Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

When I set out to write, I had one great question, and it is a selfish one. That is this: why did my life, and the life of those around me, turn out the way it did? The particulars of what I have lived and what I have seen are not too important here, as in this time, we are familiar with social institutions that are vast and have names and association with machinery so complex that describing it in total would be too great an undertaking for one person writing one book. On the surface, we are given names of vast systems as a cause of our problems. We blame capitalism, communism, liberalism, fascism, Marxism, intellectuals, "the elites" with vague aspersions of some nefarious plot that everyone knows yet is taboo to mention, or some other vast entity which is only explicable by the dissection of all moving parts. If that does not work, we are given names of individuals, or names of corporate entities with a logo, a propaganda front, that appear as if they just-so cause events by an inexplicable will. We are trained to look to the sitting president, or the head of some prominent institution, or a corporation or conglomerate of corporations. We are trained to believe the problem is a prominent old money name, which has an aura of fear surrounding it, and Americans are well acquainted with the names of old money families, most often Rockefeller who is cited correctly as the source of so much. If that does not work, a deeper theory names some group as conspiratorial and up to no good, usually a race or nation with some history suggesting nefarious intent. None of these explanations work to explain any mechanism other than the will of actors, whether they are political, economic, or some intellectual head with occulted knowledge which works in mysterious ways that we the lowly plebs are not privy to know. None of these explanations were satisfactory for me, and I found in the collected record of events few answers. It is common knowledge that political thought among the masses was effectively destroyed during the rise of fascism, and replaced with this creature that has been the dominant thought-form for the past century. In the 21st century, there has been in the public imagination no new idea for a long time, and every grand scheme proposed to describe the world is a recapitulation of earlier thought-forms. The intent is to suggest that history only moves when a thought leader declares that it has in fact moved, and so we are told by incredulous zealots to believe current events are a re-enactment of some past drama. During the 2010s, the ideologues harkened back to the 1960s and the period of ideological conflict, using language to describe a world that wasn't true then and that is far removed from any mechanism active today. The purpose of doing this is to tell the masses that they are out, they are done, and that those who inherited political legacies of the past decided a long time ago that they do not need the people and never wanted to keep the people, or let the lowest of us into their society. That is something that is accessible to those who are familiar with the genuine political thought these ideologues espouse, whatever it may be. There are competing narratives describing what is happening, none of them true and all of them regurgitating an old system in total or reassembling it in some mad libs exercise that has even less explanatory potential. Never is any genuine mechanism at the base level described, and this is intended. Any talk that there is a base-level mechanism is swiftly attacked for one reason or another. All mechanisms are, in the ruling ideas, arrested by thought leaders who through some mysterious will, command reality. The commanders are described as a cybernetic "black box", despite this metaphor never having been the way humans have ever described the thought and soul of another human. It is only in modernity that this metaphor of an inexplicable black box became normal and accepted, and this metaphor was imposed violently. Anyone who called it bullshit on sight was "corrected" and silenced, or brought into the true knowledge which is held as a conspiracy against the public. In such a world, it became difficult to speak plainly about any fact concerning society. Indeed, the pronouncement of Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s was that there was no society, and this was one of the few true statements a politician would utter. To those who were cast out, there was indeed no society, and all of the institutions that dominated their lives were alien to them.

It is not that genuine explanations of the past, the mechanisms of government and industry, the mechanisms of finance, and explanations of current events are unavailable. Genuine explanations of the mechanisms in force today are actually available without requiring expensive or uncommon access, at least to describe sufficiently a model of human society as a grand clockwork. The full description of such would be too vast and it is not in the interest of any one or any group to compile such a writing. Those who would attempt to do so certainly do not see publication of such a work as a priority. I write this not as a full description of society in all of its details, or as a history, or as a theory which could be proven scientifically. I do believe what I write is correct and can be verified by independent evaluation of my writing, but if someone considers my thinking wrong, they are free to correct it in their own words.

