© Copyright 1995 by Joseph Kerrick
The turn of a millennium is at hand, and the times are very apocalyptic. You don't have to believe in
religious doctrine to foresee the end of the world as we know it, you only have to be aware of the cycles
of history, of the rise and fall of civilizations. Even people who have not studied the matter tend to
share this awareness intuitively, for our planet-wide culture is rolling like a global snowball down the far
end of the curve, and the collective mind of society knows it.
Some believe that the end can be averted by means of a universal change in consciousness. The
problem with this theory is that those who promote it are themselves exemplars of the very mode of
thought which has been driving the Earth toward destruction for lo! these many centuries. Clinging
desperately to the belief in their own enlightenment, they say that the reason it has not yet transformed
the world into Paradise is simply because not EVERYONE believes it yet, and that if only a critical mass
could be reached of people who think like them, why, the miraculous transformation would occur
literally overnight.
So is the solution, then, to seek refuge in a regression to the past, to withdraw behind the barricades
of reaction? Isnt there a forward route to a positive future? There is, and as we shall see, the reason
that the "progressive" perspective misfired is not because it was new but because it was incomplete --
indeed, it didnt go far enough.
And it wasnt even truly new in terms of the historical cycle. Every reasonably advanced civilization
reached a stage of culture and thought equivalent to that of our own, and it did not stop them from
proceeding en masse to the following stages, namely decline, collapse, and destruction. Not one
survived, or it would still be here. The human species on this planet has not yet come up with the magic
formula to avert the eternally-recurring Apocalypse.
Or perhaps it has, and the secret has somehow been lost amidst the vicissitudes of history. For
although none of the high civilizations of the past survive as such, vestiges of many of them do,
preserved in statuary, literature, and religious doctrine. The strongest and most vibrant such vestige
of past glory is Hinduism. Modern scholars have still not unravelled all the subtle complexities of Hindu
art, science, philosophy, and religion. And even if they found the key to the Kingdom of Heaven on
Earth amidst all the labyrinthine arcana, they would not recognize it for what it was. Yet it is there.
Quaternary Thought
Among the most ancient apocrypha of the Hindu scriptures, dating all the way back to what the
scholars call the Aryovedic culture, is a description of the basic elements of thought itself, given as
a formal system of logic. What are these elements? Before I can explain that, I must first state that
there are four of them. This is in startling contrast to Western logic, which says there are only two.
The logical system of what has become a global culture began with (or at least was first formalized by)
Aristotle. He said:
A is A; A is not non-A.
That is, given any hypothetical object 'A', our choices of observation about it are that it's either 'A' or
'not A'.
Sounds obvious, doesn't it? A self-evident truth, just like the observation that the Earth is flat and
the Sun travels around it.
The flaw in the argument is the concept of "either-or". It makes the distinction between 'A' and 'not-A'
totally absolute. In this axiom, which forms the foundation of Western logic, there is no room for the
equally logical (if less plausible) assertions that the object is:
Both A and non-A
or
Neither A nor non-A.
And furthermore, there is not even space for a scale of gradation between 'A' and 'non-A'. If 'non-A' is
'B', this may seem eminently plausible; but if it's 'C', then it becomes apparent that something is missing,
and even more so if 'non-A' is 'Z'. Thus this axiom of Aristotle became known as "the law of the excluded
middle".
And now we get down to hard reality. Though in the first blush of common sense it may seem
apparent that an object is simply itself and not something else, or that two objects are themselves and
not each other, in the complexities of actual existence this is not always the case ~ or at least not in
absolute, black-and-white terms.
For indeed, the blackest black in real life contains some white, and vice versa. Even the dead "void"
of deep space contains a wild atom or two per cubic meter. Nothing is ever really completely 'A' without
a little 'B', 'C', 'D', or 'Z' mixed in ~ i.e., non-A. In the garden of earthly realities, is there ever a red that
blooms completely red? Doesnt even the reddest rose have a subtle hint of magenta? Was there ever
a violet without a wisp or two of blue? The "middle" (viz., the quantum of otherness) arbitrarily
excluded by Aristotle's law is substantial indeed ~ yet THE WHOLE OF WESTERN MATHEMATICS AND
SCIENCE IS FOUNDED UPON THE FANTASY THAT IT DOES NOT EXIST.
