32. The Bastard Science of Biology

So far, technological and scientific advance studiously avoided the question of life itself, mostly for lack of any sound basis for judging what "life" is. I have mentioned early in these writings that the greatest problem with the study of life is that no one can agree on what "life" is without the conversation degenerating into a shrieking match. There is no good reason why this has to be so. Humans are familiar with animals and for most of their existence humans were just another type of animal and this was not at all surprising or weird to anyone. The arguments for the mind and soul were not naturalistic or biological ones, but instead supposed a spirit or soul that animated otherwise meaningless flesh. The religious and philosophical origins of humanism are worth describing before continuing with the study of modern biology, but before this origin and the pseudo-science regarding the human condition—and it is indeed a legitimate "pseudo" science that had to be divorced from how science otherwise regards a subject—it is worth remembering that nothing about mind, thought, spirituality, or the soul was a "super-truth" rooted in knowledge, and for most of humanity and most of its history, the subjects of the mind, thought, and the soul were treated as if they were rationally describable like anything else studied by science. It was a distinct track of inquiry not because of any unique or special properties of a thing called "mind" in the universe, but because the subject matter of thought and the soul were understood to be highly uncommon affairs in the universe and their origin had no obvious physical necessity or tie to the study of biology or anatomy. Whatever the mind and soul were in a material sense was not tied in any way to any notion of "biological truth", when the inquiry into the mind and soul were serious topics. This did not prevent a great faggotry from existing among primitive and classical humanity, where all of the stupidest koans regarding intelligence, thought, and the soul would be recapitulated ad nauseam by stupid people who should have been ignored—if evil allowed itself to be ignored.

The study of life was primarily the study of animals and their behavior, rather than "life" with a sound scientific basis that contained all living objects like plants, fungi, or the tiny microbial life that was never known to the ancients or seemed to form any part of their understanding of the animal. Certain of the animals like the insects were believed to spawn by some process in the world that was "unnatural", almost as if the universe created maggots from waste by some organic process that was more or less inevitable given enough time. In other words, the genesis of life was believed to recur many times over for the simplest creatures, and the plants and fungi were distinct classes of things that were technically living but not ascribed the qualities of "animate entities" that the cult of life valued at all. Plants were uniformly passive and were there to be exploited, while the animal, even the lowest vermin, was venerated for its activity and animation. Right away, we see that the study of life is very different from the study of objects and tools, even though living animals were utilized as tools and carved up regularly, with their parts understood and utilized in whatever way the butcher could. No effort could relate the variety of animals or the conditions of their genesis and population as a single science, and no serious effort to accomplish this goal ever seems to enter the ancient consciousness. Instead, the study of animal life spawns from a much more ancient source; the habit of hunters to stalk and know their prey. Human society lived and died by the management of livestock and the trading of cattle, but very little of this inquiry was carried out in a scientific manner. The typical drover did not study the cattle in a way to determine the "type" of cattle behavior in the manner a scientist did. He instead learned, usually by oral tradition and that ancient learning paradigm "monkey see, monkey do", the habits of various types of animals, and became particularly skilled at handling animals that were well known to his tribe or whatever learning he acquired. The habits of herding and hunting animals change very little over the centuries, all of the way to the present day. The traditional pastoralist strategy remains alive, and to this day the use of pasture land for grazing is no different from the strategy of pastoralists since primitive times. There was no incentive to adopt a theory or tinker with something that was known to be stubborn, especially if these "innovations" ruined well-tested methods of herding, or of agriculture as the study of plants and how to grow them developed. Experiments would destroy a thing feeding people and that the farmer or drover needs to acquire to have any position in society and feed themselves and their family. Sure, this did not stop small-scale experiments to test what worked and what did not, or develop a study of agronomy or of how to best herd animals. It was the difficulty of finding any central axiom for living things that made approaching biology in primitive times an impossibility. No one could agree on what life was, because there was no obvious metaphysical description. The chemist envisions out of necessity that all material, substantive things can be related and have to be able to interact with each other in some way, without inventing special planes of reality that do not intersect. Life from an early stage in the study of it appears in distinct kingdoms that are not directly related by anything, and nothing suggests even a uniform theory of the animals, whose origins remained murky. Another complicating issue, not seen until modernity, is that the only real "unit" of living things to work with is the "biological nation" rather than the individual organism. The organism was understood not as a life-form unto itself but as an assemblage of organs that each presumably carried out their functions and somehow cooperated to produce the whole machine. The practice of the doctor began not as the treatment of humans, but as one part philosophy of the mind, soul and body, and primarily the harvesting and chopping up of organs in some effort to discern what the parts of the anatomy do. Eventually the ancient doctor gave up on any faith that his investigations would understand currently living bodies let alone the history of life, and considered himself fortunate if his treatments would save anyone's life (if he ever cared about such a thing, which given the medical professional's callous disregard for the lower orders is unlikely unless the doctor was fearful of some reprisal).

