Return to Table of Contents | Previous Chapter | Next Chapter

8. The Technological Interest and Science

So far the interests of life have concerned things that are neither material nor ideal, but are instead a thing inherent in the very possibility that life exists. Life has both a genesis and procession, but it has no preferred form nor any intrinsic substance that is uniquely identified with life. The products of living processes are things identifiable, but never has any substance of life itself, nor does life prefer any form at all. There is not, and never will be, any formal definition of "life" that is suitable for the purpose of describing this phenomenon. The reason for this is that life, as I say, is a parasite and a ghost animating matter that, by itself, should not do anything in particular. Nothing about the components of life suggests any reason why the formation of life proceeds from simple events. This is unlike the formation of stars and planets, which proceed from very regular motion of matter, or the procession of natural events like the flow of water or hardness of rocks. Life at its most basic level is not a natural thing at all, but something between the natural world and the artificial intent of knowledge. Knowledge in theory did not need life to exist, but life seemed to imply by the very formulation of an intent some will that is treated as knowing. There is no actual "thought" of an amoeba or a plant at work, but the behaviors of even simple life conform to intents that are evident not in the forms it adopts, but in what living things must do to remain constituted as living. Life does not appear in any material system, but is only stable in particular systems. There is no rule suggesting that these systems can't form, as if life could only be created or imposed on the world by a thought leader, but there is also no rule suggesting any regular mechanism that gives rise to life. It is very likely that life arises in any way it can do so, and absent a compelling reason for it to stop, life will continue through any cycle until it is exhausted. It may be very likely that life on one planet formed and died many times before it could begin a steady cycle. Life begins anew from the smallest seed and a seemingly insignificant genesis, regardless of what other life may exist. There is never any evidence of a planet-wide mind of capital-N "Nature" guiding this process. The sum total of living systems on Earth do not appear oriented towards survival of the whole or any particular balance at all.[1] In total, life appears to fritter away all it consumes without any particular purpose, and the technological advance of life - which is to say, its assimilation of the natural world to serve its intent - appears sporadically with rises and falls. It is an abiding characteristic of human knowledge, which is often communicated in language, written down, or evident in tools and objects which humans reverse-engineer with a cleverness surprising for such a deformed race, that knowledge and meaning once establish does not die easily. In life before humanity, where there is no symbolic language to communicate ideas so compactly, life destroys its own knowledge base recklessly and without regard to any conceit that the technology of life should grow at all, let alone towards any end that Whig History would imply.

The technology of life is not limited to knowledge of an ephermeal consciousness, but all of the substance and form that life inhabits to make true its intent, its functions, and follow all of its interests, which include at a basic level all of the matter, energy, spirit, and qualities granting form that life entails to continue being a real thing. Not all life is conscious in any way we would appreciate the concept, but all that life inhabits behaves as if its intent were something consciously pursued, rather than pursued in a way that is blind or inherent solely in the substances life absorbs. If a living thing were beholden to natural events in their raw form, it would be a thing hostile to that life-form in some way. Living things to command their faculties always appropriate them in some way, to suggest that this process is somehow incorporated into its overall life functions. Even if the thing is mostly preserved intact, like a fragment of matter grafted into the life-form by some strange fusion, it becomes a thing assimilated by life. It could very well be a malignant thing, like a cancer which arose in life and weakened the life-form from within, but that cancer is not a thing alien to the life-form. If it were, the cancer could be easily excised and alienated completely from life, such that it was not a problem to cut it out and be done with it. This may indeed be done, but not without consequence. Cancer must be purged in some way to no longer be malignant, or life will just have to live with its presence, or life will have to find a way to remove the cancer without any surgery and restore the functions of life to what was wanted.

Just as politics' relation to the eugenic interest is far too vast a topic to cover here, about which much is written, the large body of writing on biology, anatomy, basic machinery, and so on, is far too much to summarize in one chapter. I will summarize only briefly biology and anatomy as it relates to this interest, before moving on to tool use generally and then the paradigms of knowledge particular to life. As this will be a recurring topic throughout the rest of this writing, I will be brief in all of these categories.

I leave out the question of abiogenesis for now, which deserves mention in a later chapter, and the formation of stable cellular life which arose for reasons unknown. What can be said about cellular life is that it reproduces quickly and non-sexually, and is simple enough that adaptations of it occur within a short time. With known bacteria and things believed to be pathogens of disease, they are rarely fixed things, but things arising in new forms even today. There is no reason to believe that life reproducing so rapidly that is small enough to fluctuate, and versatile enough to assimilate alien matter into novel forms, wouldn't change its composition in a very short timeframe compared to geologic timescales. With all of this, early life could not transform into any complex life for billions of years, and likely this early life rose and fell many times without stabilizing into any global ecosystem. Simple life is not known to travel far. What is guessed at is that algae and the precursors of plant life arise long before animal life. Reliance on fossil records, which are always in short supply and obviously require something that can be fossilized to arrive to us, makes the origin of animals guesswork until someone invents a time machine to solve the problem, which we suppose to be impossible. In this time span that brings about the earliest known animals, and eventually aquatic animals like fish, so much would have had to happen to make the humble, simple fish a thing. Yet, the simplicity of life and the lack of predatory pressures culling life before it grew likely allowed for life to experiment with anything and everything that worked, so long as it was able to move and succeed at reproduction. We will see here a recurring theme in all interests that stems from the first interest of life - that it grew and developed because it was allowed to and did so, and there was no eugenic overlord asserting life could not do that. Extinction events, culls, and all of the predation in nature are always factors which disfavor any change in life, rather than promote its development. The development of life, and thus the development of intents beyond mere reproduction of its primitive forms, follows from the technological interest almost immediately from conception. Life feeds its basic sustenance, and in most circumstances it is not under a constant eugenic pressing to compel any of its behavior. It is in this environment that life's biological facutlies can develop, and it can do with those faculties all of the other things that life can do. The surplus available to life may be spent for whatever life does to recreate itself, absent one of the first two interests pressing against this. Every new substance or quality life assimilates is a thing it must support, adding to its basic cost of life support. A new feature requires food to supply it, for example. Generally, features which emphasize economic efficiency are not evolutionary priorities at all. The technology of life before creatures like us with economic sense is remarkably inefficient and wasteful, and there is nothing in the animal mind which suggests it should favor economism of the Malthusian sort, where life starves itself and celebrates this anorexic approach to living. Since the Malthusians themselves do not practice what they preach, throwing lavish parties and indulging in all of their sick fetishes[2], this is not surprising. The seeming economism of life is that a drive to accumulate mindlessly or reproduce mindlessly does not appear to be anything living creatures do. The greater tendency is for life to form some colony, or some grouping which is familiar, and stick to it rather than operate as the imagined liberal free agent. As mentioned before, lone life-forms tend not to be prolific breeders, and they do not appear to be particularly interested in accumulation at all. The greatest drive that would favor solitude is that the loner desires most of all space to develop, recreate, and enjoy to the fullest whatever food it consumes. Usually, life as a solitary creature is not going to end well. "Sociality" though is not something that is so much an inborn or hardcoded thing, but a thing that makes sense to an animal given its situation. It would have been born in some habit of reproduction, and in its youth it would look to elders like itself or note its environs over time if it struggles alone. It might have struggled for life by killing its siblings, a common fate in the natural order of things, and one that is far from alien for humans.

It is well attested that the development of limbs and particular features in animals occurs because particular traits are selected not in survival of the fittest against death, but because particular traits are selected by some process which would make mates desirable regardless of whether they survive. The choice of traits at a basic level does not appear to serve any adaptive purpose. If it did, the adaptation of traits would appear much more rapidly.[3] There is a drift in life towards normalization of certain outcomes, and it appears almost as an inexorable trend that life will, absent anything limiting its size, grow somewhat larger in faculties that present opportunities of some sort. The closer those faculties are to some utility in life, the more likely they become a thing selected for, and the greater their development in the processes of life.[4] It may be that a particular trait that is unusual but beneficial enters the population and splits off, and the process of normalization splits off by niche. Further, mating populations tend to concentrate in particular regions, which would select for traits peculiar to their domain. The effect of a cull would not be needed to eliminate transitional forms. It would instead act as a sobering influence against the excess of mating for vanity, if it accomplishes that, which it does very poorly. Most likely, clearly maladaptive traits simply never reproduce and produce in animals the same visceral disgust they produce in humans. Females with maladaptive traits would be both hard-pressed to defend their offspring, if they possess maternal instincts, and under attack themselves, and produce the same visceral disgust in males for reasons that are not difficult to discern. The particular psychology of a species would play some part in this, and there is nothing to suggest that the visceral disgust or any psychological trait is easily discerned by the superficial traits mating rituals prefer.[5] The more likely origin of psychological traits was a normalization and adaptation to changing situations, which proceeded at a plodding pace without a particular preference for outcomes, as if the natural world which had no interest whatsoever in this bizarre controtion of itself called "life" would encode any moral sentiment in biological hardware. The most likely preference in selective pressures, so far as they existed, would be that which favored general intelligence and general functioning, with certain variations becoming common in the mating populations which usually remained insular rather than general. The reach of life-froms absent transport was not much, and movement over long distances would often be carried out in group migrations rather than by individuals. As mentioned, loner life-forms tend not to be prolific breeders, and the species which demonstrate the most sophisticated neurological development tend to be those with social behavior and elaborate mating rituals, and those whose offspring are gestated in female parents' wombs. This development suggests a number of things, and it is an error to impose a false egalitarianism of all species, as if they all followed the simplest principles or universal principles at all.[6] For humans, there are peculiarites which would make many of our presumptions of selection by any natural principle moot. Among them are that humans, being tool-using animals, are affected far more by artifices of willful creation, and the traits which allow humans this faculty are at odds with virtually everything that another species would value. The large size of the human brain for instance would be a gigantic liability, with support costs beyond anything that it was worth, if it did not lead to any meaningful results. The human features in the rest of their body have faced regular atrophy as their tool use became more elaborate, because those features were largely superfluous. If they were to be optimized in the current niche in a way that was functional or desirable or just aesthetically appealing, they would become something very different from anything humans have been historically. For some practical-minded humans, this has been something they seek in partners, whether they are male or female. It has been the eugenic interest to forestall this decision being made independently.[7] It remains something that arises independently, largely because it is impossible to control everyone as much as imperious assholes would like, but also because it is recognized in human society that some productive aim must be attained if families, or any reproductive arrangement, can continue. Since all attempts to engineer human child-rearing in institutions have been disastrous failures, they will have to accept the family at some level for the time being. The questions of why life developed as it did up to the development of settled society with language, extensive tool use, ritual, and so on are better left for another time, and really are better answered by those with more extensive knowledge in the area than I can gather. I would suggest in principle that any question of evolution should be considered not as a recreation of human conceits.[8]

