Return to Table of Contents | Previous Chapter | Next Chapter

The all-encompassing aim of life, in whatever it does, is to be able to serve all of its interests and maintain that which it must to continue living. Without this, no other interest and no other outcome of life is possible. This interest is not something which exerts its influence on any other interest, as if there were a genuine tug of war or contradiction in life. None of the interests life holds are truly contradictory by nature. It may be argued that life exhibits contradictory behavior that is peculiar to it. Life, which begins as nothing more than a spark for some reason we do not really know or suggest to be inevitable, is rife with contradictions. Those contradictions are particular to life, rather than the interests it holds. The interest of its own existence has no contradictions at all. For all interests, it is necessary to feed them with inputs that arise ultimately from the process of life. In addition, the most basic processes of life beyond its genesis must be fed raw material, which has nothing to do with any other interest. The other interests are mutually exclusive with each other. All aims that entail luxury and free time impede aims to compete, or aims to grow for spiritual purposes, or aims to develop systems which obscure or push the world by language and thought to do as we would like. The aims of life itself can be sacrificed to any of these interests, or another interest that arises from them, or interests that arise not out of any aim we would find relevant. There are interests other than those that serve our problem of survival and economy, that are not of a spiritual sort subsuming all interests within it and are not a game of trickery that turns into some empty baubles. Those interests do not exist purely as an exercise of life, but are things pursued because they are seen as moral purposes in their own right, that are not beholden to the economic, spiritual, authority, or any obvious social condition. We do many things in life that entail purposes scarcely known, even to ourselves, and we do them not out of some impulse and not always for a random whim, but because there is in this world and our knowledge of it a sense that something more than a social or economic existence is necessary. I do not concern myself with any of those interests here as they are quite irrelevant to much of our further writing, but they do exist in their own right and do not serve any core interest of life or any want that we should expect or consider default. We could very well choose to subsume our existence to any of the five interests mentioned here, or some combination thereof that would create a balanced human. If we try to play such an economic game with all of our efforts, though, we will please none of those interests, no matter how clever we are in managing inflows and outflows. Before considering other interests, we should consider what is truly necessary for life to live at all, and what the other interests demand from this first interest as if they are owed sacrifice. If we considered life's economy to be nothing more than a resource calculation problem, the solution in any era is trivial, and all other concerns would be obviated. This fails spectacularly to note that life is not actually a point of primordial light or a chaos demon in its developed form, to which all life must regress or degenerate. For life to truly live entails some growth - otherwise, it regresses, withers, and does nothing more than what a manager commands it to do. It is no surprise that ideologies suggesting any such interest of life are favored by managers, and the petty-managers in particular, but do not accomplish a single thing whatsoever and have always been ruinous for anything we would want out of this world. They exist only as a screaming enthusiasm to kill, kill, kill any human that the instinct of a petty manager and the enablers of rot in the human race beyond its norm have always embraced. The degeneracy of the Austrian School and their Nazi friends are just the first symptom of a rot that had long lurked, but which in the age of media and information took on a life that would consume all other ideas wherever it could, and would seek to command all spaces, in celebration of the purest ideal of a Satanic ape that such a religion glorifies. That ideology could not insinuate itself from the mere recapitulation of an empty idea, but must work through mechanisms that are very elaborate and can only be described after considerable explanation of all mechanisms at work. It starts, though, from a problem inherent to the biopolitical conceits that came to the forefront in the 19th century, and idiotic claims pertaining to life that could inhabit institutions.