What I seek to write in this book is a description not of a whole social system, but of the basic mechanisms that comprise our thought on society and economic value. Those mechanisms emerged as distinct phenomena from baser processes in nature, and there is no singular system which we regard as an origin for society or economics aside from the world itself. I reject the notion that sociology is merely applied biology. Far from it, social processes concern a world that is mostly dead, in which dead or non-living matter and abstractions are absorbed by living agents. Said living agents are not alone in the darkness, nor are those agents comprised of the same substance or purpose. Human beings contend not solely with each other as individuals, but in social formations of complexity which has grown, and the nature of those formations and the agents themselves will change from one time and place to another. It is not the case today that those social agents are morally equal or socially equal, and it is absolutely certain that there is no concept of political equality that is imagined as a default in the false explanations mentioned before. Political equality as a concept is not a fantasy, for the concept is easy enough to grasp even for a dull mind such as mine. The defeat of political equality arrives for two reasons. One is that political equality was never a natural state of affairs, and by all indications, natural law suggests political inequality is the default, which is borne out in nearly every political treatise that can be taken seriously. The argument for inherent political equality by natural law which is guaranteed in the actual society we live in was never a just-so story that would make itself true by fact alone. The verbiage regarding political equality in the American Declaration of Independence did not pertain to a cynical lie or a mistaken belief of the founding fathers, as if they were too stupid and had to be corrected by the technocrats who despised any remnant of democracy. That language was understood to be self-evident to explain the origin of the new political institutions of the United States, and those who believed in the document did not believe it referred to any biopolitical theory of human states. That concept did not exist in any developed form at that time and would have been seen correctly as a violation of the organizing principle on which the United States was founded. It was not a question of whether a judge could adjudicate who was and was not a man endowed with those natural rights, as if a lawyer could decree what you are and what you are allowed to express. That men were men and born free was a statement of the reality Americans high and low accepted. Those born as slaves were not considered to have any of those rights, and the institution of slavery understood at the time was understood as an institution imposed on the unwilling. There is no slave system that is passively enforced, and since many of the men in the Continental Congress were slave owners who were aware of the institution's domination of the emerging country, they were aware of what slavery and freedom meant. That is a distinction in America that defines the country more than any other - the nature of freedom and an understanding of freedom in its genuine sense, rather than freedom as an idea or abstraction which was always an artificial imposition. The "ideology" regarding freedom is something alien to any American's sense of freedom, and those who espouse that freedom is ideological and purely abstract do not believe in freedom and do not believe in the concepts that were relevant to those who wrote America's political documents. Those who believe in that version of ideological freedom have made it clear they despise those documents and saw them as worthless for governing. Whether they are right or wrong is not the purpose of this book, and I cannot claim with certainty that those who disbelieve that freedom is a genuine condition of mankind or even a possible condition are wrong. There is no rule of nature mandating any freedom for mankind whatsoever, and humans have long adapted to despotic societies. I do not concern myself with republicanism, despotism, or any broader political settlement or understanding in this second book I write. That topic is something for a much later writing, if it is a subject of interest for the purpose I sought when I set out to write this. I repeat again that I am not writing any political treatise and do not see any of my work as "political". It is necessary to explain what politics is to those who are outside of it and have no meaningful influence on political institutions, and that has been the norm of the lower classes throughout human history. I can say though that nothing about the American founding fathers suggested that any of them were born to be elite, or possessed any inborn virtue that marked them for greatness. Many of them were little better than their social lessers in ability or status. Nothing many of the founders wrote suggested they believed they possessed any inborn right to claim they were better than their inferiors at all, and that is one of the purposes for that language in the declaration. It was entirely possible, and explicitly stated by a number of those men, that they were nothing more than the beneficiaries of good fortune or some grace of God, and had managed to secure their wealth where so many like them had failed. An argument that these men, many of them having come from nothing, were somehow the same as the aristocracy of nobles and established pedigrees, would have undermined their claim to ever have been a new aristocracy. By that rule, none of them had any right and their entire project was a bastard country that never should have been allowed to exist. It is not that these men didn't believe they did possess some quality yet to be determined that allowed them to prevail. None of those men were born with any pronounced defect and none of them could afford to be stupid if they rose to their station, and those things were believed to be inherited by pedigree. It is rather that the conceit of genetic superiority, in the sense eugenics today upheld the concept and institutionalized it, could not be a ruling idea, let alone an idea at the apex of all institutions, as it would become in the 20th century for all states, regardless of any stated ideology or political project, or even an official stated ideology at all. The reasons for this are something I hope to explain in this and future works, for the question is not just one regarding a particular country or my life, but what it means to speak of society, politics, or any governing idea.