It is with the full development of tool use that humans begin to hone their body, their tools, their language, and all biological faculties in ways no other animal does. All of these processes work with each other to produce the humans of today, and they would have had to operate over a short time-span. The likely spark for this was the development of language proper, which allow not only systematization of knowledge on how to do this, but communication with other humans who could pass this knowledge to another human, and eventually to offspring who would be taught to speak when young, thus accelerating considerably the acquisition of primitive knowledge, diversification of tool use, and then the honing of the body that adapts to all of this. The upright posture of humans, which likely existed long before this, is refined to remove most of the human tendency to slouch, and to this day, the habit of slouching is discouraged and discipline seeks to correct posture.[9] It is through this process that humans can begin formally the first signs of the technological interest. This at first is limited, proceeding only in the limited way savage society would allow it to happen. Among the demands of savage society was primitive egalitarianism among those deemed valid. Without any organized institutions that could press against the residuum, if a child survived long enough to fend for itself, it was too much work to ritually sacrifice him or her, and likely a burden to waste someone who was a perfectly usable set of hands and tools that could be put to some use. Primitive society would have entailed bands of small size, and larger formations of human sociality would never have been tight units. While a human band could number between 50 to 200 and everyone would know who the others are, this knowledge would not have entailed too many close associations. For most people, a few immediate relations were their "political society", and the larger band stuck together not as any political unit or a formation with any spiritual authority, but because doing so was expedient enough without causing too much strife. Larger formations would face difficulty migrating in order, forming war parties, sharing the product of extraction without turmoil, and would face greater threat from endemic violence that had been an accepted reality of the race. Nothing suggests this stayed together out of a vague sense that "humans are social creatures" in some preferred way. It was in reality quite the opposite - humans valued their solitude too much that they found anything that resembled state society oppressive and offensive to their sense of reality and values. In turn, chiefs, elders, and those who would lead valued those who were independent rather than those who were obedient, because that independence was the condition in which people could learn and be useful for any enterprise. The warbands of the time disfavored drilling or the concerns of later military institutions, and instead encouraged drinking, slaughtering merrily, and generally being the toughest gang in the land. The law of war at the time was not any pretense of the state, but the strong fucking over the weak, having their way with the women who often obliged and valued this and humiliating the defeated men before putting them out of their misery. The only thing preventing the cult of war from growing out of control was that such affairs were expensive to maintain, and without any tax or levy system, a warband could only be sustained so long as they won and there was some purpose to fight for. A permanent standing army, beyond the body of those who could use a weapon and the general state of battle readiness among males that was expected, was not a possibility, and so the trappings of state society and the dull, dreary grind could not exist. This will be revisted in a later chapter.


It seems reasonable and expected for life to consume quantities. It is so obvious that it seems reasonable to any knowledge and any faculty that more, typically, is better, so long as there is some quality that the substance feeds that is useful. This is rephrased in many moral philosophies to suggest some logic by which goods can be judged. It need not be economic in the sense we have written, but it is simple arithmetic that more is greater than less, and that in some way this would be desirable, presuming we have qualities that are worth building. With the surplus available to life, it does not always make sense to consume all that exists, but it does not make any more sense to live an austere existence out of some sense that this is what it means to live a good life. Generally, though, a knowledgeable mind can find with any surplus something it can do, or potentially do, or will do in the future. This can apply individually or to life in general. The reasons for social existence and the formation of institutions are usually not given to serve any technological interest, but the technological interest will always take an interest in whatever conditions they live in, and so it is a common trait of technocrats to suggest that the goal of productive enterprises would be to produce the needs of society in desired abundance. These needs serve some purpose of knowledge which both supplies the means by which anything from the natural world would be appropriated by life, and which requires that need for the sake of more knowledge. This refers to both the material system that is capable of producing anything, such as the body, tools, machines, infrastructure, and so on, and to the knowledge process itself which requires a number of conditions to operate freely. The other interests may have different ideas, but for the purposes of knowledge, resources exist to be consumed - if not by us, then by some future generation. If they are to be consumed, they would be consumed not out of some sense of property or a haughty faith in merit, but on the basis of what would be good for all parties and suggested an equitable distribution towards the common good.

The technological interest views the substance to be consumed essentailly as equivalent to another thing. However much qualities cannot be compared, they always entail some substantive input and output which can be compared by a unit. This unit is effectively whatever energy is suitable for life and specifically the processes of knowledge, rather than any unit of exchange or a utility that may be imagined subjectively. Technology does not have a concept of utility, which is entirely a subjective conceit. Whatever the utility of things, they always entail some substance, and that substance is not an abstract thing like a social relation. It is instead whatever sense allows things to be compared. Here, the generative force of "labor" in the intellectual sense is considered. It is important that this is judged not by some substance of human effort, but by what knowledge and intellect would consider the right expenditure of energy for some labor. The standard for comparing labor would not be socially necessary, as that concept implies a whole market which creates the social necessity. Who judges in the end is the technological interest itself. This means, at a basic level, that those who command the machine decide what a proper expenditure is. For the worker employing his own body and his own tools, this valuation is something he cannot make unilaterally based on his whims, but an honest reckoning of some energy input or output. When considering a whole society, it is inherent to technology and its interest to view the society as a collective unit. This would not entail any individual breakdown by property or fairness, but considers the society as a commonwealth where the product is presumably in one pool, delivered to individuals by need. Who, precisely, commands this distribution, is once again whomever holds the machine of distribution, which is itself some technology. There is no concept of any instituiton or politics which would regulate this in a technocratic view of society.

If this sounds like communism to you, then gold star for you. This is precisely the most basic formulation of a communist settlement, whether it is in a lesser form that is less-than-perfect but approaching acceptability, or the more basic conception of a commonwealth - i.e., a republic. This is the idealized version of republican government, where the people are treated fairly and the command of product is held by the virtuous, or by something that is incorruptible and not beholden to the petty interests of life. In modern times, the vision is of a cybernetic planner who accounts for all needs in a just manner that is known to everyone in the society. This is a tough sell, because knowledge is not transmitted instantly nor evenly, and not everyone will understand the plan. But, it is perfectly plausible that an agreed-upon plan for distribution of quantities is published, and this is agreeable to all of the people. At least, it would be agreeable to enough people to suggest that this method of distribution is far superior to the others on offer, and the malcontents will be dealt with in the most just way possible. There is no pleasing all of the people all of the time, but if you can please most of the people all of the time, that is far better than any politician has managed to accomplish in human history, and there is no rule that the malcontents have to be treated so horribly. After all, whatever their discontent, the good of the whole is the most important thing, and the malcontents can still have something to call their own and be left to grumble about how unfair it is. The disputes of the malcontents are, in the grand scheme of all the horrible things life has done, the most trifling and petty concerns. I write this with full seriousness. The petulant whining of bourgeois neoliberals during the 1980s and 1990s was something out of this world, difficult to believe unless their simpering whining were allowed to be elevated, even as so many in human society faced much worse. The arguments of the capitalist against communism were infantile and idiotic, divorced from any objection a reasonable person would have with any form of socialism. The more brazen the stupidity of capitalist arguments, the more the Reaganite recapitulated them, taking a perverse pride in saying things so odiously stupid. These whiners would be elevated deliberately at first to destabilize the remnants of the Soviet system and what communist spirit remained in China, and then to destabilize Europe and America itself, in their continuous campaign to shit up everything they touch for no good reason whatsoever. Many times, they exemplified the racist angle in the most shameless iteration possible, which was just another affront against decency of this foul, retarded, evil, and just plain wrong movement of assholes. What else is to be expected of the inheritors of Hitlerism and the Austrian School that was so awful even Nazis disowned them? I have truly in my life not met a lower creature than the American conservative, and this is why.

The problem with this was not that sharing quantities is technologically impossible, or that human greed is eternal and natural to the universe or to life. The interests of life imply the opposite - that sharing wealth in this way would be almost impossible to avoid, without resorting to controlled insanity. It would seem ideal to share wealth within a genuinely cooperative association of people, without that association being in the same "volk" or some identity group and deemed worthy by spurious moral criteria. In primitive society, "primitive communism" had nothing to do with any ideology or forceful imposition of the idea, as if it violated nature. Cooperative sharing was and remains a condition of survival, and was never premised on this faux-honorable moral posturing of fools. Cooperation did not even require love of your fellow man. Far from it, primitive society was one rife with distrust, where there was no institution to enforce contracts. Yet, nothing like the capitalist lust for property was used to advance a fickle, stupid, and pointless ideology like Reaganism. Reaganism could only exist because it could cannibalize everything society produced. It relies entirely on exploiting the decency that a republican society required to function in any productive sense. The Reaganites were cowards and cravens to a man and woman, who mocked anyone dumb enough to fight for them. Yet, they were able to succeed largely for the same reasons a technocratic interest could build up in a first place. Among their own, they are generous in one sense - they recognize each other and seek to protect each other, and through this, they collaborate for the task of plundering everything in sight and promoting their rot and filth. The idea of sharing the wealth can just as well be applied to those who seek to hoard it for a nefarious purpose. Nothing the Reaganites do is truly "selfish" in a crass sense. Selfishness instead is calculated and becomes the basis for a new cooperation, based on hatred of any kindness or productivity. This is intended because their true religion was not simple greed, but depopulation and the thrill of torturing others. No such motive could be consistently held in the past and institutionalized in the democratic sector of society, the way Reaganism poisoned public consciousness and promoted a bizarre rot and contortion of the prior society, where socialist thought informed much of what was built in the 20th century. In the past, the brazen transgression of the Hitlerites would have been met with blank stares, and anyone suggesting such an abomination would have been dragged out and hanged for insolence. Only because such a movement could insinuate that it is sacrosanct and protected could it survive, and this was only possible through the rule of technology and its interest. The past forms of democide and cruelty were either confined to a predatory interest which had to operate without impunity, or were the interest of nobles and aristocracies that fought wars, and so the primary method of democide and viciousness of that sort in the past was war. War, however, carries risks and limitations, and not everyone can fight or is willing to fight. The people would reject a permanent intercine war that masked itself as a normal day, and would reject people who brag of their dream to exterminate 80% of the human population in the open. Reaganism is only possible if "there is no alternative", and they are propped up by opposition parties which tacitly approve of the democide and humiliation of designated losers. Such a situation could only have been done at the level of society once enough knowledge and science about society and the mechanisms at work were available to a single person or to institutions. By the late 20th century, the naive tendency of sharing and productivity in the human race, which had been the sole reason humans ever became more than slightly elevated sadistic apes killing each other, turned completely against the idea that such productivity was even possible theoretically. Without knowledge, it wouldn't even be possible for the sadistic ape of low cunning to become the familiar Satanic ape we recognize today. Such creatures survive on the goodwill of those who didn't produce for predation or fear, but out of a sense that productive labor was a necessary purpose in life. There was nothing preventing a predator from exploiting this, and this would be true in any imaginable arrangement of life and the affairs of the world. No institution is immune to predation or the competing interests of life. At heart, the productive work is a technological enterprise. Even the basic constitution of bodies, the thing that allows life to be anything other than an urge, is a form of technology which can be utilized or appropriated. On its own, technology has its own interests, so far as it is a thing wielded by life. The machines in of themselves do not assert anything by their predictable mechanisms. Only their employment for the interests of life does this, and the interest of life in its tools, which include its own body and health, is one interest which can feed itself. Everything about modern society is premised on this technological interest asserting itself as a force with its own aims, independent of the aims of property or the conceits of pigheaded people, and independent of any primary interest of life to simply live.


