Return to Table of Contents | Previous Chapter | Next Chapter
The overriding aim of "the rule of reason" is to co-opt all other interests to serve it, and forestall the possibility of anything that would question the rule of intellectuals. It is for that reason alone that philosophy developed as a formal discipline, so that all spiritual thought and all potential meaning would be contained under its meaning, and any incipient religion would be commanded as a tool like any other. The first attempt to do this are the pithy sayings and koans which are consciously constructed to destroy meaning and suggest the world is the exact opposite of its genuine nature. "Life is good", "Healers are your friend", "You can trust us". The philosopher and the wise leader is the first liar, and remains the greatest lie ever told. Yet, this is clearly not enough. When this reason fails, the default is to revert to the eugenic interest in property, or to appeal to only the fickle interpretations of life's purpose. It has been the overriding aim of Reason to turn the human animal into livestock, herded just as the animals are. It is not difficult to see that if humanity perfects the hunt, and has long considered its mating and reproductive rites to be another form of the hunt, where men conquer women and women manipulate men to feed them, it does not take long to claim the human root, stem, and branch, and make him or her a slave. That had already been implied in the genesis of humanity and its foul habits. The only thing stopping this is not the temperance of any reason or wisdom, but a simple truth that the world will not allow this, and none of this actually serves the interests of life consistently. It does not take long for a dull human to see that any interest worthwhile is never limited to these three beasts, which consistently form the basis for social and political thought despite knowing that they don't do anything good. The stupider of the human race are the most likely to see this, because they suffer acutely the consequences of that society. The intelligent of the human race are really intelligent only the narrow sense their race allows or encourages. Genuine meaning in knowledge is discouraged in all traditions, beyond that which is necessary to survive and reconcile their existence in an actual world with their conceits and baser interests. The greater the genuine meaning, the greater the antipathy of the intellectuals, who disdain such things and have always favored the superficial, the venal, and the cruel. There is not one force in life generally which speaks of a world other than that of grim conflict. No appeal to nature and certainly no appeal to the three baser instincts in life can break from this habit. In such a view of the world, all life is born in chains and remains so to death. This, as you probably figured out by now, is the first fully developed spiritual view - that mankind, and all other life, were born in slavery and there was no alternative. It has always been the dream of intellectuals and their fellow travelers to restore that ancient cult and strip away all of the patches and fixes that were imposed by necessity. It can never be that the theory was wrong, or that humanity did not work in accord with this pigheaded conceit of progress or predicted stages prophesized by thought leaders and cajolers. It can never be that the whims of property and the violence encourged was a stupid and pointless conflict from the outset, because humanity would never get over their filthy origins and always chose to double down on their worst history when the chips were down. When humans do something different, either out of necessity or that rare glimmer of hope that drives madmen to do unexpected things, there is a large movement immediately among the intellectuals to destroy immediately that new thing, control it, and put it in a cage so it can be exterminated. The remnants are stripped of meaning, repurposed for the ruling intellectual ideas, and turned into their opposites. What remains is a symbolic mockery of the true meaning, which is presented in an exoteric face that destroys completely the original meaning, and an esoteric understanding that is secured and made available only to the occult interest in life. The people are then told that knowledge will save them, and paradoxically knowledge is institutional and knowledge is only available through occult methods that the normals must seek approval to enter, where initiation into mysteries becomes a great part of human society. This development of spiritual thought is particular to life-forms developed enough to conceive of something beyond the grim sense of a mostly dead world, and so it appears only in very dim forms to precede the emergence of symbolic language. When symbolic language and the occult interest can come into its own, so to does the spiritual interest and a need for spiritual authority become necessary for all other interests. Even if someone wishes to destroy independent spiritual authority and this interest, they must co-opt it and use various methods to convince people to follow the tripartate arrangement long enough, until the masses can be cajoled, killed, humiliated, and reduced back to "nature's plan", which is re-interpreted as "God's plan", whatever the gods in question may be.[1]
Knowledge cannot assert what it wishes, no matter how hard it tries. The knowledge of life has no direct access to the world, but only accesses it through the tools it is given. It is here where life's estrangement from the true nature is most apparent, and so, we appear as ghosts in a world that cares not one bit about us, as it should be. All conceits of knowledge must reconcile with truth that is outside of it. It is here where the spiritual interest, or spiritual authority, would be established to allow life to discern its genuine conditions, rather than those it would prefer to create. Truth, sadly, counts for little in life or any economic calculation. The truth is that all of our efforts are never something the world will allow us to do. We can choose to find some purpose, but the truth of the world, which does not regard any of our language or repositories of knowledge or our adjudication of it, is something outside of the circle of knowledge entirely. It is merely a fact that knowledge exists in a world in order to be possible. To understand this, knowledge and life as processes have to be split. It is the aim of the technocrat to fuse knowledge and life in some way, because in such a way, the world is subsumed in their conceit of "life", which is redefined to be not an intent or errant ghost but the substance of all that is relevant. In the same effort, thought and fundamental nature are fused, suggesting that the mind is the crown of all that exists, above gods which are offered to the masses as empty pablum and metaphors, stripping away the native religion of people who out of necessity sought to defend themselves against such hostility. Truth was always in a world outside of us, and outside of any knowledge. Knowledge and life can only attempt to gather what meaning it can from its existence, and does so not for the sake of truth itself but because the truth in some way or another will meet life. I speak not of the "political truth", the truth of humans whose only truth is their low cunning and games of humiliation. Humans are liars through and through, and in that, they have proven themselves irredeemable now and forever. I have no interest in the truth of humanity and especially no interest in institutions which claim truth, with nothing more than vacuous appeals to authority and a eugenic interest in nature. I seek not even spiritual authority out of a sense of self-abasement. I would not be doing anything I do if I did not believe it was necessary to write plainly about these things, as best as I can.
