Return to Main Page

I omitted from my latest book in The Retarded Ideology - Origin of the Philosophical State - a treatment of education as religious, largely because the sections describing religion and its philosophical function were only fully constructed after the philosophical state and its greater framework were constructed. Education need not be religious, but in our time, education is very religious, and education and the tenets of the faith suggest a very foul religious tendency within every hitherto known educational project. The best way to mitigate this has always been to mitigate the reach of education into private and personal life, and hold the institutions in contempt as most of us have to retain some sanity in institutions gone mad. I think, if anyone retains any honesty, they can see the ruin education as an institution has imposed on the world, and there is no good version of this - not state school, not private or religious school, not some idealized form where "the best" just-so naturally unlock their pre-ordained talent. Education exists precisely because it marks those who are rejected from it, who are no less than 80% of the population in any era for all intents and purposes. This ratio as a minimum bar of the political elite is locked in not by any natural law, but by an article of faith which essentializes the five steps of knowledge and locks them into corresponding tasks. That circle can be linked to the cycle of knowledge processing. As you may recall from the first book here, that cycle is as follows: the raw data or substance of the world is translated to information, which is processed by knowledge itself which is necessarily a process in the world, which connects information to a meaningful context to form any knowledge systemic or otherwise and relate it, which is judged as true or false by facts which are understood to be the "real world" for our purposes. Among those facts we may accept is that the facts of the world are linked to - but not ontologically identical to - the actual world they are drawn from, in such a way that we do not doubt what information is processed once knowledge and meaning do their work. We do not take this association on "blind faith" as the German ideology prescribes in all of its iterations from Luther onward, and which the Satanists of British aristocracy recapitulated violently and exultantly as the death drive of eugenics was the dominant and sole value relevant to its preferred educational project.

Remarkably, there are people who do not understand this, and think education is some sort of service. In a way, it is a necessity. We live in a world dominated by evil deeds and especially evil humans who chose that path. None of us wish away this condition no matter how far we may move away from this. The one thing we might accomplish is to see the evil for what it is, rule that we no longer wish to live that way, and find a way around the educational middleman. Education is not at heart a religious matter concerning the evil at all. It pertains to power and social acceptance, without regard to any moral intent whatsoever. We can conclude with some commonly known facts regarding education's true function that it is, in humans, the birth of hedonism and utilitarianism among humanity, which are self-evidently failed systems if anyone tried to apply them to a real world where existence was consequential. Education is at heart utterly amoral in a way nothing else can be, and revels in this. There is no such thing as moral education which does not turn into a parody of what we would regard as morality. There are attempts to impart positive or good moral values or guides for students or anyone who is willing to learn, but these do not conform to any of the functions education can serve. Someone will either want to learn of a different moral sense, whether on their own power or by the persuasion or communication with another human or something in the world, or they simply won't. The path of least resistance for intelligence, or any faculty which could be measured and judged to learn in the most efficient manner, is amorality or obedience to shibboleths - to superstitions that are the hallmark of religion, rather than anything that constitutes genuine learning, or the evil. The evil of religion is taught or understood as something that is not educational at all, and no religion ever claims that it can educate someone to comply with it. Satanism, in practice, does not do this. The Satanist claim of education is that moral qualities are always innate and predestined, and if someone succumbed to any weakness or perceived weakness, that is in of itself sin - the last sin, the only sin. So far as Satanism has a moral stance or any sense that people can change, it is only possible through self-abasement - through the form of worship peculiar to its tenets, in which the student becomes a vessel for the teacher. This trope is common in the educational area because it is expedient for what pedagogy accomplishes, whether the pedagogue is willfully evil, or embraces a fuller Satanic ethos. I raise an argument that a "good Satanist" is possible, but this is very unlikely. Many educators are, in practice, "good Satanists", regardless of what religion they preach. The ethos of Satanism and education line up for the social and political functions that education entails. The good Catholics and Muslims who teach are visibly not so good, and the whole of Protestant pedagogy leaves one seeing a church which abandoned anything that would be stable or worth keeping, a criticism leveled by outsiders and Christians of every type, who always are quick to declare each other heretical. It's not difficult to see how education as an institution is a haven for the Satan and its partisans, especially women who see the area as a terrible place to install their vengeance for being made into housewives and the miserable position of the female sex, with terrible consequences we have seen in modernity. This is mitigated because such ruination is lampooned by the rest of society and by teachers who are not given over to this, because they have lives and do not give in to the dictates of the institution. Anyone who has to live will never be wholly corrupted by their religion, and it is a good thing for humanity that this is so. Because this is known, many who adhere to a religion and many religions in their practices acknowledge that human beings remain human. The esoteric education within the ranks of the true believers shows the monstrosity religion - any religion - entails at its core, but even a Satanist can understand that actual people have to use this in their daily lives. The Satanist is given over to ideology and the One more than any other, but usually, the Satanist sees whatever they profess as a vehicle. Their true religion and what they value is within the halls of pedagogy and reinforcement of the institution of education for their religion. It is here were the notion that "everyone basically believes the same thing" becomes a Satanic koan. Every religion in reality preaches very different things which are mutually exclusive, but that matters not to the pedagogue, whose religion has most of all been the cult of education itself, even above the Satan. At its core is the middle class fetish for grasping and opportunism, which ultimately serves its political motives more than any purpose we would consider good or wortwhile. From the book's example of the aristocratic "circle of life", the tendency of the middle class - the technological interest - is to subsume all within its imagined demarchy or rule of "the people" in the abstract as a united mass. This is the origin of the American slogan E pluribus unum - out of many, one, which is replicated and idealized in the fasces and fascism. Any student of American history will recognize the fasces as a prominent symbol of American republicanism, and a crass mind would claim this makes them morally equivalent to Italian or Germanic fascists. This is coupled with a self-serving notion of fascism which elides the true crimes and historical function of fascism, and reverts it to a "scare word" that the educator and pedagogue has no interest in fighting. If I were seeking to rehabitate the fascists, I would promote this narrative ad nauseum, and remove all of what republicanism once suggested in its civic religion, and especially hide the evidence of how European fascism became European fascism and the de facto European civic religion. But, that history moves beyond the purpose of the present article. What I hope to write about here is the appeal of this koan within the educational institution, which formed the sturdiest and most necessary pillar of European fascism. The American fasces and concept of themselves had little to do with state education or the Platonic ideal, which had been roundly criticized throughout American history - as had the entire project the Americans were undertaking, and the ulterior and very dark motives and forces at work in the United States. It is helpful to see where American influence and the culture of the founders did influence European fascism, and what genuine likenesses existed. For the pedagogue, though, fascism - or the religious tenets which are at its core - was the point, because fascism granted their interest and institution job security and social standing hitherto unknown. When fascists are described as "failed men", the pedagogue and the teacher, like the doctor, was a profession of the ugliest repute, until fascism relitigated and rewrote history to enshrine the most miserable institution.

At the core of the appeal of this is not any ideological system or even a motive or rationale that makes the teacher so malevolent and given over to it. It is instead an ancient religious cycle, found in the pagan world and exported unbroken to our time, involving a certain Prometheus, or a certain Lucifer. Both figures refer to knowledge and wisdom, each with their spheres of influence. They are not the best of friends. The Luciferians celebrate the high occult light and hand down knowledge in their way, and the Promethean story is not as glorious or friendly as it was made out to be by the pedagogue who resembles it. The Luciferians disdain worldly or incidental knowledge, and often bemoan the spread of technology to the lower orders. The Prometheans represent a tendency of the technological interest that saw worldly technology as a path to liberation from the terror of the gods, at least at first; and they were well aware of the malevolence technology entailed. The more noble of the Luciferians disdain the Satanist games with information, and can - if one still believes such a thing can be tolerated - appear as one of the "good Satanists" who are men and women of moral probity within the bounds their ethos will allow. These cycles appear almost unaltered in the present day, and are pressed in the educational institution precisely because of its amorality and the degree of freedom granted to the institution to use and abuse every mind, body, and soul that passes through it. Outside of education and its conceits, they only appear as the residual effects of educational brainwashing and those who benefit from the growing, Cthulhu-esque presence of education and the school.

Prometheus - the bringer of fire to human civilization - is typically the "positive" version of this dialogue. The story of Prometheus is the more favorable interpretation of the demonic intellectual claims, and one that receives praise in mainstream society as a positive virtue. A naive interpretation is that Prometheus gave humanity fire to grant to Man some counter-force to the gods, and that this was done in the spirit of cooperation. Prometheus spread knowledge that was not arcane, and could be reproducible. Crucially for the myth, humanity never found this on their own, or by sharing knowledge regarding something that would have been independently recreated many times without any shared genesis. Prometheus must be a singular figure for the myth to work - that the receipt of fire was from a heavenly source and given once, to which all other sources of fire owe their allegiance. In every case, genius is claimed as a heavenly gift, which must be respected and feared - and this makes technology into property by the decree of the priests.

To mollify this, the Promethean gift emphasizes the sharing of technology and the struggle inherent to it. The gift of fire is reproduced for utility and the benefit such an invention brings, and those who build the fire take on board the knowledge for themselves, reproducing it among those who are the valid of mankind. The distribution of knowledge to the valid is the key argument - that knowledge is a gift to be controlled, with the marker of distinction being who is "in" and who is not. Those who are not "in" will only be lied to, and this is a habit of humanity in ancient times. We see here in the mythology a primitive proof of humanity's genuine origin - ritual sacrifice through forced ignorance, where declaring "he doesn't know, he doesn't know" is the purpose of the ritual sacrifice. Everyone, including the damned, is aware of the ritual sacrifice, but the enjoyment of lying about it has been the human spirit - and this is imparted to humanity by the gods.

Whether this is actually how humanity and its knowledge game about is less relevant than the assertion inherent in the Promethean version of events - that cooperation among the valid and worthy is possible through this received knowledge. Whether fire was actually invented many times over or could be improved is less relevant than the control of information the "gift from the gods" implies. Prometheus' gift is not a singular thought-form etched in media, fed pedagogically to incredulous zealots. Many times, the gift of fire is obfuscated, as many secrets are that would fall into the hands of unworthies. It may seem silly to make something as simple as fire or tools a state secret, but this has been the rule of humanity - in every workplace, in every family, in every state and government. Even if the knowledge were trivial to reproduce, or something that would be independently reproduced without any "divine spark", the assertion that this knowledge and wisdom came from the gods - and the class of men who were intended to receive it - is the Promethean position. It is not a position of knowledge for knowledge's sake, where the gift just is good without question. We can easily see how fire turns against humanity, and how careless hands probably should not handle fire. Yet, this justification of the incompetence of the lower orders is never really the purpose of forced ignorance. Very often, the lowest class pilfers knowledge it "doesn't deserve to know", and the states of humanity - indeed, their whole society - is too weak to stop this.