Is it an exaggerated claim to state that our civilization and its cultural leaders are living in a fantasy
world? Consider the ballyhoo which began in the 1950s about the notion that modern science would
soon create a computer that would literally be able to think. "Artificial intelligence" they called it, in
breathless anticipation of the imminent breakthrough. Years and then decades rolled by without the
construction of a conscious computer, despite frenzied efforts by the best brains in the business. They
still cling to the hope, and to the term, which is euphemistically used to designate the crude simulacrum
of thought which is the best that even the mightiest computer can do.
Why was this hope exploded? Why did the leading lights of science wind up with egg on their faces?
The answer is very precise, revealing, and painful: a BASIC FLAW IN THE WORLDVIEW of Western
scientific/materialist man led him to believe in something impossible: that a machine could learn to
think.
How could he seriously believe this, and why is he wrong? It harks back to Aristotle. In Western
civilization, the entire model of the mind/brain/soul is crafted from the fabric of TWO-POINT LOGIC.
Everything is either-or, 'A' or 'not-A'. There are no other possibilities in the process, and since this
process is believed to be all-inclusive, Western man believes that his mind and intelligence, the very
essence of himself, arises from this mathematical, binary dynamic. . . the very same which comprises the
system of binary numbers used to program computers. So it seemed an elementary deduction: if we can
think, so can computers, potentially -- all we have to do is make them complex enough.
The truth, of course, is that Western binary reasoning is not comprehensive at all -- it does not
exhaust the possibilities operative in general human reason.
What, then, are the possibilities? As intimated earlier, there are at least four. For purposes of clarity,
we shall here transform the 'A' to an 'X':
Point 1: X.
Point 2: not-X.
Point 3: both (X and not-X).
Point 4: not (both (X and not-X)).
And these are in fact the four points of thought as formulated by the Aryovedic culture in what are to
us the dim mists of prehistory. This system of QUATERNARY THOUGHT became the foundation of the
most advanced civilization of its time, that of Hindu India. The eclipse of quaternary thought later
occasioned its fall.
Point 3
Point 3 seems like an utter contradiction and impossibility to the mind conditioned by Aristotelian
logic. How can each of two separate entities be itself and the other at the same time? For the answer,
we begin with sex -- or more specifically, sexual love.
Binary Western materialist-reductionist science is absolutely impotent in the face of love. It cannot
define it, measure it, or deal with it in any meaningful way. It covers up its ignorance in this field by
claiming that love is forever beyond the purview of ANY scientific inquiry -- except perhaps psychology,
which as practiced today in the West is a farcical pseudo-science.
Point 3 is grounded in the experience of ecstatic union between lovers in the act of sexual
intercourse. This indeed is the essence of real love: the two become one. The man and the woman
literally become each other: both (X and not-X).
Western pseudo-science writes this off as a subjective hallucination, a literal impossibility because it
violates the second and supposedly final cardinal point of logic. But in a culture based on Aryovedic
thought, the deepest intra- and inter-subjective experiences would be subject to rational
understanding and scientific knowledge, as they were in ancient India. . . which among other things
gave rise to the art and science of Tantra.
Western civilization came to a collective discovery of Point 3 at the time of the Renaissance, and
began to implement it culturally even though it did not yet understand it intellectually and scientifically --
and still doesn't. To understand what this means, its first necessary to explain the operation of Points 1
and 2.
The first two points of thought are the basic dualism with which primitive humanity confronts the
world. Its the final binary fulcrum of all existence: life or death, friend or foe, help or hurt, fight or flight,
good or evil, eat or be eaten, to be or not to be. Point 1 is 'X': us, the absolute positive entity, the ne
plus ultra, the only group of souls that would exist, if things were as they should be. Anybody else is
Point 2: 'not-X'; i.e., THEM, the enemy, the negation of our very being. They must be killed, annihilated --
its the right thing to do. The enemy can be dispatched with absolute moral certainty and unity of will.
There is tremendous power in this primal law, for it is the mechanism of survival for all living things,
including humanity ~ up to a certain point in humanity's development.
