the whole of the vegetable kingdom ; every moss, every grass, every shrub, every tree is plainly and obviously a repetition of parts by budding—in other words, a colony. The fact that this is not so visible in the animal kingdom is due to the perpetual necessity for condensation and centralization requisite for efficient animal life. This concentration has again and again obliterated the colonial origin of the forms of animals sufficiently, at least, to have put evolutionists off the scent. There is still one more argument, the weight of which is the more appreciated the longer it is pondered over. While the Darwinian law of natural variations has totally failed to supply us with more than detached fragments of the (organic) evolutionary process, colonyformation elucidates practically every step of the known ascent. And this superiority in supplying us with a fuller explanation of physical evolution is not all that can be claimed for it. Our physical frame alone is not our life, for inseparably bound up with it is the psyche ; the

two can only be separated in thought. It is true that the physical frame may continue to perform its ordinary mechanical functions while we are unconscious. But no one now regards consciousness as the measure of the psyche. It is only one of its phenomena. Now, no theory of Evolution can be regarded as satisfactory unless it takes the development of the psyche into account as well as that of the physical frame. We do not see how, even if “the origin of species” had managed to show us a chain of variations capable of elucidating, step by step, the rise of the physical organism, such a series could have thrown any light upon the evolution of the psyche. But a series of colony-formations shows a line along which the psyche may have advanced in complexity at every step. In each colony, from first to last, we have a number of individuals organically united, each with its inherited instincts as an individual, and the problem, for animal colonies at least, has been how to organize the nervous system of each individual so that it becomes a part of a common central nervous system, so that the activities and functions of every individual should harmonize, enabling the colony to act as a whole and to respond as a whole to external stimuli. Every rising step in the series of colony-formations has been faced by greater difficulties in the way of achieving this necessary harmony ; every step found larger and more complex, and, therefore, if we like to speak in psychological language, more wilful individual units to bring into line. Every one will recognize this as also the great problem of human society. In this way we may see a continuous line tracing out the evolution of the psyche, and it runs through the series of colony-formations. The origin of language and of abstract thought, indeed of all the marvellous wealth of psychic phenomena which characterizes mankind, can be traced to the difficulty of attaining the desired harmony between the individual units of a colony in which the bonds causing the units to cling together are primarily purely psychic. It is impossible, in such a brief summary, to go further into details, but we can represent the net result as it bears upon the general theory of Evolution in two diagrams. The first (see p.203) has been slowly built up step by step to represent the sequence suggested by the facts of Zoology, This may not prima facie be so fascinating as the hypothetical single genealogical tree, but it must not be forgotten that evolutionists have toiled at that hypothesis for fifty years in vain. Our first diagram, built up by the facts, appears to show that organic Evolution is not so simple as has hitherto been supposed, but that it can be analysed into two distinct sets of processes ; (1) a horizontal series and (2) a vertical series. (1) The living organisms multiply according to the laws of their organization, either by fission alone, or by fission and sexual reproduction, or by sexual reproduction alone. Thus they spread over the face of the planet, the individuals jostling one another and penetrating into every environment in which life is possible, that is, with which equilibration is attainable. Each varies and varies so long as the environment varies, or remains stationary if the environment is so, or, again, becomes extinct if the environment becomes impossible. The suggestion here is that life has overflowed the planet several times, each time starting a separate genealogical tree ; and that each lower tree gives rise to the one above it by the colony-formation of one of its variations, which produces a homogeneous colony from which the next tree or phylum starts afresh. This series of horizontal planes of Evolution comprises the whole of the kingdom of life, which spreads in layers over the earth and over one another. The separate forms vary indefinitely, but, while they may degenerate, they cannot rise in type of organization, although they may perfect the mechanism of their respective types to any extent, (2) A different force of Evolution runs at right angles to these planes. This is the force of colony-formation, which brings one phylum out of the other. Its action has been already described. One point, however, must be further elucidated, or at least repeated : While the spreading horizontally of the phyla may be regarded as due to purely physical reactions, in this colony-formation, although the process is certainly physical, it is just possible to see a trace of psychical influence, in that the incomplete division of dividing organisms may be thought of as due to a clinging of the organisms to one another by strands of protoplasm, this

clinging being possibly an expression of some psychic attachment. This is certainly the case in the human social colonies which are at the top of the series ; the complete separation of the offspring from the parents is obviously and admittedly delayed by a purely psychic influence. Besides, the primitive elements of the psyche were most probably simple attractions and repulsions, psychical accompaniments of chemical reactions. But whether or not we may trace the evolution of the psyche back to such very rudimentary processes in colonyformation as the delay in the completion of the processes of division in the individuals, the psyche may be certainly assumed to have been present during the integration of the units of each colony so that they shall all feel and respond in harmony to the same stimulus, which is the essential condition of any colony forming a new organism. It is thus along the vertical lines representing colony-formation that life climbs highest, meaning by life not only its physical, but also its psychical component. The two processes together are necessary to any final understanding of Evolution. In conclusion, I would like to show one more diagram (Diagram II). Perhaps it will not appeal to many, but it makes a very strong appeal to all who have learnt to regard mathematical formulæ as the nearest approach to absolute truth attainable by the human mind. I may add that this attempt to unravel these complex problems would never have been persisted in had not this second diagram, shimmering, as it were, through the apparent confusion, encouraged me. This diagram speaks for itself. It is, in reality, another way of representing the same facts as are diagrammatized in Fig. I. It is interesting for many reasons. It throws a new light on Herbert Spencer’s definition of Evolution as the lapsing of the homogeneous into the heterogeneous. We start on the left hand of the series with our simplest living granule. This, by colony-formation, builds up homogeneous colonies of granules which gravitate, as colonies, into a host of heterogeneous organisms, one of which is, let us say, the Cell. The Cell then, by colony-formation, builds up homogeneous colonies of Protozoa, these once more gravitate into a number of heterogeneous organisms, the primitive Metazoa, one of which is the Cœlenterate. The Cœlenterate, by colony-formation, forms an Annelid, which again by colony -formation forms a true Annelid ; the heterogeneous results of these true Annelids produce the social organisms, of which mankind is the chief. DIAGRAM II

A Rhythmical rendering of Diagram I. Diagram compounded of the same two factors, vertical and horizontal, showing the evolutionary process as a rhythmical series.

The drooping arms indicate the lapsing of homogeneous colonies into heterogeneous organisms (cf. Herbert Spencer).

Again, the diagram reveals an order which, if Herbert Spencer had himself recognized it, he would have certainly, and, I think, rightly claimed as another example of the great cosmic rhythms which appear to have fascinated his mind like music—so much so, indeed, that he himself suggested that one day Evolution would be found to have advanced in vast undulations.* And, lastly, this diagram is of supreme interest to the evolutionist, for, apart from any speculative interest it may have for philosophers, it helps us one step further towards realizing the unity of Evolution. Herbert Spencer, it will be remembered, while regarding that unity as certain, felt himself obliged, owing to the lack of our knowledge, to divide Evolution into three sections—Inorganic Evolution, Organic Evolution, and Superorganic Evolution. Our suggestion of colony-formation, raising perhaps at first some inorganic molecule into a mass condensing into an organic germ, seems to me to show a possible way of bridging the gap between the inorganic and the organic. And, once more, our linking of human social colonies in serial order with the earlier colony-formations tends to bridge the gap between “organic” and “superorganic” Evolution, and in doing so indicates a new line of research both for the psychologist and the sociologist. * The writer has now for some time been engaged in investigating this suggestion of Herbert Spencer, that Evolution has advanced in periods, and hopes soon to publish his results.