It is only in the technological interest that everything in the natural world can be compared to some general substance of utility or energy that is important to such an interest. The raw interests of life need distinct utilities which are not exchangeable, and the interests of property specifically mark qualities and demarcate quantities for life-forms. The second of these imagines a world where property arrests the world violently, and any change in the world is nothing more than a competition to defeat opponents and take their property, without any mindset of utilizing it or developing it. The first interest of life would consider any competition for resources or plan to drag the world into technology to be the primary threat to it, which impedes anything the life-form individually wanted to do in the first place. The technological interest is conflated with materialism, but materialism never suggested that all that exists is some mana to be absorbed and utilized to feed machines. Far from it, a materialist view of the world suggests a variety of distinct objects exist and that their utilities cannot be linked in any technocratic scheme. It is instead necessary for the technological interest in life to want this, to view all that exists as a machine that can be reconstructed for whatever purpose life has, and to perpetuate the very machine that is life. The technological interest is not a philosophical or spiritual pursuit, nor is it inherent to the world in a way that makes its procession inexorable. It is not difficult for a reasonable person to see that technology has no preferred teleology dictating future events, but only suggests the means by which anyone can act in the world.

Intrinsically, this technology of life serves no master other than itself. Being the only substantive part of life, the technological interest could see its own preservation as an imperative not for the sake of life or property, but as a sense of its intent as a trend in the world which can be generalized, universalized, and compared with all other things. All that is not the life-form would be brought in line with these scheme, and this in some sense is necessary for life. It must be able to assert its natural form and means in the world if it is to be a thing, and in principle, there is no reconciliation with the world or the other interests it is obligated to abide. If it is to operate, though, it can only do so by pursuing qualities of the universal substance that are of interest to technology and knowledge itself, and it must place knowledge, science, and technology as an imperative that is neutral and above the common political sense. In humans, this appears to be a new thing. For life generally, it presents as a type of material interest or realism that is the first sense that life can rise above being merely life, and can incorporate both the non-living world and other life-forms in whatever relations it can maintain. This interest would manifest in any life due to its intent, and so non-thinking life exhibits behaviors as if it seeks these qualities "by some invisible hand", and seeks quantities much as we would do by deliberate effort.

The discernment of all qualities, including knowledge of life itself and its most basic purpose, is pursued by the technological interest. In short, it must assemble science pertaining to qualities of all things and all ideas without any ulterior motive. Life to do this must maintain some intellectual integrity, so far as life is considered a machine operating on scientific principles. This is a fatal misunderstanding of what knowledge is and does outside of life, but it is easy to see why a technocrat would view science as a thing with no ulterior motive. It would have to do so if it is to live through technology and know itself beyond an assertion of property or will. This makes a lot of sense, and so the qualities of the world are ascribed values that are in line with the pursuit of knowledge and the protection of it. All that would be described as "biological nature" as a motive for life's behavior would be seen through the technological interest, even if that interest were co-opted by an ulterior motive. For those whose primary function is to live through science and technology, it is much easier to pursue this knowledge for its own sake, and resent any other interest that would impugn on it. This includes, in the end, the basic interest of life itself, which must be questioned if we are to approach life honestly and regard it as something alien to nature, a thing born out of what appears to be some cosmic mistake and left on this Earth which did nothing to warrant such a curse.

It is not that technology is some sort of "Nature god" or "godless gangster computer god".[10] Knowledge can easily assess that it must abide other interests and that those interest have meaning, and that the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake is futile for proving meaning or a moral justification. An extreme of technocracy is its amorality, but this is readily recognized by any life-form that can think for five minutes. An animal does not sink to the depravity of teenaged pissants indulgent in trashy parodies of philosophy, even at their worst. That perversion only exists because of a very particular confluence of interests which can co-opt technology for the present mission. What the technological interset can do is humble moral sentiments in light of a stark reality technology suggests - that life really is at heart a machine, and it is only out of necessity that moral sentiments rise above basic wants. It may seem simple enough that we would want material things because of a utility that feeds the body and its faculties, and that this can be enough. If so, the circle of genesis, the property of life, and its means of production can be completed, and we would do with any remaining surplus that which serves our wishes, individually and collectively. The same surplus, though, may claim any extra quantity and any quality of the world in service of something baser, or in service to some moral aim that is clearly at odds with this obvious aim of life. Life requires both substance and particular qualities from it to persist, and this can be taken to its maximum to consume all that exists. The only barrier to this is a will to not do so.


Among the substance and qualities the technological interest must pursue are the means to reproduce it. This substance appears as if it is completely wasted, for it invests in things that are not directly productive in nature, but instead feed the process that allows economic decisions regarding substance to be made. It has long been known that of all the tasks that can be automated and minimized, this task is the easiest of all to automate. Not only does this concern the management of resources in a grand calculation problem, which is easy to solve in any era given sufficient information. It also concerns automating the process of learning, so that every life-form can learn as efficiently as possible and with the fewest barriers to acquiring both information which allows economic decision making, and allows someone to draw meaning and purpose from learning. For us, the vehicle to learn is some sort of symbolic representation. This is often conflated with spoken or written language, but also includes the things we interact with and reverse-engineer. The default method of learning is not pedagogy, but this reverse-engineering. It is so evident that the best pedagogy typically encourages reverse-engineering known facts and things, rather than explaining a theory that does not comport with more readily accessible and incontrovertible facts that are confirmed by eyes and ears. This, though, faces difficulty because much of human knowledge cannot be inferred by reverse-engineering. Political knowledge, for instance, works specifically on the premise that it shouldn't be "figured out yourself". Politicians, and thus humans, lie early and often and revel in the lie. This knowledge is no less important to navigating the world, for nothing in nature stops humans or anything else from lying. Here we see the central problem with knowledge for its own sake, and the central source for genuine economic information. This is a very simple truth that is readily accessible, and finally grants for us a true origin for economic value that is not the result of social convention, conceits we hold of a petty nature, or some aspect of nature that is latched onto as a fad or a self-serving explanation.

There are two obvious vehicles for learning which can become machines in their own right. The first is the faculty of reproduction, carried out by the mother and biological father as sperm donor, and the rearing of offspring which is in some way intended to introduce life to society and the world. The second is pedagogy, or methods of education which become institutions with their own interest. The stated function of pedagogy is to assist this reproductive function, so that new life-forms are viable in the world. The true function of pedagogy, understood immediately, is that it would adjudicate who was in, who was out, and what to do with every life-form that passed through it. The task of pedagogy would extend to mothers who would be obliged to carry out this pedagogy from conception of new life. The machine of our own native faculties was shown to be unreliable not because it produced false knowledge, but because it implied independence and thus an alien interest that was anathema to the purpose of technology and the rule of knowledge.

It is this that was seized upon immediately, and it is this that forms the first distinction of class in any society. Membership in any class is dependent on knowledge alone, or an adjudication that someone knows their property rights, so far as they are respected by knowledge. Knowledge, as a rule, holds both property and the right of individual life in contempt. Only those who know are granted liberty, and that bar can be set as high as those who command knowledge dictate. This command of knowledge at first could only take place for individuals. No society-wide institution of knowledge could make true its damnation of those cast out. That, though, was only a matter of time.

It is through education that moral values for anything are determined for society, rather than any natural right suggesting anything is worth anything, if the technological interest of life is taken as dominant. This would differ from the moral thought of developed society, where moral values are contingent on the real participants and pedagogy has no such monopoly. It is not the right to property itself that is asserted through force or violence that makes anything worthwhile in a general sense. All property can entail is the claim of an individual, who is always wary of other individuals. The only language for a proprietor that allows them to comprehend society is mutual distrust and alliances of convenience, in which one lord eventually rules all and subordinates all other life as slaves. The interest of life itself sees correctly that this bickering over value is senseless and contrary to anything they wanted to do in life. There was no rule of life that mandated society or any appeal to nature, or that we were to engage in general intercine competition. The stated aim of the technological interest is that it alone can resolve general intercine competition in any way other than force or simply ignoring the competition. Since no one could hide from this competition the moment another individual wished to take from another, it was resolved that knowledge and knowledge alone could resolve this matter. Individuals may think whatever they want about what is valuable, in accord with all of their interests. For society as a whole at the level of polities, value could only be a claim to know some thing. Property deeds are not written with the blood or genesis of claimants, but are written documents that must be attested to and verified as fact. The more primitive claims to property are still premised on an understanding between people where the rules are known. Those who do not know the rules - that is, those without the mark of social proof permitting them to even hold property - can be attacked with absolute impunity. In pure technocracy, those who do not know are not merely attacked with impunity, but attacking them becomes the chief social obligation above all others. There is no way for a technocratic society to not do this. In some way, this is adopted by life as the "rule of nature", even though the world and the actual nature makes clear that this arrangement has always been ruinous and never produces anything.