The beginnings of life in natural history and evolution are not something that must be explained to explain a general process of adaptation from genesis, as if that process were handed down in a single creative event by some managerial hand. We can view the life-form through the most obvious example to any of us, which is ourselves. A process begins at conception, and at first this life is little more than the lucky sperm meeting an egg, so tiny in size that it qualifies as little at all. This early life inhabits some protected space for weeks or months, depending on the type of life in question. The formation of life from sexual reproduction is something I trust the reader to know the details of by now, but it never fails to amaze me how basic understanding of gestation and the very process of conception and life in the womb is mystified by assholes, doing the same sort of thing mentioned above - lying profusely about basic things in a mechanistic way to shout "retard, retard, retard" at someone selected to die. Any complex life would, from the transmission of seed and any genetic material we acknowledge at conception, develop far beyond its initial size. It must do so to emerge into the world in any condition allowing it to live in any appreciable sense. The nutrients available to the child in the womb, or chicken in the egg, are delivered by the mother's own metabolism, and so the conditions of the mother are jealously protected. An instinct in life is for mothers to be protected by mates and to protect themselves, and if they lay eggs, an instinct to protect nests develops. The impulse to do this did not require so many offspring to die by neglect before some genetic code "programmed" life-forms to do this for inborn purposes. Very likely, the protection of eggs or encasement in the womb made sense for life when sexual reproduction emerged in the living kingdom. It developed in the easiest way it could, and so too would the habits of mating. Those habits did not need to entail the survival of the male or the female, and in many species, the male dies after mating and this is one of life's cruelties and stupidities. The male, after all, is basically worthless in a basic sense once this act of ritual sacrifice called sex occurs. Life, as mentioned, cares little of such externalities as the feelings of men or women in its design, and it could only assert its intent in the means available to its starting conditions. Nothing about complex life suggests many inexorable trends that would make it ubiquitous once an environment can support life. It is more likely the case that smaller organisms, with shorter lifecycles and less effort consumed in competitive pressure, would adapt and mutate in many different directions, be subsumed or normalize into forms that optimized intents that were successful, and death for such simple life appears as little. If life had to develop purely off the principle of fitness in natural selection, it could only have proceeded in the most miserable and laggard way possible.

We see here one of the central tensions that will go on to define the struggle for life. That is that competitive pressures do not enhance in any way life-forms by some virtue of war and struggle, but instead mark the retardation of anything that would allow speciation. The initial process by which anything new can happen could not be the result of dumb luck that is culled by the god of malevolence. Much of life, and this will be observed in any living thing, occurs as simply as it could given what is available to the life-form. There was never a time where this life appeared as if it were a form in a void. Genesis of life in any possible scenario would have operated in the conditions where genesis happened, however it did happen.^[1] Upon genesis, life - and this likely happened at various times in natural history from the coalescence of organic compounds and energetic sources - proceeds by the most primitive intent that allows anything more complex to arise, which develops a new intent, and so on. If this didn't happen, there would be no species for competition to cull. Any new traits would be impossible except as more freak accidents which happen as "birth defects", and this would eliminate the realities of mating. That is to say, any life-forms that would mate did not do so because of some passive force of nature above life, but because man meets woman or the equivalent for other species. There is a way in which such events happen, rather than it being a thing unfit for print or television and therefore outside of all inquiry. The same is true of everything that would lead up to the moments of struggle. Struggle to be understood is not an inchoate pressing without definition, but comprehensible events which will be recorded.^[2] If there is to be a world of nothing but struggle, it would be because life-forms in some sense choose it, or some agent could create struggle by some working which can be informationally understood. If our prior discussion on information systems is understood, then we know what that agent is, and it implies management of a deliberate sort. Yet, the pressure to struggle incessantly is not found in some organic source, and nearly all evidence of life suggests the opposite. The default is that life is lazy and pursues struggle because it has to, not because of some inborn thirst to fight aimlessly. Those who do proactively hunt do so not to the ends of the Earth but because they see something to gain from the act, and that is how any hunter, up to today's coddled manager who believes he's secretly a Viking warrior, approaches the hunt. The manager does their dirty business because the incentives of superiors insist on it, and the manager's position is where pointless struggle thrives. It is only possible if institutional thought so highly developed is presumed to be in nature itself. A technocratic assumption is placed at the genesis of not just life but all existence, to claim that it is an inexorable rule and the ultimate just-so story.

