If you've seen the asinine liberal arguments justifying the present ordering of the world, you will read the facile claim "The State is a Legal Monopoly on Violence". This could not be more wrong and its repetition displays an insidious intention of those who present it with warm, fuzzy language as a just-so story. The first and most obvious is that "monopoly" is not in any way guaranteed by any law or condition of nature if it is a genuine political matter and not a mere formality. Corporations can form a legal monopoly that is backed by the violence of the state pertaining to their business, and the punishment for violating the rights of the monopolist is whatever torture or consequence the state can bring. What the monopolistic firm itself is not directly a matter of state business, and the first and most obvious transgression of the liberal's make-believe rule comes from the ruling monopoly that has always operated outside of and beyond the state's control or the wish of the state to control it. When the state is held by cretins who will roll over for monopoly, all of the claims of the state's Law, let alone a sweeping legal monopoly on an idea or existence itself, are dubious to say the least. Monopoly or no, there is a simple fact about violence that idiots insist you are obligated to forget: violence is not, and never can be, a legally sanctioned act granted special properties based on who initiated it. Violence is simply violence. You could argue that it is possible to form all of the powers and functions of a state without one iota of violence, or that the violence conforms to an ethical guideline and purpose that is held to be superior to violence, but it is impossible to change the nature of violence itself or the condition of general fear and violence that precedes the creation of any state. If someone is set to violence, arguments about its legality or the proper permission do not dissuade anyone who isn't a complete sniveling fool. Violence and war abide a law that is entirely apart from political or economic matters that the conventional law of societies cannot replicate or replace, and if a subject is told they must "stand and die" because of a legal restriction forbidding them to live, no one is obligated to believe such a law has any more meaning than a statement of pre-emptive violence. The legal claims of a "right to violence" immediately become irrelevant because everyone knows that a state's so-called monopoly has no real precedent in human history. It is entirely a threat that the word of a legal code, an intellectual, has the ultimate power of life and death above any reasoned argument that it actually is life and death or is contingent on a reality outside of the assertion. The state has no more right than the ruled to initiate violence, but this type of liberal only sees this as "permission" for a Law that glorifies unlimited violence so long as they benefit from it and believe they can control and push the violent actors towards a pre-planned outcome. The reality is far simpler; violent men have throughout history recognized that fighting a greater strength in the open without any tactical or strategic reason to believe that greater strength cannot be beaten in the open is a bad idea if you want to be effective at violence. The state and its army set as their first mission a want to command the greatest strength in the land, which means the army's first enemy is the people it ostensibly protects. Every army has known that this is a simple fact that is required if an army is to be disciplined by its officers or anything that allows the army to exist. The state in turn premises its existence on this army being able to defeat all rivals that would question this force, should they arise and see cause to contest the state's claims. The state has an obvious interest in outlawing acts of violence that are clearly against the order the state requires for its existence to continue beyond merely sustaining its machine, and so a law against arbitrary violence, murder, rape, theft, and so on is standard. The arguments of justice, law, and things that are the proper purview of the state as an institution are always premised on there being a stable society where the force of the state isn't challenged as a fundamental idea. People may not like the state or seek to avoid the state, and they can even suggest it is time for a new state to replace the old, but you will never establish by reason or brute force something that "naturally" questions the ideas of statecraft that have prevailed in the past. The state and the law cannot be premised on a hypothetical in the future, but they can hearken to the past to establish precedent. If there is nothing in Law and nothing in brute force itself, what then guides history? You are given two places; the aristocracy, which morphs and mutates into whatever it needs to be to inhabit a particular society, and the lower orders that are as a rule forbidden to have any rights and any say whatsoever, starting with the favored grades of labor that are granted some presumptive value in the society and down to the lowest beggar who is openly cast out of all decision making, and whom the Law must never accomodate as an equal under any circumstances. The Law's attitude towards the beggar is not a matter of arbitrary whim or the beggar's personal virtue or right to assert anything. The beggar may be the most virtuous and forward-thinking man in all the land who succumbed to a sad situation, but the Law does not grant beggars standing because the beggars see correctly that it is the "great game" itself that creates the problem. The beggar's life and any strategy he follows to survive require him to hold the state and the Law in contempt, even if the Law were reasonable and aware of its own failings. In practice, the "legal monopoly on violence" was only acceptable because the sole purpose of the Law under the eugenic creed has been to attack the lowest class and grant impunity to all who join in this ritual sacrifice. Otherwise, every order will find people who see that the beggar is entirely correct about this situation, for the conditions of state society are never pleasing to any one of the orders or classes of human society, each for their own reasons. Those reasons are partially described in The Retarded Ideology and so I will not recount all of them. For most of history, and in practice even today, the state rests at some equilibrium where the state is, to the view of the lowest class, a fact they will have to accept whether they like it or not, and so too will everyone else be equally worthless regarding that question. Only by conspiracy and instigation would anyone believe there is a "ruling class" that has any real power to affect the machinery of this thing called the state. The very existence of a ruling class, with or without an economic monopoly or some rationale as an excuse, already makes a "legal monopoly on violence" a facile claim, because the men who hold that monopoly immediately seek to violate the law they wrote the moment the law does not meet their personal want to attack poor people or some other personal want that was more base and "illegitimate" for this state's chosen raison d'etre.