In this way, the stated aims of any technocratic society - the basic conception of any republic that claims non-domination as its goal - are negated the moment someone is too stupid to live. This judgement in the end is enforced only by the rule of knowledge itself. Those who can insist that they alone adjudicate knowledge, by trick or threat, will be the true governing power, regardless of any economic logic or any institution which purports to mitigate it. It does not gradually decay from an ideal state set by a philosopher-king. It is rotten from the start, built to do exactly this and planned to do so from the outset. That is the true origin of civil society, and all of the assumptions of general value that humanity has held. We are only told that this is better than arbitrary authority or the claims of proprietors. Yet, the basic aim of the proprietor above all is to truly defend holdings, and no more. The proprietor's view at a basic level is that so long as he has his, the rest of the world and humanity can piss off. A proprietor's idealized view of the state imagines a state arrested in parcels of property that somehow works out, and this is not very different from how a technocratic society or communism would appear on the surface. There is no "us" that has any natural right over individuals, where the collective thinks and feels in the way individual humans would. There is no collective conscious experience that we would regard. If that were the case, humans would be very different creatures, and the question would merely be punted to this collective consciousness which must deal with other entities like it or individuals not yet absorbed into it. It is also the case that technocratic thought always worked through property, rather than against it. Anarchism, Marxism, socialism in its earlier forms, and the liberal idea all understood property as the foundation of the state, and the violence inherent in property also granted the state temporal authority to dictate any of the things that technocratic thought would enforce. The sop of technocrats is that this temporal authority would be muted and delivered to neutral experts, who are trained by pedagogy to be above this and have all of the correct ideas. This has not worked at all. Far from it, it realizes an alliance foreseen between the eugenic interest and the technocrats, which has been the sad fate of all such experiments. It is impossible to negate property by pretending it doesn't exist, when the holders of office and knowledge treat their knowledge as property. This makes most sense because all property and all value assertions held socially would be developed by knowledge alone. What it commands - labor, land, energy, or some resource judged as a metric of importance - is irrelevant. The tokens knowledge uses to command anything always presume quantities can be exchanged regardless of quality, because it needs to do this and does not intrinsically see any reason why distinct qualities should exist at all. In the main, the aim of the technocrat is to transform the world into pure "mind", some substance of thought itself which never existed in nature or in life. It will, as we would expect, destroy the world for its cause. The tendency of technocrats to use this threat of total death, and then measure out exactly pleasure and torture to impose its program, is the only natural conclusion of such an interest, if it rules with untrammeled authority and claims a monopoly on reality and truth.


It does not require much knowledge to sense that this is absurd. For most life, there is no questioning that it is beholden to whatever conditions it inherits and lives in, and whatever may happen to it. There isn't anything like education, save for the habits of mating and rearing offspring, and whatever learning the animals may accomplish in their space and time. Spiritual authority is not a question that can be asked there, except for a dim sense that something is wrong in them and the world. To an animal, there is little way for them to conceive of anything being different. Humans, for all of their knowledge, are little better in this regard, but we have figured out enough to at least suggest that there is something other than this concept of value, rooted only in the interests of nature and some technology we developed. We have the capacity to ask "why", while animals so far as we know never ask that question and can only guess at their motives, most of which involve "need food" and "avoid predators". In animals, predation is almost entirely a matter of finding food, and little interest is shown in predatory behavior as a general trend. So far as animals engage in cruelty, it is towards their own kind, and usually does not extend to fatality. With little to gain from killing other than revenge for some immediate slight or a willingness to eat their own kind like any other food, anything we would construe as murder or the animal equivalent of manslaughter is barely recognized in the animal kingdom. I give no guarantees on this, as I am not well acquainted with animal psychology, but if there were dogs or cows with a penchant for murder and some of the old ultraviolence, we'd hear no end about it as a justification for human dominance, despite the endemic violence of human society that never seems to go away. Someone will ask a question about that violence which served nothing, and no intellectual inquiry can solve the problem technocratically so far as we have ever known. We could only at best manage the worst excesses of such vices, and often the technocrat chooses to willfully exacerbate such cruelty or simply elide it completely in their models of human society.

If the transmission of knowledge is most necessary for this interest to work, education becomes almost immediately the key division within society and the marker to decide who can be in the "human" club. It becomes clear that any incipient movement within humanity to teach themselves must be sabotaged at the earliest possible event. Since the mother's tie to the infant is natural and physically proximate, this is the most obvious entry point. The first conspirator is the mother herself, who sees the child either as a vehicle for her own purposes or some parasite that she hosted for many months and now won't go away. Only a fool believes a mother's love is a universal or something that can be taken for granted. Very often this love does not extend far, and it is the mark of a fool to tell him or her that the mother unconditionally loves them. Such affection is always conditional, and this is something all new mothers will learn. If they do not figure it out, they will be cruelly reminded of what unfettered love means in social obligations. This, of course, runs counter to a basic sense in life's overriding interest that offspring need to be protected, and further the infant did nothing and could not seriously be accused of any crime. The crimes of Being that are the chief diagnosis of education, always ready, are the only tools that can be used to assign shame to the infant, who at this point does not know the horrible race he or she is a member of. At an early point, the race is not yet a Satanic race, and never will completely become that despite the insinuation of that being its inevitable nature by the most committed pedagogues. It is very uncommon for sentiment towards life to be so thoroughly annihilated, but it is common in the past century and has become the rule of humanity in technocratic society, with or without eugenics. Where eugenics dominates, hatred towards the newborn is institutional and put into practice by mothers who are true believers. To do otherwise is anathema to everything drilled in them. Yet, no system, not even eugenics, removes many of the obvious purposes for nurturing a child. It is not difficult to see that human infants need an environment that will not kill them, and so the first ritual that is sacrosanct, and that which made the human race distinct, is ritual sacrifice of the child, practiced in nearly every human society in one way or another. Today, one of those rituals is abortion, granted sacrosanct status. Another is the common ritual abuse of children which is known and recorded but never allowed to stop. Once the cycle of abuse starts, it is a great taboo to stop it, and those who try learn over time that they cannot stop something with such inertia. It has been the great mission of Galton's eugenic creed to maximize this, make it total, make it universal, and then tell all humans that the eugenic religion is the only possible religion and the social obligation of all. Most people who are not Satanic retards like Galton will not subscribe to this, and even the coldest technocrat has enough sense that making all children into Satanic bastards and vessels for such a creed is counterproductive. Because it is well known that humans do not do well without affection, and because immaculately calculated cruelty and malice of the eugenist sort is difficult to maintain unless one is a true believer, it is almost natural for children to find some affection. If nothing else, the infant finds some time and space away from the cruelty of other humans, for humans can only travel so far without institutional violence to allow them entry and an ever-watchful malicious eye on the newborn. It is nearly impossible to prevent an infant from finding some source of affection, even if that must come from the air and the wind as the last companions for the child. A naive hope and curiosity in the infant drives it to attempt to learn what the other humans are saying, or find some meaning in the symbols and objects the infant encounters. Very often, infants learn not by any extensive pedagogy, but by simply having an environment that is at all stable and allows it to grow. Because this very easy approach has worked for a very long time, it is the first and most obvious thing for a parent to do, so much that they can't find a way to fuck this up unless they're trying.

Naturally, the duller technocrat finds a way to fuck this up, and suggests that because malice is a fact of the race's existence, the growth of an infant is entirely passive, so that the problem of growth can be automated and worked out in some stages of development and model which takes away any duty of an actual person. Perhaps this is better than many of the alternatives, but usually, infants will engage with other humans as part of this learning, and if they're allowed to have friends, that is decided before they meet wider society. If they are not selected to be allowed friendship, the conditioning begins before the infant can speak, and trying to violate the cycle of rejection will just make the pain worse. It might be possible to reject this conditioning, but when a technocrat decides the fate of a life, it is decided early and finally. A technocrat will never, ever acknowledge for a moment that the theory was wrong. That is anathema to their entire concept of knowledge and intelligence, no matter how spurious it is. We see here one early chink in the armor of technocracy - that knowledge only ever advances in spite of the stubborn who hold the institutions, no matter how much they are aware of this problem. Even if a technocrat would submit to a second opinion, he or she only does so because that practice is institutionalized. To admit the theory is wrong requires the technocrat to revise their adjudication of science, and questions their intelligence and legitimacy in making these judgements. This is a pattern which is necessary for education. Once a judgement is made about a child, that position is locked in, and all initiative of anyone else to violate it is to be attacked. This, of course, is absurd, but we must remember we are speaking of the technological interest in its purest expression. If the procession of life is measured in stages that are dictated by education, the institution of education possesses something that it cannot give up under any circumstances. The only way it could change is if the institution of education itself is questioned, or is able to adopt a model of knowledge and pedagogy that is alien to the technocratic way of life. In short, it would mean that any educational model which doesn't do this would give up on the supremacy of knowledge for its own sake, and thus the legitimacy of technocracy is destroyed. The legitimacy of a republic, and the legitimacy of a commonwealth is destroyed if the theory is wrong. It seems silly to bank everything on a theory when it has been demonstrated as erroneous, but any institution which questions the supremacy of education is anathema to the entire setup of the society, and suggests that science does not possess this spiritual authority nor do institutions substitute for this authority adequately. This is where the trinitarian view breaks down and inevitably reverts to either the eugenic interest or a fickle selfishness, both of which are either manipulated by technocrats in a bid to stay relevant, or which eventually overruns them. This is why revolution is central to the theory of technocrats, but revolution as a concept is particular to such a mindset and is only ever recognized as such in modernity.[11] It is not a question of the revolution actually happening, but that a peculiar faith about "the revolution" is divorced from how politics actually works, and this idea is modeled off a theory that prescribes stages of controlled development like a pedagogue's conceit about the child. It's insulting and intended to be so, but it is always a story told to those who are not allowed to participate in meaningful politics. Those with a working brain have always known the revolutionary myths to be just that, and that so far as the revolution was worth anything, it was either to keep the peace or uphold the property the interests in charge had won. The interests of actual societies do not conform to the interests of life in their basest form, but a technocratic mindset suggests all such interests must be rooted in "nature" - which is to say, the technocrat's preferred conceit about biology, whatever it may be. Because of this, it would be in the study of life that technocrats would find spiritual authority, and here they made the most fatal blunder of human history. I do not say this lightly, but then, I do have a suspicion, just a suspicion, that many of the technocrats knew they had made no "blunder" at all.