SECOND ESSAY THE DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN SOCIAL COLONIES AS ORGANISMS, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE WOMEN § I. INTRODUCTORY

ALL attempts to apply evolutionary laws to human societies have hitherto been of the most melancholy character—indeed, to the thoughtful they have seemed little more than wails of despair. One of the most instructive of these attempts was that of the late Professor Huxley, whose famous Romanes lecture “Evolution and Ethics” will serve as an illustration of what we mean. The only evolutionary laws then recognized were the Darwinian laws of the “natural selection” of small structural variations, hence the ruthless struggle for life was all that the lecturer had to describe. All that Huxley could say to the melancholy prospect of mankind having to live under such a law was that it is absurd to repine at human fate, “we must be men.” He had to note, however, rising up as some mysterious alleviating force, the ethical instincts, and that was the substance of his lecture. When printed, however, a note appeared*

which admitted that colony-formations, with the ethical instincts which belong to them, were also evolutionary products. This note, had it been followed up, contained at the same time the answer to the perplexity as to the terrible fate of man and the clue to the mystery of the ethical instincts. Until this clue is recognized Sociology has no philosophical basis in Evolution. This was in essence the burden of our first Essay, in which human colonies were found to be serial with certain earlier colony-formations. The great evolutionary phylum to which we belong to-day is, according to our scheme, a phylum of human social colonies. The Darwinian laws are thus applicable to these colonies only as colonies. It is they which have been and are struggling with one another and with their environments, gradually seeking and attaining equilibrium as so many millions of other smaller organisms belonging to the earlier phyla have done. Men and women, the individual units composing these colonies, cannot be regarded as if normally flung into the struggle for life, for they are not free nor independent, but are tied up by a myriad invisible ties into their colonies. It may be objected that this is all very well in theory, but that a superficial glance at the facts shows such a theory to be worthless, for individual men and, alas ! women too, as well as human societies, are competing with one another in a life-and-death struggle. We must admit that such, indeed, is the appearance, is even the fact—a fact that has to be accounted for. Fortunately it is not difficult to explain, if only we will endeavour to follow the development, that is, the growth and morphological transformations, of human colonies. It is * See “Collected Essays” (Macmillan & Co.), vol. ix, p. 114.

just here that the sociologist has hitherto been at sea and has had to discuss the development of human societies without any precision. Our scheme, set out in the first essay, showed that there always has been a tendency for organisms, so long as they are mechanically capable of combining, to begin their life in organic combinations as colonies, and that human social colonies are but new and higher expressions of this evolutionary tendency, differing from the earlier colonies only in the fact that the bonds are now psychic instead of being physical. If, then, we find our human societies apparently dissolving, the component units appearing to be once more independent organisms engaged in a life-and-death struggle with one another, the phenomenon must be secondary and explicable by some crisis through which the colonies as organisms are passing. We quite admit that, owing to the frailty of the psychic bond, as compared with the physical bonds of the more elementary colonies, many of the earlier attempts to form societies must have soon ended in failure, and, indeed, that it must have largely depended upon the nature of the environment whether any could survive at all as societies. But the brutalizing struggle we see to-day between the individual units of human societies which, as societies, have weathered all the shocks of the thousands of years of human history, and are now, moreover, knit together by the tie of a common language, require some further explanation. We thus have a definite problem before us. We propose to sketch the rise and gradual development of human societies, so as to discover, if possible, the nature of the crisis which appears to be dissolving these colonies into their component elements. In order to give special point to our discussion, we shall concentrate our attention upon the position of women. We select the women, for it is their case which is now exercising the minds of all of the more thoughtful people, not only of Western races, but even among the more advanced Orientals, and further, because the women of every society may be regarded as the allimportant female sex glands of the organism as a whole, and, as such, vital to the understanding of its evolution. A review of the modifications of the position of women, then, will be tantamount to a review of all the most vital modifications which the organisms have had to undergo. We start, then, with human colonies as homogeneous organisms poured out upon the surface of the planet to equilibrate sooner or later with the available environments or to

perish. All the modifications through which they pass are due to the same causes which have differentiated all the earlier phyla of the animal kingdom, shown in the horizontal lines of Diagram I (p. 15) in the first essay. We have, first of all, to see how small societies of human units, bound together by psychic bonds, which, however strong at first, are peculiarly liable to dissolve under adverse circumstances, can be conceived of as having been knit together so as to become practically indissolubly united. No living organism can be correctly thought of except in connection with some environment with which it is equilibrating. Without this environment it is an abstraction. Life is the interaction between the organism and the cosmos; hence the two are vital to any true account of organic life. Colonies of primitive men, in the abstract, are too shadowy for any profitable sociological discussion. We have to reconstruct their environments. Many environments may be theoretically imagined, but, guided by a score of clues, anatomical and morphological, and by such considerations as the worship of trees and the frequency of the early belief in forest-origins, we incline to the following hypothesis :— Groups of semi-arboreal Anthropoids acquired the habit of foraging together beyond the edges of the great forests in which they were produced. Nothing more natural than that such foraging parties would, from time to time, be cut off, in which case the only chance of survival would be to cling together. All those in which the psychic bonds were not strong enough to ensure this would perish, but those in which the original psychic bonds were strong enough would have these clingings intensified, not only by the common danger, but by the obvious advantages of co-operation. We do not say that this actually was the way human societies were launched as organisms upon the sea of life ; some were launched one way, some another. But, once launched, no matter how, it is as easy to sketch the morphological changes they would have to undergo as it is to follow those of any organism of any other phylum. The general conditions are by no means specially recondite, and many facts can be adduced as evidence, among which the position of women in the past and in the present is not the least important. § II. THE POSITION

OF

WOMEN

EARLIEST OR LARVAL STAGE IN HUMAN SOCIETIES

IN THE OF

THE

DEVELOPMENT

However human societies may actually have started, their existence as distinct organisms may provisionally be said to date from the time when, say, they emerged from the forests in small groups, at first timidly, and, later, more boldly, until they were finally cut off, as small separate colonies, from ever returning to their former arboreal habits. From that time human societies had to roam over the face of the earth in small compact bodies, perhaps as companies of cave- or rock-dwellers. The record of these earliest men having been treedwellers is clear and indelible. We still keep the hand-like feet which convict us of being descended from apelike ancestors. We naturally conclude that human societies only began to be specialized into compact organisms after they left the forests, for it is hardly likely that primitive men learnt more than the very first rudiments of social life in the trees. Trees, with diverging branches, tend to scatter ; besides, if the early men were, say, half the size and weight of their civilized descendants, trees would offer precarious support to anything like a crowd. Caves, or the solid ground, would permit of the closer huddling and cuddling which played some part in welding infant societies into organic wholes. These instinctive clingings would be stimulated by common danger from wild beasts which would collect round infant colonies as sharks collect round ships, and which, like sharks, would be persistent in their attentions. No historical record is required to assure us of this. For is not the dog whom we to-day allow in our midst on friendly terms a descendant of the animals which once, wolf-like, hung round the infant societies ? To begin with, dogs