For century after century, the study of life remains the study of various types of animals, granting to the animals qualities apart from any other scientific subject. Humans were among those animals, and possessed to most of the world's science no special place in the kingdom of life whatsoever. Humanism, or humanitas, was not granted on the grounds of race or some essential ingredient that was "just so". To the Romans who invented the concept, humanitas was developed by civilization and society rather than inborn virtues. The Romans certainly regarded inborn virtue and the qualities of men, and had their own notions of Eugenics, race, culture, and society in which men were not and never would be equal, under Heaven or by any edict on Earth. None of that related to humanitas in a direct way, because the human being was a social and political subject rather than an animal of flesh and blood. Whatever flesh this subject inhabited was simply a fact among many others that possessed in of itself no special quality to decide who was or was not human. To a Roman, the decisive factor was not an imperious declaration of what someone is, but what they did. Very obviously, animals that were not men did not speak, did not enter society, and weren't likely to enter society any time soon—the famous incident of Caligula naming a horse as consul being neither here nor there for any serious purpose. In our time, similar jokes to place animals in the place of men are a humiliation ritual to mock the lower classes and mankind generally, for the ruling aristocracy always has and always will consider themselves a race apart and mocks the idea of human equality in all thoughts and all deeds. To Caligula, it was a mockery of that very aristocracy, for it was the senators who were humiliated and the Roman mob that enjoyed the spectacle, as it should be. It is important to see the change in how the spectacle of "humanizing" animals is carried out for directly opposite purposes in the despotic rule of the Caesars and the republican, "democratic" rule of modern times. This is not just an arbitrary sneer of the ruling power. It says something about the very queer expectations and values life has that make it so difficult to consider any life as a scientific subject, for nothing more than human pigheadedness and a vain effort to prove domination and control over some group.

We should also never forget that for all of the distinction granted to "holy humanity", in practice the humanist treatment of their fellow man is despicable. The political animal, like any other animal, is treated as another animal to be hunted and herded. Towards the masses, dripping contempt and faith in the stupidity of the common man is the greatest article of faith for political minds. Towards each other, the political class can only think of backbiting and skulduggery, to such an extent that their efforts to form even a half-functional republic turn into what they always wanted in their hearts: a rethuglic, where the only objective is for the political class to accrue harems and engage in gross and indecent sexual acts with anyone and anything that satisfies their kink. Everyone who wants something other than this learns quickly that the republic has always been a ruinous contraption, and so their first instinct is to think of anything else besides the one alternative that has always been available, because despotism is little more than a rethuglic of one so far as they have seen. In modernity, which was the only time a "different system" was conceivable beyond the smallest of scales, the result of any social experiment to do otherwise has been a recapitulation of "human nature", always distilled to its basest components. This would happen without Eugenics or any similar disgusting religion mandating it, precisely because of this bizarre treatment of life generally, and of human life in particular. For all of the great mystique given to life and the minds of humans that spawned from life-functions, the cult of life and the cult of power can think of nothing but immiserating and destroying life wherever it may exist. There have been "ulterior motives" at work such as Empire and the interests of the office-holders; but not one of them can account for the glee of the political class for this dubious and most pointless cause, all born ultimately from a peculiar conceit that life is unique in the universe and obeys special laws peculiar to it, yet at the same time is "more natural than Nature itself", given special primacy in the universe to dictate what Nature and thus what all other things are. It was evident in the Romans even without a vast pseudoscience and with the Romans' knowledge that deeds and actions meant more to history than words and ideas. In most of the world, the political settlement was always despotic or remained in the barbarous formations, but the same low esteem of these humans for each other is on full display, sometimes with greater contempt for life than the Europeans and sometimes with less for they never devised a ruinous governmental form that fomented civil war and entrenched a permanent army demanding exorbitant tributes for nothing good. It is this contempt for life, the politicians' stupid envy of each other for what amounted to baubles, and their seething hatred of the commoners whose crime was merely existing, that dominated the theory of life and meant that biology could never advance beyond crude sayings and half-theories that never answered basic questions. This is much different than the treatment of chemistry or its predecessor alchemy, or the treatment of rationality or spiritual thought, or nearly every endeavor humans make to know the world and the tools they make. Humans had to be made "special". There was in the technocratic polity a singular potential to evaluate whether any of these dubious judgments should be allowed to continue, when all evidence told us that life had no special qualities and human life had no special qualities nor was a cause to wage internal social war over. It is by the eugenic creed that humanity failed, and therefore the Fall of Man, predicted a long time ago in religious lore, was finally realized. Humanity came full circle, fetishizing the form of technology. The root, as it was then, was a peculiar treatment of life as a "special technology", which was invoked to grant to life mystical powers and sacrosanctity, even as the same cult proclaimed over and over again that life was cheap, and there was nothing between there and here that us puny mortals can judge. Only those with the Received Wisdom were permitted to judge this creature called "life" or the human condition. In the name of humanism, humanity could do nothing but meet this terrible fate we see in this time, and there is not a single idea in the whole of human history that can say it could or should have been different. It is not for lack of trying by the honest, who have seen the ruin this mentality creates. It is for faggotry and the worst humanity has to offer that all ideas about a world other than the nightmare were abrogated or relegated to a distinctly inferior class of knowledge, never to interfere with the orderly raping and torturing of the human race.

