Hobbs Tons of Information

Are you ready to see the truth behind all lies?

Israeli Supreme Court, Jerusalem

The Louve in France, 666 pieces of glass

Washington DC

Pentagon

"The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control. Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent."
--Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976, (killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviets)

"The interests behind the Bush Administration, such as the CFR, The Trilateral Commission - founded by Zbigniew Brzezinski for David Rockefeller - and the Bilderberg Group, have prepared for and are now moving to implement open world dictatorship within the next five years. They are not fighting against terrorists. They are fighting against citizens."
--Dr. Johannes B. Koeppl, Ph.D. Former German Defense Ministry Official and Advisor to former NATO Secretary General Manfred Werner

"The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieve/review by the authorities."
-- Zbigniew Brzezinski, CFR member and founding member of the Trilateral Commission, National Security Advisor to five US presidents

"There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an institutional Anglophile network which opperates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups(Lord Milner's crew), has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the opperations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years in the early 1960s to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies ... but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known."
--Dr. Carroll Quigley, author of " Tragedy and Hope "(1966), and professor and mentor to Bill Clinton at Georgetown University.

CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) logo

Church of Satan

Tom Ridge, former Homeland Security Secretary

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Burscolini, another UT fan

Pootie-Poot and King Abdullah, two of the finest in false-flag terrorism

General Tommy Franks

"It is Satan who is the God of our planet and the only God."
--'The Secret Doctrine' by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky

The Masonic Religion should be, by all of us initates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian Doctrine. Yes, Lucifer is God.
--Instructions to the 23 Supreme Councils of the World, July 14, 1889. Recorded by A.C. De La Rive in La Femme et l'Enfant dans la FrancMaconnerie Universelle on page 588, Albert Pike 33rd Degree Mason and founder of the Ku Klux Klan

Pike's statue sits in Washington DC. Why is Jesse Jackson not calling for it's removal? Because Jesse Jackson is a 33rd Degree Mason.

I bind my blood in Satan, All that lieth betwixt my hands. To thee, and thy control, I pledge me; body, mind and soul.
--Aleister Crowley (Satanic Extracts)*

renaissance era painting

Clearly, the masonic architects of New York intended for it to be New Babylon in spirit.

modern structures

It's your choice what to make of the following Biblical scriptures. Is there something to the Biblical prophecy, were the 9/11 architects executing the attacks to coincide with the scriptures or is it all a coincidence?

Revelations 18:9,10

"When the kings of the earth who committed adultery with her and shared her luxury see the smoke of her burning, they will weep and mourn over here.

Terrified at her torment, they will stand far off and cry:

"Woe! Woe, O great city, O Babylon, city of power! In one hour your doom has come!"

The shorter south tower without the antenna (BOAZ, female tower), fell in 57 minutes.

Revelations goes on to discuss all of the commerce that went on in Babylon and how people came from all over the world to do business there. If this doesn't smack of New York, specifically the trade center and the amazing stock market escalation of the 90s which preceded the 9/11 attacks, I don't know what would.

Revelations 18:17-20

"In one hour such great wealth has been brought to ruin!"

"Every sea captain, and all who travel by ship, the sailors, and all who earn their living from the sea, will stand far off.

When they see the smoke of her burning, they will exclaim, 'Was there ever a city like this great city?' They will throw dust on their heads, and with weeping and mourning cry out" "'Woe! Woe, O great city, where all who had ships on the sea became rich through her wealth! In one hour she has been brought to ruin! Rejoice over her, O heaven! Rejoice, saints and apostles and prophets! God has judged her for the way she treated you.'"

The CIA doesn't want Osama Bin Laden.

Scotland Yard doesn't want Haroon Rashid Aswat, orchestrator of the London bombings.

Bin Laden is CIA (DOCUMENTED)

Aswat is MI6 (DOCUMENTED)

Hamas is Mossad (DOCUMENTED)

These are demolition charges.

These are controlled demolitions of buildings using demolition charges..

world trade center building 7, the squibs clearly indicate that charges are going off..

..and here are the squibs in the twin towers. You may note that the squibs appear smaller than those in the buildings above. This is not the case. The twin towers are were just much larger buildings. They were almost a quarter mile tall so the squibs appear small in comparison.

The squibs were evenly placed all the way down the building. Watch the 2nd video down..

..and there's more here.

Is this any surprise?

Larry Silverstein, leaseholder of the world trade center stated on the record that building number 7 was a controlled demolition. He was later asked about this revelation and refused to comment. Why is this significant? Because FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) said that building 7 fell as a result of fire. Only Larry Silverstein's buildings were demolished on 9/11. He had taken out a massive insurance policy on them only months prior.

There were numerous eye and ear witnesses. Here is my favorite. Of course the claims were never followed up on because the towers came down and were later cleaned up by FEMA and sent to China for smelting under violation of federal regulations.

Larry Silverstein and his buddies just recently bought the Sears Tower in Chicago.

The phone number to Silverstein Properties is:

212.490.0666 (666, ill-omen)

The address to the Sears Tower is:

233 South Wacker Drive | Chicago, Illinois 60606 (666, ill-omen)

Masonic Shrine

Masonic 33rd Degree Mantra

Ordo Ab Chao is Latin for Order out of chaos. It means that the government or New World Order that Hitler and today's politicians talk about, are granted more wealth and power as a consequence of chaotic events.

YOUR CHAOS=THEIR ORDER

YOUR CRISIS=THEIR LICENSE

YOUR LOSS=THEIR GAIN

YOUR PROBLEM=THEIR SOLUTION

It works through a process called..

problem>reaction>solution

..which is based on 17th century philosopher Georg Wilhelm Fredrich Hegel's Dialectic, which was..

thesis>antithesis>synthesis.

It's a social engineering tool, psychological warfare. The firebombing of Germany's Reichstag Parliment Building was an inside job and so was 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing and scores of others. They use agents like Bin Laden and Aswat to persuade jihaddists to engage in acts of holy war, jihaddists who don't realize that their boss is working for global imperial interests, not against them.

The destruction of the buildings on 9/11 were a result of explosives that were planted weeks prior. The planes were flown via remote control and were only used to elicit emotional responses from Americans across the country who would see commercial planes overhead and be scared, therefore empathizing with those on board whom they believe saw their fate coming, consequently supporting domestic and international tyranny that they think will protect them from such future carnage.

The planes were flown via remote control. The pilots and crew were knocked out with nerve gas and the alleged phone calls from doomed flight crew were not and could not have been made. The federal government's story has been proven false on every level. At least 7 of the 19 alleged "hijakcers" are alive and living abroad. This has been reported extensively in the international media. All of this is highly documented.

I bet all the recently approved domestic spying which has always been illegal in America is to stop terrorism, right? Just keep the borders wide open and strip search Americans at airports and trainstations. Institute random checkpoints on the roads and make you carry national ID cards. That's what Hitler and Stalin said. Well the national ID card was passed earlier this year and is coming to you in 2008. The VIPER security mercs are running around doing random shows of force. Just wait until it goes nationwide and extends it's tentacles even into the suburban and rural areas.

1930s Nazi Germany

2005 United States

1930s Nazi Germany

2005 Britain

2005 United States

1930s Soviet Union (report what, the Bolsheviks bombing their own people as a pretext to take over the world?)

2005 United States (report what, Al-CIA-Duh bombing their own people as a pretext to take over the world?)

What you need to understand about the swastika is that it pre-dates Nazi Germany. It was a symbol used by many ancient cultures and represents the Sun God. The symbol was later adopted by Adolf Hitler and took on a new meaning.

The all-seeing eye of Illuminati on the back of our dollar bill is illuminated. The ancient Babylonian belief which the masonic order that is rampant in Washington DC is based on, is that the sun is the eye of God. So essentially these are both symbols based upon the idea that there is no justice beyond cosmic anomalies.

so essentially..

THIS

=

THIS

You're dealing with existentialists, social darwinists. When you graduate to the 33rd degree of freemasonry, you're told that you are above human beings and that they are cattle or goyim.

"Do what thou wilt. That is the whole of the law" is a famous quote from Aleister Crowley, a freemason. Basically, that means do what you can get away with. Notice the Illuminati all-seeing eye on Crowley's hat and the Satanic book next to him. That photo was taken many years before the all-seeing eye was put on our dollar bill and before the pentagon (center of the pentagram) was built on 9/11/41.

The Columbian faction of the Illuminati founded the US government, hence Washington DC (District of Columbia) and their all seeing eye which is on CBS (Columbia Broadcasting Service)'s logo. They control the government, all mainstream media, the churches through the vatican, the universities, and most fortune 500 companies.

CBS's Illuminati eyeball logo

People often ask, why would the most powerful people in the world be involved in such chicanery? There are quite logicial explanations for all of this which cannot be explained without establishing a multitude of prerequisites for understanding their history, their present structure and their goals. I will list websites that may aid you on your journey for the truth at the end of this article.

The bronze fasces, used since Roman times to symbolize civic authority, are located on both sides of the U.S. flag as seen below. The original Roman fasces consisted of an axe within a bundle of rods, bound by a red strap. Fasces in the root of where the term 'fascism' comes from.

Roman "Fasces" on the wall behind the Speaker's Podium US House of Representatives chamber, United States Capitol.

Another shop of the speakers' rostrume. This is from where President Bush has delivered four State of the Union speeches.

At the Lincoln Memorial, Washington DC, Lincoln's seat of state bears the fasces on the fronts of its arms.

Well, well, well, what do we have here? The same symbol on a Nazi stamp.

2Two large crossed FASCES compose the insignia of the National Guard, creating a huge "X" (AX) superimposed upon an openwinged eagle.

Giant Fasces appear here in 1930's Fascist Italian propaganda.

A Fascist Italian postage stamp featuring the Fasces.

The Fasces on a US dime.

The Mace, which is the symbol of the Office of the Sergeant at Arms, is placed by the Sergeant at Arms on a pedestal at the Speaker's right each time the House convenes. The mace is also used in the British and Australian parliaments and is also a Nazi symbol of power.

Look again at the Nazi postage stamp, featuring the Mace on the right hand side.

And this time Maces can be seen in the background as Hitler gives a speech.

Sieg Heil Busch!

There were precursors, indicators if you will, to the 9/11 and London attacks which are now manifesting here in the United States. I'm not talking the sun and the moon. I'm talking about the shift in propaganda, the actions of the federal government, etc. It's looking like the next attack could be nuclear and it may be soon. However it may be postponed for several years.

The elite establishment's false-flag orchestators have certainly taken into account the massive ground swell of people across the country and the world who now believe 9/11 was an inside job so I would imagine they are gauging the repercussions of launching another attack.

If there were an attack on the nuclear scale, they would certainly declare nationwide martial law and the constitution and bill of rights would be a distant memory. Recently retired General Tommy Franks has said that would be the case.

Daniel Estulin, whom along with Jim Tucker spies on the highly secretive annual Bilderberg Conferences, discussed how at Bilderberg "05" in Munich Germany, they were discussing engaging Americans who are exposing and fighting their plan for global domination and consequent enslavement.

In FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) documents, it is stated that abandoned military installations are great for "civilian occupancy."

You may have recalled how the federal government was shutting down hundreds of military installations recently. Of course they said it was because they're not needed. There is always a legitamate cover story but use your imagination. If there were a nuclear scale attack which was orchestrated to mobilize us for war with Iran and bring back the military draft, don't you imagine they would put all those who got in the way into concentration camps? It's already been reported that the federal government is spying in the US, something that has always been illegal.

They have many camps left over from World War 2 as well as the FEMA camps and the newly abandoned military installations, all waiting for civilian occupancy.

Don't let this..

turn into this..

The US Constitution and Bill of Rights are not rights granted to you by the government. They're rights granted to you as the document says "by the creator". That means God, Nature, Allah, Vishnu, Karma, Cosmic Justice, whatever belief system you ascribe to. In the event that the Constitution is cancelled, then the US government has violated their contractual obligation to abide by the laws which they swore an oath to.

Your rights under the Constitution cannot be reckoned with.

Don't ever forget about the atrocities committed by Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler after their nationwide bans on firearms and consequent enslavement through the use of concentration camps. I don't believe that our government is warped enough to slaughter millions of people in camps just yet, but the playing field may change after Al-CIA-Duh sets off suitcase nuclear warheads in multiple cities nationwide, killing hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. They would have their pretext to root out the "terrorists". Also don't forget that they're already trying to classify non-arabs as terrorists so don't think this is just about muslims.

www.911fraud.blogspot.com

www.newworldslaughter.blogspot.com

www.prisonplanet.com

www.jordanmaxwell.com

www.threeworldwars.com

Evolution, Christians, and Setians - by some random punker

2006-04-12T15:41:00.000-07:00

Evolution, Christians, and Setians

by Philip Marsh

Members of and sympathizers with the Temple of Set, including TOS priests of the highest rank, like Michael Aquino, show a complete failure to understand Darwin's Theory of Evolution. This is very significant because it is something they have in common with Fundamentalist Christians, Creationists of all kinds, and others.

The Theory of Evolution has been and still is the biggest thorn in the side of Christian belief, more so than the heliocentric system of Copernicus, which is the theory that the Earth revolves around the sun, not vice-versa. Copernicus' theory only damages one very literal interpretation of the Holy Bible, but the Theory of Evolution strikes directly and fatally at ideas of Divine Providence, including Dr. Aquino's notions of an "ordering force" (sic) in Nature, of a "binding principle of organization" (sic) he claims he exhumed from a dead religion of ancient Egypt, a principal he calls neteru which is, he says, a manifestation of Set. (Neteru means "gods"; neter means "a god.") What is also different about Darwin's Theory of Evolution vs. Copernicus' heliocentric theory is that Christians, Creationists, Setians and others never have any permanent trouble understanding what the heliocentric theory says. After all, what could be so hard to understand about the Earth revolving around the sun and not vice-versa, or how both of these situations would look much alike to a puny human standing on the Earth's surface watching the progress of the Sun during the course of the day as it seems to inch its way from the Eastern horizon to the Western? Not too hard to fathom. It is not too hard to explain to someone how the entire Earth could be moving instead of the sun even though everyone feels like they are "standing still" once you give someone the example of a quiet, steady ride pouring drinks in a limousine. But the history of the dispute between Evolutionists and Christian types has shown that the latter have enormous difficulty even understanding what Darwin's threatening theory is actually saying to begin with. For over two centuries Christian advocates and other disputers of Darwin have made - and continue to make - the same mistakes of interpretation and understanding of evolution over and over again, as if these errors, logical fallacies, and/or learning or cognitive disabilities are deeply and permanently ingrained in them. The mistakes they repeatedly make are identical to ones Dr. Aquino, for example, makes today - and he claims he is not an adherent of the Christian religion and lives well after the discovery of genes, the DNA double helix, etc.

A Satanist I know showed me some of the things Dr. Aquino recently said about evolution on the Internet in response to remarks by Tani Jantsang equating Anton LaVey's "dark hidden force in nature" or "Satan" with entropy. When I read it, I was struck by the fact that, if you ignore that Dr. Aquino is talking about Set and neteru, you could have told me that William Paley was still alive after 250 years because every error Dr. Aquino makes on the Theory of Evolution, and everything he says about Set-neteru, an Anglican Priest and theologian named Paley made and said almost two hundred years ago when talking about his Christian God and the role of Divine Providence in Nature. This was before Darwin, but there were good theories of evolution already in existence in Paley's time, such as a good theory proposed by Charles Darwin's own grandfather Erasmus. In fact, Charles Darwin strongly relied on many examples of animal and plant life and behavior that Paley wrote about. Paley was not ignorant, any more than is Dr. Aquino. He just could not understand anything more complicated or subtle than "the existence of a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker," which was his main argument for what he believed every good Christian should believe: that God made and controls the natural realm, just as Dr. Aquino believes that Set-neteru is "that force" that "holds things together in organized, regular patterns" (sic), like all biological species from mice to men. Though little known, Paley was not an unimportant guy in his day: before the Twentieth Century, Paley's "A View of the Evidence of Christianity" (1794) was required reading for entrance into Cambridge University! Paley lectured on moral philosophy at Christ's College, Cambridge, a position to which, from what I have seen of Dr. Aquino's objections to rival "Satanic" organizations' leaders and spokespeople, Dr. Aquino would have been himself eminently suited and probably occupied had he lived in that time. But the main point here is that Paley was, and Aquino is, afflicted by the same failures of logic, by the same simple-minded errors, and more: that one finds these same errors and misunderstandings in all disputers of the Theory of Evolution, like in the arguments presented in an historically famous debate in 1860 in which Bishop Samuel Wilberforce was demolished by T. H. Huxley of the celebrated Huxley family that produced so many fine scientific and literary minds in modern times. The same errors, fallacies and misunderstandings can be found still later once again in the famous 1925 "monkey trial" conviction of schoolteacher John T. Scopes, a trial which upheld a Tennessee law that banned teaching evolution in schools. When I first semi-retired to Florida about a decade ago, to a region of wondrous beauty and salubrious year-round climate, I audited an identical debate programmed one evening at a church on a nearby fishing island. There were the very same misunderstandings of the theory all over again! And there they are once again in Dr. Aquino's discussions of Set and the insufficiency of random events and the principle of natural selection to account for the emergence of higher life forms on Earth. Dr. Aquino has made these errors in print before, like in his "Black Magic in Theory and Practice" (1983). This is all the more remarkable because in the "Introduction" to this publication he states that "every effort is made to ... avoid ... logical fallacies ..." and "we emphasize this to a degree unmatched ... by most of the academic philosophical community"! All of the TOS people agree with him, though what he says in "Black Magic in Theory and Practice" is laughable. Those who see through these errors and fallacies, which occupy almost every single line of parts of this essay, leave the TOS.

I will not try to explain Darwin's Theory of Evolution here. I would urge anyone really unfamiliar with it to avail himself of some good explanations of the theory, which are available in many libraries from many sources written on many levels, including good encyclopedias. To others I say: "You should have listened in school!" Instead I will dwell here on the perennial errors I have been referring to which a certain kind of thinker of the Paley-Aquino type makes naturally and automatically, and is unable to do otherwise, no matter in what century he lives, no matter how hard he strains to avoid these errors, no matter how much he knows about the natural world (Paley), or how many new discoveries have been added to his education in modern times (Aquino). I will leave it to the reader to speculate as to how there could be such a deeply ingrained and persistent cognitive disability, and what this might mean. Are the people who repeat these errors from century to century just "simple-minded," as the Romans thought of the Christians, or is there food here for psychology and neurology? It is one thing to disagree with a theory, but there is something else going on when most people who disagree with a theory show they are making the same cognitive errors. There must be something there that is "really hard" for them to understand. Readers may logically conclude that if what I am saying is true, reading some "primer" literature on evolution, as I have suggested for some, will do a "Christian" or "Setian" type little good, so it is not for them I recommend this. Also, in what follows, there will be some scientific and philosophical arguments that I will make that I admit to be subtle, but this is (and will be) necessary only when doctrinal ideas are at issue. Doctrinal disputes are necessarily subtle, so some readers may just want to skip them. Just as subtle is talking about someone's cognitive errors or "ingrained logical fallacies," that is, their "fallacies of thought," which are harder to identify to begin with than doctrinal points, which are usually clearly and painstakingly stated by advocates of any particular doctrine for the benefit of others. No one goes about clearly identifying his "thinking defects" or "logic bloopers" and then says, "Hey, let's indulge in a subtle discussion about this."

To avoid confusion, it should be pointed out that Darwin's Theory of Evolution has two separate and separable parts. The first part is the theory of evolution, which maintains that all or almost all the different forms of life we see on Earth today developed gradually from common ancestors or even from - as the Nobel Prize-winning modern day cellular biologist and author of "Vital Dust" de Duve says - a single ancestor he calls the "Ancestor of All Life." This part of Darwin's theory was not new with Darwin and is subscribed to by just about everyone today, even many Creationists and most Christians, Setians, and Dr. Aquino himself. This part of Darwin's theory does not challenge the existence of a Divine Plan in nature, nor does it run counter to, say, Dr. Aquino's concept of Set's role in human evolution. This part of Darwin's theory seems to be easy for all to understand.

It is the second part of Darwin's theory that is chronically misunderstood by Christians, Setians, and others. This is the part wherein Darwin believes he has found the cause of evolution: his theory of natural selection, often termed (correctly) the "struggle for existence," and incorrectly called the "survival of the fittest" (which is inaccurate and yet almost sounds tautological or true and self-evident just from the form of the statement). When you learn what Darwin says is the cause of evolution - which will be touched on in what follows - it is easy to see why those who want God or Set to be the cause of evolution or involved in the evolution of particular animals (such as Homo sapiens) should object to this part of Darwin's theory and regard it as a "rival" to theirs.

It is my thesis here, however, that it is not just this understandable hostility to this theory that makes these opponents of it say the mistaken things they say about it: it is my thesis that there is a real, sincere, cognitive disability here, a failure to "get it," due to some sort of difficulty they have in understanding this "sort" of thing. Either that, or they just don't believe it.

The first "broken record" error is the easiest to sort out and dispose of, and leads to the deeper and more difficult ones. One frequently hears opponents of the theory of natural selection make arguments like, "Chance and random events cannot account for something as complex as the human eye." This argument, if valid, would apply a fortiori, that is, would have even stronger force, against the evolution of something even more complicated than the human eye, like the human brain. In fact, Dr. Aquino drifts into this argument in "Black Magic in Theory and Practice" (p. 12) in the course of attempting to refute the theory of natural selection when he says, "But there is no explanation for the human brain in the laws of natural selection. The biophysical factors of a sophisticated brain are far too intricate." This argument against natural selection is either made due to the chronic cognitive disability I mentioned above, or it is sometimes made rhetorically and in a dishonest manner, appealing to the ignorance of listeners as to what the theory of natural selection actually says about this. It is stated as if Darwinists are saying that you can take all the parts of the human eye - the cornea, the lens, the ligaments supporting the lens, the retina, lots of jelly-like "eye-juice," etc., dump them all into a clean trash bin, shake it all up like a milk-shake and, after a couple of quadrillion of quadrillion of googolplex of tries, you might open the lid of the can to find an eye fully assembled and ready for transplant. Or worse, this argument is often stated in a way that depicts even more unlikely events: as if Darwinists are saying that you can put iron, carbon, phosphorus, sulfur, oxygen, hydrogen, and other elements into the can, heat it all up just right and send a few lightning bolts through the can and again, after a googolplex of googolplex of attempts now, you might open the lid and find that eye - unless you are a really lucky guy on a really lucky planet and do it on the first try! The error here lies in the false idea that the eye has no antecedents, or that its only antecedents are eye parts or the raw chemicals which constitute the eye. But the first part of Darwin's theory, the theory of evolution or common ancestry, shows that the complex human eye was not produced out of nothing, but rather is a variant built on the simpler eyes of man's ancestor animals. Though there are more complex and better eyes than man's in the animal kingdom, humans have very good vision as far as the animal kingdom goes and, by and large, most of the ancestor animals in man's own lineage had simpler eyes. Single-celled animals have light-sensitive, fundamentally simple "light spots." In school many of you learned that there is more than one system of sight embedded in the retina of the human eye: the "rods" and the "cones." The "rods" help form images of large objects in dim light, and the "cones" enable us to see color and sharp detail. But even between these two highly complex and sophisticated visual systems which work together to enable us to see, the "cone" system of color vision - which provides us with so much beauty to behold and contemplate - developed by degrees out of the other ("rod") system as an adaptive improvement of sight conferring survival advantages. The system of color vision developed as an improvement on the accuracy of sight and sight at low thresholds of light.

The human eye will be a useful example in what follows, and it is interesting to note that while Christian opponents of Darwin and forerunners of Dr. Aquino have used the human eye in specious arguments like this against evolution, Dr. Aquino does not do so. Believing in the evolution part of Darwin's theory himself, Dr. Aquino is too modern and sophisticated to make an error as bad as "the eye has no antecedents." He is not that dishonest either. Instead he makes the same error and uses the same specious argument in regard to a more complex organ to which he attaches a mystical anomalousness - the human brain. This argument of his will be dealt with presently, and why he thinks the old argument about the eye, which he eschews, is still good as regards the human brain.

Many Christian apologists have also disdained the "eye is too complex" argument, knowing about the eye's antecedents, as did Paley, and instead use the entire series of evolving life forms that seem to lead up to humans to attempt to prove that natural selection is not the cause of evolution, but that the "Hand of God" is responsible for this marvelous series of evolving life forms (Christians), or that genetic "tinkering" (sic) by a "Mysterious Stranger" who "has not been located" but "whose most ancient name is Set" (sic) is responsible for the last stages in the series in which the human brain appears (Aquino). This argument disregards whether or not chance or random events could produce the human eye. Instead, it says that chance or random events could not possibly produce this amazing, intricate, developing series of life forms of ever increasing complexity leading up to human beings. This series is itself the most marvelous proof of God and God's (or Set's) involvement because "a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker."

This idea that evolution is guided in whole or in part by a Creator (Paley) or a "tinkerer" (Aquino) is called "finalism." Like Paley, Dr. Aquino believes the adaptions we see, especially the one called the human brain, are evidence of a design, and that the existence of one or more of the later products of evolution (like humans) is proof of the fulfillment of a design, one which, if Dr. Aquino is right, is still in progress (he calls it a "high intelligence experiment" initiated by Set).

One fallacy of this argument will be isolated here, and it has ramifications about the whole Theory of Evolution and every aspect of Christian belief and ways of thinking, as well of Setian belief, which Dr. Aquino honestly calls a "religion" in "Black Magic in Theory and Practice." One fallacy or error will have to be dealt with at a time. Sorting out is needed, because to believe what Christians or Setians mistakenly think Darwin's theory is saying actually requires making a lot more than just one error or one misinterpretation of the theory.

The first error here is not recognizing that something may have a purpose without implying it came into existence to serve that purpose. The great French writer, wit, free-thinker and philosopher of the Enlightenment, Voltaire (1694-1778), made deadly ridicule of this error when he quipped that noses were obviously designed to hold spectacles. This clearly highlights and exposes this error. Some things can be made by a creator or artificer to serve a purpose, like making a cup to drink water from. The maker or creator has information as to the purpose and outcome before he sets out to make the cup. He uses this information to "inform" the process of making the cup at various times during its manufacture. The cup is then used for that purpose, which was the purpose of the designer who made the object. The object came into existence for that purpose, was formed and "informed" by the designer for that purpose. One can identify the cup's "design features," which are things about it that make it useful for the purpose for which it was intended. No one would say any of this applies to the bridges of noses, though, believe it or not, there have been Christians who said that God made the tails of rabbits white so they may be easier targets for hunters! Lunacy permeates this area of thought. But aside from these extreme types, all would agree that noses were not designed to hold spectacles, have no design features in that regard, but are obviously pretty good for this purpose, and can be used for this. Academic philosophers, whom, as I mentioned above, Dr. Aquino incorrectly claims in "Black Magic in Theory and Practice" to have exceeded in scrupulousness in the avoidance of logical fallacies, have names for these two kinds of purpose. When something is brought into existence by a designer for a purpose and used for that purpose, this is called teleology (or "teleologic purpose," "teleological acting," etc.) or "final purpose," which is what Aristotle called this. On the other hand, when something exists for some other reason, whatever it may be, but is used for a purpose, as the nose is to hold spectacles, they call this teleonomy or "teleonomic purpose." Fancy words for something simple and clear, but somehow certain people can't seem to help mixing this up when it comes to understanding Darwin and what he called "adaptions."

In the theory of natural selection, adaptions do not come into existence to serve a purpose. In "Black Magic in Theory in Practice," Dr. Aquino shows that he thinks that an adaption does come into existence to serve a purpose. He thinks the theory of natural selection is saying that giraffes' necks get longer and longer, and that this fine adaption for feeding on treetop leaves happens for the purpose of survival (this is not what the theory of natural selection says - I shall tell you what it says in a moment, but let us first trace out Dr. Aquino's fallacious line of reasoning from this false premise to see how he gets to where he gets). Once it is incorrectly assumed that adaptions come into existence for the purpose of surviving, then it is easy to excuse Paley, Bishop Wilberforce, Aquino and all the others for making what is only a short jump to bringing in a Divine Purpose, extra-terrestrials, or Set involved in the development of life forms that terminate in human beings. This is only a short jump in logic because teleologic purpose has already been invoked: if the purpose of adaptions is survival, teleologic or final purpose has already been brought into the picture. And now the Darwinists seem to these misguided and misunderstanding thinkers to be saying something ridiculous: that this survival which adaptions (as they think Darwin is saying) serve is the "purpose" of some blind mechanism of chance, something non-cognitive which can - unless we are mystics about Nature - have no purposes or designs. "A blind mechanism cannot be an artificer." (Oh, but it can be! We shall see this in what follows.)

One error here will be apparent to some by now, and when I explain it, it will contradict what Christians and Setian types think Darwin has been saying all along. Adaptions are used for survival in the teleonomic sense, not the teleologic sense. Adaptions do not come into existence for the purpose of survival, as Dr. Aquino and his Christian predecessors think Darwin was saying. What is actually happening is that no two plants and animals born are ever exactly alike (with the rare exception of monozygotic or "identical" twins). There is very great variation even among full brothers. My brother and I have at least 2,000,000 genetic base pairs that are different. The same is so in the animal kingdom, wherein the numbers of offspring and variation among births is even greater than among humans, though most people do not notice or understand this, except when they see a difference only the obtuse could fail to observe, like how all the kittens in a litter are easily distinguishable from one another by their fur. Most variations are not so obvious, nor are even many small mutations, but they are staggeringly numerous and constantly occurring in reproduction. They serve no purpose and nothing is making them happen other than "forces" many of you are familiar with, especially the recombination of genes and "crossing over" of chromosomes that occur in gender-based systems of reproduction. Variation and mutation are the essence of sexual reproduction. In fact, I would consider it evidence of design, of a Divine Plan, or of tinkering by Set if I discovered that there was no variation in a litter of animals and they were all the "same thing." If all giraffes born were gene-encoded for - and had - the same neck length, and variations from this were rare, that would be much more like what goes on in a tool-and-die shop or on a factory assembly line where things are carefully arranged to make the products come out as much alike as possible. When Christian philosophy was at its peak, this is exactly what "Christian natural philosophers" believed. They believed in what they called a scala naturae or "Great Chain of Being," a "top down" system or organization of types of things from God on down to every species that swam or flew or walked the Earth, which they believed were set in their types and ranked by the Divine Hand. This idea held sway in the biological sciences before the Nineteenth Century. These types or species might exist in great plentitude, but they were thought to be fixed, or "guided" to remain fixed in reproduction. Individual variation was an inconvenience, embarrassment to the theory, or ignored, like a kind of "noise" that some even thought Satan introduced into God's Plan, a disruptive chaos. But Darwin and others brought the chaos of variation to center stage. No longer was this chaos considered a fallibility of "earthly life," but became "real" and not just "noise" or "interference." It became the very underpinning of the Theory of Evolution. Variation and mutation in the breeding of giraffes or hominids or anything else is part of the lack of order in the universe, a manifestation of randomness and chaos. It doesn't happen for any other reason, not even "in order to survive or adapt so life may go on."

