Return to Table of Contents | Previous Chapter | Next Chapter

So far in this writing, I have referred to "eugenics" with nothing but the utmost contempt. For this chapter and this chapter only, I wish to drop that to speak of the "eugenic" interest generally, or the interest of life in good genesis and the defense of its original intent. For reasons that might become clear, "eugenics" of the modern variety has little resemblance to any good birth or intent, as its purpose has been entirely negative towards an enemy population, and its advocates have little merit or evidence of "good genes" or "good birth" to show for all the nightmares they have created. The eugenic interest in life is by its nature a hostile one, though not without certain merits. It is expected for life to protect its original mission and seek out conditions to repeat itself. The typical aim of the eugenic interest of life is to arrest the procession of events so that the original intent of the form may spread, and so it concerns itself with amassing quantities of itself, and all qualities and associated quantities of them that affect this struggle. It is not necessarily an interest in hostility that concerns other life-forms at all, and it is like all of life's interests at a base level a selfish interest. The eugenic interest is aligned with the social institution of property, and since polities and states concern themselves with property more than anything else in history, it is almost always found among the holders of the state, and thus the aristocracy. It usually requires struggle to arrest history, as the typical procession of events in the world is to move forward and adapt rather than arrest and attack that which is deemed a threat to pure intent. In many ways, the eugenic interest, though it fits second in the schema I have chosen, resembles more the primordial light than the first interest of life in its own sake. Life for its own sake, once it begins its procession, is on its own and must live in the world of the present. The eugenic interest, though it only appears in earnest as life develops enough form to constitute itself persistently and with longer lifespans, appears in the first case for no other reason than the difficulty for something new to arise in extant systems of greater complexity. This tendency is counteracted by life as it attains mobility and must, in various ways, adopt technology and knowledge and make active decisions rather than passive ones. The eugenic interest also aligns with managerialism, which concerns less technology or any science that commands information. The eugenic interest today is extremely hostile to science in the sense it used to be practiced, and this is one of the great weaknesses of the present alliance of eugenics, property, capital, science, and intellectual mystics.

I refer to the "eugenic" interest not as a reference to genetic material, but to the conditions of genesis in total. That is, it is implied in life's intent that its genesis suggests the future of life, for life-forms cannot change their past and the genesis is the first indicator of what this thing, life, will do. It is for this reason that general theories of the origin of life and the conception of every new life-form become so controversial, and why the question of evolution from prior life-forms took on the importance it did. Assertions of genealogy are seen in many religions, like Judaism and religions referring to it. Sin at conception is omnipresent throughout the concept of Christianity and Islam, for whom the question was not merely a question of individual sin but a doctrine regarding human nature which has been the great argument for why Christians believe and do what they do. This concept of original sin is not merely informational, as if it were possible to adjudicate in a scientific model how much sin was inherited and who gets to be among the elect. It is not a great secret that according to the religion, nearly everyone who exists is sinful, or every human being is sinful and absolutely depraved. This matter is debated to determine how evil humans are according to one church leader or another, but it is universal among Christians that all of mankind is sinful and, if they believe in the concepts of Hell or damnation, mankind is cursed to burn and suffer forever in this world and the next. Only an elect, a small number of people, are chosen to receive God's favor, and this is only made clear at some time in the future, which is foreseen and prophesized. A few believers will prepare for this coming by throwing away their possessions and entering into some congregation that is preparing for the Big Happening, like a fascist rally waiting for the event where all is revealed.^[1] The interest is obvious - who controls the past controls the present, and who controls the present controls the future. This is very different from the formulation of Ingsoc, where controlling the present controls the past, or the formulation of Eugenics in its full form, where they claim to control the future and do so by claiming the future was predestined by the past, so the present can be obliterated in total. There is in recognizing temporality always a claim to grant temporal authority legitimacy, and the genesis of anything is the most obvious candidate for this. For life in particular, this is acutely felt, because life in its most basic genesis is nothing but a chaotic disturbance, a thing born seemingly in conflict with the general procession of the world, which cares not about any knowing concept of authority. This concept would appear to non-living knowing entities as something absurd, for the world would be recognized as something doing whatever it does, and we just live here. Spiritual authority generally does not stake its claim on any temporal period, but on something which is outside of the normal procession of time or any historical claim. History to spiritual authority is a thing to be recognized not as legitimate on its own grounds, but something with explanatory power to explain why the world is as it is today.

