Erasmus Darwin :

Origins False Origins

by

Howard Hill

Godless House
19 September 2011

Contents

Introduction Ch. 1 Ch. 2 King-Hele as Darwinian Priest Why Darwin ?

I Precognition : the essence of science II Precognition delivers knowledge control III Purifying informal knowledge IV A recognised example of total academic subversion

3 4 11 11 12 15 16 21 22 26 29 33

Ch. 3

Erasmus
I The information blind spot II Scientific premonition bears fruit III Almost genetics IV Atheist Science

Ch.

Evolution Galore
I Imagining information II Science for the love of God !

34
42 45

Dawkins Rides Again

47

Afterthought Darwinism as Grey Area

I Being ones own authority II Grey areas III Universals

49
49 50 52

Introduction
Something put me onto Darwins grandfather last week, I cannot think what just now, but I evidently ran a search for his work and ended up buying a slightly expensive single volume, volume one of four, of his Zoonomia, 1801, first published 1794. Its arrival this week stimulated my further interest in this man and I ordered two biographies, one by Charles Darwin the Great, which arrived yesterday. Now we are cooking. This biography is edited by an Erasmus expert, Desmond King-Hele, who quickly gets us off to a flying start. It is impossible to promote the idea of Charles Darwins Origin of Species being an imposition, foisted upon the world by an all powerful theocracy defending itself from an emerging scientific method, which has the capacity to match that power in terms of real knowledge, as opposed to the pretence of knowledge that serves as a basis for social power, without suggesting to the mind of the reader, the idea of a grand conspiracy. Yet that is something we must forcefully insist, at the outset, that we definitely do not mean to say, in any way, shape, or form. The idea of Atheist Science, the genre of philosophy this is, is that the human animal is a superorganism composed of sentient brick forms, people that is. The people do not exist, as ends in themselves, so they are not capable of engaging in a conspiracy of this grand form. All their socially oriented activities are acts cooperatively determined by a linguistic identity programme, that organises their behaviour to produce superorganic physiology and form, entirely beyond the least sense of awareness on the part of any individuals. Linguistic force is inherent in linguistic physiology, from whence it is projected by individuals in the act of speaking, which they are compelled to engage in by virtue of the corporate nature inherent in their evolved somatic form. Using language creates a social space, which has at its core a social authority. This authority evolves over time to produce a social structure, wherein social authority appears in the form of a corporate identity, that is a social identity which is imbued into all individuals as they are raised as part of the living superorganism. Henceforward each individual is possessed of the corporate identity thus formed, making them spontaneously, unwittingly obedient, to the resident social authority, that each individual experiences as their own personal identity. Social authority and personal identity thus become one and the same thing, perfectly and seamlessly harmonised by the expression of linguistic force, acting to create one living superorganic form. Individuals are impelled by their sense of personal identity, to act in support of social authority, which they are only aware of indirectly, as a cultural formula, such as the worship of God, or the needs and the welfare of society and humanity at large, with which their personal interests are inseparably intertwined through the integrating identity programme. Whether people know they are serving the superorganism or not, is irrelevant, as long as they act as if they knew. And that is what we are saying here, that the people who rule society by managing political affairs of all kinds, also manage the proliferation of knowledge with the same object in mind, that of serving society, with which their personal interests are always intimately associated, by virtue of the process of social integration. This results in the imposition of sterile knowledge in order to protect the living knowledge of social life, imbued into the structure of society by the natural action of linguistic force, acting over time.

Chapter 1

King-Hele as Darwinian Priest

I have long heard tell of Erasmus Darwins theory of evolution, but I have never thought much of the fact, as nothing much has ever been made of it, and I have certainly never seen any of his material or any close study of it. As I skipped through the introduction to the biography of Erasmus yesterday, written by his grandson Charles, I picked up a couple of curious facts from the editor, King-Hele. Firstly there was the detailed nature of Erasmus evolutionary ideas, and then the reaction that he experienced upon exposing his ideas to the public : The theory obviously implies that species change over long ages, and explains the unearthed fossils of unknown animals. (King-Hele, p. xiii.) We are told that the family coat of arms contained three scallop shells, and in 1770 Erasmus added the motto, in Latin, everything from shells, which was emblazoned upon his carriage, thus to be driven through the streets and displayed to all and sundry. Living next to Lichfield Cathedral his advertising of this evolutionary idea in this way, was soon picked up and denounced by a theologian who accused him of being an atheist, in a satirical poem, obliging Erasmus to remove the offending words. All this is quite remarkable, the subtleties of it, and the way public ideas were controlled then ; in the late eighteenth century we were still living under the jackboot of an overt theocracy, so that all that was needed was the slightest hint of impropriety and life could easily be made unbearable to anyone of position in society. With the publication of Erasmus ideas in 1859, by his grandson, the theocracy signals to the world, that it is now fully undercover, and so the exact same control achieved by a mere satirical poem, was henceforth achieved by subverting knowledge directly, by perverting science ; and later, coming in the train of this tactic, there was our waging of all out warfare against our own society, and the manufacture of anti-Semitic taboos. These strategies denoting the operation of a covert theocracy, that we now endure. Theocracies always prefer to be overt of course, by their very nature, and this covert phase, having lasted less than two centuries so far, will not last too long, we will return to the exact same misery of overt absolute theocracy in a few centuries time, or maybe even less. The other item to catch my eye concerned the attitude of Charles towards his grandfather, which we may just take notice of for now by quoting this significant observation.

For Charles, his strong bond with Erasmus was full of problems. If Charles praised Erasmuss evolutionary writings, people would say that Erasmus had all the ideas first, and Charles merely filled in the detail. (Ibid., p. xi.) Usefully, King-Hele tells us that Erasmus published his views on evolution at the end of the first volume of Zoonomia, published in two volumes in 1794, between pages 482 and 537. My first volume of four therefore lacks this section, but the PDF is readily available online and I took a copy last night. It had immediately become apparent to me when I opened my copy of Zoonomia that the work was not what I had been expecting, it was not so much about science, but rather it was primarily about medicine. Erasmus was a doctor, and he begins the work thus, in his preface : The purpose of the following pages is an endeavour to reduce the facts belonging to ANIMAL LIFE into classes, orders, genera, and species ; and, by comparing them with each other, to unravel the theory of diseases. (p. vii.) Looking through the book we see the influence of medicine dominating the text, making it very difficult to pick out any areas of general scientific interest, and making me feel like I had pretty much wasted fifty quid ; though I do like having an old copy of this mans work, buying which has caused me to look further into this important subject concerning the origin of the evolutionary ideas that bestride our world today. Things being what they were at this time, a man of medicine was actually a likely starting point from which science might arise for real, a point well made in a favourite book on the medical fraternity and evolution at this time, The Politics of Evolution by Desmond, 1989. But clearly, the bit of Zoonomia we really want is the section Of Generation, as indicated by King-Hele. Turning to this section in the PDF copy, the immediate impression was uninspiring, in keeping with the tentative nature of Erasmus ideas, being part medical, part scientific theory. But then I was struck forcefully by this passage :

In objection to this theory of generation it may be said, if the animalcula in semen, as seen by the microscope, be all of them rudiments of homunculi, when but one of them can find a nidus, what a waste nature has made of her productions ? I do not assert that these moving particles, visible by the microscope, are homunciones ; perhaps they may be the creatures of stagnation or putridity, or perhaps no creatures at all ; but if they are supposed to be rudiments of homunculi, or embryos, such a profusion of them corresponds with the general efforts of nature to provide for the continuance of her species of animals. Every individual tree produces innumerable seeds, and every individual fish innumerable spawn, in such inconceivable abundance as should in a short space of time crowd the earth and ocean with inhabitants ; and these are much more perfect animals than the animalcula in semen can be supposed to be, and perish in uncounted millions. This argument only shows, that the productions of nature are governed by general laws ; and that by a wise superfluity of provision she has ensured their continuance. (Zoonomia, Vol. 1, 1794, pp. 484 5.)

I have taken the whole paragraph for the sake of completeness, but it was just the reference to the superabundance of reproduction that caught my attention. Why ? Quite simply because this was precisely the key factor which Charles himself recounts as being that which jolted him into having the revelation as to precisely how evolution worked, as regards the creation of new species from old, via natural selection, that cropped that superfluity selectively. Only of course the inspiration was not credited to his dear old granddad, oh no, this prompt was accredited to the dramatic work of a contemporary author of Erasmus, one Malthus. An Essay on the Principle of Population appeared in 1798, and in the light of what we have just discovered about Erasmus, one might wonder whether Malthus owed anything to Erasmus for prompting his imaginative tour de force. King-Hele indicates that Erasmus was prompted towards developing his whole idea of organic laws through the incongruity of fossil evidence, that indicated extinct forms of life had existed. So Erasmus ideas show all the key elements of Charles theory of evolution, but so far I have not read any further, and I presume there is nothing said about a mechanism inducing species transformation. Though who knows with this lot, our academics are so corrupt and insincere that anything is possible, they have no shame about what they say, they just say whatever suits their cause of protecting religion from science. Academics are in other words indistinguishable from priests and politicians. In the opening paragraph of his introduction to Charles life of Erasmus, King-Hele describes Charles Darwin thus : the most influential man of the last three centuries in bringing about a durable change in world-views. Indeed he was a strong candidate a few years ago for Man of the Millenium. (p. ix) And more extravagant gush follows close upon the heels of this appalling statement : Erasmus got nowhere with his presentation of evolution : he was a century ahead of his time, as we now smugly say. It was Charles, proceeding cautiously over many years, who persuaded his contemporaries to take seriously the idea of evolution by natural selection, a world-view that has been amply vindicated in recent years. (p. xi) Now there is a passage to make any lover of sciences blood boil ; if they have any idea what the truth is, if, that is, they have any idea of my Atheist Science, wherein the truth of this gross imposition is revealed. Just get in the mindset of this horrible man, it is easy to do if we try. See how he tries to make us feel that attaining a true understanding of reality is a hard task for us poor critters, such that, once some alien like genius has done the job for us, and spelt it out, we oh so smugly trot off this knowledge as if it were so matter-of-fact and simple to understand. This is twisted and sickening, but sublimely subtle in the way it manipulates us. The real difficulty, is that we are prone in our receipt of knowledge, powerless to do anything but accept passively, whatever we are told. That is the heart of the tragedy. Acting in conjunction with this undeniable fact, is the oppressive power of absolute theocracy smothering us today, as it always has. So that the real problem in understanding the simple fact of evolution, as elucidated by Erasmus and many others before Charles, concerns the war of religion against truth, which is, and always has been an eternal facet of our lives in civilised society.

At the heart of this tragedy, and this is what really hurts, are the universities. These institutions of knowledge fabrication and control, present themselves as guardians of the most sacred and precious thing, freedom to know the truth. The contemporary philosopher A. C. Grayling, when confronted with the assertion that his new private London university, intended to compete with Oxford, would be an atheist foundation, said earlier this year, that universities do not teach what to think, but how to think. If only. How can this man, who knows absolutely nothing about reality, possibly teach anyone how to be anything other than just another automaton, like himself ? Therein lies the rub, it is, as they say, a case of the blind leading the blind. This is how nature intends it should be, because there is no such thing as an individual. What really leads us, is the trajectory of linguistic force pulsating through all humans, to form the living being of the global superorganism, a creature that needs unity across the biomass, not an ideal of truth pleasing each person according to his taste. This results in a flow of unified information animating individual behaviour in a coordinated manner. And it is this grand conception of the nature of knowledge that the likes of Richerson, discussed below, entirely fails to comprehend, because his academic training has taught him how to think just like everyone else, without thinking for himself. As we see when he pays homage to the glory of Darwin, just like everyone else, even as he lurches towards condemning him as worthless. Which we would expect a person engrossed in sociobiology applying to humans, to do, for it is here that the fraudulent nature of Darwin comes to the fore. Here I am, reading through the first draft, the object of which is to analyse the roots of Darwinism in the light of Erasmus work on evolution, it is not meant to broaden into anything grander, but our thoughts do inevitably ripple outwards here and there along the way. Yesterday, 11/09/11, I casually took a recent purchase from a shelf where recent purchases are accumulating like billy-o, and it proved amazing, fitting in nicely with the contents of the above paragraph as an evocation of language as a biologically evolved attribute, that I feel entitled to mention it at once. Speech : Its Function and Development, by Grace Andrus de Laguna, 1927, is the only scientific approach to language I have ever seen, and interestingly, she says there have never been any books like hers, too. Small wonder when you think her ideas strike me as brilliant and very close to my own. She indicates that language is the means by which society is created, a staggering idea to see in a work other than mine, and she makes the correct criticism that this view is always circumvented by linguists who insist that language is about communicating thoughts. In other words the usual approach is to individualise language and negate its obvious, true, biological function. Laguna was an American philosopher, not a linguist, nor even a scientist. In shortbecause we must not divert upon an investigation of this work now, although it sounds like a worthwhile exercisewe can just note that this book follows the logic of the none existence of the individual perfectly, only failing in the one small regard, that of not actually seeing it ! There is no use of the phrase social organism, or anything like it. Ah well, we cant have everything can we ! It follows from this true conception of the matter, that what Charles did, was not to provide true science, for if he had done that it stands to reason that humans would of been placed within nature, in all their attributes, so that every aspect of our existence would of been reduced to a functional status, most especially religion, which would then of been made impossible to sustain. Rather, he found the formula for a theory of evolution that yes, indeed, his contemporaries would allow to go forward and be the One answer, to this most testing question for the church, being that which gets to the essence of what human nature is, and confronts the nature of God as creative force. An answer therefore, that, as required, was sterile in its application to humans, and hence acceptable to the church. And so Darwin has

been lorded ever since. We find this rot talked endlessly, about the vindication of his theory by modern science, which is absolutely untrue. Show me where the existence of humans is reduced to a purely functional account, outside my own work. You cannot, because this possibility is prevented by the establishment of natural selection as the sole means of life organising itself, which means the only means of creating organic form naturally, is via the medium of genetic information. Which in the end leaves humans right where the church needs them to be, where the Jews need them to be, where the superorganism, where Nature therefore, needs them to be : beyond the reach of nature. Note the contradiction, nature needs humans to be beyond nature, which means that being beyond nature is just what places humans within nature, but on a new level of organisation, where information has become linguistic instead of genetic, thus creating social physiology from somatic form. In recent decades a move has been made to fill the void created in science by natural selection, since it is so disabling of efforts to understand human existence. But always Charles theory remains sacrosanct. To this end I obtained a useful item only yesterday, 19/08/2011, Not by Genes Alone : How Culture Transformed Human Evolution, by Richerson and Boyd, 2005. These two collaborators are part of the ongoing subversion of science, applying Darwinism at a more penetrating level made possible by Wilson, through his establishment of Sociobiology as a new discipline following his publication of a book by that name in 1975. I have had no chance to examine this latest purchase, but a quick glance yesterday gave me an exquisite passage to quote ; I just have to try and contain my fuming temper, as I try to make sure what to copy, and find myself wrestling with all sorts of nasty poison while struggling to extract the precious gem that my eye lit upon yesterday. Firstly then, lets extract the gem : Culture is information capable of affecting individuals behaviour that they acquire from other members of their species through teaching, imitation, and other forms of social transmission. By information we mean any kind of mental state, conscious or not, that is acquired or modified by social learning and affects behaviour. We will use everyday words like idea, knowledge, belief, skill and attitude to describe this information, but we do not mean that such socially acquired information is always consciously available, or that it necessarily corresponds to folk-psychological categories. (p. 5) This is so good, it is quite the best piece of modern scientific writing I have ever seen. It tallies with my ideas quite well, but falls woefully short of my own Atheist Science explanations. We do not have to look far for the explanation for the incredible failure to do science, despite the extraordinary, apparent effort, to do so. Firstly, turning to the facing page we find a delightful subheading, Culture is part of biology. But what do these intellectual degenerates make of this patently obvious, although nonetheless exceptional observation ? I could do with quoting the passage as it is so weird, you really need to read it for yourselves, but I shall refrain. Basically they wrap up the fact of cultural learning with somatic physiology, giving it the most intensely individualistic gloss imaginable. So the somatic body is the human animal, and culture is imbued into it, to give the individual their social form as an end in themselves. This is the underlying agenda forced upon this understanding of culture, as a biological phenomenon. This is truly the most perverse thinking imaginable. They talk about the contrast between a fine northern