Lucifer - the light-bringer, the crown of wisdom - exists as a creature of civilization. Barbarous or semi-barbarous societies have no analogue of Lucifer, but many will speak of Promethean figures, and spirits bestowing natural knowledge and wisdom which become treasured deities to be with-held from the unwashed. Lucifer exists in societies rife with antagonism in close quarters, where individual intelligence, concealed knowledge, and conceits about mass behavior are corralled in an urban environment. The analogues of Lucifer are most prominent in empires with many cities. There is an atheistic counterpart to the Luciferian light, which more explicitly values the conceit of those who believe they established contact with a divine knowledge. Gnosticism, a heresy against reason common to civilizations but scarcely found in barbarism, emphasizes both the liberatory role of Lucifer and the ominous danger of the light-bringer. Similar beliefs are littered throughout Christian teaching and from their Greek philosophical forebears. Interesting, the Lucifer-figures of Rome itself feature very little, mostly because Rome was far less inclined to this entire aristocratic knowledge-giving trope that dominates the aristocratic pagan view and things like it. Rome's deities were found in the law of Jupiter or the worldly terror of Saturn, and personal virtue was linked only to the functions of intelligence which met the demands of Roman civic life. That is to say, the Roman view of intelligence was that you had to not be stupid, not stutter, and not make bad decisions. If someone was brilliant or fortunate, that was helpful, but virtue for Romans came not from a belief that an IQ score was just-so good. Intelligence without victory in some theater the Romans valued was a worthless stat. The Luciferian notion of intelligence is not one of projection in its genuine form. The Luciferians believe they are, with some reasoning, truly above those around them, and this is marked within civilization more than it would be otherwise. Where the Promethean is "timeless", the Luciferian is particular to civilization, its tenets and conditions.

There is a two-faced aspect of both the Promethean and Luciferian. Individual subjectivity is necessary for the myth to operate - that it is men who are given this knowledge, rather than knowledge referring to a world where this is assembled. The individual is necessarily assumed at the receiver of knowledge, and so too is the giver of knowledge an individual source, whether it is Prometheus himself or someone with the received wisdom. It is in civilization and its antagonism that this two-faced aspect is pronounced. The Promethean exists within civilization and is never purged, because the basis of civilization is not handed down from on high. Cities are built by humans that modify their environment. Where Prometheus grants the first technology, Lucifer attains "high technology" and marks a distinction of classes based on information and the institutions which hold it. The claim of an essential virtue called "intelligence" relating to this particular conceit is neither Promethean nor Luciferian at its heart. It is another beast altogether. It is entirely possible for the Promethean and Luciferian to discount entirely the view of intelligence as a virtuous substance that can be measured or used as an excuse for personal aggrandizement. Prometheus and Lucifer in developed form are more noble than that, and have to be for this queer dialogue between them to carry on. But, the personal virtue of intelligence through received information - pedagogy and educational doctrine - is emphasized by these two deities, rather than a pantheon that we would judge independently. The pedagogue cannot confuse their message to the student by speaking of many authorities or many gods, or a heterodox approach devoid of orientation. If nothing else, a "Monad" must be inserted by education, or one will be created against the will of the educator, and if the educator lapses in this task, the educator is in a terrible place indeed, not really knowing what is taught or why anyone would value this pedagogy. The deeper rationales really aren't considerations of intelligence at all, but of conditions described in the linked book above. I am far from the only person to comment on that. The question pertinent to us is how to berate and cajole - to control education and discourse in a particular way, if all someone has is words on a paper or computer screen, with no worldly force beyond the expression of an idea or some substance of little relevance to claims of general knowledge and history.

The commoner did not believe that any deity gave technology or knowledge. This is what the commoner did - manage technology and information. They knew, whatever their own conceits, that their knowledge and intelligence was never made of magic. What a commoner projected to another is a different matter, but among friends, a baseline honesty regarding this was necessary for the commons to exist. Aristocracy is opposed utterly to the idea of a commons as anything other than a holding pen of slaves. Property sees the commons as a power from below that threatens them. This is the typical tripartate ordering of state society.

On their own, Prometheus and Lucifer are creatures of aristocracy first, which the proprietors adopt as their own. There is between the upper two orders a struggle and exchange which is contained within their interests. In their genuine expression, the deities do not map onto either cleanly. One or the other can be adopted for expedience. The Promethean favors sharing within the franchise, and the ruling interest presented as a relatively benign force over society. The Luciferian invokes a spurious narrative of rebellion for self-serving aims, unites malcontents who do not want the fundamental ordering of society to change, and presents a glorious mission and zeal where the new ruling power is an apex of light, leading "a million points of light". Individual intelligence and knowledge is championed as the basis for a new collectivity. This argument has little appeal to the lower orders at first. No deities of knowledge are apparent for them, but this argument has to be sold to the commons as if it were theirs - as if they shared an affinity between the two factions, and there will always be two regardless of how many parties are presented in the assembly. The rationales may be purported to exist outside of any knowledge or gift of the jobs, attributed to a simple tactical calculation that two factions will become the pre-eminent magnets of political alliances. To make this a conceit of knowledge-giving from aristocracy, it is necessary to invent an intellectual excuse for the two and only two interests, rather than the reality that, after all of the dickering and awareness of the greater causes in politics, the members of society are motivated by interests close at hand and relatable to their genuine existence, rather than what they are "supposed" to follow to meet the conceits of the aristocratic factions. In other words, it is not an inexorable rule of knowledge or information that there are "two factions in eternal conflict", because the true conflict of human beings is their real interests and associations, which are not bound to any preferred notion of the state or the polity. The imperial contest is not really a contest of knowledge. The intellectual contest is for institutions which assemble at the state proper, rather than the true governing power of any society.

The commons is set apart by the higher orders, but all three are aware that their society and political format requires mobilizing commerce and trade, so that industrial products - always stolen from the Earth and the people who build them openly and proudly - may facilitate any of this. Strictly speaking, aristocracy and property do not "need" any part of this. Their claims are found in competition with each other and the alliances they make, rather than any material necessity. If they were the gods and lords of a dumpster fire, that is not consequential to aristocracy. The religions of aristocracy already view the world as fallen, there to be exploited and populated by unworthies. A productive society is not of interest to property or aristocracy. Any product would have to be sucked into the higher two orders. The proprietors seek stable wealth in assets, land, and claims to temporal power, and see the entire commercial and laborious enterprise as a drain on proper, stable wealth. Aristocracy's motives are more elaborate, but follow history and the nature of power itself. What aristocracy does with power is truly its choice, and the Promethean and Luciferian models of pedagogy both allow this, each in their own ways. The knowledge-giving paradigm is appropriate for aristocracy alone. Proprietors, as a rule, disdain any receipt of information by anyone, even their own offspring or subordinates. The proprietor really doesn't value information or knowledge for its own sake. Overwhelmingly, the proprietor's interest in valued and useful knowledge, much like their property claims are temporal. The proprietor is aware that knowledge must be limited and valued, but not for the same causes aristocracy has, which are aristocracy's purposes. The proprietor still values knowledge for itself - and in principle, any knowledge is a thing which can be appropriated, for the proprietor doesn't intrinsically have a moral orientation to judge what is useful, beyond the interests of property which has to be held. The proprietor's temporal claims are for the world, and the world is alien to any "general theory of the world" or "laws of nature" that are invoked. The appeal to nature is very strong for an interest within aristocracy, and aristocracy for itself is perfectly aware that their position is highly un-natural.

There is a desire from both the favored orders and the commoners to co-opt the aristocratic model, and the purposes of the orders are never uniform or aligned with a necessarily singular interest. Every so often, members of the commons must be selected for promotion into either of the higher two orders. This process is never explicitly mentioned, for speaking of the true mechanisms of class mobility is not merely taboo, but haram in all communication. A false version of social mobility is sold to the public, but in all cases, this social mobility is more than merely a lie. It is an intentional mockery of the idea that legal class mobility is even possible. The rationales for this are not an un-natural philosophical imposition, but are inherent to the models of politics and society that have been given to everyone; that is, that class mobility is always unseemly if it were carried out by an agreed upon contract, where merit were open to independent judgement. If that ever happened, the merits that actually recommend anyone for social promotion would be exposed to everyone, including the lower orders. Right away, another form of unspoken class mobility - of laborers to either the ranks of the commons, or laborers being adopted by the higher orders as loyal servants or on rare occasion members of the peerage - would be immediately impossible. Legal social promotion has always been the expectation of the commons, and this is done not because the commoners actually believe the political format rewards justice or merit or anything good. The main aim of legal social promotion is that it implicitly forbids the opposite - illegal or hidden social promotion. Since many of the commoners understand that this unwritten and unconstitutional association is the true objective, those who seek promotion do not want a legal path to social promotion hampering their ambitions. The second is that the commoners see the orders beneath them as far clearer enemies than their social superiors. The expectation of legal social promotion - most commonly through the university and schooling regime - accomplishes most of all the task of ensuring that laborers never promote as a rule. How this is mandated can vary based on the society in question and its expectations of social life and class.