This struggle is not at all free. Every struggle is an event with definite costs, which must be drawn from the natural world which is known to be finite in resources. The same is true of any other interest outside of struggle, such as the pursuit of knowledge or technology or any consciousness of a higher purpose. It ultimately consumes the very information that would be used to sense this struggle with any information, and retain any symbolic representation of information of ones' own. All of those things cost definite resources, and they are all subsumed in this inchoate struggle which just-so happens. It all ultimately cannibalizes the core processes of life itself, and the end result is the dissolution and degeneration of the organs. That is one thing seen from internalizing the ideology of the eugenic creed. When that was insufficient, it turned to violent biological interventions with drugs and the use of violence, all of it calculated to not merely destroy, but to put the torture on public display to whip public opinion in favor of the creed, not by any reason but by an incessant threat of violence.

There is purpose to struggle in that struggles will occur. The natural resources of the world make such a prospect likely, whether the struggle is fought directly or by indirect means. It is unsurprising that war and struggle are often fought indirectly, rather than in pitched battles. Even so, the cost of denying territory and controlling positions is evident to anyone commanding men to do so. This would take place in the natural world, but without any strong impulse in life to do so as there wouldn't be any theory in wolves to do this so elaborately. Since this is purely a problem for humans who have this political and economic thought, and never was a great concern in the animal kingdom, I will spend effort focusing on this problem for humans. For animals, the thought of doing other than hunting doesn't occur to them as a reasoned position, because they had done so since time immemorial and this was something life did to feed on the world. Only in the most egregious extremes do animals stay their hand, not out of any probity but because fighting for too long would be exhausting. Only extreme hunger would push an animal to abandon everything. That didn't stop many animals from a willingness to be as nasty as would be normal for a species, but the willingness for deliberate torture has not been observed in any animal. It is common as dirt among humans, who are aware of how to use such methods and for whom it is a founding element in every social system they have known. Whatever the case, there will be at some point finite resources and too many life-forms contesting them, and this can play out in a fight, economic competition, or life mulling around until the food runs out and it has no option but the inevitable one, and whatever happens will happen. There is one truth of the world that imperious scientists will never acknowledge. Terrible random things happen and death claims life not for any lack of virtue but because some asshole decided you were going to die today, and there is nothing to be done about it. In all theories of natural history or history generally, the scientist abhors thoughts that suggest these terrible events happen for reasons that are rationalizable, but that do not fit some preferred schema of behavior where all things operate in a grand, immaculate totality. That has never been the world, but the only other extreme is stochastic events which appear as if they were random. Both mentalities are exploited to confuse those out of the know of conspiracy and the typical mode of politics. It is simple to overcome this, but by disallowing institutional acknowledgement that there are conspiracies, conspiracies to do exactly this are defended, and the thrill of keeping losers out of the know itself becomes a reward. And so, knowledge and technology become allies in the struggle for life, and the key alliance of modernity became clear to enough people. The only problem with this is that the entire biopolitical premise and the theory suggesting this works was based on multiple flagrant lies and things that a child could see through.