I will say here and will repeat later that while I hold these mechanisms are present in every society, and are evident in the ways we can even speak of society or its human actors, no accounting of mechanisms is total or a thing that refuses to allow new understandings. It is also plain as day that every social organization, nation, state, and every actual human or organization with a definition name and place and history, operates in its own conditions and for its own reasons, and no accounting of these mechanisms is intended to universalize all societies or all persons as the same thing, as if societies or humans were rolled off a philosophical assembly line and their nature were stamped on all things that are produced. There is a reason why this conceit happens, which is partially explained in the next book of this series and it is a recurring motif in the entire series. I, like many writers describing society, have been fascinated by disassembling its parts and reconfiguring them in hypothetical scenarios, to ask what it would be if the world were different, or humans were different, or fate rolled some 20-sided dice with a different outcome in situations where there was no discernable reason a result was guaranteed. For many reasons, the question of alternate history is not very interesting when you see the final products. A great difficulty with alternate histories is that the official histories are written in such a way that it appears the trajectory of mankind was set in motion by some overmind, and when looking at the details and what moved where, and all the things that made the past what it was, there was a reason why events played out as they did. In my own life, there were many things that could have been different, but in all scenarios, I see my position in society and the way I was handled by the institutions being no different, and it would be as if fate decided that I was here. The greater mechanisms in society, which were foundational to why anything could persist as it did, intend outcomes that arrest all variance in events, people, and the conditions they operate in. Social values, and eventually the values of states, do as much as possible to circumvent the conditions of their ecological niche and assert values which are sensical to enough of the actors in society.

I will describe in this book ecology albeit briefly, to explain why "environmental destiny" is a shitty bastardization of natural history, let alone the history of human societies which are highly adaptive and aware of the game they play. There is not a particular reason why a largely forgettable appendage compared to Asia and Africa came to influence the whole world so profoundly, nor anything about European geography, climate, or material conditions that suggested Europe had anything to recommend it would be the epicenter of capitalism or empire. The inhabitants of Europe are not demonstrably smarter, stronger, or more inclined to war or commerce or any particular moral philosophy that would grant them an inborn advantage. For most of history, Europe was a geopolitical backwater, then a site of a highly extractive economy dominated by the institution of slavery, where the empire was ruled by great warriors but rife with internal struggles which led to a collapse and failure unlike the fall of any other empire in history. Europe returns to backwater status for nearly 1,000 years, and nothing suggests that the Europeans were destined to discover the Americas. I do not wish here to write a theory about how the "West won", since I don't believe first of all that "The West" is a useful historical construct, and second that European civilization won in a way that was beneficial to the race that held it, or demonstrated any superiority suggesting that they won because they were a master race or particularly noteworthy. The empire that prevailed was the empire of capitalism and free trade, and it won not by some moral virtue or goodness, but because the British were exemplary at the art of imperial mindfuckery. The true crown jewel of the Empire and the way it projected its force throughout the world was not the mother country or some imagined Little England, and it certainly wasn't its aristocracy which has always been parasitic, far beyond the norm of human aristocracies and probably the worst such aristocracy humanity has ever been cursed with, and destroyed any useful thing. It was instead the ruthlessness of a certain trading company, which operated its domains not on principles that would govern a nation-state or anything democratic, but on the principles of total expropriation, corporate rule, the establishment of narcostates and drug lords with collaborators all around the world, and the development of espionage into a whole modus operandi for governing the world. All of its domains, including the mother country itself, would be little more than harvesting sites that supplied soldiers, industry, technology, raw material, and conditions of deprivation that would press the colonized and the proletarian to work, encouraged a disgusting sloth and self-abasement among the empire's middle class, and encouraged an intellectual elite that would become in the past century the true aristocracy and governing power of the empire. It should be clear to anyone who looks at history honestly that the United States effectively entered that empire, or never possessed economic independence from it for long and by now is completely integrated into that structure. The aforementioned bowdlerization of American history that is aggressive today is the final dissolution of anything about America that was independent of that imperial thinking, and with it, the empire attaining its "true form". That form had no particular attachment to race or geography, and scoffs at the idea that ecology is genuinely the destiny of empires.