In practice, the social promotion or demotion of the lowest class is not the objective of the pedagogical battle or aristocratic knowledge-giving. The chief aim of education and legal social promotion regarding the lowest class is to formally and explicitly mark their inferior status as early as possible, and ensure that those selected to die stay on the path of failure. The chief enforcers against the lowest class are, due to proximity and the only genuine interest in caring about the lowest class, the orders of labor. This is most acutely felt among the lowest grades of labor, which are in perpetual danger of entering the lowest class and the living Hell for being shamed with such a demotion; and the most favored grades of labor, who are specifically selected for their ability to maintain labor discipline and rally mob politics behind the overall aristocratic order. Labor aristocrats, as a rule, do not promote into the formal political system as legal fixtures. Such a promotion would render them highly ineffectual, operating in an arena alien to their purpose and anything they know. So far as social promotion is offered to labor by the maintenance of a legal social promotion facade, that promotion is expected for children in an ostensibly egalitarian schooling regime. Since the commons and the state of the proprietors must replenish its stock, remove "bad family lines", and often lack the numbers of favored to disfavored to allow a government to effectively maintain oppression, the children of laborers are potential stock to enter the lower rungs of formal society. This is always offered to them on the condition that they, like the Judases of the laboring class to other workers, betray their parents, which is an expected shibboleth regardless of the legal norms of the society they live in. The social promotion of young proletarians is in practice an uncouth expedient that real-world polities had to abide, until such a time that the commons could perpetuate themselves through their own stock and open seizure of any underclass stock in total. The objective of the commons, in the way human society turned out, is the restoration of slavery on a collective basis, where slaves are state property and their movements are regulated and controlled down to the smallest detail. If the commons themselves become slaves, that is no great problem. Freedom in the genuine sense was never an aspiration of the commons, whose dominant trait throughout history has been the command of slaves and finance that purchased slaves and labor-power. Technology of the commons, which might be independent of slavery and offered as a solution to those with the proclivity to worship the tech, is roughly an analogue for slavery if treated as a financial instrument, such as money. This is quite removed from what technology would have to be in order to be useful, but once the technocrat has the laborer's tools, they will like any good Ferengi follow the First Rule of Acquisition - once you have their tools, you never give them back.

The aristocratic knowledge-giving paradigm has little application to the fate of the lowest class in any sense, and in turn, the lowest class are the most likely to reject the entire premise that knowledge has anything to do with aristocratic gifts or any property of the gods. The folk gods are starkly opposed to the gods of Man and the gods of wisdom, and frankly have little to do with worldly affairs, nor do they exist as skin-masks that are given any token of tribute. If a truly free human wants to do business with the gods, they will do business with them as directly as human knowledge allows, and this means that the lowest class views such deities as a thing to be avoided or seen for what they are. The same disdain for the true gods they hold - not that the true gods of folk religion really had it out for humanity or carried the aristocratic vice - is extended to the gods and holies of aristocracy, which will be grossly offended at the indifference of the lower orders and especially the lowest class for this program. Since the lowest class cannot help but become conspicuous - the chief aim of human society is to mark the lowest class for its fate and nothing else - all that is necessary is the exposure of the lowest class to wider society, and the assignment of their inferior status. Even if the lowest class lived lives they could cherish, this would not be fundamentally different for the purposes of institutions. The lowest class could even replicate in total the entire structure of society, living in two worlds forever apart as it should have remained, and this would not change their fate. The lowest class is consciously excluded from the world and declared alien to it, and any product or existence of the lowest class which enters social circulation is treated as a gift, with no compensation whatsoever. The very thought of compensation for anything of the lowest class's existence is offensive to the sensibilities of the human race, at a level that is so deep and visceral that it is pointless to believe that it would be any different by any appeal to reason, sentiment, or any ulterior motive someone might read in society. Once the essential task of education of marking the lowest class is accomplished, this is a struggle between the four remaining orders exclusively. The lowest class has no stake in it, and even if the lowest class suggested another way for the sake of persisting in a society designed to expunge them from the world, it would remain inadmissible in the central struggle of this knowledge-giving. Any offering of the lowest class, or any exchange they might have with proper humanity, would be co-opted for whatever value it meant, and then humanity would recapitulate its core spirit towards the lowest class. Once marked, there cannot be escape, and this is a far more ancient rite than any aristocratic conceit about knowledge. Even when there would be little distiguishing the lowest class from the valid classes, and there is no great division of classes among labor, the same pattern would have asserted, mostly because the proclivities of labor innately hold that which is ugly and useless in contempt. No fact or intellectual judgement can prove the utility of the lowest class, because utility was judged most of all by the effectiveness of any act or technology to eliminate the lowest class. Any view that it could be different would require abrogating human subjectivity and humanity altogether. Therefore, that is the objective of the lowest class so far as they have one and can think of it, if they do think of changing human society in any way. Most of the lowest class do not have such an aim except at the uttermost end of desperation, if there is truly no way out. That aim is far removed from anything the present theory of knowledge can describe, let alone the preferred aristocratic struggle which is the subject of this writing. It is worth noting that this struggle is carried out in parallel with the struggle among the favored orders, and the struggle of all aristocratic knowledge must maintain more than any of the other orders the essential task of human society. It is aristocracy which holds all levers of social promotion and aspires a monopoly on every potential vector of corruption, since that is their world-historical mission - and they are the only interest that truly embraces such a silly notion as a world-historical mission.

We can largely remove labor from this contest as well, since labor's stake in knowledge is an altogether different animal. If labor is embroiled in the aristocratic model of knowledge-giving, it is because they are among the laborers seeking to abandon their order and promote. The social promotion of labor in all things is always carried out through back channels - "behind the backs of the producers" - even when the secret mechanisms for doing this are detailed and no one is under any great illusion about what is expected for the valid to blood themselves. It should be repeated here that the laboring order has, generally, pawned off the actual work and toil to their social inferiors. Working in any sense is seen by labor as a mark of shame, despite the obvious moral necessity of any value labor executes. This is not for any ulterior motive, or even a value of laziness in-of-itself. It is instead labor exercising a perfectly natural moral conceit that it is the lowest class who exists to suffer rather than them, and the lowest class eats shit and has nowhere else to go. Because this has limits and can never ossify cleanly into a selection of who must die, there is an unwritten rule the lowest class can enjoy, temporarily, "quasi-valid" status, so long as everyone remembers what humanity is really here to do, and that in all critical moments, the lowest class will only be lied to, and all promises are openly abrogated. Usually, the elimination of the lowest class is carried out "out of sight, out of mind", by expert death squads tasked with this for "the greater good", or in lurid rituals which are part of the unwritten compact for humanity's class mobility. Torture is the prime want of labor and the human race, and it never needed any other god, until the world outside of humanity requires humanity to do something actually useful. The ideal of labor is that all work would be carried out either by the lowest class in unlimited torture and toil, or by machines which are in their employ. If the laborer did not cowardly give over knowledge to the commons and higher orders, the machines would have displaced any value or torturing the lowest class to do the most disgusting work. At no point does the lowest class disappear. If none existed, the human project would see it as necessary to assign new members to its ranks, or else the lifeblood of the human spirit would fail. An existential dread would set in. The new supply of members of the lowest class usually comes about in fertility rites. Excess children who are sickly, unsightly, or simply inconvenient, are assigned the role of the lowest class. Depredations that are the spirit of the human race accumulate. The contest of the social orders, of population centers and real loci of political influence, and so on, produce new situations, where human society is once again presented with a crisis which necessitates - at least for humans - another round of selecting who will live and who will die. This is often an indicator of instigating a war by some intrigue, or promoting intercine squabbling over the most petty of amusements, or simply inventing arbitrary excuses to revive what humans really crave in their soul. Humanity's chosen course and political format guarantees that not only will there be more "great crises" to allow for the sacrifice rite to continue. Humanity embraces orgies and excess birth specifically for the purpose of producing lowest-class sacrifices, and keeps them alive as living reminders of the glory of their race as the partisans of such a philosophy would have it. If there are members of the favored orders who see the pointlessness of this, they are overruled by the aristocratic spirit and the mechanisms of social promotion, and given a threat - that if the valid do not offer themselves for this orgy, do not join the ritual sacrifice and do not shout with exultant joy at the human spirit, they will first be denied promotion, and if they persist, they die with the lowest class.

The true outcome of human history never "perfects the race", but this has been the ideal from Babylon and onward, replicated in every tribe of humanity with few exceptions. The human norm has been a remarkable indifference to life, which is the baseline expectation both for labor and for the lowest class. This is one reason why the lower two orders are conventionally excluded from any class analysis or any agency worth noting. For labor and its favorite victim, the greater struggle is the one beneath the hood or within the "black box" of the actual productive process, which remained alien to any claims commerce made on it. Commerce commanded the contracts of workers and the drive to attack the lowest class, the latter being the chief aim of their economic constitutions rather than any goal of commanding any quantity of labor out of a sense that they "needed product". The commoners could just as easily extract rents, or abstract all of their industrial capital to finance or managerial institutions, or create fictitious intellectual and technological products, or any number of ways to maintain their position within the society. However it is done, the labor is provided to the commons and society effectively "for free", since the laborer would not choose starvation given the fairly easy option of finding a job. The other option, living outside of the economic order entirely, was always an impossibility without the intercession of wealth, property, or aristocracy against the interest of the commons. On its own, labor possessed little, and when labor did possess wealth, their behavior will in some sense become that of the commons or proprietors in smaller fashion. The "pure commoner", which is to say, a technological new class, did not exist in sufficient numbers until the middle of the 19th century. Their growth as a class came not from the expansion of industrial capital, but the growing size of bureaucracies and product to feed the leisure of the better off commoners and favored grades of labor. A capitalist loathes actually producing any industrial thing, since this entails risk and hostile relations with workers, and binds them to the land when the real money and command of wealth was in finance, the colonial enterprise, and management of society and its institutions - most of all state institutions which would be prominent from the moment the state of the liberal commoners was a true condition. For the lower orders and many of the commons themselves whose paucity becomes clearer during the period of monopoly, the death and misery this order entails is treated as if it really were a fact of nature, well before there was a firm ideology exhorting everyone to believe this was natural. Capitalism may have been regarded as highly un-natural by anyone who actually knew what it was and had to navigate it, but the death and toil were treated from the outset as forces of nature with grand spiritual value above anything money or claims of anything temporal suggested.

The technological interest claims presumptively all of the world's knowledge for itself. The avarice of the commons has been confirmed by history time and time again, and absent any sobering influence, its default habit is to claim all and eliminate rivals. In practice, it does not hold the claims particular to other interests, which remain alien to it and must be so. What is left behind is not incidental or void. The technological interest and the commons proper still command any technology that was not specifically claimed by another, so long as it entered social circulation. The technology of nature remains apart. It is not appreciated as "technology" by nature, and the mere assertion that nature can be appropriated as technology in the future does not make it so. Only that which enters social circulation is appreciated as technology that can be exchanged. Presumptive claims on something far away remain so. Invoking value and borrowing against such a distant potential is no more than a charlatan's trick, even if such tricks are the basis for finance. Finance and banking establishments serve first the goal of creating as many I-O-Us as are needed to rule a society through debt, which is repaid ultimately through labor. The products of labor are technology which may or may not be of value to the financier, and the financier assigns more or less at will what any technology is worth to the holder of money. The bank's function is not purely to give people this credit line out of generosity. Banks hold wealth and do everything in their power to mitigate risk to the holders of wealth. Banks offer security to the proprietors, and this security is more akin to a protection racket than a service. The reasons for the establishment of such banks and the entire history of finance are not in of themselves rooted in any economic necessity, as if we had to do this by some blind impulse in human beings. Humans are very aware of why they trade and exchange. They are not immediately aware of every institution in a society. No institution, no ruler, possesses perfect information of all they rule. Rulers, or any class of political elites, are defined precisely by their command of social information, and so rulers tend to know more about this valued information than the ruled. Rulers make it their business to know this information, and hire officers and functionaries whose sole job is the collection of this information. Since this is a partnership of the institution in order for information collection to proceed in any orderly fashion - as it surely must if a bureaucracy or an army is to be oriented towards any substantive purpose - many in society are aware of what rules them, even if they are not granted access to any privileged information or status "allowing them to know".