were watchful foes cutting off stragglers, later they became semi-hostile allies living on the refuse and joining at a respectful distance in the chase of big game on the chance of sharing in the pickings, and, lastly, willing friends, servants, and dependents of the all-conquering human societies. We might have said “the all-conquering Man,” but that would have been a blunder, for man alone does not exist ; he is the product of a society, and, except as a component part of such a society, he perishes. These and kindred dangers served to weld the primitive societies together. The individuals were mutually dependent upon one another for safety as well as for food and drink, while they were also, even from earliest times, bound by the ties of natural affection, the males to the females, and both (but especially the females) to their offspring. But the point to be kept most clearly in mind is that each of these societies had to move about, as far as possible, as one compact body ; as such they occupied and perhaps fortified their hidingplaces, and as such they fought dangerous enemies, and defended themselves when attacked. We may think of them as so closely united as to be able to act like one large single animal, as if a whole pack of wolves were condensed into one large, powerful wolfish monster. We put the case in this crude fashion because experience shows that the conception of a social organism as a single whole, though formed of many individuals, is not an easy one for the lay mind to grasp. It is absolutely essential, however, to the understanding of the evolution of human society, or, indeed, of any society. The ordinary person, accustomed to the individual freedom enjoyed today under wholly different social conditions, cannot, without an effort, look back to the times of these infant or larval societies when individual freedom was reduced to a minimum, that is, was almost nonexistent. No mass of units can live the life of a compact organism without organization and differentiation. Every single wild beast is an organized and differentiated mass. It has sensory organs to see, to hear, and to smell its prey or its foe, and teeth and claws for the fight, while all its most vital organs are arranged compactly in the place of greatest safety, protected not only by its jaws and claws, but behind bony ribs. It would be quite impossible for these early societies to have survived if they had been mere rabbles, without some such rigid organization. This welding of colonies into compact organized wholes for closer and more perfect adjustment to environmental conditions is one of the regular periodic phenomena of Evolution. Colonies of cells, for instance, have built up larger organisms which have now become so compact that the microscopic anatomist or histologist has to study the tissues very minutely to find out the fate of many of the individual cells ; some have retained their primitive forms almost unchanged, but others have become so highly differentiated as to be unrecognizable. The cell, of course, was, from the first, a very plastic body and lent itself readily to be modified almost in any way required by the developing organization. But the large and savage primitive human beings forming the units of these societies of men and women, how were they to be differentiated and modified so as to act together as parts of a perfect machine ? And yet this is what was demanded of them, or else destruction overtook them. Only those societies, therefore, the individuals of which were able to subordinate themselves most completely to the welfare of the whole were able to survive. This subordination was, of course, no longer brought about by actual physical modifications of the units, as was the case in all the earlier more elementary colonies of the animal kingdom, but by nerve training. How many centuries this larval period lasted while human societies were being welded into compact organisms we do not know, but the women, as vital elements of the social aggregate, were then cast in the rough. It might be asserted that, in one respect, they have formed an exception to the rule just stated; while men seem largely to have escaped morphological differentiation, the women have been even physically differentiated by centuries of a closer and more cramping subordination to rigid organization than men had to submit to. This might account for the fact that their frames and their brains are, on the

average, smaller and weaker than those of men. If this was the way the difference was brought about, we surely know how it may be obliterated. The lines followed by the differentiating process in the organization of human colonies would be, as nearly as possible, natural lines. Some one individual, endowed with superior intelligence and rendered wise by experience, would act as the co-ordinating brain ; the swifter, keener, and more daring young men would act as scouts to scent the prey or espy the whereabouts or movements of the foe. The sturdiest or strongest males would function as the teeth or claws for attack or defence ; while the females and the young, the most precious possession of the colony, would be placed in some central position of safety. The females and the young would naturally be together. We say naturally with deliberation, because although it is to us self-evident, we know that we are here on delicate ground, that many women resent the assumption that there was any reason for the narrower life of women from which women have suffered, and do not tire of asserting that it has been due to the tyranny of the stronger man for his own selfish pleasures. It is well that this question has been raised, and it must be freely discussed. Pointing to the lioness, the tigress, the female elephant, and other animals, many contend that women were not originally so inferior to men as they are now, and that the differences have been secondarily induced by the treatment they have received as members of a human society, in which the armed men, accustomed to the fight and the chase, were the dominant parties. In this, of course, they are right, and they are also right in asserting that there is no reason whatever for believing that the mere bearing and nursing of children necessarily involves the great mental and physical difference which we men assume to be a law of Nature, and therefore by education and social habit tend to foster. In all cases in which the male and female organisms differ greatly, that difference has to be traced to the environment. The hereditary foe, say of the gorilla, is the leopard, and if the race gorilla is to survive, it is necessary that the male, i.e. the one least encumbered by reproduction, should have jaws and arms of a strength which no leopard dare face. But when we come closer to the facts the air clears ; men and women did not wander about like separate wild beasts. The women of each society were the centres of a social organism every part of which was differentiated according to the needs of the organization. The question is no longer what women might have been under ideal circumstances ; the fact is clear that the centuries of severe subordination they have had to submit to, especially in being the possessions of a social aggregate and being made mothers as soon as that was physically possible, have acted prejudicially on their development ; while, further, the long and progressively lengthening period of helplessness of the human infant has doubtless had something to do with the closeness of their confinement. There is, however, no evidence that this has fundamentally altered their constitution as typical human beings, parallel with and potentially equal to the male in every respect* with the exception of the mechanism of sex. No single capacity possessed by man is not also possessed by woman, though, in most cases, less developed. It consequently rests entirely with society, that is, with the women, as it rises or they rise in wisdom and intelligence, whether this difference shall be further emphasized or gradually, as far as possible, obliterated by means of training and enlargement of environment. And this will fortunately not be left to the choice of individuals, for the great forces of life work through us. The mind has its natural hunger as well as the body. It was, then, owing to the strain and stress of what we shall call the larval life of human societies that women, as human beings, were retarded somewhat behind men in their individual development. Forming an integral part of a rigid social organism, they were differentiated as a class for special functions, into the fulfilment of which they were hurried at the earliest possible moment, all their other potential human functions being disregarded and consequently allowed to remain in abeyance. But the larval period comes to an end, and with it the need for such rigidity of discipline.

* The chief significance of Otto Weininger’s remarkable work, “Sex and Character,” in which he attempts to demonstrate that women differ fundamentally from men in having no souls, is that he voices the judgment of many of the abler men upon the intellectual stagnation at a low level characterizing the majority of women. The recent demand of women, made with force and ability, for education and for the rights of citizens, is surely a refutation of his chief contention, whatever he meant by it. That such a book can be written and hailed as a great work should show how much we are in need of some more solid basis from which to discuss sociological problems.