Ecology for the imperialists has always been a way to stuff the serfs onto a plantation and forbid them from hunting in the King's forest. Economy at its heart was not a description of any scientific truth, but moral philosophy. Adam Smith is not a naturalist but a moral philosopher, and further economic thought was developed primarily by philosophers rather than scientists for whom economy was never a true science. Ricardo inherits Smith's position and seeks to rectify seeming errors, and bring Smith's thought in line with the affairs of the empire at that time. Marx is a philosopher first and foremost and writes in that tradition, and while he follows natural history, his method and the content of his writing is not that of an astute scientist, but of a political mind who sees his work not as a natural science but a vehicle for advancing political concepts in light of the evidence history provides, and presents outside of Capital an approach to history and an approach to topics that are inherently political or can be politicized. You would not describe a "Marxist physics" or use that method as an effective critique of physical laws. You could however use Marx's critical method to poke holes in those who would use physics to make crass political claims, as a few charlatans do. This has little effect for increasing understanding of physical objects, which by and large do not care about any political conceit we hold. This becomes more relevant when biology rises to the forefront not just as a natural science but as a politicized matter at the apex of the empire. Charles Babbage and William Stanley Jevons write on operations and involve themselves in early attempts at operationalizing rational thought itself, and this computation project relies on a scientific view of the world to function but is not in of itself "science", nor is it a substitute for philosophy. It is something else altogether, and some references to the prior book in this series might explain the nature of what became computer science and its economic role. In all cases, moral philosophy is inherent in economic thought. If humans are not moral actors regardless of their conditions, then nothing in economics is sensical. The nature of morality differs with each author, as do the questions they seek to answer. For Marx, political economy is a pseudoscience from start to finish, and the true question of how we would govern our affairs is a political one and an affair between humans. Marx begins, though not because he agreed with it or stated that this should be the result of his work, the creep of ecology as a new imperial management theory over economy. If the social conditions of human beings are variable, as Marx's thinking suggests it would be, then the environment which was an external factor in classical political economy is of much more importance than anyone knew. This environment was envisioned as the social conditions of humanity more than a dependence on its raw material conditions or mechanisms, but the idea is implicit in Marx's work, and was implicit in the very idea of political economy and acknowledged as a thing to be managed. The neoclassical revision to economic thought simply recapitulated the actual intent of capital - that it would indeed crush the workers and would crush the middle class just as they would crush the workers, and that this prevailed because utility in an enclosed world demanded it. It is here where ecological thinking, which figured also in Darwin's thought on evolution and natural history, rises in prominence. No open discourse on ecology would be permitted the way it was for economy. Ecology would be branded as a pure natural science and something "above politics", while economy was always at heart a political and moral affair detached from the material conditions economic actors were in. I cannot offer a full critique of ecology, which is sorely needed. Such a work would require considerable research and is far beyond my ability to write in any scholarly sense, and I'm just some random jackass, so my words would only reach so far. I fear though that ecology has been sacrosanct for so long that such a critique would be snuffed out if it did arise. What I hope to do in this book is describe ecology sufficiently so that further points in this and future books would be sensical, to describe economic actors as entities in an environment rather than philosophical agents. I cannot describe ecology in grand detail and that is better left to books that are already available.

If ecology is to be understood at all, the agents in it must be modeled, and all things must be modeled. In ecology, the true claim of states over their domains is revealed. The state by its nature makes an active claim on everything and everyone in the domain, and as a going concern, it considers itself in conflict with all other states. A state may establish its domains as fixed and view its conflict with other states in different ways, but the state is not congruent in any part of its domain with another state. The state is the subject of the next book, but in ecology, a volumnious accounting of all things in a domain is necessary to speak of it as anything other than vagaries or pseudoscience. I will claim pre-emptively that economics and ecology are not "pseudosciences", because they are not sciences at all in the sense that science describes a natural world. A proper reading of classical political economy makes clear that it has no scientific basis whatsoever, and economy as a practice claimed that it was not beholden to any natural law. The laws of economics are instead premised on a moral claim which may be disputed in the realm of philosophy. Any treatment of economics as a science in any way requires a study of the human agents as machines, which was not available in the 18th century and was only vaguely considered in the 19th century. Economics pointedly refused to rest its case on science in the sense that humans were bound by natural laws to behave in any pre-ordained way. Economic actors in moral philosophy are ultimately making a choice, even if their choices are constrained by known biological restraints. It is entirely possible for economic actors to choose to die, or choose to disregard the moral claim that money is worth anything and operate outside of any state's authority. Nothing binds economic actors to natural laws at all unless certain claims about the nature of humanity, the state, history, and a number of other topics are implied. The moral value of labor is really the moral value of making workers suffer so they will do something they usually do not want to do. If humans happily provide this labor and arrived at a just agreement, this would be great, but it would not describe the role money played or the psychology of those who owned banks. In other words, such a just world would not describe free trade or capitalism as a situation, nor would it describe socialism or any hitherto known arrangement. It would describe instead the thing workers might have wanted - for their conditions of life to be mostly tolerable and involve little interference from politicians, and for the worker to proceed through a life that never wanted anything to do with the state. Strictly speaking, the state as an institution would have no proper role in managing producers' operations. Had the law been reasonable to the interests of those who worked, who had done no wrong to anyone and would almost always have been won over if the political class simply chose kindness for once in their existence, nearly everything that capitalism entailed would not have happened, and human history would be far different. The cost of doing this was not significant, since the greatest punishment for workers was their absurdly long working hours, which were set high intentionally to grind down their numbers, rather than any desire of firms to produce things for social benefit. The workers themselves saw no benefit whatsoever from the increase in product under capitalism, and it is only after desperate action that some of the working class clawed back promotions - and this give was always for the favored workers, while the class as a whole was under constant assault from all sides. None of this made sense for any ulterior motive other than the pigheadedness of the rulers and the extreme pigheadedness of the middle class, who had always found their social inferiors to be the enemy. If humans were not strongly inclined to this malice and only overcome it with great difficulty, the situation of capitalism presented a rare historical circumstance for the bourgeoisie, remaining peasantry, and urban workers to align for all of the reasons that made sense, and these classes would have had no intrinsic animosity with the beggars for any pressing material motive. It was not even the devilish plan of the new aristocracy that fooled all of those classes to turn against each other. They did so without the rulers prompting it, even as members of this new aristocracy and a handful of the old remarked that the internecine conflict caused more harm than good and undermined their national projects and efforts to rise against each other. The only reason this did not happen is because of a persistent will to ensure that such alliances for anything decent or kind are never possible, and it had been an abiding rule of politicians and their functionaries to never let subordinates have more than the barest minimum. This was not a moral incentive but a statement of what aristocracies always rested their claims on - deprivation of the lower classes and denuding everything about them, and telling the lower classes that their nature was inferior and natural law damned them. That mentality finds its highest form with 20th century ecology, which enshrined things far worse than Malthus' dictum to exterminate the poor.