History to personal authority of ourselves is merely a recognition of the environment, and nothing more. It makes no inherent difference to us what happened in the past, or who claims the present. For our personal experience, the future is yet to be claimed by anyone, and we look to the future not as something pre-ordained by a thought leader but as all of the potentials we would possess. The future for us is not a thing confined by definitions of life or the intent or genesis. Merely by living in the world, we accept that this life co-opts the non-living to continue. For personal purposes, life-forms can accept that there is more to life than life itself, and that life entails co-existence with the non-living, the void, and eventually the end of life. To sense death or the presence of the non-living does not itself violate what it means to live or the core intent of life. It is only in society, where command of others and the world is contested, that life takes on this meaning that to our individual experience is quite strange, even as living entities. It would not need to be so. Society will out of necessity value life differently from entities for whom life is their genuine condition, for society itself as an informational construct or an idea in our minds does not truly live nor die. Society to be society commands life, just as life exists by possessing something substantive. While society has a greater basis in a real world than life, for society exists as information pointing to real events and life at a basic level is just a sense of life's intent which appeared for no necessary reason, society's treatment of life is very alien to what life-forms like ourselves understand intuitively, given some faculty of knowledge that allows the question to be asked or sensed in some primitive way.

It is the meaning of genesis and its implications that is defended more than the actual origins of life. It is not important to any interest if humans derived from monkeys or were created out of dirt or clay by God, as if the material were somehow spiritually important. The real question asked is the intent evident in genesis. An origin in Darwinian evolution suggested that humanity was the product of intercine warfare and some error of nature, and it was the intercine warfare implied by the export of Malthus to nature that made Darwinian evolution offensive. Otherwise, the origin of life being the result of gradual changes from one species to another had no intrinsic conflict with the intent that the story of Genesis in the Bible conveyed. The Biblical story of creation almost entirely treated the origin of non-human life as an afterthought, and the purpose of the story in Genesis was to explain the origin of Man's mind and spiritual orientation, more than a theory of natural origins and chemistry which suggested that God "encoded" humanity to act in certain ways. If that were the case, then any story of Man's free will would be nonsensical, as would the story of serpents corrupting Woman and Woman corrupting Man, which tells a very particular story of why we wound up this way.^[2] Living creatures to proceed through life entail history, and living knowledge would be particularly attached to concepts of historical progression compared to a "neutral knower" for whom the procession of events is merely a question of facts. History for living entities is a matter of their intent being followed, and a condition of survival. Without a future, the intent of life from present and past is meaningless. Without a past, there is no indicator of what the present is or what the future could be. All three must be held as meaningful not just as facts but as things which allow life to have immediate purpose. The purposes and intents of life are not confined to this temporal procession, and it is not a rule that this procession of events follows any inexorable tendency that must be obeyed. Those who treat history as inexorable historical progress seek to capture the whole line of procession from past to future and arrest it. Invariably, the genesis of intent, or claims about it, are the ultimate past from which all futures must derive, and the eugenic interest in life seeks to make that genesis stand. It may stand as an absolute, which the life-form defends to the bitter end, or it may be a recognition of some truth of what the life-form is and will do, to which it is beholden whether it would like to be or not. What can never truly happen is a rewriting of the past, as if life were actually ignorant of history. If there is a taboo against acknowledging the past, someone will recall the genuine past and use it as leverage against any other life-form. This is an inescapable consequence of life itself, for life as a process starts with some intent from its genesis. If it changes its intent or becomes something else, it is still beholden to its genesis in some way. Humans today inherit the legacy of their forebears and would do well to remember it, even if they do so with disgust at what we were and have been for so long. The depraved revel in past atrocities and seek to repeat them, and have always sought an "End of History" where they never face accountability ever or the threat of anyone who will tell them no. Those who defend the decent and good often turn to the past when they see a present dominated by the wicked, and a future where "die die die die die" is shouted by the wicked who believe for good reason they will triumph. The decent face the difficulty of attempting to change the world in some way, given what history has been. The false hope given to the decent is that the present and future can be different if the past is ignored, while any example of decency in the past is systematically destroyed or, worse, turned into a vehicle for the wicked to advance their predation. The wicked defend their past strength while editing out reference to any weakness or mistakes, or anything that would make the truth public knowledge. When the truth comes out, the eugenic interest encourages the most brazen hypocrisy. There is no charity or kindness for a truthful admission of failure. This arises not because it is politically sensical. The lies to protect politicians eventually become so obvious that it destroys the political settlement.^[3] It arises because this defense of the eugenic interest in life is inherent in some way for life to constitute itself.