§ III. THE NATURAL END

OF THE

LARVAL PERIOD

In the case of human societies, the change was due to the fact that the small social aggregates, after many generations of wandering over the face of the earth, struggling for the right to live in the face of a hundred dangers, learnt to triumph over all ordinary foes. Living then in comparative peace, they grew and expanded until they became too unwieldy to move about freely. Their habitual wanderings slowed down and became spasmodic migrations. The day of even such migrations is now practically over. Using biological terms, we may say that from the moment of settling down human societies began a profound metamorphosis, the early stages of which date from before the dawn of history, though we to-day are only now passing through the morphological changes necessitated by the change. On the abandonment of the “free-living” habit, human societies became “sessile” organisms, since which time a slow and painful modification of the morphological and physiological organization has been taking place, in order to adapt the societies for entirely new habits of life as organisms. The process has been painful chiefly to the individuals who have to be specialized in ways very different from all their inherited tendencies. Hinc illæ lacrymæ. But before attempting to gain any insight into the nature of the metamorphosis which took place and is still taking place, one remark may be permitted me. I would not like to say that this transformation in the development of human social organisms has never been noticed before. But, if it has been noted, its biological significance as a natural metamorphosis has not received due recognition. So far as we are aware, neither sociologists nor politicians have appealed to it nor endeavoured to show that the changes they discuss or desire have the sanction of the natural evolutionary metamorphosis, but this is what we shall here endeavour to do. We shall call attention to the light which this metamorphosis throws upon the commonest and most familiar social or political questions. We shall do this while concentrating our immediate attention upon the problem of women, and the extraordinary changes their position has had and still has to undergo. Described in general terms, the relaxation of the rigidity of organization required by the strenuous free-living habit of the larva will permit of the units as individuals developing their own individual lives. In the case of human societies, this is obviously the end to be attained, for these units, temporarily crushed into an organism for the purpose of welding them into closer relations, are endowed with capacities such as no individual organism has yet developed. The ideal aim appears to be an organization which shall admit of the maximum of individual development with all the added advantages of harmonious fellowship, advantages not only material and obvious, but spiritual, and still to be revealed as the harmony of human relationships shapes itself into music. § IV. THE DISSOLUTION

OF THE

LARVAL ORGANIZATION UPON THE WOMEN

AND ITS

FIRST EFFECT, CHIEFLY

The rule in organic life is that changes begin at the surface and gradually penetrate deeper and deeper until the larval organization which has to be changed gives place to that of

the adult. In the case of human social organisms, all such changes would seem very slow to us, though, considering the undifferentiated condition of the units, they must in reality be very rapid. So deeply ingrained were the habits of subordination that, in the larval condition, there was probably no trace, however faint, of the idea of individual liberty or development. But the new habits of the now sessile societies, as they expanded and had varying intercourse, friendly or hostile, with neighbouring societies, could not fail, in time, to awaken the spirit of individuality in their members, and to stir up all their hidden wealth of diverse and undeveloped instincts and desires. The kings, as the heads of the old rigid organizations, were naturally the first—as, of course, they were the freest—to show signs of the relaxation of the ancient discipline. But although the original subordination of every individual ceased to be necessary on the settling down of the organism, the kings, themselves released from the serious business which called them into being, would see that the discipline was kept up internally, for it was that which gave them their power, and inveterate custom made the task easy. Of course, the predatory instincts and hostility of neighbouring organisms supplied them with real functions. For the mere settling down of wild beasts to a sessile life does not change their characters all at once. That change of character will depend largely upon the changes which gradually take place in ways of procuring the necessaries of life. The historical records of each race date from the time when it had settled down sufficiently to acquire the art of writing, but they invariably begin with quarrels about leadership and the bloody rivalries of kings and would-be kings. The wars of the Titans lay the foundation stones, as it were, of human literature which was, in its origin, a kaleidoscopic reflection of human history. After the leaders came the turn of the chiefs of the old military “castes” ; for, as the early settled societies grew, the males were differentiated into soldiers and tillers of the soil, or labourers, who were laying the foundation of new habits of life by which each society obtained its food directly from the area of the planet which it occupied. The dissolution of the soldier class has been less dramatic than that of the kings ; it lost its splendour in the wreck of the leaderships ; the fate of the satellites being, as a rule, obscured by that of the primary bodies. As for the rank and file of the people, at one time the absolute slaves of the kings and the military “nobles,” they have steadily been gaining the rights of citizens, and now spend their energies in pursuit of the arts of peace, the cultivation of the soil, the manufacture and distribution of goods. Manifold, indeed, are now the active occupations of Man ; almost every human faculty, except the very highest of all, is finding exercise and conscious expression in some form or other. The social organism, like a human infant, develops its soul through wider commerce with men and things. Now we come to the case of the women, which is not only that which here claims special attention, but is, on its own account, by far the most dramatic and momentous for the race. The fates of the kings and the nobles thrill us like a story-book, the struggles for liberty make our pulses beat faster, but the disasters of the women move us in ways too profound to be described. Two phases of the transformation here claim our attention. The women originally occupied the centre of the social organism. The organization was, in fact, ranged round them. It is true that they were the “possessions” of the whole body, but they were the most precious of all. They were possessions and, as such, entirely dependent upon the organization as a whole, but they were at the same time its instinctive vital centre, not according to any artificial planning, but as the result of evolutionary forces working with and upon the profoundest instincts of human nature. It is obvious that, long before the progressive break-up of the social organization could reach the centre, the dependent mass of helpless and undeveloped women were already, as it were, scattered to the winds. So they have remained to this day, in positions and under conditions which no thoughtful person can contemplate without horror. The dissolution left them with no status at all, as far as society is concerned. They ceased to be its most precious

possessions, for it ceased to have any organic life. They were at the mercy of the stronger individuals, and have been the sport and victims of every chance passion. They became, and still are, the property of individuals, now adored and pampered, now abused, now ground down as slaves, now cast out into the gutter. Motherhood is bought and sold, women offer themselves for temporary hire in the streets ; children are nobody’s children, but may even live and grow up in squalid and brutalizing conditions. And this frightful fate is still all that women are born to. Instinctively proud of their womanhood, yet shamed that it has been so long the plaything and even the mockery of men, they are torn in twain by their naturally generous human impulses and the insensate rules of the game in which, except by shallow courtesy, they are merely cattle. Still dependent, they are of necessity still the sport of chance. If physically beautiful, some one will provide for them, at least as long as the beauty lasts ; if not, their lot is unenviable. They would, in fact, have no human life at all but for the strength of the primitive social instincts which are still there, though during the dissolution and until the reconstruction absolutely disorganized. But at last this first phase promises to come to an end. As long as women were so automatic and unconscious there was no hope, but, in these days, there is a new light shining through despair ; the gradual progress of enlightenment has reached the women, who begin to realize, on the one hand, their deplorable condition and, on the other, the real function of Love in human societies and of womanhood, which is the magic inspirer of it. We are to-day looking on at the first conscious effects upon them of this dawning, and what we call the “women’s movement” is now seen to possess the same evolutionary dignity and importance as the dissolution of the autocracy and its gradual displacement by democracy. Nay, further, it is invested with far greater interest, for no process of social organic reconstruction can be complete till the women take active part in it and find their proper places and functions in the new organization. In this brief panorama of social evolution which has been occupying the whole of the historical period and indeed more, we see, at one and the same time, kings and dynasties, though in the eyes of all intelligent people now shorn of their glory, still only slowly giving way before institutions better fitted to represent the corporate minds of the nations ; and, at the other end of the process, the women, who have suffered most tragically because, as centres of deepest feeling, their emotions have been specialized far in advance of their intelligence, are only just beginning to wake up to their own deepest needs, which are also the needs of humanity. § V. GENERAL LINES