gentleman and a southern scumbag, and use the contrast thus painted between a psychopath and a saint, to suggest the way culture is intermingled with biology ! Pure lunacy. What a bizarre conceptual route to take in the scientific investigation of humans. This is the rubbish that Darwinism renders science into. Back to the page from which the gem was prised out, and we have Culture cant be understood without population thinking, which is a potentially useful idea, in that it implicitly recognises that where society is concerned, the individual blends into the structure and loses all existence, making the society, the superorganism that is, all that there is. But of course these American degenerates of science, veer in the exact opposite direction and fly off on some reverie to Darwin, as the divine fountainhead of all wisdom whose work invokes this superb insight into the primacy of population thinking in biology ! As if. On the other hand, there is a veiled critique of Darwin the likes of which are rarely seen, which here is sealed with a homage to Darwin, of course. They say that Darwin proposed simplistic mechanisms causing the fittest individuals to survive and bring about the transformation of species in response to environmental challenges, and that these simplistic suggestions are now known to be wrong. They point out a series of important mechanisms that Darwin never imagined, and say that we can see that these mechanisms, mutation, segregation, recombination, genetic drift, gene conversion, and meiotic drive, are all essentially neutral in terms of the nature of evolution itself, as based on natural selection, since these factors would just as well suit a force based theory of evolution, such as we apply in Atheist Science where make Information the Life Force, creating all living form, of whatever kind, social or somatic. This cuts to the chase of the problem with Darwin, all he really gave to the world was a political idea of evolution, embodied in natural selection, he gave us no science whatsoever. Hence all we are left with today is this facile hangover from Darwins work, which makes genetics the be all and end all of everything, leaving the process of evolution bereft of creative direction, which makes each individual an end point in the evolutionary process. Darwinism is the ultimate expression of individualism, it is scientific individualism. Thus we atheist scientists come along with a wholly new conception, the exact opposite of Darwins, that of the human superorganism in which the individual is shown not to exist at all, which we account for by talking about a linguistic force and an inevitable pattern of evolutionary change, based on the idea of the potential energy of life. Thus, since Darwin never presented any science, all we need do is present an alternative to his one idea, and this we have done, and so we find that what modern science does know, perfectly well vindicates our model, and it certainly does not support Darwins, because his idea is simply facile, never being meant as anything other than a crutch for religion to lean on in a scientific age. In closing this statement with a vindication of Darwin, they do not say that modern theory is Darwinian because it exonerates natural selection, but rather this is so because its explanations of evolution are rooted in population thinking. This is kowtowing to the absolute theocracy, end of story. There can be no other explanation as to why people arguing as they do here, would want to conclude with such a placatory remark, which is obviously absurd. Darwinism is wrong, and that is all there is to it. This talk of Darwin and population thinking is ridiculous, I have never come across it before and I am dismissing it out of hand because it smacks of just one more effort to keep Darwin on his pedestal, rather than just knocking him off and getting on with the job of science, that Darwinism put an end to so long ago now. In this essay on Erasmus we tease out the beginnings of why this fallacious theory was accepted, and why it continues to be so, to this day. Sunday, 21 August 2011 wonders of wonders, the sun has shone today, a bit. This gave me half an hour sitting outside during which I could delve further into Not by Genes Alone. The

book really is appalling. No work has ever be written with a greater commitment to Darwinism. Page one hundred and twenty three reveals this, here, in the body of the work, we find a total commitment to the individual operating as an end in themselves. Talk about twisted ! Between pages two hundred and thirty and thirty five, some interesting aspects of social life come into view, concerning social structure and the hierarchical nature of institutions, with a discussion of the role of symbols, that is information, and war, in making society function. As true scientists we atheists know that nothing in nature can be anything other than perfect, and it is this fact which is so heavily contradicted in this section, as these delinquents of knowledge, drone on and on about how social order is obtained through cultural means, albeit in the most appallingly inefficient manner, in terms of the hugely negative consequences arising from the fact that our social instincts exist unchanged from aeons ago, obliging us to apply cultural routines to try and make these damn instincts work, even though they are a torment to us. This is an intensified form of individualism, in effect stating that while nature obliges us to make society, we choose to make culture, in order to try and manage natures clumsy social foundations. Demonstrating the usual arrogance of priests. It is all so gut wrenchingly terrible, this is what science has come to in a scientific age ruled over by an absolute theocracy. The only good thing we can take from such terrible stuff, is that this kind of extravagant effort focused on how human society may be accommodated to the life sciences, goes to show how important it is to try and fill the void where the idea of the social organism went, before it was erased from society from 1914 onwards, and then made taboo by the work of Hitler in attacking the Jews. We fill that void with real science, Atheist Science. King-Hele then, is just one of myriad priests beavering away at the job of maintaining the dam that Darwin built, ensuring that no cracks appear in the edifice, by forever adding more and more layers of opaque mud to it, and plastering it smooth with globules of spit saturated in the language of perfection, and irreproachability.

Chapter 2

Why Darwin ?
I must say I love this new avenue of Erasmusian investigation, the question is how to extract the vital significance of it, for the story of how the theocracy subverted science ? Ever since it became apparent that humans are superorganisms, and that this meant that in political terms society is an absolute Jewish theocracy, and science is created by religion to suit religions needs, the trail led back to Darwin and the Origin of Species as the pivotal act of subversion opening a portal on the modern of science formed by the theocracy. Consequently I have since then, had a persistent interest in just how this subversion of knowledge was managed by the priesthood, central to which, is the question as to how Darwin came to be selected for this task. For one thing history is perfectly clear on, Charles, unlike Erasmus, did not select himself for this task, he was selected by the highest political authority in the world, the British establishment.

I Precognition : the essence of science That the positive Method is the only Method adapted to human capacity, the only one on which truth can be found, is easily proved : on it alone can prevision of phenomena depend. Prevision is the characteristic and the test of knowledge. If you can predict certain results, and they occur as you predicted, then are you assured that your knowledge is correct. If the wind blows according to the will of Boreas, we may, indeed, propitiate his favour, but we cannot calculate upon it. We can have no certain knowledge whether the wind will blow or not. If, on the other hand, it is subject to laws, like everything else, once discover these laws, and men will predict concerning it as they predict concerning other matters. (Comtes Philosophy of the Sciences, Lewes, 1878, p. 39. First pub. 1853.) This passage is almost cruel. It states a beautiful truth, but in doing so reveals the ugliest of realities. Knowledge is power ; to be forewarned is to be forearmed. Comtes clear resolution of what the positive method, the scientific method that is, amounts to, tells those who would circumvent its power, precisely how to go about it. It is like MI6 coming out and describing in detail how they execute their covert war on global terror, and we know that because the secret service are determined not to do this, we end up with all sorts of unwanted consequences, such as detention orders and such like, because the security services cannot present their arguments in court without compromising their methods. Here then we find a philosopher of science presenting his finest arguments in the open court of public life, telling the absolute theocracy what they must do if they would preserve religion from science. They must create a form of sterile science that has the hallmark of prevision, proving that it is genuine, even though it is not. You cannot win against these

people, knowledge always trumps anti-knowledge. Knowledge is always false, always social, while antiknowledge may be a competing social formula, or simply true knowledge. The above is a quote from Comte, though annoyingly Lewes does not indicate the location the passages taken from Comtes work. Comtes Positive Philosophy appeared in the 1830s, and was hugely influential, though later generations of academics hated him, and have sort to denounce him as a lunatic, and so banish him from the roll call of famous thinkers. This is simply the inverse of what happens when good servants of religion are set upon a pedestal, men like Darwin that is. From my first sight of Comtes Positive Philosophy some years ago, I took it to be a strident and direct attack upon religion, I loved it, but Lewes takes the trouble to show that Comte despised atheism. This to me is a reflection of the times, of the exact kind of social pressure Erasmus experienced, where it was simply not possible for people to promote atheism in the outright manner we do today.

II Precognition : delivers knowledge control It has long been obvious to me, that to attain the objective of creating a false science of evolution, a full grasp of evolutions essentials, must of been obtained from the outset. That is to say, before the theocracy even chose their man, Charles. The same principle applies today, with the subversion of sociology. This act of social governance was only possible because the basis of a fully scientific sociology had been established with the development of the organicist model of sociology during the course of the nineteenth century, so that academics serving the authorities by directing sociology towards a religious friendly model, knew precisely what they could say, and what they must not say. Ultimately this impulse towards knowledge perversion formed the Hitler Taboo, which sealed science off from society, forever. This makes sense of the vile idea, in this age of the Hitler Taboo, that the holocaust was a service to the Jews, created by Judaism, for the subversion of science was self evidently a Jewish phenomenon, operating via the slave agency of Christianity. With the highly developed ideas of men like Erasmus the academic priests working within the institutions of knowledge formation and validation, had something to push against. We frequently have cause to mention this undeniable fact, that can be read straight from the pages of history, because this history comes in the form of published material. In terms of knowledge control, like lyingfor that is all knowledge control is really, albeit on the grandest of scalessuch precognition concerning where your ideas are headed before you get there, is absolutely essential. In this sense precognition is an integral part of ordinary, everyday speech, where people always calculate what they say to further their own interests, in an instant, by anticipating the implications of their words. Not to do so is to commit the social error of opening ones mouth without thinking. Knowledge control within academia, we should note, is the control of the life force of Information, as it applies to the creation of the human superorganism, as a Linguistic Force. Knowledge control is then, the control of linguistic force, where we see knowledge, that is to say we sense linguistic force directly, just as we see the fire burning under the boiler directly, that denotes the underlying force of heat, from whence the energy comes to do work. To control this fire, is to control the energy it reveals. Knowledge is the sign of an underlying biological force inherent in human physiology, a force that unifies, organises, and animates sentient brick activity, allowing nature to create the superorganic physiology we live within, that we know as society. Once again, the idea of Laguna on language, affirms

this view of linguistic force revealed in the fire of knowledge that organises human social behaviour. It is nice to be able to call on a work that affirms our scientific anti-knowledge. Control linguistic force by controlling knowledge, by acting as a hub of social authority, and you control the delivery of social energy in toto, allowing those within the hub to determine where work gets done, that is, to build social form in the image of the knowledge contained within the hub. Concerning which knowledge, the aspect of identity is the primary factor, being the personal identity the individual is conscious of, as in a religious identity, and simultaneously the biological identity of the human superorganism to which the individual belongs, and is not conscious of, other than unwittingly through their religious identity programming. So the underlying aspect of personal identity attaches the individual to the superorganism via an unwitting link of religious identity, telling them there is a God to pay homage to, by way of making them know the superorganism, they truly belong to, which is the true face of God. Through this unwitting link people obtain their power and position in existence, their existence being a state of social being. At my Slave (Work) Programme initial interview last Wednesday, 24th August, the phrase work ethic cropped up, and it has occurred to me that this idea is used as a religious mantra, a sacred vow that we are assumed to accept in order to be considered fully human in our slave world. This is tantamount to making the state a Church, and this mantra the religious act of faith, making one an insider. Used like a religious mantra, this idea can only mean that the state is the church, and obeying the work ethic is the primary act of devotion for members of this church, without which the church cannot exist. Our political masters make this assumption, and insist that we all either sign up to this religion of work, or face denunciation as delinquents, or even criminals, to be treated as outlaws, objects of contempt, vile creatures who can be abused at will, and forced to work, or denied the means to exist. This is the newly arrived Work Programme. This is how society works, pretence of democracy or not. All societies are absolute theocracies, no other arrangement is possible. Transmogrify the state into a secular form and that form will immediately take on the mode of a Church, replete with moral invectives and manned by a priestly host delivering sermons on the broken state of society, the need for people to be dealt with, made to see the error of their ways, and recognise that with rights, wanted or not, come responsibilities. Hence no one talks about making work pay, they just talk about a work ethic. Actually the phrase making work pay has been a touchstone of the Tory host in recent years, but when we finally saw what this meant, it was reducing benefits ! So that when the unemployed compared their situation to the workplace, they would find that work did, now, indeed pay ! The vile arrogance of people with any position of power these days, in any kind of organisation, is taking on a cultural form, a new kind of social character, that I imagine reveals what it was like to live in the bad old days of history when devout bigots held sway over the land, Puritans and the like. Such is the ebb and flow of social forces. On Thursday night I got into a vigorous debate at the bar with a man my own age, a Tory, a bank worker by profession, and he said the recent riots made him feel sick and ashamed to be British. I said they made me feel proud to be British, and they were a joy to behold. The TV hanging on the wall showed the fighting in Libya and I said that it was OK to him for those people to go to war for freedom, but we could not, and he said there was no comparison, to wit I said there must be, because I was making one. His final recourse to my objection to Capitalism was that we had no choice but to compete with other countries. And there you have it, we are played off against one another by the natural dynamics of superorganic physiology that has the Jews, via their slave identity religion, at its hub, where the fire of linguistic force is controlled in service of the Jewish ideal of one world, under the domination of their religious mantra. This arrangement is delivered by our genetic evolution,

so that as individuals we are agents of the human biological system. To the theocracy at the hub of knowledge control, the unconstrained work of men like Erasmus or Robert Chambers, who published Vestiges anonymously in 1844, is akin to the product of opening ones mouth without thinking, whereas Charles Origin of Species is the equivalent of thinking before speaking. This is knowledge control, and it controls the linguistic force that gives life to the human superorganism. Wednesday, 31 August 2011 With the total collapse of the Gaddafi regime some awful accounts of the horror and brutality of recent times, and past, have come to light. This is not taken lightly by myself, but the fact that an autocracy is gentle, and munificent even, paternalist that is, does not lessen the fact that it is an autocracy. It is this factor, the absolutism of unchallengeable authority, of our Jewish-Capitalist regime, that I am referring to when I demand the right for freedom from oppression, so that I glory in the sight of mindless rioters ransacking our cities. Gaddafi, Hitler, Them, the Other, odd individuals can be strung like beads through the history of humanity ad infinitum. All are treated by our intellectuals and politicians as if they were anomalies, evil individuals, and that we are nothing like them ; although of course we have contributed our share of reprehensible behaviour, while ruling the world as a leading European power for example, as with the Opium Wars, not to mention American slavery This superior stance will not wash. We see a pattern, a rhyme to this madness. This endless vision of horror born of autocracy is used to convince us that autocracy equates to such horror. But it does not, the unpleasantness or otherwise of the regime has nothing to do with whether it is autocratic or not. This spontaneous comparison reminds us of the antiSemitic mechanism protecting the Jewish master race, since this juxtaposes the vile and all powerful against the innocent and eternally defenceless, just like the contrast between horror and paternalism. What no one addresses is the actual question of freedom of expression. The test of freedom of expression is whether or not the worst enemies of authority have as great a voice in society, as the authority does. And that never happens, hence there is no such thing as a free society. Authority can only tolerate one voice. If we lived in a truly free world, in which I was the dictator, I would not allow my enemies, the religious freaks, any public voice, just as I would not allow Capitalism or exploitation of any kind. My world is an individuals ideal, our world is a perfect product of human corporate nature, created by nature. Hence like the wider natural world, it is full of horror, as well as the regular ongoing beauty of existence. The only question here, concerns the freedom of expression of the people, the power of individuals to express themselves publically. My occasional companion at the bar disapproved of my praise for the riots, but he said that he insisted upon my right to say these things. He is as naive as they come, no wonder he likes this comfortable society of ours. I do not have any right of expression in this society, for while many people think the riots were great, I am the only person I know of to say this, why am I not saying this on TV ? Because I do not have any voice in this society, not by proxy, on a public stage that is, which is the only voice that matters. The cleansing of opinion is the most characteristic feature of our free society, where all aggressive expressions of anti-establishment ideas are utterly removed from any public platform, and most especially from Parliament, which is the most politically correct place on the planet. This is autocracy, and it makes the autocracy of a Gaddafi or a Hitler look puny and pathetic by comparison. My point about the riots, was that this mass public act of outrage sent a message to the government about how the populace feel about society, and this is the only way that people have of saying anything to our masters that they absolutely do not want to hear. Naturally they crammed their fingers into their ears and raged at us, telling anyone who suggested there

might be a message therein, that they were giving approval to the criminals. So, why bother pussyfooting around with these vile degenerates, our masters, lets take them on at their own game, lets say this is not criminality at all, this is pure frustration, this is all message. After all, at least we have the science to back up such ideas, since we recognise no such thing as the individual, for us all collective actions are expressions of linguistic force.