At a basic level, mere sustenance of life functions to continue breathing, eating at a basic level in peaceful conditions, and a mostly sedentary life is so cheap that it barely registers. Here we see the thrill of the Malthusian sadist. Whenever there is some basic condition of life that is not merely a quantity but a specific quality, the Sodomites who embrace Malthus take delight in denying specifically that quality. Someone is allowed quantities of meaningless things, to drive home the point that they will be denied specifically any quality that would be necessary for life functions to continue beyond the grimmest and most miserable. The quantities of consumed food are reduced, while food sits unsold in stores. The qualities of food which were once varied are attacked and replaced with Bill Gates' fake meat that tastes like styrofoam. The quantities of this vague matter are reduced as well. It is the Malthusian and Fabian that Orwell wrote for that did the crimes of falsifying production statistics and cheerily claim that Big Brother increased the ration. This is done not to fool anyone, but to insult the masses and force them to praise Big Brother for starving them. Orwell, in typical clumsy fashion, uses this as a slander against Stalin and the Soviet Union, who could not afford such stupidity even if they wanted to do such a thing. All of this is intended to project the British mental disease onto the world and onto the people. If we did tally the quantities of each quantity which served the functions of life, in a way that was compatible with a generally comfortable if sedentary and placid existence, they would all put together amount to not much at all. This would not be a measure of the barest minimum to claim life functions persist, but would instead be the daily bread, water, and substance like proteins and vitamins that are common fare despite the efforts to denude food supplies. The cost of a healthier living still, where the functions of the body are very effective by useful metrics, is no great expense. At the higher end, health fads and gurus insinuate that healthy living is an aristocratic luxury, but the wise self-taught health nuts with a mind towards the task and some self-awareness have found ways to live well in at least some of the regards that can be known. In any event, human beings know quite well what they would need for their bodies to function, and what they like. This isn't a great confusion.^[3] Because we cannot have the bodies that do everything possible or immortality, there are tradeoffs to make and specializations of one's own form compared to other life-forms of similar type. The idea of "conformity" never really existed as a social value until the technocratic period, where humans were to be standardized in accord with a completely unrealistic model of the "common man", intentionally divorced from historical conditions or any purpose why this model was desirable. Far from it, the common man was described as venal, petty, eager to shmooze and play the game Carnegie played to sell his scams, and an incredulous follower of whatever was put in front of him. Variants would be given to people to suggest with a wink that they could get ahead of some other caste, but they all pointed to the same general idea. The sole exception was the lowest class, for whom "die die die die die" was the model supplied to them, either by shouting the threat outright or providing a model of a living abortion and being told "this is you, forever". In all cases, a model of universality suggests that a common man had to be all things, even things that contradicted other things, and similar models were given to women though usually with different intents in mind. That humans have never been universal in abilities or behaviors in this way would be deliberately suspended as an admissible idea. The idea of eugenics is that difference in ability, or even difference in any sentiment, is inherent, natural, and total political inequality, and if someone did not engage in this sameness, they were insane or stupid or both. Any expression inimical to this standard was treason against eugenics. As time passed, a dual system was promoted. The boundaries of acceptable behavior tightened, as managers and technocrats could demand more sacrifices from the wageslaves. At the same time, all standards were dropped so long as transgressions in some way fed into eugenics or made fools of the people. Never would those opposing eugenics be allowed to be anything other than fools, and any retaliation against the creed would be ruthlessly punished with a vigor never summoned for any other purpose. The creed made it clear what really ruled and that their enablers will always be sacrosanct. All of this was intended to suggest a default that was amenable to a eugenic society, and that any variation meant falling short of the universal standard. It had long been known that humans are distinct in ability and manners, come from distinct races and religions, and will do different things. What was under attack was a democratic idea where distinctions in ability did not entail political punishments, and superior ability was rewarded not with political privileges denied to the commoners but with esteem and due compensation. The rule of a democratic society was that those with ability would be highly regarded and promoted, but no more, and that the objective would be for anyone to contribute in whatever way they could. An aristocracy reverses this. In aristocracy, the able praise themselves for their personal austerity and flaunt luxuries as a grand status symbol, making out of a lump of horseflesh great prestige. This is only possible through the punishment of the masses, who are told they are unworthy of anything their so-called betters gave them. This is done as the exploitation of most of the people is intensified, and aristocrats make a point of visibly working less, while sending managers and petty-managers to terrorize the democratic entity in total.