In every event, the technological interest defaults to appeals to nature, even when it is clear life isn't entirely natural, nor are we entirely defined by life. This really is an appeal to scientism, rather than "science" in the sense that the natural world contains events that can be understood. If the technological interest wishes to adjudicate honesty, it can only do so either through a spiritual authority which is alien to it and thus undermines it in some way, or it can only resort to bland tautologies. This thinking is ascribed to particular philosophies, but it is really the technocratic mindset itself with this illness. I have written in notes about the positivists, who are often misunderstood, and the "logical positivists" who are neither logical, positivist, or really saying anything except idiotic lies. The same scientism is found throughout the tradition of all ideologies, and ideology itself is a creature of scientism.[12] We would not hold ideology in any regard if not for the scientism inherent in technocratic conceits, and then ideology can only exist when it can make itself real, despite everyone in history seeing ideology as a bunch of horseshit. The only reason ideology came to the forefront is because of totalizing societies that destroyed all standards of comparison and meaning. This is only possible because knowledge was now occulted and held by a technocratic elite. This elite claims that it pursues the optimization of production in quantity and quality, and that only the elite can determine qualities or meanings. This may seem fair to the naive, but there are enough misgivings if any technocratic polity is viewed in action. Further experience suggests that everything a technocrat says, even if it would make sense for the technocrat to reckon with a reality outside of his or her preferred theory or conceit, is at odds with the most basic mechanisms put into practice. Why is simple - everything in technocracy entails everyone who holds the machines occulting their function, pretending to work for pretend pay, and those who rule reveling in symbolic representation and lies. There is no other basis for the rule of thought alone and the rule of "nature" to proceed. It is here that the promise of any commonwealth, which might have seemed much better than the alternatives on offer, turns on itself and begins undoing all promises they made. There is no other way for such a construct in its purest form to not do this. The only barrier is whatever interest lingers in society that has no reason to go along with it, and the technocrat holds all relevant cards. The only danger to a technocrat are any allies they must accept for the time being. If, however, the rule of science is established not in theory but in fact - when the technology available to a life-form qualitatively does something that would allow the machine to come into its own and override life and the true nature of the world - then no interest can truly win against the technocrat, and is increasingly subordinated to it. The last resort of the former ruling interest, which typically makes peace with the leading technocrats, is to embrace the blackest reaction, which the technocrats really have no problem with so long as the targets of this reaction are the technocrat's true enemies - the multitudes of poor workers and lumpens who don't get with the program, can't get with the program, and never have any reason to get with the program. Even if the poor were willing to submit to abject slavery, none of the rulers want them. The only question is how to do this.

If the technocratic interest remains wholly biopolitical and obsessed with life, then there is only one form of government, one economic model, and one idea which will gradually invade all others, and dominate all institutions. That, sadly, is eugenism, seen in the Nazis. The technological interest in general did not have to reduce to eugenism, but so long as it pertains to living creatures it would have to answer the question of biology and what life even is, and this gave rise to some sense of biopolitics. It is for humans in particular, and the particular history of humans, that made eugenism the final government of technocracy, largely because humans are a half-conscious ape ruled by drunkenness and malice, and the sum total of human intelligence and wisdom is little more than a motley collection of koans and anvilicious appeals to authority. The middle class habit of following fads made eugenism almost inevitable, rather than the general biopolitics that was first theorized and some might have believed to be operative before the 1930s. Because humans were always a failed race and a demonic race, eugenism and the history of lurid cults, Ba'al and Satan worship, and all of the primordial filth of the race, would come to the forefront, without any reckoning to suggest the beast would be fought here and now. If that were going to happen, the last time it could have happened was the 1990s, and clearly it did not. The exact opposite happened - eugenism won despite there being no good reason for anyone except perverts and thieves to embrace it, because "the system could never be wrong", and partisans of eugenics installed themselves in technocratic society with no serious opposition and everyone fearful to even say the name of their enemy. The most elaborate and evil form of it was the form that won, the religion of Francis Galton. That said, the biopolitical interest is not the only one, and the obsession with life has less to do with the truth of life or the natural world, but with an intellectual conceit of life. This is the final answer and why the technocratic polity can NEVER work on its own terms. All other barriers to its success could be understood, foreseen in advance, and recognized as long-term errors in the project. It might have been possible for a technocrat to conceive that, however bad their rule actually is, the potential for good outweighs the loss. It is further made clear that the past was not significantly better, and past rulers given the machines of a technocrat would do everything a technocrat would do if they were at all competent. The technocrat's disdain for the past leads to their belief that history is bunk, and the conceits of Whig History where the imperial future is always bright. Other versions of this are that communism is just around the corner, if the workers sacrifice just a little more to the Party. In the communist example, there was a concept of history and truth that guided the communist idea, and so the socialist attempt to resolve technocratic errors was as far as humanity ever got to a different type of world. It did not accomplish much, and only sporadically could do so. Promotion and success was always premised on accepting the technocratic idea, and leaving behind anyone who didn't "get it". Class mobility was no longer about personal improvement, but a society-wide contempt for those who didn't get it, and a crass indulgence in symbolic knowlege. This disease afflicted everyone, and no society was more ravaged by this disease than that of the United States.[13]

If biopolitics is to be the chief institution of technocratic rule, then technocracy is deployed for the Big Lie and nothing else. This did not need to conform to fascism or even an oligarchy of capital and private property. Even if the eugenic interest were entirely subsumed by the intellectual and technological interest, and the wise philosopher-kings and philosopher-queens could mind control us to accept anything, the mind control would still emphasize lies. It stems from using the language of life, which is conflated with nature and economics, as the primary vehicle of control. Command of public health, education, and every other institution which commands life - as the holder of imperium must do - becomes obsessed with lying. Life must die. Health must be monopolized and associated with the intellectual class alone. Education is to be limited, and all other classes will be lied to about everything. A habit of lying consumes the whole country. The greater the rule of the intellectual elite, the greater the lying. The technocrats who promise love and kindness and prosperity and quality of life turn to hatred of the lower class more than any capitalist ever could manage. It is this that the ruling capitalists knew to align with and maximize for as long as they could. The capitalists did not need to encourage the intellectuals to get it, though. The intellectuals by and large were way ahead of the capitalists when it came to killing the poors. For the capitalist, the hatred of workers was merely a business transaction. Whatever the capitalist thought of the lower classes in the end had no relevance to his genuine feelings, because the capitalist cares more about his wealth. It would be conceivable for a capitalist to simply pay off the poor and bar them from reproducing, and wait for their numbers to deplete. Nothing about capitalism suggests that they are in any way married to a large workforce. Far from it, capitalism suggested to employ as few workers as possible and work them for as long as possible, and only that. The residuum to a capitalist is safe to ignore, and might amuse the capitalist in some principle. Further, it is not at all out of character for a capitalist oligarch to become a Caesar, knowing the historical example but considering his options and believing that the true end of the republic is worth more than maintaining its pretenses. For the technocrat, hatred of the worker is a personal vendetta. The technocrat had nothing but his or her determination to rise and claw up in the great game, and pursued pure power rather than opulence or any marker. The sight of the underclass who were not smart is an affront to everything the technocrat stands for. Hatred of the stupid is not just implied by the technocrat's motivation. It is their highest social obligation above all.

It is for that reason that I chose the title of this book - "The Retarded Ideology". This above all is the final word of any technocratic arrangement of economic and political life. "Once retarded, ALWAYS retarded." The technocrat never forgets that, and he or she never wants anyone else to forget it. They hate all opponents - the stupid, the capitalists who obstruct their rise with their pithy whining about luxuries, the workers who had it too easy and didn't earn their keep. But most of all, they hate that which their own soul resembles - the retarded, the foolish, the insane, the crippled, and those who were damned from birth in the most ancient ritual humanity ever knew. When this is accepted, the technocrat's true preferred spirituality is not science or reason or any of the enlightened goals they might have pursued. It is instead a Luciferian conceit where the technocrat jumps up and down like a madman or harridan, convinced they will become a god through knowledge alone. No matter how it is done - individually or through the collective - this is the only endgame of technocracy. It cannot be stopped and cannot change within the laws of technocracy. The only way out would be to look outside of the superficial veneer of nature, and to that which is meaningful in the genuine sense. This has been understood the whole time, and followed even now. Very often, the intelligent are fully aware that this is what they have created, and they have nothing else to offer, but because it has gone on for this long and there are many interests clawing for influence, there is no time or space for any spiritual goal or any sense that it could be different.

This of course applies not to the actual governments that exist, which are necessarily not "pure technocracies" and are aware of this defect. It instead points to the tendencies of "true believers" who have always been given over to such a program, and likely knew from their teenaged years that their ambition was to hide behind the man with the crown and govern through him. That would be the smart play, after all. Visible prestige is the worst position for someone to cajole the world to be what he or she desired. The institutions today give such true believers with a mind to claim what is possible an inroad that did not exist in the past, and also lead other true believers to follow insane beliefs. An example of this is the recurring motifs of science fiction like mind uploading and the most idiotic myths of the eugenic creed, which are believed unironically by people who indulge in the cult of education and "The Science". The incentives of rule through science promote such maladaptive behavior, and give an inroad to those with just enough cleverness to make the rest of us miserable. In the main, though, the officers of governments today out of necessity limit the worst excesses, or care only for their more petty corruption and venal office. Often, the officers of government - both the formal figureheads and the officers behind the curtain - only do what is needed to root out dissent, operating only as effectively as they must to ensure the grift never ends. Few institutions in such a society function well, and none function with any of the promised-for efficiency. Those who believe the Thought Police in Oceania is efficient have never seen such a thing in motion. The malice of such people is zealously pursued, but even in this malice they operate with gross inefficiencies and rank incompetence. The only requirement of the core functions which truly rule is to ensure that no one is allowed to challenge them. Beyond that, even the most sacred control mechanisms are only as effective as they need to be, and they are rife with laziness. Their lust for violence can never be as absolute as they want the lower orders to believe, because their conceit of controlling reality at all levels is far from anything they can actually attain. The only way to make it true, which has come to pass, is mass poisoning and degradation of the people, destroying the very thing which made their society possible. First it cannibalizes the base for recruitment, promising those who won that they will be a superior caste. Then, as the sacrifices are exhausted, it cannibalizes the very officer core who believed they would win, while placing all inside the halls of power under pressure to conform. The ruling elite degenerates into a pure viper's nest, only functioning to ensure no new elite can rise without paying homage to the rot of it all. The bottom of the well, the absolute last resort of technocracy, is scientific despotism of the truest kind. This is the final phase before the arrangement winks out of existence, ensuring the worst form of the barbarism - one that follows from their own principles and becomes a thing embraced by them as the last vestiges of the intellectuals claw at anyone and everyone, and everyone is left stupid and desperate. The dream of the technocrats is that, after so much time passes, the larger cycle will re-emerge, repeating exactly every 800 years or so, and here we see the cyclical view of history and time overtake the model of totalizing historical progress that they pretend to believe in, and which remains a shibboleth of the true believers.