The particulars of finance and banking institutions are, for the purposes of this article, not particularly relevant. Finance and the claims of banks, states, proprietors, armies, and so on, are particular to human beings in their particular era, and the true motives of the property-holders are never reducible to crass spiritual motives or imperatives. The true imperatives require acknowledging a world outside of society and the conceits of any ideology or "grand theory". The purpose of a "grand theory" or a general theory of technology would be to grant to the officers the most effective system for processing novel information, either from observation of the world or by proper and correct synthesis of that information to arrive at something novel, which may be realized into a product. We did not exist in a world with electronic computers ready-made, but we have made many such devices, and the basic transistor is, by far, the most commonly produced tool humanity has ever created for any purpose, during the brief period of history where such devices could exist. There was not in nature a single transistor, and yet today we could scarcely imagine human society without such a contrivance, or human labor and rote activity that did what the transistor does in appreciable, socially valued outcomes. The transistor's purpose is more than merely information, since the transistor is a physical device in real space. The transistor allows for command and control of devices which are attached to an eletrical power source, and does so in a way to replicates the imperatives of human rationality. The transitor does not itself "think", but carries out the rote instructions that would in the past be carried out by a human operator, following rote instructions either explicitly or by some process "behind the back of the producers" - behind the back of formal language, by some system or working that would be implemented without formalizing the process into rote steps for consumption. It is here where the conceit of political information and conceits of knowledge generally carry far more dire stakes than they ever did for human society. For most of human history, no matter the language or implements or social form, a human being remained largely similar in its functions, its wants, and its baseline abilities. Human beings were employed in manual labor to produce industrial products of all types and were tasked with extractive labor. Much of extractive labor is carried out with simple implements which the farm-hand or slave would be expected to repair and understand with their own know-how, and replicate among each other. Even as late as the early 21st century, the tools of extractive labor remain simple in many cases, and the greatest efficiency is found not in improving hand tools, but improving the process by which those workers and operations are arranged, so that a factory, a mine, a farm, or any other location produces more stuff with the same labor-power and technological knowhow that was available. That arrangement of social labor is itself a technology and operation that would be managed in some way. It can be managed by a specialist whose sole job is management or the technical details of organized social labor, or social engineers; or it can be managed by those in the factory by some commonly agreed-upon plan or understanding. The commoners are desirous to excise every other interest from "above" and "below" that impedes on this general theory of technology, which would include the claims of financial institutions or social engineers favoring the higher orders. The commoners imperiously assert they are the "universal class", which is strange given that of the five interests common to life, the technological interest was historically small in number, pressed between the masses of labor and the armies and priests that ruled them. They were viewed correctly as unseemly and queer among the human family, in a way that even the scorn shown to the lowest class cannot replicate. The commoners show the greatest disdain of all to the lowest class, knowing more than anyone else the value of keeping ritual sacrifice going "for-itself"; and the commoners also know full well that the ritual sacrifice directed towards the lowest class is wholly unnecessary, ruinous to any productive aim, and has only been made this onerous by repeated and flagrant assertion that it must be so, until eugenics ensured over the past 100 years that it would be so.

The goal of "naturalizing" any part of this is not inherent to the aristocratic knowledge-giving mythology. Prometheus and Lucifer both endure in spite of "Mother Nature", and must do so; and in this struggle, both are portrayed by any reasonable person as righteous, just, and good for the cause of life, liberty, security, and anything a human would value. The emphasis on "natural orders" by the eugenist is not a genuine belief that "nature" has any plan or mind, nor a cynical "false negative" meant to exist purely as a sink for the residuum while the cults of Promethean and Luciferian knowledge assert a total monopoly. It is, for the genuine purposes of knowledge, quite irrelevant to make any appeal to nature, other than to acknowledge that there is a natural world and history where any of this takes place. Only in our particular political and environmental niche of this time, given a political history that really has nothing to do with "knowing that you know", do we face the peculiar problem of nature-worship. Mankind in an earlier time rejected such forms of Nature-abasement as the behavior of retarded jackasses, rightly damning them to the dustbin of history. Mankind with sufficient knowledge, distributed in any way compatible with what we would have done without the cults of education becoming so pernicious, would reject Nature-abasement with full knowledge of the consequences of letting institutions go off their leash with nothing to regulate them but an aristocratic cargo cult and its enablers. It is during the critical period where the attack against, and by, the "man in the middle", becomes a dire threat to continued life or any genuine knowledge or science that humanity may accomplish. By no means do the Promethean and Luciferian encompass the entire span of aristocratic pedagogical techniques used to facilitate this rot. They are, however, ready-made mythologies which have a genuine backing among the ruling order dating back to early history. They are mythologies understood to the commoners and to the lower orders, since they are ubiquitous stories. It would be nearly impossible for anyone in Christian civilization to have never heard of Lucifer, and Christian teaching has much to say about Mr. Lucifer and something to say about the pagan Prometheus as an archaic myth with enduring currency. The Luciferian figure finds analogues in most of the religious practices of humanity, and so Lucifer-analogues are readily recognized and glorified by believers of such a cult. It was a Luciferian element which gave the "light" to the so-called "Enlightenment", when Europeans discovered Luciferian impulses regarding knowledge in the philosophy and religion of the East. Whether the peoples of the East actually saw it in the same way, having an understanding of nuances that did not immediately translate for a European noble or high-commoner, did not change that both would see the common desire of a Luciferian approach to knowledge - for the "bright" to become the righteous and holders of the world's wealth, and for peasants and slaves to remember their place, either by caste assignment or the often harsh norms of despotic societies.

The native interest of anyone in the commons is to be the "man in the middle" who can make judgements and decisions based on the merit of any fact within their knowledge, or within record that is trustworthy for them. Since an individual human being is limited in their native faculties, their first resort is information-gathering and recording tools - written media, word of mouth, reputation, credit, and space where these can be exercised. In other words, the first want of the technological interest is liberty in this regard. This is not identical with political liberty or a concept of rights, which are strictly inherited from the domain of the proprietors and are in line with the expectations of the order of proprietors. Political liberty may be granted or withdrawn. It is not really subject to struggle - not struggle of individuals, nor classes, nor institutions. The objective of invoking struggle for rights has nothing to do with a belief that struggle "creates rights" or "creates liberty" by some strange alchemy. The struggle is waged for control of institutions - for control of technology - so far as this struggle is helpful for the contending parties. The reasons for this are not some essence of nature or what members of society "must" do, but a simple reality that institutions are the vehicle through which political liberty can be written down in law, affirmed by institutional and public authority, and become a normative expectation in society. The proprietors' purest interest in liberty has nothing to do with any freedom to speak or any technological liberty. For the proprietor, liberty and right are matters of violent force and nothing more. There is never a rationale for property that is self-evident, nor do the proprietors need such a rationale. Property and its defense would have occurred without any ruling institutions, if society were imagined as a collection of hill-forts guarded by armed gangs and their lords. The aristocracy and spiritual lords of humanity desire the exact opposites of liberty in all things. Their first desire is formal anarchy in which no law or normative expectation constrains them and their claims to property, including others' property that was well established by history, custom, or a sense of ethical right. Their second, true desire, which is the intended synthesis in all things, is a form of despotism that is unmentionable as such. In practice, there will be among all orders a frank admission that despotism is the genuine state of human government, about which nothing can be done, and only faint conceptions of an alternative are raised. From the outset of the "era of liberty", despotic power was on the mind of all of the contending parties. If this power were shared collectively, it was never shared equally or out of a sense that politics was a friendly circle where problems were solved amicably. If problems were to be solved amicably, it would take time and effort to build such a situation, and they would have to do so with the theories of an aristocratic republic and the wants of those who aspire to position in such a construct. From the outset, there is great cynicism towards the idea that a republic was workable. Only the nascent United States proclaimed republicanism, and not without reservations of many of its founding generation about the enterprise they began. The French Republic rises, falls, is embroiled in the great continental war of its time, and settles into constitutional monarchy like Britain until some nationalists in the middle of the 19th century figure out that the kings aren't really doing anything useful and some rich guys figured they could easily do better than the absolute worst form of rule humanity ever found - monarchy.

At first, being the man in the middle is a simple proposition, because you are the only thing between any two things in the world that can make comparisons between them for your own sake. Whether you are a human consciousness with the wants of a human being with a human body in a society populated by humans and their familiar institutions, or you are an intelligence of some sort that has to make this call of comparison between two pieces of information, you will want to be in that position. That is the most obvious position to have unfettered access to the facts in question. You would rely first of all on your own judgement, which is an internal matter and has to be so if the integrity of a person is to be maintained. While this is not necessary for knowledge processing itself or even for someone's genuine security, the individual will be most able to compare two things if that individual possesses by their own authority and accumulated knowledge all that was needed to make comparisons. Whatever processes in the world comprise this individual are naively taken for granted as part of its natural existence, and so reliance on commonly available connection to the world or "hidden knowledge" that may have to be kept secret is not a concern. The man in the middle is presumed to possess enough sense to know what is needed and the faculty to check against "common knowledge" is presumed for a reasonable and sane individual.