What happens is this: variation provides the underpinning or basis or foundation for change in types or species. Among the dizzying number and variety of unpredictable variants born to any mother, no matter how much their outer appearances may resemble one another, natural selection acts through the environment to select those individuals whose variations are "better" for that environment. In this realm, even what seems to be visibly insignificant can make a big difference. It is, to me, wondrous and remarkable that in mammals that give birth to litters, it matters whether or not a male offspring gestates in the uterus of the mother positioned between two female fetuses in the same litter or not. If he is, he turns out a lot different even from another almost genetically identical fetus not so positioned; even his rabbit-behavior is different from that of the other rabbit. (This kind of variation, however, is not inheritable - only genetic ones are - and Darwin's theory relies only on the latter.) These multitudes of variants are not "adaptions" to begin with - that would be evidence of design somewhere. They are just variants. Nature is ruthlessly and relentlessly and continuously spewing these out and then killing off all but the "best" variants, and the variant that wins this real and true "struggle for survival" by out-reproducing the others is seen to be the best adapted to that particular environment - though it is not guaranteed that any will survive at all! (The willful and foolish actions of humans who are opposed to this Natural mechanism can put a halt to this process and thereby endanger an entire species, including their own.) It is only on hindsight that a variant appears to be an "adaption." Population selection among these variants occurs due to environmental pressures. Thus one might say the correct view of what Darwin was saying is going on in Nature is "spew and skew." Nature spews out dizzying profusions of mutants and variants, no two alike, without any rhyme or reason, and then ruthlessly and relentlessly skews the population toward all but a few lucky ones whose variations fall within a very narrow range. The Christians, Setians and others whose thinking is apparently riveted to the idea of "design," and who narrowly and anthropomorphically see everything occurring in Nature as being "done" the way humans do things, see the variants as being brought into existence in order to serve the purpose of survival. They see the system of natural selection as outcome-oriented. This is not what the theory says. There is no "information" of any kind beforehand as to outcome - that would be real evidence of design, just as a cup manufacturer has information before he embarks on making the cup as to the outcome he wants to attain. The system of natural selection is not informed as to outcome. It is truly "blind." What seems to horrify Christians is the idea of multitudes upon multitudes of random and chaotic variations in births, and the ruthless and relentless death of all but the very few lucky enough to have one particular physical characteristic which has no merit or worth whatsoever in itself, no "righteousness," other than that it fits the environment at that time and place the best. In one of his lectures, William Paley admitted that ideas like this horrified him and that he could not reconcile them with the idea of an intelligent and beneficent creator. Darwin's theory relies on chaotic variation and holocaust. If there is a "god" who operates this way, it would have to be one who is not just uncaring, as Paley feared, but blind, chaotic, and idiotic, like Howard Phillips Lovecraft's "Azathoth" - or perhaps a Joker!

Return now to Voltaire's quip. The correct interpretation of Darwin, so difficult for Christians, Creationists and Setians, is that variants use characteristics they are lucky to get - that is, get for no reason other than the "reason" involved in the fact that if I throw a pair of dice right now I might get, say, a "five" - to their advantage in the same way the bridge of the nose is used to advantage to hold spectacles. The variations and/or small (or even infrequently great) mutations of the characteristic have nothing to do with survival. They are merely "handy" for it in the teleonomic sense. This handiness is the conferred advantage, like the advantage of having a nose-bridge. Having such a bridge would mean nothing if no one ever needed spectacles, eye-glasses or goggles. Then, if some folks had nose bridges, and if there were genes identified for this type, this variant and the genetic code sequence that produced it would just be one more of Nature's superfluous and meaningless profusion of variant productions, not an "adaption."

Darwin himself did not fully know how chaotic and "meaningless" Nature he did not fully understand the way the dizzying multitude of variants on which his theory relied could come about. The answer to this was only supplied recently by genetics. Genetics has added much to the "meaninglessness" and utter randomness idea in the theory. For example, it is now known (as it was not to Darwin) that the system of dominant and recessive genes (which he didn't know about either) allows us to "keep" genes for diseases as much as possible. We keep deleterious or damaging genes in recessive form. A statistician named Sir Ronald Fisher observed how genes are recessive only because they are deleterious, having once been intermediate between dominant and recessive. These recessive-deleterious genes are kept in control by other genes which form what is called a "gene complex." This complex, like all other genes, gets reshuffled at random before every fertilization, so that if the deleterious gene or some other deleterious mutation appears, the gene complex may "silence" it, conferring survival advantage on those having the gene complex. Why does Nature "do" something so complicated? Why can't we just evolve in such a way, through some sort of selection, so that we keep only good, dominant genes, get rid of most of the bad ones, and keep bad fertilization reshufflings and mutations to a minimum while allowing leeway for necessary change when needed? Why doesn't Nature "devise" such a system (and this is apparently how some misinterpreters of Darwin think Nature is or should be working)? If Nature did this, I would be the first to admit design or "tinkering."

The best way to see how chaos can give the appearance of order and even of design or "tinkering" is to look at a completely different system which seems to show evidence of design, purpose, order, information as to outcome, and even of cognition and memory, but is really the sum total of random events and population selection again, of "spew and skew." This is the recently discovered and (since AIDS) obsessively studied mammalian immune system. This example will illustrate how a statistical effect which is actually an effect of selection of a certain population from among a chaotic group of very large numbers of variants can appear as if something is "instructing" or "informing" the system, as if there is a guiding hand, or a design, or, at the very least, as if there is some orderly information being passed from the "top down," which is what Creationists and others think they are seeing in evolution or parts of it. The evolutionary system of "spew and skew" works over eons of time, so it is hard to pin down or even really see something happening, hard to see the changes going on and the sortings out, so slow are they when measured in terms of the shortness of human life. Perhaps this is one of the difficulties the more innocent opponents of Darwin's theory have. The advantage of looking at how this same process of selection and classification on profuse novelty works in the mammalian immune system is that this all happens in what physiologists call "somatic time," that is, not over eons, but within the lifetime of a single organism. This makes it easier to study and to see how a statistical effect can account for and appear like a design or "outcome oriented" system having design features.

The mammalian immune system is represented in the blood by molecules capable of telling "self" from "not-self" at a molecular level. It is exquisitely precise: the immune system can recognize the difference of one carbon atom tilted only a few degrees on two otherwise identical very large molecules composed of densely compacted multitudes of arrayed carbon and other atoms. The immune system can tell these two molecules apart and apart from all other molecules, and retain the ability to do so once it has developed it. Given all the toxins and hostile parasites that can enter the human body, some invented by man, how is it that someone's body can distinguish self from not-self in such a refined way and even "remember" that invader (called an "antigen") to later on present it to "warrior" cells in the blood for destruction? Until very recently, a theory was accepted that parallels, but in a scientific way, the old Christian idea of evident design. Biologists thought that a molecule foreign to the body was somehow transferring information about its own three-dimensional structure to some site or place on an antibody molecule, then removing itself, like a cookie cutter works on dough. The place or site on the antibody where the invader had been can later be "read" by the rest of the immune system, which could recognize all identical invaders thereafter. Before I give you the correct theory which replaced this simple and elegant one, it is important to see that this way of thinking is "instructionist" or "informing," like the Creationist ideas of evolution. The invading molecule, toxin, or antigen was believed to convey information to the immune system by an instructive transfer from antigen to antibody, as if the antigen "informed" the immune system and helped redesign it, albeit about a very limited thing: the antigen's own three-dimensional structure - nothing so grandiose as what Paley imagined God is doing in evolution for the creation by design of species structures "top down," or what Dr. Aquino imagines Set in doing in forming the human brain. Now compare the correct theory, which will show you how this seemingly ordered system is actually one founded on chaos, randomness, disorder, and a population skewing or classification upon novel variants.

What really happens is this: prior to the confrontation of one's immune system with any foreign body, one's body already has a huge repertoire of different variants of antibody molecules, and the capability of making more and more variants, which it is constantly doing, chaotically, like multitudes of dice with multitudes of sides being thrown over and over again, making a new antibody variant each time according to how the dice fall. The body is constantly "spewing" these out, in unheard of types, at random. It is done with no rhyme or reason other than chance, and most of what is spewed never has any meaning nor serves any purpose. But when a foreign body enters the bloodstream, it "polls" cells called lymphocytes, each of which carries one of these variant antibodies. In other words, the antigen is like a little pollster that bumps randomly into various lymphocytes as if surveying them and feeling their surfaces. Sooner or later it bumps into one with an antibody on it that has a sufficiently close complimentary three-dimensional shape, like two jig-saw puzzle pieces. When and if this happens, they "lock" together according to the principles of chemistry and this triggers the lymphocyte to clone itself rapidly, that is, produce progeny of this single cell, daughter cells identical to it. This is called "clonal selection" (like "natural selection") because the population of variants of lymphocytes in the immune system is now skewed, with this particular lymphocyte's clones gaining in number over others. This happened in response to contact with the antigen or invader, which could have been anything composed of anything, just as natural selection, in Darwin's theory, happens in response to contact with the environment, which could be any situation, climate, etc. This new population of clone lymphocytes can last inside the body for the life of an organism, so that the immune system retains the ability to recognize antigens like the original invader long into the future for fast action in identifying them and unleashing the rest of the immune system's "attack warriors" against them. Note that the so-called "antibody" is not an antibody for anything to begin with, any more than a variant of some life form that is born is an adaption. Both were merely variants to begin with. The clones become antibodies only on hindsight because a certain antigen has polled the cell, that is, visited it, locked in causing rapid cloning, and thereby skewed the population numbers, just as a certain variant becomes an adaption in natural selection because it is handy in a certain environment in which it finds itself and then outbreeds all others. In both the case of Darwin's natural selection and the immune system, a form of classification upon novelty occurs, a "sieving," a statistical effect, an alteration so refined, however, that the initial idea used to explain it (instructionist, outcome oriented, goal-oriented, designing, informing, guiding, etc.), whether used to explain species and their structures designed by a supposed Creator, or the supposed instructive transfer of information from foreign molecules to antibodies as they are built (which does not occur) - turned out to be wrong, though it is easier to see it is wrong and disprove there are "design features" in the case of the immune system as opposed to the evolutionary system because of the shorter time spans involved in the study of an organism's immune system - nobody lives long enough to make the same kinds of observations about the process of natural selection. In fact, up until scientists began forcing mutations to occur, there were only a few mutations and evolutions that had actually been observed and documented, so short and spotty is human memory and recorded civilization. In 1849, a wild grape vine was observed to mutate to produce a bigger, juicier grape, since called the Concord grape. Also around that time a black mutant of the British peppered moth appeared in manufacturing areas of England where air was heavily polluted by carbon dust and soot. These examples are not offered to prove Darwin was right. They are offered here only to show that the time spans involved in natural selection can separate isolated events of mutation, variation, and selection by many generations, making this harder to observe than the same processes in the immune system, and that humans, contrary to what Christians and Setians believe, don't really live long enough to see much of what is really going on around them, even when they are the cause of it (like the black mutant peppered moth). (Tani Jantsang, who worked in epidemiology, mentioned to me that I have been talking about only one of the body's many immune systems. Some of these systems do not work this way: the antibodies are already "in place" at an individual's birth.)

The comparison and analogy of the process of natural selection with clonal selection in the immune system is not original with me. It is a well known instance of a modern idea which explains what appear to be systems having design features or to be "governed by laws of nature" or a "deity" to actually be statistical effects of chaos involving very, very large numbers of events. It might seem over-subtle, but it is actually what is going on here. So well known is this among scientists that the l972 Nobel Prize winner for Physiology or Medicine, Gerald M. Edelman, attempted, in 1988, to apply this theory of "spewing and skewing" to how the brain works. The human brain appears to have design, information transfer, and cognitive features like memory, etc. So maybe, Edelman figured, thinking might be just another example of a refined product of chaos, a Darwinian neuron selection of some kind. His theory was a first attempt, and too little is yet known about the brains of animals and the multitudes and multitudes of neurons in them to assess it. (Actually, the number of neurons is not so great - it is the number of neuron connections that is staggering, just like the number of possible variants and mutants genetic codes can produce, just like the number of kinds of polypetide chains that sit on lymphocytes that antigen polling "converts" into antibodies, as explained above.) So here you see the deepest fallacy modern science has uncovered in the old scala naturae or "Great Chain of Being" medieval style of thinking, to which Dr. Aquino subscribes to this day: the fallacy arises from limiting the number of things or events one thinks one is dealing with in Nature when one attempts to explain a phenomenon, whether it is the orbit of the Earth around the sun, the existence of a particular species, or the body's defenses. It would probably delight a devote of Vishnu or Shiva to know that Western science now not only acknowledges but relies on the kind of spewing they have always taught is occurring all around us at all times, with their 330,000,000 gods and their spewing of worlds upon worlds into the immensity of Brahma from the navel of Vishnu. People like Paley and Aquino want to play with a very small deck of cards, perhaps even only one or two cards, when, to give an honest "explanation" of even the simplest natural phenomenon, big decks are required. This would be a kind of "cognitive disability" itself: the ability to "play" only with a medieval "few card" deck when one is called upon to understand evolution, immunity, the brain, or any complex phenomenon. Teleologic arguments have always been the stock-in-trade of this type. They never think, as occurred to the Jewish Spaniard Spinoza, that these ideas might be considered an affront to a Creator or Great Artificer - if such there actually is - because they attribute to him a tiny workshed with a very small inventory of tools and only a few productions of limited type. In this kind of thinking, whether Christian or Setian, the anthropomorphisms reign supreme.

Increasingly, what were once thought to be "physical laws" are also seen as statistical outcomes of the laws of large numbers of events too. This was recognized as far back as 1927 by the philosopher, mathematician, logician and historian Bertrand Russell, and is a cornerstone of modern science. During the Enlightenment, the discoveries of Newton and others only confirmed the idea of Providence and a Divine Plan, which is why Newton was such a "Tory" or reactionary. God may not move planets in the most perfect arcs of circles, as the medievalists thought, but has put together an even more subtle and remarkable kind of clockwork in which planets move in ellipses with the sun at one focus, as Laplace and Newton showed. (Keep in mind that during their time scientists still had to "wear a mask" to avoid Christian persecution.) The idea of "physical law" was more firmly implanted then than ever, reinforced and augmented by a new inkling of Divine subtlety, and this idea still reigns among Christians, Setians and others. In this they have fallen behind once again, because the apparent regularity and permanence of so-called physical "laws" are now explained by Quantum Mechanics, the modern Synthetic Theory of Natural Selection (which I will touch on later), and other new theories by using explanations that are statistical. This should not surprise anyone who has reflected on how coarse and dull human senses and the human mind really are - contrary to what Christians and Setians may think of humans' "awesome" abilities. Where one thinks one sees a single thing or event, like a bird hatching, there are occurring numbers of events so large that the mind reels. I find this wonderful and inspiring, but others reckon it a threat and a refutation of human prescience. It is interesting to note that ancient pre-Aryan Vedic thought appreciated this. I mentioned before their 330,000,000 gods (and this is a small number, by the way!), and universes upon universes spewing into the immensity of Brahma from the navel of Vishnu. In this system, everything was thought to arise from the power of vast multitudes in disintegration, called tamas, which is like entropy, like Anton LaVey's "dark hidden force in nature," like the "force" Tani Jantsang has attempted to describe as the oldest idea of the "Devil" or "Satan" (not "Set," because we are going farther back to ancient India and Asia here, Devi and the "Sat"). In ancient Vedic thought, an endless variety of beings, called rajas, from sub-microscopic to macrocosmic, are spewed forth due to the action of tamas, personified in Shiva the destroyer, and in the end dissolving back into it. Multiplicity, bogglingly large numbers, and endless shifting variety dominate the manifest universe. Vedic thought even appreciated the relationship of voidness or zero to multiplicity and infinity in that it understood how the mathematical quantity 1/n approaches zero when the number "n" gets infinitely big and vice-versa: how the mathematical quantity 1/n gets infinitely small and approaches zero or "nothing" as "n" approaches infinity. These ideas, even when explained using quaint and childish personifications in terms of "deities," proved too subtle for the Aryans who invaded India in the historical period. The Aryans, failing to understand them or regarding them as over-subtle, quickly branded them as obscure, perplexing, mystical, or even threatening to their own crude metaphysical ideas, which they summarily declared to be superior (see "The Myths and Gods of India," by Alain Danielou, for a good account of this). This is similar to what Tani Jantsang seems to have encountered when trying to childishly explain entropy by "using science" to clarify the myths. Once again, the Setian type was wholly unable to grasp it!

Dr. Aquino or other Setians have shown the same inability to understand in their Internet posts seeking to refute the offering of Tani Jantsang that complexity in the world arises due to entropy, which she showed was the "dark force in Nature" - the word "force" being used not to represent actual forces in physics, but metaphorically. Relying on Webster's dictionary rather than modern scientific accounts of what entropy is and entropy does, Dr. Aquino or other Setians quickly retaliated that entropy would produce only "soup," that is, a degenerated and disintegrated, disordered morass of simple nebulous energy, thereby saying he does not see how entropy (the Vedic tamas) could do otherwise. He therefore posits - I should say "invents" - a force of "reverse entropy" as necessary to account for complexity in the universe. This echoes his old position in "Black Magic in Theory and Practice" in which he says that, as he "understands" these principles of science and biology, Nature takes the path of least resistance, so evolution toward more complex forms of life could not occur. Simplification of existing forms, however they arose, should only occur, and evolution could never happen. He, or whoever said this, is clearly not understanding complexity or the path of least resistance.

I have already posted and disseminated a refutation of some parts of Dr. Aquino's post on entropy on another occasion. I will address it differently here, in the context of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Dr. Aquino shows he does not understand what scientists mean by the "path of least resistance," which Nature indeed always takes, or "energy downhill," as many call it, toward increased entropy. A very simple example from inorganic chemistry will show how this "energy downhill" accounts for complexification. By themselves, or even considered together, a sodium atom and a chlorine atom are simpler than a molecule of sodium chloride, in which the two atoms have combined into one molecule of table salt. And these more complex molecules array themselves into highly ordered crystals. There is clearly more order and complexity in the molecule and the crystal than in the two separate atoms. Yet it is "easier" for this molecule to form than for two atoms of sodium and chlorine to remain side by side and not combine into the more complex, ordered structure. In fact, it takes energy or work to prevent them from sliding "energy downhill" toward forming the salt molecule, which entropy favors! Yet sodium chloride is more complex. Entropy does not favor "soup," simplification, or devolution at any one place or time. Like the pre-Aryan Vedics thought, it accomplishes both creation and dissolution.

Dr. Aquino's (or others') specific attempted refutations of the theory of natural selection will be dealt with now one by one. It is noteworthy that in the past many objections and refutations of the theory have been made - and there are some good ones - but the ones made by Dr. Aquino are identical, often word for word, to the those made by Christian Fundamentalists, and all of his arguments are identical in manner of thinking. One foreign person I know with a strong scientific background who is (fortunately) naive about Christian polemics against scientific theories who read Dr. Aquino's presentation called it "dizzyingly confused," to which I will add (and show) that it is dependent upon an almost monkish ignorance of Nature, zoology, animal behavior, neurology, and brain anatomy, and relies upon the "common sense" of those afflicted with the same sort of ignorance, which a Western Christian upbringing promotes as much as possible. Note that in what follows that Dr. Aquino does not merely attempt to show there are flaws or problems in the theory: he attempts "overkill," that is, if his understanding of the theory and his arguments against it are good (as they are not), then one must not merely say Darwin was wrong, but that Darwin, Fisher, Russell, Crick, Stephen Jay Gould, Desmond Morris and anyone else who ever thought the theory of natural selection might have any merit must be accounted not merely wrong, but among the biggest morons who ever lived!

First Dr. Aquino presents the false idea (in "Black Magic in Theory and Practice") that while "anthropologists can chart the stages of prehistoric human evolution to the limits of available data," they cannot "explain why the entire phenomenon should [sic] have occurred at all." Here is a curious and confused mixture of truth and falsehood which Dr. Aquino's rhetoric does nothing to clarify, thereby belying the "honesty" he claims for his presentation, unless he just does not know the difference, which I think is a real factor here. The truth is that scientists have not merely charted the stages of human evolution descriptively, as Dr. Aquino suggests: they do have a theory as to why it occurred, called the theory of natural selection as the cause of evolution, already touched on above, the "spew and skew." He is right, however, in saying that they have no idea as to why this "should" have occurred beyond the generation of random variants and the skewing of the prevalence of inheritable traits in populations by environmental pressures. Like the Christian Fundamentalist, Dr. Aquino finds it repugnantly and detestably humbling that the supposed "exalted" status of the human race and the human brain should be due to luck: due to the inelegant fact of human ancestors having been in the right place at the right time - next to developing plains in the Rift Valley of southeastern Africa or possibly somewhere in Asia - and to the luck of having the right pre-existing or antecedent cognitive abilities. Dr. Aquino demands "more" of an explanation. He just does not want Darwin's sufficient explanation: he wants one that calls for the existence of Homo sapiens, one that, like the Creationist interpretation of Genesis or his own theory of genetic tampering by Set, involves some sort of purpose or meaning for human existence. It would have been much more intellectually honest and - to my mind - very respectable, as are some Christians, if he had just outright stated that he wants or needs or demands this of an explanation: that it be outcome oriented, ordaining and leading up to human existence, providing human life with a "meaning," which can only be satisfied by an argument from design. Christians do say this and thereby fall back on their "faith." Either Dr. Aquino has failed to understand Darwin's good explanation, or he just plain wants the kind of explanation that gears forward toward producing humans in a clear way all along and is therefore automatically teleological. I believe his problem is both, just like the Fundamentalists who have this exact same difficulty and make the exact same demands on an "explanation" for human existence.

Thus does Dr. Aquino puts himself in the awkward position of showing that the theory of natural selection is not only insufficient to account for human existence, but is absurd. To do this, he first gives what is apparently his own paraphrase of what evolutionists are saying. I say "apparently" because it comes from no source I know of, and anyone who says it this way shows that he clearly does not understand Darwin's theory. Dr. Aquino says that, according to the evolutionists, "man developed high intelligence because he needed it to survive." I have already explained how this is clearly not what Darwinists say, and how it is nonetheless the most common Christian misunderstanding of the theory. Remarkably, Dr. Aquino says his source for this is "textbook after textbook." It would seem, then, that Dr. Aquino can never understand the theory of natural selection, if he has indeed visited "textbook after textbook" on the subject and he thinks they are saying that man developed high intelligence (or any animal any other characteristic) "because he needed it to survive." To reiterate what I said above, a characteristic (intelligence or other) that confers survival advantage merely does so because it is one of a profusion of variants that accidentally turns out to be handy for survival, just as the bridge of the nose turned out to be handy for holding eye-glasses. The conferred advantage does not come into existence, nor is it designed in any way, for survival. As I said, this error is made over and over again by Christians ad nauseam. It is also remarkable that on the same page in "Black Magic in Theory and Practice" where he makes this mistake (p. 11), he then gives a correct paraphrase of the theory of natural selection, in terms of accident and selection, to account for how giraffes' necks evolved, but then immediately misapplies the idea of Nature's parsimony to generate absurd implications from the theory of natural selection! He does not clearly see any difference between the two, or is bent on keeping his readers confused and disoriented. This is very suspicious.

Dr. Aquino allows that the theory of accident and selection can account for giraffes' long necks, but not for something as complex as the human brain. This is what I meant earlier, when I said Dr. Aquino eschews the usual Christian "the eye is too complex" argument, but thinks the argument is still good for the human brain. Why does he think this? Several reasons. We shall now consider them one by one.

The first is a supposed "vast intellectual gap between mankind and every other species on the planet," as he says. This is a very important issue that regularly divides Christians and Setians on one side versus Satanists, scientists, and others on the other. Setian and Christian philosophy regularly and consistently exalts "human intelligence" or "spiritual qualities," believing the gulf between humans and animals - especially in regards to intelligence - to be vast, while Satanists and physical science keep reminding us about and bringing us back to man's carnal nature. Satanists, behaviorists and many others constantly treat us to statements like Anton LaVey's "man is like any other animal..." and often to misanthropic (or perhaps just unanthropic) statements often wrongly interpreted as "cynical" that man's intelligence is not as great as some insist. The latter is not a new idea, for we can find Diogenes in ancient Greece saying the same thing, as well as many modern writers and literary figures frequently classified as "iconoclasts," like Philip Wylie, George Bernard Shaw, H. L. Mencken, et al. Paley openly admitted to having difficulty reconciling the idea of a beneficent and caring God with hecatombs upon hecatombs of suffering sentient beings in the animal kingdom perishing in the struggle to survive and outbreed one another, animals with a consciousness and intelligence possibly similar to - or overlapping with - the human. This agonizing has caused many such types to become vegetarians "in principle" or due to "conscience." The difficult and complex subject of animal intelligence will therefore have to be dealt with briefly here. Dr. Aquino's first offering as "evidence" (sic) of the "vast intellectual gap between mankind and every other species on the planet" is a "walk into a major library to sense the breadth of this gap." In the same paragraph of "Black Magic in Theory and Practice," he attributes such libraries and this gap to the "reasoning potential of the human cerebrum." To someone versed in even basic neurology and brain anatomy, this is a stunning blooper. The cerebrum is the very large dome-like organ composed of two almost symmetric hemispheres that takes up the largest part of the skull cavity in animals. But it is not the part of the brain responsible for libraries, for, if it were, all animals would have libraries, even if only "small." It is the frontal area or lobes of the neocortex that is responsible for the mental prowess of humans. The neocortex is a very thin separate layer of neuron-packed tissue that overlays the entire dome of the cerebrum. It is the most lately evolved part of the brain, and significantly smaller is. And he knew versions of it are found only in those mammals very close to man, like primates and cetaceans (whales, dolphins, etc.) This neocortex is extremely thin: only a few millimeters thick! Counter-intuitively for Dr. Aquino, modern neurology has shown that only a few milligrams of highly specialized neural wiring can accomplish a set of very impressive cognitive tasks. Dr. Aquino thinks of the cerebrum as some sort of - in humans - freakishly enlarged pudding ball packed with neurons that dwarfs not only in size but in thinking power that of all other animals by a long shot. Modern research made possible only recently by non-invasive scanning of human and other terrestrial animals' brains while they are in actual use has shown that "the brain" is entirely modular: it consists of many smaller brains that accomplish very specific cognitive or "mental" tasks separately, while more complex cognitive tasks require the integration or simultaneous use of more than one module acting in concert. Due to the persistence of an older, more naive way of viewing the brain, these modules are still thought of as "organs of the brain," when they are actually separate brains, as is proven by the fact that many animals have evolved some of these modules separately, or have them integrated with modules humans do not have or have inferior versions of! An example of one of these modular brains within our brains is the small area that matches names to faces. Lesions to that area of "the brain" leave victims unable to identify photographs of family members, although the ability to recognize them by the sound of their voices is unimpaired, as are all other cognitive abilities. Another small structure that sorts and stores incoming information can be damaged, leaving the victim unable to learn or remember anything new with the exception of novel motor tasks, yet he remains still in full possession of memories. Many of these modular areas are much superior in other animals, due to their being selected in favor of as being handy in their own ecological or "survival" niches. For example, the part of the brain which sorts and stores olfactory information in a dog is much superior to a human's. This hard neurological fact correlates completely with behavior: even an expert "smeller," like a human perfumer, can recognize, remember and compare at most only a few thousand odors, while a common mutt can do the same with at least hundreds of thousands of odors. Failure to appreciate the modular nature of the brain, and how a little neural tissue, if wired correctly, goes a long way, and thinking (as Dr. Aquino incorrectly does) that big mental abilities only arise from a big brain is the reason why, in comparing human to animal intelligence, Dr. Aquino repeatedly brings up other primates, such as "gorillas" (p. 12, "Black Magic in Theory and Practice"). Gorillas' brains contain the same modular brain assortment as ours, and though recent observation of gorillas and bonobos in their natural habitats - rather than imprisoned in zoos - by Diane Fossey, Jane Goodall, and others has shown them to be a lot smarter than some people had thought, most of the modular brains in gorillas are clearly inferior to the human's - at least in size, which correlates well with the potential for actual cognitive or mental abilities. It came as a surprise, however, when an invertebrate life form was discovered that is just as outstanding in the performance of mental tasks compared to its phylogenetically related kindred as humans are to apes, and even has an abstract language second in complexity only to the one you are looking at now. It came as a surprise to those who think of high intelligence in terms of "big cerebrums" because the animal is so small, especially its head, and because the animal is frenetic, encased in an exoskeleton, sports supernumerary legs and has a sting: it is the honey bee!