One note before I continue - some terminology from economics and sociology and many other theories may be encountered here in ways that these terms are not used. I do not purport to rewrite the theories of others or operate entirely in their framework, and so for certain concepts like "state", "polity", "system", and so on, I have or will have made particular defintions for the purposes of this writing. I do not do this to purport that this is exactly how those words must be understood by everyone, but to make clear what I am referring to when those words are written and being defined specifically. If by some chance a reading of this is confusing, or it seems I have mixed up my definitions with common vernacular understandings, I hope that the reading is sensical enough to get the intended meaning across. Many times I will refer to "person" instead of "human", even though in most cases I use "person" in the vernacular sense to suggest a human or some social entity. I have a specific definition of "person" as the institutionalized form of a social entity, and that definition generally comports with the common understanding, but not everything is written to conform to a hyper-specific model to the letter. Since saying "human" or "man/woman" in certain contexts is highly jarring to readers, I have chosen to mostly stick with the vernacular use of "person", unless I emphasize the distinction between an actual flesh and blood human and their legal or social identifier or institutionalized form.

I will also answer the question of what my "position" is on what economic ordering should exist. I am in no position to implement anything, but there will be charges that I'm a socialist, communist, capitalist apologist, fascist, anarchist, or various other things. I am none of those, and very much resent the last three. Capitalism as an arrangement, so far as it exists, is such a ridiculous farce, and I would hope any reading of the following text highlights further the absurdity of capitalism or free trade even conceptually. That argument has been made by far earlier and better men and women, but I approach this question by asking about mechanisms in society. I say though that socialism conceptually would face the same problems as capitalism, so long as value in society is treated in the sense I have described. This is not a political question, but a question of what it would mean to value anything in the first place. The same questions are posed to socialist and communist societies, and these are questions socialists and communists would attempt to answer in earnest because they had to. "Fascist" does not correspond to any fixed economic position so far as I am familiar with its economic thought, and can be construed as a defense of oligarchic private property, a mutation of socialism, or a counter-movement against the bourgeois. As for communism, its genuine historical definition before Marx is often lost, since Marx came to be so strongly identified with the concept. It originally referred to a political settlement regarding the commonwealth of a city. In effect, communism was from the outset the last progression of the bourgeois movement, and this is reflected in everything communism would do from its early inception to Marx's interpretation of it. Post-Marx revisions of communism usually were not communism at all or even pointed at something sensical, and usually were slapdash efforts to discredit Marx. The great difficulty in pinning down a particularly "communist" economic idea is that it is conflated with so many things, from socialism to republicanism to the prejudices of bourgeois society dragging the rest of the world into their mindset. It is further conflated with a technophilic approach to history and the future, and suggested in Marx's variant very profound changes to what it meant to be human, despite this being a thing obliquely hinted at in Marxist writing. Those changes may not have been apparent, but in my view, writing where I am now and with a conception of humanity far different from that Marx defended, I believe that communism would have indeed entailed a very different humanity in the long run. I do not throw stones at historically existing communism since much has been printed about what actually happened. What I can say is that communism as drawn could not have worked in that time, and that appears to be the consensus of many Marxist-Leninists who took the project seriously. If communism were to return, and I do not consider that necessarily desirable and probably not possible at this point in history, it would begin from premises appropriate to this time and situation. I do not care to spend forever suggesting what, if anything, would have resembled Marx's vision of communism, but very often what Marx himself suggested has been misunderstood by both his successors and the grossly dishonest anticommunists. For myself, I have two aims so far as I can be said to take a position. The first is that I despise eugenics, and nearly every strain of economic thought hitherto known has in some way or another embraced it, and acts very suspiciously if the concept arises. I do not see any future plan possible so long as eugenics is paramount, and there is no realistic possibility of any political change let alone change in economic behavior so long as that is the case. My second aim, if I were to suggest an economic ordering for humanity, would be to simply share the wealth in the only way that made sense - to give to the workers, peasants, and oppressed class the things they wanted in the first place, which had nothing to do with a political project or grand plan to change the world. That has been the chief demand of the "Low" throughout history, and it is a consistent aim that they will tell you to your face if they are honest and someone would see it their way. The Low do not want ideology or some great scheme with an IOU. They simply want this beast gone, and economic deprivation is a condition that didn't have to exist out of some sense that nature imposed it. This is far easier said than done, and again, probably impossible, but we can in any arrangement do better than this. Since there is no possibility of challenging the dominant political order and dominant institutions at present, the one thing I could do is speak to anyone who cares to think of what might have been different, and contribute to economic thought what I can, if that is worth anything. It may be disputed and I do not consider this a great economic plan. It is rather a framework for anyone to assess what economics is, and does not implicitly suggest any solution is natural or desirable.