That point is the moment when a human society reaches the stage at which it engages a higher dyad:
the more complex dynamic of Points 3 and 4. This is the moment when the society transcends the
merely primitive. It begins to develop a culture able to apprehend the world in more sophisticated
terms than either-or. The kicker is that this causes the society to lose its primitive self-certainty, its
consensus of belief, its unity of spirit -- for all these things are rooted in the primal dynamic of binary
thought. This accounts for the phenomenon, noted by Oswald Spengler, that at the very moment when
a culture truly begins to flower, it has already begun to decay.
Interesting things happen in a society when it develops Point 3. The leading lights of the culture
make the stunning realization that the peoples of other countries and other societies are not truly alien
but are rather human beings like themselves. And even should the foreigners make war on the subject
culture, the Point 3 mind is able to see them not as devils from hell but simply as opponents. The
enlightened ones will be able to entertain the heretical notion of "both (X and not-X)". That is, they will
be able to conceive of both themselves and the enemy in a single inclusive category, which is usually
referred to as "human".
And indeed, if the culture survives beyond the first blush of Point 3, it develops a very historically
specific mode of thought which in our own society has been labelled "liberal humanism". Beginning
with the Renaissance, people on the cutting edge invariably adopted this perspective, and it evolved to
become the dominant purview of our now-global society. In its youthful hubris, this new collective
awareness egotistically assumed that it was a fresh evolutionary stage in human development, and that
it had never existed before; but as the culture developed further, its own discoveries forced it into the
painful awareness that it was but another repetition in the endless cycle of recurrence. Spengler in
particular, in *The Decline of the West*, showed that every high culture in recorded history had
developed its own variation of liberal humanism at the appropriate stage. And, if we may redundantly
remark, subsequently went down the tubes.
So liberal enlightenment, in any or all of its guises, is not the solution to the planetary malaise, but
can fairly be charged with being the cause of it. But if at the same time it is a true awakening to a higher
mode of thought, how is it that we are hoist on this ironic petard? Is existence after all a tragedy, and
we but foredoomed pawns in a game played by sadistic Fates and Furies? It has seemed that way to
every civilization and mega-culture that has preceded us on this planet, for every one of them
succumbed to the fatal dynamic, in which God -- or the Devil -- seemed to be playing with loaded dice. Is
there no solution, then, no way out of the predestined doom?
There is, but its very tricky. Or rather, its so painfully obvious that all of our predecessor cultures
have overlooked it. The solution to the conundrum, the means of our planetary and species salvation,
the final answer to the riddle of the cosmic Sphinx, is Point 4.
The Complete Formula
"Not (both (X and not-X))." In the context of a global civilization on the verge of collective
self-genocide, what in the name of God does this mean? Here is a formula. What is its significance?
The first crucial piece of information about Point 4 is that Point 3 can neither function nor exist
without it. Points 3 and 4 are a mutually self-creating dyad, just as are Points 1 and 2. You can't have '1'
without '2' nor '3' without '4', just as you cant have light without dark, up without down, or good without
evil. . . or a one-sided coin or a mirror without an image. Every civilization in the history of the world has
collapsed because it has attempted to implement Point 3 without Point 4, which is impossible.
How and why does this happen? Consider the mental state of a very young child, which has not yet
awakened to the knowledge that it can't have Point 1 without Point 2. When things are good, they're
very, very good: there's Mommy, and warm milk, and endlessly fascinating new discoveries. When
things are bad they're horrid, but quickly forgotten -- the baby does not yet have the mental continuity to
compare the two states in any meaningful way. Thus in the moments when it's happy, the child
"believes" that this Point 1 condition is all there is -- certainly all that there ever SHOULD be, which is
why it gets so angry whenever that perverse and inexplicable Point 2 shows up. And indeed, children
who fail to attain emotional maturity may never become fully reconciled to the necessity of negative
experience, and grow up to be neurotics and even psychotics.
This in fact is the condition of civilization in its "liberal humanist" phase. It has grown up with a
collective mental disability: it believes it can create a society in which all of the old primitive evils are
eliminated, a utopia that is totally good, meaning that everyone is happy there, or at least free to pursue
happiness. The whole body of law, the form of government itself, the beliefs and expectations of the
citizens -- indeed, the total thrust of the culture is fixed upon this false ideal.