III Purifying informal knowledge The validity of the preceding method of discussing the development of establishment evolutionary theory arising from informal roots, can be seen in the way evolutionary ideas were regarded by the establishment over the course of this period of transition from overt to covert theocracy. Erasmus concludes his passage On Generation by saying that science must pay homage to religion. This attitude was the only possible attitude that a cautiously minded public figure could present to the world in 1794. At the same time this awkward position was clearly not going to be sustainable over any great length of time. The theocracy needed to resolve the conflict between religious authority based upon social knowledge, and the emerging knowledge of reality impinging upon the mythical idea of life as something sacred. The fact that half a century later, Chambers work on evolution flew in the face of this convention by going public while still preserving anonymity, indicates the build up of pressure in this area, the pressure of linguistic force was delivering a social structure in conflict. Here we had a man taking evolutionary ideas fronted by Erasmus and others, to a much greater scale of development, delivered as a book devoted to the subject, but doing so by seeking to circumvent the need for caution in his expression of ideas, by hiding from the social consequences of his free expression. A resolution was pressing, religion and science were openly at loggerheads. A safety valve was finally fitted to the social structure in 1859. At once we find steam is blown off in a regulated manner. The boiler of society containing social authority was finally being regulated efficiently by the priesthood, knowledge, as in science, was at last under their complete control. Religion was as secure as ever it had been, while science was at last free to be science, unconstrained by religion ; or so it now appeared. I have one standby example to demonstrate the effect of the new Darwinian valve, dating from 1864, just five years after the opening of this knowledge controlling valve, indicating how the pressure of linguistic force was immediately relieved. The pressure of conflict did not go away, but henceforth it was released in a loud whistle that has blasted down the years, deafening us today as steadfastly as ever, dulling our thoughts, stupefying us into Darwinian stooges, and hence retaining us as the eternal slaves of Judaism, as the ultimate manifestation of superorganic being in our world. The reference is found in Pre-Historic Times, Lubbock, 1865, where he quotes from a Bishops speech from the previous year, calling upon scientists to pursue their calling without regard to any considerations for religion, as to act otherwise would be treason to the majesty at once of science and of religion (p. ix). There you have it, all was well, the conflict had been resolved and religion preserved intact. Science could be left in peace by the absolute theocracy ruling our world, free to do its worst, in the certain knowledge that as long as the Darwinian safety valve remained in place, no harm could ever be done to the boiler of social being that contains religion. And so it has been ever since.

IV A recognised example of total academic subversion We see an example of the above process of knowledge control, picked up in the Jewish denunciation of German academia quoted below, as if it were remarkable, rather than the normal state of affairs. But such control of knowledge towards a bias political interest, is the very foundation of religious control over the secular domain, via the permeation of secular institutions with religious influences, universities originally being avowedly religious institutions that now pretend not be, in this secular age of covert absolute theocracy, called democracy. It is this control of none religious, secular knowledge, that above all else characterises the Jewish political system, imparting global power to the Jews. The foundation of political power is knowledge control, and the basis of knowledge control, is to know where you are going, before you get there. This can be likened to Kasteins observation in his History and Destiny of the Jews, that the Jews made themselves the focus of the internal power of society, which we say is Information, as in Knowledge, while relinquishing any ambitions towards physical power, as in military might. It follows that where a subversion of the institutions of knowledge control are diverted along one main course, a political objective must be in view. This example applies to the case of intellectual anti-Semitism pervasive across Western Europe in the lead up to the making of the Hitler Taboo, which caps off genuine science today, preventing science from explaining what Judaism is as a biological phenomenon, namely the identity of the global superorganism. The extreme importance of maintaining an absolute fixation on the individual as an end in themselves, cannot be overstated from the point of view of our political masters, the Jews. This is nicely demonstrated by an extravagant piece of anti-Semitism exploiting, Jewish propaganda, called The Devil and the Jews, Trachtenberg, 1943. What makes this work so useful to us, is the unguarded manner in which its Jewish author rants on about the utter insanity of Jew hating, by giving specific examples. He concludes that the ridiculousness shown thereby, can be explained in only one way, people believe such things because they want to believe them. (p. 2) Apart from the fact that such an answer is as absurd as any item of anti-Semitism that he alludes to, the fact is that this answer relies upon the assumption that individuals exist, an assumption he expects to be ingrained into our brains and impossible to contradict ; and for the most part his assumption is justified, due to our slave programming by Jewish dogma. He proves his point, for example, by saying that Jews are supposed to be both Communist and Capitalist simultaneously, in other words both parties in a war. This is impossible, he expects us to realise. But of course nothing could be further from the truth. The best example of two enemies being identical, is seen in our two party political system of left and right, of which Communism versus Capitalism is simply a grander version, with the Jews as the global master power at its core. The British establishment core of our political system, is untouched by the opposite stances of left and right, all their disagreements concern the merest details of life, that are of no consequence to anyone of importance. The same applied to the Communists and the Nazis, both of whom had the exact same social agenda, which was to cause havoc and undermine European politics, to further the Jewish domination of the world by acting as enemies of Judaism. These core objectives are not known to any individuals, as individuals do not exist, these core objectives are built into our Jewish based social structure, where they constitute the mind of the superorganism. This is why both these seemingly opposite regimes were virulently antiSemitic, thus keeping the Jews at the core of their political agendas. All of which complex arrangements are normal, because the human being is the superorganism, composed of individuals. This is why organicist sociology was not tenable and the idea of the social

organism had to be eradicated, in order not to undermine the foundation stone of individuality, upon which Jewish power is based. Divide and rule is the motto. We might simply put it thus, the function of the universities as the institutions of academia, and hence knowledge control, is to attain a state of precognition about true knowledge, and then utilise this grasp of where the truth is headed, to present public knowledge informed by religious bias. Individuals do this all the time, on the fly. They hear statements and decide how to answer them based upon their personal bias lode, so that different politicians, or people of different religious identities, upon hearing a particular statement will run it through their mind instantly, and give a response reflecting their mental programming. A university is a grand manifestation of this psychological attribute of the person. This is an idea exactly suited to the view of society as a superorganism, where the institutions act like segments of a brain, each department working with the other to provide a holistic view of existence bound by one core identity. I bought a most curious set of books last week, today being Tuesday, 23 August 2011, called Man an Organic Community by John King, 1893. It was an extravagance, but I seem to be going through a fit of such extravagances lately, two days ago I ordered a full copy, all four volumes that is, of Schffles Structure and Life of the Social Body, second edition, 1881, for 190 ! I must be going crazy, but this, aside from Lilienfelds work, is the monster tomb on the social organism, it is a must buy, even if it is unreadable, being not only in German, but in Fraktur too !! I cannot even scan parts of it and run them through my translator, if I want to do that I must laboriously transcribe the text by hand. Insane. I spent half an hour picking my way through the two volumes of Kings book last night, it is psychology, and it is weird, and mostly useless. I bought it because the title was irresistible. It totally inverts the common logic of the time, and in that sense perfectly reflects it, logic which made society an organism composed of individuals. Here King makes the person a society composed of individuals, at the level of mental organisation ! Really I found nothing in this work, it amazed me that he ran backwards through time without restraint, but utterly fails to move forwards for one moment, declaring that life is an integration from cell to mind, society never enters his mind as a continuation of this process, and this at the time when the idea of the social organism was at a peak. How did he avoid this idea ? It can only of been by virtue of an ingrained antagonism towards it, showing how psychology was a crucial ally of religion, grounding human mental powers in the individual, a project that came to its zenith in Freuds gross psychoanalysis. And wonder of wonders, this latter fraudster was, like Charles Darwin, lauded as a genius, placed upon a pedestal of his own, not one so exalted as that upon which Charles was placed, because Freuds ideas were self evidently ludicrous from the outset, and only attained their widespread fame for the same reason religion does, because they were calculated to have the effect of appealing to authority for their ultra individualist foundations, and to individual egos alike, for the same reason. My Schffle arrived today, Wednesday, 31 August 2011, and searching online shows an illegal copy of Abbey software designed for reading Fraktur, which is sold at a price beyond any individuals power to purchase. I am not a user of these rip-off sites and I cannot get my head around downloading this software, shame. Just visiting this one has resulted in casino software landing on my desktop and access to the search page being blocked, I hate to think what will happen if I sign up, as requested. It is so annoying that people cannot make these illegal services more user friendly ! Why do I get the feeling that these items are bate, skewered with a hook waiting to sink itself into my pocket ? My faith in criminals is undermined by the internet, sometimes I think those lurking there are worse than the legal sector hounding our physical world. A ridiculous thought I know, after all, has any criminal ever done anything worse than advertising a product ? Not possible. Advertising is the bane of Capitalist culture, the symbol of exploitation and abuse, the means by which we are

farmed by way of hooks galore, sinking themselves into the meat of our brains and dragging us through life. Hook enough poor twats and the rest of the shoal is left powerless to do anything but follow the Capitalists pull, hence the world is reduced to a supermarket. On that front, good news today, Tesco announced that after eight years of trying to break into Japan they were giving up, and selling out. Nice one the Nips ; I think I am going Japanese, I am, I really think so. I only think to mention King now in response to our discussion about the nature of academia as an organ of precognition accumulating information, taking possession of knowledge that is, and then formulating a presentation of knowledge which can be delivered to the public in a sterile form, answering the need to know all things, without this fulfilment being fatal to the weft and warp of knowledge upon which the social structure relies for its existence by interweaving truth and religious fiction. Kings notion of a multiplicity of mental states constituting one complex psychological whole, comes into its own in the social setting viewed as superorganic physiology, for that is just how the complex superorganism does indeed seem to work, by sharing the task of knowledge management across a diverse range of integral and supposedly independent structures. This was powerfully demonstrated in the way the military acted as the agents of knowledge fabrication by selecting Charles as naturalist on the Beagle, thus appointing the theocracys man to the project of knowledge capture, in preparation for knowledge fabrication concerning this most tricky of subjects, the nature of life, and hence of humans. Precognition in terms of knowledge manufacture then, is a compound of programming into a fixed mental attitude, socialisation that is, and the search for new knowledge to be incorporated into the programming already established. Precognition of this kind, knowing what real knowledge is before you manufacture false, or sterile knowledge of reality, is what science is all about. This is why the search for knowledge is so important to the human animal, and why we excel at it, knowledge is the stuff from which the structure of the superorganism is created. Erasmus wrestled with the nature of lifes transformation via the act of sexual reproduction, concluding that the imagination of the male is the primary influence responsible for new forms coming about, and we bemoan his failure to see that the key to this problem is information, as the creative factor that is written, and then rewritten with variations. But at least in his silly notion of the imagination as creative factor acting at the moment of conception, he did envision a dynamic influence engendering the variable form of the offspring, and that displayed a correct sense of the problem at hand. Here then, in the social domain, we must acknowledge the exact same continuum of information, it is written, even as it is being rewritten with variations, all the time, in a process called progress or even social evolution, by some. We see this rewriting process erupt into antiSemitism under the Nazi regime, but it is an ongoing fact of life now, under the Jewish regime of absolute theocracy, Judaism our eternal master. Under this regime, in academic terms, sociology takes the place of anti-Semitism now, or to make the comparison more immediate, multiculturalism replaces anti-Semitism. Our value system says the antiSemitism of former times was evil, while the multiculturalism of the moment, is good. But our analysis reveals that both social models are functionally identical, and represent a link in a chain of identity transmission keeping the core power of Judaism in place, and the biomass enslaved accordingly. Clearly then, the same principle of precognition had to apply to Darwins creation of his evolutionary theory based on natural selection, as applies to the fabrication of modern sociology, and we can now extend sociology to include sociobiology. But whereas we know all too well where the true knowledge of sociology resided, in the idea of the social organism

destroyed at the outbreak of World War One, we have never, before now, had a clue where to find the roots of Darwins ideas, as they were inspired by the truth, showing how they should be made false. Hence we now have the source of The Origin of Species false origins, set before us, plain as day, for all to see. I have previously spoken about the way this dull young man from the upper echelons of society, destined to become a vicar of some obscure church in the countryside, was picked out by the highest ranks of the military to head up an expedition as naturalist, at the tender age of twenty one, whereupon the foundations were laid for his proof of an idea supposedly formulated on the back of this five year voyage on the Beagle. According to King-Hele Darwin read Zoonomia when aged seventeen, which was just four years before heading off on this voyage. I wonder when he read Malthus ? The question has always been Why Darwin ? Why did the military, the great stalwart defenders of Judaism, as in Christianity, select Darwin for this scientific mission ? Cleary the last thing the establishment would of wanted was someone who would produce a genuine scientific theory of evolution that would undermine their grip on society, and this is the result they achieved by employing Darwin. We can be sure that they took no chances on the person they selected for such a trip. Erasmus certainly looks like the genuine article, a true, died in the wool scientist type. The bold manner in which he delighted in his radical new scientific ideas, emblazoning them on his carriage, putting himself at odds with the theocracy, that forced him to back off. But in his eventual publication of his evolutionary views, we do find him showing himself to be above all else, committed to the supremacy of religion. Was this simply a necessary concession to the powers that be, as they were constituted at the time, or a true expression of his ideas ? How can we ever answer such a question ? It is clear from Erasmus experience that above all else Charles had to be painted as a figure of intransigently anti-establishment credentials, after a fashion of some sort, in keeping with the radical idea that he was commissioned to put before the world in a final form. And yet, at the same time, he was not portrayed thus. The result is the presentation of a tortured figure, torn between his love of established social order, and the torment of scientific revelation that he could scarcely bare, but nonetheless felt he could not deny, as if it were his painful duty to reveal to the world the solemn truth of evolution, that he alone had discovered, which pained him so much ! Boy, what a load of bull ! Darwin was no scientist, that is blindingly obvious from every detail of his life, he evidently hated science. And that is why he was the man for the job. And today, all scientists hate science just as he did, having been made in the likeness of Darwin. That explains why, when I had a encounter with two young scientists a few years ago, and told them what was real, this proved to be a most unpleasant encounter. They were utter pigs, quite as vile as anything I have ever come across in the world of religion. This was the true face of my heroes, they loathed true science, they simply thought the science they had been taught was true, even though they bragged that their biological science could tell us nothing about what life is ! Yes, these boys were men of Darwin alright. ___ Last night, 14/09/2011, BBC Four had a nice little show on the prescientific views of dinosaur fossils. We were told that in 1766 no one had the faintest idea what such bones were, mainly because they had no notion of deep time. This was finally overcome a few decades later thanks to some Scottish fellow, James Hutton. But we find Erasmus plainly stating in Zoonomia that the earth was millions of years old, and in the 1770s he fully appreciated, because of the evidence of fossils, that evolution took place over vast reaches of time, and extinct forms had once existed. It seems that this knowledge has yet to penetrate modern geology. Quite extraordinary, unless I am missing something, but I cannot see what.

I suppose that if history records Hutton as making the breakthrough then Erasmus cannot be belatedly promoted as the discoverer of such insights, giving us a fine example of how things are not known, unless they are known publically ! Also last night, I got Herbert Spencer on the brain. Spencer is an exasperating fellow to try and get a grip on because his work was so random. This is probably how mine appears, the common problem is that of being amateur philosophers working under our own steam. Anyway I did a little tracking down of his ideas last night, and dropped on a passage which extolled the most challenging aspect of my own philosophy, concerning the need to set aside value judgements and to recognise that good things can be bad, and bad things, good. This appears in his Political Institutions, 1882, part five of his Principles of Sociology. The beginning of this work, section four hundred and thirty five, is what I came upon last night. Reviewing the above passage on anti-Semitism and multiculturalism brought this to mind, and I think it is worth recording this most important, and rare observation on value judgements, seen in anothers work.

Chapter 3

Erasmus

Returning to Zoonomia lets see what else of interest might be lurking there, anticipating The Origin of Species : This paternal offspring of vegetables, I mean their buds and bulbs, is attended with a very curious circumstance ; and that is, that they exactly resemble their parents, as is observable in grafting fruit-trees, and in propagating flower-roots ; whereas the seminal offspring of plants, being supplied with nutriment by the mother, is liable to perpetual variation. Thus also in the vegetable class dioicia, where the male flowers are produced on one tree, and the female ones on another ; the buds of the male trees uniformly produce either male flowers, or other buds similar to themselves ; and the buds of the female trees produce either female flowers, or other buds similar to themselves ; whereas the seeds of these trees produce either male or female plants. From this analogy of the production of vegetable buds without a mother, I contend that the mother does not contribute to the formation of the living ens in animal generation, but is necessary only for supplying its nutriment and oxygenation. (p. 487) Here Erasmus wrestles with the mystery of sexual reproduction, which played a major part in Charles thinking, especially, if I remember rightly, as regards his efforts to get over the stumbling block of superorganic form, as in the production of sterile classes of ants. I think I read something about this just the other week in Wilsons Superorganism, but that needs checking. At the same time, we find his reasoning is very much aided by the practice of artificial breeding, in this case in the field of horticulture, whereas the famous examples from Charles are drawn from breeding proper, the term applying to animal reproduction, which in no way differs in principle from that of reproducing plants, as can be seen from the fact that this vegetative process of budding plants can now be achieved in animals, as in cloning. So, once again, we find further examples of key ideas made use of in 1859, already fully formed in 1794. The only reason why Erasmus got no acclamation, while Charles had the world fall at his knees, is that the church blocked the former, but not the latter. Yet King-Hele makes out that this achievement was due to dedication to the cause of science on Charles part, persuading the world to see things his way !! Yeah, right. Give me a break. Tell us another. What, do I look like I was born yesterday ? We may also take note of this assertion that the mother makes no contribution to the form of the offspring, only providing nutrition. This is a curious assumption to make, and one that is fatal indeed to any true grasp of the situation. This will become clear as we proceed further into this mans strange notion of what life is, as an expression of divine will, and hence the nature of its creative dynamic as an expression of erratic male willpower. We have been wondering how these people missed the idea of packets of information mixing in the process of creating new, uniquely nuanced individuals. In this gender bias we find one

clue. Erasmus had observed active sperm under a microscope and knew that one of these male seeds combined with the female egg. It makes no sense therefore to reason as he does in the quote above, most especially since he reaches from plant to animal in order to allow himself to come up with such an ill thought out notion. But there we have it. This suggests that for him it was all about physical appearances, and despite realising there were two fundamental attributes to nature, spirit and form, he was unable to take the spirit factor into account in his attempts at scientific reasoning. We might say, in mitigation, that science today fairs little better, which is why it is still possible for scientists to make out that language belongs to us, rather understanding that language can only be a biological phenomenon created by nature, for nature.