How much this interest consumes the resources life siphons and the functions of life itself compared to its other interests may vary, but it is always evident because it is impossible for life to escape its past, and it will have some future until it dies. The present, on the other hand, need not be a trap for life. That is a choice in the end. There is nothing in the present that is within life that pushes it like a hobgoblin to do anything. In the present, we are free to act as any faculty available to life will allow. What is not possible is for life to act in conditions which it has no prior condition to draw from, nor is it possible for life to forestall the future forever. This procession of life as an event from conception to its passing or transformation to something else is not a rule of all nature or knowledge itself. It is a procession life in particular entails. In the present, life looks to its future, given its memory of the past. More particularly, life looks to its holdings.

It is thus that the eugenic interest of life entails its property. Property conceptually must draw not from the moment, but from past claims. Those claims ultimately derive from a birthright or genesis which claims that it is an entity that can claim property. The origin of property is not in nature or any process in the world regarded as scientific or informational, but in life's genesis and its claim to history. Property exists not as a present fact at all, but claims which are recorded and can only be recorded as something in the past. Property suggests future claims will remain valid because they were documented in the past, and until property is challenged, there is no force in the world to suggest property would vanish. Life's claim to property is not at heart a legal convention freely ignored, as if the property were just a fiction to be violated freely. If property is violated, it can only be violated by active measures. This of course is entirely possible and happens all of the time. Property is never an absolute of nature, nor is property a commitment life will defend in all cases to the death. Many times property is abandoned, and in the end, death of the life-form is the end of its living claim to property. Upon death, property will either become terra nullius or something similar, or it will pass to some other living successor, or an institution that is created by living entities. The concept of the non-living holding property in this sense is only possible if the non-living are institutions with a valid right to do so in the minds of the living. If we were to imagine a society of robots, for whom existence does not entail any eugenic interest, then property rights appear as some absurdity. Nothing in the natural world mandates any property right, prevents property from violent seizure, or suggests the deed to property would not be violated at the first opportunity someone else decides they will take the deed, cross out the institutional name of the claimant, and declare that the institutional name of someone else now commands property. The right to property being institutional in the law today is not a state of affairs that was at all natural, nor is it the intent of the law to make property nothing more than a convention of social institutions, in a way that suggests that life wouldn't really want or need property. Property to be meaningful is in the first case a claim of life to its past and birthright. Absent any institution other than oneself, a life-form will see its claim to the past as valid and defend it for reasons that are not difficult to understand. Living things do not abandon their home, their livelihood, or the food they intend to eat so their life can continue. That is the reason why any institution regarding property rights could exist in the first place. Property as purely an institutional convention is meaningless, and very often the law's involvement in property and disputes over it specifically mediates the claims of living entities to property. That claim of of the institution adjudicating property rights itself implies there is a living entity somewhere in the institution that itself claims power to make this judgement - that is, there is someone that holds imperium, or power of life and death. It is with imperium that the legal institution as we know it can originate, so far as it rests on temporal authority as it must do to be able to enact anything the institution does. If the law were merely an intellectual or scientific matter, judged not by laws of men but by "The Science", it ceases to be law. Because that intellect and science is itself commanded by living men and women, such a declaration is tantamount to declaring that the intellectual or scientist holds this imperium. That is effectively what Galton's Eugenics did declare in their "Jehad" - that eugenic law would overwrite all other law, and do so on the basis of eugenic property rather than private property, public property, or any other claim to property. It is a claim to property that can be made because property itself is rooted in this interest of life, which stems ultimately from its genesis. It was for this reason that the matter of heredity, which really had little to do with the development of general intelligence in the way Galton insinuated, because the chief political obsession. Imperium and the basis for states as we know them, and thus laws pertaining to property, are so familiar to us that we often take them for granted.