Where do we begin in our search for a true ideal? Let's start with that elite who first developed Point
3, being able to see their own people and the enemy as "both (X and not-X)". Fortunately for this
fledgling high culture, the common lot of its soldiery is still in binary thought; otherwise, it would quickly
be overrun by its more primitive opponents before it had a chance to fairly explore the further
ramifications of Point 3. The few enlightened intellectuals and mystics will wisely stay behind the lines,
for they will lack the raw primal force of Point 2, which is what gives primitive humans the power to
marshal their total being and pit it ruthlessly against a deadly opponent.
Gradually, however, if the culture is successful and grows into a civilization or an empire, the Point 3
perspective (under whatever name) comes increasingly to dominate the life, thought, and action of the
whole citizenry. Of the multifarious aspects of Point 3, we are here using one as a characteristic
example, viz. the loss of nerve for mortal combat, the waning of the will to war. In our own culture in our
own time, we were able to witness in stark and dramatic fashion what can fairly be said to have been the
final stage of the process, in which this aspect of Point 3 cascaded like a descending tidal wave from
society's higher strata to engulf the vast mass of the people: a large movement, well orchestrated by
the elite, promoted pacifism as a virtue and caused the "empire" to retreat from a war as its own
soldiers rebelled and deserted.
This example is significant, because the peace movement of the 1960s was part of a larger social
phenomenon in which all the elements of Point 3 suffused themselves over the whole population,
effectively destroying the last vestiges of binary morality and cultural integration. We have now
entered the phase of total decadence and disillusionment ~ and of reaction. For this is the natural
tendency: there is alarm as a rising proportion of the populace sees more clearly that their society is
headed toward the abyss. A desperate effort is made to reverse the plunge by going back to the old
ways, returning to the simple certainties of Points 1 and 2. But short of a mass prefrontal lobotomy, it
cant be done. We can't peel off the new layer of consciousness. Once your eyes descry the hidden
image in Dali's trick picture, it will never go away again ~ it's there, and you can't force your eyes not to
see it. Theres no way back to the past. The future is either doom or Point 4.
Thus we see that the addition of Point 4 is necessary to compllete the formula for the new advance in
consciousness, which is quaternary thought. We shall now designate it *Q* for short.
So how does Q deal with the given example? What should an enlightened human being truly do in
the face of an enemy who seeks his death?
We are fortunate to still have extant a single surviving piece of religious literature which embodies
the essence of quaternary thought as it was originally formulated in the ancient Aryovedic culture. And
it speaks specifically to this example.
The Bhagavad Gita is the record of an interaction between a god and a man on a battlefield. The
noble warlord Arjuna gathers his host to confront a large opposing army, in a war that began as a family
squabble. He beholds many of his relatives and friends among the enemy, and is overwhelmed by a
sudden rush of Point 3. "Those are my brothers over there," he says to his charioteer; "I will not fight!"
By a fortuitous mythological twist, Arjuna's charioteer is Krishna, an Avatar: an incarnation of the
supreme deity. Through many pages of insightful and inspiring verse, Krishna guides Arjuna to the next
level of enlightenment, culminating in the ultimate vision of Godhead. The result is that Arjuna acquires
Q. The knowledge that the enemy is his kin is just as trenchant for him as it was before, and even more
so, for he now has complete spiritual understanding. But he girds his loins and leads his soldiers into
battle. His army wins a great victory, and wipes out the enemy to a man.
This tale is utterly incomprehensible to the mind stuck in Point 3, and is likely to be regarded as a
regression to the primitive. In an effort to explicate, let us put forth the bare bones of the formula, and
proceed to flesh them out.
The binary-minded warrior can be construed as 'X', casting himself body and soul into mortal combat
against 'not-X', the enemy. The Point 3 mind can be identified as "both" -- that is, the element that sees
an essential unity between the self and its opponents. It cannot fight, at least not effectively, for it no
longer sees a real enemy; it is disarmed by its compassion for the foe. Point 3 never overcomes the
contradiction between its visionary apperception and practical reality, because real life in the Universe
always contains entities and forces arrayed in mortal opposition to each other. Who does not fight shall
not live.
Q is the next higher level of insight: "not(both (X and not-X))". The person who has attained this
layer can be considered as the "not" in the formula -- and in fact, in the Hindu tradition and its
derivatives, the ultimate enlightenment is held to have an aspect of vacuity. . . there is a kind of sublime
nothingness inherent in samadhi or nirvana. But in more direct terms, the formula shows us that the
Point 4 mind contains the essence of the lesser layers. And specifically, it has the full "humanist"
awareness of the spiritual unity of friend and foe, and even, in Buddhist terms, of all sentient beings.