MODERN BIOLOGY

The birth of modern biology as something recognizable begins near the time of the proliferation of printed books in Europe, and it spawns from the same sources as much of the knowledge of this time. The ideas of life remained committed to the pigheadedness of the founders and philosophers, but in the centuries between the first formulation of a distinct category of knowledge that could be called "biology" in classical Antiquity to the 17th century, sporadic progress is made by scholars around the world regarding life, anatomy, zoology, medicine, and these men had some notion of where live would have arisen. Spontaneous generation, which is now haram due to the influence of the eugenic creed rather than the truth of falsity of the claim, remained the prevalent explanation for the origin of life; that out of nonliving matter, living processes arose that animated that matter. Such a thing as "living matter" itself implies a superstitious quality of life or life-force that divorces it from the rest of the universe, and so it can be dismissed as a sleight-of-hand trick like so many we have seen. What enlightened new thinkers about genuine truth is the refinement of optics to create the first microscopes. These allowed scientists to look at scales that were previously imperceptible, and by doing this, an untapped wealth of natural information could be collected for the first time, describing the world of tiny organisms. This prompts the question of what, if anything, is the smallest possible life-form, or a "unit" of life that may be known. This eventually leads to the "cell" theory, that cells are the basic unit of organisms and that each cell individually possesses all of the properties of life. There are numerous sleights-of-hand with the cellular theory, all of which reduce to a simple axiom; faith in essentialism and the use of litigation to dictate reality. It is not difficult to see that large parts of a complex animal are "dead" in this regard, and that the cells are not autonomous agents nor subservient to the polity of the body by a manager. Lifeforms, whether they are singular organs or organism, rely on the physical function of their parts and the whole rather than a managed system of cellular communication alone. That is, the heart of an animal is the heart because it assumed this structure and position, rather than because it was "encoded" to be such an organ as part of a blueprint. The same can be said of brains, muscles, eyes, and every other part of the body. It is the restoration of regular functions rather than a cellular "blueprint" that allows the healing of body parts in the forms we see. This makes the cellular theory problematic without some immaculate totalizing plan assigned to a body and each organ, which had to presume the organism was essentially created and managed every moment of its existence by an intelligence, rather than what an intelligent designer would have done or what would have made sense if organs and organisms arose for their own purposes that were further defined by their necessary behavior regarding the surrounding environment and the stability of the parts. The body as a whole can develop reflexes and a system-wide knowledge that is something like a "body blueprint", but our question is not what happens in fully developed bodies with centralized brains and internal regulatory functions, which is what the heart and brain do—stabilize the body so that blood can continue to cycle, the body can warm or cool within certain parameters, and the cognitive functions necessary for navigation can be coordinated. The cellular structure explains the necessary unit that led to more complex structures, and individually those cells carry out functions of living entities. The more complex organ or organism carries out functions of life apart from the functions of a basic cell, that can be asserted because of the organ's complexity, its relation to the environment, and its stabilization mechanisms that are more sophisticated than those at the level of a cell. To speak of the cell as a "unit of life" is erroneous, for the life-form assimilates dead matter constantly and passes it through the body, filtering it to expel waste products, and the complex organs feed on energy without any necessary "cellular content" so that their more complex functions are possible. Nothing is directly created when an animal moves by exercising its limbs to walk or run, and these activities do not require any necessary "natural payoff" as if they were economic investments. Yet, for the strict ideological interpretation of the cell theory, all of life's behaviors are reduced to economic behaviors for the planning unit of cells, which are either commanded or made to bargain with a central regulator that is presumed "just-so". The activities of the organs regarding the outside world, which are the lifeform's genuine existence so far as it has definition beyond a fluctuation of chemical processes, are not carried out for any apparent economic purpose. The cells are not greedy Malthusians or mindless breeders regulated by the imperious manager. For simple life forms, the cell is itself the life-form with a necessarily simple existence, which is substantial enough to warrant investigation. The discovery of this world of cell-sized organisms was indeed a great discovery for science, for it placed biology on the first sound footing it had known in the entire history of mankind's investigation into life. It opened the possibility that life could be studied not as a haphazard series of old wives' or drovers' tales about what life should be, but as an event like many others that are observed every day. It was the peculiar pigheaded conceits about life and the mind that stepped in to "correct history", making biology the bastard science of Man's investigations, granted unique and undue powers in some respects while denying basic facts in others, and then declaring this forced ignorance necessary for essentially religious reasons.