We are also familiar with possession, which can ultimately only be a recognition of the present and is not inherent to life in this sense. Possession conceptually does not entail anything life has any right to, but a declaration of fact in the natural world and by science and reason, and so while possession is 9/10th of the law, it is only so because possession is seen as the realization of property. Property at a basic level, and why we would possess things as property rather than possessing things for any other purpose, stems from this interest in life. The proprietors, naturally, have always been advocates for empire and genetic legacies. They usually owe what they have not just to their birthright but to their ancestors, and intend to pass their property to descendants or some chain of succession they value. Property is ultimately a local event, and any shared or public property is seen not as a state of affairs in line with life, but a state of affairs for institutions which ultimately serve the local eugenic interest I have described. It is for that reason that the commons has always been under attack and could never be taken for granted in a naive sense. The commons were defended not because of any natural right or right of life, but because defending the commons made sense to a lot of people, who saw correctly the threat of aristocracy to their lives. The claims of aristocracy against the commons were always made on the most spurious grounds possible, because the aristocrat never needed any reason to do anything. The aristocrat, by nature, is an advocate for the eugenic interest above all, first of all for itself and then for its class which has always been able to find each other and their enablers and fellow travelers. It is for that reason that a republic premised on the eugenic interest, which aligns with the technological interest and makes it their own, is doomed to be a beast rife with infighting.^[4]

The eugenic interest concerns property, the individual intent of life-forms, and the foundation of social groupings which suggest a shared intent, as if the social grouping were a singular life-form. It should be noted that sociality is not premised on identity or any eugenic intent to be meaningful. Social associations can be made entirely as adoptive entities, which do not necessarily care about any eugenic intent of the whole. The invocation of eugenic intent at the level of society has clear utility to those who would see the collective of society as a vehicle for individual property. By making property collective, the commonwealth effectively enshrines individual property-holders as individuals, while forestalling any genuinely cooperative enterprise. Only through the state, which is held by an executive that individuals contest, does cooperation become conceivable. This is clearly at odds with a functioning government or any sociality where cooperation towards tasks is accomplished, but the eugenic intent of life insists that it must cajole and demean the ruled. This is done not for any genuine purpose, but because the eugenic intent of property favors overbearing managerialism, and insists that this is the true function of institutions, rather than the purpose someone might have found in institutions. In this way, the eugenic interest is the true defense of individualism, rather than any ideology or natural purpose for the individual. It is very easy to discount the individual and continue living, and in some way, the intent of a shared society requires individuals to give up some of their freedom for the sake of the shared enterprise. The eugenic interest insists that this cooperation is only possible through competing eugenic interests, and that society must be comprised of individuals, who become institutional. It is possible for societies to develop institutions favoring cooperation, but this runs counter to the eugenic interest if that interest is allowed to run rampant. Because the eugenic interest is tied to property and property is necessary for life to hold much of anything, arguments for genuine cooperation are always attacked by the eugenic interest simply because they do not want any such thing. It is for this reason that the asinine petty-managerial serfdom of assholes like Mises is given any credence, when their claims are spurious and stupid if anyone thought about their meaning for five minutes. The eugenic interest is not a rational interest in the sense that rational agents in society, judging economic behavior, would regard it. It is quite the opposite. A rational interest would see right away that such a eugenic interest is contrary to the aims of a cooperative productive enterprise. The eugenic interest does not care about this at all. The eugenic interest as a rule only considers productivity relevant if it defends property and the objectives of rule and management. Productivity for any other purpose is always beholden to property and a defense of it, and so the eugenic interest adopts another habit almost axiomatically - war and struggle for its own sake.