The outgrowth of this belief was a strange Germanic belief that they could make a legal excuse that obligated everyone to "respect" the warrior aristocracy, and that they would engineer society to make it illegal to say, think, or be anything other than a death cultist glorifying the war cult. This is proven by history to be a profoundly retarded way to fight wars, and the only reason why this idea exists is for the ultimate objective it has nonetheless succeeded at: the deployment of violence uniquely against a lowest class for the cause of extermination and Eugenics. If this type of state were to be an actual "state" competing with rivals for survival, it would be a disaster, and this is proven by the failure of the German idea against civilized, proper rivals in every war, every engagement, and every cause a state could exist for. Never has such a rotten failure of a state as the German State been given so many excuses and had so much just handed to it because there were pernicious, disgusting people who loved the idea of a state philosophically committed to the idea that human slavery was not just dominant but natural, eternal, desirable in-of-itself and for-itself, and the only permissible idea an educated person was allowed to possess. The intellectuals of every society are always the most amenable to any slave system whether they are masters or slaves who worked out a system that gives them the most favorable positions within the slave hierarchy, but the intellectuals are usually the first to recognize that you're not actually supposed to believe slavery is natural or necessary for a motive you do not control from start to finish.
It is also known that the state in any era never needed a pretext that it had any legal right let alone a monopoly to do what it does. The state is not obligated to uphold some sacred pinky swear about its purpose at any time. What is the state? The state is a machine that exists to defend its claims and no more. Those claims are not limited to property for the state can choose any basis it wishes so long as that basis is viable in the time of its genuine existence. Every state is conscious on some level that its existence is temporal and not prescribed by any law or founding document telling it what it is and what it is allowed to be. States are founded not by pieces of paper but by human beings who are very aware of the moment they established their state. The American rebels and the Confederates knew what they were fighting for. The major moments of the French Revolution, both the good revolution 1789 and the "bad" revolution of 1792, are recorded in history and the men involved tell the story of what happened more than a dry recitation of ideology ever would. The Bolsheviks were by the nature of their beliefs entirely aware that states were the creation of men, and this became a fact of later Marxist states that would be picked up as a reason why communism failed... and those critics are wrong about the reasons for failure like they are wrong about everything else because they enjoy Aggressive Wrongness in all things, historical, scientific, economic, or matters of fact that wouldn't be important if not for their insistence on being proudly Wrong. I would argue that recognizing the state as a mortal institution is a reason the Soviet system survived as long as it did and did not immediately devolve into a purely apologist government bereft of purpose or historical meaning as was the plan. This is not to say that I'm a communist apologist looking to restore the USSR or think the system was infallible; I seek only to say that this charge, like so many other facile charges by the liberal intellectual, is only raised because the liberal theory of the state after 1930 is so batshit insane that it has to pre-emptively declare any idea even slightly deviant from a open declaration of extermination against poor people must be insane and fundamentally un-natural. Even the German Nazis had more sense than the nice, polite liberals when it came to their actual understanding of the state, and the Nazis were a smash and grab barbarism operation that openly disregarded concepts like "laws" and "math" and "thinking". The liberal intellectual vanguard became so obsessed with Eugenics that it had to go ahead of the most virulent eugenist state before it and idolize the very worst of the German State. The Nazis for their part still had an army that had to fight, presumably, an actual war and be somewhat effective at it. The liberals were just the people who funded German atrocities—ahem, "experiments"—and began rewriting history so they could prepare another go in a generation. It says a lot when "Rape: The Country" is more functional than the ideas that are now the standard canon in liberal universities, yet here claims like this are repeated proudly and with certainty that they truly describe an eternal condition of states and political thought.