It appears from this that the technocrat is so malicious that eugenics is a foregone conclusion. I warn the reader that eugenism was only one way this could have turned out, and that even if eugenism were somehow defeated, the same impulse of knowledge in life asserts itself. The technocrat's intentions and moral code do not need to conform to the most base mechanisms of the technological interest. There was, in all of the technocratic polities, some sense that whatever came out of the other end of policy was intended to produce something better, however that was construed. A technocrat could easily see that some day, technocratic settlements would be questioned, and the policies and aims of a technocratic society are adaptable to their environment. There may have come a time where dickering over intelligence or some lump of horseflesh was secondary, and even dull men and women could be employed and live out their lives, whatever good that would do. That seemed to the naive like the trajectory of human society - that the stupid would still improve in some sense, though the stupid would be marked and tracked and never allowed to escape the purview assigned to them. This is nothing new for the human race, and so it appears as an improvement and something that could be improved upon further. The naive view of the stupid in technocratic society, and one that was promoted, is that so long as someone could be useful enough for production, there would be enough self-interest of those who employed labor to keep a body around, or find some other use for the flesh if labor was no longer needed. It is not a rule that medical or social experiments are conducted with the Galtonite's penchant for maximal humiliation, or the alienation inherent in the technocratic philosophies that did arise, where conceited and stupid scientists treat their human livestock and lab rats with gratuitous disdain. It is entirely conceivable that these scientific experiments could have been in line with some sort of science that the lab rat would appreciate. It would have seemed reasonable for the lab rat to be a willing participant if that was his fate in this sad society, so long as the experiment was not grotesque. It is the particular philosophies of science that humans developed that ensured the human scientist was more malevolent than a naive mind would have expected. The scientist of the human race drips with contempt for their inferiors, carrying all of the vices of bourgeois and aristocratic ideology and centuries of bigotry. The human race, by all objective measurements, is a slobbering beast, half-aware of anything it is doing and consumed with a lust for opiates, orgies, and depravities that do not require any great intelligence to see past. The ruling philosophies of the human race, which are not universal even among animals on Earth, revel in such thoughtless cruelties, and the theories of knowledge and spiritual authority allowed to flourish encourage this stupidity.

The world where this didn't happen would likely not have allowed most of the world religions to go on as they have, and in some sense, modernity was the end of those traditional religions. Many times, the priests, monks, and people who studied religion developed the greatest contempt for the tradition, as they saw correctly that the religions and philosophies of humanity were premised on lies and cheats and nothing more. Ultimately, the institutions of religion could be abandoned because they never held the spiritual authority that they pretended to wield, and the church's role in promoting moral probity or social order was both superceded by the rising technological interest found in the bourgeois, and by a long-stand disgust of the common down to the poorest towards the dogmas of aristocratic religion. Religion would attempt to appeal to mass audiences but could only do so because the philosophical core of religions would be obscured or rendered in alien language, while the esoteric secrets of all religions glorified war and aristocracy. What common people would have found in religion or spiritual thought was smothered on sight. This was not always the case - ancient paganism was more often than not no more than folk religions for the rural and smallfolk. The cults of Saturn, Jupiter, and so on were never true religions with any mass following, and very obviously the gods of the Romans, like many polytheistic systems, were avatars for the aristocracy and their officers. Fealty to Jupiter, Concord, and the superstititons of Rome was not about fervent belief in the system, but loyalty to what was considered political thought and spiritual authority. You didn't need to know the theory of why you follow Concord or the rituals it entailed. You only had to know that Concord meant it was time to drop hostilities and abide the ritual. Most common people were simply never religious in that way, but they knew the names and functions of the Roman pantheon and had some sense of why you would abide this, regardless of their own beliefs. Roman cults even at the top never had any singular ideology or command structure, and different emperors or families invested in different deities as their preferred representation. Usually the leaders of Rome for a lot of reasons stuck with Jupiter, greatest and best, but this had less to do with any ideology or fervent belief that Jupiter was intellectually right, and more to do with the reality that Jupiter was the symbol of state authority in most cases. The rise of Christian orthodoxy, then modern faith in Reason which took various stances based on which philosophy one followed, and finally the rise of institutional orthodoxy dominated by eugenics, are all different iterations of the same mechanism, in that loyalty to the theory was not due to a full intellectual or spiritual understanding, but due to the expectation in society that following this was the way things are done. Religion proper is far more than an intellectual project or a theory adjudicated by thought alone, but all religions spread through knowledge and practices which can be intellectually understood. Reconstructing a model of the religion's spread is not difficult, and it is expected in society if anyone is to regard a religion as socially meaningful. There is some reason people can pick up suggesting that this works, even if the deeper causes are not things that rationally hold any value; religion for example often entails a history that is more than some theory or spurious claim.

The point of this discursion is to make clear that even as humans recognize the failure of pure reason, they cannot be much more than what they were at the start. It does not take a great genius to see, without the fetters of humanity's total society, that humans are not particularly smart or effective, and do not have any built-in purpose or destiny that is intellectually appreciated. Even a child can see the clear malice and stupidity of elders, who insist that this stupidity is some sort of genius or meritorious. This doesn't change as we become adults, and the very poor management of society is made clear, despite people making the intellectual connection that none of that suffering is necessary or desirable. We can easily see that we can be better than this, and better than any religious tradition thus far has allowed. We are also aware, if we are not blinded by ideology, that technological progress does not turn humans into a perfected being of light and pure power, as if teleology implied that such a state is the purpose of existence. Those who are obsessed with the technological interest above all others default to this fundamentally insane view - and so they will in the end lapse into the thinking of the worst aristocracy, feeding the beast and reverting as aristocrats do to the primordial light. This is something that many humans, even the dullest, see as an obvious trap. Technocratic society is acutely aware of this deficiency, and yet, the institutions and practices of such a society cannot help but encourage the spread of such aristocratic vice. That, after all, is seen as natural, so long as no one and nothing is around to impose a sobering influence on a cloistered genius.

Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

[1] "Self-regulating" markets and systems are themselves a fiction that serves ideological purposes, and this is extended to the kingdom of life, which is made identical with nature as a whole, since non-living parts of the natural world are deemed inadmissible to the ruling ideas. Nothing about nature "regulates" anything at all. The supposed balance of life in total is not corrected by "kind killing", and this idea is nothing more than a recapitulation of Malthus' hideous faith in destroying the poors. The corrections of societies of living systems are violent corrections, in which mass death happens for no good reason, and little arises out of the process. Somewhere, a petty-manager inserts him or herself as capital-N "Nature", and it is here where the conceit of "natural order" is laid bare for what it always was. An aristocrat and their running dogs see this as some passive act, but we know it is always active from the agents themselves, or a desperate lashing out as the environment of some natural resource depletes. Usually, though, long before any true resource shortage, the eugenic interest in life asserts the drive for competition, and so the living agents take it upon themselves to follow "nature's law". If the Malthusian belief about natural limits to growth were true, the Earth would have been rapidly exhausted by the explosion of single-celled life. There would not be any natural check on the growth of this single-celled life, if it were indeed a mindless consumer and breeder that was only checked by the elimination of their numbers. It is far more likely that life expands not mindlessly and inexorably, but that life forms some colony and that is its preferred establishment. After establishment, the inhabitants of a colony, whatever they are, tend not to roam far from that colony. Lone life-forms tend not to be prolific breeders at all, and this has less to do with any resource shortage or adaptation to survive, but exists rather because life never was "mindlessly breeding" in this sense that Malthus' predictions require. If that prediction is untrue, and I believe that has been proven time and time again, then Darwin's mechanism of natural selection is thrown into serious doubt at a basic level, and we would look at mechanisms that would drive evolution other than it. To counteract this, the eugenist ideologues invented a "fake opposition" of various motley fools, who make the claim that it either is 100% "nature" or 100% "there is no nature". That is to say, the fake opposition claims the most idiotic sops to claim that nature is somehow nice or demands that life be inherently "communist" in some foolish sense, which has always been a Fabian ploy to insult anyone who would criticize the eugenic creed. In the eugenic mindset, violence and natural correction must become the sole property of the creed, and to accomplish this, it naturalizes its sentiments and places them in all things, all places, and redefines nature as a god in their image. As we have made clear, there is nothing "natural" about life at all, which insists that nature and life are functionally identical. This is anathema to everything the eugenic interest stands for, including earlier philosophies which were predominantly driven by cults of life or death cults. The most likely explanation, suggested not long after Darwin's writing, is that this theory must be modified considerably to be a workable understanding of natural history. Darwin's actual theory of natural selection is more complicated than the crass version that came to be promoted, in which cooperation was a possibility of life, and Darwin himself acknowledges difficulties with the theory. His writing was the first effort to import political economy into the question of natural history, where before natural history had to work off of best guesses. I would argue that political economy is inappropriate to the question of the history of life, and my arguments here would be an explanation of what life actually is and does. I do not purport to solve the question of natural history, which properly speaking is a question of the technological interest in life. It is very attractive to a would-be technocrat to view the struggle for life as something that can be arrested and documented by scientists, rather than the way political economy usually settled things with violence and ugliness. Above all, scientists never like to hear an answer that is anathema to their faith but that us scum experience every day of our lives - "shit happens". Since "shit happens" has little explanatory power, it is understandable why this is not featured in natural history, but it does indeed happen for reasons unknown. The very existence of life itself is an anomaly in a universe that is almost entirely dead, and yet, the universe is not particularly hostile to the idea of life. Life itself simply cannot occupy the vacuum of outer space, and life being what it is would need some medium to conduct its workings, which itself is not too common in the universe. It is therefore inappropriate to identify nature, which entails everything, with life that only occupies a small niche of nature and imperfectly at that.