I The information blind spot It is curious that the nature of the sexual process was not surmised by men like Erasmus. He evidently knows that a swarm of sperm donated by the male, approach the egg, and that only one penetrates it. How can this not invoke the idea of fertilisation ? You would think there might be some helpful experience from the world of chicken farming, to do with the production of eggs needing the presence of a cock for them to be fertile. It does not seem a difficult idea for a man of science to crack. But more to the point, I like the way he begins the body of the work by talking about a natural, universal dualism : THE WHOLE OF NATURE may be supposed to consist of two essences or substances ; one of which may be termed spirit, and the other matter. (Zoonomia, p. 1) For me this division comes into its own when we try to understand life, hence I have invoked the idea that Information and Life are one and the same thing, and thus when people speak of spirit in this manner, they are really talking about information. Information is the spirit and life is its associated matter. You would think that it would of been obvious from the word go that the creation of life involved the flow of information. Yet we can see from the above how Erasmus handles the evidence he has on this subject, speaking in very lame terms about the possibility of sperm coming from the male being some kind of animalcule or possibly a putrid excrescence, while the contribution of the female is but some kind of nutritious fluid. This is remarkably poor. Perhaps this is an indication of just what a mental gulf separates us from the people of these times. Nowadays the idea of information is all the rage, but it seems to me that the idea of human communication ought to of served Erasmus as one of his famous analogies, suggesting a role for something akin to this communicative act of reproduction, as being involved in the process of forming eternally changing, living matter. Evidently however, it was not. There is an interesting description of experiments conducted by M. Koelreuter on the crossbreeding of plants, which reminds me of Mendels experiments with sweet peas. This early version was quite different in its design, but it clearly aimed at discerning how the generations would pan out relative to an initial starting point, and it culminated in a numerical result that presumably had a statistical potential to reveal the presence of underlying patterns of influence, information in other words, assuming appropriate records had been kept.

It was clearly important that the false theory of evolution required by the establishment should be future proof, and comply with the genetic idea of reproduction discovered long after Darwins 1859 travesty of science was presented to the world. This has made me mighty curious about whether or not people in charge of knowledge control in the universities, actually understood that the central idea of evolution must be based upon information transfer and recombination, that is, upon an underlying rewritable pattern of influence. This would be just the kind of thing you would expect people to of guessed, and given all they knew, it seems so obvious. Little things like this discussion of Koelreuters work hint at this possibility. But of course the intention of the authorities would always of been to ensure that this idea was not allowed to come forth until the basic theory had been sterilised, which was achieved with The Origin of Species fixation of the process upon the idea of natural selection. It stands to reason that the natural selection of variation can only mean that life is all about information, as in a life pattern that is slightly re-scripted upon each new act of procreation. I am aware of no early arguments to this effect, yet as I say, it is implicit in Charles theory, and we can see that it ought to of suggested itself via the subject matter exercising his grandfathers grey matter. Consider this : I. THE ingenious Dr. Hartley in his work on man, and some other philosophers, have been of opinion, that our immortal part acquires during this life certain habits of action or of sentiment, which become for ever indissoluble, continuing after death in a future state of existence ; and add, that if these habits are of the malevolent kind, they must render the possessor miserable even in heaven. I would apply this ingenious idea to the generation or production of the embryon, or new animal, which partakes so much of the form and propensities of the parent. Owing to the imperfection of language the offspring is termed a new animal, but is in truth a branch or elongation of the parent ; since a part of the embryonanimal is, or was, a part of the parent ; and therefore in strict language it cannot be said to be entirely new at the time of its production ; and therefore it may retain some of the habits of the parent-system. (p. 480) This is how Erasmus begins his section Of Generation, and we can see that this mode of expression, antiquated though it is, is nonetheless redolent with just the implications of continuity borne of a pattern, that yet becomes edited upon each new act of production, as we have just been calling for some recognition thereof. There is even some suggestion of the transmission of comparative inequalities in the service of life, hinting at the possibility of an inequality in the fitness each individual might have for this world at the point of birth. And this suggestion becomes stronger, until it is finally stated point-blank, as we shall see. We are then discerning more and more of Charles great idea, with scarcely any effort at all. Dare we suppose that the failure of science to pick up Mendels work was entirely innocent, as it has always been made out to be ? Might it of been conveniently ignored, and again, similarly to Erasmus ideas, evidently, only brought into the light of day after it was figured out how to present the science of genetics in such a way as to maintain the primary charade of natural selection ? You can put nothing past the academics, they are clearly the most corrupt of people in our Western society. Certainly if such control could be achieved, then they would definitely want to do it. Even so, we must be aware of the danger of approaching too close to the accusation of being conspiracy theorists, as this is a device whereby truth tellers contradicting official ideas are made contemptible. We invoke no conspiracy, but rather the running of a programme written into peoples brains during the process of acculturation, that is activated through their placement within the upper echelons

of the superorganic physiological structure. Clearly individuals do not reason as independent individuals, for if they did so all individuals would always reason in an identical manner. The differences between individuals in matters of reasoning always reflects their position within the social structure, indicating their reasoning is not about truth, but social bias. This bias is not understood by the individual, it is a programmed, reflex reaction to knowledge, in which the individual has no choice as to how to react. Though the way these factors play out in life can be very complex and tricky to pin down, as we would expect. An example of academic obedience to the requirements of social bias comes to mind concerning astronomy, and the discovery of quasars. The story goes that a young female astronomer, Scottish I think, was working on the first radio astronomy project after the last world war, and discovered the steady pulse which later came to be known as a quasar. At the time the phenomenon appeared so like human intentional behaviour in its regularity, that the scientists could not help but take the idea that this was alien communication, seriously. Upon reporting it to their team leader the upshot was that the news of their discovery was to be suppressed, for fear of how the public would react. The story bears no relationship to the ongoing war against knowledge waged by the theocracy that rules our world, it is too precise and isolated, but it is a single hard fact indicating what the academics, the scientists, really think of their work : politics first, science never, if needs be. These people are paid for doing what they do, it is how they earn their living, they would starve without this trade in knowledge, and that means they are well and truly held by the short and curlies. In short, scientists are human. Reading on : This idea of the reproduction of animals from a single living filament of their fathers, appears to have been shadowed or allegorized in the curious account in sacred writ of the formation of Eve from a rib of Adam. From all these analogies I conclude, that the embryon is produced solely by the male, and that the female supplies it with a proper nidus, with sustenance, and with oxygenation ; and that the idea of the semen of the male constituting only a stimulus to the egg of the female, exciting it into life, (as held by some philosophers) has no support from experiment or analogy. (p. 489) Here we find this greatest scientific genius of the eighteenth century taking the part of an out and out idiot, quoting Biblical mythology in support of science ! Having only the PDF I have not yet read this section properly, and there are various ideas enclosed herein, so I may be acting flippantly toward this man, who did after all try to deal with evolution. But here we find some indication that others had recognised the obvious fact that the semen had the attribute of activation, the sort of thing that a man of that time might of been familiar with from processes like cheese making, where rennet turns milk into cheese, and surely many other processes of a like kind. This correct idea he dismisses out of hand, and seemingly on the basis of vegetative reproduction, which also makes itself known in insect reproduction where sex is not always involved. This makes him look like a dullard, rather than a genius. He seems to be playing up to male chauvinism, and religious autocracy. It was a difficult period in terms of the quality of widely dispersed intelligence, but sadly, the more we learn, the more we are forced to conclude that all periods are at best difficult, in this regard. Indeed we labour under a weight of deliberately fabricated and maintained ignorance today, epitomised by Darwinism, which those of Erasmus day were free from, religion being their enemy, which all knew perfectly well, and some attacked accordingly. Hence the genuine

science of society, as in Organicism, soon burst into life at about this time, as science came into being for the first time in human existence, as a methodical approach to establishing knowledge of reality, without bias of any kind. How about this ? : Thirdly, how could mule-animals be produced, which partake of the forms of both the parents, if the original embryon was a miniature existing in the semen of the male parent ? if an embryon of the male ass was only expanded, no resemblance to the mare could exist in the mule. (pp. 489 90) Once again we have an excellent opportunity to grasp the truth, that the male and female play an equal part by contributing a share of their own information of creation, to the creation of a new form. Obvious with hindsight certainly, two centuries on, but surely, not that difficult even then ? What was hindering this sensible interpretation ? Given that scientists today just cannot see the simple fact that humans must be superorganic mammals and language a physiological flux, a blindness that is due entirely to the perversion of science by religion, we must suppose that this comparative blind spot amongst the avowedly brilliant, has the same cause behind it. It is the ever present dark aura of religion looming over everything, which causes such stupidity to win out over simple reasoning. This is how the linguistic identity programme works its magic, subliminally, through the all pervasive power of taboo that constitutes the true being of our minds. Our minds are a work of Taboo, as an expression of linguistic force, determining all that we can think, say, and do. And now this : 3. Lastly, Mr. Buffon has with great ingenuity imagined the existence of certain organic particles, which are supposed to be partly alive, and partly mechanic springs. The latter of these were discovered by Mr. Needham in the milt or male organ of a species of cuttlefish, called calmar ; the former, or living animalcula, are found in both male and female secretions, in the infusions of seeds, as of pepper, in the jelly of roasted veal, and in all other animal and vegetable substances. These organic particles he supposes to exist in the spermatic fluids of both sexes, and that they are derived thither from every part of the body, and must therefore resemble, as he supposes, the parts from whence they are derived. These organic particles he believes to be in constant activity, till they become mixed in the womb, and then they instantly join and produce an embryon or fetus similar to the two parents. Many objections might be adduced to this fanciful theory, I shall only mention two. First, that it is analogous to no known animal laws. And secondly, that as these fluids, replete with organic particles derived both from the male and female organs, are supposed to be similar ; there is no reason why the mother should not produce a female embryon without the assistance of the male, and realize the lucina fine concubitu. (pp. 491 2) This is truly fascinating. Buffon is tantalisingly close to the modern idea of genes here. Genes are dispersed throughout the entire body and they are activated according to their location within the body ; and they are indeed combined in the act of sexual reproduction to produce an amalgamation of male and female, exactly as described here. All

that is missing, is the realisation that here we are dealing with information acting in the shape of a plan, dictating how the body should be formed in detail. It seems so obvious, how could these buffoons get so close, and still not see it ! As to Erasmus, what kind of objection is this ? It is based on negatives, declaring that these hypothesise as to how life is made, are not informed by what is already known. This is pigheaded ignorance of the first order. The kind of utter stupidity worthy of a modern academic who refuses to question Darwinism, no matter what. We have no laws in place to account for this new knowledge thus interpreted, and no reason to think that what is proposed could not be achieved otherwise. What ! This may conform to Occams Razor, which say needless elaboration is undesirable, but at this point in scientific history speculation was the order of the day, and especially when it was based on new material observations.

II Scientific premonition bears fruit Suppose they had seen the obvious, suppose the great French naturalist Buffon, had been struck by the revelation that this evidence suggested a plan resident in nature, a Plan !! Why, that is exactly how we speak of Gods magnificence, as the Almighty Plan of Creation. To identify in this evidence of a plan, a plan, would be as sacrilegious as it was possible to be. This fact is as real today as ever it was, but thanks to Charles, science had been decoupled from nature long before anyone discovered genes, so this discovery proved that Charles theory of evolution was correct by showing how nature selected the wheat from the chaff. Natural selection is all about a mechanism, but as we can see, evolution is all about information. By interceding in the scientific description of evolution in this way, science is decoupled from nature by the mechanism of natural selection, which does not account for evolution, but merely enables evolution. Evolution is a flow of recombinant information that deposits life forms through time, in response to the ongoing dynamic of the earths biosphere. It is then, perfectly clear that pre-knowledge existed in the shape of a complete awareness of the problem ; that science was coming, and it was impacting upon our knowledge of the nature of life. This raised two spontaneous ideas, built into the religious dogma of the time, that continue intact today : that Gods existence was made impossible by a true science of evolution ; and the pivot of values in social lifethe individual seen as an end in themselveswas something that also had to be safeguarded from the inevitability of discovering purpose in nature. Expressed thus, purpose simply equates to the discovery of information as the essence of lifes active, transforming dynamic. So we learn from our study of Erasmus Darwin, just what the roots of Charles evolutionary theory were. But our edification takes a completely different form to that which the likes of King-Hele and Dawkins conjure up. We discover that the eighteenth century grounding in evolutionary theory informing the end product of 1859, was not the key to a great scientific breakthrough, as it is made out to be by the priests today, but rather, it was the pre-knowledge constituting an advanced warning of what any acceptable theory of evolution must look like. And this explains why, after so much resistance, The Origin of Species was positively welcomed by the establishment, and launched upon the world, from whence it has been kept in orbit, raining down an obfuscating mist all about us ever since. Our discussion provides substance for the suggestion that the powers that be had figured out where all this was going, in terms of information, and that they knew this was what someone had to get a grip on and contain, exactly as Charles did, by ensuring the dynamics of organic information processes would be controlled by natural selection. Thus

ensuring that biology did not extend its remit to humans, who thereby still had the social domain at their free disposal, lying as it did, according to Charles, beyond the remit of nature. The individual was thereby preserved, as all possibility of a plan was removed from nature, since each step in evolutionary transformation was a chance event occurring at the moment of conception, from whence competition stepped into the process to sort the weak from the strong. Even this critical insight of false theorising was provided by Erasmus, by way of his seemingly farcical notion of the interjection of the male imagination at the moment of insemination, as the random creative factor. This randomness is however the basis of a sterile theory of evolution, preventing nature from enveloping the purposeful world of human creativity. Darwins theory is so crass and pathetic that it beggars belief that it ever fooled anyone. That it fools everyone today, including me until a decade ago, is simply down to the fact that individuals do not exist, and as such we are powerless to resist the oppression of state sponsored knowledge concocted by an establishment with the power of academia behind it. If this were not so, religion could never of been what it has been, so that science today is simply an extension of the age old method of making truth an expression of social power. We find an academic study indicating how priesthoods are formed on the basis of knowledge control in The Word and the Sword, where we have this : However, the logo-syllabic system developed by the Sumerians, with several hundred different symbols, was sufficiently complex that only a small fraction of the total population could ever hope to master it. Direct access to the large quantities of additional information made possible by the development of writing would therefore be limited to a literate elite. (The Word and the Sword, Dudley, 1991, p. 28) In effect the establishment of institutions controlling knowledge, emerged from the earliest times of large scale social formation, and this physiological attribute of superorganic form is preserved down to the present time, and seen in the manufacture and maintenance of Darwinism. This is what knowledge is all about, social power, superorganic being that is. All that such an intellectual elite needed in order to become the eternal master of society, was an exclusive organic, that is corporate identity, the realisation of which eventually gave rise to the Jews, the people of the book, and thereby, masters of all humanity today. It is important not to allow ourselves to be duped into thinking politically by the dramatic nature of writing as a human activity. The point being that human societies develop hierarchical structure without such sophisticated aids, merely through the spontaneous use of language projecting a flux of information into the social space, engendering a social authority that causes a hierarchical element to crystallise out of the social biomass. All we are seeing here is an extension of the process, an intensification due to the increased density of the biomass. Dudley, as a professionally trained academic, is brainwashed into thinking politically and cannot help discovering a discontinuity here, so that on the basis of pure imagination, he decides that prior to writing all knowledge was mediated by speech that is accessible to all. Theoretically speaking this is true, but not in reality, where the products of speech occur in the shape of knowledge that all peoples, from cave painters to hunter gathers, demonstrate organises their social structure about knowledge that is not freely distributed, but instead creates secret societies, gender divisions, puberty transition boundaries and so on. Not to mention cultural determinants of superorganic delineation, making for insiders and outsiders, which is the root of modern global Judaism. All suggestion that humans are self willed is absurd, since human corporate nature, what Richerson calls our social instincts, oblige humans to form social bodies, where the

form those social bodies take must be as preordained as any major physical structure in the universe, as proven by the fact that all human societies ever known conform exactly to the same pattern, all have culture, hierarchy, war, law, religion and so on. All human societies are identical, everywhere, at all times, only varying substantially in so far as they are at different points of development in the unfolding of the latent potential of human corporate nature. In making out this argument today, we feel like a lone voice crying out against the overbearing power of academia, but there is one example of a philosopher recognising the same fact, before the Great Cleansing of 1914 18 :