This circuit is insufficient when the faculties of the individual, which are always limited, fail to provide sufficient useful information about two different objects. This condition of sufficient is not decided by the wants of the individual, but by the conditions that individual inhabits in the world. There are two sources of external "third-party" information. One is from institutional knowledge that is overt, and media that is not questioned as what it represents - for example, a book, which is written by someone or something with a name, which itself could be a "man in the middle" facing the same dilemma. If a writing wished to describe two different things in any relationship, that relationship is never a given by any assertion that its contents are objective fact. But, the writing, and whomever reads it, faces the same problem for verifying the contents of its knowledge. Whether it is a written or "dead" media or an active knowing entity much like the individual, the purpose here is the same, with the distinction of a dead book and a living entity well understood by native knowledge. There is then "subtextual" knowledge that lacks linguistic expression that is readily available, but is nonetheless appreciated by an individual. This subtextual knowledge includes the moral judgement that would be made independent of self-assertion regarding the world. No individual is granted automatically any fixed moral sense or orientation that is unchangeable or immune to moral sentiment regarding the world, whatever they may project. If this were truly impossible, it would not be possible to speak of an individual gathering this subtext regarding the world at all in the first place, which would have informed any genuine moral sense, or an ability of the native faculties to adapt to a world that is outside of them. It would be left only with a few inborn moral sentiments which are very primitive and manipulable, which for an individual is undesirable. A developed, reasonable individual has developed throughout its existence a sense of right and wrong, good, evil, or any moral values it holds, and so, there is value of an individual to hold to their moral instincts. This is true of infants and children just as well. In principle, "fundamental moral essences" are weak in an entity's mere constitution, as if there were genetic code for moral development. But, the genuine existence of an infant or an animal is more than such essences, and would have already developed a moral constitution that is corruptible and worth defending, and the infant will resist however feebly the imposition of something truly hostile to its existence, with whatever faculties it possesses. The defiance of human children and animals alike is attested to well enough to be common sense, and no naturally mandated permeability of the infant can be made a universal rule. This sense also includes subtextual knowledge that is not moral but neither is it recorded information or rational in the sense that can be isolated as readily computable information. The further development of these ideas is described in my main writing and can be expounded on at a later date. It is interesting to note that the occult knowledge of greatest importance here is moral sentiments - why we value anything, and what orients any rational behavior or the sense intelligence must follow to find its most efficient route to a solution, and the same of other things in the universe which are playing hte sam egame - which are the domain of labor and the thing we would regard as objectively valuable and worth acting for. The knowledge of symbolic expression, in media or in the formal statements of entities like ourselves, is known to be rife with contradictions, must be parsed and filtered through genuine knowledge to assoicate it with a world we regard as meaningful, can be explicitly deceptive, and can say no more than whatever information is overtly expressed. The overt expression of any symbolic statement - e.g., "there are no black swans" - does not have any inherent truth in the world, until all of the concepts involved are checked against a known conception of swans. To say "there are no black swans" is a tautology with no value to anything meaningful, rather than a statement about falsifiable statements, and implies a default of "swans are white" or "swans are never black" as an assumed definition to be normative. There would be a default even if the symbolic statement were not linguistic - if, for example, instead of a written statement, a literal black swan or black "swan-like-entity" entered the sensory cluster. If swans are never black yet here is a creature which in all other respects is "swan-like" and no other word token is readily available to describe this entity, any worthwhile knowledge will fill in the necessary information to construct a worthwhile understanding, rather than the mind or the universe facing some time paradox or something stupid like that. If the intelligence looking at this is a machine parsing a statement or situation it knows to be contradictory, the rule of information processing is that it received nonsense or garbage, or it received "unknown sample" and would carry out by rote the same information-searching process knowledge would possess. Genuine knowledge, though, is aware of these two external influences' activity by the nature of its own existence - that there is a symbolic world or model that can be followed, and that things "are what they are" without any good reason to suggest they are actually something else, and there is a reason why knowledge would want to possess accurate sense of the world around it and values that persist in the world regardless of personal opinion about what those values "should" be. If someone really believes black swans are an abomination of nature and this black swan-like entity insists on staying around, the committed Popperian ideologue has no recourse but to continue seething until its hatred boils over, lashing out maniacally at the evil stain on existence that is the black swan, until someone can arrive to "correct reality" and "correct history" and assure this sad individual that there can't be black swans. The Science said so, after all.

I do not need to belabor the Popperian fallacy, which belongs to a more advanced degree of intellectual depravity which does not occur to anyone who isn't a complete fucktard. It is helpful to dismiss such things out of hand as irrelevant to the question of the "man in the middle" for a reasonable person. I do not concern myself with malicious and violent assaults of disinformation in this article, as if they were the predominant cause of this dialogue or confusion about reality. Disinformation intended for this malicious aim is always a deliberate a flagrant act of some entity which implies their own knowledge, and while we are familiar with malicious disinformation as a strategy, it is expensive to maintain such a condition without the conditions of a siege implied upon the individual. No such condition is demonstrated to exist naturally, without making statements about intelligence, knowledge, philosophy, the universe, and so on, which are not supported by any train of thought worthy of our consideration. Absent this preponderance of deliberate lying, we assume the individual is perfectly capable of recognizing this situation, and commands their faculties well enough to be certain of their comparisons, however complex the comparisons may be. In practice, individual faculties, and the sum total of knowledge accessible in society, is limited, and entails processing time for that individual by whatever mechanism that individual requires to think in any way. And so, the "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" strategy is always available to the dishonest, short of omniscience which no one possesses, and which would make any of this discourse moot if we regarded such an entity as a friendly judge for us. Since Prometheus, Lucifer, Christ, Yahweh, Yaldaboath, Saturn, Jupiter, Vishnu, Buddha's Great Ghost, Marx's Beard, the God-Emperor of Mankind, and other such deities aren't here to directly inveigh on this for us and tell us the received wisdom, we have to make do with the best substitute - the history and meaning of the myths of all of the deities, which pertain in some way to the world of mortal affairs.

The role of superstition in knowledge is not direct, in the sense that superstitions of any sort are acceptable as if they were coequal with scientific knowledge, or any conventional knowledge that is regarded in communication, or in moral senses that resemble communication. Yet, so many assumptions made in political myths are superstitious, and will always remain so no matter how perfect conventional knowledge will be. "The world" itself is understood less as a rational proposition or a basic assumption that has to be accepted to hold a conversation, but as superstitious qualities regarding a construct that is far greater than any sense or existence we would possess, or any extent of society we have hitherto known. Even if society spanned the known universe in spatial distance, it would still be far less of a proposition to speak of the "known universe" than it is to speak of a superstitious quality ascribed to "the world", most of which would remain unknown to our collective knowledge. The individual is in a far more harrowing position regarding that superstition. There is then a superstitious quality ascribe to nature which is far removed from anything nature is as a proposition. The superstitions of gods, rituals - of which money and finance are one - are never really rationalizable or things entirely contained within conventional knowledge. We may invent purely rational or material motives for economic behavior or finance, and even material motives for politics, but these are inadequate. We can find superstitions of much smaller scope, that are not about unspoken moral sentiments or simple assumptions, and nor are they the result of incomplete information or a gap in thought processes. The smaller superstitions, koans, and seeming dislocations of reason exert their effect not just on sense or knowledge, but on the actions of an individual and other individuals in society. Knowing that humans are superstitious to some extent out of necessity, all of our expectations of interactions with humans and the society built will reference superstitions, which are sometimes granted qualities like conventional knowledge, but are understood to be something apart from them; and the superstitious world does not get to abide its own laws of motion that are unknowable. Therefore, it is possible by conventional knowledge to shed some light on superstition, to make sense of why those superstitions exist, what they refer to, and what they are on their own power, in their own domain where treating superstitions with regard for what they mean beyond an ulterior motives is appropriate. It is this entry of superstition, bringing the diagram to an auspicious arc number of seven, that is appropriate for the present article.

We can see a logical nightmare when untangling these "externalities" between the thing we want - rational comparison of information through our native sense - and finding that they are often human beings, things built by human beings which are far away, or things with an existence that is complex and stretches beyond any conceit we hold about human agency and its domineering influence over the world. Each human agent is entangled in similar problems, for their existence does not revolve around the individual who is assessing this for itself. Every object that enters social circulation and pertains to the mediation of knowledge will, once it leaves the power of its originator, be a thing that can be used, bastardized, re-interpreted, added to, and added to repositories of knowledge not just for individual avarice, but to shared knowledge bases which carry their own existential risks. In other words, it's not hard to see why treating information as proprietary would be attractive without any necessary malice or occulting myth. There is so much "state" to process that it is helpful to distinguish one's own knowledge from the outside world, and expect other humans to communicate with imperfect knowledge of any alien. Assumptions about a false universalism which must be taken for granted are made at the peril of any knowing entity. There is a body of knowledge we consider common sense, but this sense is never as common as it is made out to be. Smug comments about insulting those who lack this sense aside, it is very easy to see how aspersions about normalcy are made where they are not warranted, and easy to see how writing can be constructed specifically to hint, insinuate, snidely sneer at the reader, even if fullest understanding of how a word or idea would be interpreted or used is never appreciated by these philistines. Deception is common for the ugliest and stupidest motives, given the human proclivity to lie for the sake of lying simply because humans find this funny. The human even in its best conditions finds honesty and forthright speaking unseemly, and this is not without reason. False honesty and earnestness often are signs of someone who doesn't really know what they speak of, or someone trained to lie, or someone with an almost infectious stupidity that becomes contagious in a way we learn is a sad weakness of the human race.

If the individual relies on native faculties, reliable factual sources, and a few guiding superstitious lights of their own choosing which have proven themselves to be reliable and fair allies rather than forces from an alien of dubious quality, they may develop some system for untangling this more rapidly than another. This itself is not intelligence or general intelligence, as if intelligence were nothing more than a measure of mental processing power or an efficient kernel treated as a measurable thing or machine. Processing power can be wasted on trivial nonsense or deliberately malicious lies, which only a trained filter can disperse. All of the processing power of any knowledge does not guarantee that the new or familiar will be as comprehensible, if the existing knowledge base is closed to the existence of the new out of a faith that the new is evil or unseemly and the old is preferably. The "harkening to the primordial light" is, wherever it is found, a very regressive impulse. Lucifer's light might be compared to the primordial light, as it often is in religious superstition, but this is really a deliberate lie the Luciferian offers to the masses, mostly to say "fuck off, retard". Lucifer's light blinds the unworthy at first glance, for they are deemed unworthy and retarded, which is tantamount in all Luciferian thought to the uttermost evil of sins, no matter what the Luciferian may have received about tolerance or openness to the ignoranti in hopes that their ways can be changed or corralled for Luciferian ends. It is for Luciferian ends that the Luciferian must act, for there is only one, rather than "a million points of light" as Poppy Bush invoked during the period of humanity's damnation.