However much pigheaded ideology was inserted into the natural world, no one who seriously asked where life came from believed in "Creationism" or the divine creation of life by an immaculate design that necessitated particular races or biological forms. This belief appears exactly nowhere in any ancient source from any civilization. The more common belief of the haughty is that the ruling aristocracy of their societies were gods, and were already perfect and in league with the other high gods who were their family. If you need an origin for the "immaculate creation" theory, it is the assertions of aristocracy being themselves gods, and this has been a persistent belief of every aristocracy in one form or another. Some chose to invest themselves in a patron god that they had a personal connection with, or they had a theory of some national god and advanced that god before all others. What they share in common is a belief that innate intelligence and "special knowledge" entitled these people to believe their connection to the gods or their living divinity was a fact. It would be no different with the modern ideologues, who barely bothered cloaking their lust for godhood in the language of science. From the start, the ideologues committed themselves to pseudoscience and their thought-forms were uniquely incompatible with science. And so, the tendency to view lifeforms as technocratic polities, long before there was a true technocratic polity in the 20th century, was already inherent to the conceit aristocrats always hold about themselves. They believe that some special knowledge, some trick, some "master weapon" grants to them divine spiritual impunity, and that reality ought to conform so that they hold temporal impunity. The army, the threats held as a knife at the throat of the ruled, and all other things, were mere transient vestiges. The idea of rule, the essential ingredient that made it possible, was the unique torture of aristocracy, which is at its core a type of technology rather than anything mystical. At no point do these aristocrats believe they are beholden to armies, creditors, or anything from the lower orders. They were gods, possessing the immaculate theory of rule and power that precedes all efforts to command the world in this way. The armies flocked to the gods for sanction. The gods did not flock to the armies. Why would the armies agree to this? The answer is one I made clear as the penultimate secret of the third book: "Labor is humanity's hatchetman, in the end." However much the aristocracy presents as a parasitic rent-seeking class that revels in doing nothing, their incessant posturing and the way in which they can be an aristocracy is a type of labor like any other. The priesthood offers favors from spiritual office, well before there are imperial offices that are more beholden to temporal matters like land, money, and troops. What are these favors? Orgies. Drugs. "Pleasures." The terror that needs no excuse. At its root was instigation to create the favored grades of labor not as labor itself would want them in an ideal world, but as the aristocratic tendency and proclivity wished it to be. In every way the aristocratic conceit of life is advanced, it is always a pressing of this nerve and no other. It can't not do this if it takes its claims to the world seriously. If there are those who protest this settlement, they would have to meet the claims of these maniacs who think it's cute to torture and humiliate into infinity and make the whole world in their image. In the past, works of natural science or things close to it were written for a rich audience rather than for mass propaganda; and so, the reader was not interested in a story or excuse or some faggy ideology. They wanted to answer a serious question and receive an answer that passes the smell test. "Creationism" thus was a creature of ideology, whose fundamental claim—that life arises as a "just-so" fact that is immaculate—was retarded and pointless, for it said nothing of why life should exist or any of its functions, which could be assigned arbitrarily by the ideologue. I have written before that the religious stories of Creation were also metaphorical and never naturalistic claims, and in many cases the religion strongly implies the stories are fables intended to teach something about spiritual authority, or they do not even pose the question of Creation and presume the universe arose from entirely unknown causes that may be wholly unknowable, since the question does not truly belong in the purview of religion. Religions did not exist to dictate reality imperiously, but to study the Evil, and so their knowledge was always pertinent to the Evil and its nature. The claims of a naturalistic God would have been not just confusing to the religious traditions, but explicit blasphemy.

The ideologues claim "evolution" was invented by them in the 19th century and that no one could have a "real theory" until then, but this is yet more blasphemy. Essentialism arose not as an imperious decree of what life is, but an observed fact of the lifeforms that exist now; that they did not spontaneously change forms or produce new types of offspring by "spooky action" or regular deformities that became normal. The essential qualities of the various animals were documented precisely because there was no obvious "material cause" or "special substance" for each type of animal. The animals were distinguished by function rather than substance, and the form of animals followed their functions in an obvious manner. This is how every animal, including humans, were described in every serious inquiry from Antiquity on. It was the geneticists and proto-eugenists who invented the need for a "special substance" or "just-so" essences, and this is a Germanic perversion more than anything else. But, when it came to a true scientific inquiry, German scientists, naturalists, philosophers, and learned Germans never confused a political ideology for political purposes with the natural world, and explicitly rejected this formulation. This remained the case among the Germans conducting any science throughout the 19th century; philosophy and institutions had their purpose, but they did not interfere with the practice of genuine science even when a proper word for science did not exist in the German language. It was also true of any serious writer they corresponded with, and whatever someone can rightly assert about Darwin's ulterior motives, Origin of Species dealt with the matter in the habit of science rather than ideology, and it was up to investigation of the facts and the world proper to prove if Darwin's insertion of political economy into nature answered this question of natural history. Ideological conceits aside, the question remained: if life has a long history, then the transmutation of animals to different species is certainly possible and probably likely. There was no way to prove any particular history to speak of what came from where, but even the old wives' tales and fables spoke of transmutation of animals to other animals, animals to Men, and Men to animals as if they required no particular magic or divine guidance. Only aristocracy believed their genetic legacy so to speak was divine and immaculate, and then only in their darkest rituals and sadism did they recapitulate that theory. Whatever the aristocracy believed in their disgusting rituals, they did not let their conceits interfere with the common judgment that living things are not just malleable in their present life, but their offspring were malleable both by selecting mates and by the upbringing of those offspring when they are most vulnerable and malleable. Almost certainly, the dark truth of human history and the origin of their race was clear to those who wanted a true answer that met the spiritual need: humans were a race born of ritual sacrifice of those who stuttered, "looked funny", or otherwise annoyed the cruel mothers of such a monstrous race. This article of faith was exalted by the aristocracy because it was the key to their cult of power, and it horrified everyone else, but if anyone were serious and true in their inquiry, readily available facts of human conduct proved the case of human history. We have then the reverse of a problem that aristocracy had. The first priests asked if humans could be gelded and culled like the animals managed by drovers, and affirmed that they indeed could, which is how the lurid rituals of civilization began. The critical human living under this for century after century, seeing the malice of such a race, can ask if this is a general rule of animals, and not something unique to humanity or to the most malicious acts. You can see now why Creationism had to be recapitulated; to defend the sacred origin that aristocracy treasured and believed to be Absolute and "above God". The rest of humanity asks instead of there were forces at work that affected species and the world. Such forces would place the study of life on the soundest footing, instead of preserving the mystique and the essential Lie of the human race.