Once the spiritual interest is apparent to life, it takes on its own wants and purposes, which need not concern themselves with the truth of the world. The world, at a basic level, is simple enough, and conforms largely to what we sense. It could not be any other way. Stating what is in front of you is true accomplishes little though for the question of spiritual authority, for the meaning of things in the end was never a question of symbols, words, or crude meanings for posturing purposes. In short, it is necessary for life, and the institutions people build, to look to some spiritual authority that allows questions to be asked with regard to something other than personal experience or the crass truth of shared experience, which does little better. Spiritual authority concerns nothing in the arc of time past, present, or future, nor does it encapsulate all three and nothing more. It speaks instead of something outside of the typical procession of time, and must do so. Without any world in which there is an "alternate time", we ask of the world what things are, and what any of this existence actually is or does. But, spiritual authority is not merely a knowledge base. It is a practice, ritual, and purpose of life beyond the obvious, and yet it is not really concerned with life at all. Spiritual authority implies a reckoning with the non-living and the dead. One of the earliest thoughts in humans regarding such authority and what happens to us when we pass from this coil. I won't wade into speculation about any afterlife, for I believe "after"-lives are missing the point of why we ask this question at all. So far as I call tell, once life is dead, that is truly it, and it would be as if none of this were ever real.
The spiritual interest is nascent in life when it becomes motile and must respond to its environment with heightened sense beyond that of simpler life. In animals, this progresses very little, but animals orient their behavior like a laboring worker, towards tasks that are a habit of it. General labor, or the interpretation of all we do as labor, is particular to humans who are able to contemplate information in ways animals do not. Some ink has been spilled over what precisely qualifies as labor, and where labor is truly adjudicated - with the task of directing it intellectually, or the practice of labor itself which must be realized to be meaningful. The distinction of human labor is its universalization - that labor in humans is always seen as a deliberate act, and laziness in humans becomes not merely a habit but a value that humans consciously seek. Conversely, labor is always something to be commanded and abstracted, even before there is any value scheme to assign a general quantity to it or any qualities of particular labors. It becomes in some sense impossible for humans to NOT labor, in the same moment that someone treasures idleness as a virtuous trait. Even sleeping becomes a task allocated and rationed in some way. The honing of human tasks through their earliest reasoning and communication between each other in language creates in humans a pressing need for labor to become a general practice, rather than a habit or routine as it would be in animals. An animal's behavior is hardly fixed or encoded, as if it were running an algorithm. For the animal, labor appears to be largely in line with things it expects to encounter, and that which is alien to its knowledge is a thing to be feared. These new strange deformed apes who summon fire and launch pointy objects are a thing the animal cannot replicate, but has enough sense to run away from. The animal still from time to time senses the upper hand against a human, and a lion or bear can maul the human who thinks himself of the master race. The killer instinct is found in humans and animals alike, and even the friendliest animals who abhor predation develop a sense for it.[2] And so, labor for the animal is often pressed by need rather than wants, and the animal's wants are largely to do whatever it was doing that didn't involve the hunt or mating. It wouldn't see recreation as "labor". Humans, though, will see their free time as something that could potentially be employed for work, and see others' free time as a thing to be commanded. Animals in social life do not have this flexibility with their social relations. Their relations are very limited and are taken in whole. Animals do not relate to things as much other than food, prey, predator, mate, family, and so on, and in all cases, the relations are not abstracted or alienable. Human labor can be alienated and is so even in our free time. Humans do not know anything but alienated labor, which is the only way labor can become general. When we conceive of inalienable labor, we either speak of things beneath the notice of what can be appropriated, or we speak of things we value and cling because they are something we consider core to our true wants. Even when we value family life, any other thing, or anything we do as the thing we do with our lives, those things can be alienated and threatened, and we operate with full awareness that this happens, even in our own choices. That calculus is not something that animals consider as a free option from a potential as wide as knowledge. Absent a compelling force, an animal is likely to view its relations with anything and its task entirely as the thing they do, and they would not abandon anything or any sociality that is very natural to them on a whim. It wouldn't make sense for a bee to not build hives or lack this architectural knowledge, as if she were going to pawn that off to another or spend the time composing music or binging on shitty HBO dramas instead.