The Promethean offers a divine rubric within common knowledge. These names can in principle refer to deities performing an analogous function, like Atenism taking the role of Lucifer, and Promethean myths are common for team-building exercises looking for exemplars to follow. For Prometheus, you have a key invention - fire, for example - which is given and sets off a chain of thinking for many more inventions. The utility of the revelation is key for this to work. Just about any human can appreciate fire, and the same can be said of technology with nearly universal appeal. The value of the Promethean approach is that it doesn't concern just any revelation, but a foundational technological advance which can spread rapidly and grant to a nation granted the gift of fire by association a marked advantage over other associations or organizations. The Promethean gift is not an institutional shibboleth. Fire, once given, will be observed, and it can be reverse-engineered as many things are. But, the giving of fire in the myth grants to Prometheus a heroic stature as the defender of free flow of knowledge for useful things, and this is a gift for friends of the association, not for just any asshole who comes by and asks for your fire knowledge.

There is then the institution itself, which is not necessarily proprietary or invested in deeds as such. Institutions are beholden to their own existence to persist as institutions. They give information about their workings on a need to know basis. The same may not apply to the human members of institutions, or their true workings. Nothing obliges an institution to do the thing its laws purport to do, regardless of any oath enforced by institutional policy and the threats attached to it. This applies to the institutions as a whole, rather than merely agents of the institution failing to uphold its edicts. The law itself is only answerable to itself, rather than any other necessary authority pushing it to do the thing a human wanted the instituiton to do. This makes a lot of sense if an institution has to exclude those who are not members of it for all of the reasons that make sense. But, within the institution, its aims with knowledge are alien to aristocratic knowledge-giving, and the holders of the institution would like to keep it that way. They may be very free with exchange within their halls, with the known caveat that human beings can turn traitor, rat you out, or do stupid and careless things with institutional knowledge. In all cases, the focus on the man and the middle takes on greater importance for the aristocratic models of knowledge-giving. The schools and methods of various gurus are not of interest here, since for many reasons, the Promethean and Luciferian models proved superior in modernity to more occult guru methods or paler analogues. The guru's function in dispensing aristocratic knowledge and privilege is more than informational, whereas Prometheus and Lucifer are, at their core, primarily obsessed with knowledge, intellect, and conceits about it. Neither of these are foundational to knowledge itself, which existed before either of them by the tenets of the cults themselves. Both proclaim that they are rebels against the gods or the One, here to give you, the mortal, the power of intelligence and great knowledge if the price is right.

The developed forms of these cults possess meritorious traits as well as a modus operandi with a predictable outcome - that aristocracy will receive the chief benefit of knowledge and control its transmission not through pure command and control, but through moral support from the recipient who remains hooked into a particular paradigm of knowledge-gathering "from above". For some things, the only reliable source of information is whatever aristocracy gives or allows through revelation, or a thought-form that is initiated by and exists for aristocracy. Nature did not produce any aristocracy in pristine form in any way that is self-evident. If it did, the claims of an aristocracy to possess this special information would not be special, since if the truth is self-evident, it is replicable without the received wisdom, and would quickly spread without the permission of aristocracy or its preferred intent in giving knowledge to the world. The truth would not speak anything of worldly or spiritual power, as if a mere symbol or idea had any agency simply by assertion or existence. Something could very clearly exist but hold no agency whatsoever for political society, or any version of social activity that would be valued by another. It can be worthless for political society. It could not be declared totally valueless by nature, as if worthlessness could be disappeared from reality altogether by the sentiments of people who declare something worthless. Something can have no worth - and worth is not a rational calculation, but a meritorious judgement appropriate to property and its aims. A rational actuary of this worth makes this calculation regarding the merits of property, rather than anything in nature telling us anything that exists is worth a single iota of interest. To the true nature, all that exists is of no worth whatsoever, for "worth" is not a category relevant to the natural world. Nature could just as well eliminate this existence as if it were a terrible, calamitous instance at cosmic scales, and not only would this have no effect whatsoever our own local sense of worth, civic or otherwise. The natural fate of the world has no attachment whatsoever to worth until the products of nature are appropriated by a society, which itself is limited to whatever it can claim. If anything, the true Nature's disdain for humanity's conceits of any worth suggests something about humanity's value to each other - that they have, through their incessant struggle over pointless stupidity, made their own world far uglier than it had to be, and cannot really say why. We of course are quite aware of humanity's failure and monstrosity, and so we don't have to engage in the indulgences of many teenaged pissants and assholes of the race. History has already judged, and we can judge again and find all of the necessary evidence to damn humanity's grandiose conceits that it has any "natural worth". The true nature, which is not claimed by anything humanity has conjured and despises most of all who wear the name Nature as a skin-mask for their faggotry, punishes those embracing such a doctrine. Even if such a doctrine is used to win the intercine political struggle, the winners in such a world are visibly decrepit fags, scorned by all and shitting up whatever they win with the next faggotry that such a race would embrace. A child can see through the aristocratic appeal-to-Nature argument. The solution of the insufferable fag is to throw their hands up like retards - and they are retarded - and declare that if they can't have "me wantee", everyone else should be made to suffer, and their fake and gay indulgent nihilism is promoted heavily in our time. Most of us with some iota of reason would learn a very different lesson - that human beings could, with very little effort, not do most of the terrible things done in the name of the natural order, which invariably promotes some fickle faggotry of humanity rather than anything natural laws would tell us that is independently verified.

When dogmas regarding aristocratic knowledge-giving are recapitulated, they are not the true mythology aristocrats tell themselves or their favored servants. What we wind up seeing are not the full purpose of the knowledge-giving paradigm, but an essential, denuded form of such for public consumption. Lucifer, to those who are familiar with his acolytes, is not a nice god in any way, nor is he fair or good for any sentiment or purpose. Even at the best of times, the Luciferian is selfish, governed by shared self-interest towards a goal of attaining Enlightenment without regarding the cost to social inferiors. The Luciferian may for themselves be less inclined to malice as a lifestyle, seeing that in the long-term such a routine is contrary to their aims of attaining the exalted state. Prometheus and his acolytes are not your buddies doing this is a struggle for liberty and a better world. Neither of these cults are confined to an aristocratic interest above the world held as a monopoly. They can find adherents among any order, who for whatever reason find the Promethean or Luciferian paradigms of knowledge and enlightenment in this struggle attractive. Their essence is still aristocratic - the pedagogy and received wisdom is paramount, and any agency or lesser intervention of mortals must reference the received wisdom. No one doubts fire or the light, both for the impression they make , the genuine utility of such concepts, and the value of superstition as a guidance for human beings with very limited information and faculties to attain it. None of these paradigms really speak of "genuine knowledge" or "unvarnished truth", as is and ready made for us. They are only presented as such with the utmost contempt, with the familiar aristocratic snickering and laughter that another fool bought the line. The real truth was always in the world, and cared not for any conceit humans held about it. There is knowledge in the lower orders that never enters social circulation, and is constantly devalued, and yet this knowledge comprises all of the substantive and useful product of society. Without labor and the toil and suffering the very propositon of the lowest class entails, none of human society would possess much genuine agency in a world where aristocracy and conceits of property were unwelcome aliens. The technological interest and the commons is different, sitting in a strange position unique to it. A few foolhardy technocrats would summon the notion that they are greater than all of the gods, and make a confident statement that "God-belief is retarded". This is a notion particular to the technocrat and its interests in society and the world, and its approach to the world. It is with this middle class, formally the technological interest in whatever manifestation it conjures in the material world, that really made any of these myths enduring. The aristocratic version of knowledge-giving was ultimately for the aristocracy, which must periodically infuse itself with the life-force and flesh of new men. The promise for new men is always that exalted status is in their grasp. The path to social promotion must be conflated with knowledge of a peculiar type and knowledge alone, and that knowledge is no longer tied to a world outside of the conceits of men - both the established order and the conceits of new men who vie for position. For this to work, the true mysteries must remain in an association which does not permit open discussion regarding a world where this did not apply. It is forbidden to even acknowledge that this association exists, let alone its institutions, its body of laws, and any names or places that would become targets for the malcontents. In place of any discussion pertaining to genuine reality, reality is declared to be mediated by the received wisdom that is unmentionable and unknowable, and at the same time, the universe is declared to be fundamentally rational, immaculately conceived and proceeding by laws which are presented pedagogically to the subjects. A whole other world-system is offered to the commons, ostensibly led by the commons, and imposed on all classes. In public, the orders of property and aristocracy pretend to go along with this, and humble themselves before the public interest. In private, all, including the commoners, seek to enter the "real club" and play the actual game. The losers are forced, by ever-increasing violent imposition, to play the false game, and are told "this is Science", "this is Wisdom", and that there can be no other. This, of course, is at odds with the original purpose of knowledge-giving, which granted to the mythos any of its genuine power and authority. Prometheus and Lucifer, who are really their own deified figures with their own agendas, must be re-cast as servants of the One. A thin disguise proclaims that this is the enlightened God, the one and only, but it becomes common knowledge that the true "One" is none other than the Satan, glorious and almighty, and that the God-fearing are directed towards acts and performances of abasement before the One.

The true "core" of aristocratic knowledge-giving is aware that the myths are superstitions with a history, which the adherent is expected to interpret, just as any religion would be. The practice of this knowledge-giving is done not because it provides "inherent truth" or a verification process, but because they were approaches adapted to knowledge mediation in political society. The chief secrets they guard are political knowledge - names of people and places and events that allow the adherent to understand the political situation they inherit, the world they live in, and how to keep those locked out of initiation in the dark. The methods to suppress those judged blind or devoid of intelligence have nothing to do with knowledge-giving for they are premised on violence, fear, force, and cajoling of lesser sentiments. The end goal of the suppression technique is to teach the unwashed masses that stupidity itself is virtuous - or, ignorance is strength. The versions of the Promethean and Luciferian approaches given for public consumption are not about forced ignorance, or suppressing knowledge, or even deliberate, strategic lying to mislead or herd people.