No one would have bothered to study this insect, were it not for the fact that Karl von Frisch (who died in 1982) was ridiculed by the scientific establishment for saying he could experimentally prove that fish can hear. So he coldly turned to studying bees. He was awarded a Nobel Prize for his life's work in 1973 (and he was right about fish!) Since he initiated these studies, he, his students, and many other experimenters have proven the following remarkable assertions about honey bees that undoubtedly will sting the Christians and Setians reading this and provoke their scorn and ridicule. First, honey worker bees have a complex, abstract language of gestures which is capable of conveying a total possible number of messages of at least one billion, whereas any languages - of sound or gesture - in birds, dolphins, and nonhuman primates appear to be capable of a number of possible messages running only to one hundred to a few thousand at most - and honey bees use all of these messages. If you need an idea of what big numbers mean in the area of cognition, like "a billion possible messages," it simplifies things for starters to think of a single human word as a message, and consider that you who are reading this probably have a vocabulary of only 50,000 to 80,000 words. Secondly, honey worker bees learn, and use this knowledge to form probabilities without prior estimations of likelihoods of any kind. Third, they utilize goal-oriented reasoning strategies, unlike their close kin, like wasps and termites, whom experiments have shown are performing only what seem like cognitive tasks, and are actually only running "sub-routines" much like a computer does. (This is how wasps appear to present study. We have heard this kind of assessment before to be later proven wrong. One wonders if bees know more about termites than humans do.) Fourth, bees make choices and do this so clearly that some overly-enthusiastic experimenters immediately began to speculate that human decisions may come from a "hidden bee brain" the discovery and analysis of which, they conceived, might simplify understanding of what humans are doing when they are choosing. All of this and more examples of what can only be considered as "high reason" and even probability theory the bee accomplishes with a small, simple-but-powerful neural system. On the other hand, honey bee individuals have no long-term memory. How such incredible intelligence could exist in so small a body and exist separate from other cognitive functions that we are used to seeing in "one package" (like long-term memory) could not be accepted or made sense of when neurology was a backward science. This is one reason why experiments that proved these things about the honey bee were immediately attacked. Two researchers attempted to prove, for example, that bees were not "talking" at all, but that von Frisch-type experiments were invalid because forager bees were really contaminated - both in the wild and during experiments - with various odors and other substances, which is how they were conveying information to other bees in the hive or swarm (bees converse both in food gathering for the hive and during swarming when about half of the hive and the Queen Bee set out to create a new hive). It is interesting to note here that with these experimenters who sought to refute bee intelligence, it was "all or nothing," that is, they showed a typical dualistic prejudice that pervades and distorts the consideration of animal intelligence, including Dr. Aquino's: that either animals have an abstract language, like humans, or they use "odor clues" (like other foraging insects). It is as if only humans can have multiple solutions to a problem, whereas "lower" animals can only be "lucky" enough, due to natural selection, to have one. This is a modern version of "only humans have a soul; animals do not." It is now known that bees have both systems, just as humans do, who, for example, have odor clues that operate (perhaps unconsciously in most people) in selecting mates, but also have a romantic literature (which is one of the broadest and strongest genres of literature in any library) which gives humans something to think and talk about and assist them in mate selection.

A typical staple on human IQ tests which many of you may remember are three-dimensional object rotation tests. Some are easy and some are difficult, and you have only a limited time to answer questions in which you are shown an object from one perspective, and are asked to choose from among several alternatives which could be the object seen from another angle. Insects resembling honey bees, like moths, do this by storing an image of an object they have seen exactly as it appeared on their retinas. They then "recognize" the object later by matching what they see to this image, or to several images of it, if they have already seen the object from many angles. Bees, however, unlike wasps and moths, can mentally transform visual information, just as you are called on to do on these IQ tests, thereby recognizing the object from a novel perspective, which wasps and moths cannot do. And bees are not alone in this: pigeons are very superior to humans at mental rotations of two-dimensional figures: they answer faster, and whereas it takes a human longer to recognize an object on a test which has been turned through a larger angle of rotation than a smaller one, pigeons take the same amount of time independently of how much the figure has been rotated. Food-storing birds, such as marsh tits, can remember much longer lists of locations than any humans can, and there is some evidence that in this regard many mammals are superior to humans.

Unlike wasps, ants, and termites, who thermodynamically cool their over-heated hives by sprinkling water in them or making bigger or more air vents, an astonishing discovery was made in volcanic areas of Italy quite by accident in the 1960's: bees that use these cooling methods will sometimes switch to using a non-routine tactic: they manufacture a heat-resistant alloy of beeswax to preserve hive structure. This did not surprise some researchers, who already knew that bees have cultural traditions of nest-building, and that these are not completely habitual: like humans, bees show a creative flexibility in (hive) architecture.

This is only the tip of iceberg of bee studies. Rather than to keep multiplying examples, or to present more excellent cognitive feats of other animals, it should be pointed out that this sort of thing leaves Christians and Setians cold. When an animal outperforms a human at some cognitive task, the Christian and the Setian see it as an instance of some sort of "unfair advantage" on that test that the outperforming animals have had conferred on them by natural selection, whereas superior cognitive performances by humans are seen by them as outgrowths of some sort of awesome generalized intellectual prowess residing - as Dr. Aquino thinks - in some sort of big, globular pudding-wad laced with neurons inside the cranium called the "cerebrum" nebulously thought of as responsible for this excellence. There is no amount of evidence that can bridge this gulf between the way the aforesaid two "types" of people think about these things, and there is no way to get the Christian or Setian to see human cognitive abilities (and defects!) as species-specific specializations that best suited us to our original survival niche as hunter-gatherers. To see it this way puts humans, and the supposedly exalted mental abilities that Dr. Aquino sees displayed in large libraries, back into Nature, the realm of the carnal, and the evolutionary continuum. But, unlike Dr. Aquino's theory, which denies or ignores facts of zoology and animal behavior, this "carnal" way of looking at the subject of "mind" does not in any way deny for humans a unique evolutionary trajectory: it says only that man's phylogenetic trajectory has been unique only in the last few million years or so. It is ironic to note that Christian and Setian types that show this particular reluctance and cognitive inability (or disability) are the very humans with the strongest desire to believe in the superiority of the human brain!

How does Darwin's theory explain the existence of large libraries? It sees these as outgrowths of the explosive expansion, according to the laws of the mathematics of large numbers (once again!), in possible neuron connections that can come about when the number of neurons themselves in the neocortex increases due to selection in a hunter-gatherer niche of a certain kind. It may be expecting too much to expect a Christian or Setian to deal with very large numbers, so a simple example will suffice: the number of possible connections you can draw between five dots (representing neurons) on a piece of paper, allowing as "connections" little arrows that may be drawn both ways between any pair of dots, is twenty. If you then double the number of dots to ten, you can then connect them with ninety arrows. This multiplication effect gets much bigger much faster as the number of dots used increases. One of these rapid increases in both numbers of neurons and their connections in the primate forebears of humans was in the modular areas of the neocortex responsible for speech: Broca's and Wernicke's regions. A similar increase occurred as well as in the modules responsible for association and information processing. It was a very valuable discovery for neuroscience when John Allman discovered that, independent of body-size, the neocortex of fruit-eating monkeys is much larger than that of leaf-eating monkeys. This is exactly what one would expect if brain tissues develop according to the same laws as muscles and body hair, because this larger neocortex would endow fruit-eating monkeys with a richer memory so that they can remember when and where to look for edible, unrotten fruit, making evaluations and inferences based on time, appearance, location, etc. as to freshness. Such a problem is not nearly so critical with leaf-food in the tropics. A greater factual memory and better evaluative reasoning is a conferred advantage inherited by the fruit-eater.

All evidence today points to the idea that linguistic ability is genetically endowed and even hard-wired: it is innate and species-specific. By species-specific is meant that a language of gestures would not have suited humans to their original hunter-gatherer niche, but calls would do nicely, just like nose bridges do nicely for holding spectacles. Linguistic ability is as hard-wired at birth as the ability to see colors: experiments show that newborn humans are innately hard-wired to divide the color spectrum into four colors: red, blue, green, and yellow. Later on they learn to further sub-divide the spectrum (orange, magenta, etc.) Likewise, syllable formation, basics of grammar, the means of storing and encoding language, even the manner of language acquisition or the way humans learn it are inborn. The only exceptions are a particular language's vocabulary and its grammatical idiosyncrasies. Once a vocal language existed, made possible as much by the low position of the human larynx in the throat and the structure of the human ear as by the few extra milligrams of high quality neural tissue in various brain modules, the antecedent existed for cultural evolution of a certain kind that did not exist before. Writing itself did not come into existence until humans had made the cultural transition from hunter-gatherers to animal herders and crop growers. Over two-hundred and fifty human generations have passed since the emergence of cities based on agriculture. Those who see humans as carnal and as still part of the evolutionary continuum see no contradiction in the idea that man can slip, or has now slipped, out of the bonds of natural selection. In fact, they seem to be the only ones really aware when this happens and the only ones who make apposite warnings of the dangers inherent in doing so!

Language has a multiplier effect on certain cognitive feats. Only the most obtuse will find this idea puzzling. If one insists on seeing language as the supreme intellectual achievement of man (Dr. Aquino mentioned walking through a library, not a computer clean-room), then it is just another remarkable development of a product of natural selection. We cannot give ourselves, God, or Set credit for it: it evolved with man in its oral and later written forms serving specific functions, whatever other uses to which it may be put (like the bridges of noses), like reciting poetry.

One of Dr. Aquino's "proofs" of the anomalous position of humans in Nature is a pseudo-scientific fact that had been bandied about in the l970's that apparently enamored him no end: the idea that humans use only ten to twenty percent of their "reasoning potential." This idea was based on the fact that, at that stage in what really amounted to what was still the infancy of neuroscience, there were large areas of densely packed neuron tissues in the cerebrum that were said to be "silent": they seemed to serve no purpose. This was immediately seized upon by die-hard "otherworldly" types and inveterate mystics as the last bastion or seat of the "soul" or what they perceive as the mysterious, non- or super-natural abilities humans have, or seen, as by Dr. Aquino, as unaccountable in terms of the theory of natural selection, as evidence that a great potential unaccounted for by Nature must have been formed and implanted in humans by Set, a potential Dr. Aquino believes Setians accepting what he calls the "Gift of Set" could tap into and use, making them what he calls the "Elect." In thinking this, Dr. Aquino correctly applied the idea that Nature is parsimonious: like a cheap car manufacturer who does not give you any extra car axle thickness for your money but only the minimum to meet enforced safety standards and keep up a minimal market good will, Nature seems to dole out only about as much bone as you need for a task to which you are adapted. This is, by and large, a correct way of looking at this, so Dr. Aquino cannot be faulted here. So why all the extra neurons? As it turned out, the use of better, non-invasive brain scans of brains in action have shown that almost all of this "silent" material is used or involved in motor functions or processing sensory data, which are a lot more complicated processes than many originally thought. These two processes are, in fact, what most of that great big globe of the brain called the cerebrum (which, we have seen, Dr. Aquino mistakenly thinks is the source of "large libraries") does. Where Dr. Aquino did go astray again, however, is in the idea that "only" man has an excess of brain matter. One of Dr. Aquino's main arguments for the anomalousness of man is that man (he thinks) has both surplus brain stuff and much more brain power than he needs to survive or hold steady at stone age culture. As he puts it, "you and I should be gorillas," that is, all we really "need" to survive better is to get, as he puts it, "stronger, hairier, tougher, meaner, and faster." Once again, he makes the teleologic-teleonomic confusion as to what is "needed" to survive, as if this mattered as to what variants occurred in genetic reshufflings before fertilization or to natural selection. But it is a factual error I want to point out here. He reiterates that if something happens in nature according to the theory of natural selection, the laws of probability dictate that it should not happen just once, so why should humans be the only ones in Nature with the frills of excess computing power having their loci in extra brain matter. As it turns out, things are exactly what one would expect if the laws of probability and natural selection are correct: that such excess brain endowment, though rare, did appear at least once before or in some other species. Compared to flies and moths, who have no excess, the honey bee also has a substantial "surplus" of brain tissue giving it extra computing power beyond what is needed to control muscles and fulfill instinctive urges to gather food and perpetuate their kind, and, like in the case of man once again, this makes the honey bee more adaptive and adaptable than other phylogenetically related animals that look much like the bee. As stated before, this excess brain in the bee solves problems with original goal-oriented strategies and high reason, of which wasps, for example, are (or seem to be) incapable, a level of cognitive finesse far beyond what Dr. Aquino must have thought.

But do bees "know" that "I am I"? Does anyone else know this, or is this "uniquely human," as the theologians are always the first to assert and continue to assert with unflagging ardor while others are less strident about it now? I am glad Dr. Aquino did not ask this question, nor try to use this nebulous idea to prove human uniqueness under Set's tutelage because then this essay would get twice as long as I right now project it to become. I am glad because I am not entirely sure what this question, which addresses the issue of self-consciousness in animals, is supposed to mean. I am not even sure that most or all humans at all stages of the evolution of the genus Homo or even during the existence of the species Homo sapiens "knew" that "I am I," as when his brain was only half the size it is now but already then far larger than that of the nearest modern ape. I am not sure that newborns, who do not seem to come into the world with this idea, are hard-wired for it as they are for almost all the features of language. Neurology shows that an "organic I" exists in many healthy mammals, including healthy humans, but does not exist in humans with specific types of traumatic and developmental brain damage! This would mean that "I am I" means something absolutely different to a person who lacks the "organic I," just as it would mean something different to someone who developed total amnesia who, I presume, would also "know," despite the amnesia and in his own way, that "I am I." Since honey bees have no long term memory, if they "know" that "I am I" it would have to be in the way this is "known" by such an amnesiac. It is noteworthy to point out the irony once again that those that lack this "organic I" are the ones philosophically obsessed with the concepts behind "I am I" (I do not mean to include linguists and logicians in this category, who are fascinated by and study the formal nature of this and other such propositions). It would seem that the Christian and Setian type tends to become obsessed with and focused on, as of paramount importance to them, the very things they might completely lack! One might venture to say that such things become so important to them due to the fact that they lack them, especially if they are aware of other humans around them that do have these qualities. As an analogy, one might point out that a rich man whose belly is full does not worry about food, but a starving man thinks about it constantly.

To return to Dr. Aquino's efforts to reduce Darwin's theory to absurdity, it is clear to modern zoology, animal behavior studies, neurology and brain anatomy that, contrary to his reductio ad absurdum type argument, Nature has done not only what he says it has not done, but has done even more: Nature has not only produced some species other than man evolving an intelligence at least partway to human level, which we see today in, for example, bonobo apes, but has also produced a type of animal, the honey bee, that looks a lot like its phylogenetically related kin (the wasps, moths, etc.) but is actually paramount over them in intelligence, just as humans look a lot like chimps but are paramount over them in intelligence. This is the answer to Dr. Aquino's question, "why did the brains of other creatures not similarly evolve - at least a little?" (p. 11). This is the refutation of his incorrect answer as to the existence of such creatures, of which he roundly asserts on the same page, "There are none."

A second false argument Dr. Aquino adduces is very confused and therefore needs unraveling to separate the true from the false in it. Doing so will take us into the more subtle areas of the Synthetic Theory of Natural Selection, which is the modern version of Darwin's theory that arose in the 1940's, uniting Darwin's theory with modern genetics and probability theory.

Dr. Aquino says that Nature always picks the "easiest way out - that selection favors the less-complicated adaption over a more complex alternative." He says that this means that longer-necked giraffes may plausibly evolve, but that giraffes will therefore not evolve wings to assist them in feeding on treetop leaves. His argument proceeds that the only plausible things natural selection could select in favor of are accidents that occur in a species, but there is a limit, according to the parsimony of Nature he alludes to, as to the complexity of what can occur by accident. (It is not entirely clear as to whether he is saying there is a limit as to the complexity of what genetic accidents could produce, or whether he is saying that there is a limit as to the complexity of what natural selection would permit to survive, so I shall address both; he appears to me to be saying the latter, most likely). He then rules out human brains as too complex for this, especially when being "stronger, hairier, tougher, meaner, and faster" will do just well for survival, as would stone age culture.

Note that in this argument, he employs a correct, non-teleologic paraphrase of the theory of natural selection. No sooner does he do so, however, than he misrepresents what the theory says about the evolution of complexity (or just does not know it), and misapplies the idea of Nature's parsimony, a valid concept in itself!

The first fallacy is his saying that probability in genetic reshufflings before fertilization and Nature's parsimony make evolution toward extremely complex organs and life forms highly unlikely. I have already mentioned Dr. Aquino's position, quite apart from his ideas about Darwin's theory, in which he mistakenly believes that entropy, Nature's parsimony or Its taking the path of least resistance, and "energy downhill" are unable to produced any complexity, and should not do so, almost by definition, in the inorganic realm either. Dr. Aquino is a believer in the discredited idea of "reverse entropy," which scientists fairly and honestly considered at one time - and rejected. He believes reverse entropy is needed to account for the fact that the universe is not just murky soup, but is very highly developed, structured, and complex. I have already shown how the path of least resistance can and does account for the emergence of complexity in a simple case: a salt molecule. In the realm of biology now Dr. Aquino roundly asserts that Nature "favors the less-complicated adaption over a more complex alternative" (p. 11). This is not so. Here Dr. Aquino has gone over the edge again and is mistaken in a way that precludes an understanding that might lead to an acceptance of the theory of natural selection.

First of all, genes have no "information" beforehand as to whether a new reshuffled combination or mutation they are involved in before fertilization will produce a variant more or less complex than before. From the standpoint of the "spew" part of Darwin's theory, there are exactly equal probabilities for "more or less complex" here. But, as I said, I do not think Dr. Aquino is contradicting this, if he is even aware of the difference. What he is contradicting - and does not realize - is that as to the part of Darwin's theory relating to natural selection (the "skew" part), there are also about equal probabilities of selection favoring simpler versus more complex adaptive features in an animal. In fact, the theory says that when an animal is well-suited to its environmental niche, natural selection actually selects against both simpler and more complex variants. This is a fact of Nature known as "selection inertia." The correct application of the idea of Nature's parsimony is this: natural selection disfavors variants (which are or could be useful adaptions) which require a greater re-adjustment of an animal's existing structure, organization, or embryonic developmental patterns. This is the correct explanation as to why giraffes do not also sprout wings for feeding on treetop leaves: this would require a drastic re-adjustment of the animal's entire body plan. That is not parsimonious. A giraffe's neck, long as it is compared to the little mouse's, has the same number of vertebrae as the mouse's (seven) - they are just extremely elongated. Further elongations of the neck accomplished this way require much less complicated readjustments of the animals body plan than would new wing additions. Dr. Aquino's "explanation" for wingless giraffes - that "Nature favors the less complex" - would mean that animals, if they ever even came into existence at all, would all just devolve back into primal slime. This is, admittedly, a very subtle idea from the Synthetic Theory of Natural Selection. A purely theoretical example will say more than a thousand abstract explanations. Imagine a type of animal and capturing its prey is a simple matter: it would just run around and whatever fell within its field of vision it would grab and eat. Now suppose something in the environment changes and the animal cannot expend so much energy running around anymore, but has to sit pat instead, and use its eyes to scan a great depth of its environs to spot prey before capture. If variants do not appear in its offspring with an ability to start focusing their eyes, at least a little at first, the entire species might be wiped out. But suppose two such variants do appear. One is able to elongate and shrink its eyeballs, ever so slightly at first, to gain focus, while the other variant is able to elongate and shrink a separate part of the front of the eye adjacent to the cornea. An animal with an adjustable lens in front of its eye is more complex than one that can only stretch its already existing eyeballs: the one with the lens has an additional structure (lens), like the hypothetical giraffe with wings, while the eyeball-stretcher is like the giraffe who only elongates it neck. But which would selection favor, the simpler eye-ball stretcher or the one with the lens? This is not as easy to answer in the abstract as Dr. Aquino pretends it is. The theory would say that the more complex variant, with an adjustable lens, is favored because stretching an eyeball (the simpler variant) would actually require more readjustments to the entire cranium of the animal, due to the changes in pressure a reshaping of the eyeball would cause inside the skull - a possibly lethal effect. A small, adjustable organ near the exterior of the eye (a lens) requires no such radical readjustments of skull plan or organization. This is the kind of answer that the modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution gives, but the theory is open minded: how do we know that a variant who can squish his eyeballs may not be lucky enough to have a second variation also, like a vent hole in the skull somewhere to release pressure? And if he did, this would be accounted the simpler readjustment of body plan, and therefore the less complex squisher-vent hole variant would be favored by natural selection. It is also possible that the original animals among which these variants occur have such vent holes to begin with, or could make ones they already have for some other use do double-duty, so, again, in this case, the simpler squisher would have to be favored. You can see that you have to take the entire animal's body structure and even manner of living into account - you cannot be ignorant! - and this is what the modern theory calls mosaic evolution: there is a mosaic of features to be considered when thinking about variants, and nothing should be considered in isolation (no "small decks," thank you). What's more, until a pair of variations occurring together in an animal become useful as an "adaption pair," there may be no prior connection between these variations (like being lucky to have a skull vent opening just when you are called upon to start squishing your eyeballs). A real example of this - crucial to human brain development, of which Dr. Aquino is so enamored - is that the larger cranium that humans developed to house a larger brain would never have happened, and humans would not be around now - only apes - if certain human mothers did not produce simultaneous genetic variants (along with the bigger-brain variant) which were inclined to give somewhat premature births. Compared to a newborn ape, a newborn human needs more womb-time; but, if he had that, his little skull, in that short extra time in the womb, would get too big and too hard and kill the mother when she delivered the baby. So then there would be no humans around either. Evolution - not just of humans but of all animals - is a beautifully complex mosaic with lots of drama, ironies, and accidents in it. Evolution did not move in a straight line to produce humans, as the telelogic arguments fancy: it "zig-zagged" chaotically all over the place before it produced them, and untold billions and billions of variants perished along the way on the other "zigs" and "zags." If there had been straight-line development toward human life or human brains, I too would consider that to be some sort of strong evidence of "ordaining" or outcome-orientation toward humans, some sort of design.

Dr. Aquino also makes the fallacious argument that while humans have all this "extra" brain matter, why don't we find super-giraffes with lots of extra neck length, like giraffes with forty-foot instead of just four-foot necks. This is an argument based on the Christian type's monkish ignorance of Nature, though it is somewhat excusable here on Dr. Aquino's part because giraffes are not as frequently observed in our part of the world as, say, small cats and various dogs. He apparently never spent any quality time at a zoo and observed how a giraffe trying to get a drink of water from a basin to wash down his dinner of leaves has to very awkwardly spread his forelegs in a "V" to get his long neck and head down far enough to get his drinks. A forty-footer would have even more difficulty doing this. In fact, a forty-footer might even have difficulty feeding, because the giraffe's neck is almost perfectly suited to the kinds of trees it feeds on: he does not need to spread his forelegs to feed on treetops far below his head, nor bend his neck too far over, as a forty-footer might.

Dr. Aquino's misunderstanding of the theory of natural selection is evident again when he incorrectly argues that proto-men would have long-since been extinguished before hostile environmental stresses could have had any effect on their brains to give them the brain power they would need to meet the new challenges. This once again shows a complete misunderstanding of the theory of natural selection. The theory does not postulate any sort of effect in an evolving organ due to environmental forces of some sort acting upon that organ which would then be the cause of that organ's evolution. There is no such "force (or action) of evolution." The theory says (to repeat once again) that the cause of evolution is not some force or entity but rather the skewing of variants in a population. If an animal's vision is not up to par with environmental challenges, the only "force" that extinguishes his life and prevents him from having as many offspring as animals with more acute vision is light, the laws of light refraction, etc. If an animal type becomes extinct because it cannot digest available food, the only "force" (or forces) that kill it off are those of the enzymatic chemistry of digestion and the laws of organic chemistry, not some "force of evolution." It is a kind of simple-mindedness that Setians share with Christian Creationists, to ask for or demand an answer to the question, "What (single) 'force' causes evolution." There is no single force.

There is nothing inconsistent, as Dr. Aquino claims on p. 12 of "Black Magic Theory and Practice," with the idea that one organ or set of organs in an animal can get stronger while others - or even most others - get weaker, as he claims for the rest of human anatomy compared to the strengthening of the human brain. This is a frequent occurrence in evolution. He generates the inconsistency himself by thinking that "the brain is evolving" because of some sort of "force of evolution in Nature," while many parts of the rest of the human body are devolving, as if that force ("of evolution") has refrained to act or been nullified with respect to acting on these (non-brain) organs. This false argument is adduced to show once again how the human brain is an anomaly in Nature. This argument is also founded on the aforementioned ignorance of Nature, as if other animals never have one organ or feature excessively strengthened or one adaption highly exaggerated at the expense of one or more other features. There is clear evidence that cetaceans have hands and legs, but these have atrophied and have been rendered utterly hidden and useless in order for the adaption of a streamlined aquatic form to govern these animals.

Dr. Aquino may consider his own brain "exceptional" and anomalous in the carnal realm of Nature, but I have a different picture to paint. Imagine a human born who really did have the mental analogue of a giraffe's forty-foot neck, a human who did not "merely" have an IQ of just over 200 or so, which is as high as any humans seem to get, but closer to 2000, assuming one could extend the Stanford-Binet or Wechsler intelligence test-score scales meaningfully into this range to accommodate such a truly anomalous intelligence. It is then possible that, like with the forty-footer giraffe, natural selection might work against such an individual and his offspring: he might be like Archimedes, who, when attacked by a Macedonian warrior while working at his easel on a geometry problem, reluctantly turned away from it to the soldier (who then immediately slew him) with the dying words, "Please don't hurt my circles." Or he might be like the "first philosopher" (in the West) Thales, who came into mortal peril by falling into a ditch he didn't see at night because he was absorbed looking up at the stars while walking. A truly anomalous "forty-foot" intelligence such as I am trying to convey a picture of here might be like Archimedes and Thales, but even more so! Selective inertia is more likely to be keeping the intelligence of primates (including humans) in a range much narrower than Dr. Aquino imagines it to be. If we met an organic life form with an intelligence outside this range, it is likely that we would be able to communicate little with it, like a human attempting to explain to a chimpanzee Quantum Mechanics or topology. What I am saying requires an imaginative leap on the reader's part, of the kind you might make when reading, say, the fiction of H. P. Lovecraft. I am trying to convey the idea that selection in our ecosystem, among the life forms we know about, has confined primate intelligence to a narrow range to begin with. The range of primates, from Koko the gorilla to Albert Einstein, is actually a lot narrower than Dr. Aquino imagines it to be. The few human variants who may push this confining intelligence envelope outward and upward at its borders always have to invent new languages altogether to convey their thoughts to others. The speech that was useful to hunter-gatherers, even in its written forms, is not sufficient for them, so they have to invent new symbolic systems that appear mystical or inscrutable to those who fall nearer the mean or even the high mean of human intelligence, symbolic systems like that used in mathematical group theory, or in the Taoist hexagram system of the I Ching, or the Tantric mandalas and cosmogonic diagrams.

If Dr. Aquino were not so ignorant of a subject on which he so freely pontificates, he would know that there has been an incident in the evolution of all life on Earth that happened only twice, which means it is close to being as improbable as the same individual winning a state lottery game twice (not impossible, but how often does or could this happen?) Twice, and only twice, during the entire history of life on Earth have the numbers of chromosomes in the cells of whole categories of animals doubled. This happened once a little over half a billion years ago just before the start of the Cambrian era, when life forms suddenly got large in size. Before then, there were few living things the size of a human hand, and most were microscopic. Then the number of chromosomes in a cell somewhere doubled, and most of the modern phyla of living things we see today came into existence. Then this happened one more time, eons later: the number of chromosomes in a vertebrate's cell somewhere doubled, and vertebrates became possessed of complex heads and jaws, in which the sensory organs were concentrated. If one seeks improbability and extra-ordinary events in Nature, one should look to these, which appear to violate an evolutionary continuum more than the appearance of Homo sapiens from among the primates. The doubling of the chromosome set in the cells of certain plants has been observed (and usually forced experimentally) by geneticists and botanists and seen to confer fertility on an otherwise sterile organism. The doubling of single chromosomes in a cell in animals is usually selected against: one such doubling produces the well know "Down's syndrome." But to have an animal's cells' entire set double, and to have selection favor this, is extraordinary indeed, unless (there is much we do not know) chromosomes doubled one at a time over long periods until the entire set was doubled, then this stopped for a few eons, only to happen again much later - which would still seem like a great improbability or rarity. Why did this kind of event take so long to repeat itself? Why hasn't it happened again since?

On pp. 10 - 12 of "Black Magic in Theory and Practice," Dr. Aquino give us what appear to be scientific and philosophical arguments about Nature and the theory of evolution. Then, in the transition to the very next and last paragraph on p. 12 therein, he suddenly jumps to the idea that if we really want to learn about these things, we should look instead at Stanley Kubrick's 200l: A Space Odyssey, a science fiction film based on Arthur C. Clark's novel Childhood's End. He tells us that to really learn about evolution, we need to pay attention to the spectacular scene of the film where proto-men who look like apes have their intelligence artificially boosted by a rectangular monolith, a symbolic stand-in, he says, for the Devil, for whom he (incorrectly) claims the oldest name to be Set. At this point, many readers of his essay do what I once did many years ago with it: they put it down with a knowing smile and read no further.

It cannot be disproved that a deity or deities, demons or demonic forces, the Devil or Satan, Cthulhu, or extra-terrestrials did not have a hand in human evolution, or, say, in the explosion of the number of large living things after the pre-Cambrian, or, say, in the change from protostome to deuterostome, a developmental form men still share with humble annelid worms. In the absence of the existence of extraterrestrial artifacts, a role for extra-terrestrials seems unlikely, as Dr. Aquino has correctly stated, though this does not really disprove this either. Something which can be measured as entropy drives the entire process of evolution forward, if any single thing can be said to be responsible for it, and this "force" appears to be a fair equivalent of what the most ancient historical traditions, as reflected in old literature like the I Ching and the Vedas, call a "dark force," like Anton LaVey's "Satan," whom he called "a dark hidden force in Nature, guiding it," or like Tani Jantsang's "sat-tan," a compound word consisting of two very ancient linguistic morphemes (sat and tan) that appear to have come down from some very ancient root language. Set is neither a "dark force," nor anything like entropy, nor as ancient. If Set is anything at all, it is, according to Dr. Aquino's description of it, a "light force" of some kind, opposes entropy much as Set's own "prophet" Dr. Aquino does (albeit he does so only philosophically, since one cannot physically oppose entropy), and is linguistically recent (see Set, by Tani Jantsang). The problem with Dr. Aquino's "Black Magic in Theory and Practice" is not that one can disprove everything he says about Set; the problem with it is that evolution really works the way Darwin theorized that it did, so that anything "doing" this, be it extra-terrestrials, demons, deities, or whatever, is truly doing it "blindly and idiotically" through the random chaos of "spew and skew." That some entity, demon, or god could be doing it this way is entirely possible. So why then is Dr. Aquino so intent on refuting Darwin's theory? Because his conception of Set is of something, unlike the pre-Aryan Vedic tamas, Anton LaVey's "Satan," or Ms. Jantsang's "sat-tan," that just does not do things this way. And because his cognitive proclivities or thinking style is identical to that of the Christian Paley.