OF THE

RECONSTRUCTION

It would be quite possible to sketch the processes of this morphological reconstruction of human societies from what we know of the ordinary laws of morphology, but, as a matter of fact, given the clue which is now in our hands, the social and political movements of the day show us exactly what is taking place. Before attempting to make this clear we pause for a moment to point out that we here find a solution of that greatest of all human puzzles—the history of man as read in records and monuments. For that history has been, without doubt, the one great “blot on Creation.” In spite of the reasoning powers which we possess, and of the nobility of sentiment of which we are capable, our history has been one long list of degrading superstitions and of heartless butcheries. To the ordinary evolutionist, with his limited notion of evolutionary laws, that history has been clear proof of the universality of the struggle, individual with individual. To us the explanation is different. We would naturally expect the units of human societies to be knit together so as to live at least as harmoniously together as, say, the cells which build up any other healthy single organisms, in which all are happy or miserable together, all rich or all poor, none in pain unless all are sympathetic. That is what we had a right to expect. We admit, however, that that is not the case, for the

confusion and struggle of interests is so great that it seems at times as if all were against all, and as if human social colonies had, after all, ended in complete dissolution. Yet any such universal struggle is not only impossible, but is obviously not the fact, for social ties can be seen to spread like a network, everywhere entangling and confusing the struggling units. The greedier and less feeling units have been actually proclaiming the law of universal struggle, impatient of the disorganized remains of social bonds as mere sentimentality. Others, and fortunately the majority, have been appealing to these latter sentiments as the only factors which differentiate mankind from the wild beasts, and as those only which intelligent men should work to establish and maintain. Those only, indeed, are statesmen worthy of the name, who, while holding the reins of government and skilfully balancing imperative rival interests, yet have this for their aim. But the explanation of this confusion is now clear. The human colonies are undergoing a vast process of metamorphosis. After having, for an unknown length of time, passed through a larval period during which they were welded into highly efficient organisms in all essentials like vast beasts of prey, they have settled down to new habits of life, requiring an entirely different organization. The larval organs have, as is the rule in all such cases, to be modified, or may be even entirely resorbed and new ones have to take their places. The process is necessarily a slow and difficult one. The change from the crawling caterpillar or maggot into the moth or fly has taken place every year for so many ages that the transformation is now condensed into a chrysalis stage, during which the animal is quiescent. There was a time with them also when each organism had to struggle through its changes, perhaps in warmer climes where summers were not shortened by winter frosts. But the metamorphosis of human societies is now being passed through for the first time, hence the long agony of the process while the larval organs are dissolving and the new organization is being established. All the politics of all the nations, both national and international, are to be interpreted in the light of this fact. What, then, are the transformations which the change in the method of life would naturally bring about ? The larval societies have settled down and have been growing and expanding and incidentally struggling with one another during the whole of the historic period. Fusions, peaceful or compulsory, have frequently taken place. The resultant social organisms are now large nations, the struggles of which are so catastrophic that treaties are instinctively made to stop any further resort to force and to settle all subjects of disagreement by reasonable arrangement. The internal problems are now claiming attention, though socalled statesmen have been known to embroil their country in war rather than permit it to be conscious of its disorganization. The process of transformation hovers round the following essential change : While the success of the larval organization demanded the maximum of subordination and specialization of function of the individual, the aim of the new organization, as we gather from the morphology and physiology of the new sessile organisms, can only be the development of the units—both physically and psychically, and the latter development depends entirely upon their individual liberty. As the specialization of the eagle is the wings with which he soars over the most inaccessible mountain crags, the specialization of both the human society and of the human unit is the Mind, with all its wealth of subtle feeling, expressing itself in so many ways, each more amazing than the other—in Music, Art, Literature, and in all the subtleties of human intercourse. These, like eagles' wings, soar into the mysteries of the Psyche. This energy and development of Mind are to form the essence of the adult life of human societies. This is the higher definitive life towards which they have been slowly developing through the larval stages, and which they are now in the process of adopting. All who watch the signs of the times can see it approaching. We see it in the demand for universal education, for more freedom, for fairer and juster conditions— in a word, in the rise of democracy, which means the life of man among his fellows, all alike striving for the highest development of what is best and greatest in Man.

But what has been happening through all the centuries of dissolution ? Has life been standing still while human societies are trying to reconstruct ? By no means. The vital forces driving life along are terrific, and cannot remain idle for a moment. Every great, seething mass of humanity, regarded as a social colony being swept along its plane of life,1 must evolve into something, must crystallize into some kind of vital organism or perish. If it is not inspired by the higher aspirations, it will infallibly shape itself into some embodiment of man’s lower and more savage passions. This, indeed, is what has happened again and again, and has invariably deluged the pages of human history with blood, and it still is happening. No nation has yet found the line of successful reconstruction, and over all alike hangs an inevitable fate. Evolutionary laws will eliminate, in their own ruthless way, all those nations which fail to develop and organize once more the only binding social instincts, co-operation and mutual assistance, for some definite end. The larval organisms were specialized for mere existence and survival and, incidentally, for the exploration of their environment. For what will the new adult society organize itself ? For that psychic life that we have indicated. All the evidence points to this and every recognizable human movement is rapidly evolving in this direction. Let us now briefly review the lines along which human societies have been attempting to reorganize, those societies, we mean, that have survived. Many have been wrecked owing to struggles with neighbours, or to catastrophic changes, some perhaps through having been drugged into fatal inactivity or “wrong-headedness” by degrading superstitions. All alike, indeed, have been crippled and their existence endangered by such causes in varying degrees. The chief danger in all cases has been the lack of harmony that has prevailed as to the distribution of the necessaries of life since the break-up of the old organization. The economic factor, or, to put it into biological language, the difficulty of establishing among a host of instinctively and naturally greedy units a healthy, vigorous circulation, so that every part of the organism may be fully and perfectly nourished, has had most to do with the life and death of nations, especially as there was no fair start. The kings and the nobles, though they have long lost the vital functions which first brought them into existence, yet have universally retained sufficient power to monopolize the land and wealth of the organism which is then worked for them by the masses of the people. I think, indeed, the generalization is amply justified by facts of history and of daily observation 2 that all internal politics have hitherto turned upon this question of the circulation, and all internal convulsions have been protests against parasitism of one kind or another. We do not hesitate to use the word “parasitism,” for when a nation works, but the wealth produced simply enriches a small class, that is the only biological term applicable to the phenomenon. If it is maintained that this result has been the consequence of Evolution, that is of course freely admitted. It is true that, in a struggle where there ought to be no struggle between the units of a disorganized society, any and every result is due to the selection of the most potent of all the blind human instincts, which appears to have been personal greed. For that, so far, has proved to be the most persistent, and therefore the strongest blind force in human nature. Ambition, the love of glory, and all the nobler social passions go down before it ; and it has triumphed in this temporary struggle which has been taking place during the metamorphosis of human societies. That is the force which can build up, and has built up, the greatest and apparently the most stable social organizations that have yet appeared. No organization built up by personal greed can, however, remain stable, at least, if men are to be men in the best sense of the word ; for, under it, success must mean something contradictory 1 2

See Diagram I, p. 203. See Chiozza Money’s “Riches and Poverty,” fourth edition, 1908. London (Methuen).