The crazy thing is that while liberals uphold such a strange concept as a legal monopoly on human activity, they do not regard the true monopoly states have always possessed. This is that states are, by their nature, not beholden to anything outside of them when they form their constituent ideas and Laws, and they are not beholden to anything but the law of institutions which is a law unto itself. We might argue that in reality institutions are limited in what they can do because they are created by very fallible human beings, but in my writing in Book 4 about the nature of intellectual machinery in history, I make it clear that states can, in principle, make wild claims and insist that they will be made true for the purposes of the law and what the servants of that state are there to do. Nothing about a state obligates it to any necessary ulterior motive, any more than a slave has any necessary moral thought or idea about the condition of slavery that obligates the slave to think or feel anything about itself, the master, or the situation. The slave is as free to think about slavery as anyone or anything else, absent a compelling force that interdicts its thoughts and has truly transformed it into an animalistic force. The crass retards, and they are retarded, will claim that cybernetics did this and that cybernetics was uniquely evil—oh yes, it was some vague technology and those evil, evil computer programmers and not at all our malfeasance and our shittiness at ruling anything! If these people cared about what states actually were and what they did, states do not need to invoke the language of corporate monopoly unless they are being dismantled in favor of outright corporate rule, which is precisely the point—to abolish the democratic nation-state of the past and replace it with this retarded Germanic idea no one likes and no one ever needed. What the state truly possessed, which it can use for various purposes, is simply virtue of the force it commands, the purpose it can state as a public matter if it so chooses, the ability of states to uniquely settle a line or idea that will be established as the true ruling of the Law, and the loyalty of those ruled by the state which is considerable since men are loyal not to goodness or perfection but to things with proven strength and history. These are not the limits of the state's possessions even in the denuded condition of nation-states today. A wiser state wouldn't adopt a retarded belief that it was born from a primordial light and must edit reality to make its predictions true. The most effective states have always recognized themselves as living entities, regardless of their necessary ethos and legal claims; and if they were to hearken to a past condition of their founders, they would see that the founders of states worth a damn were men who saw the success of their project as something ongoing, and not something the founders handed down to slaves for aggrandizing themselves. The framers of the American Constitution knew and acknowledged they were in the end just some rich white guys and that it would fall on future generations to make something out of it, which those future generations clearly failed to do despite some who tried, really tried, to make something of this entity. The force of states is not limited to the projection of "imminent" violence or a brittle precedent with numerous contradictions.
What we see with this pernicious idea is liberalism turning viciously against itself, on cue because the paymasters of ideology did not want a liberal state. They wanted a eugenist state that could be nothing but Eugenics, and it is humanity and the future generations that will pay the price for their stupidity. They were smart enough to see what they wanted, but blind to the consequences of anything they were saying. They only had eyes for a vision that told them they were the "unique", the "special", and this was very impressionable because the middle class—the technological interest—has a proclivity to follow these fads for the reasons I describe in The Retarded Ideology. I ask you all why such a myth should be believed or any reason other than the violence its partisans command. No matter how much power they possess, the pernicious doctrine creates far more problems than it solves if the goal was to speak of a state that could do anything but devour the world. That perhaps was the goal they had all along, but it's a stupid goal and it won't be any more successful than it was for the Germans in the 1930s. It will just create more needless suffering until the next thing comes along. The greater horror is that this system and the university it perpetuates can only produce and promote mediocrities, and it is allergic to anyone who would speak or write anything that regards the existence of a future.