Bertrand Russell once said that the debate about the existence of God was once an intellectually respectable endeavor, because such arguments once-upon-a-time involved errors of fact or fallacies of logic and thought that could be identified and disputed. He said that since science and logic have taken so much of the wind out of these old sails, such debates have begun to rely on more nebulous ideas. For example, one argument I have heard more than one "intellectual" modern Christian make is an argument based on the existence of beauty in the world. The argument asks: why would a blind mechanism, even if it could produce complex brains and minds, have produced such a wonderful thing for the human mind to contemplate as beauty. (There are those who would immediately find this idea laughable, for what is "beauty" except a subjective experience that not all might share. There have been those, including some of the most renowned Christian scholars, who found no beauty in the world at all, but only ugliness.) The Christian is thereby attempting to appeal to his listeners' higher intellect - of which the contemplation of beauty and aesthetics is undoubtedly a part - and insinuate that beauty is some sort of "from on high" intrusion into the carnal and earthly realm of what awaits the "righteous" in the Kingdom of God. Arguments like this are not intellectually respectable and prey upon ignorance. To this argument atheists often reply that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. This is certainly true, and I guess that this is the first thing they think of to answer this so-called argument. But there is a simpler refutation that relies on knowledge of nature, rather than ignorance, an argument that does the double-duty of simultaneously confirming the Theory of Evolution. This argument asks you to consider something in Nature that almost everyone considers beautiful: the colors of flowers. The refutation of the Christian's argument is this: that there are no colored flowers among those which are wind-pollinated. Colored flowers occur only among those that are pollinated by flying insects, who can see and identify them - even as to flower type - by their brilliant and variegated colors. In other words, the colors of flowers confer on certain flowers a reproductive advantage that enlists insects as assistants. So the argument gets turned around back on the Christian apologist: if evolution automatically produces beauty, or if God put it unnecessarily into evolution to give us "an intimation of immortality," why did He only put it in insect-pollinated flowers? Or why do colors appear (or God put them) only on the beautifully colored fruit of otherwise homely, drab and unattractive trees (like the orange tree), among their fruits and berries? The answer to this is the same: so birds (or others!) can see and identify their fruit and berry food, eat it, and defecate the undigested seeds at some distance from the tree, beyond where the wind would take the seeds. There is a pattern here, a pattern explained by the Theory of Evolution, not by a decision or fiat by God to put the beauty of color into only certain evolving plants and animals, selected arbitrarily, but patterned according to some "higher" purpose. The real pattern clearly has to do with something other than this supposed "higher purpose."

It has never been clear to me why the existence of improbable events in Nature is automatically supposed to be evidence of design. It was improbable that an African-American I met in New Jersey won the state lottery. Yet he did so. It is entirely improbable that I have successive descendants in the male line - sons, grandsons, etc. - uninterruptedly for 100 generations from now. It is entirely improbable that any given man alive today will have this. But every living man today is living proof that such an uninterrupted line has in fact occurred, however improbable it might have been 100 generations ago. So I don't see why improbabilities in Nature, even recurring ones, prove anything about design or hidden helping hands. Are we to assume the African-American from New Jersey must have cheated to win, or that my male ancestors must have had guardian angels to direct the course of their progeny, that is, that there was really a conspiracy in the former case and a design in the latter?

One of the classic arguments for the existence of God was studied by Dr. Aquino, for he mentions it. This is the "first cause" argument which says that everything must have a cause, and as you go back further and further in the chain of causes you eventually come to the cause of the universe itself, which is called "God." Dr. Aquino is too modern and sophisticated not to see the fallacies in this argument, one of which is that the argument is saying that God has no cause, and if that is so, if there is a cause without a cause, you might as well allow it to be the universe itself as "God." This undermines the force and validity of the argument, so you do not hear much of this old argument any more.

But now you hear something vaguely similar from the same type of thinker. Science now seems to be saying that everything is the result of random events. Everything is improbable, but happens anyway (like the lottery winner and the man with male descendants 100 generations from now). In this sea of chains of improbable existences, the universe itself may even be improbable. So it is felt by some that there still must be out there a certain foundation for all these improbabilities at the very beginning of the chain of improbabilities, and this is called "God." You might call this a "new" version of the old "first cause" argument. But then, just like with the older argument, if you allow one thing among all the other improbabilities to be a certainty ("God"), then it might as well, once again, be the world or the universe itself as God. I have not heard anyone make such a "variant" of the old "first cause" argument, but there seems to be something vague like this working in the backs of the minds of people, like Dr. Aquino, William Paley, and others, who think improbabilities in Nature count as weighty evidence of a design somewhere, or demand there must be one certainty somewhere on which all of these improbabilities and chaotic random events can be hung. None of them have ever thought this out or stated this as clearly as I have tried to do in this paragraph. This is what Russell meant that "new" arguments for the existence of God or Providence or design have gotten more nebulous. This is invariably the case, when these arguments are not just dishonest, fallacious, or based on factual errors or ignorance of Nature, as were William Paley's and as are Michael Aquino's. Perhaps one might venture to name this deity behind chaos and improbability "Azathoth," in which case we return again to the most ancient concepts of the pre-Aryan Vedics, a concept-word mentioned and explained by Tani Jantsang: Asat. The suffix "-oth" might show the word's origin to have been influenced by Hebrew (in which "-oth" indicates female-plural). It is well known that H. P. Lovecraft, who invented the name "Azathoth," claimed, in his Selected Letters, to have relied on Tibetan, Tartar and Hebrew words in creating most of the names of his "Old Ones": "Azoth" (the same as Asat) and "-oth." Lovecraft also depicted it correctly as an uncaring, blind, and idiotic force. The answer offered by the doctrines of certain aforementioned ancient peoples (Asians, Vedics, Hellenes) to "why did the universe occur?" is given in one vague word, not easily explained: "Necessity." Their idea of "Necessity" finds its best equivalent in one (apparently woefully misunderstood by some) modern term: "entropy." One may ask: does that which causes what we measure as entropy act upon itself? This cannot be known. And that's exactly what the ancients said about Necessity! If one wishes to say that, at one time, everything in the universe was One Thing; then Necessity could be called "Becoming." Thatness, became "All This." Being, out of Necessity, Became.

Copyright 1995-2003 Philip Marsh

Tree of Destruction - by some random punker

2006-04-12T15:40:00.000-07:00

Tree of Destruction - A synthetic analysis of human societal problems since the agrarian age.

by Tani Jantsang

The Historical Facts: there was an DRASTIC ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE AROUND 10,000 YEARS AGO which brought about a NEED to seek new conditions BY WHICH and IN WHICH to live. The agrarian age began 10,000 years ago: FOR SOME. People in certain areas could no longer survive and therefore either abandoned those areas or abandoned their old ways. The old ways are what, without a doubt, allowed humans to biologically evolve into the H. Sapiens they were at this time. Modern humans are no different from these early H. sapiens - biologically speaking. Those seeking conditions IN WHICH to live biologically adapted but culturally have stayed the same or stable since the old ways worked (hunter gatherers still on the planet to this day).

But those seeking conditions BY WHICH to live culturally evolved but biologically degenerated into a "norm" of unhealthiness (mental and physical), malnutrition, allergies such as to gluten, tooth decay, back deformities and arthritic joints due to the backbreaking work, and of sick sexualities, fear of such desires and supreme repression finally with there coming into being a state of gender WAR common to them and even the demonification of the female gender, i.e., monotheistic religion and patriarchy. Overpopulation, health problems, hygiene problems and diseases, massive sewage and all the rest of the ills which amount to a public health disaster resulted from the agrarian way of life. The prime directive is to mate and make more of the self. Those who cannot do this (for WHATEVER reason, including "free choice" or "preference") are genetically dead. This is highly unusual.

Genders can not remain at war too long and a species thrive. What happens when the electrical field around the ova REFUSES to let healthy sperm in for fertilization? We are now seeing this strange phenomena. That's what I'd call "REALLY saying 'NO'!" LONG is how long hominids were around and even this is short in real terms of evolution. Hominids (not just H. sapiens) were around only about 2 million years. That's not long compared to other species. Long is NOT measured by "civilizations" that rose and fell. It is "civilization" and such cultural evolution that people (FROM them) hold so high and consider so important. This is definitely akin to trying to analyze patriarchy and feminism when you are FROM such patriarchal people and living IN such a society yourself. It is as if you are a fish - INSIDE the fish tank. You can not ask "what is a NOT-fish" from outside the tank where you never go or see. ONLY a NOT-fish, outside it, CAN TELL YOU what is NOT IN that fish tank. Few not-fish talk or tell and almost NONE have writing or ever needed it. THIS not-fish talks and writes having been taught how to do such in the USA.

This article is about a tree, and to know about trees, branches, leaves and fruit you must know what the SEED is and next what the ROOTS are like to determine if it's viable, healthy, etc. and see clearly WHAT IT REALLY IS. And this is how we think and analyze: very unlike the fish! We think and see things synthetically. That's what E.O. Wilson is calling for: a synthesis. He'll have to stop analyzing modern humans teleologically, however, and see that SOMETHING went very WRONG since agriculture. Stop focusing on the presumed "intelligence" and wonder if it IS intelligent at all to doom one's own species to extinction by poisoning it's own habitat. Bacteria did that long ago: they poisoned their ecosystem with oxygen and it caused a ..... Revolution.....

This following is represented as a tree with a seed and branches, growth AND development:

SEED: ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE. Need for humans to change in some way, or perish. (The same do or die necessity occurred which FORCED ape to eventually evolve into man; FORCED fish to eventually evolve into amphibian. Keep in mind, all members of One Species go their own ways when such is necessary and they SPECIATE into more than one species.)

ROOT: AGRICULTURE chosen as means BY WHICH to seek continuance as a means to survive. What was NOT chosen? Physical, biological evolution. Agrarian life forced humans to eat things they were not fully biologically evolved to eat. It forced humans to work far more than they were evolved to work. CULTURAL evolution, with all its ramifications, was chosen as they self-sang the praises of their own ruination of life, their own drudge-filled lives (one group even called agriculture, gender war and birth problems a CURSE and imagined their god put it on their GENErations), and they praised it all as they pushed out, absorbed or wiped out all of the others who were nomadic.

THE ROOT THE RESULTS: ">" means "it became"

| Defense of land > walled in area > soldiers
| > nations > property and land owning.
Stationary | Labor division > castes > unequal distribution
settlers | replacing equal due to presence of soldiers now
doing | in power to demand more, better, higher > class
agriculture. | oppression: hierarchies.
| Priests and armies to keep classes in their place >
| imperialist godist patriarchy > man killing man.

LEADS TO: ->Need to move to newer lands due to land erosion from agriculture.
Need for more room, due to overpopulation fostered by any
agrarian society, always need more farm hands.
->The lowest classes always have larger families than higher
classes. Women are breeding property.
->Ends in the lowest classes knowing nothing or being kept
uneducated, give them education and they immediately seek to
"rise up" in the class system. Lowest classes are property
and slaves. Women and children are property.

COMBINE the these above: leads to humans conquering other humans, the "might is right" mentality, and warlike nations subduing anyone in the way by absorption or extermination. Priestly dictates emerge with fairy tales about manifest destiny to justify genocide. Of course there is oppression. Life in agrarian societies is always so hellish for the average person that people are constantly trying to find ways to live off the work of others! This can take the form of classism or imperialism. Such societies run on oppression and can't run any other way. Even if all members of one such nation are free ("given" freedom by the rulers!), their freedom is bought on the backs of some "other" nation that is exploited as a colony of "inferiors." The only thing ever able to utterly defeat and replace such a society was another identical society with more might; or one such society split apart and became two such societies. Temporary defeats occurred where the slaves rose up en masse and overthrew their rulers. That didn't last long.

Doing an analysis of the current ethics (from inside the fish tank, so to speak) and moralities and then trying to find some justification for the "behavior" in the ancestral human, is teleological. Ancestral humans behaved NOTHING like moderns; if they did, they'd never have evolved! (See Cavalli-Sforza "The Great Human Diasporas" for information on a modern-day primitive society that retains ancestral ways: they are the first affluent society but they are nothing like what civilized people imagine "jungle dwellers" to be like.) Understanding that something WARPED the underlying hunter/gatherer urges is a better idea. Trying to squeeze "religion," especially organized religion, into some kind of animist/shamanist developmental phenomena is also wrong. It is FACTUALLY incorrect; the two are not the same nor are they congruent.

There exist/ed/s genders in all sexually dimorphic species, including man, long before this happened. Being gendered is NOT the problem. Genders exist in nomadic communalistic societies too. There was division of labor according to ability and the fruits of all labors went back into the society to be shared equally. There was no need to defend land because no one was stationary. Overpopulation NEVER occurs in nomad societies. Such primitive societies are all communalistic in one form or another, but the WHOLE FOUNDATION of these societies is utterly unlike that of the agrarian societies. Their entire way of thinking regarding relations to their labor and relations with each other, are completely different. Agrarian societies pushed out the nomad ones, they are almost all gone now. At the same time agrarian societies have eaten up almost the entire planet. THEY don't have anywhere to go, to find a new habitat. They now threaten to "eat up" our air supply. They have rendered many rivers anoxic or hypoxic and oxygen-based life as we know it is being replaced by other life that is able to tolerate these new conditions. These new life forms are in our food chain! This is the situation NOW. But this situation had a ROOT back in time, and not all that long ago: 10,000 years ago is not long ago.

View this (the following diagram below) as a tree, not as separate categories, but as how one thing grew into and developed into another at the same time AS all other parts of the tree were growing. E.g., Walls around a protected area (i.e., with a given set of protectors) necessitates a grouping of who is going to do which chores. This simple division of labor with the fruits of ALL labor pooling back into the whole group begins to change with certain groups getting a bigger share than others. Warrior castes, which arise from those chosen to be protectors, go hand in hand with unequal ownership, now of privatized portions of land. Warriors are in a position to demand more and claim patches of land simply by using brute force. These protector/warriors continue to exist even when they are NO LONGER REQUIRED to protect anything! Next, the castes become static, they become set AS CLASSES and they'd vie for favoritism from the strongest class, i.e., the warriors. This, in itself, would alter the gene pool: warriors are usually quite dumb but smarter folks are usually not warriors! Females choosing their mates would be replaced by rape. The warriors would elect a King. The priests (wimpy and lazy, usually also male, but cunning deceivers able to pull off a few tricks) would declare him a God King or claim he ruled by Divine Decree since the warriors are in a position to destroy these priests if they don't serve them. This is how it starts and ends up every single time.

By the time this formerly small group overpopulates and ruins the land, they are strong enough, as a nation now, to conquer and/or push out all other people. Nomads were once the majority. Now they are almost extinct or absorbed. The New World Order is one HUGE Empire with the classes still in place, slaves and all. It's just HUGE now. The revolt against Altar and Throne is a revolt against THIS "TREE." (This is what is behind the anti-Adamite mythopoetry of those [Masons, Hiram Rite] who regard this all as "The Assassins" who regard "us" against it as Anti-Christs, THEIR Enemy.)

Prior to this agrarianism, there were a few million years of human hunter gatherers living with a stable but primitive communism. They were also nomads and spread themselves all over the world prior to agriculture. The ENTIRETY of our physical, biological, including neurological, evolution into H.sapiens happened during those few million years - and it STOPPED COLD since agriculture.

The ESOTERIC implications of calling this a Tree of Destruction is that it means these people divorced themselves from a Tree of LIFE - which is what existed prior to their turning to agriculture. Both the left and right captions shown on the ToD developed simultaneously and these all fed into each other.

The ToD does not show a "revolutionary vehicle" (as some Reds complain). It was never intended TO show that. It simply shows how it all started and grew - and it shows WHAT we have to fight against, now, in its almost final stage (the Tree is HUGE now, it's not just somewhere in the Middle East or China or MesoAmerica!). And I feel it's not so much "nations" or "some group" we have to fight per se (defeat them and another nation or group arises and continues on the same road), but this entire BALL that's just rolling like a juggernaut needs to be stopped or it will doom us all and not too far off in our future. It is as if humans are incapable of STOPPING. Why? Because underlying their behaviors are ancestral instincts, drives, urges even possibly hard-wired into our genes - and these biological things, I feel, are WARPED due to the things we eat, the agricultural base, perhaps the metabolism, parasites in us, viruses including neurological viruses - the WHOLE THING we've been doing since agriculture - it has warped the underlying hunter gatherer cooperative nature of humans. It has turned the hunter into a cancer, a genocidal (overt or covert, direct or indirect) monster, it has turned the gatherer into a greed-filled thing that wants and wants when NOTHING is ever enough! He hoards things he doesn't even need (like 30 cars, or 20 billion dollars and the insatiable desire to make one billion more).

When you read this chart, you have to figure out yourself, the social relations, the relations of workers to their labor, and the NEW modes of production, technologies and people's relation TO that technology and the other people around them, that came with growing food on static patches of land. You have to figure out yourself, what happened when "area protectors" became "The Warrior Caste" and how they related to the rest of the society. You'll have to have a firm grasp of our ancestral nature, the Primate Nature which is hard-wired into us (GENETICALLY!) (Look at the Bonobo, the primate genetically closest to humans). Why they GOT religion (implied is that they were mentally messed up enough to FALL FOR religion and WANT it because it filled some sick "emotional" need) is explained by two internet articles: Akathartic and Ophionic States explains, in neurologist Antonio Damasio's words, what such skewed people are like: they are considered normal in THIS society. No one can understand a living organism by looking at it outside of its biological nature and environment. To do so would be abiological. Humans, like any other animal, can be conditioned to BE this way or that way within the LIMITS or "norms of" their biological natures - i.e., they can't be conditioned to breathe water.

Reader: You'll need to print this page out in order to SEE IT as it is meant to be seen.

SET COMPUTER L/R MARGINS TO 1-79 or windows to 1" LR margins.

TREE OF DESTRUCTION: View this as a tree, from bottom to top.

END RESULT

Empires, (NEED MORE SPACE, SPREAD OUT AND)

imperialism, (ENGULF THE WORLD, MORE STRIFE//WAR)

colonialism. See later diagram.

|| ...//

|| Manifest Destiny

||... God ordains it.

Might is right, Holy Wars and

take and push Elitism racism

out all others. //

|| ...//

||... EFFECT: Priestly caste

Need more room (OVERPOPULATION) supports military

powerful army can (LAND DEPLETION) & pacifies others.

war and take more (NEED TO SPREAD) //

|| (FIND MORE LAND) //

|| ...//

||... Classes, vying

Nation states against each

warrior caste other for more.

||... ...//

Walls around Unequal ownership.

protected area ...//

with protectors. Castes assigned to

|| specific chores.

||..................//

||....TREE ROOT...//

Stationary Settlers farming a patch of land CAUSE:

CAUSE:
CLIMATE CHANGE

Please note that ...// and ||... means that what came underneath
on the page, developed into and interacted with the next things
up on the page - these things grew like a tree grows.

The later trade routes were not developed by these agrarians. For a long while, later in history, agrarians were preyed on by roving nomads who were like bandits. Eventually, they reached an agreement and the roving nomads became new, oftentimes stationary, protectors against OTHER nomad-bandits (usually their own related tribesmen; e.g., Jenghis Khan and the Tatars). It was THESE who knew where this or that could be gotten and from whom; and who needed this or that: THEY developed all the trade routes. Agrarians originally drove nomads out (in Euro-Asia they ended up in the colder northern regions where other humans already were), but they later came back as the most fearsome warriors of all and RULED these agrarians from time to time until they, too, got absorbed into the more populous agrarian societies (Kublai Khan and China, good example of this). True to form, as soon as they were absorbed into the societies they ruled, they set to war against each other. See internet article Turania (http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/turania.html) for an in depth look and history of Turanian nomads and China at war with each other, which includes some geographical facts about the USSR (the land of the Turanians). When these agrarian lands were conquered by these nomads, their knowledge was not destroyed but leapt ahead not just due to the import of goods from nomad-held trade routes, but due to the initial TOLERANCE of these nomads when it came to such war-making notions as religion and race: Shah Jahan, Kublai, and the so-called "great" Arabian civilization - were not Semitic or Arabian or even Chinese - these were the products of people CONQUERED by Turanian peoples whose input and organization (synthetic, diverse and cooperative) made them great. A lot of knowledge from many places was gathered into their lands.

Specifically, WHAT did these stationary, agrarian settlers with their own hierarchies DO when they were invaded by these roving, unbeatable nomads? They did what proletarians do in relation to the rich and powerful rulers in THEIR lands: they dealed! They do what small nation rulers do when confronted by larger imperialist nations making demands on them: they compromised! This, now, is pretty much a separate cultural evolution showing HOW other kinds of "classes" developed amidst Feudalism; a class that got for themselves some BIG privileges, and the class of merchants. Not everyone got filthy rich from the opened trade routes - only the privileged got rich and they were WHOLLY dependent for about 1,500 years on these roving nomads! Only VERY recently are they now independent of them - but now these people themselves are AKIN to roving nomads. They are called imperialists. :) Spelled out, well known example: Bill Gates was a nobody but he roved around and found a little of this and borrowed a little of that - he was a bandit of a type at times, too - then he joined it all together and SOLD IT to buyers. Then he made it so that no one can just share it, they have to go through him and HIS company and PAY A TOLL to get it. That's EXACTLY what nomads did with trade routes and/or passes from this place to that place, or rivers - made people pay a toll. LIKE the nomad rulers of old, the imperialists have all the leisure time in the world and everything in the world they want. Unlike the agrarians, these cold-adapted evolved nomads were a tad more predatory, BY NATURE. ALL animals and plants from that region ARE more ferocious and predatory. If you doubt that the USA is a hunter gatherer nation, just think of how they HUNT for markets and GATHER buyers, how they HUNT for resources and get very predatory about getting them to gather into their own nation. They have even learned the art of war, Chinese expert style - they get groups within nations (that have something they want) to kill EACH OTHER - then they come in and keep the peace for them - and take what they want. Pure hunter gatherer. They even preach the new religion - "humanism," to get the uninitiated citizens in their own countries to back them up: "so and so is doing a genocide; WE, the 'Moral Democracy' (chosen of god?) have to stop him for the sake of those POOR people - so we have to BOMB them - it's our moral duty... We have to do it 'for Democracy' (for God)." Few Americans see clearly enough to predict that we will soon witness a "Drive to the East for goodies" similar to the earlier Drive to the West, which wiped out almost all the American Indians... Same show, different channel. The trick to keeping the status quo is to make sure they keep the citizens of their own nations HAPPY AND CONTENT (not overworked and underpaid!).

So, the underlying hunter instinct becomes warped: produces genocide whether that genocide be by direct use of weapons or by "normal capitalism" which preys on workers in other places such as we see today. The underlying gatherer instinct becomes warped: produces people seemingly empty of all compassion or feeling who are insatiably greedy and who prey on the planet's resources as if they are infinite, and who are unable to use reason when they SEE what this is doing to the entire planet. The interaction results in a set up where the norm is to step on fellow man, murder fellow man, rape the earth, destroy habitats, etc. There is a definite in-built, hard-wired genetic or ancestral predisposition for these behaviors. Scientists seem to focus on MALES adapting, as if there are no females. It seems more as if males were warped the most. What accounts for the distortion of the sexual urge and obsession with unwholesome practices (a politically incorrect idea but hell...whole pseudocultures for the genetically dead are now built on one's sexual deviations). I think it's what people eat, or centuries of people eating garbage which produced garbage cultures, no matter how "great" people IN the system think these cultures are. They are garbage. What accounts for religion? Is it extreme repression due to a split in emotional input and disassociative state becoming insanity when the repression breaks lose? Perhaps it is Borna virus! How many slaves had to starve, suffer, die to make a tomb for a crazed Pharaoh? And what for? So he could "rise from the dead? Wherefrom in nature would any normal human get the notion that a dead thing could wake up and walk around again? NOT from seeing people sleep. Primitives would also see people "sleeping" then start to rot and stink. They'd have a clear understanding of death. They, like any other animal, would come to accept death as a normal part of life. THAT is rational! Why do so many researchers justify irrationality by trying to find "good things" that came of it? NOTHING good comes of it. Consider what H. sapiens COULD HAVE BEEN, but never became. Animals are very practical. Humans are not and have NOT BEEN since agriculture. Again, using some kind of correlation or congruence to try to explain modern human behavior by understanding the ancestral human design is teleological. Animism is nothing like religion. Eg, attributing a "manitu" to all objects animate or inanimate is sort of like having a rudimentary feel for "what matter is." All these objects are atomic matter, all have electrons, etc. Wind would be an object that was felt strongly, but unseen. They'd call it by a name that would be sort of like calling it a force. The sun would be worshipped or at least loved as an in-general life giver, as would be rain. This is nothing like religion.

SET MARGINS L/R 1-79 or in MS Word 1" LR margins

Print it out if necessary to see it all as a tree that's growing.

MODERN TREE OF DESTRUCTION: THIS IS WHAT IT IS NOW.

END RESULT:
END RESULT:

Empires, (NEED MORE SPACE, MORE RESOURCES, SPREAD OUT AND)

imperialism, (ENGULF THE WORLD, MORE STRIFE/WAR OVER RESOURCES)

colonialism.

Socialism tries its hand Socialism tries its hand when

with united labor BUT <<---WAR--->> workers unite in other places or

workers are bought off, etc. WITHIN the imperialist places.

Inter-imperialist rivalry, etc. ...//

|| Manifest Destiny.

||... Create dictatorships

Might is right: in small developing

protect the profits at countries:

ANY cost, by ANY means, disguised as "protecting

demonize any threat. democracy." Incite racism.

|| nationalism and conflict.

|| ...//

||... Priestly caste and ruling class

Need more and more supports military efforts

resources. Armies make & pacifies or silences others.

war and take more. Labor the slaves of ruling class.

|| //

|| ...//

||... Classes within the ruling nations

Ruling Nation States unite; vie against each other but unite

warrior caste: NATO etc. against all other nations.

||... ...//

Walls around Unequal ownership reigns supreme.

protected area ...//

with protectors. Castes assigned to specific chores. The

Protect PROFITS. oppressed make it all; oppressors benefit.

||...........Mental versus physical labor.

|| //

||...TREE ROOT...//

Incoming Settlers taking over a country, by any means.

Eliminating or enslaving indigenous population.

CAUSE*:

NEED MORE SPACE, NEED TO SPREAD OUT

*Note, this CAUSE here is what the original tree grew into so long ago.

Is there a biological evolutionary explanation for such horrendously AWFUL behavior? Well, I'll give that a try: other primates are not genetically predisposed to this or that static or fixed social system. They also can't be accused of having priests, morals, ethics or books with rules in them, or written laws! Other primates try various social systems; the social systems are themselves subject to natural selection. The ones that work best IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL NICHE THEY ARE IN are they ones they keep.

Put any primate in an ecological niche where there is scarcity and you'll end up, guaranteed, with alpha dominant male structure as social strategy (culture) where they TAKE ALL and no one can stop them, females that do not band together, and weaker males and all females terrorized by the strongest brutes (whether they wield fist, club or atomic bomb....). Most APE species have this social strategy, including chimps.

Put any primate in an ecological niche where there is abundance, but not of the long-lasting or permanent type, and you'll end up with cliques of females dominating the foraging areas and a kind of bartering between males and females for food/favors. Bonobo chimps have this social strategy (culture). Note that they are the SAME species as other chimps, they are cross-fertile, but they do NOT choose to mate with them. (Is that racism?) The Bonobo is genetically the closest to humans.

Put any primate in an ecological niche where there is abundance and it lasts long or is renewable or permanent (whether that be vegetation that doesn't rot fast, lots and various kinds of eatable fruits, easily hunted animals to eat, or refrigerators to store TV dinners and easy-access supermarkets with cheap food...) and you'll end up with equalitarian social strategies (at least within each tribe or nation), no gender-specific work duties and all-around harmony, or at least a tendency to strive for that. Some monkeys have this. I know of no APE species that has this. Some humans have it - I doubt they want to give it up.

The trick, then, to "making a utopia" is not to preach doctrines or dogmas, but to CHANGE THE ENVIRONMENT/ECOLOGICAL NICHE. How can you do this when another group, a TINY group, has all it needs for now and is also MEGA RICH, and is hell bent on keeping what they have is against any efforts to FIX the world? Have a revolution. THEN make things right. Can humans do that - just ONE TIME? I don't have high hopes. There would have to be more than just a balance of people to resources. There'd have to be a potential for resources to outnumber people using them, for there to be MORE than "just enough" for everyone in the niche. They'd have to control their tendency to overpopulate. They'd have to consciously make up new rules and laws, by "Divine Decree" if necessary. Would such content and happy people even need religion anymore? Basically, humans would have to start putting PEOPLE BEFORE PROFITS!