When labor can become general and alienable, it begs the question - why do we do anything? If spiritual questions were merely a theoretical exercise to be solved with doctrine, they would not be interesting to many people. Most people do not consider themselves particularly spiritual, or their quest for spiritual authority to have anything to do with religion or any great quest. When labor can be alienated, and we are aware that all choices have consequences and that consequences are active even if we do nothing, the search for truth and meaning is not an idle exercise. It becomes a necessary condition of life even at the most basic level. We will always view some purpose to our lives, for if we don't, we become inert lumps of flesh to be cajoled and commanded, or we wander through life by some listless impulse like caged animals.[3] If that was not a concern for us, we learn that there other entities who will make us be concerned. The moment someone is convinced they really are natural flotsam to be manipulated, a predatory human will take advantage and eliminate the expectation that there is happiness in slavery. We value freedom not because freedom is a symbol or idea or an essence, but because we see what happens with the alternative. Slavery as it must be practiced to be an effective slavery is the only meaningful argument to make for freedom. Freedom for its own sake is meaningless, and if all of the conditions that slavery entails were no longer operative, we are as free as we ever have been. We already have seen in multiple other interests arguments for natural slavery, or eternal slavery, as if that were the only possibility. It is only through spiritual authority and the interest that freedom is at all conceivable. An animal only senses this when it is held captive by humans. It may hold a vague and general fear of suffering and what is possible, enough that it will prevent captivity by whatever power it possesses. Animals do not have a great theory to allow them to rebel against human domination, and if they did, animal husbandry would fall apart. If a cow ever really set out to free herself, she'd eat you and your entire family. The animal knows the misery well enough, and can feel it in their bones, but there is no revolutionary doctrine. As mentioned, revolution is not what it appears to be in the first place, but humans are very familiar with slave rebellions and escapes. Every master is obsessed with ensuring that no slave has a single opening to attack masters, because if that ever happens, slavery would be undone. What slavery could persist if the master must hide in secure locations and fears being seen outside of their hidey hole? The slaves would, if they could, smoke the masters out of their holes and do what should have happened before this sordid institution got off the ground. This argument never deters those who cajole and berate humans and tell them of their obligations to parasitic assholes. A slave could present a perfectly rational and efficient argument for free labor and letting labor have the things they wanted, which would entail certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and some stake for the laborer to call his own. If married, the male laborer would want the security of his wife, and not see his wife forced to participate in the capitalist's sex parties, or a feudal lord's hedonistic party train with obligatory rape. For most of history, the women of the working class worked just as the men did, for less pay and all of the humiliations working life meant, and had to find time to raise children while any extended network of the working class was systematically stripped from them. When farmers are forced at gunpoint off of their ancestral lands and must become proletarians, it is understood that all of them are entering into a slave relation. No expectation of rights for the dispossessed is tolerated outside of the fringes of legal society, and it is supposed to be a "privilege" to expect the boss to honor the worksheet which shows you paid your due of obligatory labor. The moment a proletarian attempts to assert those rights, he or she is immediately attacked and thrown into the residuum, until a proletarian revolt demands retribution, as often happened when industrial labor assembled. The split to make this slave relation stick was to split the working class into two, with one threatened by the existence of a large residuum or lumpenproletariat, and the torture of the workhouse publicly shown with sadistic glee from filth like Malthus.