THE DOCTRINE OF THE MORAL SENSE. 1. There is no way of coming at a true theory of society, but by inquiring into the nature of its component individuals. To understand humanity in its combinations, it is necessary to analyze that humanity in its elementary formfor the explanation of the compound, to refer back to the simple. We quickly find that every phenomenon exhibited by an aggregation of men, originates in some quality of man himself. A little consideration shows us, for instance, that the very existence of society, implies some natural affinity in its members for such a union. It is pretty clear too, that without a certain fitness in mankind for ruling, and being ruled, government would be an impossibility. The infinitely complex organizations of commerce, have grown up under the stimulus of certain desires existing in each of us. And it is from our possession of a sentiment to which they appeal, that religious institutions have been called into existence. In fact, on looking closely into the matter, we find that no other arrangement is conceivable. The characteristics exhibited by beings in an associated state cannot arise from the accident of combination, but must be the consequences of certain inherent properties of the beings themselves. True, the gathering together may call out these characteristics ; it may make manifest what was before dormant ; it may afford the opportunity for undeveloped peculiarities to appear ; but it evidently does not create them. No phenomenon can be presented by a corporate body, but what there is a preexisting capacity in its individual members for producing. This fact, that the properties of a mass are dependent upon the attributes of its component parts, we see throughout nature. In the chemical combination of one element with another, Dalton has shown us that the affinity is between atom and atom. What we call the weight of a body, is the sum of the gravitative tendencies of its separate particles. The strength of a bar of metal, is the total effect of an indefinite number of molecular adhesions. And the power of the magnet, is a cumulative result of the polarity of its independent corpuscles. After the same manner, every social phenomenon must have its origin in some property of the individual. And just as the attractions and affinities which are latent in separate atoms, become visible when those atoms are approximated ; so the forces that are dormant in the isolated man, are rendered active by juxtaposition with his fellows. This consideration, though perhaps needlessly elaborated, has an important bearing on our subject. It points out the path we must pursue in our search after a true social philosophy. It suggests the idea that the moral law of society, like its other laws, originates in some attribute of the human being. It warns us against adopting

any fundamental doctrine which, like that of the greatest happiness to the greatest number, cannot be expressed without presupposing a state of aggregation. On the other hand it hints that the first principle of a code for the right ruling of humanity in its state of multitude, is to be found in humanity in its state of unitudethat the moral forces upon which social equilibrium depends, are resident in the social atomman ; and that if we would under stand the nature of those forces, and the laws of that equilibrium, we must look for them in the human constitution. (Social Statics, Spencer, 1851, pp. 16 18.) I am at this moment undergoing a new wave of interest in Spencer, and the above slice from his first ever publication in book form, is an early sign of it. This is a unique piece of reasoning, and while far ahead of our own time, it was there at the dawn of modern sociology, as you can see. This is just the kind of problem the theocracy had to contend with, which was not resolved until the Great Cleansings of the last century did their work. Spencer himself was no friend to this brilliance, he turned traitor to it in his later years, no doubt realising the impossibility of science being applied to humans. That is why I have never been able to take a real interest in the man, however I have just begun to realise that his work was imbued with organicist ideas, even though he did very little in the way of developing them to any systematic degree. The failure to obtain any real grasp of what he himself is saying, can be detected in the individualistic overtones imbued into this essentially organicist explanation of human society, as when he talks about the development of commercial and religious institutions on the back of certain inherent qualities of individuals. He completely fails to link our evolved somatic physiology, as in the power of speech, to the creation of these social forms. This is what makes Spencer worthless as a true scientist, as indeed applies to all thinkers, of all kinds, before myself. Yet this passage concludes by saying that the nature of social form must be understood in terms of the human constitution, which must come down to our somatic physiology. All he needed to do was to recognise that there was only one social force, and that was language, which is why all social appearances were normal relative to this standard, including the good and the bad. He just does not quite get there, though he is by far and away the best exponent along these lines that I have ever seen, now I am suddenly drawn towards taking notice of his great wealth of writings on the subject of society. ___

III Almost genetics

6. From this account of reproduction it appears, that all animals have a similar origin, viz. from a single living filament ; and that the difference of their forms and qualities has arisen only from the different irritabilities and sensibilities, or voluntarities, or associabilities, of this original living filament ; and perhaps in some degree from the different forms of the particles of the fluids, by which it has been at first stimulated into activity. And that from hence, as Linnaeus has conjectured in respect to the vegetable world, it is not impossible, but the great variety of species of animals, which now tenant the earth, may have had their origin from the mixture of a few natural orders. And that those animal and vegetable mules, which could continue

their species, have done so, and constitute the numerous families of animals and vegetables which now exist ; and that those mules, which were produced with imperfect organs of generation, perished without reproduction, according to the observation of Aristotle ; and are the animals, which we now call mules. (498 9) This is clearly hinting at the kind of evolutionary ideas we are familiar with today, where we know that all life has a common origin and complexity has mounted over time. The divergence from modern ideas occurs in the manner of diversification through the mere crossbreeding of a few early progenitors, but even this is moving in the right conceptual direction, and we can see where the idea of natural selection steps in to fill the void in this idea, in that it says why such diversification should occur. It goes without saying that Darwins contrived ideas, paying homage to religion first, did provide a satisfactory explanation, our only gripe is that it was not the correct one, because its first consideration was to leave religion intact. Of course Charles more powerful suggestion indicates that species do not arise due to crossbreeding at all, but rather they transform over time due the stimulus of environmental conditions testing the viability of living beings, against one another. The Darwinian resolution of this mystery seems to be on the tip of the tongue here, and it is a wonder that it should of taken until 1859 for its identification, but once again we must look to the social conditions for an explanation. We have the anonymous publication of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation in 1844, showing how difficult things continued to be regarding this subject, and we know the story of how Charles had to be goaded into publication, the final straw in this process was that someone else had come up with the same principle of natural selection to account for the proliferation of species. How convenient, after all those decades of the worlds best trying so hard, but to no avail, then, like buses, two come along at once ! Its worth mentioning that Darwin praises Vestiges in Origin of Species, I took this from a dealers advert yesterday, 18/09/2011 : in my opinion it [Vestiges] has done excellent service in this country in calling attention to the subject, in removing prejudice, and in thus preparing the ground for the reception of analogous views. I tried to find the passage with a quick search of a PDF copy, but it did not come up. This we may take to be innocent duplicity, what he would say, but it changes nothing about our argument. It remains a fact that natural selection overcame the political obstacles, and has proven amenable to the ongoing security of ignorance regarding our own place in nature. This is no accident. The core mechanism of natural selection is not necessarily in doubt, only the significance given to it as prime mover in the process of evolution. On the contrary, as in all other aspects of universal existence, we must identify the dualism of energy and mass, which means that all form can be related to the dynamics of universal energy in some way or other. The idea that mammals would enter all niches under the force of an inbuilt structural mechanism enabling perfect adaption under the stress of competition, does place access to energy at the forefront of the evolutionary process, but leaves energy as the true force, obscured by the mechanism of natural selection, whereby the latter comes to be presented as the true force. This is ridiculous. It inverts the natural dynamic, placing the chicken before the egg, the cart before the horse. So that natural selection caps the life force, whereas the life force, through the medium of life forms, should be seen as impressing itself via ever

increasing complexity, into the nonliving environment of existence, plugging itself into the energy source, so to speak. Thus mammals were erupting into the available niches, not fighting there way in by vying with each other for available energy. And this same dynamic explains the incredible success of Judaism in like fashion, it irresistibly forces its way into the human domain wherever it exists, not through military prowess, but rather, by being the core of linguistic force generating the dominant form of complex superorganic being. Here another important segment anticipating a major plank of Charles idea, is to be found : 8. When we revolve in our minds, first, the great changes, which we see naturally produced in animals after their nativity, as in the production of the butterfly with painted wings from the crawling caterpillar ; or of the respiring frog from the subnatant tadpole ; from the feminine boy to the bearded man, and from the infant girl to the lactescent woman ; both which changes may be prevented by certain mutilations of the glands necessary to reproduction. Secondly, when we think over the great changes introduced into various animals by artificial or accidental cultivation, as in horses, which we have exercised for the different purposes of strength or swiftness, in carrying burthens or in running races ; or in dogs, which have been cultivated for strength and courage, as the bulldog ; or for acuteness of his sense of smell, as the hound and spaniel ; or for the swiftness of his foot, as the greyhound ; or for his swimming in the water, or for drawing snow-sledges, as the rough-haired dogs of the north ; or lastly, as a play-dog for children, as the lap-dog ; with the changes of the forms of the cattle, which have been domesticated from the greatest antiquity, as camels, and sheep ; which have undergone so total a transformation, that we are now ignorant from what species of wild animals they had their origin. Add to these the great changes of shape and colour, which we daily see produced in smaller animals from our domestication of them, as rabbits, or pigeons ; or from the difference of climates and even of seasons ; thus the sheep of warm climates are covered with hair instead of wool ; and the hares and partridges of the latitudes, which are long buried in snow, become white during the winter months ; add to these the various changes produced in the forms of mankind, by their early modes of exertion ; or by the diseases occasioned by their habits of life ; both of which became hereditary, and that through many generations. Those who labour at the anvil, the oar, or the loom, as well as those who carry sedanchairs, or who have been educated to dance upon the rope, are distinguishable by the shape of their limbs ; and the diseases occasioned by intoxication deform the countenance with leprous eruptions, or the body with tumid viscera, or the joints with knots and distortions. (pp. 500 501) This is a fascinating passage, here we find the great antagonist of Charles, Lamarck, promoted, as we learn that habits of life become hereditary ! But mostly this passage impresses us because it is replete with the inspiration of artificial selection, which is the model projected upon nature by Charles when he talks so ludicrously of natural selection. What is more, we even find the exact creature favoured by Charles, the pigeon, being identified by Erasmus as a convenient subject for the study of living transformation. Its all here bar the shouting.

And still it gets better : Fifthly, from their first rudiment, or primordium, to the termination of their lives, all animals undergo perpetual transformations ; which are in part produced by their own exertions in consequence of their desires and aversions, of their pleasures and their pains, or of irritations, or of associations ; and many of these acquired forms or propensities are transmitted to their posterity. As air and water are supplied to animals in sufficient profusion, the three great objects of desire, which have changed the forms of many animals by their exertions to gratify them, are those of lust, hunger, and security. A great want of one part of the animal world has consisted in the desire of the exclusive possession of the females ; and these have acquired weapons to combat each other for this purpose, as the very thick, shield-like, horny skin on the shoulder of the boar is a defence only against animals of his own species, who strike obliquely upwards, nor are his tusks for other purposes, except to defend himself, as he is not naturally a carnivorous animal. So the horns of the stag are sharp to offend his adversary, but are branched for the purpose of parrying or receiving the thrusts of horns similar to his own, and have therefore been formed for the purpose of combating other stags for the exclusive possession of the females ; who are observed, like the ladies in the times of chivalry, to attend the car of the victor. The birds, which do not carry food to their young, and do not therefore marry, are armed with spurs for the purpose of fighting for the exclusive possession of the females, as cocks and quails. It is certain that these weapons are not provided for their defence against other adversaries, because the females of these species are without this armour. The final cause of this contest amongst the males seems to be, that the strongest and most active animal should propagate the species, which should thence become improved. (pp. 502 3) This is the most remarkable passage so far. It begins with a reiteration of the point already made, with the Lamarckian overtones concerning the transmission of acquired characteristics. But the ideas are not so concretely formed and there is a possibility that he was not arguing for a fixed Lamarckian conception, since the continuation of this passage veers very much toward the modern view of a survival of the fittest through competition, which carries within it an implication of an internal rearrangement of physiological potential, where the winner takes all. These are subtle differences, which is why the Lamarckian view persisted for a long while after 1859, and still holds a certain fascination that makes itself felt from time to time. What comes directly to the fore next, is the idea of intraspecies competition, for the right to reproduce, for access to food, and for survival in the face of competitors. A heavy emphasis is laid upon the right to procreate, and to dominate this right exclusively, denying it to all others. The final sentence is simply awesome, this has it all, in terms of anything delivered to the world by Charles. This is the survival of the fittest, plain as day.

IV Atheist Science So, what is Atheist Science to make of this dramatic discovery of the Erasmic foundations of Darwinism ? Clearly The Origin of Species published in 1859, makes a far more impressive presentation of these ideas, though it essentially adds nothing of any import to them. In terms of our view that Darwinism is a total imposition, subverting science by deliberately imposing a sterile model of evolution that could not include humans within its ambit, this scenario is ideal. Why choose Charles we have asked ? Here we can see that Erasmus presented a full and complete theory of evolution, lacking not one iota of anything that his grandson delivered, except bulk, plus a degree of refinement in the collection of evidence, to make the imposition more convincing, a regular ploy of academia this, to garner evidence and thus claim the right to interpret it. Why else would a deeply religious clan like the Leakeys of devoted their lives to the search for human origins in Africa ? The requirement for evidential bulk is what the selection of Charles for the post of naturalist on the Beagle, set out to provide for, and did provide for. Charles had no need to go anywhere to find inspiration, this was just a sham. He already had all the answers, served to him on a plate, plain for us all to see today. His backers, that we must think of as Svengali like figures, knew this perfectly well. All that was required was some substance to back up the false conclusions provided by Erasmus, to make them presentable as a complete resolution of the great, imponderable mystery of life. From this we see that the theocracy was not taking any chance by employing Charles for this mission, there was no elaborate conspiracy, it was a matter of already knowing precisely what was on offer, and exploiting it for the purposes of the establishment that Charles was as much a part of as anyone could ever hope to be. Attempts have been made to portray Charles as some kind of radical, suggesting he was an atheist, and expressing wonder at his burial in Westminster Abbey, but this is all part of the game. Viewed properly, nothing could be further from the truth, and this is best illustrated from the work of Desmond, in his book already named above.