But it is able to attain a NEGATION of this on a HIGHER LEVEL, a greater enlightenment which does not
deny oneness but SUBSUMES it, in order, as Krishna tells Arjuna, to carry on the necessary work of the
Universe. This is called, in Sanskrit: DHARMA. It carries the implication of "duty" in the highest spiritual
sense, and of "destiny". Its the transcendence of the more familiar Hindu notion of KARMA. If the
concept of dharma could be fully understood, and accepted, the world would surely be saved.
This in fact is the effective substitute for the raw power of the primitive. Arjuna fights and wins even
though he feels kinship with the enemy, because he is moved by the same force that makes morning
and evening, that shifts the tectonic plates of continents, that causes stars to be born and galaxies to
collide. He has become one with God, "from whom all things come and who is in all". (Gita 18:46.) In
every specific situation there is a specific work to be done, the dharma indeed, the work of the will of
God. And in this moment on the battlefield, God himself unveils his will to Arjuna: "I am all-powerful
Time which destroys all things, and I have come here to slay these men. Even if thou dost not fight, all
the warriors facing thee shall die." (Gita 11:32.) Arjuna wisely aligns himself with the cosmic tide, and is
thereby used of God to do his work. The larger message of the Gita is that the human who attains Q can
do this all the time, every day of his life, with every beat of his heart. His life will be a total unfolding of
destiny.
The problem facing us, in order to avert the ruin of our world, is how to implement Q on a collective
level. Until this moment it was impossible, because no one knew the underlying processes nor what
truly needed to be done. These words you are reading change this situation, and you yourself now
have the opportunity to become an agent of destiny. The prescription is radical indeed, and flies so
offensively in the face of liberal humanism that its established pathology will attempt to censor and
extinguish this resurgent dharma. But all it will take in the beginning is a few courageous souls. If they
stand their ground and promulgate the dharma, they will proliferate, and ultimately the ignorant and
corrupt elite will be replaced by a truly enlightened Elect, who can guide the planet to its salvation.
Primal Civilization
The basic principle of a society based on quaternary thought is that it reinstitutes all the essential
practices of primitive cultures, but now performs them consciously, from the high perspective of Q.
What was once done reflexively and unconsciously in a state of nature is now cultivated as a high
spiritual art. To designate this state of CONSCIOUS PRIMALITY we concoct a neologism -- the word
METAPRIMAL. That is, "meta-primal". We construe "meta" with the various shades of meaning implicit
in its Aristotelean origin, where "metaphysics" meant "beyond physics", with the implication of including
and subsuming physics.
So, what it will take to head off a cataclysm which would reduce the survivors to a merely primitive
state, is the creation and cultivation of a metaprimal humanity, a new hardy breed able to cast off the
comforts of the present degenerate culture, and carry the high refinements of consciousness onto the
brave turf of a deliberately dangerous world. This new development, unprecedented in the history of
our species, could accurately be described as a PRIMAL CIVILIZATION.
To get an idea of what life might be like therein, lets briefly sketch out how Q will deal with the most
pressing problems and thorniest issues confronting our society today. We can start with
overpopulation.
The pundits of Point 3 note that the population has stopped rising in the advanced industrial
countries and conclude that the problem there has been solved. They then analyze the reasons for the
decline in the birthrate, and seek to reproduce the phenomenon by the same means in the Third World,
where the problem is still acute.
There have always been, however, at least a few keener minds who can see that the population
problem in Europe and America has not been solved at all, but rather superceded by a worse one. The
decline in the birth rate is due to causes associated with prosperity, technology, and feminism. Further,
modern medicine and improved public hygiene have caused a simultaneous decline in the infant
mortality rate and the death rate in general. The net result is that almost everyone born lives to
adulthood, and the population thereby consists of almost the total "crop" of babies. And despite the
decline in the total number of people parenting children, the great majority of the populace will
reproduce themselves, albeit at a rate less than 1% above the replacement level.