For agricultural problems check out NEANDERTHIN on internet (http://neanderthin.com/). Lots of literature exists on this, hard science references. See "Meat Three Times a Day," a book by F.J. Schlink and M.C. Phillips. Humans are able to eat 98% of all meat stuffs on the planet, but only about 2% of vegetable stuffs. As humans changed the foods they planted, grew, bred and ate, the plants changed humans - like co-evolution - it works TWO ways. Metabolism can be said to be all: you ARE what you eat! Check on some semi-classified neurological data (especially on neuro viruses and toxins). Check on what parasites can do to you and MAKE YOU DO (despite the notion that you have a free will!) It is also well known that many American Indians went from being totally healthy hunter gatherers to creating a public health disaster when they turned to agriculture. Question is, why did they CONTINUE to do this and not stop? Perhaps they lost the ability to "reason," which would have told them to STOP. Perhaps they were infected with parasites that literally MADE THEM continue. But aside from outside agents, what could cause humans to do such a thing? Pain could, mental confusion could - lots of things could, even addiction in some way, perhaps barely detectable (unlike with opium).

A FEW COMMENTS:

Man "advanced" in a WRONG WAY, way back about the time he had to start doing agriculture, due to a (presumed?) climate change where he had to change the way he lived or perish. The whole imperialist, theocratic, patriarchal (woman hating, woman fearing), dung heap of history since then is one long stream of occurrences where simple division of labor BECAME castes and then classes (with the ultimate same end: revolution and overthrow with another imperialist theocracy taking over). It is ONLY BECAUSE these divisions of labor existed INSIDE OF boundaried and OVER POPULATED (key event) nation-states, that came into being due to them living and planting on a PATCH of land, that caste/class arose from division of labor! In turn, nation-states needed armies of "the strongest" to "protect" from "the others, out there" without realizing that armies of bullies do not go away: they turn against those they were created to protect in the first place. That's how it happens, simple as that: they elect their Ruler, or "God King" as of old, and this Ruler has his army and his Priests backing him (usually). Altar and throne!: something the Founding Father MASONS of the USA were dead against, and something the Bolsheviks were also against.

ALL of such societies went patriarchal, and the OLDEST ones of this type, long standing and formerly Great Civilizations, are all NOW called the Third World, with the WORST anti-woman, outright sadism, practiced as the norm. One should draw the line when people (half the gender) get tortured and mutilated and even crippled for the sex pleasures of men. If such things were being done by Islamics or Hindus - or by Christian Americans - on ANOTHER RACE you'd see the U.N. having a shit-fit over it.....maybe.

A note on what amounts to politics and imperialism and gender problems - and these are PROBLEMS and they need to be addressed if our biological nature (or unnature) is to be understood. If you are a prude or shy, don't read this paragraph: it's BLUNT. What First World Feminism seems to REALLY WANT to say to men is:

"Hell no, there is no way in hell that you males who want penis rule will EVER turn our U.S.A. into an Islamic or Hindu or Chinese society where you cut off clitorises and sew up vaginas, where you set women you are tired of on fire, or where you bind the feet of women for your sexual pleasure; we are not masochists and we will not allow you to be sadists - not with us. We don't need you men, we can get pregnant from ANYONE and wander away with the man never even knowing he is a father. Fuck fatherhood: motherhood is real. Mothers do all the work and, as such, men have NO SAY in what we birth (or don't birth). There is already something wrong when power of a NON-sexual type focused on material objects, fetishes, or non-sexual acts are eroticized, but there is no way in hell you will make us into slaves/masochists, no way in hell. There is no way we will TOLERATE sadism. It's NOT a 'dick thing' after all. No: it's WOMB thing! There is NO WAY this society will become like that. And, oh yes, we can do that job as well as any male can...... And we want equal pay..... And housework is work and we should be paid for it....."

Does this speech sound wrong? These women put the labor and wage issue in the forefront because that's all "clean and white," it's all so proper; they bring blatant abuse to the forefront but they shy away from being brutally graphic. But they settle for unpleasureable sex, lie to their mates or husbands and do a LOT of complaining to other women behind the backs of the men - usually about how much they hate oral sex and how lousy the men are at sex, cum too fast, not big enough, etc. etc. Elaine Morgan (the lady with the Aquatic Ape Theory) found, in interviewing women who were brutally honest (and wholly anonymous!), that she could forget about suggesting or finding out how to make sex "more pleasurable" for them - they'd be happy if it was "less disgusting." What's wrong here? LOTS. Fundamentalist "Jesus freak" Christian women have found a way to keep the husband and avoid the sex altogether; they say: "It's a sin to have sex unless we plan to have a child - and we DO NOT plan to have a child." They are also doctrinally against the "oral thing." Smart ladies! How do I know this? I asked a whole bunch of them and when they felt they COULD be open with me, they TOLD me. That the same reason why the first Nun, Melanie, became a nun and why so many ladies joined her, long before men had any juristiction over these Nunnish ladies. (One libertine male asked me: "What's in Christianity for women that they can identify with or which can aid them as women? There is only Jesus who is celibate and Mary who is a Virgin -plus God." Answer: Yes. I explained it all to him. Silence. He was one of those guys who could NEVER manage to keep a girlfriend after she experienced sex with him - he had no idea why. Well? Now he knew why. And the Truth does not always set people free.) :( In this society where women can work for themselves and can easily get divorced, THEY DO. The first chance they get, THEY DO. HALF of all American marriages fail within their first four years.

Making up a "reason," after the fact, to "justify" the behavior-as-it-is, eg, "he who has the best car gets the women and has offspring, this is the GENES at work" is BULLSHIT, it's teleological pseudo-science!

First World Feminism! They set up abuse centers, rally, and even rally men and the law, to harsher treatment against abusers and so forth. They divorce the men and get the First World courts to force these men to PAY for it and to PAY for children that happen to be around. But what many women do not realize is that the crime, lousy education, all of the CRAP out there is forcing a grass roots white-Christian movement to arise in one of the MAJOR political parties. What these First World Christian women and most of their enemies (left-wing feminists) do not realize is that these right-wing Christian people are acting out of immediate necessity (just like it was done long ago) and they are setting up the SAME EXACT CONDITIONS for the SAME EXACT patriarchal theocracy.

History shows that such patriarchal theocracies were ancient and very long standing, big, "Great Civilizations," long ago when Europe was a nothing place with nothing there and long before Christianity existed. If you grade or rank patriarchal practices in terms of brutality against women, sadistic or degrading perversion, and the age of the civilization, you find that the OLDEST patriarchal societies, India, China, and the Afro-Semitic Middle East, are the WORST patriarchies and theocracies even though they are no longer powerful or big (or civilized in some cases)! Next oldest are Greece and Rome. Their patriarchy and theocracy is less, but more than in the NEWEST imperialist societies. The latest imperialists are the English (British Empire) and Americans (New World Order); one can't even really say Germany ever had a real imperial empire, although they tried it a few times, Hitler being the last try. However the most primitive peoples and the latest to get civilization are the Scandinavians and then the Slavs (real Slavs, not Slavic-speaking Europeans). They are the LEAST patriarchal, some groups of them are STILL MATRILINEAL and they are the most peaceful, and what theology they have is little more than shamanism - even E. Slavic Christianity is mother goddess worship akin to shamanism as they practice it.

I don't have to explain that the Afro-Semitic Middle East, Hindu India or China (at least, before Mao put a forced end to it) are the most sadistic and degrading toward women (See Marilyn French: "War Against Women" for details. And consider and understand - when these men see what would probably make an American man puke in disgust and flee in terror, THEY get HARD ONS!).

In post Maoist China, if a man merely talks to a woman in a grocery store, asking her the price of an item, she is ruined, considered a whore. Don't these people have any revolutionary rebelliousness in them to say "FUCK YOU, we guys and gals are going to congregate?" No, it took Mao to enforce this and outlaw male practices against women. But Mao is gone and so are the bans and no sooner were his wife and the Communists deposed and male rule reinstated that they called Mrs. Mao a WITCH! Small wonder so many feminists are into witchcraft! So: women who wield power are WITCHES. They are evil, of Satan. Same old shit! Obviously, forcing males and females to wear the same clothing didn't do anything (no kidding) and this "outer change" amounts to people dressing up like clowns and then imagining they'll BE funny and give birth to funny kids.

One would have to get at the INNER to cure this gender war. What do I mean by INNER? Evolutionary biology, neurology, brain development especially inutero and during first 7 or 8 years of life, maybe genes too. Inner: the HIDDEN stuff that MAKES things what they are - the stuff that's not obvious immediately on sight. Attributing this to Confucius or whoever is nonsense. WHY would they CHOOSE Confucius and not Lao Tse? For the same reason that certain TYPES of people would CHOOSE Protestantism over Catholicism.

In India the only time the men hold back and stop their brutality against a whole gender is when some Western news reporter is there to watch. In the Afro-Semitic Middle East they don't seem to give a shit who's watching when they throw acid on women without veils or mutilate their genitals.

Are these people human beings? I could easily be persuaded to think they are NOT human beings. I could be persuaded to treat them as if they are mad dogs and BOMB them. In fact: I'm already persuaded. They are pretas, klippoths, bhutas, MONSTERS, things out of control, destroyers, etc. etc. Now, I FEEL this. I feel it first - then I think it. I feel it STRONGLY.

But in Greece and less in Italy (and Greece is older than Italy as far as civilization/culture is concerned) there is the sexual double standard where a woman is either a virgin or a whore. This is very Catholic. This double standard is slightly in the Anglo-American lands, but it hardly exists in Germany and does not exist in Scandinavia or the Slavic lands. If spreading genes around is the prime directive, why would males "think up" such ideas and label females "bad" when they obviously had DESIRE for them (which is supposed to be positive)? When a female gives a male an erection, the male is supposed to LIKE the female, at least feel some kind of positive thing toward the female: friendship, even love. These men have sex with what they HATE? That's SICK! FINDING some possible ancestral biological trait that is possibly "transformed" to explain this behavior is BULLSHIT - it's teleological! Let's LOOK at other primates then. THERE IS the ancestral behavior! Other primates are not demented!

That the sperm itself has types - some seek ova, some attack OTHER sperm!, and some block OTHER sperm, proves that females were MEANT to be "sexually free" (a cultural word). Well - like chimp females! Chimp females are that way due to biology and genes - that's for sure. Humans are not pair-bonding animals. Pair-bonding is a biological term. Monogamy is a non-scientific word.

There is inequality in equality just as there is difference within sameness - even within the SAME "THING." Also, you can NOT take out one human trait or behavior (even if it's BIG - a "Culture") and look at it - it's not possible since all of life, our niches and our evolution (biological), the ancestral urges - all of it, is INTERWOVEN into a picture: is it "normal" or not? THAT humans DO a "human" behavior doesn't necessarily mean that it evolved AND that it IS ALSO determined by HUMAN biology. Parasites can make animals alter their thinking and behavior and do things that are entirely UNnatural! (Discovery August, 2000 "Do parasites rule the world?" and Science News, August 12, 2000, p 109 "Parasite deludes rats into liking cats." "Wasp redesigns web of doomed spider")

Sometimes, people's biology gets WARPED AND BENT! The instinct to hunt animals becomes the behavior of hunting humans for slaves. Kin bonds in tribes becomes xenophobia and demonization of "all others" with attendant genocide. The Aryan Nation perceived the Jewish segment of the Semite Nation as a demonic evil: that wasn't rational! That was LUNACY, yet a whole technological nation of civilized people believed it (see Goldhagan, "Hitler's Willing Executioners" for proof.) Environment, which is the ecological NICHE an animal (human) is in, plus genetic heritage (Primate in our case) is CO-evolved. All this involves a two-way (dialectical) interchange/interaction in specific ways. But something went WRONG! OBVIOUSLY so. Or else we are a species biologically determined to go extinct!? What you see today are broken people, and heaps of broken people make a broken society, a broken nation. Observing the abnormal and finding a correlation with NORMAL ancestral urges, and then saying "it's all OK" is a teleological error and a pretty pathetic excuse.

Someone needs to take biological evolution, merge that with neurology (see Antonio Damasio especially: "Descartes' Error"), merge that with neurovirology and parasitology and then merge that with the PUBLIC HEALTH DISASTER that agricultural living brought on, the WORK people had to endure, the overpopulation way out of balance with resources, and come to the RIGHT conclusion: that the dogmatic types of woman hating patriarchy and religion we have had since then is NOT a normal thing at all. We are hunter gatherers at base: what do we hunt and gather now? Someone needs to understand what some "esoteric" doctrines have been saying - which is SPELLED OUT in Wilhelm Reich's works - and merge that with Antonio Damasio's work. It seems that E. O. Wilson, an expert entomologist, is suggesting this too. He has done a lot of it already or at least hinted at some of it in a book "Consilience" - BUT - he has failed to mention the public health disaster brought on by agrarian life - there is FORENSIC PROOF of that statement; he has failed to reason what humans would BECOME and what they'd "think up" when they felt pain all day long from back breaking agrarian work, when their lives became constant drudgery; or what some of those people would do to GET OUT OF the drudgery - at the expense of all others of course! He has failed to reason PENT UP instinct, upbringing designed to bury instinct and condition the child to IGNORE the 5 senses, sensual impacts, somatic markers. He has failed to conclude that such a human is NOT CAPABLE of logic - but neurologists could explain it - Damasio has explained it: they are anosognosic - alexithymic. He has failed to factor in the fact that we are DOOMING ourselves and there is NOTHING "animal" about this - nothing "normal" about it - it's insane. Humans are SUPPOSED TO have logic and the ability to STOP DOING such things to themselves and each other: do they have logic? Can they stop? I think NOT.) Perhaps one should look into something other than humans: WHAT BENEFITS in the animal world from the actions of humans destroying a human habitat? Let us look THERE for the answer.

Also, one has to fully understand that animism and shamanism are NOTHING LIKE monotheism, and monotheism is NOT some mental advancement at all. It is either the con job work of ruthless rulers, or heaps of morons believing in the delusional ravings of schizophrenics or humans with a viral infection of the brain (such as Borna). In this, Richard Dawkins is 100% right when he says: religion is a DISEASE. But he is 100% wrong on selfish genes, for if genes were as he said, we'd be walking tumors: oncogenes are the ONLY genes that behave as he claims. Animism is NOT religion, not at all. Animism is a wrong explanation of why things in nature work - or it's right but Westerners can't understand what's being said. After all, Australian Aborigines can MAKE boomerangs and hit moving targets with them. They never studied Newton. Why do THEY say the weapon works that way; what made THEM "think of" making it in that particular shape? Who can understand their words? FACT: they make them and use them! It took an aerodynamics expert to figure out HOW these boomerangs worked! Are the Aborigines aerodynamics experts? NO? They make boomerangs and use them! Knowing what Newton knew, could Newton use one as efficiently? There is knowing with the head and then there is KNOWING with the body. Without the direct input of healthy somatic markers that have been allowed to grow and develop, guided by the instinct, there is NO logic possible! That is a fact Damasio proved. (It's a fact some of us KNEW by mere observation of the FRUITS of actions).

Imperialism and its attendant colonialism is new to the Europeans. Egyptians did it long ago, they colonized people. So did the Romans. So did the Chinese. They all had slavery, too, nothing has changed. But in the West there have been violent revolutions: American, French, Bolshevik (Russian, Communist). China had revolutions when bands of Turanians (Ural-Altaic, North and Central Asian peoples) had enough of Chinese colonialization and went into China and kicked their royal butts - and then took them over. So there was a big change in China for a very short while until it reverted back; as it has done post- Mao. Similar incursions of Turanians into Mid-East Semite lands resulted in the same things with some BIG civilizations resulting from it and mass migrations of people INTO Europe resulting from it. Incursions of barbarian Germanic tribes, allied with Turanian Huns, into Rome caused chaos, but the Holy Roman Empire (The First Reich in Germany) came from these actions.

It doesn't matter what items get produced or mass produced. That's not the issue except in terms of labor, capital, slave-wages, etc. It's also an issue that now the First World exploits the hell out of the Third World - but it used to be the other way around with the peoples of the Third World having the power when the peoples of the First World mere barbarian savages, primitive as ever. (How did the Anglos get to England? The Huns came and pushed populations West and these peoples bumped into the Anglos who also got pushed. Why did the Anglos come to America? Because Tamerlane cut the East-West trade route and the East, at the time, was BIG CIVILIZATION while Europe was a cess pool.) So the Crown of Imperialism has changed many hands in history: now the Anglo Americans have it, they have it ALL and they are having a party at the expense of the Third World which they exploit to have their party. But things are NOT O.K. There is trouble in the Realm. But it's the same old trouble: are humans incapable of learning from history?

The Empire (I mean the U.S.A.) is in BIG trouble with warring nations inside of it (ethnic groups, including gays since they seem like a big ethnic group). There has to be a way to fix this. What the right-wing Republicans want to do sounds VERY GOOD, even to some hard-line Reds. ISOLATION - IGNORE the world, PULL OUT of the world - USA FOR USA. US FIRST. Like: SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY? Oh, they can call it capitalism but Roosevelt, whom everyone loved and who was elected 4 terms in a row, put into policy 8 of Marx's points and called it "The New Deal." Also if the rulers in the USA continue to overwork and underpay their own workers, or trash them out of jobs, and erode the New Deal benefits, there is only so long that the masses of Americans will stand for it! So, if the Christians took over, there'd have to be a kind of socialism mixed with some capitalism, probably not mega-mega-profit capitalism, with Christian values stuck in it. Christian values can go both ways: warlike fascism or peaceful communalism. They might not go for the New Deal or any of that "Leftist" stuff because the social programs were abused, predominantly by a very noticeably different ethnic group/race. In this case corporations will rule and they WILL NOT CARE which nation they get workers from - the cheaper the better. The profits will continue to be made, for real, by the toiling hands that slave away while the owners of these corporations will move the goods around: provided anyone can afford to buy them! Do they ever learn? Everyone praises human intelligence. I ask: where is it? SHOW ME REAL intelligence - with FORESIGHT. Hindsight is too late, buster!

But still, this is how the Third World BECAME the Third World: through imperial empires that became simultaneously more patriarchal and theocratic, with a closed-unit kind of theocratic self-help rule, at first with an army (male warriors) to defend the realm. Women have the RIGHT to vote. Who gave them the right? MEN! Armed men could just as easily take the rights away and they ARE bigger and stronger than women. The most brutal of them would end up being in power because what they want to do, aside from "to hell with the world, USA FOR USA, isolation" is GET RID of gays, blacks, and others they regard as a parasitic danger to their safety or way of life, to their QUALITY of life (which they want to keep high)! This is no news; they are open about the gay issue and not all that secretive on the blacks; just read their "Bell Curve" book or Michael Levin to see. So, the type of man who could wipe people out or enslave/imprison them would be in power, be in their army, but who'd put them in power and want them there to keep them safe? THE WOMEN!! And it's a checkmate situation here. Blacks can protest this idea because what I'm saying has been VOICED lately in "respectable Republican-type" books! Gays can protest it, too. The checkmate is that the more they protest, and with big shows of numbers, the more of a THREAT they appear to be, as seen by these right-wing Republicans whose numbers are growing bigger every single day. All the paper wasted on the IQ issue, notice it? Who cares what a person's IQ is - is the person a good citizen, nice person and good at SOME job? If all stupid people are prone to criminality, why are there no Down's syndromes in the jails? Jeffrey Dahmer was smart, not a moron. He was a criminal. Smart criminals are smart enough not to get caught, or they are very hard to catch! All this paper wasted is nothing but a preparatory justification for what AGENDA someone plans to implement! (Warning: do you smell gas?)

Why would such methods sound good to a Red? Well, what would STALIN or MAO do to, example: blacks having a riot and tearing up a city, ruining property that was built FOR them by taxpayer's money, ruining a neighborhood forcing everyone non-black to flee out of there and then struggle to make a life all over again, in some other niche, or making public school a hell hole? What would Stalin or Mao do to gays going to bath-houses and spreading deadly diseases around? What would Stalin or Mao do to solve the drug problem that's poisoning our youth who, in turn, grow up to commit crimes and destroy neighborhoods (ecological niches of a type) and then get jailed where "we have to PAY for the upkeep."?? I KNOW what they'd do. SOLVE IT. CLEAN HOUSE! Who is paying for the upkeep of all those babies born with crack brain damage? Surely, not THEIR FATHERS and not THEIR MOTHERS either. Well: I don't want to be their GUARDIAN, I don't want to be a collective guardian of such babies who will grow up to be WHAT? (I don't like cuckoo birds... give that some thought as analogy.) I don't mind being part of a collective guardianship of all babies whose parents are also WORKING PEOPLE and who also pay into the tax-base for social programs we can ALL use, for children, for the elderly, for health care etc. But I EMPHATICALLY DO NOT want to let people literally eat the food out of my refrigerator or take the medicine from me when I'm sick when the ONLY THING they give me back in return is TROUBLE, when the ONLY thing they give back to tax-paying society that builds houses for them is destroyed houses and ruined neighborhoods. I would be willing to JOIN ANY group and have a revolution, genocidal if necessary, over this issue! Now: that's not hunter or gatherer. That's just refusing to be PREY! PREYED UPON. Not only preyed upon, but PAYING to be preyed upon! I refuse to have vampires drink my blood and then say "thank you" to them. Or pay for baby vampires to grow up strong so that they can drink MORE of my blood. Think about that analogy. It is true that these people ancestors were once preyed upon in the past and feel rage over it: GET OVER IT.

But all of this, to really understand it without blaming this or that group, takes long thinking and understanding of a large and conflicting group of conditions and a multifaceted situation; it takes a LOT to figure out how the place GOT so messed up starting from scratch and not just from the industrial revolution onwards. And solving it would take a lot of thinking too, a lot of really exact "hard" science. Theories aren't going to solve it nor are political ideas which merely predict or legislate behavior. Take away the laws and cops and the situation starts up all over again. I don't think that our ancestors, prior to agriculture, had cops or jails. They had behaviors or, to be exact: WORKABLE social strategies.

Right-wing republican methods, like similar methods used long ago by others, are simple but IMMEDIATE solutions to problems they see and FEEL plaguing them RIGHT NOW; the problem is that they utterly lack foresight, they ARE simpleton. They want simple jobs, example. They manage to see foreign speaking people taking the jobs. They don't care if Big Companies brings them here as slave-wage workers; that's too abstract and they can't see an immediate way to stop Big Companies from doing this especially if these American companies aren't IN the USA. They see these people, and these people WILL NOT learn English and more, they are making demands these days about language. This makes the right-wing Republicans grow in numbers daily and it also ticks off other ethnics who DID learn English. This is what they see and, more immediate and importantly, what they FEEL: "He takes the jobs from me and also wants me to speak his language?" They see crime, black inner cities, their solution is to build more jails and lock them up - throw out the key. What happens when taxpaying workers don't want to pay for prison inmate upkeep anymore? The prisoners will find Big Companies building plants near the jails - where they'll "work" for their upkeep. That's slavery all over again.

On the other hand, some other more permanent solution will be arrived at which eliminates the criminals altogether and "solves the overpopulation problem" at the same time. It would be presented as "moral" to the American dupes. Genocide. Oh horrors! Oh shock! HA! Do you know how EASY it is to GET humans to go and do such a thing? We already have, hard-wired into our GENES, the tribal instinct - and it IS an instinct! The only thing stopping it is some moral injunction that halts what people feel, the "civilized veneer" that can vanish in a second - just let the going get REALLY tough and see. This bracing and pausing to "feel guilty about such thoughts" - pents people up if conditions in society exist that stress people out. Eventually, pent-up dams break. If you don't believe this, then you are a pipe-dreaming, wishful thinker living in fantasyland, who knows NOTHING of human nature (or HISTORY).

What one must grasp is this: MOST human beings can't think and/or will not bother to think when their emotions get in a boil against an IMMEDIATE THING that they can concretely see; especially if the flames are fanned. They can SEE, example, the Hispanic speaking newcomer, legal or illegal, on a job, crossing a border, etc. They can not easily see the Company. Most folks are DUMB. But then humans were evolved to respond to a situation of threat IMMEDIATELY and history shows they do it in a predictable way: they get the strongest men to be their warriors, they get the warriors to hunt and kill or exile "the others" and then they END UP with a patriarchy with repressive penis-laws and anti-female theocracies to back up the men. If this happened in the USA, the USA would be on the sure road to being just one more Third World country. After all, those male warriors "fought and died" FOR the women and their children. That's how the men SEE this.

Well, maybe there wouldn't be anything so wrong about all this if it weren't for the fact that most of these men are BROKEN beings, they are twisted and sexually sick; they don't have animal-power of the kind that would make women tend to CHOOSE MATES along more carnal/animal lines as Wilhelm Reich and many others suggested, as we suggest and even as honest sexology studies show. I.e.,: "if he can't fuck, if there's no pleasure, then DUMP him." What if 99% of the men "can't fuck?" Well then the white Christian Western women will be back to the days when they had to be married, had to open their legs on demand and had to put up with this without having any pleasure of their own: which is why they are so neurotic today and don't even KNOW how to find a mate that can get them off (except those few who DO find one and then abandon husband and kids to BE with that man - it's common!). But then, this would still be just more Third World without the physical torture or mutilation, at least NOT YET. Two very important words: NOT YET. So goes gender war.

Another real problem is that this "mess" goes on BECAUSE the modern First World has been exploiting the hell out of that modern Third World! But people tend to get selective amnesia about such technicalities. They tune that statement out and override it with their "might makes right" rhetoric as if this will make the "mess" go way. They are also unable to see that these now large groups of dissatisfied ethnics, having BEEN exploited, ARE BECOMING a might. Some of their Third World countries even have nuclear bombs now. Doesn't their might make right too? Result: WAR WAR WAR, more war. Predictable.

Solution? Some new way has to be found, some NEW MEANS OF PRODUCTION of FOOD (since a food issue is what caused the snowballing of this mess 10,000 years ago), has to be invented or discovered to STOP that snowball once and for all. We have to find new energy sources because fossil fuels won't last forever and nuclear energy is a non-feasible method. We have to do a LOT and FAST because right now two people work in a family and it's never enough, they're always in debt. Cars are polluters and money eaters. More fossil fuel crap. Ecological issues, you know the story... Some alternate form of fuel and MASSIVE public transit would do, but we can't have the public transportation end up being dangerous to ride on. That has to stop, one way or the other some one is going to come to power to MAKE it stop. Right now, the only ones out to do this are the right-wing Christians. Also, J. Sakai, author of "Settlers, Myth of the White Proletariat," pointed out how the left-wing and Communist Parties in the USA have gotten workers rights and all that good stuff, but ended up being First World Parties not exactly out to help the Hispanic non-English speakers or Chinese coolies, or the blacks who were also HERE and working HERE. Right now we need labor unions and we need to stop those companies from moving out of here and from hiring slave-wage foreign labor which exploits the Third World AND messes us up here. But how? More and more, battle lines are being drawn; you'd have to be BLIND not to know this. And there is overpopulation - too many people are even denying this!

Some think violent armed revolution is the answer either like the American one or the Bolshevik (Russian) one, but we already tried that and it failed. Also the CIA wrecked every single non-capitalist government that got legally VOTED in, such as Allende's in Chile. Of course, no one knows the CIA is doing this at the time; they know it on hindsight after the CIA members admit it on documentaries or evidence comes forth. Whenever someone, anyone, comes forth with some GOOD idea for freedom and prosperity, the nay-sayers manage to mess it up, obstruct it, sabotage it or corporations buy it out and bury it. WHY? I think they do it because they are schizoid, alexithymic, unable to REASON. Perhaps the answer is that they LOVE STRIFE and hate the world and their own inner beings so much that strife feels better to them than peace and quiet. It's hard to fathom this. Big Capital, oil companies and such aren't going to do anything to allow us to STOP using fossil fuel and perhaps try fuel-cell technology (non combustion engines, non polluting - fuel is hydrogen) - Big Capital might try to stop it from being done. But it HAS TO BE done. And it WILL BE done and not too far off - humans will have NO choice in this. (Update BALLARD FUEL CELL: IT IS HERE! WE HAVE the technology NOW, FDA approved! CHECK THIS OUT!)

Wouldn't it be nice if the Earth had Gene Roddenberry's dream of a Star Trek society as he conceived of the Earth, people living on the Earth, in that time period? Wouldn't it be nice (to break this down to the naked reality), if humans eating and overpopulating out of balance and shitting didn't cause such strife and trouble? Yes it would; but society as it is now would have to be turned back RIGHT-SIDE UP; the "house" has been upside-down for far too long.

Gender conflicts can not be solved, or even objectively looked at, WITHIN patriarchy. Certainly, using the teleological argument to explain "that our noses are the way they are so that we can hold eye-glasses up" is rubbish. By the same token, the "means of food production" cannot be looked at within a world subsistent, for the most part, on agriculture. Communal Nomadic populations are very SPARSELY populated and they NEVER overpopulate! They remain in balance. When an animal (say, agrarian man) eats up his own habitat and ends up with ruined land and TEN TIMES the numbers of people, he has to migrate and take over another, bigger habitat. That is how, by the way, those still-nomadic ice-dwellers got to where they are now: PUSHED OUT by agrarians long ago. (See: Cavalli-Sforza "The Great Human Diasporas") Example: China is agrarian and has been for centuries now, their patriarchal imperialism is stamped in tight now. What if they DID NOT control birth by putting restrictions on it? They'd soon overpopulate the whole planet. Well, the numbers of hungry mouths are growing and the amount of land available is decreased: agriculture is in its end game (Cf. Smithsonian information by Robert McC Adams). The problems ahead of us are SO BIG that even the best analysts tend to "fuzz out" over it save to say they think the human species is finished. And sure, there are the "immediate solutions" to the problems that sound like the "final solution" of the Nazis: just wipe out a few billion people and end their starvation! Then there will be LOTS of land and fossil fuel to last "the survivors" a bit longer - a BIT longer. It WILL run out! And while this is not a solution in the long term: IT IS A SOLUTION FOR THE SHORT TERM - and consider that the most powerful countries surely have figured that out!

Experiments need to be done with balance in ecological niches in terms of population numbers. Does something happen to animals (humans) when the population is too high? Something "hidden" - maybe pheromonal? That would change their behavior in a very direct way. Do they get crazy?