The arguments I use here could be used to justify communism, the older socialism referenced in the opening quote from Saint-Simon, a form of fascist corporatism ruled by cybernetics, anarchic disregard for the economic order, or simply a call to let the ruin of the contending classes happen, since my class has clearly lost and I have little to expect from the future. I would prefer a socialist and democratic direction in any way that is possible, and I would consider communism in principle acceptable enough, if its advocates can consider the problems I describe among many others and recognize that this social and political question does not go away. The call for revolt in recent times is not a call for some grand narrative of revolution, but a revolt against an obviously insane ruling idea let off its leash to cannibalize humanity. Even though I refer to humanity with incredibly disparaging language and hold little hope for humanity collectively, on some level, for some unfathomable reason, I retain some sentiment towards humans, most of whom did not deserve this. The ones who went out of their way to advance this filth cannibalizing humanity and stripping the world bare can eat shit and burn in Hell forever and ever, and I care not to pretend with those people. Since they've already made their position on me clear and have signaled that they only want people like themselves in the world to come, there is nothing lost by saying this. I can see now why it was going to be this way. I have said and will say again that the horror of eugenics is not that so many will suffer and die, but that it is these people who were selected to live and who get to go on, and they see this not as anything good but a great thrill to celebrate in whatever orgy they attend. Terrible and pointless violent suffering and death wreaked by the institutions against the people is not new to the world, and has been the sad rule of humanity all throughout. It is not that I am heartless to the horror happening as I write. This is the worst thing in human history and it will be much worse in the decades to come. I write because some damned fool has to write down what this was, at the least.

- "eugenics-kun"
June 2023

While I generally don't do "content warnings", I want to give the reader an explanation of some of the language I will use in this work occasionally. Lately, and in this writing, I have taken to utterances of "failed race" or "Satanic race" to describe humanity and certain elements within it. I am doing this for a number of reasons, rather than just arbitrary edginess or fidelity to any racialist doctrine or race-centered thinking. The first and obvious is that humanity, as a racial concept, is a failed race to say the least, and as I will write in the next book, there is something Satanic about many of the humanist doctrines that came to the forefront. Humans very clearly are not a "race" in the eugenicist sense or in the sense Nazis and their fellow travelers believe they are, nor are Germans actually Persians because they take credit for the "Aryan" race, which by all proper reckoning Germans have no real relation to. It is part of the bizarre thinking of their filthy race - and I will call them a filthy race if they are Nazis and believe in such a reasoning themselves - that was not even credible by the standards of 19th century scientific racism. The modern linguist who noted an "Aryan" language group that linked European languages to the wider world made it clear that this designation did not refer to a "race" as the concept was understood at the time, but an anthropological grouping that was only linked by language. The reason for invoking the "failed race" curse is specifically intended to refer to the eugenicist conception of race science, rather than an anthropological concept of race or the historical and current scientific definitions of race. There has been an operation lately to deny that "race" is real, mimicking the "race blindness" bit of Stephen Colbert's character where they pretend they don't recognize when someone's ancestors were clearly Africans or "negroids" in the antiquated language to describe the racial grouping. I save the particulars of whether "race" is even a valid scientific or biological category for a later writing, since it becomes esoteric and unreleated to what we conventionally understand as "race", but for most normal people, "race" is understood as geneological ancestry, grouped in formations that were roughly analagous to tribal affiliations. Human migration and lifestyles being what the were, it was typical for tribal groups to mate within their own, both because of distance and because of a tendency I will note in life for living things to form colonies or communities.