We see how managerialism continually both underestimates the peoples' wants and invents spurious qualities that they should want, like a mother insisting a kid like food he finds disgusting but that his mother prefers. This distortion is always evident because life and the world both exist in flux, and information is never perfect. It is also a simple reality that as the situation of a life-form changes, so will its basic wants and what it can do. As life progresses, values to aspire to will change. The wants of a child who does not know much about the world are much different from a middle-aged adult, and they encounter a different situation than an elder close to the end of their natural life. This is not something entailed by struggle or society, but it is simply the reality of life in any situation it could be in. Nothing about the intent of life suggests that these needs or wants are fixed for the purpose of optimizing the functions of the body. As mentioned, specialization of life-forms is common and typical. The expectation of uniformity was never thoroughgoing in the sense it was during the 20th century, and that was a product of very particular conceits about society and humans that were intended to advance a eugenic belief that believed that humans were permanently and hereditarily unequal and thus politically unequal. Past uniformity of humans in society was premised not on any such eugenic purpose, but was premised on both the need for functions in some institution that were substantive needs, and many organizational tactics operating with mass formations where specialization had to be limited and manageable. In a phalanx or a legion, the soldiers must fit specifications appropriate to the formation for the concept to work. For the phalanx, the soldiers were equal in function and the formation relied upon it. For the legion, specializations were measured both by the military science of the Romans, which changed as the tactics of the legions were revamped by commanders and by the availability of auxiliaries. The use of combined arms is demonstrated from Alexander onward and the Romans are experts at co-opting this and adapting any military tactic to their situation, which changed considerably during the centuries. Outside of the military, little effort at standardizing the subjects was taken or desirable. Slaves were often specialized in their functions rather than general purpose slaves, and any balanced development in slaves or freedmen was not seen as relevant to anyone except the slave or freedman in question. The merchants and men who hoped to rise only had to conform to the expectations of what thou shalt not do, rather than any standard that was upheld as the default. There were acts deemed meritorious and acts deemed shameful, but the meritorious professions were by their nature exclusive and access to them was limited. One usually rose by being a great military officer or a great orator and lawyer, both of which suggest the typical path to merit was through the state and violent professions. Bureaucrats, state-supported scholars, priests which often merged spiritual and temporal power of the state, and a number of other professions were paths to merit in different societies. We see here that the drive for sameification as an ideal was historically driven by military demands, but those demands had less to do with some economic ideal and more to do with those demands suiting some purpose for the societies. Generally, societies desired to produce fighting men and those fighting men would be the politicians and professionals, and this pattern is observed both in civilized and barbarous societies, adapted to the forms of their societies.^[4] The militarization of the whole society was not merely undesirable, but a dangerous development. Democratization meant that mass armies became the norm, and in their place aristocratic command of society in total would assert itself out of the conditions that expression of democracy created. That is, the language of patriotism and society would be used to uphold a wildly outrageous aristocratic project on every front, and a faux version of "military efficiency" would be praised in the productive sector, which really just served to install managers, petty-managers, and administrative staff that served eugenics above all, with absolute disdain for the people and any concept that the state or the institutions were obligated towards any defensive purpose. This militarization is only a pretext for a new war against any democratic force at all, and has been conducted with that in mind. In typical aristocratic military fashion, the war is a series of blunders waged by grunts and officers with low morale and reveling in atrocity for its own sake.

For every interest which is taken on, new requirements are added first to maintain the interest itself, and then to maintain the life functions of a body capable of handling them. These interests did not need to be induced to change anything in the core interest. It would be enough for someone to change their body for reasons of life itself, or because that was something they wanted to do. Competing interests never ask nicely for these changes, no matter how cordial the conversation may be and however the competing interest can be sold as your own or the interest of life. This is not merely a question of social self-interset giving way to the interests of others in society. Competing interests pull the life-form itself in different directions, and this includes interests that appear innocuous and not involved in any of the interests mentioned here. Often the way these interests are sold is that someone is told this IS in the interest of life, and we might tell ourselves that when the matter concerns our life or our person with the interest. When it comes down to it, though, these interests compete with the basic interest of life itself, which is to simply be able to live as a life-form would please. The biological faculties require rest, nourishment, and recreation at the least, and may seek growth not for any interest but because such an exercise is pleasing to it and becomes a habit or hobby. We often do things that appear to serve an alien interest not for the interest, but because we like it. The sadist embraces the interest of struggle and the eugenic interest not so much for a eugenic purpose, but because the eugenic interest - both in the purer form I will write of next chapter and Galtonite eugenics as the ruling institution today - is a great vehicle to do what the sadist always wanted to do in the first place. If eugenics did not exist, or there weren't an interest in drugs or sex or some other culture were sadists thrive, they would invent a culture or a pretext that enables this core want. All of our other interests ultimately derive from us wanting to do them at some level, or believing that doing them is better than the alternative, so long as those interests were genuinely our own. When the interests of other life-forms or institutions are imposed, the sense is much different, because none of that was intrinsically what we wanted to do. There may be those with a desire to serve others in some way, or who enjoy relating with other life-forms not in the sense that social information is great but because the actual company with other humans is a good time and they are willing to give a little to gain the shared experience. There are certainly those who join institutions and see them in some way as a force for good in the world that outlives them or any particular person. It is always the case though that to pursue any of those, we must live not just in principle, but live in a way that allows any of this to happen. In short, life can only live if it is ALLOWED to live, and this is often forgotten. The idea that someone shouldn't ask permission to live is missing the point that no one can live if another life-form believes it is their god-given right to disallow you to live. It is even more harrowing when not just another life-form but large institutions will scream at maximum volume "die die die die die" and the great cycle of ritual sacrifice and absolute humiliation begins. There aren't many humans alive today who don't see that when it is coming, and we've always known this is what humans were when all is said and done. The thing keeping us alive and hopeful is that we hold on to some fool's hope that, whatever humans really are, we have to be something else if we would like this existence to entail anything other than an endless orgy of sacrifice and lurid cults.