The microscope was one invention allowing this inquiry to proceed beyond the anatomy of readily known animals and the limited, sporadic study of minute differences in small animals like insects or birds. The greater invention is that there was for the first time printed material and a means to mass produce findings, where in the past the would-be-biologist had limited means to communicate with others regarding this in any forum. The grand mystique required to maintain human ritual sacrifice would have stymied any investigation that was contrary to their most sacred rite, unless there were many men who could communicate to each other indirectly through books and these books were distributed commonly. Indirect communication also removed the fetter of pedagogy that would be interdicted by the ruling cult. The men writing would feel they had no reason to lie about simple things, and no real reason to remain invested in a cult of power they never believed in for themselves. There remains understandable hesitance to make grand declarations about what life fundamentally is, for there is no evidence of any unit that can be isolated. Life remained a variety of species that sometimes interact, and could in principle branch off by transmutation of the offspring or the lifeforms themselves. There was not any reason to believe in a "one ancestor to rule them all". If any coherent theory of the origin of these life functions is presented, they could probably recur in many places, and there was no need to invent a "one genesis" except the ideological and Satanic ones that we have described at length. This is where the modern ideologue invokes "infinite spontaneity", by declaring that if life is not the Unique, it is ubiquitous and impossible to avoid. This ignores many basic facts of nature, and those facts are followed in every other science except those of imperial importance. It also ignores the Law of Sufficiently Small Numbers we have observed even without definite knowledge; that whatever the conditions of the world, there are only a finite number of places, in which ever-more-exacting conditions must be met to begin some novel process. The far more likely outcome, given the lack of any certainty or substance for "life", is that life is an uncommon freak accident, but certainly not unique nor particularly interesting in the climate of Earth. Once begun, life would feed on the surrounding environs, and because raw material was plentiful enough, simple life could persist for a long time, cycle back to places where dead matter resides to re-inhabit them, and for lack of serious predators, life existed because it could exist and no great force saw fit to stop it. This was never a given of nature, and almost certainly life arose many times only to be extinguished. The assimilation of new matter and the growth of complexity would happen many times over, until the first plants and animals, the crudest forms of such things, were possible. It is very likely mineral life such as coral was far more prevalent than the imperious theories of natural history are allowed to acknowledge. Such a form would have been remarkably stable, and the first priority of life would be stability to continue its functions.^[1] It's worthwhile to think about the bodies of these lifeforms and what they would need to be stable, rather than viewing the lifeforms as carriers of life-functions only as is the technocratic habit. The habit of the technocrats is to favor the behavior of animals with central nervous systems, even though a vast array of plant life is the true engine of any "ecosystem" that sustains the animals, and the animals are in the grand scheme of existence tertiary lifeforms with a fleeting existence of dubious purposes. We value animal life not so much because we are animals with a haughty sense of ourselves, but because it is animals conducting this inquiry, and animals that accrue knowledge in the genuine sense where the life-form acts on this stimuli to govern its behavior. This much was crudely understood to the ancients and the early moderns, and it is a shame that it is forgotten in favor of the worst pigheaded conceits (with all due respect to the race of the pigs who did nothing to deserve such scorn, yet our language made "pigheaded" a useful descriptor of the habit of thought that plagues us).