[2] If you doubt me, read up on the social circles these assholes travel in, and you will see that they love a good thrill. They just have a different concept of what is exhilirating, and what pleasure entails in their ethos. It is not pleasant, and when it comes to their comforts, they are extravagant in pursuing them, and never want to hear anyone else telling them no. It is why Galton exhorts the poor to die as he never works a proper job in his life, living as a comfortable gentleman and surrounded by other imperial assholes who inherited the work of their better elders.

[3] It is my belief that we observe selective pressures in the human race today, and this selection is not driven by any merit or particular purpose for doing so, nor by the conceit of thought leaders who believe they will guide evolution. There are certain qualities which appear desirable when the social environment encourages their expression, despite any reason why these traits favor survival. For example, the obsession with height for male partners serves little function, and many of the facial traits associated with attractiveness are preferred for form rather than any merit that we would regard in a productive sense or that would be favorable for a war where combat effectiveness is desired. The traits selected for by the whims of "natural attraction" are often little more than a recapitulation of some form that asserts itself, and in this way, certain traits become standard and others are "disused" by rejection from the mating game. Petty distinctions often are the difference between life and death in the sexual rituals of the human race, and it is likely animals are no less conceited in the ways they mate, when sexual partner choice is conducted through some mating ritual. It is also a simple reality that life cannot travel too far from its starting position, and most life is known to be territorial. A part of selection is simply driven by the dumb luck of geographic circumstance, and a limited pool of partners in a given area, which suggests over time a gradual homogenization of many traits. There is little evidence of celebrating diversity in the animal kingdom, and it is certainly an abiding trait of humanity that diversity in biological forms has never been valued for most societies. The only evidence that humans have favored diversity is the common male fantasy of a diverse harem of women he may impregnate. Few of us can hope for that dream, but it is well known that males are in the end not too picky about partners, and the greatest danger for a man is not finding the ideal genetic match, but finding a woman who is not going to leave him for dead at the first opportunity. Worse yet is a man left with ruination and debt, which is a sad fate for many of us poor sods. I count myself fortunate to have never been with a woman in that regard, and so I have been spared the usually bad fate awaiting men. I suppose at least it is better than that in many species, where the male is destroyed after mating and the natural order marches on all the same. Behaviors in mating are often elaborate enough to suggest that they are not at all random or stochastic, but entail some vague instinct or taboo to signal a form of selection that works at the level of individual pairings. Indirectly this works towards certain ends. Nothing inborn suggests any preferred social form or any sense that reproduction is for "the species" in some sense of Germanic nationalism at all. The conventions of reproduction, for the lowest animal and for us, appear driven by little more than superficial and individual vanity, which has asserted itself. Those who subscribe to that vanity, and its most degenerated forms that appear in human society, have been the first to embrace all ideology that naturalizes their proclivities. The Galtonites are screaming examples of that for their own perversions, fetishes, and conceits about themselves, and the women who embrace such a view make the stupidest decisions and as a rule never will be held accountable. This vice of the eugenist female is encouraged, as is the depravity and piggishness of eugenist males and the thuggery of all of their subordinates and enablers.

If this can be accepted, then it would require us to view evolution not as something happening passively in a domain for a particular race, but as individual dyads. This would be in line with the social model I present earlier, which would be the basis for how selection among a race, or in any given ecology, would proceed. The eugenists, to impose the "conditions of Eugenics", require a tremendous preponderance of violence in order to conceive of their society at all. For all of their effort, the results of Galton's eugenics, which have been in force for a century, suggest that it produced no quality worthwhile among the favored of the race, at the expense of grotesque violence and horrific atrocities against everyone else. When that wasn't enough by the 1970s, and the workers retained enough sense and virtue to agitate against this abomination in motion, the eugenists resort to mass poisoning and glorify the rot and depravity of their race and the human race generally, just as Hitlerism did to their own and to the conquered races.

The difficulties with this model is that we are not there to observe most animal mating, and so its value for explaining natural history is little, absent specifics. It would, however, grant an indication of general trends in development that suggest an orientation of life not towards fitness, but towards prejudices and vanity. Only the sobering influence of an external world has motivated life to be much more than this. The history of early mankind, noted for endemic violence and regular enjoyment of sadism for no particular reason, is indicative of what the natural order of life really was - nasty, brutish, and short, just as Hobbes said. What Hobbes wouldn't admit is that the nastiness and brutishness could not reach too far, and the shortness of life was not so short that it wasn't possible for technology and thought to progress, however slowly, simply by some sense that it might be better not to do any of this. Sadly, that primitive eagerness to learn and grow would be yet another thing harvested by the eugenic interest and its eventual creed, so that humans may be herded like livestock just as the animals were hunted and herded. "Alpha race", my friends.

[4] This will be developed further in a later chapter, but I believe that the language centers in human beings could develop in earnest once the crudest symbolic expressions could begin among humans or their forebears, and it is this active use which first inflamed a trait that was formerly dormant, then encouraged its expression in mating and fitness to survive in a hostile world. It would not take long for humans, sufficiently wise, to turn this selective pressure from mere mating and fitness to an active hunt against undesirables. This, I maintain, is the sordid origin of the human race, and that is not merely an article of faith to uphold the present ideology. I believe it to be the sordid truth of what we are, a thing we have always known and pretended to be something else, or glorified with myths that it doesn't deserve. The human race are creatures born of incest, cruelty, malice, and generally vile behaviors which only became worse before some decency became necessary. Given that ape mating rituals were not too different, the great adaptation in humans appears to be their symbolic language giving them yet another vehicle to operate the death cult, and eventually the development of humiliations and torture common to the race up to now.

[5] Here we see the heart of the Malthusian and Darwinian claims - that psychological traits must be the result of "natural selection", i.e. a naturalized practice of eugenics in races. An exemplar of the lowest of humanity is put up, and the working class in total is told "this is you" and threatened with terror, torture, humiliation, and death ad nauseum. It is necessary to naturalize the sadism of that imperial clique which was so necessary for all of their wealth, and so they did exactly that. It is very likely that in the animal kingdom, psychological traits advanced only through some dull plodding of the animals, as if their mind were of little consequence. Outside of the most basic functions, the brain of an animal only had to be adaptive enough to perform a few tasks, and obvious defects were clearly out of the mating pool and probably exterminated. Other than that, there simply wasn't any great advantage to mental distinction until humans. There might have been some trend of larger brains in animal life, and the culls of life from predation favored wits in some way, but also favored the malice of all races, most of all Darwin's own. It became necessary to tie in human society intelligence to imperial malice and make them identical, rather than any metric we would regard as reason or intellect. That is why eugenic selection in modernity favored not general intelligence, but a perverse variant selecting for the most maladaptive traits in the white nations and of the English aristocracy in particular. All traces of anything worthwhile in their aristocracy would be purged violently, and the thrill of torture became the obligation of their race forevermore, just as the King or Queen of England is a monster. It would not be long before their obligation turned from a mere racial trait to a Satanic ritual, which we live under presently. None of this produced any of the promised-for intellect, which is why they decided they would "win" by poisoning systematically everyone else, to claim that their petty venal symbols, based on a bunch of bullshit, were the actual markers of "IQ", despite no evidence that this produced anything. The deterioration of science as a practice, and the proliferation of these well-bred retards in the institutions of knowledge, locked down forever any possibility that humans would improve much with regards to intelligence. Once again, the dull plodding of animals is the only thing that would advance human intelligence, except this time the violent culls of these Satanic retards, and they are retarded, ensure that any sign of independent life that would see the obvious futility of this mission is exterminated on sight. Therefore, the human race is condemned, even in the best of cases, to this fate of screaming mania over the most trifling and superficial markers of intelligence, and every habit of the human race favors incuriosity and the laying of traps, simply because it was too much for them to allow a society where any cooperation was possible. Satanic race. Failed race. Failed race. Failed race.

[6] Some asshole is going to accuse me of being a racist or alterna-eugenicist, and I will simply repeat - none of this is intended to suggest that natural inequality of human races exists at all, or that it would be a justification for political inequality. The races deemed inferior who live in Africa are not stupid and have read all of this debate and heard enough. The tribes, nations, and citizens in African countries are perfectly aware of this debate and don't need me to say what they actually think, for they have their own judgements of the matter and no real reason to with-hold their opinion of imperious white people riding in on a high horse. If they call bullshit on this religion of political inequality, having considerable experience with the concept in their own society and a theory pertaining to it, that would be good enough for me to say that they get perfectly well what is intended by eugenics. The people most married to this conceit are members of the white race who are obviously failed, and me being who I am, I have heard enough from these retards braying about intelligence. Perhaps some day we can speak of the faculties of everyone, when we're not in the dark ages. By that time, though, humans will have somehow managed to not allow this Galtonite disease any more credence, if we are so fortunate to be rid of it in a different time and a different world. In any event, the distinctions I refer to here do not concern general intelligence, but peculiar functions that would give rise to the brain in developed form, such as "hardcoded" behaviors commonly acknowledge in mammals and many other animals. These behaviors would not conform to whole social mores, which is impossible and clearly an imposition of some technocrat's conceit, but very basic behaviors like affinity for certain colors or patterns that would guide mating behavior, and the behaviors which would foster closeness with other life which are far from a given. The people who insist on these technocratic conceits always take for granted that human behavior is fixed in code, which gives them the perfect excuse to try, try again when they disregard the environmental conditions that allow human beings to develop affection and much of their social behavior. This makes sense for those who have always aspired to create a society where the state and institutions raise children, and they are stripped of their ancient sentiments and hopes. What these fools never learn is that those basic behaviors guide what they dismiss as "hardcoded common sense", and so what was called "common sense" is denuded. It never was as common as it was purported to be and this was a known joke throughout history, but it is clear in the past 50 years that this common sense has not just withered due to the environment of our time, but that the perception of it is yet another victim of the educational regime and this disease of propganda that is ubiquitous in society.