If it is concluded that the sacrifice must continue out of some belief that it is human nature, and that it is forbidden to even walk away from it with what space one can keep, then this leads to some very obvious moral decisions for those who face the Satanic cycle. At the very least, the life-form will have no reason to ever work with another human again, and will feel no particular purpose to not doing to the Satanic race of apes whatever is expedient to put down such an abomination. That would become an incontrovertible fact the moment it is accepted that a right of absolute predation is sacred and enshrined in law. Whether the damned life-form to be humiliated will see any point to retaliation for its own sake doesn't change that, in moral principle, the life of those who would revel in such a sacrifice and torture is no longer of any value. This, as you probably guess, is intended. The Malthusian wishes to impose their sick perverse mindset on anyone else, and by repeating transgression and glorifying torture, it places the rest of the human race immediately on the defensive and suggests to the subjects that they must always react to the Satanic entity lording over them. Not only do the sadists not care that you would gladly kill them at the first opportunity, but they want you to think that, and then tell you with a laugh that "hatred is wrong", as if hatred of such an abomination were itself a sign of weakness. They want you to be pushed to violence in some rash scenario, which they gamed in such a way that the sadist is never a target. The moment that sense of hatred is detected is enough to start an inquisition and any insinuation the sadist wants. Simply by reveling in torture and glorifying sacrifice and thrill of doing so, the sadist gains for free incredible advantage. The only danger in doing this would be a revolt unlike any humanity has sustained, in which a terrible retribution reverses the entire history of the human race. Since they bank on that never happening, the glorification of torture will continue indefinitely. The worse conditions get for the subjects, the stronger the hand of the sadist, and the more their values are impressed on everyone else as inevitable and inexorable. All of this is calculated to the smallest detail, with great enjoyment in the entire process of those who are safe from the ritual sacrifice. Such is what the human race chose to be, and now it is absolute. The only question, if any, is what the rest of us, who do not stand to benefit from this in the end, do. The sadism is not merely a question of struggle and the eugenic interest, as if it were a reactive strategy of the sadist or something pursued with crass reasons as humans have long done. All technology, all knowledge, all spiritual thought, and the most minute expression of language and information must conform to the sadist's vision of the world. There are of course many known defenses against this transgression, and the expression alone does not grant the sacrifice any true power in nature, spirituality, or anything worthwhile. It is a well-known geist that is conjured time and time again, used in humanity's incessant intercine conflict with its own race and in siege tactics in developed form. There are only so many torture chambers that can be created and enacted, and so much propaganda that can be spewed to advance such an odious plan. The difficulty is with the nature of "defense", which already presupposes a reactive stance.