The problems of class and labor can be solved easily enough: pay everyone the same wage across the board. Socialism would solve the problems of "services for the people" but we'd have to find a "closed system" method of doing socialism or it WILL NOT last. Everyone pooling into it would have to benefit from it - and NO ONE ELSE. We'd have to either have nation isolationism or the whole planet (which would be ideal!) would have to be involved in this. Right now, we are nowhere near that dream. We have not even overcome war. Globalization is going to spread and FORCE capitalism, the brutal kind, on everyone: dog eat dog; don't cooperate; step on anyone to get ahead; trust no one; feel nothing when you see the freezing and starving, even babies: that's a definition of HELL! We'd have to find a way to keep the system in balance: we can't keep MAKING hungry mouths and expanding when the land is finite and subject to ruination so that there is LESS land to work with. That "people expansion, land erosion and lessening" started with agriculture 10,000 years ago. Even the method of animal husbandry in agrarian society is a land-gobbler. It's fine if you can move to another habitat, but there is nowhere to go anymore - humans have eaten up the whole planet and are now entering into DANGEROUS territory: the rain forests. The problems are mind-boggling. Capitalist imperialists are SO STUPID that they fight a war over who controls the oil but they don't lift a finger against those destroying our future air supply! Many humans would survive without electricity and other oil-petroleum-based life-supports and technology, but we will ALL perish without air. The CPUSA has a good Environmental plan but we would have to put people BEFORE profits. The problem is not for those that would benefit from this: the problem is for those that would LOSE something they have right now. No one is going to do that if they WOULD have to live in hardship when they don't have TOO MUCH hardship NOW. Something is always better than nothing! MORE is always better than LESS. No one will do it, if they have SOME THING to lose.

Fuzz over that. No one REALLY hears it enough to DO something about it. In one ear, out the other - go eat some dinner, go watch TV, go take a shit. Go to sleep and forget you read this and the heaps of other similar warnings. This is not an insult. This is exactly what people do when they have to WORRY about next month's rent. And if they are no longer worrying about the rent they will surely never do something that makes them have to worry about it! And what do I do about this situation? I write this article. I go to work by driving a car, I watch TV, and so forth. Nothing. Such is life: FOR NOW.
Copyright 1995-2003 Tani Jantsang

religion and politics - by some punker

2006-04-12T15:39:00.000-07:00

Religion and Politics

RELIGION AND POLITICS. THE ROOTS OF THE POWER IDEA. THE ORIGIN OF RELIGIOUS CONCEPTIONS. ANIMISM AND FETISHISM. THE SACRIFICE. THE FEELING OF DEPENDENCE. EFFECT OF TERRESTRIAL POWER ON THE SHAPE OF RELIGIOUS CONSCIOUSNESS. RELIGION AND SLAVERY. THE RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS OF ALL RULERSHIP. TRADITION. MOSES. HAMMURABI. THE PHARAOHS. THE LAWS OF MANU. THE PERSIAN DIVINE KINGDOM. LAMAISM. ALEXANDER AND CAESAROPAPISM. CAESARISM IN ROME. THE INCA. GENGHIS KHAN. POWER AND THE PRIESTHOOD. CHURCH AND STATE. ROUSSEAU. ROBESPIERRE. NAPOLEON. MUSSOLINI AND THE VATICAN. FASCISM AND RELIGION.

IN ALL epochs of that history which is known to us, two forces are apparent that are in constant warfare. Their antagonism, open or veiled, results from the intrinsic difference between the forces themselves and between the activities in which they find expression. This is clear to anyone who approaches the study of human social structures without ready-formulated hypotheses or fixed schemes of interpretation, especially to anyone who sees that human objectives and purposes are not subject to mechanical laws, as are cosmic events in general. We are speaking here of the political and economic elements in history, which could also be called the governmental and social elements. Strictly speaking, the concepts of the political and the economic are in this case conceived somewhat too narrowly; for in the last analysis, all politics has its roots in the religious concepts of men, while everything economic is of a cultural nature, and is consequently in the most intimate relationship with the valuecreating forces of social life; so that we are plainly compelled to speak of an inner opposition between religion and culture.

Political and economic, governmental and social, or, in a larger sense, religious and cultural manifestations, have many points of contact: they all spring from human nature, and consequently there are between them inner relations. We are here simply concerned to get a clearer view of the connection which exists between these manifestations. Every political form in history has its definite economic foundations which are especially marked in the later phases of social advancement. On the other hand, it is undeniable that the forms of politics are subject to the changes in the conditions of economic and general cultural life, and with them assume new aspects. But the inner character of all politics always remains the same, just as the inner character of each and every religion never changes, despite the alteration of its outward form.

Religion and culture have their roots in man's instinct of self-preservation, which endows them with life and form; but, once come to life, each follows its own course, since there are no organic ties between them, so that, like antagonistic stars, they pursue opposite directions. One who overlooks this antagonism or, for whatever reason, fails to give it the consideration it deserves, will never be able to see clearly the inner concatenation of social events.

As to where the realm of religion proper begins, opinions are divided to this day; but it is fairly agreed that the foundation of man's religious concepts is not to be found in speculative philosophy. We have come to recognise that Hegel's notion, that all religion merely demonstrates the elevation of the spirit to the Absolute, and therefore tries to find the union of the human with the divine, can only be regarded as an empty figure of speech which in no way explains the origin of religion. The "Philosopher of the Absolute," who endows every nation with a special historical mission, is equally arbitrary when he asserts that every people in history is the bearer of a typical form of religion: the Chinese of the religion of moderation, the Chaldeans of the religion of pain, the Greeks of the religion of beauty, and so on, until at last the line of religious systems ends in Christianity, "the revealed religion," whose communicants recognise in the person of Christ the union of the human with the divine.

Science has made men more critical. We realise now that all research into the origin and gradual shaping of religion must use the same methods which today serve sociology and psychology in trying to comprehend the phenomena of social and mental life in their beginnings.

The once widely held view of the English philologist, Max Muller, who thought he recognised in religion man's innate urge to explain the Infinite, and who maintained that the impress of the forces of nature released the first religious feelings in man, and that consequently one could not go wrong in regarding nature worship as the first form of religion, hardly finds adherents today. Most of the present leaders of ethnological religious research are of the opinion that animism, the belief in the ghosts and souls of the departed, is to be regarded as the first stage of religious consciousness in man.

The whole mode of life of nomadic primitive man, his relative ignorance, the mental influence of his dream pictures, his lack of understanding when confronted with death, the compulsory fasts he often had to endure all this made him a natural born clairvoyant, with whom the belief in ghosts lay, so to speak, in his blood. What he felt when confronted with the ghosts with which his imagination peopled the world, was primarily fear. This fear troubled him all the more as he was here confronted, not with an ordinary enemy, but with unseen forces which could not be met by simple means. From this arose quite spontaneously the desire to secure the good will of those powers, to escape their wiles and earn their favour by whatever means. It is the naked urge for self-preservation of primitive man which here finds expression.

From animism sprang fetishism, the idea that the ghost dwelt in some object or at a certain place, a belief which even today continues to live in the superstitious notions of civilised men, who are firmly convinced that ghosts walk and talk and that there are places which are haunted. The religious ritual of Lamaism and that of the Catholic Church are also in their essence fetishism. As to whether animism and the first crude concepts of fetishism can already be regarded as religion, opinions differ; but that here is to be sought the starting point of all religious concepts can hardly be doubted.

Religion proper begins with the alliance between "ghost" and man which finds expression in ritual. For primitive man, the "ghost" or the "soul" is no abstract idea, but a completely corporeal concept. It is, therefore, quite natural that he should try to impress the spirits by concrete proofs of his veneration and submission. Thus arose in his brain the idea of sacrifice and, as repeated experience proved to him that the life of the slain animal or enemy departed with the streaming blood, he early learned to recognise that blood is indeed "a most peculiar juice." This recognition also gave the idea of sacrifice a specific character. The bloodoffering was certainly the first form of the rite of sacrifice and was, moreover, necessitated by the primitive huntsman's life. The idea of the blood offering, which was doubtless among the oldest products of religious consciousness, persists in the great religious systems of the present. The symbolic transmutation of bread and wine in the Christian Eucharist into the "flesh and blood" of Christ is an example of this.

Sacrifice became the central point of all religious usages and festivities, which manifested themselves also in incantation, dance and song, and gradually congealed into specific rituals. It is very likely that the offering of sacrifice was at first a purely personal affair and that each could make the offering suited to his need, but this condition probably did not last long before it was replaced by a professional priesthood of the type of the medicine men, Shamans, Gangas, and so on. The development of fetishism into totemism, by which name, after an Indian word, we call the belief in a tribal deity, usually embodied in the form of an animal from which the tribe derived its origin, has especially favoured the evolution of a special magicianpriesthood. With that, religion took on a social character which it did not have before.

When we regard religion in the light of its own gradual evolution, we recognise that two phenomena constitute its essence: Religion is primarily the feeling of man's dependence on higher, unknown powers. To see ways and means to make these powers favourably inclined toward him end to protect himself from their harmful influences, man is impelled by the instinct of self-preservation. Thus arises ritual, which gives to religion its external character.

That the idea of sacrifice can be traced back to the custom, prevailing in the primitive human institutions and organisations of primeval times, of giving the tribal leaders and chiefs voluntary or compulsory presents, is an assumption which has some possibility. The assertion that primitive man without this institution would never have arrived at the idea of sacrifice seems to us too bold.

Religious concepts could only originate when the question of the why and how of things arose in the brain of man. But this presupposes considerable mental development. It is, therefore, to be assumed that a long period had to pass before this question could engage him. The concept which primeval man forms of the world around him, is primarily of a sensuous nature; just as a child recognises the objects of his environment primarily sensuously and uses them long before any question concerning their origin arises in him. Furthermore, with many savage people it remains today the custom to let the ghosts of the departed ones participate at meals, just as nearly all of the festivities of primitive tribes are connected with sacrificial rites. Therefore, it is quite possible that the idea of sacrifice could have arisen without any preceding related social custom.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that in every religious system which made its appearance in the course of millenniums there was mirrored the dependency of man upon a higher power which his own imagination had called into being and whose slave he had become. All gods had their time, but religion itself, in the core of its being, has always remained the same despite all changes in its outward form. Always it is the illusion to which the real essence of man is offered as a sacrifice; the creator becomes the slave of his own creature without ever becoming conscious of the tragedy of this. Only because there has never been any change in the inmost essence of all and every religion could the well known German religious teacher, Koenig, begin his book for instruction in the Catholic religion with these words: "Religion in general is the recognition and veneration of God and specifically of the relationship of man to God as his supreme ruler."

Thus was religion even in its poor primitive beginning most intimately intergrown with the idea of might, of supernatural superiority, of power over the faithful, in one word, of rulership. Modern philology has, accordingly, in numerous instances been able to prove that even the names of the various divinities were in their origins expressions of the concepts in which the idea of power was embodied. Not without reason do all advocates of the principle of authority trace its origin back to God. For does not the Godhead appear to them the epitome of all power and strength? In the very earliest myths the heroes, conquerors, lawgivers, tribal ancestors appear as gods or demigods; for their greatness and superiority could only have divine origin. Thus we arrive at the foundations of every system of rulership and recognise that all politics is in the last instance religion, and as such tries to hold the spirit of man in the chains of dependence.

Whether religious feeling is already in its earliest beginnings only an abstract reflection of terrestrial institutions of power, as Nordau and others maintained, is a question which is open to discussion. Those who regard the original condition of mankind as one of "war of all against all," as Hobbes and his numerous followers have done, will be readily inclined to see in the malevolent and violent character of the original deities a faithful counterpart of the despotic chieftains and warlike leaders who kept both their own tribesmen and strangers in fear and terror. It is not so long since we saw the present "savages" in a quite similar light, as cunning and cruel fellows ever set on murder and rapine, until the manifold results of modern ethnology in all parts of the world gave us proof of how fundamentally false this concept is.

That primitive man did as a rule picture his spirits and gods as violent and terrible need not necessarily be traced to earthly models. Everything unknown (incomprehensible to the simple mind) affects the spirit as uncanny and fearsome. It is only a step from the uncanny to the gruesome, to the horrible, the frightful. This must have been all the more true in those longvanished ages when man's imaginative power was uninfluenced by the millenniums of accumulated experience which could fit him for logical counterargument. But even if we are not compelled to trace every religious concept to some exercise of earthly power, it is a fact that in later epochs of human evolution the outer forms of religion were frequently determined by the power needs of individuals or small minorities in society.

Every instance of rulership of particular human groups over others was preceded by the wish to appropriate the product of labour, the tools, or the weapons of those others or to drive them from some territory which seemed more favourable for the winning of a livelihood. It is very probable that for a long time the victors contented themselves with this simple form of robbery and, when they met resistance, simply massacred their opponents. But gradually it was discovered that it was more profitable to exact tribute from the vanquished or to subject them to a new order of things by ruling over them; thereby laying the foundation for slavery. This was all the easier as mutual solidarity extended only to members of the same tribe and found its limits there. All systems of rulership were originally foreign rulerships, where the victors formed a special privileged class and subjected the vanquished to their will. As a rule it was nomadic hunter tribes which imposed their rule upon settled and agricultural people. The calling of the hunter, which constantly makes great demands on man's activity and endurance, makes him by nature more warlike and predatory. But the farmer who is tied to his acre, and whose life as a rule runs more peacefully and less dangerously, is in most cases no friend of violent dispute. He is, therefore, seldom equal to the onset of warlike tribes and submits comparatively easily if the foreign rule is not too oppressive.

Once the victor has tasted the sweets of power and learned to value the economic advantages which it gives, he is easily intoxicated by his practice of power. Every success spurs him on to new adventures, for it is in the nature of all power that its possessors constantly strive to widen the sphere of their influence and to impose their yoke on weaker peoples. Thus gradually a separate class evolved whose occupation was war and rulership over others. But no power can in the long run rely on brute force alone. Brutal force may be the immediate means for the subjugation of men, but alone it is incapable of maintaining the rule of the individual or of a special caste over whole groups of humanity. For that more is needed; the belief of man in the inevitability of such power, the belief in its divinely willed mission. Such a belief is rooted deeply in man's religious feelings and gains power with tradition, for above the traditional hovers the radiance of religious concepts and mystical obligation.

This is the reason why the victors frequently imposed their gods upon the vanquished, for they recognised very clearly that a unification of religious rites would further their own power. It usually mattered little to them if the gods of the vanquished continued to be on show so long as this was not dangerous to their leadership, and so long as the old gods were assigned a role subordinate to that of the new ones. But this could only happen when their priests favoured the rulership of the victors or themselves participated in the drive for political power, as often happened. Thus it is easy to prove the political influence on the later religious forms of the Babylonians, Chaldeans, Egyptians, Persians, Hindus, and many others. And just as easily can the famous monotheism of the Jews be traced to the struggle for the political unification of the arising monarchy.

All systems of rulership and dynasties of antiquity derived their origin from some godhead, and their possessors soon learned to recognise that the belief of their subjects in the divine origin of the ruler was the one unshakeable foundation of every kind of power. Fear of God was always the mental preliminary of voluntary subjection. This alone is necessary; it forms the eternal foundation of every tyranny under whatever mask it may appear. Voluntary subjection cannot be forced; only belief in the divinity of the ruler can create it. It has, therefore, been up to now the foremost aim of all politics to awaken this belief in the people and to make it a mental fixture. Religion is the prevailing principle in history; it binds the spirit of man and forces his thought into definite forms so that habitually he favours the continuation of the traditional and confronts every innovation with misgivings. It is the inner fear of falling into a bottomless abyss which chains man to the old forms of things as they are. That determined champion of the principle of absolute power, Louis de Bonald, understood the connection between religion and politics very well when he wrote the words: "God is the sovereign power over all things; the godman is the power over all mankind; the head of the state is the power over the subjects; the head of the family is the power in his own house. But as all power is made in the image of God and originates with God, therefore all power is absolute."

All power has its roots in God, all rulership is in its inmost essence divine. Moses received directly from the hand of God the tables of the law, which begin with the words: "I am the Lord, thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me," and which sealed the covenant of the Lord with his people. The famous stone on which the laws of Hammurabi are recorded, which have carried the name of the Babylonian king through the millenniums, shows us Hammurabi before the face of the sun god Chamasch. The introduction which precedes the statement of the law begins thus:

When Anu, the exalted, the king of the Anunnaki, and Bel, the lord of heaven and earth, who carries the destiny of the world in his hand, partitioned the masses of mankind to Marduk, the firstborn of Ea, the divine lord of the law, they made him great among the Igigi. In Babylon they proclaimed his exalted name, which is praised in all lands which they have destined to him for his kingdom, and which is eternal as are heaven and earth. Afterwards Anu and Bel made glad the body of mankind when they called upon me, the glorious ruler and godfearing Hammurabi, that I may establish justice upon earth, destroy the wicked and the ruthless, ward off the strong and succour the weak, reign like the sun god over the destiny of blackhaired men and illumine the land.

In Egypt, where the religious cult under the influence of a powerful priestly caste had shown its power in all social institutions, the deification of the ruler had assumed quite uncanny forms. The Pharaoh, or priest-king, was not alone the representative of God on earth, he was himself a god and received godlike honours. Already in the age of the first six dynasties the kings were regarded as sons of the sun god, Ra. Chufu (Cheops), in whose reign the great pyramids were built, called himself "the incarnate Horus." In a vaulted cave at Ibrim, King Amenhotep III was pictured as a god in a circle of other gods. This same ruler also built a temple at Soleb where religious veneration was offered to his own person. When his successor, Amenhotep IV, later on prohibited in Egypt the veneration of any other god, and raised the cult of the radiant sun god, Aton, who became alive in the person of the king, to the dignity of a state religion, it was doubtless political motives which moved him to it. The unity of faith was to be made to render postchaise service to the unity of earthly power in the hands of the Pharaohs.

In the old Hindu lawbook of Manu it is written:

God has made the Icing that he may protect creation. For this purpose he took parts from Indra, from the winds, from Jama, from the sun, from fire, from the heavens, from the moon and from the lord of creation. Therefore, since the king has been created from parts of these lords of the gods, his glory outshines the splendor of all created beings, and like the sun he blinds the eye and the heart, and no one can look into his face. He is fire and air, sun and moon. He is the god of right, the genius of riches, the ruler of the floods and the commander of the firmament.

In no other country outside of Egypt and Tibet has an organised priestcraft attained to such power as in India. This has left its impress on the whole social evolution of the enormous land, and by the cunning caste division of the whole population, pressed all events into iron forms, which have proved the more enduring because they are anchored in the traditions of faith. Quite early the Brahmans entered into a compact with the warrior caste to share with it the rulership of the people of India, wherein the priestcaste was always careful to see that the real power remained in their hands, that the king remained a tool of their desires. Priests and warriors were both of divine origin, the Brahmans sprang from the head of Brahma, the warriors from Brahma's breast. Both had the same objective and the law commanded: "The two castes must act in unison, for neither can do without the other." In this manner arose the system of CaesaroPapism, in which the union of religious and political lust for power found its fullest expression.

In ancient Persia, also, the ruler was the living incarnation of divinity. When he entered a town he was received by the Magi in white garments and with the chanting of religious songs. The road along which he was carried was strewn with myrtle branches and roses and on the side stood silver altars on which incense was burned. His power was unlimited, his will the highest law, his command irrevocable, as stated in the Zendavesta) the sacred book of the old Persians. Only on rare occasions did he show himself to the people, and when he appeared all had to grovel in the dust and hide their faces.

In Persia, also, there were castes and an organised priestly class, which, while it did not have the omnipotent power of that of India, was, nevertheless, the first caste in the land, whose representatives, as the closest council of the king, always had the opportunity to make their influence felt and definitely to affect the destiny of the realm. Concerning the parts played by the priests in the social order, we are informed by a passage in the Zendavesta which reads:

Though your good works were more numerous than the leaves of the trees, the drops of rain, the stars in heaven, or the sands of the sea, they would not profit you, if they were not pleasing to the Destur (priest). To gain the favour of this guide on the way of salvation you must faithfully give to him the tithe of all you possess, of your goods, of your land, and of your money. If you have satisfied the Destur, your soul will have escaped the tortures of hell, and you will find peace in this world and happiness in the one beyond; for the Desturs are teachers of religion, they know all things, and they grant absolution to all mankind.

Fuhi, whom the Chinese designate as the first ruler of the Celestial Kingdom, and who, according to their chronicles, is said to have lived about twentyeight centuries before our era, is venerated in Chinese mythology as a supernatural being and usually appears in their pictures as a man with a fish tail, looking like a Triton. Tradition acclaims him as the real awakener of the Chinese people, who, before his coming, lived in the wilderness in separate groups like packs of animals, and were only through him shown the way to a social order which had its foundation in the family and the veneration of ancestors. All dynasties which since that time have succeeded one another in the Middle Kingdom have traced their origin from the gods. The Emperor called himself the "Son of Heaven"; and since China never had an organised priestly class, the practice of the cult, in so far as it concerned the state religion, rested in the hands of the highest imperial official, who, however, influenced only the upper strata of the Chinese social order.

In Japan, the Mikado, the "High Gate," is regarded as a descendant of Amaterasu, the sun goddess, who in that country is worshiped as the highest divinity. She makes known her will through the person of the ruler, and in his name she governs the people. The Mikado is the living incarnation of the godhead, wherefore his palace is called "Miya," that is, shrine of the soul. Even in the time of the Shogunate, when the leaders of the military caste for hundreds of years exercised the real rulership of the land, and the Mikado played only the part of a decorative figure, the sanctity of his person remained inviolate in the eyes of the people.

Likewise, the foundation of the mighty Inca Empire, whose obscure history has presented so many problems to modern research, is ascribed by tradition to the work of the gods. The saga recounts how Manco Capac with his wife, Ocllo Huaco, appeared one day to the natives of the high plateau of Cuzco, presented himself to them as Intipchuri, the son of the sun, and induced them to acknowledge him as their king. He taught them agriculture and brought them much useful knowledge, which enabled them to become the creators of a great culture.

In Tibet there arose under the mighty influence of a powerlustful priestcaste, that strange churchstate whose inner organization has such a curious kinship with Roman Papism. Like it, it has oral confession, the rosary, smoking censers, the veneration of relics, and the tonsure of the priest. At the head of the state stands the Dalai-Lama and the Bogdo-Lama, or Pentschenrhinpotsche. The former is regarded as the incarnation of Gautama, the sacred founder of the Buddhist religion; the latter as the living personification of Tsongkapa, the great reformer of Lamaism to him, even as to the Dalai Lama, divine honours are offered, extending even to his most intimate physical products.

Genghis Khan, the mighty Mongol ruler, whose great wars and conquests once held half the world in terror, quite openly used religion as the chief instrument of his power policy; although he himself apparently belonged in the class of "enlightened despots." His own tribe regarded him as a descendant of the sun, but as in his enormous realm, which extended from the banks of the Dnieper to the Chinese Sea, there lived men of the most varied religious convictions, his clever instinct recognised that his rule over the subjected nations even as over the core people of his realm, could only be confirmed through priestly power. His Sunpapacy no longer sufficed. Nestorian Christians, Mohammedans, Buddhists, Confucianists and Jews inhabited his lands by the million. He had to be the high priest of every religious cult. With his North-Asiastic Shamanists he cultivated magic and inquired of the oracle which manifested itself in the cracks of the shoulder blades of sheep when thrown into fire. Sundays he went to Mass, celebrated communion with wine, held discussions with Christian priests. On the Sabbath he went to the synagogue and showed himselfas Chahan, as Cohen. On Fridays he held a sort of Selamik and was just as good a Caliph as, later on, the Turk in Constantinople. But preferably he was a Buddhist; held religious discourses with Lamas, and even summoned the Grand Lama of Ssatya to him; for since he intended to change the centre of his realm to Buddhistic territory in Northern Asia, he conceived the grandiose plan of setting up Buddhism as the state religion. [1]

And did not Alexander of Macedonia, whom history calls "The Great," act with the same calculation, apparently animated by the same motives, as, long after, Genghis Khan? After he had conquered a world and cemented it together with streams of blood, he must have felt that such a work could not be made permanent by brute force alone. He therefore tried to anchor his rule in the religious beliefs of the conquered people. So he, "the Hellene," sacrificed to the Egyptian gods in the temple at Memphis and led his army through the burning deserts of Libya to consult the oracle of ZeusAmmon in the oasis of Siva. The compliant priests greeted him as the son of the "Great God" and offered him divine honours. Thus Alexander became a god and appeared before the Persians in his second campaign against Darius as a descendant of the mighty Zeus-Ammon. Only thus can we explain the complete subjugation of the enormous empire by the Macedonians, a thing which even the Persian kings had not been able to accomplish to the same degree.

Alexander had used this means only to further his political plans, but gradually he became so intoxicated with the thought of his godlikeness that he demanded divine honours not only from the subjected nations but even from his own countrymen, to whom such a cult must have remained strange, since they knew him only as Philip's son. The slightest opposition could goad him to madness and frequently led him into abominable crimes. His insatiable desire for ever greater extension of power, strengthened by his military successes, set aside all limits to his selfesteem and blinded him to all reality. He introduced at his court the ceremony of the Persian kings which symbolised the complete subjection of all mankind to the potent will of the despot. Indeed, in him, the "Hellene," the megalomania of barbaric tyranny achieved its most genuine expression.

Alexander was the first to transplant Caesarism and the idea of the divinity of the king to Europe, for up to now it had only prospered on Asiatic soil, where the state had developed with the least hindrance and where the relationship between religion and politics had come to earliest maturity. We must not conclude from this, however, that we are here concerned with a special proclivity of a race. The prevalence which Caesarism has since attained in Europe is patent proof that we are here dealing with a special type of the instinct of religious veneration, which, under similar circumstances, may appear among men of all races and nations. It is not to be denied, however, that its outward forms are bound up with the conditions of its social environment.

It was from the Orient, too, that the Romans took over Caesarism and developed it in a manner that can hardly be observed earlier in any other country. When Julius Caesar raised himself to the dictatorship of Rome, he tried to root his power in the religious concepts of the people. He traced the origin of his family from the gods and claimed Venus as an ancestress. His every effort was directed toward making himself the unlimited ruler of the realm and into an actual god, whom no interrelationship connected with ordinary mortals. His statue was set among those Of the seven kings of Rome, and his adherents quickly spread the rumour that the Oracle had designated him to be the sole ruler of the realm, in order to conquer the Parthians who thus far had defied the Roman power. His image was placed among those of the immortal gods of the Pompa Circensis. A statue of him was erected in the Temple of Quirinus, and on its pedestal the inscription read: "To the unconquerable god." A college was established in his honour at Luperci and special priests were appointed to serve his divinity.

Caesar's murder put a sudden end to his ambitious plans, but his successors completed his work, so that presently there shone about the emperor the aura of the godhead. They erected altars to him and rendered to him religious veneration. Caligula, who had the ambition to raise himself to the highest protective divinity of the Roman state, Capitoline Jupiter, maintained the divinity of the Caesars with these words: "Just as men, who herd sheep and oxen, are not themselves sheep and oxen, but of a nature superior to these, so are those who have been set as rulers above men, not men like the others, but gods."

The Romans, who did not find it objectionable that the leaders of their army had divine honours offered to them in the Orient and Greece, at first protested against the claim that the same should be demanded of Roman citizens, but they got used to it as quickly as did the Greeks in the time of their social decline, and subsided quietly into cowardly self-debasement. Not alone did numbers of poets and artists sound the praise of "the divine Caesar" continuously throughout the land; the people and the Senate, too, outdid themselves in cringing humility and despicable servility. Virgil in his Aeneid glorified Caesar Augustus in slavish fashion, and legions of others followed his example. The Roman astrologer, Firmicus Maternus, who lived in the reign of Constantine, declared in his work De erroribus profanarum religiosum: "Caesar alone is not dependent on the stars. He is the lord of the whole world, which he guides by the fiat of the highest gods. He, himself, belongs to the circle of the gods, whom the primal godhead has designated for the carrying on and completion of all that occurs."

The divine honours which were offered to the Byzantine emperors are even today embraced in the meaning of the word "Byzantine." In Byzantium the religious honours paid to the emperor culminated in the KowTow, an old Oriental custom which required the ordinary mortal to prostrate himself and to touch the earth with his forehead.

The Roman Empire fell in ruins. The megalomania of its rulers, which in the course of the centuries had led to the extinction of all human dignity in millions of their subjects, the horrible exploitation of all subject peoples, and the increasing corruption in the whole empire, had rotted men morally, killed their social consciousness and robbed them of all power of resistance. Thus in the long run they could not withstand the attack of the socalled "barbarians" who assailed the powerful realm from all sides. But the "Spirit of Rome," as Schlegel called it, lived on, just as the spirit of CaesaroPapism lived on after the decline of the great Eastern Empire and gradually infected the untamed young forces of the Germanic tribes whose military leaders had taken over the fateful legacy of the Caesars; and Rome lived on in the Church, which developed Caesarism in the shape of Papism to the highest perfection of power, and with persistent energy pursued the aim of converting the whole of mankind into one gigantic herd and forcing it under the sceptre of the high priest of Rome.

Animated also by the spirit of Rome were all those later efforts for political unification embodied in the German Kaiser concept: in the mighty empires of the Hapsburgs, Charles V and Philip II; in the Bourbons, the Stuarts, and the dynasties of the Czars. While the person of the ruler is no longer worshiped directly as a god, he is king "by the grace of God" and receives the silent veneration of his subjects, to whom he appears as a being of a superior order. The god concept changes in the course of time, just as the state concept has seen many changes. But the innermost character of all religion remains evermore untouched, just as the kernel of all politics has never undergone a change. It is the principle of power which the possessors of earthly and celestial authority made effective against men, and it is always the religious feeling of dependence which forces the masses to obedience. The head of the state is no longer worshiped as a god in public temples, but he says with Louis XIV, "I am the state!" But the state is the earthly providence which watches over man and directs his steps that he may not depart from the way of the law. The wielder of the force of the state is, therefore, only the high priest of a power which finds its expression in politics just as reverence for God finds it in religion.