Chapter 4

Evolution Galore

Another great want consists in the means of procuring food, which has diversified the forms of all species of animals. Thus the nose of the swine has become hard for the purpose of turning up the soil in search of insects and of roots. The trunk of the elephant is an elongation of the nose for the purpose of pulling down the branches of trees for his food, and for taking up water without bending his knees. Beasts of prey have acquired strong jaws or talons. Cattle have acquired a rough tongue and a rough palate to pull off the blades of grass, as cows and sheep. Some birds have acquired harder beaks to crack nuts, as the parrot. Others have acquired beaks adapted to break the harder seeds, as sparrows. Others for the softer seeds of flowers, or the buds of trees, as the finches. Other birds have acquired long beaks to penetrate the moister soils in search of insects or roots, as woodcocks and others broad ones to filtrate the water of lakes, and to retain aquatic insects. All which seem to have been gradually produced during many generations by the perpetual endeavour of the creatures to supply the want of food, and to have been delivered to their posterity with constant improvement of them for the purposes required. The third great want amongst animals is that of security, which seems much to have diversified the forms of their bodies and the colour of them ; these consist in the means of escaping other animals more powerful than themselves. Hence some animals have acquired wings instead of legs, as the smaller birds, for the purpose of escape. Others great length of fin, or of membrane, as the flying fish, and the bat. Others great swiftness of foot, as the hare. Others have acquired hard or armed shells, as the tortoise and the echinus marinus. The contrivances for the purposes of security extend even to vegetables, as is seen in the wonderful and various means of their concealing or defending their honey from insects, and their seeds from birds. On the other hand swiftness of wing has been acquired by hawks and swallows to pursue their prey ; and a proboscis of admirable structure has been acquired by the bee, the moth, and the humming bird, for the purpose of plundering the nectaries of flowers. All which seem to have been formed by the original living filament, excited into action by the necessities of the creatures, which possess them, and on which their existence depends. From thus meditating on the great similarity of the structure of the warmblooded animals, and at the same time of the great changes they undergo both before and after their nativity ; and by considering in how minute a portion of time many of the changes of animals above described have been produced ; would it be too bold to imagine, that in the great length of time, since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of ages before the commencement of the history of mankind, would it be too bold to imagine, that all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament, which THE GREAT FIRST CAUSE endued with animality, with the power of acquiring new parts, attended with new propensities, directed by irritations, sensations, volitions, and associations ; and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve

by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down those improvements by generation to its posterity, world without end ! (pp. 503 5) This really is quite remarkable, us aficionados of evolution are all completely familiar with Darwins finches, famously varying from one island to another across the Galapagos archipelago, each nicely adapted to its precise circumstances ; some of the samples collected by Charles are still preserved in museum draws. And here we find this whole business laid out by Erasmus, like a drawing by numbers kit awaiting the attention of a child to fill in the spaces, to provide a more satisfying image. We can hardly say the image is contained in the dots, for it is more than that. Small wonder King-Hele spoke as he did in his introduction to Charles Life of Erasmus, I duplicate from above, for ease of reading : Erasmus got nowhere with his presentation of evolution : he was a century ahead of his time, as we now smugly say. It was Charles, proceeding cautiously over many years, who persuaded his contemporaries to take seriously the idea of evolution by natural selection, a world-view that has been amply vindicated in recent years. (p. xi) But we must say again, this contrasting fortune has more to it than this benign portrayal pretends. As ever, we are taught to think in the most submissive and respectful ways about our superiors in these matters of high knowledge, as they present themselves to us always in the benign colours of a paternalist hegemony. I came on something today, which was really very special, and absolutely unique, I think we may be sure, for this was a wholesale critique of the academic establishment, by the Jews, targeting Germany, on the subject of anti-Semitism during the half century or so prior to the coming of the Nazis to power : History, to quote from Justice Robert H. Jacksons opening address before the Nuremberg Tribunal, does not record a crime ever perpetrated against so many victims or one ever carried out with such calculated cruelty.... Determination to destroy the Jews was a binding force which at all times cemented the elements of this conspiracy. Whose conspiracy ? It will not do to speak in this connection of the Nazi gangsters. This murder of a whole people was not perpetrated solely by a comparative small gang of the Elite Guard or by the Gestapo, whom we have come to consider as criminals. As is shown by Hitlers threat, afterwards frequently repeated by himself and his henchmen, as the literature of the Nazi Party, the Reich government, and the Wehrmacht shows, the whole ruling class of Germany was committed to the execution of this crime. But the actual murderers and those who sent them out and applauded them had accomplices. German scholarship provided the ideas and techniques which led to and justified this unparalleled slaughter. Everyones feeling naturally revolts against such a stupendous accusation. Frankly, the present writer, too, would have considered it an exaggeration on the basis of the casual evidence available until recently. But when, after the defeat of Germany, German publications (which now number about five thousand) began pouring into the library of the Yivo [Yiddish Scientific Institute], the previous scattered impressions gathered into a coherent picture. To subject the conclusions arrived at to even closer scrutiny, other extensive collections of German literature were examined. Thus the present report, based upon a good many thousands of books, pamphlets, periodicals, and documents, provides ample evidence that there was participation of German

scholarship in every single phase of the crime. The ideas underlying the ultimate action were developed in advance with the necessary philosophical and literary trimmings, with historical reasoning, with maps and charts providing for the details with well-known German thoroughness. Many fields of learning, different ones at different times according to the shrewdly appraised needs of Nazi policies, were drawn into the work for more than a decade : physical anthropology and biology, all branches of the social sciences and the humanitiesuntil the engineers moved in to build the gas chambers and crematories. But could it not be, we are tempted to ask in a last effort to save at least a bit of our belief in the fundamental integrity of scholarship, that Hitlers accomplices were merely sham scholars, nobodies elevated in rank by their Nazi friends and protectors, who produced what is described as scurrilous literature ? Even this consolation is baseless. The scholars whom we shall quote in such impressive numbers, like those others who were instrumental in any other part of the German pre-war and war efforts, were to a large extent people of long and high standing, university professors and academy members, some of them world famous, authors with familiar names and guest lecturers abroad, the kind of people Allied scholars used to meet and fraternize with at international congresses. The younger academic people might have stayed a little longer on the waiting list as Privatdozenten except for the fact that several thousand positions were vacated through the dismissal of Jewish or liberal professors ; but, technically, the young Nazi instructors more often than not were qualified for the positions they were offered just as the scientific periodicals and publishing houses with which they became affiliated have been known to every specialist abroad in his respective field. If the products of their research work, even apart from their rude tone, strike us as unconvincing and hollow, this weakness is due not to inferior training but to the mendacity inherent in any scholarship that overlooks or openly repudiates all moral and spiritual values and, by standing order, knows exactly its ultimate conclusions well in advance. (Hitlers Professors, Weinreich, 1946, pp. 6 7.) Lets just note, concerning this closing sentence, that only science constitutes true scholarship, and science is by definition blind to any values, of any kind. For science, all is force, function and mechanism. Ultimately, this is why science is not allowed to encroach upon the subject of human nature. And it is nice to see that when a wholesale defamation against academia is produced, such as this, the mechanism of precognition is identified as key to the entire purpose of academia so used. Sunning myself this afternoon, Monday, 22 August 2011, I had been reading the section on anti-Semitism in History and Destiny of the Jews by Kastein, 1931. This chapter provides an excellent summary of the intellectual influences on Germany developed over the course of a century, and this is the background to these remarks found in a post holocaust Jewish treatise on the same subject. So there was a huge build up to this intellectual flowering in German anti-Semitism. This is important to our atheist cause because it shows how academia is directed in its orientation by society at large, which for us means academia is shaped by Judaism, since Judaism rules our world through the mask of Christianity. Kasteins work shows that the German hatred of Judaism was drawn from the well of Christianity, which is the slave identity of Judaism. So this evil Nazism, was pure Judaism, and we can see this in the fact that it lasted only briefly, and has given way to an absolute fascism against anything approximating to true science, which, if it were not constrained thus,

could not help resurrecting the scientific basis of Nazism, which invoked the logic of the social organism to inspire its ideology of the folk, nation and master race identity. We insert this passage here because it is a rare confession by the ruling elite that academia is routinely corrupted by the ruling elite, exactly as we say it is now, through the prism of Darwinism, that all ideas must be shone through. Without the Hitler Taboo how could the Jews of obtained Israel, how could they of bombed the defenceless enclave of misery adjacent to it yesterday, murdering fifteen innocent people, without the least protest from anyone ? Thank God for Hitler, each Jew must murmur under their breath, each time they pray. For they must know how utterly vital this terrible evil was to their cause, making the holocaust not a crime, but a sacrifice. This sounds terrible, but it is not, it is a sacrifice of the superorganism, it is good and healthy, the deep meaning that these events have for us, is precisely what makes them functional, and anything other than functionality is irrelevant, as we do not exist. Returning to Erasmus as quoted above, we find the paragraph naming the finches closes with a perfect Darwinian assertion of progressive evolutionary improvement, of form adapted to environment. Then we have this sentence :
All which seem to have been formed by the original living filament, excited into action by the necessities of the creatures, which possess them, and on which their existence depends.

Telling us that the initial act of procreation was the source of all this variation to an end. It could scarcely be better for an early first shot across the bows of evolutionary science. The only thing I would pick up on here, is that by talking of these creatures thus, he imparts an unhelpful bias, unhelpful to science that is, though most helpful to religion. To say that evolution works towards perfecting the attributes of the life forms possessing them, upon which they rely, is circular and illogical. It is like saying a wheel is able to roll because it is so wonderfully round, as if those damned square wheels that some bicycles have are just such a nuisance, and why most people use those bicycles as tables ! Durr ! What is happening here, is the inherent value laden nature of our linguistic programming forces the inflection of a sense of value onto all that we say, and this is what enables establishment science to keep humans beyond its reach, since a true science could only treat all things it deals with as functional. Thus, dealt with properly, Erasmus would have recognised that the perfection of life forms for their place in existence was a given, which is why all life forms are always perfect, even though many go extinct even as their progeny transform into new lines of descent. Wheels then are always round, or else they are not wheels. Pigs always had snouts adapted to routing, in as much as their forebears without such accoutrements, were not pigs. So this mode of expression suggesting some kind of miracle is superfluous to a genuine understanding of what is at work in the evolution of life. However, preserving the imperative of values was clearly a precondition to keeping humans beyond the reach of these dangerous ideas, that meant Erasmus had to be ridiculed into withdrawing a public display of his evolutionary ideas, and when publishing the material we are examining now, he had to bury his views where they could lie undisturbed. This retention of value laden logic, must of been of great service to Charles in his effort to adapt his ideas to the needs of an absolute theocracy. But the last paragraph is surely the coup de grce, with its reference to millions of years and the origin of life from a simple common ancestor, empowered to evolve forever according to some law of self organisation. This is magnificent. I must say this is the first I can recall of any such speculation on the age of the earth along these lines. We are generally given to understand that after this date a Biblical scholar proved the earth was only 4004

years old, and this was accepted by everyone until the geologists forced a revaluation, most especially through the work of men like Charles Lyell, a good friend of Charles Darwin, who wrote Principles of Geology, beginning the process of publication in 1827. Still more : Linnaeus supposes, in the Introduction to his Natural Orders, that very few vegetables were at first created, and that their numbers were increased by their intermarriages, and adds, suadent hc Creatoris leges a simplicibus ad composita. Many other changes seem to have arisen in them by their perpetual contest for light and air above ground, and for food or moisture beneath the soil. As noted in Botanic Garden, Part II. Note on Cuscuta. Other changes of vegetables from climate, or other causes, are remarked in the Note on Curcuma in the same work. From these one might be led to imagine, that each plant at first consisted of a single bulb or flower to each root, as the gentianella and daisy ; and that in the contest for air and light new buds grew on the old decaying flower stem, shooting down their elongated roots to the ground, and that in process of ages tall trees were thus formed, and an individual bulb became a swarm of vegetables. Other plants, which in this contest for light and air were too slender to rise by their own strength, learned by degrees to adhere to their neighbours, either by putting forth roots like the ivy, or by tendrils like the vine, or by spiral contortions like the honey-suckle ; or by growing upon them like the mistletoe, and taking nourishment from their barks ; or by only lodging or adhering on them, and deriving nourishment from the air, as tillandsia. Shall we then say that the vegetable living filament was originally different from that of each tribe of animals above described ? And that the productive living filament of each of those tribes was different originally from the other ? Or, as the earth and ocean were probably peopled with vegetable productions long before the existence of animals ; and many families of these animals long before other families of them, shall we conjecture, that one and the same kind of living filaments is and has been the cause of all organic life ? (p. 507)

We see the importance of the great precursors of Charles Darwin here, as in Linnaeus. Important because it was these men who forced the life sciences into existence, inducing the idea of evolution. We can see from this passage that Linnaeus was thinking about how species came to be as they are. Erasmus is in effect only taking his cue from the likes of Linnaeus, in respect to the matter of evolution. After this passage he proceeds to discuss the idea of evolution itself, asserting that the idea had not really occurred to the ancients other than in a rudimentary form. We see in the above a continuing emphasis upon the idea of competition as being at the heart of the nature of living forms, here seen in the struggle between plants for light and nutriments. Further, we see assumptions concerning the manner in which life first occupied the earth, indicating that life was assumed to of come into existence on earth, and then gradually to of populated the planet, slowly, by a process of diversification into available habitats. It really is all here, in embryonic form at least, the final presentation in 1859 adds nothing, indeed it subtracts because it leads us into the blind alley of natural selection, and man as an ape, and so on. The above passage is excellent, though it lacks the final polish whereby the process of evolution is seen to take place due to the force of Information driving life forms towards the latent potential energy of life, as when plants seek the light. But how

could anyone venture that far under the conditions of oppression imposed by the church at this time ? This freedom had to await the development of a theory sanctioned by the theocracy, for which they selected Erasmus grandson Charles, for obvious reasons to do with his familiarity with evolutionary ideas, and his established standing in the matter by virtue of his grandfathers efforts in this field. The late Mr. David Hume, in his posthumous works, places the powers of generation much above those of our boasted reason ; and adds, that reason can only make a machine, as a clock or a ship, but the power of generation makes the maker of the machine ; and probably from having observed, that the greatest part of the earth has been formed out of organic recrements ; as the immense beds of limestone, chalk, marble, from the shells of fish ; and the extensive provinces of clay, sandstone, ironstone, coals, from decomposed vegetables ; all which have been first produced by generation, or by the secretions of organic life ; he concludes, that the world itself might have been generated, rather than created ; that is, it might have been gradually produced from very small beginnings, increasing by the activity of its inherent principles, rather than by a sudden evolution of the whole by the Almighty fiat. What a magnificent idea of the infinite power of THE GREAT ARCHITECT ! THE CAUSE OF CAUSES ! PARENT OF PARENTS ! ENS ENTIUM ! For if we may compare infinities, it would seem to require a greater infinity of power to cause the causes of effects, than to cause the effects themselves. This idea is analogous to the improving excellence observable in every part of the creation ; such as in the progressive increase of the solid or habitable parts of the earth from water ; and in the progressive increase of the wisdom and happiness of its inhabitants ; and is consonant to the idea of our present situation being a state of probation, which by our exertions we may improve, and are consequently responsible for our actions. (p. 509) Here we have a brave attempt at pure science, culminating in an exuberant expression of pure values, which equates to religion, and nothing else. It is interesting to see how advanced geology was, in that it recognised the organic origins of major formations, which bespoke the millions of years that life had existed, as already noted. It goes to show how far advanced science was, and the spirit of intellectual freedom that was abroad during the eighteenth century. Which in turn indicates why and how the great fight back of religion comes into its own during the nineteenth, personified by the greatest act of science ever, the production of the Darwinian pseudo science of life, the culmination of knowledge accumulated by preceding generations, that told the theocracy how to handle this new phase of social transformation. There was a delayed reaction regarding the application of science to humans, so that sociology only became a true science with the work of Comte in the 1830s, hence while the life sciences were brought to a dead stop in 1859, it took a world war to stop the science of sociology in its tracks. Technology, as in genetics, has of course progressed in leaps and bounds, but technology is not knowledge, it can be applied any way that may be desired, knowledge is the culminating principle which says what everything is. Darwin brought the act of conceptual exploration to an end, and as we constantly discover when reading modern science, the religious establishment have held science in abeyance at this fixed point, ever since. They say it is job done, Darwin is right, but we say it is not, unless the job be to destroy science and preserve religion. Erasmus next sets out to deal with the exquisitely tricky question of colour adaptation, as in chameleons or birds eggs adapted for camouflage, and concludes that these things must

have an efficient cause, they cannot be fortuitous because they are so universal. This hints at a need for a solution such as that of natural selection, provided, falsely, by Charles. The correct solution being the flow of information directing the flow of energy towards the formation of all living form, down to the minutest acts of humans on earth today. Next, a tricky explication, but one worth examining : 2. The nutriment supplied by the female parent in viviparous animals to their young progeny may be divided into three kinds, corresponding with the age of the new creature I. The nutriment contained in the ovum as previously prepared for the embryon in the ovary. 2. The liquor amnii prepared for the fetus in the uterus, and in which it swims ; and lastly, the milk prepared in the pectoral glands for the new-born child. There is reason to conclude that a variety of changes may be produced in the new animal from all these sources of nutriment, but particularly from the first of them. The organs of digestion and of sanguification in adults, and afterwards those of secretion, prepare or separate the particles proper for nourishment from other combinations of matter, or recombine them into new kinds of matter, proper to excite into action the filaments, which absorb or attract them by animal appetency. In this process we must attend not only to the action of the living filament which receives a nutritive particle to its bosom, but also to the kind of particle, in respect to form, or size, or colour, or hardness, which is thus previously prepared for it by digestion, sanguification, and secretion. Now as the first filament of entity cannot be furnished with the preparative organs above mentioned, the nutritive particles, which are at first to be received by it, are prepared by the mother ; and deposited in the ovum ready for its reception. These nutritive particles must be supposed to differ in some respects, when thus prepared by different animals. They may differ in size, solidity, colour, and form ; and yet may be sufficiently congenial to the living filament, to which they are applied, as to excite its activity by their stimulus, and its animal appetency to receive them, and to combine them with itself into organization. By this first nutriment thus prepared for the embryon is not meant the liquor amnii, which is produced afterwards, nor the larger exterior parts of the white of the egg ; but the fluid prepared, I suppose, in the ovary of viviparous animals, and that which immediately surrounds the cicatricula of an impregnated egg, and is visible to the eye in a boiled one. Now these ultimate particles of animal matter prepared by the glands of the mother may be supposed to resemble the similar ultimate particles, which were prepared for her own nourishment ; that is, to the ultimate particles of which her own organization consists. And that hence when these become combined with a new embryon, which in its early state is not furnished with stomach, or glands, to alter them ; that new embryon will bear some resemblance to the mother. This seems to be the origin of the compound forms of mules, which evidently partake of both parents, but principally of the male parent. In this production of chimeras the ancients seem to have indulged their fancies, whence the sphinxes, griffins, dragons, centaurs, and minotaurs, which are vanished from modern credulity. (pp. 512 13)
1) Sangufication, is the turning of Chyle into Blood, which is performed in all the Parts of the Body, and not in any one particular Part. 2) Chyle, the white Juice or digested Matter, whereof the Blood is made. (Baileys Dictionary, 1721. Mine lacks a title page, possibly 20th Ed., 1763, 1721 being the date of first publication according to Oxford Dictionary, 1990.)