The only real way to defend against this is to never let it start, and make clear before it begins the consequences of escalating such a strategy. This, in the highest form, escalates to a simple declaration I have made and come to internalize fully.

"If you unwilling to destroy the world for your cause, then you are not serious."

That is the only endgame of the strategy of tension, and the truth of its power lies not in any inherent value of violence or the symbols which are granted the power of idols. It is not inherent to any knowledge or technology^[5] which would bring the destruction. No known weapon or deployment would come close to actually exterminating all human life, nor is such a plan the desire of any who rule. The threat of death is never a general slaughter to summon at will, but a plan from above that would arrange the peoples of the world in sacrifice pits, as elites and intellectuals and all those selected to live move to secure bunkers and make sure to lock the sacrifices in the cities. After the nukes fly, all those selected to live walk out, having eliminated their sworn enemy above all others. Those fleeing to the countryside would be disparate and face a phalanx of trained experts who they have, in one way or another, supplicated to for a century at the time of this writing. The conservative has always been a slavering dog, reveling in self-abasement and being trained to follow any incentive with the most blatant psychological conditioning, and those people were seeded in the countryside to terrorize anyone, being aware enough that this would be the general outcome if the option of "destroy the world" were imposed. For the ruling interest, it would not be the nuclear weapons or some novel technology that destroyed the world. It would not be some AI-driven tyranny turning those selected to die into gray goo. The will to destroy the world was nothing less than a thoroughgoing mission that anyone who truly aspired to rule would have known to be on the table from the moment they set eyes on power. To wield that threat effectively, it must be held that only those who rule can make this threat openly, and they do so often enough. In earlier times, the drive for war and celebrations of glory were all efforts to do what nuclear weapons do today. A Roman triumph, with ritual sacrifice on the spot for the masses, is a sign to all who would dare oppose the consul and the republican spirit - "if you dare to fight us, we will do this to you and enjoy every second of it". Public executions, hangings, humiliations of the traditional ritual sacrifices of the retarded, were open and signs of pride. They could only be part-done in the past. Not once would these leaders have considered a true limit to their ambition, when it came down to what it meant to rule. If someone stepped down from office and retired, it could only be done so long as he saved face and went down in history as good. Whether he got that was another question, but to be humiliated and lose face in life was worse than death to anyone who wished to play this game. It is the same in any human society, from the civilized to the barbarous, and it is true in savage society in the small ways that honor and pride can impose fear in such a world. The reason why is because it is the ultimate development of life's prime and overriding interest. If life must be able to actually live, then nothing short of total death can be proposed in defense of that life. If the line for defending life is anything less, than those who are willing to go to that length will always be willing to play that card. If you the subject say from the start that you cannot cross that line out of fear alone, then you have lost before you set out to do anything. If that is ever something you are made to publicly admit, it is a mark of great shame and self-abasement. It suggests to any sadist and those who rule that you are fair game, and the process of cattlefication can begin. It is by this mentality that the great hunt begins, which became herding and then the enslavement of animals. If that is established, then it does not take long to make the obvious connection that this can be done to humans too, if the right pressures are introduced to make it happen. Whether you will actually destroy the world, or can do so, is not relevant. There are those who will accept the shame of being humiliated and give up power for reasons they might hold dear, but the moment they even think that there is a line where they will give up, any asshole thinking to transgress to the maximum will know they can push, and they will do so. No decency has preventing a politican from doing what politicians do, and politics in any form is not a nice game.