of the best human instincts. Personal greed is a blind instinct, no longer worthy of Man ; as such alone it is doomed to give place to a more intelligent principle, and there is only one

conceivable principle that can bind society into a whole and yet allow every man, woman, and child to develop the best that is in them, and that is cooperation and mutuality, deliberately and consciously adopted and scientifically worked out. Its first duty is the establishment of an efficient circulation and distribution of the necessaries of life, not the necessaries for the physical life alone, but also for the highest development of the psyche, since man lives “not by bread alone.” Fortunately, personal greed naturally passes into these higher instincts if the conception of self is enlarged, and this enlargement, taking the known factors of life into account, only the women can effect. Loud and bitter are the jeremiads that have been launched at our blind automatic competitive system. Some kind of competition we must have ; rivalry is still a healthy human instinct. But whether any form of it is good for the community depends upon its object, i.e. on whether it is a rivalry in possessions and display or a rivalry in service. The present situation thus becomes clearer. We understand that on the breakdown of the original larval and corporate system for provisioning the young societies, all those in commanding positions and who consequently had the power seized what they wanted, and reduced those who had nothing to the position of dependents. Rival chiefs tore society to pieces in their struggle for land and dependents. It was on the physical labour of these “dependents” that the rest of the community, in reality, depended. It was their work that fed the others, while they, in return for their labour, received but scanty fare, often accompanied by blows and indignities. But that, it may be said, was in the old days of brutal parasitism. Surely that is past now that we are “civilized.” No, it is worse than it ever was. Only the cruder forms of this parasitism have ceased to appear, so as to avoid popular irritation. It still exists, only now it has learned to disguise itself most subtly. It is no longer a king nor a group of nobles, but these have become embedded and thus screened within a large minority of the people themselves—a minority shaded off so gradually from the victimized majority that it becomes more and more difficult to discover where the “parasite” ends and the “host” begins. The parasitism is there, but hidden, and its methods are more subtle and efficient. Direct rapine, robbery, and tyranny do not appear to exist ; for evolution has, as we say, eliminated ways which led to spontaneous and violent reactions. All now appears smooth and fair under the guise of legal contracts and agreements, but the parasitism is none the less merciless. The result is that the parasitic minority, usually called “society,” lives wholly on the labour of the majority, who generally own absolutely nothing ; not only have they no land, but even the tools for the work they do are not their own. They have only their physical powers, and these, as a rule, are strained by monotonous toil from early youth for a subsistence wage. It is as if all who were not members of “society” were cattle, whose last hours of decay and death are opportunities for the more kindly members of society to cultivate the grace of Charity. It is one huge wrong, subtly devised, though no one has devised it ; it has come about by the gradual elimination of coarser methods. No blame attaches to anyone who, in the mere round of the life into which he or she is born, unconsciously helps to crush all that can be called life out of the majority. But there is one aspect of this question which cannot be forgotten. All the crimes of even the worst days of brutality and violence in the Roman Empire, under the worst of all the Emperors, are to-day overlooked, but one fact is never forgotten, and never will be forgotten ; it is held up for the everlasting execration of mankind : “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.”

§ VI. THE WOMEN’S PART

IN THE

RECONSTRUCTIVE PROCESS

This, then, with variations which are not essential, is the condition of all the most

advanced human societies to-day, and they are called civilized solely according to the skill and tact with which the parasitism is effected. It is to this that the women have waked up ; they have begun to demand to take their share in the management of affairs. Not a few men are now resisting their demands simply because, in their hearts, they are horror-struck at the prospect of seeing women for whom they have any regard fling themselves deliberately under the wheels of the vast machinery which, through thousands of years, have been grinding the lives of the majority so exceeding small and so mercilessly. One would have thought it impossible that the women should not have felt and joined in so stupendous a movement long ago, and should not have been eager to share in the reconstruction almost from the beginning. But “cribbed, cabined, and confined” for so many ages, their subordination hypnotized them. They were unconscious of their real status or want of it. The range of their ideas was so limited that they automatically accepted what was ; they seem to have been quite unconscious even of the disasters above regarded as the first result of the progressive dissolution, and which, indeed, imperatively demand some such explanation. Now, however, though so late, and after sleeping through all those terrible ages during which woman has been degraded and her womanhood dragged through the mire, during which she has been fought for as property and bought and sold, women themselves are beginning to wake up. They are emerging from their semi-conscious, larval condition and imperatively demanding their full development into adult human beings, free to be themselves, equal members of the social colony, nay, superior in being endowed with womanhood, the supreme instinctive force of life. They claim to take their share in the guiding of the reconstruction of society. It is not a moment too soon. The higher instincts of humanity are seeking in vain for some new light, and are now almost in despair. But the women are the new force, just as since the Middle Ages the “common people” were the new force, and we have every ground to believe that, under their inspiration, human societies will find their adult and definitive reconstruction—definitive, that is, until Evolution, in some way now totally beyond our powers to imagine, will raise life to some still higher level.* We say that the women appear on the horizon carrying the new hope for humanity on their brows, not only on theoretical grounds, but also from what seems to us to be morphological necessity. In the first place, what we once more need is the re-establishment of the highest social instincts as part of the organization of society. During all those ages of the struggle and confusion of reconstruction it was the women who kept those instincts alive, disorganized and fragmentary perhaps, but still essential to the very existence and nature of women. Now that the women are coming to take their places as conscious units, recognizing their mission in and to the whole, we shall inevitably find them insisting upon the humanizing of life. In the second place, because one duty greets the women like a guiding star on the threshold of their new life. They must rescue the women and the children, who always suffer most, and with most fatal consequences to the race, from having to live under brutalizing * This point will be discussed in the fuller treatise of which these essays are but brief sketches.

conditions. They must, indeed, rescue that central mystery of life, motherhood,* from the depths alike of social degradation and of social respectability. They have to throw all their weight and force into inspiring human society to become a true social organism, the aim of which is to attain the highest that human nature can reach by the cultivation of all that is best and greatest in every man and woman, regarded as equals. In order to fulfil these purposes, women must aspire to every attainable height both of personal cultivation and of influence, even that of membership of the central council of the nation, and, with the justification and hopes of the evolutionary story in their ears, they must speak with no uncertain sound. Let them never forget that, though women have so long been the sport of chance passions, there was a time when in them society found its centre, and that