If property and struggle is seen purely as an individual matter, then this seems like nothing too great. Life, at a basic level, is not obligated to anything in nature or society, and life-forms always are constituted as singular intents rather than competing intents. The life-form is not intrinsically under any social obligation that would compel kindness. Any such kindness would itself be among the property of individuals who would have had some standing relationship. It may seem simple enough to circumvent this by pronouncing that all men are created equal in a political sense, or that all men regardless of ability should for the purposes of the peace be allowed certain inalienable rights, on the premise that it is expected that men would defend themselves just as anyone would against egregious attacks. If life were truly operating in rational interests, this would make a lot of sense, and it would also make rational sense to discourage intercine conflict over nothing. This would have made socialism and communism seem like natural propositions to a certain mind, who saw them as the most reasonable outcome and in line with human development. In various forms, this is what socialists and communists would proclaim, and to some extent they were successful. Yet, men never were equal in the conditions they found themselves in. They were born into political inequality, because the eugenic interest which considered freedom proclaimed beforehand that "freedom isn't free", and this political inequality was never seriously contested by anyone. A familiarity with Marx, who was among those who came the closest to suggesting the problem with liberal concepts of equality, suggests that Marx did not hold political equality to be desirable or a worthwhile pursuit at all. The later contempt Marxists show to anyone who didn't "get it" is indicative of where political equality as a concept stood, and this was picked up by their critics. More importantly, political equality even in form would be attacked on biopolitical grounds, and on grounds of ability. Whether someone could have been anything at all was less relevant than whether someone fit a bar for humanity that was set by the ruling institutions alone. When someone managed to play by those rules and make himself able to participate, the bar could be raised arbitrarily. The eugenic interest understood that once claimed, this property was never to be dealt with honestly. Nothing about humanity up to that point or since suggested humanity had any obligation to be honest, and the deception and malice of the race that had always been there would be recapitulated. This is the same as the liberals themselves, who recapitulated that if the poor starve or waves of death resume as had been the tradition of the human race, then it was simply the natural order of things. Even more offensive were the conservative forces who suggested this wave of death was some sort of progress, sorting out the residue of society which "just so" die off. It's progress, see, to not merely let them die, but lock them in workhouses and cut up their brains. "Science" certainly reveled in doing this, and has done so up to the early 21st century when I write this. It is an abiding trait of all who defend the eugenic interest to claim its conduct is passive, and their victims are always somehow at fault. At the same time, the deeds of the "criminals" are always vaguely specified, not because the criminals did nothing, but because acknowledging that deeds are the cause of eugenic purges is anathema to this eugenic interest. The eugenic interest revels in hypocrisy and double-standards, and expects it. What is criminal for the lower class and the outside is lauded for those "in the know" and connected to the eugenic interest. This behavior is replicated in the individual conduct of life, unless it is disciplined by some influence that would sober it. The eugenic interest compels this, and does so for no rational reason. Unless there is some other interest in life suggesting to not do this, then the default behavior of life is to "return to genesis" and recapitulate every contradiction of life willfully and proudly. And so, it is, if one cares to elaborate the argument from start to finish, impossible to justify a cooperative union of individuals so long as eugenic interests prevail, and impossible to justify a cooperative enterprise on any basis of property. Whatever property exists, it will be contested by this interest, whether it is private, public, or any other type of property. The true difficulty with cooperative enterprises and institutions has little to do with property at all, but stems from the total lack of any alternative that is permissible in human society. There is no rational calculation problem, as the dishonest will claim is the problem with socialism. It is very easy to calculate the inflow and outflow of resources, and account for political disagreements between the participants without dickering over minute substances. It is actually very easy to conceive of a socialist society on the basis of sharing the wealth, out of a sense that doing this would serve everyone's self-interests in total. That was determined long ago and understood by the philosophers of every trend. The reactionaries and hardliners of the Right simply recapitulated that they did not care to see this ever happen, and did so purely for their sentimental hatred and the thrill their race feels when they kick down the weak.