I just spent the last two hours locating and printing the missing first three pages from my Baileys Dictionarymurder. Now where were we ? The above ruminations are peculiar, they confuse nourishment with reproduction, which, on reflection, is understandable in some degree, but even so, given a little deep thought it ought to be clear that the two things must be quite distinct. Apparently not however, for they are well and truly conflated in the above. In the end the idea seems to be that the mother makes her contribution to the new born by providing the medium of nutrition, whereas the male provides the substantial form that is to be fed. This is not at all satisfactory, but it responds to the material fact that offspring often combine the telltale features of both parents within its own new form. The numerous references to particles in this connection is highly suggestive to us, since we can but associate such thinking with the genes making up the genome, and in a tantalising way, this may of been the sort of idea these people were toying with, but, as stated above, without grasping the crucial point that the key to understanding all these processes is a concept of information. The idea that the nutritive particles may be congenial to the living filament so as to stimulate the development of new life in an act of combination with itself into organization., is delightfully evocative of the new science of self organisation. My attention was drawn to this new science a couple of years ago with my discovery of its application to human society, as per Goonatilake in The Evolution of Information, 1991, but I recently purchased a book dealing with the subject in detail, as it applies to biology. SelfOrganization in Biological Systems by Camazine et. al., 2001, is a very annoying book, as ever when people deal precisely with my cherished subject, because they always totally pervert it in order to keep science inline with the requirements of the absolute theocracy, that all science serves. Even so, leafing through it today after extracting the above passage from Erasmus, did make me think that these thoughts of Erasmus in the eighteenth century, might be picked up in the sterile science seeking to achieve the same goal now as he was then, under precisely the same circumstances of an absolute taboo on any science dealing with the evolution of humans, which now takes a new twist because of the work done by Erasmus, that Charles turned into the key to subverting science forevermore. These disgusting contemporary intellectuals actually manage to discern a split between self-organisation in life, which effectively derives its logic from the idea of self consciousness, such that bees foraging for food are self organised, having no organising leader (p. 191), whereas humans building a house are not self organised (p. 12), because here a preconceived plan exists in the hands of an overseer, even if its totality unknown to each of the individual contributors to the project ! Such mind numbing ignorance beggars belief, and goes to show that the oppression Erasmus suffered upon declaring everything from shells, is as overpowering today as it ever was. This oppression is institutionalised, as it was then. I suppose you want me to spell out what is wrong with the work of these delinquent priests, by telling you what is right ? Oh very well then. Human physiology obliges humans to speak as surely as wings oblige a bird to fly, or gills oblige fish to live in water. The act of speaking is not performed in service of the individual. Speaking projects a flux of information into the supra individual space where language exists externally to individuals, and thus constitutes a linguistic force in the shape of a social authority, as all individuals must learn the resulting language during the process of induction into the body of the superorganism, to which they belong. Language controls the individual, not the other way around. However, the focus of social authority arising from this projection of linguistic force, creates a core political authority invested in an elite body of people, that require people to be decoupled from the true source of social authority, which is knowledge borne of

linguistic expression, so that their power can be made exclusive. So we find religions inculcated by priests, and languages imbued with the sense of individualism. The projection of linguistic force therefore creates Authority, social authority, which is the essence of social structure, culture, and communicated language. Language contains an identity programme routine, which is insinuated into the somatic being of the individual, and, being shared by all interacting individuals, the result is the directed organisation of all individuals, towards one end. This results in an arrow of identity moving forward through time, this identity is synonymous with the being of the superorganism to which the identity belongs, and equates to the life of the superorganism, and as such justifies our calling the social entity a living being, the true embodiment of the living human animal. As superorganisms grow they may incorporate others, destroying their identities, or combine them with their own in a social form of genetic evolution mimicking the sexual act of conjugation, where two similar identities combine to produce a third that is entirely new, though derived from the old. Thus cultures like genomes come to be combinations of many cultural forms blended over the millennia. A familiar example of this fact is found in our use of the sexagesimal system for certain measurements, such as time, a piece of cultural DNA producing social structure today, that originated in Babylonian times, or beyond. Thus a director exists within human society, in the form of a linguistic identity programme. It is this programme that causes a plumber to fit bathrooms in a building he has no idea exists, in that he does not know the buildings end form. If the plumber were working 30,000 years ago, the linguistic identity programme would not direct him to fit bathrooms, oddly enough, because these would not be part of its linguistic routine, they would tell him to paint images of animals on cave walls, or some such thing. These academics, figuratively speaking, are simply peering out across a vast savannah and raising a finger in front of their eyes allowing them to declare that the end point of infinity, is the tip of their finger, because that is what their eyes are focused upon, and hence all they can see. They are detestable swine. These academics however, though infuriating to me, are likewise only obeying the imperatives of the linguistic identity programme that has been so elaborately accrued over the last few centuries, in the manner which we are endeavouring to elucidate, even now.

I Imagining information The ensuing discussion in Zoonomia gets into the importance of sex, this is of interest because Charles laid much emphasis upon the role of sexual reproduction. Erasmus persistence in speaking of the imagination to refer to the influence of the parents mediated via the supply of food, is so odd, it makes me wonder what he meant by imagination. Did he mean what we mean by that word today ? It seems nye on impossible that he thinks the mental activity of the parent shapes the development of the embryo. It is almost as if he has in mind that precise thing we seek notice of, information that is ! How nice that would be. Imagination, could perhaps denote the essence of the parental character if this word had a more extended, diffuse meaning, at that time, meaning the personality of the individual. Our use of this word is not too distant from this meaning today, we say that some people have an overactive imagination for example, which relates to their personality or nature. At this time people were more in touch with the elements of words, as in image, than we are today, as they knew the roots that we are no longer taught. So they could use a word like imagination with the sense of an underlying significance, which might of been able to

denote the transmission of an image of the parent. If that were so, then the use of this word would make considerable sense, meaning the image, as in the nature of the parent, constitutes an influence transferred to the offspring. This insubstantial influence might then be linked with the substantial supply of nourishment, in order to meet the dualistic condition of all existence, which he began by identifying with spirit and matter. ____ There is some obscure talk about the internal physiology coming under the influence of glands, and how this peaks in respect to the pleasurable impulse associated with sex. This I do not want to consider, but I do want the following paragraph in which all this strange talk culminates : There is, however, another final cause, to which this circumstance may be imputed : it was observed above, that vegetable buds and bulbs, which are produced without a mother, are always exact resemblances of their parent ; as appears in grafting fruit-trees, and in the flower-buds of the dioiceous plants, which are always of the same sex on the same tree ; hence those hermaphrodite insects, if they could have produced young without a mother, would not have been capable of that change or improvement, which is seen in all other animals, and in those vegetables, which are procreated by the male embryon received and nourished by the female. And it is hence probable, that if vegetables could only have been produced by buds and bulbs, and not by sexual generation, that there would not at this time have existed one thousandth part of their present number of species ; which have probably been originally mule-productions ; nor could any kind of improvement or change have happened to them, except by the difference of soil or climate. (p. 519) Sex, species generation, and environmental influenceevolution in a nutshellis right here. What more need we say, it is amazing. The circumstance to which he refers, I think means the association of pleasure with sex, giving sex its driving force, but this is slightly obscured by the preceding sentence ending in a Latin cover, presumably for the sake of delicacy. We can see that he is saying that sex is the key to lifes bounty, courtesy of what we call evolution, due to sexual behaviour. This is a highly suggestive passage, which it is easy to see begs for the kind of solution that Charles came up with, in terms of the sex act being like a throw of dice offering permutations of form that could then serve to deliver comparative advantages as the outcome of the urge to procreate, leading to developmental advance of the kind Erasmus has already described. This reasoning is central to Darwinism as we know it. He does not state here, that species are multiplied via a process of transformation whereby one species gives rise to others, in an unfolding of lifes potential, but it is implicit in the suggestion that it is by virtue of sexual reproduction in plants alone, that we see the profusion of plant species that we do. Aside from sexual reproduction, the influence of the environment is made paramount in causing species to proliferate through transformation, two ideas that are combined forcefully in Charles refined version of this reasoning. The mere suggestion that sexual reproduction is pivotal, being put bluntly like this, begs the question what it might be that sex does, that asexual reproduction does not do ? This is the whole of Charles idea of natural selection in all but name. The man had nothing to do but wait for permission from the church, in the guise of the establishment, to publish his reformulation, which came in 1859. As we have been saying all along, the voyage of the Beagle, the Galapagos rigmarole, the

handwringing reticence, all this, and more, was just the stewing of the broth of deceit, cooking up a porridge to be served to the helpless masses, which has henceforth been spoonfed to us all, till we choke on it. But here, in Erasmus, we see where the original family recipe came from, in its pure and simple, honest form, before being spiced up and pureed into baby food, to make the raw idea smooth to the digestion, as befits the passive grubs that it is the eternal duty of the priesthood to nurture. A concoction resulted, that was safe for the religious freak to swallow without the least harm being done to their digestion, causing no hindrance to the propagation of their slime on down the ages, as it had already been transmitted down the centuries to them. Of course the hot spice of the original dish had to be preserved in full, in order for the published recipe to be accepted as the real thing. So we find that the war between religion and science has, since 1859, revolved around Darwinism, which is religion in the guise of science, so that religion fights religion, and therefore only religion can win. The fake antagonism is perhaps the most outstanding aspect of the whole show, for without this charade rolling on down the years, boiling up nowadays under a new head of steam provided by the so called new atheists, men like Dawkins, the whole business would be lost. It is the fuss of religion over Darwinism which makes it seem important, now manifested by religion in the guise of rampant atheism, which is not atheism at all really. How can it be, it is not science, and atheism without science is meaningless ? Atheism informed by science must treat religion as real, and hence natural and functional, exactly as our Atheist Science does, and the New Atheist ideology does not do that. I usually stick to Dawkins in this regard, but I have in recent times become aware that a whole new school of vicious religion hating has come into being, as I say, the new atheists, and there are more and more of them. I bought an example recently, called God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens, 2007. It is worthless, save to the absolute theocracy that rules our world. A book like this reflects everything that I was until I blossomed into a philosopher a decade or so ago, by finally obtaining an answer to the ultimate questions of existence, which allowed me to say what religion is and why it exists, because humans are a species of superorganism. Hitchens mentions evolution, but he obeys the conceit enabled by Darwin, to serve religion, of pretending that evolution does not apply to humans. So these diatribes are nothing more than political assaults on religious power, many of which we have seen before, even to the point of revolutionary ideology pretending to oust religion, as in nationalist Communism. Which is just Judaism by another name. As is this New Atheist stance. I cannot believe how much more I keep finding in Zoonomia, there are a dozen pages left and I do not want to discover anymore, I have found enough ; but I cannot stop now. Cor blimey ! So much for me trying to rescue this man from obloquy, by seeking to interpret his meaning regarding the influence of the imagination in the process of reproduction. He follows on directly from the above quote, by making it plain that he uses the word imagination with the exact same meaning we do, as a mental activity of the conscious mind. That said, and as tragic as this is, my effort to see something else in his meaning, namely an unwitting sense of information, driving the evolutionary process, led me to an idea that I do not want to give up. It remains plausible that he was led to deliver this odd analysis because what we now know is the transmission of genetic information, stimulated his imagination to respond with an idea that epitomises the tenuousness of information, and this is all he could do to meet the labours of his own mind, faced with the inscrutable facts as he had them. Charles did no better, he did not talk about information either, or a plan, or a pattern, or a language of the body ; all of which seems to me to be the way to go, on the basis of what Erasmus had already deduced. All Charles did was to cover this base by devising the

insidious idea of natural selection. We would of been better off with the overtly absurd notion of the imagination filling this role. It is interesting that by trying to account for species variation in this way, Erasmus was preserving the special role of the human individual as a self serving being, even having the potential to command the process of evolution that led to their own individual form, simply by controlling their imagination, or by being of a high moral character, and so breeding sprats of a like kind ! Outrageous, the usual conceit of the elite, they always find some way to applaud themselves, by hook or by crook. One can imagine this idea coming from the company we know Erasmus must of kept as a figure of high social standing, conversing with prelates over dinner, yes, they would of loved this kind of sick notion of human divinity insinuating itself into science. This is so suggestive of the usual bias in intellectual circles, exactly as we are burdened by it today, that we cannot overlook the importance of this aspect of this lunatic idea. He even says that what the imagination imagines, is that which we call consciousness itself ! So in this we find that Erasmus was foretelling his grandsons betrayal of science, being unwilling to really get to grips with the full meaning of the subject that he was pretending to understand in purely rational terms. The pretence was of course a self deception, born of the pressure of being a nonexistent being serving a superorganism, and in the end, there is no need to think that Charles lifelong commitment to the perversion of science, was anymore of a conspiracy either. This section on the influence of the imagination on the gender, and the nature of the new life created by sex, is quite as bad as it gets. No one ever wrote anything more insane than this, ever, I cannot comprehend how such ideas could possibly be thought plausible, it is like thinking there might be a God, or life after death, pure, unadulterated, insanity. Incomprehensible that is, except, as with religion, as a device serving a political agenda. The only agenda is that already identified, sustaining the idea of the individual as a being possessed of creative authority, thus sustaining the idea of moral power and ethical value. Given that we know he was denounced by his neighbour for advertising his evolutionary views in the 1770s, we must assume he shared his ideas with the same people, and these professional religious freaks would of been more than happy to concoct such obscene ideas, which influence might be what we see in this text, perhaps even placed there as a sop to such people to fend off their anger at evolutionary ideas being published. However, his discussion of this matter is as deep and penetrating as any, and full of naturalistic examples and justifications. It must of seemed reasonable to him, but it beats me how this can be. He gives the example of a miscarriage and an attempted infidelity demonstrating the power of the imagination to influence such matters, but this is so crass, it beggars belief that a man famed for his science, could pay heed to such ideas. This the greatest scientific genius of the century ? I think not, this is inexcusable. It is as outrageous as the idea that God exists, or that humans are free from the power of nature, or much that our overlords force us to believe, in obedience to the impress of the superorganism we are all part of, of course.

II Science for the love of God ! Now we come to a section headed Recapitulation, which draws to a close thus : 9. As the habitable parts of the earth have been, and continue to be, perpetually increasing by the production of sea-shells and corallines, and by the recrements of other animals, and vegetables ; so from the beginning of the existence of this

terraqueous globe, the animals, which inhabit it, have constantly improved, and are fully in a state of progressive improvement. (pp. 528 9) Giving us a final statement of the evolutionary idea, par excellence. Finally a Conclusion outlines the nature of cause and effect, which I thought anticipated hopefully, foolishlywas going to culminate in a causal explanation for evolution, but which instead, denounced the ancients for their atheistic naturalism, which Erasmus declares should of been rooted in the assumption of a divine being, where Erasmus idea of an ascending hierarchy of perfection running through the sequence of cause and effect proves that such perfection exists, and thus science ends in the glorification of God ! Screw that. This is the exact opposite of our Atheist Science view, which says science must perforce assume an atheist stance from the outset. We see here the idea that science must be made to conform to religion, this is the Darwinian way. And this is an idea that we can be sure his grandson did fully concur with. It is said today that Darwin separated science from religion, allowing each to go their separate ways. What he really did was to separate science from religion by sterilising science, to make sure religion could persist in a so called scientific age. Which, is a rather different thing, more akin to curing a patient by killing them !