Implicit in this accurate description of our society is the fact that it is violating a fundamental and vital
law of nature. Do you know what it is? Can you figure it out? Darwin himself saw it, and described the
problem in *The Descent of Man*. Knowledge of the problem and its consequences has since been
suppressed because it affronts the dogmas of liberal humanism. Yet the problem is still carrying us
ever faster toward disaster.
The problem is that life as it's lived in our society totally abrogates and annuls the law of natural
selection.
Nature's way of assuring the quality of a population of any given species is by arranging things so
that only a minority of the individuals born reach adulthood and reproduce; these will thereby be the
strongest, the smartest, the best. As soon as the childhood mortality rate goes below 50%, the quality of
the people in a gene-pool has begun to decline. With an infant mortality rate in single figures, and the
childhood rate not much higher, the quality of the population in the "advanced" countries has been
plummeting like a snowball on the way to hell for over a century.
Does this mean we need to undo all our technological advances and return to the natural state? No,
for this would be a regression to the primitive: to the world of Points 1 and 2. What we need to do is
advance to a world guided by quaternary thought.
There are many ways to view the consequences of the axing of natural selection. Any person of
reasonably high sensitivity can view the horror directly simply by stepping into the center of any
moderately large city. The effect can be like a punch in the gut. Sustained exposure can cause serious
miasma. Being in the midst of such a vast number of psychically deformed and defective entities is
extremely depressing, and can be dangerous.
Liberal humanism has no program for dealing with the psychic aspect of the problem because in this
sphere it is grounded not even in 3-point thought but merely in 2-point materialist science, and
therefore it does not even recognize that this phenomenon exists.
The physical side of the problem, however, is harder to ignore. A few years ago an official estimate,
published in the mainstream media, held that 12% of American children were born with significant
physiological defects. This is an astonishing figure, and surely must be the highest of any society in the
history of the world. Even Rome and Babylon at their most corrupt had not the technological know-how
to sustain a population one-eighth of which was crippled!
The solution of liberal humanism to this aspect of the problem is to provide logistical and financial
support to the disabled. If this approach were combined with a simultaneous program to rigorously
reduce their numbers in each generation, it might be enlightened. But there is no such proviso
attached to the Point 3 largesse, and thus its pathological nature is unveiled. The Point 3 mind cannot
look beyond the moment; it has compassion for the suffering individual in front of its face, yet acts in a
way that will produce hundreds and thousands and millions of more suffering people in the future.
Liberal humanism is no more qualified to decide the fate of society than Hitler was to institute
euthanasia for the disabled of Germany, or to order the systematic killing of millions of non-combatants
in the war. Yet there is a mind and a soul that is qualified to decide life and death for helplessly stricken
people. Its heart breaking with compassion, it can do what must be done, not out of contempt for the
living but for love of those unborn. Our planet and our species are dying for lack of intervention by this
higher mind.
Just as quaternary thought has the compassion and spiritual authority to say "not" to the continued
degeneration of the human species, so it can intervene in the hopeless pseudo-humanitarian muddle of
"equality". The primal mind spontaneously distinguishes the shades and gradations of human quality,
and ranks them in a natural hierarchy. However, over generations, this becomes ossified into rigid
orders determined by birth or other methods of acquiring privilege. The knotty problem faced by every
society is how to sort out the higher from the lower, the fine from the gross, the wheat from the chaff,
without resorting to formalized systems which ultimately defeat the purpose.
The solution of liberal humanism, as might be expected, is to gloss over the problem entirely
and claim that it doesn't exist. "Both (X and not-X)", it says -- one human being is as good as another,
and it's prejudice to make distinctions. But if we add Q we attain the higher negation of this, and are
able to conceive a solution in which true human differences are recognized and effectively dealt with,
but without the callousness and cruelty with which the binary mind treats those who are less capable
than others. Because it subsumes Point 3, the quaternary mind fully recognizes the humanity of all,
giving each individual the respect and compassion they deserve -- even though it does not indulge in
the folly of pretending that all these human beings are equal in any meaningful way beyond their bare
humanity.
A theoretical element that is historically involved with this issue is the "nature vs. nurture" dispute,
which has been going on since before the time of Darwin. It is at bottom not scientific at all but political,
for the sides have always been clearly drawn. The forces of Point 3, whether or not they're willing to
compromise and admit that genetics MAY have SOME influence on the manifest quality and behavior of
human beings, are adamant to the point of fanaticism that environment is the essential and determining
factor. The reason is easy to see: liberal humanism is forced by the logic of its own pathology to try to
impose its skewered ideal upon an intransigent real world. "If everyone is not equal", they say in effect,
"then our job is to MAKE them equal." So obviously, nurture and not nature MUST be the determining
factor, for if it weren't, the Point 3 agenda would be forever impossible to execute.