This had long been understood as the difficulty of any commonwealth - that an intriguer could insinuate, based on nothing, anything that would disrupt the interests that allow this construct to work, and do so until the structure broke down completely. Nothing would stop this, because the eugenic interest and "me wantee" will always appeal to enough living creatures to sway someone, and once enabled, they would be able to push and prod the public until the public or a member thereof is weak enough to attack openly. Those who wanted something decent would always be defending property, which itself requires them to acknowledge a eugenic interest. Even if the intrigues and games are unsuccessful in the first pass, it seeds enough of a threat in the minds of the public that they must turn to their individual concerns over any collective enterprise. The shared self-interest of the commonwealth will always be threatened, and this construct was assembled not by a hive mind but by individuals who saw the construct as serving some interest in the first place. The first fear of any such construct is counter-revolution, and it is established in a revolution which consciously co-opts the lower orders and thrusts them back into servitude once the new aristocracy establishes its plot. The old order attempts immediately to channel the disgust of those who were thrust down the hardest, along with the usual suspects who just enjoy an excuse to destroy the new government and take the wealth of the former aristocrats. Whether such a counter-revolution exists or not, the revolutionaries will suggest counter-revolutionaries must be dealt with ruthlessly. If they read their Machiavelli, they would know why you do this.

I can only describe political consciousness at such length, as this is written by men with far more knowledge of history and the intrigues of that world than I. I do not intend to write a political book, but many such books exist and explain very well what is at stake and how aristocrats think of this matter. Aristocrats have rarely ever had to hide their intentions. They simply assume that the default of humanity is aristocracy. The eugenic interest, in every form, is why they can do so confidently. What they could not abide is someone who rejects wholly and knowingly the eugenic interest in favor of another, and does so in a way that would not merely break the cycle of aristocracy, but regards the entire process with contempt no aristocrat can summon in their fickle enterprises, and they are always in the end fickle and stupid exercises in pointless posturing. The dream of creating some Ingsoc-tier dystopian terror state is no less fickle than any other aristocratic scheme in history. It only presents strength because it vampirically feeds off every resource and violently ensures no one can ever oppose it, to the bitter end. This is not merely the result of modern eugenics, as if any alternative were seriously proposed. It is a consequence of how humanity has conducted political matters, because humans really were at heart little more than apes that figured out how to screech in particular ways that allowed them their present level of technology. Every interest other than the eugenic interest has in some way been belittled or subordinated, or is a thing actively mocked and denigrated. That is the origin of all hitherto existing political thought, which only sometimes adopts technical knowledge from science and only in the ways that are amenable to this eugenic interest and the proprietors.

If that is the case, then it seems like I'm saying the eugenic interest is somehow inexorable, right? The only problem with this statement is that it really isn't. For all the pretenses states have maintained, the eugenic interest really doesn't resonate with the vast majority of humans, and is barely registered in non-human life as a thing which constitutes "politics". Far from it, the eugenic interest promotes ideologies that are almost wholly incompatible with what most people actually want. It always must insinuate that the eugenic interest is actually something else, and that even the proprietors are in some way obliged to something other than themselves for more purposes than a need to keep the peace. Viewed nakedly, the eugenic interest and its modern creed is so abominable that it knows from the outset it could only sell itself in the most violent manner possible, and resorts immediately to threats and terror, even when those threats are clearly counterproductive. The eugenic interest takes on a life of its own, beyond anything that the interests of life or even its genetic origins would suggest is needed. This only happens because the eugenic interest becomes less about any actual past, which most people agree is necessary to speak of life holding property and thus relevance in the world, and more about a preferred model of the past. The eugenic interest finds the technological interest to be its natural ally, and it is science and technology which grants to the eugenist everything it requires to actually rule. Without science and technology, eugenics and its baser forms would only be sustained by war and a cult suggesting lurid rituals justify all of this for fun and thrill. Even the most basic form of the eugenic interest requires more than its starting conditions to feed it, and carry out the initial intent. The eugenic interest is at heart so malleable that life-forms could in principle be changed by anyone with a mind to do so, who proceeds to use fairly cheap methods to reconstruct the life-form. This can be done by the life-form itself if it so chooses. What cannot change is the past, which has already happened and isn't going away no matter what new technology is invented. I do not wish to spend the next chapter coming back to the eugenic interest's historical alliance, since the technological interest entails much more than a defense of the old and recapitulation of old memes taught by pedagogues.