Although the priest is the mediator between man and this higher power on which the subject feels himself dependent and which, therefore, becomes fate to him, Volney's contention that religion is the invention of the priest shoots wide of the mark; for there were religious concepts long before there was a priestly caste. It can also be safely assumed that the priest himself was originally convinced of the correctness of his understanding. But gradually there dawned on him the idea of what unlimited power the blind belief and gloomy fear of his fellowmen had put into his hands, and what benefit could accrue to him from this. Thus awoke in the priest the consciousness of power, and with this the lust for power, which grew constantly greater as the priesthood became more and more definitely a separate caste in society. Out of the lust for power there developed the "will to power," and with that there evolved in the priesthood a peculiar need. Impelled by this, they tried to direct the religious feelings of believers into definite courses and so to shape the impulses of their faith as to make them serve the priestly quest for power.

All power was at the outset priestly power and in its inmost essence has remained so till this day. Ancient history knows many instances where the role of the priest fused with that of the ruler and lawgiver in one person. Even the derivation of countless lordly titles from names in which the priestly function of their former bearers is clearly revealed, points with certainty to the common origin of religious and temporal power. Alexander Ular hit the nail on the head when he said in his brilliant essay, "Politics," that the Papacy never engaged in temporal politics, but that every temporal ruler has always tried to play papal politics. This is also the reason why every system of government, without distinction of form, has a certain basic theocratic character.

Every church is constantly striving to extend the limits of its power, and to plant the feeling of dependence deeper in the hearts of men. But every temporal power is animated by the same desire, so in both cases the efforts take the same direction. Just as in religion God is everything and man nothing, so in politics the state is everything, the subject nothing. The two maxims of celestial and earthly authority, "I am the Lord thy God!" and "Be ye subject unto authority!" spring from the same source and are united as are the Siamese twins.

The more man learned to venerate in God the epitome of all perfection, the deeper he sankhe, the real creator of Godinto a miserable earthworm, into a living incarnation of all earthly nullity and weakness. The theologian and scribe never tired of assuring him that he was "a sinner conceived in sin," who could only be saved from eternal damnation by a revelation of God's commandments and strict obedience to them. And when the former subject and present citizen endowed the state with all the qualities of perfection, he degraded himself to an impotent and childish puppet on whom the legal pundits and statetheologians never ceased to impress the shameful conviction that in the core of his being he was afflicted with the evil impulses of the born transgressor, who could only be guided on the path of officially defined virtue by the law of the state. The doctrine of original sin is fundamental not only in all the great religious systems, but in every theory of the state. The complete degradation of man, the fateful belief in the worthlessness and sinfulness of his own nature, has ever been the firmest foundation of all spiritual and temporal authority. The divine "Thou shalt!" and the governmental "Thou must!" complement each other perfectly: commandment and law are merely different expressions of the same idea.

This is the reason why no temporal power up to now has been able to dispense with religion, which is in itself the fundamental assumption of power. Where the rulers of the state opposed for political reasons a certain form of religious system, it was always easy to introduce some other systems of belief more favourable to their purposes. Even the so-called "enlightened rulers," who themselves were infidels, were no exception to this rule. When Frederick II of Prussia declared that in his kingdom "everyone could be saved according to his own fashion," he assumed, of course, that such salvation would in no wise conflict with his own powers. The much lauded toleration of the great Frederick would have looked quite different if his subjects, or even a part of them, had conceived the idea that their salvation might be won by lowering the royal dignity, or by disregarding his laws, as the Dukhobors tried to do in Russia.

Napoleon I, who as a young artillery officer had called theology a "cesspool of every superstition and confusion" and had maintained that "the people should be given a handbook of geometry instead of a catechism" radically changed his point of view after he had made himself Emperor of the French. Not only that; according to his own confession, he for a long time flirted with the idea of achieving world rulership with the aid of the pope; he even raised the question whether a state could maintain itself without religion. And he himself gave the answer: "Society cannot exist without inequality of property and the inequality not without religion. A man who is dying of hunger, next to one who has too much, could not possibly reconcile himself to it if it were not for a power which says to him: 'It is the will of God that here on Earth there must be rich and poor, but yonder, in eternity, it will be different.'

The shameless frankness of this utterance comes all the more convincingly from a man who himself believed in nothing, but who was clever enough to recognise that no power can in the long run maintain itself if it is not capable of taking root in the religious consciousness of mankind.

The close connection between religion and politics is, however, not confined to the fetishist period of the state, when public power still found its highest expression in the person of the absolute monarch. It would be a bitter illusion to assume that in the modern law of the constitutional state this relationship had been fundamentally altered. Just as in later religious systems the god idea became more abstract and impersonal, so has the concept of the state lost most of its concrete character as personified in the single ruler. But even in those countries where the separation of church and state had been publicly accomplished, the interrelation between the temporal power and religion as such has in no way been changed. However, the present possessors of power have frequently tried to concentrate the religious impulses of their citizens exclusively on the state, in order that they might not have to share their power with the church.

It is a fact that the great pioneers of the modern constitutional state have emphasised the necessity of religion for the prosperity of the governmental power just as energetically as did formerly the advocates of princely absolutism. Thus, Rousseau, who in his work, The Social Contract, inflicted such incurable wounds on absolute monarchy, declared quite frankly:

In order that an evolving people should learn to value the sacred fundamentals of statecraft, and obey the elementary principles of state law, it is necessary that the effect should become cause. The social spirit which would be the result of the constitution would have to play the leading part in the creation of the constitution, and men, even before the establishment of the laws, would have to be that which they would become through these laws. But since the lawgiver can neither compel nor convince, he must needs take refuge in a higher authority which, without external pressure, is able to persuade men and enthuse them without having to convince them. This is the reason why the founding fathers of the nation have at all times felt compelled to take refuge in heaven and to honour the gods for reasons of politics. Thus would men, who are subject to both the laws of the state and those of nature, voluntarily be obedient to the power which has formed both man and the state, and understandingly carry the burden which the fortune of the state imposes on them. It is this higher understanding, transcending the mental vision of ordinary men, whose dictum the legislator puts into the mouth of the godhead, thus carrying along by respect for a higher power those who are not submissive to human wisdom. [2]

Robespierre followed the advice of the master to the letter and sent the Hebertists and the socalled "Enrages" to the scaffold because their antireligious propaganda, which was really antichurch, lowered the regard for the state and undermined its moral foundation. The poor Hebertists! They were just as firm believers as the "Incorruptible" and his Jacobin church congregation, but their venerationurge moved along different lines, and they would acknowledge no higher power than the state, which to them was the holiest of holies. They were good patriots, and when they spoke of the "Nation," they were enflamed by the same religious ardour as the pious Catholic when he speaks of his God. But they were not the legislators of the country, and consequently they lacked that famous "higher understanding" which, according to Rousseau, transcends the mental grasp of ordinary men and whose decision the legislator is careful to have confirmed from the mouth of the godhead.

Robespierre, of course, possessed this "higher understanding." He felt himself to be the lawgiver of "the Republic, one and indivisible"; consequently he called atheism "an aristocratic affair," and its adherents, hirelings of William Pitt. Just so today, in order to excite the horror of the faithful, do the partisans of Bolshevism denounce as "counter-revolutionary" every idea which does not suit them. In times of excitement such a designation is deadly dangerous and tantamount to "Strike him dead; he has blasphemed against God!" This the Hebertists, too, had to learn, as so many before and after them. They were believers, but not orthodox believers; consequently the guillotine had to convince them as formerly the stake did the heretics.

In his great speech before the convention in defence of the belief in a higher being Robespierre hardly developed an original thought. He referred to Rousseau's Social Contract, on which he commented in his usual longwinded manner. He felt the necessity of a state religion for Republican France, and the cult of the Supreme Being was to serve him by putting the wisdom of his policy in the mouth of the new godhead, and endowing it with the halo of the divine will.

The Convention resolved to publish that speech all over France, to translate it into all languages, thus giving the abominable doctrine of atheism a deadly blow, and to announce to the world the true confession of faith of the French people. The Jacobin Club in Paris made haste to announce its veneration of the Supreme Being in a special memorial declaration. Its content, like that of Robespierre's speech, was rooted completely in Rousseau's ideas. It referred with special gusto to a passage in the Fourth Book of the Social Contract which said:

There exists consequently a purely civic confession of faith and the settling of its Articles is exclusively a matter for the head of the state. It is here a question not so much of religious doctrine as of universal views without whose guidance one can be neither a good citizen nor a faithful subject. Without being able to compel anyone to believe in them, the state can banish anyone who does not believe, not as a godless one, but as one who has violated the Social Contract and is incapable of loving the law and justice with his whole heart, incapable in case of necessity of sacrificing his life to his duty. If anyone, after the public acceptance of these civic articles of faith, announces himself as an infidel, he deserves the death penalty, for he has committed the greatest of all crimes. He has knowingly perjured himself in the face of the law.

The young French Republic was a hardly established power, still without tradition, which had, besides, arisen from the overthrow of an old system of rulership whose deeply rooted institutions were still alive in large sections of the people. It was, therefore, incumbent on her more than on any other state to establish her young power in the religious consciousness of the people. It is true that the wielders of the young power had endowed the state with divine qualities and had raised the cult of the "Nation" to a new religion which had filled France with wild enthusiasm. But that had happened in the intoxication of the great Revolution, whose fierce tempests were to have shattered the old world. This ecstasy could not last forever, and the time was to be anticipated when increasing sobriety would make a place for critical consideration. For this new religion lacked somethingtradition, one of the most important elements in the structure of religious consciousness. It was, therefore, only an act for reasons of state, when Robespierre drove the "Goddess of Reason" from the temple and replaced her by the cult of the "Supreme Being," thus procuring for "the Republic, one and indivisible," the necessary saintly halo.

Recent history, too, shows typical examples of this sort. We need only think of Mussolini's compact with the Catholic Church. Robespierre had never denied the existence of God, neither had Rousseau. Mussolini, however, was a pronounced atheist and a grim opponent of all religious belief; and fascism, true to the anticlerical traditions of the Italian bourgeoisie, appeared at first as a decided opponent of the church. But as a clever statetheologian, Mussolini soon recognised that his power could only have permanence if he succeeded in rooting it in the feeling of dependence of his subjects, and in giving it an outward religious character. With this motive he shaped the extreme nationalism into a new religion, which in its egotistical exclusiveness, and in its violent separation from all other human groups, recognised no higher ideal than the fascist state and its prophet, II Duce.

Like Robespierre, Mussolini felt that his doctrine lacked tradition, and that his young power was not impressive. This made him cautious. The national tradition in Italy was not favourable to the church. It had not yet been forgotten that the Papacy had once been one of the most dangerous opponents of national unification, which had only been successful after an open conflict with the Vatican. But the men of the Risorgimento, the creators of Italy's national unity, were no antireligious zealots. Their politics were anticlerical because the attitude of the Vatican had forced them to it. They were no atheists. Even that grim hater of the clergy, Garibaldi, who in the introduction to his memoirs has written the words: "The priest is the personification of the lie; but the liar is a robber, and the robber a murderer, and I could prove other damnable attributes of the priesthood"even Garibaldi was not only, as shown by his nationalist endeavours, a deeply religious man, but his whole concept of life was rooted in a belief in God. And so the seventh of his Twelve Articles which in I867 were submitted to the Congress of the "League for Peace and Freedom" in Geneva, runs as follows: "The Congress adopts the religion of God, and each of its members obligates itself to aid in spreading it over all the earth."

And Mazzini, the leader of Young Italy, and next to Garibaldi the foremost figure in the struggle for national unity, was in the depths of his soul permeated with the deepest religious belief. His whole philosophy was a curious mixture of religious ethics and national-political aspirations which, in spite of their democratic exterior, were of a thoroughly autocratic nature. His slogan, "God and the People," was strikingly characteristic of his aim, for the nation was to him a religious concept which he strove to confine within the frame of a political church.

Mussolini, however, and with him the numerous leaders of Italian fascism, did not find themselves in this enviable position. They had been grim antagonists, not only of the church, but of religion as such. Such a record constitutes a heavy loadespecially in a country whose capital has been for hundreds of years the centre of a mighty church, with thousands of agencies at its disposal which, on orders from above, were always ready to keep actively alive in the people the memory of the notorious past of the head of the fascist state. It was therefore advisable to come to an understanding with this power. That was not easy, because between the Vatican and the Italian state stood the twentieth of September, 1870, when the troops of Victor Emmanuel marched into Rome and put an end to the temporal power of the Papal States. But Mussolini was ready for any sacrifice. To purchase peace with the Vatican, he recreated, though in diminutive form, the Papal States. He recompensed the Pope financially for the injustice which had once been done to one of his predecessors, he recognised Catholicism as the state religion, and delivered to the priesthood a considerable part of the public educational institutions.

It was surely no religious or moral reason which moved Mussolini to this step, but sober considerations of political power. He needed moral support for his imperialistic plans and could but be especially concerned to remove the suspicion with which the other countries regarded him. Consequently, he sought contact with the power which had up to now weathered all the storms of time and whose mighty worldencircling organization could under certain circumstances prove very dangerous to him. Whether he had the best of the bargain is a question which does not concern us here. But the fact that it had to be exactly the "almighty Duce", who opened again the gates of the Vatican and put an end to the "imprisonment of the Popes," is one of the grotesques of history and will keep the name of Mussolini alive longer than anything else which is associated with it. Even fascism had finally to recognise that on castor oil, assassination and pogroms however necessary such things may seem for the fascist state in its inner politicsno permanent power can be founded. Consequently, Mussolini forgot for the time being the "fascist miracle," from which the Italian people was said to have been reborn, in order that "Rome might for the third time become the heart of the world." He sought contact with the power which has its secret strength in the millennial tradition, and which, as a result, was so hard to undermine.

In Germany, where the leaders of victorious fascism had neither the adaptability nor the clever insight of Mussolini and, in stupid ignorance of the real facts, believed that the whole life of a people could be changed at the whim of their anaemic theories, they had to pay dearly for their mistake. However, Hitler and his intellectual advisers did recognise that the socalled "totalitarian state" must have root in the traditions of the masses in order to attain permanence; but what they called tradition was partly the product of their sickly imagination, and partly concepts which had been dead in the minds of the people for many centuries. Even gods grow old and must die and be replaced by others more suitable to the religious needs of the times. The oneeyed Wotan and the lovely Freia with the golden apples of life are but shadow patterns of longpast ages which no "myth of the twentieth century" can awaken to new life. Consequently, the illusion of a new "German Christianity on a Germanic basis" was infinitely absurd and shamefully stupid.

It was by no means the violent and reactionary character of Hitler's policy that caused hundreds of Catholic and Protestant clergy to oppose the Gleichschaltung of the church. It was the certain recognition that this brainless enterprise was irrevocably doomed to suffer a setback, and they were clever enough not to assume responsibility for an adjustment which must prove disastrous to the church. It did not profit the rulers of the Third Reich to drag the obstreperous priests into concentration camps and in the bloody June days shoot down in gangster fashion some of the most prominent representatives of German Catholicism. They could not allay the storm and finally had to yield. Hitler, who had been able to beat down the whole German labour movement, numbering millions, without any opposition worth mentioning, had here bitten upon a nut he could not crack. It was the first defeat which his internal policy suffered, and its consequences cannot yet be estimated, for dictatorships are harder hit by such setbacks than any other form of government.

The leaders of the Russian Revolution found themselves confronted with a church so completely identified, in fact unified, with czarism that compromise with it was impossible; they were compelled to replace it with something else. This they did by making the collectivist state the one omniscient and omnipotent godand Lenin his prophet. He died at a quite convenient time and was promptly canonised. His picture is replacing the icon, and millions make pilgrimages to his mausoleum instead of to the shrine of some saint.

Although purely iconoclastic, such work is valuable, for it clears the ground of superstitious rubbish, making it ready for the fine structure which will be demanded when the latent spirituality of man who, as has been truly said, is in his inmost nature incurably religious, asserts itself.

The entire religious policy of the present Soviet Government is in fact only a repetition of the great Hebertist movement of the French Revolution. The activities of the League of Russian Atheists, favoured by the government, are directed solely against the old forms of the church faith but by no means against faith itself. In reality the Russian governmental atheism is a religious movement, with this difference that the authoritarian and religious principles of revealed religion have been transferred to the political field. The famous antireligious education of the Russian youth, which has aroused the united protest of all church organisations, is in reality a strictly religious education which makes the state the centre of all religious activities. It sacrifices the natural religion of men to the abstract dogma of definite political fundamentals established by the state. To disturb these fundamentals is as much taboo in modern Russia as were the efforts of heresy against the authority of the old church. Political heresy finds no warmer welcome from the representative of the Russian State dictatorship than did religious heresy from the papal church. Like every other religion, the political religion of the Bolshevist state has the effect of confirming man's dependence on a higher power, and perpetuating his mental slavery.

2012 - The Topology Of Time Part I: Hyperdeminsional Space and Unfolding of The Four Ages

2006-04-12T15:37:00.000-07:00

2012 - The Topology Of Time Part I: Hyperdeminsional Space and Unfolding of The Four Ages

Copyright 2005 Jay Weidner

"The age of iron has no other seal than that of Death. Its hieroglyph is the skeleton, bearing the attributes of Saturn: the empty hourglass, symbol of time run out "

- Fulcanelli

The inspiration for this essay comes from my almost nineteen years of research into the Great Cross of Hendaye and the French alchemist Fulcanelli. The unknown, anonymous, alchemist Fulcanelli in his masterpiece The Mysteries of the Cathedrals first brought the cross at Hendaye, France to the worlds attention. While the details of this research can be found in other articles written by myself (at jayweidner.com) and in the two books I co-authored (A Monument to the End of Time: Alchemy, Fulcanelli and the Great Cross and Mysteries of the great Cross of Hendaye: Alchemy at the End of Time) it can be stated that the Great Cross at Hendaye appears to be describing not only the end of the great four ages of the Hindu Yuga system but also the four ages of alchemical chronological time keeping. According to the cross at Hendaye the Iron Age, or the Kali Yuga, will be coming to an end with the galactic alignment on the winter solstice of December 21st 2012.

According to the mythology of the Yuga system there are four ages of life and time on our planet. It is important to remember that there are many cycles within cycles in the Hindu Yuga system so the years mentioned next may have to do with a larger cycle than the one addressed in this article. Perhaps the huge number of years referred to below is the cycle of the solar system as it circles another star or perhaps it is a portion of the great cycle of one revolution around the galactic center.

The first age is the Satya Yuga or the Golden Age according to Fulcanelli. The Hindu texts tell us that this age lasts 1,728,000 years. This is an age of extreme splendour when the beings on our planet appear to live much longer than they do now. In this age there are no wars, famines strife or evil.

The second age is called the Treta Yuga, or the Silver age. As in the second law of thermodynamics, or entropy, things begin to slip in this age and the beings on Earth begin to deteriorate. This slippage, at least during this second age is the beginning of corruption and evil is introduced into the planetary sphere. This age lasts 1,296,000 years according to the Vedic texts of India.

The third age of this cycle is called the Dvapara Age, or the Bronze Age. This is the beginning of the fall of humanity. In this age corruption comes on more fully, evil begins to spread and things start to fall into disharmony. This age lasts 864,000 years.

The last age is called the Kali Yuga, or the Iron Age. This age is the age we are in right now. Evil and corruption become the driving force as greed, wars, famine and disease spread across the planet like a tidal wave of death and destruction. This age lasts, according to the Hindu texts for 432,000 years. (For more information see also Tolkien at the End of Time: Alchemical Secrets of the Lord of the Rings by Jay Weidner and Sharron Rose at jayweidner.com, or see Reflections on the Cycle of the Great Yuga by Sharron Rose at sharronrose.com).

What is important to understand while discussing these huge numbers found in the Hindu texts is that they are describing the four ages within a context of understanding that each successive age is shorter than the previous age. The Satya Yuga, or the Golden Age, is one quarter longer than the Treta Yuga, or the Silver Age. The Treta Yuga is one quarter longer than the Dvapara Yuga, or the Bronze Age. Understanding these differences in the lengths of the ages becomes important to the following discussion.

According to Fulcanelli and the cross at Hendaye, the alchemical Four Ages comprise the four quadrants of a 25,920 yearlong cycle called the precession of the equinoxes. Essentially, the precession of the equinoxes can be explained by the fact that our Earth has a wobble. Like a top spinning on the floor, as it begins to lose momentum this wobble of the earth takes nearly 26,000 years to unfold. The strange engraving of the four As (see illustration A) on the cross of Hendaye is a "hieroglyph of the universe", according to Fulcanelli. It is "comprised of the conventional signs of heaven and earth, the spiritual and the temporal, the macrocosm and the microcosm, in which major emblems of the redemption (cross) and the world (circle) are found in association".

What Fulcanelli appears to be saying here is that the precession of the equinoxes is to be divided into four distinct ages of 6480 years each (4 divided into 25,920) or, to round off the figures to approximately 6500 years each. This is also interesting because the zodiacal cycle, which lasts 25,920 years, has four fixed signs. These are the signs of Aquarius, Taurus, Leo and Scorpio. These four signs are separated by 6,500 years each. Also in the Book of Ezekiel and in the Book of Revelation we are told of the angel with four faces. This angel has the face of a Lion (Leo), a Bull (Taurus), a Man (the angel) and an Eagle (in older times Scorpio was represented by an eagle instead of a scorpion). Apparently, according to Fulcanelli, both of these books in the Bible are warnings and messages about the four quadrants of the precession of the equinoxes and appear to be telling us that there is some kind of great change whenever we arrive at one of these four signs.

Of course it is well known that we are currently entering the Age of Aquarius. The Cross at Hendaye and Fulcanelli are telling us that there are tremendous changes to be found here on Earth when we enter into one of the four fixed signs. Apparently these changes can be cataclysmic.

Obviously this 6,500 year long dating of the four alchemical ages disagrees with the Hindu Yuga system, which insists that each Yuga is of varying time lengths. It is in trying to iron out the dissimilarities in these two time periods that the hyperdimensional aspects of time can be best revealed.

It is well known in modern physics that the four dimensional space, of which time is an aspect, is in the shape of a hypersphere. (see illustration B) This hypersphere appears similar to the shape of a donut, or a bagel. The energy, or the flow of the energy stream, within this hypersphere works like this: As shown in the illustration, the flow comes out of the bottom of the sphere, winds its way up around the outside edge, crosses the outside equator of the torus sphere and moves towards the hole in the top of this torus. The energy flow then begins to fall through the top of the hole and begins to spin in a vortex. This energy flow continues until it comes out of the bottom side of the torus where the energy flow begins its outward expansion again. This flow is continuous and, in a sense, is infinite.

The Four Dimensional Hypersphere torus is also represented by the hypercube. A hypercube is a cube within a cube according to physicists. Essentially this cube, also called The Cube of Space or the Tetragrammatron by the alchemists is a straight edged version of the donut shaped hypersphere. (See illustration C)

Scientists love to be able to construct objects using straight lines, so they have created the hypercube to help them better understand the hyperdimensional universe that surrounds us. Alchemists however, like to use the curved lines of nature, so the donut shaped torus or hypersphere, is a better, more natural visual description of hyperdimensional space and will be the one I use in this essay.

The alchemists believe that there is a hyperdimensional body around every living thing on earth. This hyperdimensional body or sphere known to mystics as the luminous energy body, also surrounds every planet and star as well. Each object in the three dimensional world is an affectation of four-dimensional space. Humans, animals, plants, planets and stars are the solid inside of the fourth dimensional energy flow. As you will see time also travels in this fashion (See illustration D). ( For more information on the luminous energy body see my films Healing the Luminous Body with Dr. Alberto Villoldo, ArtMind with Alex Grey and Yoga of Light with Sharron Rose.)

In order to begin to understand the topographical nature of time it is very important to understand the guts of this hyperdimensional sphere. By the guts I am referring to the vortexes that make up the energy flow that runs through the center of the hypersphere. As the energy flow begins to fall into the vortex that runs through the center of the sphere it takes on the shape of a tetrahedron.

A tetrahedron, as shown in illustration E, is the building block of three-dimensional space and is the founding member of the Platonic Solids. The tetrahedron is the simplest object that can be created in three dimensions. The only object with just four sides, the tetrahedron is also shaped like a vortex.

Let us digress for a moment and discuss vortexes. Back in the Midwest, where I come from, there is a place called Tornado Alley. This is the flat Great Plains that stretches from Texas to the Dakotas. Each year this area is visited by numerous tornados, which wreak havoc on the farms and towns of this area. These tornados usually start in May and last until early August. Having witnessed several tornados in my early years I became fascinated by them and was once even a storm chaser. In my young and foolish days I used to chase after tornados with my Bolex 16mm camera in order to capture them on film. I became very familiar with these lethal vortexes.

But understanding tornados also helps us understand vortexes and the density of forces in the hypersphere. Tornados (and also hurricanes) are made up of air like that which surrounds us all the time. But as the air begins spinning it takes on a strange solidity. While the swirling air at the top of a tornado is somewhat dangerous, it is the spinning air near the surface of the ground that is really dangerous. Near the tip of a tornado, where it is in contact with the ground, the air takes on the quality of solid iron. The tips of tornados can rip buildings apart, throw cars and trucks thousands of feet and punch chaffs of wheat into the very center of a trees like a bullet. As the air spins more violently, the tip of the tornado vortex becomes as strong as 50 locomotives engines and possesses the density of the hardest of metals. Yet it is just comprised of air molecules. But these molecules are spinning so quickly that they create a mass that is extremely powerful. It is the spin of the air that causes it to densify and take on the solidity of metals.

Getting back to the central core of our hyperdimensional torus we can understand the vortexes inside this sphere and how time unfolds by using the tornado analogy. As the energy flow begins to dip down into the top of the tetrahedral shaped vortex it begins to spin. As the energy flow descends, its spin becomes more rapid and compressed. Like a tornado, as it reaches further down, the tip of the vortex hardens. It could be said that his hardening of vorticular forces is what makes up the solidity of our three dimensional space. Each human, plant, animal and indeed every planet and star alike are the hardened tips of hyperdimensional vortexes, which are flowing all around us constantly.

Like air, these hyperdimensional forces are pretty much invisible to us. It is only when these forces coagulate into a spinning vortex that they can be seen and felt. It is through the rapid spinning of four-dimensional space that the solidity of the third dimension is actually created. The mystics from all great traditions know this and they realize these inner dynamics of the fourth dimension as it interacts with the third dimension. The fourth dimension is the surrounding sphere and the third dimension are the tetrahedral vortexes that make up the central core of the sphere. To the ancients, four-dimensional space was called spirit and three-dimensional space was called matter.

So what does this have to do with time and the topography of time? Remember the dilemma that we face in trying to make the four ages of the precession match up with the Ages or Yugas from the Hindu system? By attempting to make the two into one we can not only understand the topology of time, but also we can map time like the ancients and we can know where we are in the river of time.

As shown in illustration F, imagine that we are coming through the very center of where the two tetrahedral tornado vortexes intersect at the very center of the inner hyperdimensional sphere. Moving down the bottom vortex towards the outside surface of the sphere, each spin in the vortex takes longer and is wider and slower than the previous spin in the vortex. In other words, the energy flow expands after it passes the null point in the very center of the hyperdimensional sphere, or torus, where the tips of the two tetrahedral vortexes touch.

This energy flow continues its expansion as it climbs over the lip of the bottom edge of the sphere where the vortex meets the outside edge of the sphere. The energy flow continues to expand until it reaches the outside equator area of the sphere. Once it gets past the equator, the energy flow begins to condense, the flow begins to move faster and the spin density increases. This flow continues until the energy flow reaches the upper lip of the outside of the hyperdimensional sphere where it begins to fall into the top of the tornado tetrahedral vortex.

Now as the flow of energy falls down the vortex towards the null point at the very center of the sphere it begins to harden as it spins faster and faster. This goes on and on until the vortex is so hard it is like iron. This is how the fourth dimensional forces create three-dimensional reality. As the vortex spins faster and faster eventually it compresses down to the point where it has nowhere to go but outwards again. This occurs at the null point in the center of the sphere and the energy flow now begins to once again expand.

The Golden Age is the time period that starts at the null point in the center of the sphere and continues through the bottom vortex. As the energy flow expands outwards time appears to slow down. The entire period of the Satya Yuga, or the Golden Age, continues as the energy flow goes down the bottom vortex and rounds across the top of the sphere. It continues expanding until it arrives at the equator (see illustration G).

The equator of the outside of the hyperdimensional sphere is the borderline between the Satya Yuga and Treta Yuga, or the Golden Age and the Silver Age. Now the energy flow begins to contract as it flows upwards towards the north pole of the hypersphere.

The Silver Age, or the Treta Yuga, continues until the energy flow rounds the top lip of the hyperdimensional sphere and begins to fall into the upper tetrahedral vortex. This then is the borderline between the Treta Yuga and the Dvapara Yuga, or the border between the Silver Age and the Bronze Age.

About two thirds down in the upper vortex, where the energy flow is spinning so fast that it becomes as solid as iron, is beginning of the last Age, the Kali Yuga, or the Iron Age. This spinning continues to gain density and compression and speed as it races towards the central null point in the very center of the sphere. As it approaches this null point the forces become unbelievably fast, violent and dense. It is only when these forces achieve maximum density and they can no longer compress any further that they begin to suddenly flip and begin the expansion of the flow. This happens in an instant. This is the shift from the Iron Age, or the Kali Yuga to the Golden Age, or the Satya Yuga. The borderline between the Iron Age and the Golden Age is the most distinct border in this topographical illustration of hyperdimensional time. It is the most jarring and is instantaneous.

Take notice of the hourglass shape of the two tetrahedral vortexes inside the hyperdimensional sphere. Is this why Fulcanelli tells us about the hour-glass in the quote at the beginning of this article? In the Hindu mythology the God Shiva dances the world into and out of existence playing his dhamaru which is a two sided drum shaped like an hourglass.

Notice that, like the number of years in the Hindu Yuga system, the distance traveled through our ages in the hypersphere is similar; the Golden Age, which is the distance between the null point in the center and the outside equator is twice the distance as that traveled through the Silver Age which is the distance from the equator to the top of the lip of the upper vortex. Equally, the distance traveled from the top of the vortex to two thirds down, which is the Bronze Age, is half the length of the Silver Age. Finally, the tip of the vortex is half the length of the Bronze Age.