As the various lifeforms were categorized and sorted into a great taxonomy that was communicated between like-minded people, the belief that these species were designed as part of some hierarchy gained strength. This design did not require divine intervention or superstition, but followed from a simple observation that the species did not change over the ages or by any development of the lifeforms; that their offspring generally resembled their parents, and that the forms of the species were so adapted to their environment and stable on their own terms that mutation was not commonplace or arbitrary. If there were a common ancestor, it would not have had any importance to the question of why speciation happened. Every species arose not as the result of any general law requiring it, but by definite events particular to that species, all of which followed the whims of the world and fate rather than any law that was internal to life. That was the central controversy over evolution; not that evolution was physically impossible, but that it did not appear to follow any preferred plan or scheme, and could just as well be explained as a series of absurd events that had to be stabilized by life on the terms of that life-form. The identification of cellular life and the composition of lifeforms out of these cells opened a great many questions of how this happened and whether lifeforms could be created by grafting parts and some sort of mechanical work. By what right do imperious scientists draw a line where the "genome" or some other quality of life is sacred and "above God"? If life is not sacred in its entirety, than no part of it is sacred and there is no necessary line to say life could not be made by some sick experiment. If one looks at the conception of human children and the gross experiments mothers have done to their children throughout the ages, it would be quite the opposite. Someone had to insert forced ignorance and naive assertions about existence to make certain parts of life sacred while violating others. Not one of the evolutionary theories, including Darwin's, suggested a philosophical law to be imposed on history to make it as ideology would have it. All of these theories would have explained how in natural history this seeming happenstance had a recognizable pattern, or how events that were happenstance would have created the effects seen in nature. We may for example see transitional forms from one species to another. The problem of evolution is that not one "transitional" form seemed to exist. If there were new species arising from old ones, it would appear in the record that they arose suddenly rather than by gradual processes over a long time, and that would align with the commonly reproduced observation that history is the result of definite events rather than natural laws imposed on the entities by some hobgoblin. There would instead be a marked break in the habits of lifeforms, and it is very likely any vast change would have come not from sexual selection or the passing of traits to offspring, but by a force external to life. If, however, "speciation" were an artificial category, and lifeforms were systems adapting to their real conditions rather than any design passed by heredity, then some primitive animal arriving on land would develop the precursors of limbs for motility, gradually exercising them to produce legs. The needs of the animal would be honed from generation to generation, and this would really have little to do with the "genetic material" that were always building blocks for simple chemical processes. The material is not the cause; it is merely evidence left behind of that lifeform's existence, while the true structure is built cell by cell, mimicking the life of the parent. This is an active process, rather than the reading of data by a "computer" to make the organism. Anyone who thinks about what life does, even with crude methods, would presume this before thinking that recorded information is faithfully reproduced by the "genome", that mystery cult invention that never answered anything. "But," you may say, "you may be wrong." It is this fatal indecision that damned modern biology to be mired in the present dark age, unique among the sciences. Not chemistry, physics, nor the more abstract sciences like psychology and sociology are so marred by the beast that is ideology and its imposition on reality. Incursions of ideology to stop all sciences are of course regular for us, and such retards, and they are retarded, have always clamored to destroy genuine knowledge for the sake of faggotry. Yet, those who investigate life and ask a simple question of what it is likely to do did hang on to some fidelity to truth.

The reality of course is that when Lamarck^[2] writes his vast work on biology, evolution and natural history remained afterthoughts. It was in the work of Lamarck that the first overarching theory of life could be asserted and circulate widely. Some illuminating investigation of Lamarck's previous work is helpful here. His work in the French academy of the time, established during the revolutionary period, was in zoology, and Lamarck's specialized knowledge was of invertebrates ("invertebrate" being a word Lamarck himself invented to describe this class of animal). He is thus working with simpler animals whose behaviors are unlike those we are likely familiar with; for example, the ability of worms to be severed to create two different worms that are independently viable. Lamarck's evolutionary hypothesis is not the central focus of his work. It was, like many investigations, a placeholder for something that begged further investigation, rather than a dogma. This is the "inheritance of acquired characteristics", where by the use and disuse of an organ, some change in the organism is passed to successors. There would be asinine "refutations" where a pseudoscientist would cut off the tails of mice to prove that the severed tail does not pass, but this is clearly not how life grows, as if information of a total form were transmitted "just-so" through the reproductive parts. Central to the experiment was the holiness of "genetic material", that could function as a black box to be that "just-so" story. Disproving inherited mutilation only disproved the "disuse" part of Lamarck's thinking. It did not disprove the "use" part, or the exercise of some quality that is willfully honed and used regularly, such as muscles used for hunting and foraging. There are of course many factors that were not part of any evolutionary theory in modern biology, for modern biology is really nothing more than the persistent relitigation of these 19th century arguments. There is no continuation of biology into the 20th century, for it was all violently terminated by the eugenic creed, leaving behind only halfhearted adaptations to preserve some dogmatic position. Every definition of biology since has always conflated the eugenic creed and its dogmas with all biology can entail, for under the eugenic creed the study of life no longer pertains to living things. It instead pertains to the ideology regarding life and what it "should" be, rather than anything life does.

Why would a life-form, even the simplest one, do anything at all? There is an impulse, a will, that is exercised throughout that lifeform's existence. As much as possible, this will must be reduced by the ideologues to a substance that simply does "just-so" what it is "supposed" to do, rather than the true existence of a life-form that interfaces with its environment. It would be true without any brain or nervous activity. It would be even more true for animal life, for animals make sudden movements in response to stimuli rather than being affected by environmental conditions and the impulse of whatever motive the life-form would have as the result of its construction. The organs, the leaves of a plant or the beating of the heart, continue in life not because the germ plasm said so, but because the heart is an entity operating on its own power, as is the overall organism which is an assemblage of these organs and associated material. If for example the diet and nutrient intake of a life-form is persistent, this produces active changes. Change the diet and not only will the life-form itself make active changes to its regular function. Its offspring would reproduce the active changes in a more minute form, and those active changes are themselves very minute changes rather than dramatic changes. To believe otherwise, you'd have to believe the ideal form of the organism was encoded "in perfect form", rather than the very germ plasm being malleable out of necessity as any other part of a life-form is. If germ plasm is "immortal" then you are left with the question of how any variability exists in life, aside from "just-so" stories with no mechanistic history. In other words, the entire theory is premised on "randomness" regarding a thing that is the exact opposite of random; the behaviors of life are always, by the very concept of what life is, pathological and never the result of "bizarre" behavior within the life-form. The entire purpose of the life-form is to retain its existence in a world that is, by all apparent design, hostile to the very notion of a "life-form". If the germ plasm is in any way malleable, then it would only be an indicator of something in life rather than the "cause" as such. We need not indulge too much in the germ plasm theory because it has been discredited by every angle, and it was at best an intermediate theory of life's functions and heredity. Yet, the obsession with "encoded life" continued for the reasons described before. If life was not encoded, then to the eugenist, there is no Christ.