Part of the denuded aristocratic models given for public consumption is intended to be a "gateway" or entry point into occult education, or further education generally. For the aspirant, they do not really know political knowledge of who or what is in power, and could not know this information as if it were self-evident. They know there is a secret society where "real humanity" continues, which they seek to join. Another function of the denuded model is to "leak" information at the will of the inner circle, as the inner circle wishes it to be released. This can be done for a variety of purposes. One of them is to jump in front of a true breach of information, either from within, or because one of the unwashed masses abrogates the aristocratic political and philosophical model completely and "breaks reality", which can never be admissible. Another is damage control to "return to normal" after such a breach of reality. Another is that the ruling power sees the dissemination of limited information, in its preferred model, as a way to continue the game they play, and also a way to convince followers from the unwashed masses that the secret society does possess uncanny knowledge, and that this grants real authority rather than imagined authority. It is an abiding rule of aristocratic knowledge giving that none of this information is disseminated for "genuine good", however that can be defined. Any good coming from their circle is not a question of any knowledge, let alone the method of knowledge dissemination that the Promethean or Luciferian implies. Any time the method is invoked, it is expressly for politicized information, rather than genuine knowledge or anything that would be reproduced through science or any honest inquiry. It is because this politicized, aristocratic information has a value of its own that has to be appreciated in human society, for humans alone, that we are made to care about any of this, rather than reject the entire approach as an obvious fable to glorify a monopoly on legal knowledge-giving. If not for this, we would speak freely to each other about what has been done to us, compare notes, see that the ruling order intends to choke us all to death, and circumvent it by any means necessary. It would mean the end of humanity in any way we have known it, permanently and irrevocably. What those "in the club" would do regarding that is really their problem. We would never speak of any shared existence with such an entity again, for we have seen enough. The chief aim of the unwashed masses of humanity has been for nothing more than to abandon forever the entire abomination of the aristocratic order. We are only made to value any of this because aristocracy's claim to the world, and in particular the minds and souls of the masses, included things like food and anything we would need to live. If we obtained anything outside of their mediation, it is imperative for the secret society to "correct history" and re-assert its natural monopoly as it has seen it. Just as any individual must, such an association guided by aristocracy requires security, and because of the nature of their claims, aristocratic security is an aggressive pressing of every nerve of the ruled, so far as it can impose that. For the aristocratic society, the idea that any follower can say no is a greater breach of the peace and violation of law than any other act the ruled could initiate on their own power. The ruled may be acknowledged as possessing agency, so long as none of that agency can ever say "no". It is that aim which guided the denuded forms of the Promethean and Luciferian given to the commons, and to some extent the lower orders. In practice, the lower two orders are expected to subsume themselves into the commons, which has historically always been recognized as utterly alien to them. The lower order of labor has long understood the proprietors as their antagonist rather than the commons, who were viewed as the proprietors' lackies and bureaucrats. The lowest class has recognized every other order as a mortal enemy when they possess any genuine understanding of their condition, which many do - only intermittently, if they live, because their condition is so hopeless that to persist as the lowest class means willful exclusion from the human family. To admit that publicly would be to confess their own guilt for every and any crime beforehand, and the higher orders are more than happy to torture maximally an infidel with the temerity to say "no", regardless of knowledge-giving excuses. The purpose of the denuded aristocratic models of knowledge are to extend this treatment of the lowest class first to labor, who have always been quick to judge the stupidity of their peers and never practiced any solidarity for perfectly understandable reasons, and then to the commons. The commons are both the chief enforcers of the legal order and the chief victims of it, internally policing each other far more strenuously than any action from the other orders, or against the other orders.

Both of the aristocratic knowledge-giving approaches assume someone is an "active citizen", or at least give a presumption that someone is being let in on "a secret" or some information "they don't want you to know". There are always multiple "lines" to give, and for an institution with sufficient record-keeping capacity, these lines can be tailored to the recipient, always one-way regardless of whether they are Promethean and rely on group association or Luciferian and rely on individual ambition and contempt within society. They are never really "individualist" or "dog eat dog", where individual knowledge and ambition are the objective. It is well known that those at the top are only able to stay at the top because they are fed support from those lower in the chain of command. Think of it like any Pyramid Scheme, and the Pyramid Scheme is one such example of this approach. Individual ambition is inherent to knowledge generally, because knowledge and intelligence are local events for us. If we were to speak of a wider network as a dependency for our native intelligence, we would be open to many, many "man in the middle" attacks, without an effective filter and interface with that network that retains personal intellectual integrity, and accounts for malicious actors. For ourselves, the interface with the world is typically not fatal. Individuals established themselves because common malicious information can be rejected. The malicious human actors are not accountable, because they are, until proven otherwise, at least equal to you, and in many cases their superior knowledge can be presumed without "peer confirmation". Mass media and propaganda complicate this further, and present the breaking point for the aristocratic habit of political knowledge, where they could no longer function as someone would naively assume based on instinct, common wisdom, and history.

If there were any other aristocratic knowledge approaches, they would interfere with the "core mechanism". The institutions of education, the university, and their promises or promotion through merit, are irrelevant to the knowledge deemed truly worthwhile. Meritorious judgement may be used to deny promotion, but it will never grant any promotion without passing the true test - political knowledge, loyalty, and the trust of the club. It is this which grants to any educational regime these two approaches, which override any reform or "plan" that is purported to the public to exist. There is a reality that a society establishes norms and has definite material requirements that cannot be ignored. A modern state requires functional utilities like electricity, an army, a bureaucracy, and competences to maintain this infrastructure. Even in these functions, the chief criteria for social promotion and job security isn't "pure merit", and no institution exists to do what it purports to do. It only does so as much as it must to maintain a semblance of genuine order. The true order of the day is to enrich aristocracy at all times, in all ways, without regard to what would be useful in any long-term plan. The final statement of aristocracy to the unwashed masses is that this is "natural", and a miserable excuse is made to say it was materially necessary. For example, "the economy" is treated as a quasi-material Demiurge, or "ecology" is invoked as a natural limit on wealth that "just so" requires aristocracy to continue choking the world, and further demands that more power and wealth be sacrificed to the aristocratic lords who are, due to "obvious intelligence" the rightful stewards of Nature. This applies both to the genuine paradigms, which are aware of the game they use and know how to aggressively push the lie, and to the lesser forms which suggest that the adherent is "in the club", and granted an exception to the excuses used to beat down all of the "dumbs" who were selected to die.

Only once all alternatives have been cleared out of the ring can the two preferred paradigms "go at each other", in a struggle that is entirely fictitious and intended to sift through the adherents of their respective camps. More than any ideological affinity, any genuine interest, or any group loyalty, the struggle is over the approach itself - the Promethean "give to the group through received wisdom and proper channels", and the Luciferian "climb the ladder as you figure out the conspiratorial game". Very often, the two approaches "duel' within the same association, since for many reasons, there is only one "great society" as the association which prevails over all lesser associations. But, the struggle plays out across associations and institutions, and filters in some way to the lowest dregs of society who are gaming with each other for "position to know" what little they are allowed to know. Very often, members of the lowest class are recruited as the worst enablers through this channel, given just enough knowledge to be useful agentur for some miserable violence, or even just to be slightly promoted vectors, used and discarded as soon as the joke is played. Calling them Judases is unfair to Judas, who at least received silver for his deed and had some cause for a relatively mild act of betrayal. The enablers receive not even crumbs and commit groteseque betrayal that emphasizes the thrill of the betrayal, and often get nothing but a note that they will be useful thugs for future disposal, and can be compromised easily.

By itself, this struggle is interminable, but it plays out because of the inherent struggle in knowledge between "base" and "superstructure" - between the high offices of wisdom and the "team" dominated by leaders. In short, there is a game where both claim to "steal the light of the gods" of the other, and this is a friendly competition so long as everyone remembers that the aristocracy's true interest trumps all arguments over how knowledge should be organized. It takes other forms - the pointless argument between "small tent and big tent", "federalism and centralization", and other arguments which effective revolve around the centralization and distribution of received wisdom, treated as some mana to be allocated sparingly. This appears at first to be little more than a framework for provincial interests to dicker for favors, citing an intellectual basis that is self-serving for crass motives, and self-abasing for greater motives. Some seek the largesse of empires and monopolies, while others seek to hold theirs, under the credo "fuck you, I got mine". Nowhere in this would an independent going concern be intellectually admissible. It can be justified by an appeal to reality, and to local knowledge and interest which is not beholden to the contest. This really only applies to public relations discourse, rather than the actual thought social and political agents operate with to navigate the world. Genuine self-interest, no matter how faint or how misled, is the motivator of people. If that self-interest is served in an association where the member gives something of their own will to another, there is a reason why, rather than a reason that is assumed or imposed on reality. The goal of the aristocrat, then, is to game all self-interested decisions that are possible so that the only choice is to feed the authorities aristocracy wants. It is here where the malcontents of the settlement are isolated and sectioned off, told they are not attached to any of the aristocratic knowledge-giving paradigms, and then not attached to the denuded forms of such given to the commons. To truly speak of the malcontents - and in the end, aristocracy will decide your contendedness and make sure you remember what they have assinged to you, at least so far as those in the discourse much judge to be compatible with it - is to speak of the genuine classes and interests in a society, rather than a narrative about what the classes are "supposed" to be.

I should make clear that all of this - the backstabs, the enjoyment from it - is done in the name of social advance, regulated by an interest in society whose sole function is to make this social status and advancement possible. Nowhere is "social inequality the price of civilization". There is no ulterior motive or purpose for this in any era. If humanity wanted to, at any time this ruinous activity and dickering over information, most of which is not useful for any productive purpose or anything we would have wnated, would cease. The orders of society that remain would carry out what they do, each for their own reasons, but it wouldn't particularly matter what "grade of civic worth" someone inhabited. The reason we are made to care is entirely due to threats and extreme humiliations visited upon us. Otherwise, the esteem of peers would matter very little, as would the contest for our own sake. If we did not like living like this, we would leave, and there would be little argument as to why we should participate in a society which has to threaten imprisonment and torture because it was too much for them to allow a society anyone should live in. The more likely outcome is that, rather than scorning the lower orders for imagined crimes of Being, the business of social existence would become routine, and it would make far more sense to mobilize anything of the lower orders without the tax of kowtowing to aristocratic conceits of what humanity should be. Instead of scourging workers through a humiliating ritual called "hiring", the jobs to be done would be listed, distributed in some way that is suitable to ensure they are completed, and proof of their completion would be enough for payment. Those who did not work could invent work or ask if there is anything for them to do, instead of being mocked and lied to. This is anathema to the aristocratic model of politics, but the other orders cannot really say they have a good reason to prevent this. The remaining difficulty is that humans really don't like working, there really isn't that much for humans to do, and feeding the idle, who would exist for lack of anything to do, is against a sense of fairness in humanity. Ultimately the problem comes down to ability - that there are distinct abilities of people, which are at root technological and fixed as "dead labor", rather than active. The abilities of any man can only improve so much, will degrade in old age, and there is no want of anyone to improve themselves for a generally agreed upon social plan that has never been trusted. Since the aristocratic order has never abated once in human history and dominates every decision of what is valued, all such arguments of ability are moot, and were always raised as a justification of eugenics. We never question once the ability of aristocracy, since the torture and humiliation rites became life's prime want, and all other activity is in service to it.