This part, called the Iron Age, is the Age in which we live. This is also why, in the Iron Age, each second feels shorter than the second before. This is why each day, each month and year appear to be going faster than they did previously. In the topology of time this effect can be easily understood and explained.

Also remember even though the distance traveled is much further in the Golden Age than it is in the Iron Age, the number of years it takes is the same. It takes 6,480 years to go through the Golden Age just as it takes 6,480 years to go through the Iron Age, but it feels much different. In the Golden Age each second, each day, each month and year appear to be longer than the previous day, month and year. Time is expanding in the Golden Age and with that expansion the anxiety and tension of the Iron Age disappears. It is a paradise, especially to those who may have survived the passing through the wormhole, or the null point at the center of the hyperdimensional sphere.

Therefore, the years listed within the Yuga system are actually symbolic times that explain the lengths of time as it is felt not as it is lived. So the Golden Age or the Satya Yuga feels like it is much longer than the Kali Yuga, or the Iron Age.

The shamans in Peru tell us that we are approaching the Pacha Cuti, which means, literally the world turned upside down. They say that it will arrive in the year 2012 (see illustration H). This is also the year when the great Mayan calendar reaches its end point. The cross of Hendaye is quite explicit in saying that we are reaching the very end of the Iron Age. I would suggest that the null point, or the wormhole at the very center of the hypersphere, is very likely the 2012 date. Our hypersphere appears to be regulated by the periodic alignment of the galactic center with the sun. This also matches the four fixed signs of the zodiac and explains why the Christian tradition is preparing for the endtimes.

The unknown builder of the mysterious Cross at Hendaye gives the entire hyperdimensional map to us on a platter. Fulcanelli coyly ignores it knowing that its meaning will only become clear when one has truly understood alchemy. At the very top of the Cross, on the west side, just above the broken Latin Inscription, sits a single X. (See Illustration I.)

This X is the inner map of the guts of the hyperdimensional sphere and reveals the hourglass shape in a clear and concise manner. The X is truly the most mysterious symbol on the Cross at Hendaye and its meaning is finally revealed here in this article.

Oddly enough, it also appears that Stanley Kubrick is trying to tell us about the end of our Age in his masterpiece film 2001: A Space Odyssey. The Starchild at the end of the film has passed through the Star Gate of the black monolith and is returning to Earth to create a new world or a new Age (see Alchhemical Kubrick: 2001: The Great Work on Film at jayweidner.com)

It is through our understanding of the Four Ages, the fixed signs of the zodiac and the Yuga system that we can finally appreciate the message that our ancestors have handed down to us. We are about to pass through the Star Gate, the wormhole, and the null point of hyperdimensional space.

The Cross of Hendaye reveals the most important knowledge of all, which is the end of time and the beginning of the Golden Age. Awareness of this knowledge helps us all to more fully comprehend the nature of the times in which we reside and the destiny of the human race.

Endnote:
Incidentally the human life span has a strange association with the hypersphere and the topology of time. It takes 72 years for the precession of the equinoxes to advance one degree (360 X 72 = 25,920). Interestingly, at least during the Iron Age, the average human life span is about 72 years, which is 26,280 days, very close to the precessional figure of 25,920. Incidentally, the ancients thought that the year had 360 days, which would have made 72 years come out to exactly 25,920 days.

But the human life span can also divided into four Ages. If we divide 72 years into four periods of 18 years each we can discover our own personal four ages of existence.

There are 6510 days in each of these 18-year periods. The Golden Age of a human is from their birth to when they reach 18 years of age. The Silver Age is the next period from 18 to 36 years old. The Bronze Age of a life is from 36 years old to 54 years of age and the Iron Age is from 54 years old to 72.

Like the four great ages of alchemical timekeeping these four ages also feel different. It seems to take forever to get to be eighteen years old. But when we are 54 years old, or older, the days and years feel as if they are flying by. Also the body appears to gain density as we age. Our bones creak and arthritis begins to attack us as we age. It becomes more difficult to lose weight and we become set in our ways.

Even our lives appear to be ruled by the topology of hyperdimensional space

At the very core of all the great spiritual traditions to be found across the planet from the ancient Egyptian to the Inkan and Mayan, Indo-Tibetan, Alchemical Europe and even the Hebrew Kabbalah lies the knowledge of the secret of the alchemy of time. Unencumbered by the excessive demands, stresses and speed of the modern age, our ancestors spent lifetimes in contemplation of the essential mysteries of our world. One of the great mysteries they discovered was that time is not stagnant or linear but flows in great transformative cycles. In fact it is only recently that modern historians have begun arguing that time travels in a straight line. Within the limited period of historical examination these modern historians are viewing a snap shot of history and believe that this snapshot represents the entire picture. But does it?

The alchemists of Egypt and Medieval Europe knew that time moved in great elongated cycles, and that each part of the cycle had a quality. This quality shaped and reformed the world. Just as sunrise has a different quality from midnight so too does each aspect of the great cycle possess a quality that distinguishes it from other parts of the cycle. When the cycle of time changes, so too do events change here on Earth.

These sacred scientists and alchemists of our past used various devices and practices to mark the changes in the quality of time. Astrology, divination and prophecy are some of the more obvious processes that our ancestors used to understand the mysterious process of time.

At the heart of the secrets traditions of the Egyptian and Greek mystery schools they knew that a process, which they called the precession of the equinoxes measured the Great Cycle or the Great Year. What they understood was that the stars in the night sky are not fixed. Through their long observation and meditation upon the heavens they came to realize that the stars and the constellations were slowly changing their place in the sky above us. Creating the zodiac to assist them in these huge measurements of time they used the twelve signs to act as a giant time clock. Through this they began to understand the Great Cycle. They realized that it took 2,160 years to move through each sign of the zodiac and that it took 25,920 years for the equinoxes to move through all 12 signs. The creation of the Great Year of nearly 26,000 years gave them a clock that allowed them to measure time.

They then came to understand that each of the signs, or places on the clock appeared to bring forth changes in the quality of life here on earth. So they came to realize that every 2,160 years the quality of time changed. They also began to understand that the four quadrants of this great chronological clock appeared to bring forth even sharper changes in the quality of time. The four signs associated with these four quadrants are the signs of Aquarius, Taurus, Leo and Scorpio. There does seem to be some historical linkage between this idea that passing through the edges of these four signs brings great changes here on earth. About 6,500 years ago we passed through the sign of Taurus. Coincidentally the human race began domesticating cattle, building walled cities, developing agriculture, fighting wars and beginning the city-states that would evolve into governments and monarchies. Thirteen thousand years ago, as we passed through the Age of Leo great changes occurred including a dramatic climate shift as the ice ages began to end. The extinction of many animals including the Woolly Mammoth, the Saber Tooth Tiger, the Giant Tree Sloth and many other species happened at about this time. Interestingly, according to anthropologists, the emergence of Cro-Magnon Man, appears to have occurred about 26,000 years ago, the last time we passed through Aquarius.

The Great Cross at Hendaye is a 350-year-old alchemical monument to the end of time. It sits in a churchyard in Hendaye France. The Great Cross at Hendaye appears to be a symbolical construct that explains this science of the cycles of time. The Cross at Hendaye describes the extraordinary changes that are about to occur our present era. It speaks of the end of our current Age of Iron and the creation of a coming Golden Age.

The great cosmic time clock in the sky is changing. We are now entering the quadrant of Aquarius. From what the alchemical Cross at Hendaye is saying this change is sure to have a dramatic effect on our species and on our planet.

What these changes are, or will be, is anybodys guess. But they are sure to be spectacular and remarkable. The end of time, the end of this age and the great transformation of humanity is at hand. This change in the quality of time will govern and dictate the changes here on our fragile planet. The changes in the quality of time cannot be forestalled. The fundamentalist revival taking place all over the world reveals more about the quality of time from which we are emerging than it does reveal anything about the quality of time for that which is coming.

The Peruvian shamans living high up in the Andes Mountains have come down to tell us that a new species of human being is about to appear. They call this being Homo Luminous. They tell us that forerunners of Homo Luminous are already among us right now. Like Cro-Magnon Man of 26,000 years ago, the last time that we passed through the cusp of Aquarius, so too now a new human is emerging. This new human will possess entirely new qualities that we do not have. The great Avatars, Jesus Christ, Krishna and many others may have early arrivals for this newly emerging species. Aquarius is the only one of the four quadrent signs that is symbolically represented by a human, and this human carries a container of water. This symbology is interesting as DNA can only be activated in water. So even the symbolic nature of the sign of Aquarius seems to suggest a change in the genetic structure of the human race.

Our spiritual existence is really a unique combination of free will and predestination. While we possess the ability to act freely within the moment, there is little we can do about the larger cycles of time and the qualities that emerge at the cusp of each of the four great signs. So as the hand on the great cosmic time clock passes into Aquarius one can expect massive changes to occur. While the ancient art of alchemy is concerned with many aspects of our existence including the extraction of light from plants and minerals, the transformation of the dark lead of our physical being into the pure gold of enlightenment and much more, alchemy also is a symbolic ontology concerned with the observation in the changes of the "quality" of time through the 25, 920 years-long duration of the Great Year.

The world is changing. The past will disappear and history will become legend and finally myth. Our destination is unknown. The only thing we know for sure is that it will change.

Jay Weidner is an author, filmmaker and hermetic scholar. He is the co-author of The Mysteries of the Great Cross of Hendaye; Alchemy and the End of Time (Destiny Books) and A Monument to the End of Time (Aethyrea Books). Mr. Weidner has produced and directed many fascinating documentaries and instructional DVDs including Healing the Luminous Body; The Way of the Shaman with Dr. Alberto Villoldo, Artmind; The Healing Power of Sacred Art with Alex Grey, Healing Sounds with Jonathan Goldman, The Path of the Priestess with Sharron Rose, Nada Yoga; The Healing Power of Sacred Sound with Shanti Shivani and Secrets of Alchemy; The Great Cross and The End of Time based upon his many years of research into alchemy. For more information on his work, go to www.sacredmysteries.com.

Understand How the Federal Reserve is fucking you

2006-04-11T17:09:00.000-07:00

Steven Moorman
Professor Van Der Slice
US HISTORY 104
Industrial Revolution

What is the Federal Reserve? The Federal Reserve is not in anyway federal, nor does it have anything in reserve. The Federal Reserve is a privately owned corporation, out for profit. It is the fourth central bank in America and on December 22, 1913 was granted the unconstitutional right to print and coin money, as well as set interest rates for the United States economy.

The United States Constitution strictly prohibits any institution, except Congress, from issuing our money in America. In fact, the US Constitution clearly states in Article 1 Section 8 Paragraph 5 that congress alone shall reserve the right to: To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coins, and the standard of weights and measures. This means our coins are supposed to contain a specific and just amount of precious metal, in which the coins today contain none.

The Federal Reserve System is divided into 12 Federal Reserve Districts, with branches all over the United States. Twenty-five branches of these banks serve particular areas within each district. These branches do not compete with each other, they work together cooperate with other banks around the globe.

There are three ways the Federal Reserve creates money out of absolutely nothing. First, they turn a profit through the Federal Open Market Committee (FMOC). This is an operation that buys US government bonds and federal agency securities, or IOUs issued buy the government, on the open market to add more money into circulation. When the bond matures the government is forced to pay it back with interest, this is a debt-based monetary system. The second way the Federal Reserve creates money out of nothing is through a special Discount Window, also called fractional reserve banking. Our banking laws in the United States only require banks to keep a small fraction of money on hand as a reserve against withdrawals. This also allows them to loan out as much as 10 times the amount of money in the reserve and to charge interest on money they dont have. This allows banks to put more and more money into reserves which enables them to put more money they dont have into circulation (This is a prime example of the imaginary tax, Inflation!). The third way the Fed debases the money supply is a process called reserve ration manipulation. Banking laws allow the Fed to change the reserve ratio from 10 to 1, to virtually any figure -- 20 to 1, 40 to 1, 60 to 1, or even eliminate the reserve completely. Under the Federal Reserve System this process can be repeated over and over again until our money supply is hyper-inflated and destroyed.

The Federal Reserve is the accumulation of centuries of banking practices built on usury and debauchery of currency through dishonest weights and measures. The architects of the FED represented and estimated of the total wealth in the entire world. The seven men were Senator Nelson W. Aldrich, Paul M Warburg, Benjamin Strong, Frank A. Vanderlip, Abraham Platt Andrew, Henry P. Davison, and Charles D. Norton. These men all met in Jekyll Island on November 10, 1910 to secretly draft the Federal Reserve. All of these men represented the interest of a hidden circle of International Bankers. At the middle of this circle of bankers was the Rothschild family, who today, are said, to control almost half of the wealth in the entire world. As Mayer Amschel Rothschild said, Let me control a nations money and credit and I care not who writes laws. Such is the case with the present day United States of America.

By now it should be deeply understood that war can be very profitable for specific groups of people, especially a money lender or international banker. The House of Rothschild, the head monetary scientists of their time, mastered the technique of instigating wars and subsequently drowning countries in debt. Mayer Amschel Bauer was born in 1743 in Frankfurt, Germany. After learning the family business, money lending, he changed his name to Rothschild. Rothschild quickly and greatly multiplied his fortune by secretly financing wars in Europe. Mayer Amschel Rothschilds son, Nathan Rothschild, who was known to be the cleverest of the 5 children, employed the use of spies to report on the outcome of the battle of Waterloo. Nathan Rothschild, with exclusive news of the defeat of Napoleon, sold all of his fortune in the British stock market. With the outcome of this battle unbeknownst to most of the wealthy British tradesmen, this move by Nathan gave the impression that Napoleon had been victorious. Everyone knew that if Napoleon defeated England that the first order of business would be to take over British banks and confiscate the money supply. So, in a panic, investors in the British market quickly liquidated their assets. When the market soon bottomed out, Nathan Rothschild quickly bought back everything at a fraction of its worth and completely cornered the market. Nathan Rothschild knew that politicians lack the courage to tax, so they borrow to finance war as well as many other government operations. Privately owned central banks like the Bank of England and her daughter, The Federal Reserve, with their fiat money (money not backed by gold) has guaranteed war as a permanent fixture.

To ensure their position as the worlds wealthiest family, the Rothschilds have financed almost all of the key figures in history. The Cecil Rhodes monopoly on the South African diamond mines and gold fields, the Harrimans Railroad empire in America and Soviet manganese production, the Vanderbilts in the railroads and the press, and Andrew Carnegie in the steel industry were all financed by Rothschild. Their capital and financial influence has almost single handedly shaped the rate, pace and sequence of the development of our modern civilization. They dominate international transactions on behalf of most of the nations of the world, they are the largest international financiers in recorded history. J.P. Morgan was their chief agent in America. He turned Wall Street in a dominated Morgan-institution. The Rothschilds used great financial panics, like in 1907, to create leverage necessary for their agents J.P. Morgan, Paul Warburg, and others to convince the American Government that the only way to avoid these types of periods of financial upheaval, would be to create a privately owned central bank in America.

In 1912 the Jekyll Island strategist laid down the following plan of action in order to convince congress and the public that their findings were in the publics best interest. First the group had to trick the public into believing the bank was part of the government; dont even call it a central bank. Next they would form regional branches to create the appearance of nullified Wall Street control. Then begin with fair banking principles, and then quietly alter the objectives in favor of the money trust. They would then utilize the Panic of 1907 to coerce national support for sweeping new monetary reform. They would offer the Jekyll Island plan as a solution to the problems of currency drains and panic runs on the banks. They would also get Universities to endorse the plan. Finally, in what perhaps the slickest move of all, the bankers themselves would have to denounce the plan to trick the public into believing that Wall Street was not in favor of it.

The Money trust knew the only way that they could get Americas fourth privately owned central bank signed into law beyond a doubt would be to rig the 1912 election. The presidential election of 1912 started out with only two candidates running for president: the democratic candidate, Woodrow Wilson, and the Republican William Howard Taft. By the time of the actual election there were three candidates running. William Howard Taft was the incumbent of the money trust, and the trust knew that he wouldnt sign the Federal Reserve Act, even though he was a friend of Big Business. So they decided the run the oldest trick in the book. They shifted some of the votes from Taft by the running the republican, Teddy Roosevelt, as the bull moose (progressive party) candidate. It worked to perfection, splitting the vote, guaranteeing the White House to their hand-picked, hand groomed puppet candidate, Woodrow Wilson. This shows the political partisanship is unimportant to the Money Trust and that they could care less about whether a Republican or Democrat sits in the White House. In 2000, Bush ran as a Republican. In 1912 Wilson ran as a Democrat. Both of these men received the blessings of the money trust. Wilsons presidency almost simultaneously began with his signing of the Federal Reserve Bill into law. The advent of the Bush administration commenced with an international war on terrorism. In both instances the monetary costs to the public were extremely high.

Calling the 1912 election a rigged election is not an outrageous claim to make at all. In 1912, no one could ever dream that the Republican bankers were working feverishly behind the scenes to elect a Democrat to the White House, but they were. Woodrow Wilson was funded by J.P. Morgan and Company, Kuhn, Loeb & Company, and Paul Warburg/Jacob Schiff. Roosevelt was also funded by J.P. Morgan and Company through their newspaper propagandists, George W. Perkins and Frank Munsey. These two men jointly contributed millions to facilitate Tafts political extermination. Within the firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Company Felix Warburg was openly backing Taft so that the public would think the Money Trust wanted Taft to win. The Warburg/Schiff faction was also joined by the Rockefellers National City Bank in backing Wilson.

With Woodrow Wilson finally in office, it was time to move the Federal Reserve plan into its final phase. A new bill was needed to fool the controlling populist wing of the democratic congress. The Money Trust assigned Colonel Edward Mandell House to the role of Chief Advisor to President Wilson. As a member of the London Connection, Colonel House worked more than anyone to get the United States into WW1 on Englands side. With influence of House on the President, the Money Trust secured the massive war loans to England and France for the Morgan Conspirators. Colonel House became a constant guiding companion to President Wilson in all areas of policy favorable to the Money Trust.

In 1912 the international bankers, working to get the worlds ultimate banking scam through Congress, cleverly recruited the Democratic Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, Congressmen Carter Glass from Virginia. Glasss job was to publicly condemn the bankers decoy bill in the Congress, the Aldrich Bill, while at the same time resurrect it from the dead. Glass staged public hearings, which were essentially rigged to disallow Rep. Charles Lindberg, father of the famous aviator, and the rest of the opposition in Congress. Glass was joined by Senator Robert L. Owen in sponsorship of the new Glass-Owen plan. The Glass-Owen bill was filled out with alternative components, only taking on an appearance of compromise. In reality, it was the same Aldrich bill but with enough alterations to fool the Populist Party. Their goal was to get the bill passed and to perfect it later.

On December 22, 1913, all of the Senators, except three, had gone home for the Christmas Holiday. Their fellow senators failed to formally adjourn, leaving the floor open for business. By a unanimous vote of only three, the Federal Reserve Act sneaked though the Senate after already passing in the House. The bill was signed into law the very next day by the puppet for the Money Trust, Woodrow Wilson. By giving the Federal Reserve the unconstitutional authority to issue money created out of nothing at all, and control the credit of the United States, it ultimately controls our economic destiny.

The second most powerful tool to wage war on the middle class is the graduated income tax, and the Federal Reserves collection agency, the IRS. The federal income tax has not always been around, and neither was it created as a means to run our government. The fact of the matter is that after the Federal Reserve bill became the law of the land, the bankers had to trick Americans into believing that taxes on your income fun the government and not their inflationary scheme of creating money out of nothing.

There are all kinds of taxes in America: state tax, excise tax, sales tax, property tax, inheritance tax, but the bankers created the worst tax of all, inflation. The money trust knew that if the American people ever realized that the economic dynamics of having a private central bank like the Federal Reserve was creating a burdensome and perpetually expanding unseen tax to be borne by every American citizen, that both elected officials and the public would revolt. Public ignorance was extremely vital in the success of this scheme. This is the first reason for the tax; if the government eliminated the income tax and simply opted to run the nation on monetized debt (monetized bonds or government issued fiat money), the people might just wake up and understand that the Federal Reserve was the burdensome debt machine that it really is. The second reason for the tax was to provide the ruling class aristocracy and free market elitist a lethal weapon to be perpetually used against the politically deaf, dumb, and blind middle class.

One week prior to the passage of the Federal Reserve bill, Congress pass a bill legalizing a federal income tax as a means to guarantee the national debt. The federal income tax has not always been around, even though the bankers had tried to create one prior to 1913. In 1895, they tried to establish a similar federal income tax and the Supreme Court found and income tax at the federal level to be unconstitutional. The bankers had to get the income tax established or all the work they had done in creating the Fed could be abolished in a popular revolt. With this knowledge, Senator Aldrich hurried the 16th Amendment to the Constitution through Congress, establishing the income tax. But the 16th Amendment was never fully ratified, so our federal income tax is not only unconstitutional, but it was rammed down our throats in a vicious attempt to choke the life out of any potential thrust toward true prosperity, sovereignty, and independence by the American People.

After the Federal Reserve Bill was passed the Fed had full abilities to create periods of economic booms and busts. This method of expansion and contraction of the money supply only benefits the stockholders of the Federal Reserve because it creates misdirected meaningful bank reform, prevents debt-free currency like President Lincolns greenbacks from returning, grants bankers the right to arbitrarily create 90f our money supply by using the dishonest fractional reserve principle, grants overall control of our money supply to the jurisdiction of a few men, and establishes a privately owned central bank with a high degree of independence from the government.

The Federal Reserves unconstitutional right to manipulate the economy through raising and lowering interest rates played a massive role in the roaring 20s and the following depression. Between 1920 and 1929 a period of economic booms and busts culminated with the greatest fleecing of the American people in history. At the beginning of WW1 the Fed inflated the economy to finance it, causing a rise in prices. In 1920, the Fed raised interest rates to tame inflation. Recession follows, wiping out small business and farms. In 1921 the Fed lowers interest rates to halt recession and help European trade. The debt grew and so did inflation. In 1923 the Fed tightened interest rates to stop inflation. In 1924, the Fed lowered interest rates to banks, creating 500 million in new money, leading to a rise in prices. In 1926 the Florida land boom collapses, and the economy follows. In 1928, the Fed raises interest rates to halt the boom. Then the Fed instituted time deposits, requiring a smaller amount of bank assets upon which they are loaned. This offsets the Feds contraction of credit. Then the Fed bails out the British pound, increasing our money supply by 2 million dollars. In the summer of 1928 the Fed sold Treasury Bonds on the open market, raising interest rates. This severely contracted the money supply and choked off credit, bringing a decade of speculation and investments to an abrupt end; the roaring 20s were over. The Federal Reserve had successfully pulled off the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of capitalism.

In the Aftermath of the great depression the Fed began to slowly relax interest rates by pumping tons of fresh money into circulation. FDRs New Deal, which swept him into office, was designed and created to prop up the failing economy. But in spite of all economic recovery the economy was no better off in 1939 than it was in 1930. It was not until the outbreak of WW2 and the massive industrial preparation for war, which created millions of jobs that the depression was finally brought to an end.

The FED creates money from nothing, and loans it back to us through banks, and charges interest on our currency. The FED also buys Government debt with money printed on a printing press and charges U.S. taxpayers interest. Many Congressmen and Presidents say this is fraud. Who actually owns the Federal Reserve Central Banks? The ownership of the 12 Central banks, a very well kept secret, has been revealed: 1. Rothschild Bank of London 2. Warburg Bank of Hamburg 3. Rothschild Bank of Berlin 4. Lehman Brothers of New York 5. Lazard Brothers of Paris 6. Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York 7. Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy 8. Goldman, Sachs of New York 9. Warburg Bank of Amsterdam 10. Chase Manhattan Bank of New York.

These bankers are connected to London Banking Houses which ultimately control the FED. When England lost the Revolutionary War with America where our forefathers were fighting their own government, they planned to control us by controlling our banking system, the printing of our money, and our debt. The individuals listed below owned banks which in turn owned shares in the FED. The banks listed below have significant control over the New York FED District, which controls the other 11 FED Districts. These banks also are partly foreign owned and control the New York FED District Bank: First National Bank of New York, James Stillman National City Bank, New York, Mary W. Harnman, National Bank of Commerce, New York, A.D. Jiullard Hanover, National Bank, New York, Jacob Schiff, Chase National Bank, New York, Thomas F. Ryan, Paul Warburg, William Rockefeller, Levi P. Morton, M.T. Pyne, George F. Baker, Percy Pyne, Mrs. G.F. St. George, J.W. Sterling, Katherine St. George, H.P. Davidson, J.P. Morgan (Equitable Life/Mutual Life), Edith Brevour, T. Baker.

The bankers employ members of the Congress on weekends (nickname T&T club -out Thursday...in Tuesday with lucrative salaries. Additionally, the FED started buying up the media in the 1930's and now owns or significantly influences most of it. Presidents Lincoln, Jackson, and Kennedy tried to stop this family of bankers by printing U.S. dollars without charging the taxpayers interest. Today, if the government runs a deficit, the FED prints dollars through the U.S. Treasury, buys the debt, and the dollars are circulated into the economy. In 1992, taxpayers paid the FED banking system $286 billion in interest on debt the FED purchased by printing money virtually cost free. Forty percent of our personal federal income taxes goes to pay this interest. The FED's books are not open to the public. Congress has yet to audit it. Congressman Wright Patman was Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Banking and Currency for 40 years. For 20 of those years, he introduced legislation to repeal the Federal Reserve Banking Act of 1913. Congressman Henry Gonzales, Chairman of a banking committee, introduced legislation to repeal the Federal Reserve Banking Act of 1913 almost every year. It's always defeated, the media remains silent, and the public never learns the truth. The same bankers who own the FED control the media and give huge political contributions to sympathetic members of Congress.

THE FED FEARS THE POPULATION WILL BECOME AWARE OF THIS FRAUD AND DEMAND CHANGE. We, the People, are at fault for being passive and allowing this to continue. THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD, A GOVERNMENT BOARD, HAS CHEATED THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OUT OF ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY THE NATIONAL DEBT SEVERAL TIMES OVER. The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks acting together have cost this country dearly.

They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; the rich and predatory money lenders. This is an era of economic misery and for the reasons that caused that misery, the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks are fully liable. Half a million dollars was spent on one part of propaganda organized by those same European bankers for the purpose of misleading public opinion in regard to the Federal Reserve Bank.

Every effort has been made by the Federal Reserve Board to conceal its power but the truth is the Federal Reserve Board has USURPED THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. IT CONTROLS EVERYTHING HERE AND IT CONTROLS ALL OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS. IT MAKES AND BREAKS GOVERNMENTS AT WILL. No man and no body of men is more entrenched in power than the arrogant credit monopoly which operates the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks. These evil-doers have robbed this country. What the Government has permitted the Federal Reserve Board to steal from the people should now be restored to the people.

Our people's money to the extent of $1,200,000,000 has within the last few months been shipped abroad to redeem Federal Reserve Notes and to pay other gambling debts of the traitorous Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks. The greater part of our monetary stock has been shipped to foreigners. Why should we promise to pay the debts of foreigners to foreigners? Why should American Farmers and wage earners add millions of foreigners to the number of their dependents? Why should the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks be permitted to finance our competitors in all parts of the world? The Federal Reserve Act should be repealed and the Federal Reserve banks, having violated their charters, should be liquidated immediately. FAITHLESS GOVERNMENT OFFICERS WHO HAVE VIOLATED THEIR OATHS SHOULD BE IMPEACHED AND BROUGHT TO TRIAL.

If the media is unbiased, independent and completely thorough, why haven't they discussed the FED? Currently, half the states have at least a grass roots movement in action to abolish the FED, but there's no press coverage. In July, 1968, the House Banking Subcommittee reported that Rockefeller, through Chase Manhattan Bank, controlled 5.9f the stock in CBS. Furthermore, the bank had gained interlocking directorates with ABC.

In 1974, Congress issued a report stating that the Chase Manhattan Bank's stake in CBS rose to 14.1nd NBC to 4.5The same report said that the Chase Manhattan Bank held stock in 28 broadcasting firms. After this report, the Chase Manhattan Bank obtained 6.7f ABC, and today the percentage is most likely much greater. It only requires 5wnership to significantly influence the media . This is only one of 300 wealthy shareholders of the FED. It is believed other FED owners have similar holdings in the media. To control the media, FED bankers call in their loans if the media disagrees with them.

History shows that Americas economic chaos, enslavement, and global capital dilemma, was caused by abandoning principles of fairness and honesty in favor of the dishonest methods used by the central bank. The stock market crash of 1987, the further loss of economic sovereignty through so-called free trade agreements like NAFTA and FTAA, are undisputedly the result of central banker policy. They control how much your mortgage payment is and whether or not you have a job. We will never get out of this economic slavery without monetary reform. They are the architects of the New World Order. They are the rulers of the world.

Every day I hear people complaining about what they don't like about our government and media, but not one of them are willing to put forth an effort to try and change it, especially when it comes to their personal lives. We are as much a slave on a personal level, as our government is to the international bankers. We keep right on using the tool they put out here to control us, credit cards, and we are imprisoned by it. We are no longer willing to save up to buy something, we have to have it right now, so the Government has made it easy to have what you want without the having to save for it, (CREDIT). Don't you think it funny that in a land with so much wealth, only 2 PERCENT of the people own their homes? (CREDIT). Do you know 60 PERCENT of Americans have at least 3 Credit cards used to it's maximum? (CREDIT). Do you know that only 1 PERCENT of the people have their car paid for? (CREDIT). To be free, you must throw away your credit cards, and NEVER buy anything that you cannot afford at the moment of purchase. We will never be a free people until we rid ourselves of the burden placed here to control us, and when we stop renting from the powers, the power will cease to exist.

I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of our nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hand of a few men. We have come to be one of the most worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.

-Woodrow Wilson

There is a power so organized, so subtle, so complete, [and] so pervasive, that they had better not speak about their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.

-Woodrow Wilson

Thankyou for educating yourself... you deserve it

By Mc Moorman