To know what truly went wrong in modern biology requires understanding the body and flesh not as the substance of life itself, but a corpse or residue left behind as evidence of the creature that the life-form is, both at a basic level and its final outcome of the realized entity. We have to set aside our human conceits about knowledge and the soul for a moment to see this, before we come to the conclusion that the mind, the soul, the technology and knowledge of a human being, and their existence within society, are just as much parts of us as the impulses that guide cells and organs. The problem in philosophy is that the dominant philosophy destroyed—abolished—standards of comparison, and among the standards destroyed was the concept of distance of any sort, and the concept of any void that may separate things. The true condition of the life-form is that it is constituted by "mostly nothing". Its substance is not just disparate in a physical sense, but largely an immaterial thing that leaves behind material residue, which is the body. To our sense, which is tied closely to that "residue", it would seem like madness to part with a leg or one's own head, yet this is exactly the demand the imperious mindset made of us; to sever our native understanding of ourselves and exchange it with an ideological reconstruction of what it "should" be. We are personally aware that our bodies are mortal and temporal, and that we will not live forever. We certainly know thanks to hindsight that we did not always exist, nor did we exist fully formed at conception. Everything about our knowledge, and the constituents of most higher functions, came about by growth. We became humanoids because we were born to human mothers mated with a human father, rather than the genetic material "making it so" by some code or message. The smallest gametes are still entities with an existence of their own, rather than carriers of information dutifully responding to the imperious claims. How did they acquire their material? Was it imprinted on them, or "random"? You cannot have it both ways. If life is encoded, every gamete should be identical or close to identical, yet that is obviously not the case in sexual reproduction. You could not invoke some spirits or juju to say the code is identical yet the conditions choose to make a male or female offspring with certain qualities. If the gametes are "randomly selected", where is this random-number-generator? Everywhere, the necessity of eugenics writes over anything that happens, all in an effort to claim ownership over conception, whether by the participants or by institutions.

Here we see once again the central focus on heredity over everything else life does. As much as possible, the sexual act and its constituent parts, which are all machines with existence of their own, must be reduced to the essential act as the necessary genesis, given divine properties yet treated as a special, abstract piece of technology to be used and abused, yet never described as what it does. The more likely function of anything left behind as "germ plasm" is not heredity but maintenance of the intact, developed cell. Once the organs form in early development, they continue carrying out their functions, rather than the organs serving some master plan or Great Working. They were united by their very real task; to create a viable organism. Together, the organs could produce something that was better able to endure in the world, and this was always an active process. The heart, the brain, and core organs existed in some form for so long that it would be very bizarre for their essential function to be altered, even if the implementation varies wildly from animal to animal. Those organs formed in the first place because they were viable and could be actively and constantly exercised. Certainly the flow of blood through a central pump was preferable and probably likely since one is all an organism needs. All of that has to be replaced with "immaculate conception" of an idea or thought-form that is imposed on reality. Why? To grant to the sexual act a ritualistic appearance, which is in line with the human habit of ritual sacrifice and the orgy. The sexual act, which itself is a tiny part of life's activity, has to override all other things, and this is the ancient Talmudic story of what humans are "supposed" to be more than anything else. Life had to not be allowed to be anything other than the essential act of conception; from that, all of the claims about heredity follow, subverting what naturalists had long assumed about life. While an assumption makes an ass out of you and me, the correct answer to modern biology would have been to ask why life was remarkably stable and stubborn in its behaviors, rather than insisting on an ideological tenet of "infinite knowledge" that is not supported by any study of nature nor even a study of divinity. Who truly began this folly is a very important question to ask, but whoever did start it, the folly persists on its own terms.