If you are someone with an interest in the state, which is not most of us, what are you to do then? First of all, you probably should step back from your grand theories and ask yourself a simple scientific question. This state cannot be viable on the terms of reality no matter how many times it insists it is the only idea, and I'm not a lone voice saying this. Is this really what you want the society to be? The state cannot make men good by declaring they must be good, but it can do things to prevent this from being a lot worse. The state can, out of dire necessity, reject the most extreme program of the eugenic creed and things like it, and replace it with something functional, if only for the sake of the holders of the state. Eugenics is so committed to its cause that it demands the very ruling class surrender its brain and future to an empty idea, and that the ruling class should promote men like Elon Musk as their rightful representatives. The political graspers fear a Caesar so much that they will insist on a rethuglic of dunces no matter what. We need only see Donald J. Trump to see where this path takes us all, and unless you are a depraved Satanist thief that is not a society that would be great for anyone. It's retarded. This is the kind of thing child abusers do to insist that their perversion is some sort of moral order and authority. I've seen far too much of that rot. People of my age cohort have heard it all of their lives, and unlike most we don't have clear memory of a time where the thinking was different. We have grown up hearing their stupid shrieking and blustering and watched helplessly as the world is turned into this, all in accord with what the Fabians and Eugenics desired. You were warned and I'm warning you again, as I will keep doing. This has always had an obvious outcome, and unless humanity can stop insisting we "have" to glorify it, we get exactly the results I have written of. So, what does this have to do with a strange intellectual liberal doctrine? You will see throughout the past 100 years of liberalism artful excuses to do exactly what the most "un-liberal" regimes clamored to do, because there is nothing in liberalism but Eugenics, and it was a strong presence since the sordid beginning of liberalism. Liberals do more to undermine their historical credibility than any intrigue or deception ever could and they did so on the terms of liberalism. You can conclude "liberalism doesn't work" but this is cowardly and dumb. The sad thing is that liberalism does work. The political subject begins as an individual and there are no natural classes or advantages to suggest anyone has any special powers. The very idea of a legal monopoly that is something other than an actual legal monopoly is exactly that kind of invocation of "special powers" so long as they are cloaked with a veneer of pseudoscience. As I said as the first argument here, a legal monopoly does not assert reality or the moral sentiments of everyone in society. A legal monopoly is just that; a decree that some entity is granted that monopoly. Corporate government, which was the real reason why this liberal idea gained support, always seeks a legal monopoly. You do not need to give these monopolies spiritual and philosophical power because intellectuals and jurists are so enamored with hating poor people that much. For any of that to work, you need to hate poor people exclusively like the fanatics do, and this is all liberalism can be now. Liberty is a failed system, and they brag about it because they all believe that those selected to live will have this special exemption forever and they can mind control everyone into carrying out more democide. The present war as of this writing is just one vestige of the eugenic creed and its world-historical legacy of imposing the most abject slavery hitherto known. Liberals rely on you being illiterate just as their theories insist you must be for not sharing their screaming hatred of poor people and reveling in the thrill of torture. They really shouldn't do that if they thought about what this turns into, but liberals have become as dumb as every other ideologue and far more vicious. To defend this ruinous idea they must insist that no new ideas at all can be permitted, and therefore, Donald J. Trump is the liberal plan for you and nothing else can exist. Even if they somehow got rid of Trump, liberals clamor for ever-more blood to defend this dubious "liberty" that, if you ever think about it, has no inherent value beyond saying that ruling classes aren't made of magic.
But, you say, if not liberalism, then what? First of all, ideology means nothing, so demanding some ready-made system for consumption is stupid. Liberals are the first to understand this and always saw ideology as a thing for the slaves. The problem is not one of having the right ideological talking points. It is far worse. There is no future, and so long as Eugenics is paramount, speaking of the future is not worth fantasizing about. Every time someone works out a novel idea, liberal intellectuals are rabid and seek to destroy it no matter what, even if it were innocuous. If you really wanted to solve this problem, you would first diagnose it as what it is and stop making excuses. The greatest problem is that any language that describes the present situation is haram. It is immediately denounced as retarded if you speak of anything but the inevitable victory of the eugenic creed. The problems are not really internal to liberalism. Nothing prevents a liberal state from setting a policy against the most obviously egregious stupidity. It is this airy, conceited view of the state that has been at the center of so much pointless malice. Attacking some of its numerous tendrils is helpful to illustrate why this lawfare regime has to be studied and dissected, rather than blithely accepted. This is not even an inherent weakness of humanism or the theory of technology, or the retarded belief that some magic technology will make human thought and history null and void. The eugenic creed and the clamoring for slavery are the force that holds this "veto power" of the word retarded, and it is Eugenics alone that sits in the position that stops history. Technocratic society creates the appearance of a still word in the institutional apparatus, but this is more because it must present this to maintain any coherence rather than a want to do this because it is inherently attractive to them. It is the eugenic creed that insists on "this never changes" and a perversion of history, and it is Eugenics alone that has insisted on this. I think of an alternate history where, by some miracle, the eugenic creed did not initiate what it did during the 1970s, and the world that results would be so dramatically different that this conversation and my very existence would seem like an absurd story, yet here we are insisting on an eternal regression and this beastly type of government that was never sound and was always given over to every ooh and ahh. The middle class in their theory of public relations did nothing but transplant their own vices onto the masses. Soon enough I will return to writing Book 5 where topics like this have to be investigated further. I invite you all to beat me to the punch and do better, and hopefully soon, because anyone who would insist on continuing this circular reasoning and blind faith in a failed system is an asshole.