This interest being peculiar to life has led to it being identified with life itself, in describing life as following inexorably certain imperatives. For example, the imperative to reproduce, consume resources, and all of the things commonly deemed the behavior of life are considered just so and definitional of life. The truth of life is that it has no true hardcoded imperatives that compel any behavior. It is rather that what starts at its genesis is likely to continue in accord with principles that have perpetuated generation after generation. Life, which begins as little more than a chaotic whim in the world, continues as it started because for a long time, life is nothing more than simple mechanisms, for whom any drive to evolve only exists because of ample resources to feed from, and because there was nothing preventing life from changing in ways that favored it. It is far more likely that life diversified considerably before any refinement into more complex forms came about, and it was only when life developed enough complexity that further "random" changes were difficult that its forms changed more in line with its competitive conditions and fitness. Even here, "fitness" had less to do with life's active changes, which would be the result of happenstance and selection that was part of life's tendency to seek partners desirable to its drive to reproduce. There is ample evidence that lust for reproduction is not blind, nor does it follow any prescribed eugenic intent to find "the best genes", such that the position of losers like the Optimates is naturalized in a gigantic pseudoscientific cope.^[5] It is rather that there are conditions other than mere survival or the starting conditions of life that inform the conception of new life, which begins its own genesis from those conditions. The eugenic interest would desire to forestall that, because it represents the most obvious living threat to their interest. Only for themselves does it become possible to rise from beginnings, and to the outsiders, any development must be deemed natural, despite no reason to believe any inborn trait destined them for greatness. To enemies, the eugenic interest demands grinding down their conditions and imposing a "truth" that they are cursed with the sin they inherited and will go down further by some inexorable force. Little of this seems to have much to do with life, and it is a koan of such people that life and death exist in a cycle that reproduce each other. This is stupid if you think at all about the situation, but the concept holds power because of the eugenic interest, the interest of property, and fetish cults surrounding it.