If ability is to be the final breaking point - that some people can and others cannot - it is helpful for aristocracy to make this ability appear as if it were received knowledge from above, adjudicated only by the aristocratic mode of thought, rather than ability judged by merit, utility, or the conditions of existence. As much as possible, ability is judged by conformity to the demands of the aristocratic view of what humanity should be, rather than the ability to dig a ditch or know what is what, or make mental connections. This never can be sustained in purified form for too long. But, wherever it can be done, insinuation about ability and competence can be made to invent disability, and then enforce it socially. At first, the insinuation is held by the favored, until it is internalized by the rejected, their conditions degrade, and someone believes, and has the physical signs of, a disability that was only a disability because of this insinuation. In another world, some use might be made of someone, however damaged they are, or they might have found a niche where they could do far more than they're supposed to do. Once this is established, ability and disability are granted moral standing far beyond anything, and become a justification for an ordering of society that takes priority over anything productive. It would not cost that much to support the disabled, whatever the source of their disability. The lowest class that is allowed to live does not receive much in economic support, and their material existence is further deprived and curtained. This, on top of a disability usually having some basis in reality which degrades the life of someone in isolation, doesn't leave much of a life, and the cost of upkeep amounts to food, water, shelter, and electricity which is produced at the level of cities rather than individual expenses. The invention of an "ecological limit" is spurious. Just like the planning of utilities at the level of the city, ecological impacts are understood to exist at the level of cities and land parcels rather than "per person", and this has always been known. And so, the "burden of the poor" as an excuse has always been premised on nothing real. This is just a way to naturalize judgements of ability, which are transformed into judgements of civic worth on a eugenic basis alone rather than an ability to produce anything useful. Even if someone were useless, the cost of disposing of unwanted persons is greater than the cost of allowing the subjects to have what they wanted in the first place. This purging has always been a choice, carried out as if it were a choice or a pleasure of the favored rather than a dire necessity. It has always been a trivial matter to exclude from defensive or military functions those who were useless for service, without any grand display of humiliation and shame. Whether the military men receive jollies from exterminating that which is ugly, and if this extermination is part of their drilling, is a matter apart from any need to do so, as if military discipline would dissolve if some quota of torture and suffering were not met. The entire purpose of such punishment is negative rather than a positive necessity of the institution. The ideal of the proprietors and their interest is that there simply is no ugliness that requires purging, rather than a belief that the purging is good in-of-itself. That has always been a position of aristocracy, and would become a position of the commons and technological interest for its own reasons.

The ability of persons is not the only question. The ability of machines, the ability of land to grow anything, and the ability of anything to happen, is the crucial ability to suppress. The legal status of persons is emphasized because only people present to court and comprehend punishment. The policy is towards all actions and abilities that may happen. If someone is free but cannot do much with that freedom, it has a disabling effect regardless of any punishment towards the person. And so, to control the space requires controlling all ability, and to negate all actions - to create the appearance that history is frozen in all respects, and if that this is so, then reality itself is frozen. Any action which appears is artificial, momentary, and once it passes, it is gone forever, or so the theory goes. The problem of history and understanding it is the intended purpose of a future writing I wish to write, which will need to be a longer writing. The important thing for this article is how to make it appear as if history is frozen in this way. There are other methods, and the actual implementation of "reality control" requires energy and acts of hands which are not tied to any conceit of what knowledge is supposed to be, or what would be ideal for managing political information.

It is not enough to merely assert that knowledge is handed down pedagogically. It must be that knowledge that is of dubious use for reality is valued, and knowledge of a world outside of society becomes unseemly. Everything of the world that is worth knowing exists outside of society, for society in its most basic, true form is nothing but information shared between the participants. There are real flesh and blood humans who relate to each other, and those relationships are consequential. Yet, this society is not linked by any necessary physical or material linkage between the participants, in a way that connects the members by "spooky action". As much as possible, it must be asserted that this society is omnipresent, and its mechanisms are unknowable. The first step is proximity in an environment where politically the effects of society are appreciable, and this is described both in the second and third books of my main series. Subesequent steps rely on a belief that knowledge is mediated in accord with aristocratic knowledge, and that coexistence with such a ruinous force is not only possible but beneficial - if the price is right. The price is very simple - that there are losers selected in advance, and this is more reward for the winners, no matter what the conditions of society may be. You are never supposed to speak of a material or substantive good or why this is valuable - only that there is a contest for social rank which is good in-of-itself, and regardless of the wealth or poverty of a society, the contest must continue. In the aristocratic mind, the same essential ordering of society, with proportions of its people and distribution of value, is fixed by natural laws. It would not matter if everyone were a genius living with the equivalent of a million dollars in real wealth. It would be imperative to reassert the ordering of society, and then to make the impoverished losers feel and think they are losing and must claw for survival, until the natural social hierarchy is reasserted. Any deviation from it must be an error to be corrected. The venality of enablers who love the rot and torture has little to do with knowing anything, other than receiving the signal that selected losers are fair game.

In every event, the two camps of aristocratic knowledge square off, while the contest by other means is waged alongside this. The game is not that this game entails substantive claims, although it often purports to speak of a world that is real and appreciated as such. The game is to ensure that any time substantive claims extend beyond the purview of "real knowledge", that conversation is terminated, and nothing outside of the preferred modality of one camp or the other is accepted. And so, anarchists are set against central planning and "bureaucracy", a vaguely defined sense of imperious authority from the communists. Localists and smallholders are pit against authority and the militarist camp, even as both are supposedly on the same "team". The middling order of the technocrats are pit against higher managers and the leading lights of the university. In all cases, a central authority is presented as "all-knowing", and yet, its failure as an overt institution is imminent, and nothing about the central authority suggests that the viability of central control is maintained for long. The central authority relies on support of its base. The base is reliant on a superstructure which it disdains to acknowledge and treats as inferior; and yet, the superstructural truths are the objective to grasp, hold, and claim as ones own, after which the inheritors split off, secure their new superstructural strongholds, and push down the base to their familiar servile position. Those who lost, who know what has transpired, must not be allowed to rise again. In practice, those who are adapted to the game do not lose station. They move laterally from one regime to another, as if nothing had really changed except the verbiage they now utilize. The game of aristocracy to "move laterally" does not relate to the overt struggle over knowledge in a society, and remains a curious irregularity in the farce - where a priest in the old regime becomes the respected secular statesman in the new, and the priest very clearly was an atheist the whole way through, which was already expected in the world of the old regime since ideological purity was not a serious demand from anyone. Ideology itself and the purity of presentation is a preferred form of the Promethean or the Luciferian, while the freedom to transgress ideology is a limited quantity marking who really wins and loses in this contest.

To the rest of us, this seems like a joke. Why are we dancing around totems like a cargo cult sacrificing ot Ba'al, or expected to respect anyone else doing this? What did anyone think they were getting out of a game that has continued for centuries in one form or another? The simple reality is that this is reliant on monopoly, and if we wanted something else, we forsake history or public recognition, which was in the past easy enough. The expectation is that the rulers had some interest in a productive society so they can continue their luxury and the game they play at the expense of the losers. After the game is won or lost, the participants have to ask themselves what that was for, compared to anything useful in the world that allowed the game to be played.

Nothing about monopoly is inevitable. By proclaiming the position against monopoly was Promethean or Luciferian, it was possible to circumvent intellectual resistance. Resistance would persist, but it would become voiceless so long as these paradigms of knowledge-giving were paramount. The Promethean became the appeal of institutional knowledge and the status the members granted institutional authority or standing to speak. The Luciferian became the cry for "freedom" premised on the most fickle premises of "me wantee". These are lesser forms of the true positions, since these did possess a genuine core "up there". The institutions are somehow going to prevent monopoly, and no other path to doing so could be broached. No genuine condition establishing monopoly was to be challenged. In the ruling ideas, monopoly is taken for granted as natural, starting with utilities like electricity, and extending to the command of all land and the whole extractive sector of economic life.

The reality is that all of the work of human society has to still be done, without regard for the demands of monopoly or its wishes to make the world as it pleases. And so, the people cast out, left to live among the muck, are stuck with an intractable problem, while the favored think of nothing more than pushing a reward button that has always worked. If the reward button breaks, it is the highest imperative to repair it, at the expense of any other value that humanity might appropriate.

The only defense against this is to see the aristocratic knowledge-giving paradigm itself as a contributor to the problem, view it as it really exists, and refuse to accept both its lesser products given for public consumption, and the core itself which is useless to us. Knowledge truly begins with the local event, and the efforts of those who started as nothing to ask simple questions about the world. Knowledge has no crown it holds for its own sake. We know of things because this knowledge is useful and necessary for our continued existence, and for any moral sense beyond the most basic. That is the project I attempt to undertake, for what I can contribute to it. I cannot expect to get far on my own, for my remaining life is too brief and my access to the social body of knowledge is too tenuous, and there is a lot of digital shit to cleave through. But, I believe the true work will be carried on by many who remain anonymous, who see no need to engage with the false paradigm and its intriguers. The accumulation of knowledge will not lead to victory or justice or any of the silly aims that are invoked by the conceit of knowledge mentioned here. We know things instead because we will have to simply to exist. The aristocratic game is not our concern, until it decided it would press against us for the most worthless of causes. For our part, the aristocratic game is there for us to observe, and describe as what it is, rather than the farcical narratives promoted by the creation of so much digital shit. I can only describe so much of it before the point of exhaustion, but if we possess a useful kernel for describing the methodology, we can save ourselves a great deal of unnecessary legwork trying to comport with an alien theory of how the world works. That will not solve our problem, but it will neutralize many of the common lines of shitposting that plague this discussion. So too is it helpful to refuse to play the eugenists' game of shunning and shaming. Hopefully this article has been of some use for that aim, however little it explains of the eugenists' operations and internal deliberations.

Return to Main Page