This thinking has been manipulated extensively throughout modernity to conflate "race" with "nation", and this is a deliberate strategy to substitute nationalism - which entailed a shared history and experience and eventually political integration - with racialism. This can only work in tandem with a pseudoscientific thinking about biology and race whose true roots are in political economy. The fake left influencers, in their effort to forestall and direct away from any mention of eugenics except when triggering fear in the slaves, have intensified this beyond anything in the past, to say nothing of the inheritors of Nazism that are active today. The tendency of life to form colonies is conflated with "natural socialism" or "natural law", but this tendency of life is not an inexorable trend or universally applicable, nor is it morally necessary for life to do this. A lengthier discourse on the peculiarities of biology will have to wait for another writing, if such a thing is necessary for the work I write. I do not think this is a controversial statement to make casually, but there are no singular theories to explain why it "ought" to be so. I have a number of guesses, one of them being that mating choices are not arbitrary or pseudo-random, nor are they "hardcoded" genetically as the eugenic creed must recapitulate endlessly. The mating habits of any animal, humans included, are regular enough and likely a very primitive sentiment that would on its own grant to life a preference for living conditions where mates are available and the ritual can be carried out. Another reason is mutual security and pack behavior. Primitive moral sentiments are still sentiments that exist for a reason, and part of the eugenic creed is widespread manipulation of those sentiments so that eugenics can create the Satanic race that resembles the aristocracy's core character.

My invocation of "race" first of all highlights what the eugenists think, and my refusal to accede to their monopoly on the definition of "race", which they have played with extensively and loaded with coded meanings and triggers as all biological and medical terminology has been. After the launch of "COVID-19", this biological terminology and biopolitics shifted again, with clear signs to the believers of the eugenic creed that they will unite behind this biological ideology above all, and they are marching to kill everyone. I hope that by refusing to play their fear game and invoking curses with the word "race", I will reach people who would otherwise be cowed by fear to respond to any mention of "race", "nation", "eugenics", and so on with associations that were programmed into them. Perhaps some day, when humanity is no longer ruled by the eugenic creed or at least its ideology is no longer so prominent and ultraviolent as it is now, we can speak of what these concepts really meant and how we have all been lied to about virtually everything we live in. It is my belief that, once the political connotations of race-science are exposed as the fraud they are, what remains of race would not be very relevant to our daily life. I have never understood the need of people to identify with racial symbolism that is empty - not even the genuine race or anthropological grouping, but a stupid and parodic symbol that people are trained like dogs to respond to. Hitlerite cuckoldry is a terrible system, but sadly it works on certain types of people and all that is required is a few assholes enabled to shit up a nation, a society, or any other grouping we would prefer over this dumpster fire. At the same time, following a three-pronged political strategy that is common to ideological regimes and especially preferred by the eugenists, there is a "left" position on race which is intended as a foil to enable the hardline eugenists and filter the political right, so they receive the OK signal to abandon what remained of their primitive conservatism, in favor of full eugenism.

More than that, I would hope the reader understands that, unless I am referring to the historical understanding of "race" as a term used by others as part of a meaningful discussion, mentions of "race" in this text should be interpreted as dripping with the author's contempt for the sordid business of race-politics that is sadly still invoked in our time, despite the racists being too cowardly to acknowledge what their stupid eugenic filth religion actually says. If someone were to invoke racist slurs which I feel no need to write here, the response would be befuddlement in most situations, let alone someone actually trying to defend scientific racism on its own merits. Racism in the 21st century, and for most of the prior century, is entirely a vehicle for eugenics, and part of the revival of white identity politics has been to make clear a strident commitment to the eugenic creed and its moral philosophy above anything else. Many of the most faithful followers of the eugenic creed are black Americans, Jews, self-abasing whites. Eugenics further has an insidious way of infecting the most downtrodden targets of the creed, who are taught to internalize the most disparaging social stigmas eugenics has imposed. This is the origin of "neurodiversity", which purports to section of "autistics" and various other groups as distinct slave races, selected for humiliations far beyond the utterance of some racial slurs. The cult of neurodiversity was one of my reasons for choosing "The Retarded Ideology" as the title of this work. On one hand, eugenics and all that has enabled it is retarded - it is pure stupefying brain rot of the worst kind. But, the very word "retarded" originates from the eugenic creed, and the word "retarded" is more insidious than "moron", "idiot", and similar terminology, which described fixed states of mental faculties. "Retarded" implies that the procession of intelligence in its entirety is adjudicated by experts who have proven they will lie, show extreme indifference and malice, and are given explicit instructions to induce the public to accept ritual sacrifice and unlimited torture in the open. If someone sees that and knows they will be screened out, it should surprise no one that we have in our hearts already declared humanity is both a failed race and a Satanic race - because eugenics has effectively claimed the name "human" for itself. This is why "human rights" is a laughingstock, displacing concepts of civil rights, legal rights, obligations and duties, and the concept of the political, through the typical insidious wordplay of the Fabian Society.