In the Darwinian era, a key element of the debate was the question of whether or not acquired
characteristics could be inherited. If they could, it would lend tremendous credence to the "nurture"
camp, and in fact many of the best minds on both sides felt that a definitive resolution of this question
would decide the entire issue once and for all. Not long after the turn of the century the scientific proof
finally came in, showing conclusively that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited. Not
surprisingly, however, the proponents of environmental determinism did not close up shop and go
home. In fact, in the Soviet Union, where Point 3 had been enshrined as state ideology, the heritability
of acquired characteristics was retained as official scientific theory until well into the 1940s.
The Point 3 mind is predictably horrified by the inevitable breaking up of its pseudo-world order, built
as it is on an incomplete principle. "Both (X and not-X)" it says, and patches together wildly divergent
peoples in farcically artificial nation-states. As soon as the central power weakens, the ancient battles
for blood and soil resume, the same primal opponents often picking up where they left off centuries
before. Desperately fighting this losing battle, liberal humanism resorts to the same ploy it used in the
19th century, and recruits its tame scientists to produce politically-motivated evidence that ethnicity
and race do not even exist. Only the armed might of the state can enforce such absurdities, flying in
the face of healthy primal perception and simple common sense.
How does Q deal with this explosive issue? As we know from the formula, it negates the attempts of
Point 3 to annihilate the differences between people of radically different gene-pools. It acknowledges
the biological differences between races, and the right of every significant ethnicity to have its own
sovereign state and to wage war with conventional weapons against its neighbors. Since the
quaternary higher mind is able likewise to comprehend the humanity of all races and all combatants, it
can referee the territorial and racial disputes with a compassion and fairness unknown to the New
World Empire of Point 3.
Indeed, the primal civilization will be a global patchwork of ethnostates. The natural hostility
between races will not be declared immoral and suppressed as it is today, but will be kept within the
limits of small-scale conflicts that are adjudged beneficial to natural selection. And it will all be within a
larger framework in which the highest individuals of every race and ethnicity can meet as equals in an
atmosphere of mutual respect.
This brings us to the ultimate issue, the most important single factor determining the future of our
species: sex. That is, the relationship between male and female.
We have noted that the breakthrough to Point 3 begins historically with sexual love. Now we must
clarify that the meta-sexual union of X and not-X -- or, as would be more appropriate in this case, X and Y
-- happens specifically because the two entities are polarized: the X must be truly X and the Y, Y before
they can merge. Ironically, the political forces of Point 3 now use the formula in an exactly opposite way
in order to bring about maximum insanity here at the furry far end of its reign. To this demented
collective mind, "both (X and Y)" means that female and male are equivalent, identical, the same.
Today liberal humanism says that race does not exist. Tomorrow, or eventually, anyway, it will be
forced by the logic of its own formula to declare that sex does not exist. In essence, it already has.
"Since the sexes are not the same, it's our job to make them the same," they say among themselves,
and all the recent legislation relating to sex proves it.
One of the most pernicious effects of the genetic deterioration described above is that it gradually
depolarizes the sexes. In a healthy society, only the most yang males and yin females reproduce, and
this tends to perpetuate the natural polarization of the sexes from generation to generation. But with
the degenerative trends over the last century and a half, intensifying in the last fifty years, this
selection factor has been virtually lost, resulting in a horrendous decline of sexual polarity. So it is that
when the pundits of Point 3 assert that society is populated not by two sexes but by a gradual scale of
individuals ranging from male to female at the far ends and including many entities in between who are
neither one nor the other, it cannot be denied, for in this perverted culture its the simple truth. But this
is not as things should be.