there are reasons for believing that the new organization into which the social order will crystallize will once more find womanhood as its vital centre. The strength of their position rests upon the fact that every individual life turns round love as round a pivot, and that love is essentially altruistic. The women thus, after all, hold the key of the situation. They must work together and proclaim, with no divided voice, the supreme sanctity of motherhood, not as an idle sentiment, but as a matter to fight for, since it is the women’s instinct and high calling as women to arrange for the coming generation, of which they are to be the mothers. They must give immediate practical expression to their one supreme instinct to care for the young of the race, not as single individuals, each looking after her own children (every animal does that), but by organizing some kind of national motherhood, of which every adult woman, virgin or matron, is a member, so that every child that is born of woman may be treated as a gift from the infinite, endowed with untold wealth of possibilities ready to develop in response to cultivation. Human infants are now left to be the sport of chance, and we let them pine in a slum with as little concern as we let kittens be drowned in a pail. The women will take a supreme place in the nation the moment they insist, even to the refusing to be mothers, that every infant shall be cared for as part of the nation’s most precious asset. Along such lines as these, that is, by the women holding up, in season and out of season, the coming generation as the special object of the nation’s care, we see the possibility of the reconstruction of organic life on some stable social principle. This reorganization can and will be worked out by the women, who, seeking the free development of womanhood according to their own ideals for themselves and the children, will rise phoenix-like from the ashes and produce a new type and order of womanhood. The organization of women for such an end may perchance be, or at least develop into, the new vital centre, whose wills and attractions will be able to change the personal greed which is now the chief, but inhuman evolutionary force, into a social force by enlarging the conception of self. Womanhood will be the centre from which alone the young generations come, the young generations, the desire of all eyes, in the light of which the love of gold, to be obtained only by injuring the race, will appear as a cruel, unnatural delusion. Round it the vital energies of the race, from the humblest manual toil to the highest flight of genius, will naturally, because under the magnetic influence of love, find their inspirations and their rewards. The days of the automatic woman, who was left to us, disorganized, individual, and savage among savage men when the old larval organization broke up, are now coming to an end. Whatever the evil she has wrought, on the one hand, by being the sharer of and panderer to man’s wilder passions, or, on the other, by being the too servile and submissive mother of children, she has wiped it all out by her sufferings. She has been the instrument for keeping alive the humaner instincts without which social life can hardly fail to be anything but * What mysterious inspiration was it that led the Roman Catholic Christians to elevate this as the central symbol of the spiritual life ?

devilish. She has kept these alive unconsciously and automatically without any real appreciation of womanhood. Now the women are waking up. They are learning to value their womanhood as the greatest and most beneficial social force life has yet revealed to Man. This, indeed, it is, for every man who is a natural man has, at some time of his life, to worship before it with the truest worship of which the heart is capable. The future of mankind depends less upon the intelligence or genius of men than upon the intelligence with which women are able, on the one hand, to free their womanhood from the slavish bonds that society has cast upon it when it was a doubtful blessing, and, on the other, gradually to learn to use it for the reconstruction of a human society in which there shall be no rich and no poor, at least in material things, and in which every child that is born shall be welcomed as a new “incarnation of the cosmic psyche.”

APPENDIX 2

The Ethics of the Tramp

Reproduced by

Howard Hill

Godless House August 2009

THE ETHICS OF THE TRAMP. existence of an army of tramps spread impartially over the whole kingdom is, of course, perfectly obvious and well known, and this fact may account for the manner in which certain remarkable characteristics of these nomad legions are, as a rule, completely ignored. Generally speaking, tramps are simply looked upon as the refuse of our population—an unsightly feature of our social condition, and an unpleasant anomaly in our boasted civilisation. Now in contradiction to these conclusions, we affirm emphatically that the tramps are a most mysterious and distinctive race—wholly unlike all other portions of the community, and possessing mental and moral peculiarities of a very singular description. THE

The circumstances under which the writer has come into close personal contact with individual units of the race, have been of a nature to unveil the mysteries of their organisation to an extent which could not otherwise have been attained. When they are met (and generally carefully avoided) on the road or in any of the unsavoury localities which they temporarily haunt in towns—these unlettered nomads are always engaged in a sensational drama, illustrative of their supposed circumstances, which is their undeviating stock in trade, for the purpose of conjuring certain coins of the realm out of the pockets of benevolent persons who may come across them. To parody a well-known line, ‘They have no language but a lie’—as well hope to get the truth out of a crocodile as out of a tramp as to his real condition or anything else, when he is under the free airs of heaven, and in full enjoyment of the liberty which is a great deal more precious to him than life itself. But it does sometimes happen that the tramp over-reaches himself, and by some awkward mistake in his general disreputability comes under the grasp of the law, and finds himself enclosed in what is to him the hell of four stone walls—a roof over his head shutting out the sky—and locked doors, against which he may beat himself till he is well-nigh stunned to death, without being able to escape into the open air for which he pants with a maddening thirst. In prison the tramp is a transformed being—the dramatic outward personality falls from him like the skin cast from a snake, and he stands revealed in his naked moral deformity. Within that uncompromising receptacle which, in their phraseology, figures as the stone jug, tramps, male and female, have been interviewed by the writer, and have, unconsciously to themselves, submitted to a dissection of their mental organisation which has resulted in some decidedly curious discoveries. One of the most remarkable of these revelations is the absolute sameness of tastes, habits, and ethics which pervades the whole of this population of the road, without their ever having met at any period of their lives, or had from first to last the smallest connection one with another. The prevailing hue—so to speak— of their internal economy is as uniformly identical in all cases as the colour of the black man’s skin wherever the negro race may be met ; and yet, while this singular identity of character and temperament gives us a right to designate them psychologically as a distinctive race, they are simply, each in their separate individuality, offspring of the ordinary population of our towns and villages ; only marked out, even from the members of their own families, by certain distinguishing qualities and inclinations which ally them one to the other by an invisible bond, and set them apart in a unity of tastes as completely as if they sprang from some unique and common origin. The dominating characteristic of the tramps, their very raison d'être, is their abhorrence of any settled home—any habitation whatever which would enclose them within walls, and place a roof between them and the wind and rain, no less than the air and sunshine of the open heaven. They have no affinity of any kind with the gipsy

race, yet stronger even than the gipsy’s love of freedom and hatred of limitations is the craving for a wholly lawless and unfettered life which makes the tramp what he is. The gipsies have their tents and their associated camp life, but the tramp chooses to have no home at all save the road ; and no occupation but that of perpetual wandering from place to place, without a definite aim of any sort whatever. The sole interest and excitement of his life from day to day consists in the various stratagems by which he endeavours to procure sufficient food to maintain himself in existence, while the luxury of getting drunk—being only rarely attainable—figures in his unwritten memoirs such as a state banquet in a royal palace might appear in those of aspiring persons not often accustomed to associate with princes. There can be no question that this indomitable craving for a life wholly distinct from the ordinary conditions of civilised humanity is most mysterious, because of the perpetual suffering which is inseparable from its gratification, and to which they submit consciously and willingly from their neglected childhood to their untended death, rather than forego their cherished independence. The great majority of these tramps, both men and women, could secure a more or less comfortable existence for themselves under the ordinary conditions of labour in towns or country places, but work of any kind is abhorrent to them, not so much perhaps from their innate idleness, as from the restrictions of liberty and space necessarily pertaining to it. Rather than submit to these, they give themselves up to a life which, in the winter time especially, must be one of hideous pain and wretchedness. There they are on the road—half clad, hungry, footsore— with the storm beating upon them, the rain drenching them, the snow lying thick upon the corner of the field where alone they can make their bed —yet urge them to give up their wandering life for a settled home where they may gain an honest living by ordinary work, and they will refuse it with the most absolute determination. Here is an instance, which is strictly true in all its details, having occurred under the writer’s own observation. An old woman, aged eighty-four, who had been a tramp almost from her birth, got thrown into prison for no very flagrant misdemeanour, and passed the time of her sojourn there panting for her release. That was to take place on one of the early days in the month of November. The weather was already very cold and wet, and there were strong prognostics of a severe winter. The idea of this aged woman going out to spend the whole of these dark months amid snow, and frost, and bitter winds—on the open road night and day— seemed unendurable, and arrangements were made, by the payment of a suitable sum, which secured for her the shelter and comfort of a home where food and clothing would be provided for her, with kind care in the event of illness, or of the death which at her age could not be far distant. But when the offer of all these luxuries was made to the old tramp, she laughed them to scorn. Live within four walls ! go to bed at night in a closed room ! obliged to submit to fixed hours for her meals—to have her actions watched by others living in the same place ! not she, indeed ! ‘I am going on the road, as I have done all my life, and will

F. M. F. Skene.

(The Cornhill Magazine, May 1898, pages 682 – 684.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, Douglas

The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, Pan Books, 1980.