I shouldn't have to defend myself on these grounds since there are no greater racists than the eugenists and the eugenic form of racism is the only form that has significant political consequence. The casual bigotry of the past, which wasn't even what it was purported to be, was never the vanguard of racism, for racism is not a lifestyle choice or demonstrative by performative politics. Race on its own never had any political relevance as a "just-so" story - the justifications for racism in the past were always tied to history of groups rather than individual qualities, and the earliest racial theories were always hastily assembled excuses to naturalize what was primarily relations between slave buyers and slave sellers, colonial relations, or conditions of war between nations, including the tribal associations of many who were colonized. The racists of the early United States understood their conflict with the natives was not a conflict of racial essences or ideologies, but a conflict of colonists who had land to conquer and appropriate and natives that had no reason to ever believe they could co-exist with the colonists. Nazi attempts to claim they emulate the Americans are facile for a laundry list of reasons that are obvious to any student of history who pays any attention to the different conditions. That tendency was not an inborn trait of the Germans or even something bred into existence, but the philosophies and ideology operating in modern Germany made the Nazi race-science institutional long before Hitler's rise, and Germans for generations would be taught of their racial destiny to make real the eugenic creed. Most races, including the heartland of pure eugenics in England, did not have the same myth of racial conquest, hilariously invoked by a race which spent most of its existence being kicked around by actually civilized nations, then starting bullshit wars over religion, culture, or just the standard death cult of an inbred warrior aristocracy. The English, despite their private imperial race-science and well-known bigotries, did not consider race a political matter. The English racial pseudo-science was tied instead to occult traditions, much of which would be familiar to those who study the revealed teachings of various arms of the imperial cult, the names of which are too multifarious but include the very well-known Freemasons. For those who are not familiar with that mysticism, the claims of geneology are blown up into a gigantic pseudo-history with deliberate lies and obvious tall tales, in which a select few consider themselves either an entirely different race from the base or root races of mankind, or have offered themselves in service to it and swear to commit to ghastly cuckoldry for that cause in excess of the Nazis' overt philosophy. In private, such racial mysticism was prominent in the Nazi regime, and what was overt with the Nazis was tame compared to the extreme perversion they conduct in private. All such currents of thought are not really meaningful if the stories are taken at face value. All of the occult racialism is really a way to insinuate the eugenic creed, which is the overt scientific face of the imperial cult, and in the 21st century is now the sole governing idea of this empire. By no means do I endorse any racial worldview or belief that race is at all an acceptable basis for political society in this day and age. If anyone were at all honest about race as a scientific concept, then they would not treat race as fixed essences or ideas. What is recapitulated is not race in a meaningful biological sense, but genetic code. In reality, men and women of different races do not face any natural barrier in mating, and face no serious stigma despite the screeching of eugenists, who never gave up Nazi-type race-theories and the typical perversion of their cult. (For that matter, "cult" is both given unfair slander as a term, and secret societies and cults are more prominent in the 21st century as this is one of the plans for the world to come.) Properly speaking, races conceptually couldn't exist if there weren't a state of life prior to the existence of a race, however it is defined. The failure of race as a biological concept in proper science has less to do with racial essences "not being real" in a sense that can be proven with DNA, then it is a failure of the genetic theory and myth itself, which makes racialist assumptions at its very heart that were never premised on a mechanistic theory or anything we would observe with proper science. What is found with genetics is correlations and aspersions about "expression", which become more and more esoteric to defend a whole pseudoscience. The prior book, in which I contribute some thoughts on "systems theory", is one part the pseudoscience of the aristocracy, and another part their real paradigm when properly understood by analytical thought. Myself being a "computers guy" for lack of a better term, analytical approaches are where I would start, and that is the proper materialist understanding if we are to treat science as a spiritual authority. It is from that systems thought that I am building the mechanical models I describe in this and the next book, which should elucidate terminology used in political economy and remove ideological fetters and the triggers that were installed to evoke fear when any eugenic keyword is mentioned. After 2020, those keywords are no longer as effective, because the ruling ideas shifted and the aim of the rulers is to attract all of the faithful to the eugenic creed, waging unholy "Jehad" as Galton desired. I am glad that I took the diversion of writing about systems thought as a prelude to this work, as it neatly provides the framework for the rest of these books and can alleviate some confusion about the topics at hand.

- "eugenics-kun"
November 2023

Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter | Return to Chapter Start