The modern wave of feminism can be said to have begun in the latter half of the 18th century, as a
side effect of the American Revolution in concert with certain trends in Europe. As might be expected,
it was dominated from the beginning by Point 3, but over the course of 200 years the true quaternary
perspective appeared sporadically in isolated developments centering on exceptional individuals. The
Point 4 feminist says "not" to the ambisexual merging of male and female, which emasculates the one
and slays the essence of the other. She knows that it is no weakness to be a woman, and she has been
well described as *Venus Plus X*: the ultra female, vibrating with an enlightenment that embraces the
best of postmodern liberation and consciousness, yet is strong enough to apply this to the primal
female role.
A society set up to reestablish polarity will take a long time to accomplish its goals, because of the
genetic basis of the problem. Eventually, though, it will happen, if the species is to survive. And the
rewards will be great. All the immediate social problems confronting us in this despicable age are
caused ultimately by the loss of primality in the people, and the essence of primality is sexual
polarization.
What does this mean in practical terms? The absolutely most important change is that the human
race will get its Mother back. Whatever else may be said about the mass abandonment of natural roles,
it has certainly caused the greatest sustained wave of neglected, bereft, abused, confused, emotionally
mangled children in the history of the world. Even when she was trying her best, Point 3 Woman had a
hard time being a good mother because of her deprimalized condition; but when the message of liberal
humanism on this matter took total hold in the media some three decades ago, the situation instantly
became unutterably worse. Women are now encouraged to think of motherhood as a mere sideline to
the real business of their lives, and an optional one at that. Daycare is offered as the great solution to
the problem of how to have "both (X and not-X)". But the perceptive ones know the secret: people who
are raised in daycare turn out to be robots. "Humatons" is a word coined to describe the condition
more specifically: they are people who are not up to snuff as human beings. There is simply no
substitute for a real mother.
Other aspects of a change to a truly human, quaternary society are difficult for Point 3 people to
grasp, because it involves attaining things which they think they already have. In all the sleazy regions
of the New World Empire, people are free to be totally promiscuous, and are egged on in their
decadence by the pornographic media. So how can we communicate, then, whats missing, and get
across the meaning of a return to true intimacy? People who fornicate freely will find it strange to be
told that they dont know what real sex is, nor have any idea of how to attain it. Though the message will
fall upon deaf ears and blind eyes, we shall nevertheless assert that the act of real sex is something
that happens only between real men and real women. . . and there are precious few of them around in
this pathetic end-time.
Furthermore, with the return of real, primal sex will come a great reflowering of love. This is the
most important part of all, for it marks the difference between life experienced as hell or heaven. There
is a broad spectrum of the types and kinds of love, but full-blooded, heaven-opening, romantic sexual
love only operates in a world populated by polarized people. The failure of romantic love in our
dissolute times is a direct consequence of a lack of men and women qualified to indulge in it. The
ambisexual creatures wearing suits and dresses (or sometimes suits and suits) are like prepubescent
children play-acting the roles. Or like the sexless, machine-bred turkeys in a factory farm. No wonder
romance always seems to go sour nowadays, and love so quickly wilts: the postmodern robotic gobblers
just don't have what it takes.
These, then, are the four basic areas in which Q will impact society in order to make its revolutionary
change:
(1) The establishment of genetic hygiene. This is a change which all enlightened people have always
known is necessary to the salvation of the human race, but the abuse of it by the Nazis enabled its
opponents to totally suppress it. We need to try again, because humanity silently cries out for it, and
the alternative is certain doom.
(2) The replacement of the false doctrine of "equality", which in actual practice rewards the worst and
handicaps the best, by a new system which acknowledges the natural human hierarchy and allows
rewards and power to gravitate into the hands of those who really deserve it. And beware! Some of
those at the very top of the present corrupt hierarchy will be cast down hard by this principle.
(3) Elimination of the horribly artificial and unnatural ethic which kills ethnic diversity and deliberately
promotes the genetic conglomeration of all peoples into one. If this Point 3 pipe-dream were even
possible of literal fulfillment, it would be the worst disaster to strike the planet since the last meteor. Q
replaces this abomination with the healthy reign of the ethnostate, in a true world order of primal
civilization.
(4) The return of sexual polarity, and thereby of real sexual love.
This agenda should make it clear that Q is revolutionary. In line with the second item, the success of
the revolution does not depend on the broad masses awakening to Q, but only an Elect. The best
people today are wasting themselves in the conceits and illusions of Point 3. If only a few of these
souls were to attain the light of quaternary thought, the shape of things to come would change
dramatically.
Joseph Kerrick