[7] How this is done is not merely a matter of a Eugenic College arranging mates, or the various games insinuating such a thing. The state's intrusion into family life is, as we will see in the next book, deliberate and a feature of human instituitons from an early stage. More than anything else, those who would aspire to empires and state society saw independent families as their greatest destabilizing element. Families that were independent of the state entail an institution to which members of society were connected that had many reasons to consider the state a menace to be avoided at all costs. The first foray was to draw family life into religious cults and lurid practices, and encourage as much as possible prostitution in the temple and glorification of fetish and depraved behavior. This was in time resisted for all of the deleterious results it created. When too many people adapted to this by strengthening their clan affiliations and turning away from the state, the new order of the day was to retrench patriarchal norms and make them a religious and temporal obligation of the father. Patriarchal leadership had long been accepted but its implementation was varied and sporadically enforced, often maintained because men were tasked with hunting, herding livestock, fighting wars, were almost always the public face of political life, and as a result were more ingratiated with all of the things that would allow them to take command of the family unit. The state's intervention into family life worked through this condition and suggested a conspiracy of the politically aware men to protect each other, and obligate all men to uphold the state's conception of property and offer their children to the state in some way. This would further be advanced by introducing various reforms, which varied based on the civilization in question but often entailed the proliferation of state-issued currency, the strengthening of feudal obligations and the conscription of peasant labor, and eventually the establishment of classical political theory in the civilizational centers of the Old World. As this patriarchal role of the father was codified into law, the holders of the state proceeded to secretly encourage every intrigue, humiliation, and denigration, so that common men could not possibly live up to these patriarchal standards. The aristocracy would encourage the vice of women, host lavish orgies, encourage women to cheat on their husbands and then obligate the husband to defend his honor over this clear bullshit, which the cuckolded husband knew full well was a plot by men in the know to humiliate him, and so on. The purpose of this is not for the simple amusement it gives aristocrats, but their habit of continual transgression of norms that they establish, to drive home the point that none of this is real and it will never, ever be different. The purpose of these humiliations, which extend to every social environment where they can be implemented, is to maintain a constant state of wariness of men, who have been habituated to fight in their society and consider insults to their person to be a matter settled with violence, as would be expected in the period of clan society and heroic myths of tribes. It never really was like that at any time, but the obligations of men in civilization were to fight, and this extended in some sense to men who were poor or servile, who had to fight to survive in a hostile world. Within slavery, masters knew to pit slaves against each other to maintain the system as a whole, and when to keep the slaves from cannibalizing each other when it would impede productivity. There were similar habits among the women, so that they would be induced to join this great game. The great game had of course been going on for a very long time, and had been a habit among the connected women who aspired to join high society. It is with the aristocratic state that it took on its present form.

Once established, the ultimate goal of all of these humiliations, for men and women, was to promote distrust and make independent decision making too risky to consider. Independence in the selection of mates, or anything that entailed marriage or childbirth, would only be permitted so long as the lines set by the aristocracy were not transgressed. An unwritten rule is that any expression of men choosing women for qualities that deviated from what was "supposed" to be in demand was unseemly at the least, and something to warrant public exposure if it was too offensive. This also extended to men whose sexual behavior deviated from aristocratic values, with special exemptions for aristocratic men who celebrated vile and lurid habits. Where homosexuality was unseemly for commoners, aristocrats of many cultures partook in homosexuality for various purposes with no mark of shame against their character. Though there were habits of discretion that were publicly encouraged, it has long been known that in private, aristocrats get to do anything that they can get away with, and rules were for the commoners. On the other hand, a commoner who simply looked funny or seemed to like strange things was attacked and decried as a pervert, even if his proclivity was nothing so strange compared to things that were common. A game of confused information was used to joke against men who weren't "allowed" to do things that were acceptable to slightly more elevated men, such that the men who were out had fewer standards of comparison and often just gave up. Among the "sins" for men is that celibacy was effectively a crime with severe punishment, only tolerable in certain priestly functions. For the men who are completely forbidden from mating for some eugenic purpose, celibacy was paradoxically both a demand and a thing marking them for punishment, which was heightened beyond what it would be for a man of property and some standing, even meager standing. The society being what it was, the most prominent humiliations were inflicted on men, since they held the property and were nominally heads of families, and so the state and aristocracy dealt with them rather than wives in most cases. There would be humiliations against the women, especially women who broke ranks and refused to participate in this clusterfuck. Above all, men and women who desired a union independent from this beast altogether were uniquely targeted for humiliation and shame. Suggesting that the entire setup of this society and its eugenic intent was an abomination and didn't produce anything good was a violation of the deepest taboo. This would apply even when the offspring of the union would adapt perfectly well to the society in question. It became necessary to suggest that atypical unions were in of themselves dysgenic not for any measurable reason, but because the presumption of the right of aristocrats to intervene in private and family life was sacrosanct to the philosophical state. The harder someone outside of this bound of acceptability would try to fit in with the economic expectations of their society to produce worthwhile offspring and a respectable family life, the greater the aristocrats' vigor in destroying this example. The aristocracy being too limited to do this to everyone historically, it could only resort to general fear and enabling men and women who exemplified the terror and glorified it, which was the usual vector for promoting this agenda, with the signal of approval from aristocrats to keep the commoners on edge. The promotion of prostitution, for example, was encourage by nobles, aristocrats, and priests. In Europe, this was among the tasks delegated to Jews, who would then be fed to pogroms, with full aristocratic knowledge and new pimps and drug dealers ready to take the place of the old.

[8] There is a consistent story, which I bring up often, that we imagine the past as if humanity were always arranged in technocratic polities. This story is based on nothing and is particular to the past century, as if the chief were a chief bureaucrat or World Controller arranging orgies and telling all the men, women, boys, and girls to be nice to each other. It never worked like that, and always seeks to supplant the idea that primitive people had any moral code of their own, as they would have had to possess to form the society that they did. There will be more to write on this conceit in a later chapter.

[9] A feature of eugenic education is to specifically "un-correct" habits long ingrained among the residuum, encouraging all vices for those who were selected to die, and positive reinforcement of all failures, so that the humliation and thrill of imposing it is made eternal. If this is the case, then habits that are often corrected, like slouching, are instead encouraged. When a member of the lowest caste, the would-be "Epsilons", shows meritorious behavior out of some sense that he or she wants to be like any decent human, he or she is beaten and humiliated, and then induced to embrace maladaption, sloth, fear, indolence, and so on. This habit was used in slave education both near the end to promote indecision, and after the formal abolition of chattel slavery. It was most of all promoted by the Fabians and Galtonites, who promoted this as "help for the oppressed", which was no service to the ex-slaves. The ex-slaves for their part understood immediately what this was. What the Galtonites wanted was so grotesque that ex-slaves and long freed black people would, out of necessity, correct this as much as they could on their own, knowing that it was yet another offensive against their race. The measures promoted by the eugenists were so foul that even the slave-holding Southrons had to regard them as a foulness beyond their sentiments. That is what the Fabians and Galtonites are, and this promotion of degradation was just the opening salvo of their war against the general public, before the escalations they could get away so far in the 21st century.

[10] Francis E. Dec represent:

[11] I should say here that "revolution" as a narrative itself is a faulty premise. The revolutions of great importance were not simple stories played out in the open, but conspiracies in which many interests saw a situation where the state was up for grabs. In all cases, the basis for the state in property broke down, necessitating the sovereign to either call a parliament or allowed commoners with no status in the empire to form their own congress. It is not hard to see why this doesn't apply to a republic - the people who would be called to a Congress are those who already sit and levy the taxes. A republic does not experience any political opening and consciously disallows that from ever happening. It is one reason why the communists took over liberal revolutions and understood immediately not to allow any opening that questioned the Party's rule, for the same reasons it was effectively illegal to suggest that liberalism was actually wrong. In both cases, and in the fascist case of engineered coups, the ideological theories are never things intended to govern, but are a necessary lie to suggest that the rule of the wise is sacrosanct, covered with the rituals inherent to republicanism. None of these people believe their project is "ideological", because if they managed to win something, they did so because they know what politics actually is. The communists see communism as a perfectly valid way to build a country. The fascists seek to capture and plunder an existing state. The way republics end is not revolution, but coup and the establishment of larger bureaucratic states. In the communist countries, this occurred shortly after the revolution, and building the bureaucratic state was identified with the entire project. In the fascist states, the bureaucratic state either already existed or would be constructed rapidly off the model of untrammeled corporate power, which ruled absolutely and negated all possibility of this situation changing. In the liberal countries, bureaucratic states rose which inherited the appearance of republican polities, but were actively hostile towards democracy, and were never actually "democratic" in the first place. The appearance of liberal discussion would continue, but would generation after generation be denuded, until it was possible in the 21st century to not just do away with the republican facade, but to convince everyone that republicanism in principle is disgusting and should never be allowed to exist. That had always been the Nazi dream in the end - to prove right a stupid cult formed by men and women who only wanted the rot. Sadly, they won., at least for the time being. I hope I am wrong.

[12] There are those who mark Marx's chief contribution to knowledge as the concept of ideology. I won't wade too much into the legacy of Marx, but in Marx, it is very clear that ideology is not a thing to be valued as a ruling idea, but a thing that should be avoided or understood. It is only deployed against enemies and with the utmost contempt for ideologues. When Stalin makes reference to the dominance of Marxist-Leninist ideology, he is perfectly aware that ideology is a tool with a function, rather than a conceit that should cannibalize the country. There has been plenty of ink spilled over whether Marxism-Leninism "worked", but in the main, the Marxist-Leninists adopted state ideology as a defense against hostile propaganda, more than a form of indoctrination or mind control. If the goal was to mind control people through political ideology, it obviously didn't work too well. The failures of socialism have less to do with a particular ideology's failure, for all of the ideologies either suffered the same disease, or openly welcomed the disease as part of their plan to cannibalize everything in sight as the Nazis and Reaganites did.

[13] It is difficult for foreigners to understand why American "mind control" is so effective - and I do not suggest that Americans are not mind controlling their subjects, because that is very much active and in force. There is a great need to believe that there is something inexplicable or historical that makes the Americans uniquely evil or foolish. There is no easy answer to this question, but so much of it has to do with America not being anything foreigners believe it is, and America truly being an exceptional entity in the world. Only the other states in the Americas and the Australians and New Zealanders could appreciate why this is so. The United States' historical peculiarities, wealth, industrial development, and very peculiar university regime mark it as distinct from anything else in the world. No other country, for example, conceives of "college sports" or a whole culture of college athletics, or the concept of college being both a social obligation and effectively the center of American "culture", an artificial creation that intentionally destroyed what independent understanding the American colonists and smallfolk had about themselves. Longstanding conflicts with the original inhabitants and the slave system created a very different concept of "race" and "nation", and the United States was never constituted as a nation-state. Above all, "the United States" was almost designed to be not a country, but the vanguard of what was essentially a world state.

Return to Table of Contents | Return to Chapter Start