Andreski, Stanislav

Social Sciences as Sorcery, Andre Deutsch, 1972.

Anonymous

The New Truth and the Old Faith, A Scientific Layman, C. Kegan Paul & Co., 1880.

Babbage, Charles

Reflections on the Decline of Science in England, and on some of its Causes, B. Fellowes & J. Booth, 1830.

Bernard, Henry Meyners

The Apodidæ : A Morphological Study, Macmillan and Co., 1892. Has the Case for Direct Organic Adaptation been fully stated ?, Nature, Oct. 4th, 1894. 1896-1906. Catalogue of the Madreporarian corals in the British Museum (Natural History). 7 vols., 1893-1928. London : British Museum (Natural History). Vol. 2, 1896, The genus Turbinaria, the genus Astraeopora. Vol. 3, 1897, The genus Montipora, the genus Anacropora. Vol. 4, 1903, The family Poritidae, I.—the genus Goniopora. Vol. 5, 1905, The family Poritidae. II.—The genus Porites. Part I.—Porites of the Indo-pacific Region. Vol. 6, 1906, The family Poritidae. II.—The genus Porites. Part II.—Porites of the Atlantic and West Indies, with the European Fossil forms. A New Reading for the Annulate Ancestry of the Vertebrate, in Natural Science, July – December 1898. A Suggested Origin of the Segmented Worms and the Problem of Metamerism, in The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (Seventh Series), No. 36, December 1900. Traces of a periodic law in organic evolution, Rep. 76th meet. Brit. Ass. Adv. Sc. 1907. The Scientific Basis of Sociology : Two Essays in Evolution, The New Age Press, 1908. Neglected Factors in Evolution : An Essay in Constructive Biology, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1911.

Bleek, W. H. J.

On the Origin of Language, L. W. Schmidt, New York, 1869.

Bodmer, Frederick

The Loom of Language : A Guide to Foreign Languages for the Home Student, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1945. First pub. 1944.

Bowler, Peter J.

The Eclipse of Darwinism : Anti-Darwinian Evolution Theories in the Decades Around 1900, 1983. Are the Arthropoda a Natural Group ?, The Journal of the History of Biology, 1994,

Brook, George

Catalogue of the Madreporarian corals in the British Museum, Vol. 1, London : British Museum (Natural History), 1893.

Büchner, Ludwig

Mind in Animals, London : Freethought Publishing Company, 1880. First published in 1876.

Cock, A. G.

Bernard’s Symposium—the species concept in 1900, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, March 1977.

Coren, Michael

The Invisible Man : The Life and Liberties of H. G. Wells, Atheneum, New York, 1993.

Darwin, Charles

The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs, Third Ed., D. Appleton and Company, New York, 1898. First pub. 1842. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, Sixth Ed., John Murray, 1902. First pub. 1859. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, New Edition, John Murray, 1901. First pub. 1871.

Ford, Henry

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

Greenwood, Davydd The Taming of Evolution : The Persistence of Nonevolutionary Views in the Study of Humans, Cornell, 1989. First pub. 1984.

Guppy, H. B.

Observations of a Naturalist in the Pacific Between 1896 and 1899, Vol. II, Plant-Dispersal, Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1906.

Hill, Howard

How Religion Survived the Coming of the Scientific Age, Posted to Scribd, August 2009.

Howitt, A. W.

The Native Tribes of Southeast Australia, Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1904.

Ibry, David

Exodus to Humanism : Jewish Identity Without Religion, Prometheus Books, New York, 1999.

Kennedy, Ludovic

All in the Mind : A Farewell to God, Hodder & Stoughton, 1999.

Kidd, Benjamin

Social Evolution, New Edition, Macmillan and Co., New York, 1894.

Landtman, Gunnar

The Origin of the Inequality of the Social Classes, Chicago, 1938.

Lilienfeld, Paul von

Die menschliche Gesellschaft als realer Organismus, E. Behre’s Verlag, Mitau, 1873. Zur Vertheidigung der Organischen Methode in der Sociologie, (In Defence of the Organic Method in Sociology), Druck und Verlag von Georg Reimer, Berlin, 1898.

Moorhead,

Darwin and the Beagle, Penguin Books, 1973. First pub. 1969.

Ouspensky, P. D.

A New Model of the Universe : Principles of the Psychological Method in its Application to Problems of Science, Religion, and Art, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd., 1931.

Pace, S.

On the supposed Rediscovery of “Moseleya” in Torres Straits, in The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, No. 37, January 1901.

Perrier, Edmond

Les Colonies Animales et la Formation des Organismes, Libraire de L’Académie de Médecine, 1881.

Poncins, Vicomte Léon de

The Secret Powers Behind Revolution : Freemasonry and Judaism, Boswell Printing and Publishing Co., Ltd., 1929.

Roberts, Morley

Bio-Politics : An Essay in the Physiology, Pathology & Politics of the Social & Somatic Organism, Dent, 1938.

Russell, Bertrand

In Praise of Idleness and Other Essays, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1935.

Authority and the Individual : The Reith Lectures for 1948-9, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1949. The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell 1903—1959, Routledge, 1992. First pub. 1961. Schaff, Philip

St. Augustin’s City of God and Christian Doctrine, The Christian Literature Company, Buffalo, 1887.

Schomer, Abraham

The Primary Cause of Antisemitism : An Answer to the Jewish Question, Israel Publishing Company, New York, 1909.

Shorey, Paul

Plato : The Republic, Vol. 1, Harvard, 1937. First pub. 1930.

Skene, F. M. F.

The Ethics of the Tramp, in The Cornhill Magazine, May 1898.

Upton and Widdowson,

An Atlas of English Dialects, BCA, 1996.

Wallace, Alfred R.

Letter to Bernard, at : http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/wallace/S712AM.htm

Weingart, Peter et. al.

Human by Nature : Between Biology and the Social Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1997.

Vivian, Philip

The Churches and Modern Thought : An Inquiry into the Grounds of Unbelief and an Appeal for Candour, Second Ed., Watts & Co., 1907. First pub. 1906.

Waggett, P. N.

Religion and Science : Some Suggestions for the Study of the Relations Between Them, Longmans, Green, and Co., 1904. World Revolution : The Plot Against Civilisation, Constable and Company Ltd., 1921.

Webster, Nesta H.

Wiedersheim, R.

The Structure of Man : An Index to his past History, Macmillan and Co., 1895.

Willis, J. C.

Age and Area : A Study in Geographical Distribution and Origin of Species, Cambridge, 1922.

Wilson, Edward O.

Sociobiology : The New Synthesis, Harvard, 1975.

Worms, René

Les Principes Biologiques de L’Évolution Sociale, (The Biological Principles of Social Evolution), V. Giard & E. Brière, 1910.