Most of us will never be able to seriously make this threat, and I don't suggest you go out thinking this if you aren't willing to back it up. Unless you have an army and a means to fund it, you probably shouldn't talk like this. Those who attach to this mentality because it suits them usually do not have their own army, but they see the army of some great man (and it will always be a man) and attach to that man sycophantically. It is an instinct inherited from the ape world. Such people have an instinctive sense of sucking up to power. I would compare it to the Orks of Warhammer 40k lore who have a psychic sense of who is "bigga", but I would not besmirch the good name of the Ork by comparing Orks to these people. It is those who rush to supplicate who make the threat of transgression that much worse. In a decent world, such supplication would be met with a spanking.^[6] If it weren't for the large number of enablers, who respond to sadism not so much out of fear or necessity but with some sick admiration and magnetism towards sadists, our problem today would not be what it is. Those who start the cycle of humiliation against someone would be met with glares of absolute contempt, simply by the threat posed by such actions. Those who were downtrodden would be allowed to restore dignity, not out of kindness or mercy but because of an understanding of all in society that glorifying such behavior leads to a conclusion humanity has known the whole way through. Even if someone didn't like the downtrodden, a reasonable person would not look at the victim as the source of any serious problem, particularly if the downtrodden lacks any lever to even present a significant threat. A sense of proper mathematical scale and proximity of cause and effect would tell this to anyone.^[7]

The tax from the technological interest itself, if it is unfettered by the conditions of struggle from society, is that knowledge and the ideas it portends to, and the contemplation of meaning which is a vast undertaking, promotes absentmindedness and leads someone to lose grounding in the reality of life, which would be necessary for the overriding interest. Even if technology is necessary, an obsession with knowledge and meaning leads to a denuding of more base level knowledge, and the body adapts to technology and knowledge more than its genuine situation. This is a complex problem which will be revisited in a later chapter.

The tax from the spiritual interest is much the same, but with a different set of failings. Rather than bookishness or obsessive curiosity or too much contemplation, the spiritual devout tends to become a true believer, fanatical in search of some holy truth and often looking outside of life or reality for answers. This would be necessary, as spiritual authority always arises from a source outside of life and its wants. It does not require much insight to see that the human condition of struggle, which occurs in large part because we are living things, is generally bad and futile. Many times those seeking spiritual authority do not find a way out, but run headlong into an even worse form of cults, with greater struggle sessions and intensification of dark knowledge.

The tax from the occult interest is fairly clear - symbols and esoteric deception work against anything in life that would be useful in a meaningful sense, which has no regard for such games. Here we see another tax that is intensified. Simply by making someone remember so many details of obscure knowledge to get by in society, so many laws that are designed to confuse and unwritten laws and taboos, it becomes increasingly difficult to live as we would want. This constitutes a considerable tax on the demands of life, simply by suggesting in coded language that the conspiracy against a life-form is everywhere and there is no knowing where it will strike next. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt is an old strategy, used by all secret societies and secret police. It is used by cults to befuddle anyone who would frustrate their exterior activities, and within cults to inculcate the initiates in a whole world apart from life and meaning, but also lock them away from any interest that was outside of cultism and any standard approach to the world. The symbols of the occult and lust for vanity become more important than what we actually wanted out of any of this.

Finally, there is an overriding interest of life. When push comes to shove, all interests give way to a truth about life. That is that life does not what we would wish it to do, but what it will do. Life and knowledge are separate, and the demands of life work against our concepts of ourselves and the need for autonomy. In some sense, life works against our sense of self, and does so in the name of both life and the self that life through its actions generated. There is no force that truly commands life at all levels. The hardware of life may be commanded, such that a brain shocking chip is installed to push life to obey. This is likely to be nothing but another torture device. Life as the original intent and spirit is very stubborn against resistance, and this includes the intrigues of other life-forms. If the command of life were so easy and natural, there would not be this much expense spent struggling to command it. For all the expense, we continue to live and in many ways all of these machinations only extend to controlled spaces. Simply by refusing to play that game for as long as possible, and refusing to align with clearly ruinous social practices, the efforts to command life underway now can be stymied significantly. This requires little energy in of itself. The factors working against it are numerous, but at a basic level, the intent of life resists domination. This is something common to animals out of necessity, whatever their sociality and arrangements of servility. Life with a natural inclination to serve can only do so in a few ways that are predefined. That is why the efforts to command life in this managerial way have always resorted to the bottom of the barrel and the worst of humanity. Those are the only traits that can be commanded easily, and elevating those traits has an effect of promoting the worst in the whole society.

Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

Return to Table of Contents | Return to Chapter Start