We are led to believe that we live in a free society, epitomised by free access to knowledge. This is a damned lie. From Erasmus, to Charles, to Dawkins, is one long continuum of deceit, the usual representation of reality by religion, only here we see the performance reaching across the supposed divide lying between religion and science, that causes knowledge to appear in two distinct forms, religious and secular. We will close with a little study of Dawkins drawn fresh from the pot of life, by way of illustrating this continuity of deceit. ___

Dawkins Rides Again

Dawkins was on Newsnight last night, 13/09/2011, having churned out a new book, The Magic of Reality, aimed at kids. It examines myths and then tells the real story. Paxman said that religion held society together and Dawkins responded in his calm, superior voice, You dont really believe that do you ? Dawkins intonation was not questioning, it told Paxman that he knew this was an interrogative suggestion, not an expression of an intelligent mans views. To which Paxman said, that it was the basis of our culture. Thats as maybe came the response, but why not make truth the basis of our culture ? Dawkins is so oppressed by his sense of self, by the principle of individuality, that he is blind to any scientific view of humans as objects within a natural order that might be subject to the whims of nature, so that this monstrous thing religion, can be good, healthy, and natural, and science just a means to an end, where truth is of no consequence. But unless he faces the harsh reality of his personal nonexistence, he can never have the truth. We attain the pinnacle of individuality when we understand that there is no such thing as the individual, then the truth sets us free from the oppression of imagining that we make the world we live in, when in reality it is made by linguistic force acting in the guise of religion as the binding agent of social being. What kind of answer is it to say You dont believe that ? That religion binds society is the most important fact of our existence. The last question Paxman put to him, asked if he was genuinely bothered that there were so many stupid people about. Dawkins said he was. Which is a demonstration of the most base stupidity we could wish for. Since when was religion the exclusive domain of the stupid ? To pick on the mythical content of religion and ridicule it, while dismissing the consequences of people subscribing to such beliefs, is gross ignorance at its worst. What about all the exceptionally clever people who subscribe to religion, most especially our politicians ? The lead up by Newsnight, began by talking about how the purveyors of religion especially want to impress themselves upon the child, thereby taking possession of the individual. Dawkins book is meant to counter this, so why did Paxman not cut to the chase by interrogating Dawkins on this penetrating issue, as to why this strategy of capturing the young is important to the religious, since that is what this new publication has been expressly designed to challenge ? The reason why advocates of religion act this way, is that religion provides people with their cultural identity. This is why the strangeness of the myths themselves is irrelevant, for they simply constitute linguistic colours for the brain to soak up, which replace our racial colours as the basis of social corporate identity. This is how the constitution of social bodies are established and maintained, as indicated by Paxman, and

contemptuously dismissed by Dawkins. Thus Dawkins pretends that individuality is everything, which is just what religion needs atheism and science to do, in order that it may be left in peace to get on with performing its slave making function. Paxman did suggest that religion offered comfort where science offered nothing, so that religion said God loves you, you are special, while science says you are a speck of matter. But again, this is personalising the issue, and entirely missing the functional point of the things. There was a lot in this short piece, but the sum total of the presentation was a bag of wind, where it might of been a storm of profound wisdom. The usual Dawkins performance then. Dawkins does not get that we are animals evolved on this planet, and therefore society is made by nature, and religion is the expression of linguistic force making society exist. He thinks that humans are individuals who live by dint of their own conscious use, of their natural gifts. This means that where I decide that my atheist insights lead ultimately to unknowable knowledge, because society cannot be founded on the basis of this true science, Dawkins thinks lifes issues are all about mass stupidity to be resolved by teaching people to be clever, as individuals. He never grasps the point that his level of intellectual refinement is an extremely specialised, and rarefied condition, that few could experience even if they longed for it, life is a very humdrum affair for the vast majority, of necessity. This idea is found in the philosophical work of Bertrand Russell, who, as a philosopher, recognises that his interests can often be aloof from most peoples everyday concerns. Whereas, because Dawkins deals with hard facts, or thinks he does, this intuitive grasp of the human condition never crosses his thick skulled mind. He therefore thinks society can be based upon the literal truth revealed by science, and that is what he said to Paxman last night. It is a nice thought, but aside from the expression of hope, it is hopeless. The main problem being that things like world wars are the means used by those with an interest in power derived from myth, based on religion that is, that ensures we can never develop into that individualised state of perfection. Politicians forever messing with our social structure cause the same effect by always fighting on the basis of false ideals, of right and left, interests that tear society apart and ensure the desired idea of individual perfection, is unattainable. This is established social cleansing working with all out social cleansing, to keep the social flux in a fizz, only allowing the religious core to remain fixed and stable, by ensuring that individuals cannot develop into fully fledged human beings in their own right, even if such an ideal is theoretically possible because of the finest examples provided by intellectual specialists like Dawkins. The lesson is, that first we must erase religion from the earth, then the need for war will disappear, and so society may be based upon the ideal Dawkins dreams of, maybe. Is it possible to have a culture based on truth ? No.

Afterthought
Darwinism as Grey Area

Lets try and develop the argument we have been expatiating upon here, in organic terms. We cannot help but find a connection between our Atheist Science philosophy and that of Herbart Spencer, because he was the only English philosopher to take up the idea of the social organism in earnest, even if he did eventually shun it. Another theme animating his philosophy was that of the relationship between the individual and the state, it appears that his concern with this issue drove a wedge between it, and his organicist position in sociology, so concerned was he to assert the freedom of the individual above all else. Unfortunately, while we value the same ideal, his decision to go with individualism transformed his philosophy into that which philosophy is always said to be, namely one mans personal agenda, as opposed to be what philosophy purports to be, which is the search for knowledge. I have described myself as the ultimate individual because that is in fact just who I am, by way of life, and have always been. Curiously, my journey into becoming a philosopher has arisen out of a relentless search for truth driven by an implacable adherence the ideal of individual authority vested in the self, has caused me to deny my core values associated with myself as an individual, existing in my own right. I now realise that this living value system is not real, it is the cultural milieu promulgated by the priesthood ruling our world, and that is why I absorbed it so completely, taking it to its ultimate expression, believing it, as I did so completely, that I took it at face value. Silly me. Most people learn to be moderate about this, they accept the dogma of individual autonomy, while also absorbing the pragmatic dimension of obedience to social authority as the summation of individual authority willingly shared. Not me, I am afraid, I never agreed to share anything. This attitude has meant living my life as a loner, always going my own way, and hence being the ultimate individual. This in turn has led me to become a philosopher in my own right, living for no other reason than to know the truth, that I might attain that ideal of the supreme individual, validated as the sole authority on earth, that I need acknowledge. And this outcome was possible because the knowledge we are fed is a fraud, an imposition, and my relentless search for the truth finally revealed this fact to me. So now I know that humans have been made by nature to act as units of a living entity, and not to exist as individuals, at all. How about that for a turnaround.

I Being ones own authority My life has exemplified the ideal of being ones own authority, such that I have always determined to accept my own evaluation as the final one to be upheld, in all matters. I recognise no authority as being superior to my own, on principle, in any regard. This most especially comes to a head on a day to day basis, in respect to the law. When I was a teenager I had many set-tos with my Old Man, debates I am talking about. I use to argue the

toss with him about the rights and wrongs of society, the contentious subjects always being concerned with the imposition of authority no doubt, that I of course resented. These often took place upon my arriving home from the pub, as he would sit up to around midnight marking his students work or some such thing, maybe with some late night news show on the telly. These debates would sometimes close with my father saying that if that was how I thought then I was an anarchist. Fine, I would say, so I am an anarchist. And so it was that by the time I was a young man, and when I went to college, I called myself an anarchist. But I did not subscribe to the official idea of an anarchist, which associated this creed with violence against society. When at college I remember coming across a slim paperback, a Penguin possibly, called Social Anarchism, I dont have the book any longer, but I decided the title identified something that I could recognise, I was a social anarchist. What the rigmarole was I have no idea now, but I would say it consisted of an acceptance that society was the normal and necessary condition of life, and hence some kind of order was implicit, but the presumed value must always be towards minimising authority directed against the individual. That is how I would say it now. It is like thinking of the police as our enemy, as we do the government, obviously, how else would we think of the government ? I know they like to pretend the government exists to serve us, but that is one heap of the smelly stuff is ever there was one. So the police exist to keep control of us, the slaves, and we naturally hate them for it, why would you think in any other way of your jailors ? But the police are also there to serve us, when certain, extremely rare occurrences happen, and at that time, we need them. So, the police, like the state they serve as an arm of mass control, is a necessary evil. This is how I interpret policing by consent.

II Grey areas When I think about the manner in which law interacts with the general population, concerning the organisation of behaviour by mass prohibition, and I am vexed by the steady corrosion of our freedom, I often find my thoughts coming concluding with the grey area concept. Today, imagining myself being challenged on my behaviour over the years, I homed in on this phrase once again, only now I found myself giving it a new organicist gloss. This gloss was so general that I suddenly found myself applying it to the production of Darwinism as false knowledge. My thoughts had involved the description of a living mass, a body if you will, held together and organised as one, via the kind of flexible links that I think of as gelatinous tissue, sinews, or gristle. The thing about sinews or gristle, is that they allow hard parts to be interlinked into a dynamic relationship with enveloping soft tissue. It suddenly occurred to me that in physiological terms, this intermediary physical attribute constituted a structural grey area, which was neither hard nor soft, but semi-hard and flexible. A great favourite with me, for musing on, is the transformation in English drinking culture. I often think of how I went to the local pub near our estate aged fourteen, with my mate, where we would get a pint of bitter and throw a few arrows. The law was the same as it is now, eighteen being the legal age for buying alcohol. Up until a decade ago there was a pub in this town where all the young ones went, everyone knew it. Not anymore. Now the police state has arrived in the alehouse, where the demand for ID is relentless. If you look under twenty five they reserve the right to demand identification, and if you or anyone of your company do not have it, your stymied. I hate this. It never applies to me of course, but

it is so offensive and disgusting to see, no wonder our public houses are going to the wall, they are being kicked to death by our supreme enemy, the state. So what we have here is a rigid structure, where all the soft tissue making up the body of society is being interlinked by rigid structure, as if a jellyfish were being turned into a coral reef. This is being done because of modern systems of organisation enable this degree of control, which is seen in the regulation imposed by the state, and in the process of consolidation applied to our social fabric by the corporations that own society, and farm it. The two processes are interlinked, so much so that these global capitalist corporations are indistinguishable from state structures, in terms of their being oppressive enemies of the individual. Today these corporations are the state, but they are a state from hell, as they are integrated into the most intimate fabric of our lives. So that humans society, the superorganism, is being structurally intensified, physiologically it is becoming more like a coral reef, as opposed to the free and liberated form that it use to be, which was more like that of an ant nest or termite mound. No longer have we the freedom of robotic ants, now we are reduced to the status of cemented polyps ! With these thoughts sloshing freely about my brain earlier today, my mind turned to the current work I am writing, on Darwinism as a false science imposed by the theocracy. It popped into my head that this idea, serving as a package of information delivered to each individual, acted as a bonding structure, a ligament, with the attributes of cartilage, linking people in a fixed manner, while retaining a degree of flexibility. The point is that this idea of Darwinism is usually presented by me as a sterile form of science, that is safe for religion to be contact with. But seen in terms of a feature of the linguistic bonding programme, expressing linguistic force that creates, unities and organises all social form, Darwinism can be seen as interceding between religion and science at the unitary level of each person, where it then constitutes an information package passed onto all people uniformly, irrespective of their other ideas, allowing everyone to subscribe to the One idea of reality. The scientist-cum -atheist can take Darwinism fully loaded, and the religious freak can accept this, confident that for all their brilliance the scientist is still stumped when it comes to describing life in purely scientific terms. So this is the sterile view of science made personal and operational, at a physical level of sentient brick existence. Now we find Darwinism acting as a grey area between all modes of knowledge, allowing the biomass to remain integrated but flexible, and hence united and dynamic, in other words alive. Given this model, we find knowledge being managed by universities in a manner akin to the management of law by the state, so that Darwinism is like an act of knowledge dealing with how society agrees to understand the nature of life. This work has been about how this organisation of knowledge to produce an accepted form, is accomplished. Crucial to the success of this method, as with all law, where everyone must agree that the law is the law, and it is not to be questioned, it may be subject to change, but while it is in force, it will be adhered to by all, so it is with Darwinism. This is precisely how all academics, bar none, treat Darwinism, as the law. There is endless flexibility seen in the way academics use Darwinism, it appears in all kinds of contexts. But what never varies, is the homage paid to Darwinism as proven science. In short, the universities, are an arm of governance, dealing with knowledge. They always were, and commonsense tells us they must be now, more so now we know society is a living entity created by nature, so that the political notion of one arm of social organisation splitting off from the core and becoming some sort of autonomous authority, is as fallacious scientifically speaking, as it must be ridiculous to our intuitive reason.

III Universals I am not generally drawn towards the idea of universal attributes of existence, but I know one when I see one. Dipping into some of Spencers work the other day, I noticed the idea of evolution being presented as a universal attribute of existence, which was to be found acting at every level of material form we knew, this applied from the level of chemical action to that of cosmic formation. Translating the idea of a grey area from law to knowledge prompts me to follow Spencer in this regard, by pointing out that we are describing a bonding process at the level of social action, which is to be found acting at all levels of universal existence. This idea of social bonding enacted by law and knowledge, reflects our longer standing insight into the true nature of the social force creating all social form, namely the linguistic force brought into being by nature, through evolution of human somatic form. Laws, like ideas, as in Darwins idea of natural selection, therefore constitute packages of information containing a charge of linguistic force, that binds sentient brick units of human superorganic being, according to a fixed value that individuals experience as being intellectually valid, or, in the case of a law, morally imperative.

Bibliography

Bailey, Nathaniel

An Universal English Dictionary, London, 1727.

Baldelli, Giovanni

Social Anarchism, Penguin, 1972. First published 1971.

Camazine, Scott et. al.

Self-Organization in Biological Systems, Princeton, 2001.

Chambers, Robert

Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, Wiley and Putnam, 1845. First published 1844. Charles Darwins The Life of Erasmus Darwin, Edited by Desmond King-Hele, CUP, 2003. First published 1879. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, John Murray, 1859.

Darwin, Charles

Darwin, Erasmus

Zoonomia ; or, the Laws of Organic Life, J. Johnson, 1794. The Magic of Reality : How we know whats really true, Bantam Press, 2011.

Dawkins, Richard

Desmond, Adrian

The Politics of Evolution : Morphology, Medicine, and Reform in Radical London, Chicago, 1989.

Dudley, Leonard M.

The Word and the Sword : How Techniques of Information and Violence Have Shaped our World, Blackwell, 1991.

Goonatilake, Susantha

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

Hitchens, Christopher

God is not Great : The Case Against Religion, Atlantic Books, 2007.

Hlldobler, Bert and Wilson, Edward O.

The Superorganism : The Beauty, Elegance, and Strangeness of Insect Societies, W. W. Norton & Company, 2009.

Kastein, Josef

History and Destiny of the Jews, John Lane, 1933. First published in German, 1931.

King, John H.

Man an Organic Community : Being an Exposition of the Law that the Human Personality in all its Phases in Evolution, both Co-ordinate and Discordinate, is the Multiple of many Sub-personalities, Williams and Norgate, 1893.

King-Hele, Desmond

Doctor of Revolution : The Life and Genius of Erasmus Darwin, Faber & Faber, 1977.

Laguna, Grace Andrus de

Speech : Its Function and Development, Indiana, 1963. First published 1927. Comtes Philosophy of the Sciences : Being an Exposition of the Principles of the Cours de Philosophie Positive of Auguste Comte, George Bell and Sons, 1878. First published 1853.

Lewes, G. H.

Lubbock, Sir John

Pre-Historic Times : As Illustrated by Ancient Remains and the Manners and Customs of Modern Savages, D. Appleton and Company, 1890. First published 1865.

Lyell, Charles

Principles of Geology : Being an Inquiry how Far the Former Changes of the Earths Surface are Referable to Causes now in Operation, John Murray, 1837. First published 1830 32.

Malthus, Thomas Robert

An Essay on the Principle of Population, as it Affects the Future Improvement of Society, J. Johnson, 1798.

Martineau, Harriet

The Philosophy of Auguste Comte : Freely Translated and Condensed, Calvin Blanchard, 1856. First published 1853. Comtes original work first published 1830 42.

Richerson, Peter J. & Robert Boyd

Not by Genes Alone : How Culture Transformed Human Evolution, Chicago, 2005.

Schffle, Albert

Bau und Leben des Socialen Krpers (Structure and Life of the Social Body), H. Laupp, 1881. First published 1875 to 1878.

Spencer, Herbert

Political Institutions : Being part V of The Principles of Sociology (The concluding Portion of Vol. II.), Williams and Norgate, 1882. Social Statics : or, The Conditions Essential to Human Happiness Specified, and the First of them Developed, John Chapman, 1851.

Trachtenberg, Joshua

The Devil and the Jews : The Medieval Conception of the Jew and its Relation to Modern Antisemitism, Meridian Books, 1961. First published 1943. Hitlers Professors : The Part of Scholarship in Germanys Crimes Against the Jewish People, Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1946.

Weinreich, Max