Little good can be said of this, except that life to exist must defend itself. This has been the oldest trick to run any protection racket. Life is always presented as fragile, except for that which is able to emphasize the eugenic interest above all, which is somehow vital even though it exists entirely on parasitism. This sadly is the natural condition of life, in that all that we do can be subordinated to the past. Those in the present and all the future are given to this past property which asserts that it must be a thing. It does so because life to be life is defined by some intent orienting it, rather than life being a quintessential force allowing dynamism or life being premised on knowledge or wisdom. Life to rise past this in some way becomes non-living, and "pure life" and the veneration of life itself serves not the overriding core interest, but this eugenic interest. The great difficulty for any other entity in the universe - and this would apply to non-living knowing entities which possess some purpose of their own - is that defense against this is necessary for anything else to exist. If we did not regard this, we would be very different creatures, and the prospect of a world where we did not do this appear eerie to our sense of ourselves. This is because, as living creatures, we have inherited conditions that were strongly informed by this eugenic interest and the concept of property it spawned. There is no way to easily abandon property, even when property no longer serves any interest we would hold dear in any serious way. We could easily abandon property and this attachment to the past and continue living, while remaining aware of the intent of other life-forms to disrupt this because it would just be too decent. When doing so, though, we would remain cognizant of that which we can control and that which is the property claimed by others. In doing so, we would in effect reproduce some concept of property just to defend ourselves. The eugenic interest always favors the aggressor, and in modernity, the cult of war and the eugenic interest always prefers to take the offensive, as is customary of imperial interests. Never has a defensive war been a condition anyone wishes to fight, for all the reasons that makes sense. The eugenic interest always embraces this instinct to attack and makes it internal to its practices, and then seeks to impose that on the other faculties of life. This is incompatible with anything life needs to do to actually win a struggle, and those who hold this interest are cognizant of that. It is why the advocates of the interest will privately indulge in luxury and technology and spiritual meaning. Austerity and deprivation are only conditions of the producers and the slaves, and this distinction of the haves and have-nots is thrown in the face of those who are made to suffer. The eugenic interest might discipline its believers in certain ways, where all luxuries and technology are made to serve eugenic aims rather than any other. All other property in the purest eugenic interest exists only to serve further accumulation, in preparation for a struggle of life and death. It is for this reason that Malthus invents his vision of the lower classes as mindless breeders, and the inheritors of Malthus transpose this mentality on the capitalists they wish to expropriate. This drive to expropriate the capitalists is of course only applied to the lower orders of capital, who have long been in conflict with the apex of the alliance ruling the oligarchy. The promise the oligarchs made to the lower orders of capital was that the workers would be ground down and labor would remain as cheap as possible, and fantasies of perpetual economic growth were presented to tell the lower orders of capital that nothing would fundamentally change. As this promise was made, the lower orders of capital and the petty bourgeois would be taxed, undermined, attacked, humiliated, and prepared for the expropriation taking place in the 21st century, finishing up a century of backsliding in which all of the producers, the property-holders and the working class alike, are broken down. It was imperative that at the crucial moment that is playing out now, the producers would turn to blame not those who brought the nightmare to them, but the lowest class, who must be despised by all with a vigor scarcely imagined. That is what we live through today. The final question posed to all is if they will do as humanity had been entrained to do, and carry out the war against the weak to the end. Many in the human race have chosen their side of the war a long time ago, and so what happens next is a foregone conclusion. Those who rejected the call of the eugenic creed face continued expropriation and terror, and the eugenic creed attracts all to a singular interest which must always march in lockstep.

That is what we live through today. That is what we must defend against. The greatest lie of the eugenic interest has been that self-defense is the sole property of the eugenists and the creed, and that all other interests and anything else we wanted in life must die, die, die. It is for that reason that eugenics could only ever create a screaming, fanatical cohort whose lust for sadism and blood overrides anything else it would preserve. This was forseen and obvious, but the eugenic interest in life never cared once about any reason or purpose. Now it exists only to feed itself, damning us all as it has from the moment it could assert itself in the earliest rites of the human race. From that time, the eugenic interest has sought for itself a world-historical mission particular to it, and asserts that all other interests should adopt its mentality. In time, the eugenic interest attracts sadists, futurists, cult leaders, fanatics driven by zeal, occultists who revel in trickery, thugs given over to cheaper thrills and easily induced to follow anything, and so on. The common thread in all of these people is a sickening love if depravity, coupled with a faux moralist crusade where superficial appearances must rule and all meaning and genuine purpose is annihilated.

I must cut short this chapter, as much of what we write concerns this interest. The remaining interests, and those that develop from the basic interests of life when living is not merely an individual experience but a social existence and the reality we live in with technology and material incentives and conditions, all have their place, and must be recognized as valid and worthwhile. Much of what is written today is deliberately degenerated to emphasize the eugenic interest, and claim that this interest is eternal and the only true interest. So common is this interest that it supplants the core interests of life. This is intended, so that the overriding interest of life, which would preserve all of its interests, is re-written to serve the intent of managers. The ultimate goal of the eugenic interest is not to kill opponents, but over-write their "programming" in every way possible, so that the eugenic interest produces slaves in ways that past economic thought never could.

Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

Return to Table of Contents | Return to Chapter Start