Modern biology did not understand these things as intuitively as we could today, but it did understand that life operated on its own power. It was precisely this that had to be negated, and after establishing evolutionary biology as a serious inquiry, it was the aim of modern biology to arrest it, and to make discussion of it inadmissible. The Church steps in to this debate and adds to it theological weight, deciding in favor of the "naturalistic" explanation of life, and in doing so, asserting theological claims particular to the Church about what life was and what it would be. Religion would be the ever-ready ally of Empire and Eugenics both, and Christianity in particular shows its eugenic credentials early in its existence. Part of the difficulty of an honest inquiry is that life, as we know it today, is a vampire and an oddity in the universe. It should not exist, and there is no "thing", unlike chemical substances that are definite things with appreciable and immediate effects once substance meets substance. It was that fact, rather than the grasping need for power, that secured the failure of modern biology. Humans did not want to reckon with the reality that even if they weren't creatures of ritual sacrifice and torture-for-torture's sake, they were still, and always would be, vampires. Such a condition says something about the entire social project, even if we envisioned a "nice vampirism" that was pleasurable and allowed the bloodpets to live out their lives in tranquility. Vampirism did not necessitate the utmost exploitation of human beings, or that the exploitation be rooted in sadism. It was humanity's core failure that required that. As much as possible, the sadists and exploiters needed to deny the essential truth of life's vampirism, and claim they were a form of "super-life" of divine origin. Since most humans do not see a vampire when they evaluate themselves, and there is little purpose in dwelling too long on the matter, the ideologues had an inroad to Lie about some basic facts that would have become inevitable had the inquiry into biology continued. This termination of the inquiry did not happen overnight, and it did not begin with the evolutionary theory or a need to place biology on the first scientific footing it had ever known. The odious and simpering Lies of the ideologues have always been transparently Lies and do not match anything that is intuitive or a thing that would be supported by laborious Reason and experiment. As much as possible, the subject of life had to become a political matter, unique among the sciences, and the reason this could be done went beyond the general fear that politics, and thus the politics of living creatures like us, would entail.

The true advance of biology is that the inquiry of the life was at last freed from its origins in animal husbandry, with the study of plant life in agriculture always being a science set apart from the science regarding animals for all intents and purposes. To this day, the plants are not described with the Darwinian language that is sacred and holy, for in the plant kingdom, the Darwinian insinuations are more farcical. Plants do not "struggle" in an active sense. They proceed through existence, and while they retain their form like life, the plants are more adaptive to their environment and consequently the plants are noted for their longevity and their cohabitation with the animals. Animals are so useful to plant life that it might be naively assumed that the plants would have needed to invent animals to carry out the plant functions that would have been more dominant and assertive in establishing a living environment rather than the unliving and dead environment that is most of the known universe. That fact alone should demonstrate even further the folly of Darwinism and the philosophy of struggle as a description of all life, or worse, all of Nature and every idea that exists in the universe. The sad truth is that it was not a deliberate scheme to retard the biological science. Every impulse in humanity told it to do so, and so, not fully aware of what they were doing, the first inquiry into biology would always be tainted by biases that proper science would have foreseen and corrected for. When the only correction is to eliminate the faulty spiritual conviction, you can see why this proved problematic, and why the biological science was distorted so much.

We are not yet at the time where reality is declared imperiously, backed with unlimited violence and deception. Such people have long been at work in humanity, but the inquiry into biology proceeds the same way science in this time has to proceed. Men with some money and time study the sciences with their surplus wealth and the security it provides, more than any direct financial compensation. The greater benefits of this scientific research are clear to the scientific thinkers of this time, and without an overbearing institution to imperiously assert reality or destroy them, these men, however flawed their output, could write freely and exchange with like-minded people who had much to say and learn about this topic. There would be in the base of society a makeshift science that arose out of necessity, because those who work with living things every day like housewives, servants in charge of maintaining the home, and all manner of fields where the biological science may be applied, had to adapt to a new world where a few novel inventions, and then many novel inventions, were now a thing. No past society ever had to ask a question about inoculation or vaccines, or the content of something that would be injected into the bloodstream or the muscles, as if it were a medical or biological question. There were never states or the precursor institutions ready to impose these new inventions on an unwilling world. Even before there was a modern biological science, the invasion of the home and private life had already begun. The war against the masses, whose great crime was not wishing the rethuglic they were given to be a thing, would be waged by the biological sciences. It was only through these sciences that any future society, by any of the orders, could have proceeded. Until then, the spiritual conceits that had done the greater work of maintaining peace could only buckle, in part because of an all-too-willing clergy who saw in the biological science their own Great Working ready to begin. In this environment, a great many folk ideas about life arise, and all of them would have to be suppressed. This was not something that could be accomplished by the Germanic ideology even at its worst. Something far more menacing and totalizing had to invade the mind and disrupt its operations, catalog them, and reduce the human subject to purely "biological" constructs that could be shocked and disposed of like livestock. It was not so much that human beings in total were made into livestock. It is instead that every aspect of human beings, every aspect of society, every aspect of technology, and the whole of the world, was to indeed be subsumed into these biological constructs. The worst thing of all is that humanity never, ever had a chance for it to be different, no matter what the world was. The only way past this beast of biology was through it; to assess frankly what life is, its future, and conclude that there is a vast unliving component that resists all biological compulsion. If we saw that, we would see that life could never have been a self-contained system in the way physics or chemistry could be understood. Life is not merely parasitic, but it incorporates qualities of all things it inhabits as a host. It is chemical, physical, social, political, spiritual, technological—and ultimately, it entails suffering and the abilities of those who can deceive and override the limited biological faculties of thought itself. Only by embracing the unliving aspects of the soul and spirit, and by seeing correctly just what humanity had done up to this point, would there have been a way out, and all living things like humans who build society would have had to pass this most crucial barrier—to be more than "life for life's sake" or "life for itself".