Spiritual authority arises not because knowledge needs it. Knowledge could very easily proceed as if the universe were absurd, and we would only rely on the symbols the world provides us and those we created in an effort to make something that sounded true enough. Meaning is not impossible without spiritual authority to connect the words said and written or make sense of that which is in front of us. It is entirely possible to operate on a skeptical basis and believe all truths are tentative. For truly useful science, this is never done. The doctrine of skepticism in the empirical tradition is not a meaningful doctrine, but an appeal to institutions which are never skeptical and possess a seeming super-authority that makes the institution's position default, and the individual is made to fight against institutions no matter how wrong the institution would be to any independent inquiry or sense that is right in front of us. If there is no spiritual authority, then we would never hold any truth beyond the will of an institution commanding us to think the right thoughts. Ultimately, the will of any institution becomes the will of concetrated institutions, as the office-holders realize a conspiracy to share power jointly is rational, and feudal infighting is pointless without a genuine property claim or ability to defend it. When the feudal mentality is suggested by identity politics instead of historical claims or anything substantive, the feudal mentality is a parodic form of something that was already retarded and pointless. Without worthwhile spiritual authority, the crown of knowledge means nothing more than which gaggle of technocrats can shout the loudest. This is why it was necessary to deliberately destroy all spiritual authority, and why temporal authority was chosen to be as capricious and contradictory as possible. In doing so, the Satanic view of humanity would be the only admissible one, and with it, one institution would be granted impunity. This was only possible once the means to physically restrain billions of people and ensure command and control mechanisms will exterminate the disobedient were created. The current machinery was built with this plan in mind. It likely would not exist as it does if there were not a drive to pursue this, while destroying as rapidly as possible any technological development that would improve the condition of most of humanity.
The proper spiritual authority arises from labor. This need not be the labor of a particular social class, but labor generally. Those who actually work and do things on the ground would be the first authority. Those who lead from on high would remember that without workers, they would have nothing, and that workers are more likely to give you nice things when they do not live with a knife at their throat at all times. The labor of soldiers, priests, intellectuals, and so on is still labor, however much labor as a practice is disdained in favor of grand theories or narratives. It is not a question of labor as a natural force asserting itself like a Demiurge, or labor commanded by a manager, but rather it is a result of labor becoming general and alienable. If there is a sense that humans have any choice in their fate, our existence becomes very different from one where animals accept whatever shit other life and their own failures place on them. It then becomes the aim of those who would arrest labor to ensure that all choices, all labors, feed back into a singular beast. That beast can be a false universal deity which is clearly identified with the state and the ruling interest, which is the godheads that are at the center of many religions, or it can be an institution of the world with delusions of grandeur. The latter becomes just as ridiculous if not moreso than the former.[4] In all of this, a group which wanted none of this is drawn into a struggle that doesn't concern them, and which is entirely divorced from genuine spiritual authority or any religion worth following. This is intended. The group that has nothing to do with the struggle over property, intellectual institutions seeking to change the world, or fickle serfdom that supplicates to either, is the majority of the human race, who saw from very early on that this struggle served nothing and produced not one thing for anyone. None of these struggles could take place without the labor of those who aspired to a very different world where we didn't have to do this. The struggle sessions are designed to suck up whatever honesty and forthrightness humans have reclaimed over many centuries, strip away references to a past which did not lock us into any preferred stages of history, and ensure that all labor, all aspirations anyone might have had, are turned into nothing more than a farm or battery factory for intellectuals and petty lords. All we aspire to is subsumed in a struggle a child could see through, and yet, we are told this is all there is. All that the struggle needed was enough force to enclose the world and tell us all that we weren't allowed to be anything else. So it has happened, and labor, which even the simplest mind could see as an engine with potential for a fairly small material investment, was wasted on vanity projects and people whose chief contribution was the exploitation of labor. By no means are the laborers themselves immune to this, as if labor possessed a natural virtue or right to rule. Any of the machines that made this world possible were products of labor, utilized by some labor to make the world into this, and it has often been easy to convince labor to offer itself as cattle, fodder, and information processing, and convince labor that all of this was their idea. Yet, as this is done, there is an expectation that there is something more, that is not beholden to the obvious procession of events and technology, nor beholden to the names of a few great assholes who purport to move the world.
The ability of living creatures like us to conceive of a world-system is not merely a product of language. It could have happened without language in any preferred form. Language and symbolic representation is itself a very particular form of meanings that knowledge can create, and is not to be confused with the genuine thought process allowing us to know what the world is. Language as we know it arises because enough patterns are recognized consistently enough to form the basis of symbols with are interchangeable regardless of the media they are encountered in, which allow models to be constructed in imagination. This ability is limited by biological faculties, and however it proceeds, it becomes immediately apparent that whatever our abilities, we are very mortal and exist in a world much larger than us. The animal's sense of the world is a dim awareness of something past the horizon, and information about it is never transferred in a way that allows animals to build off the knowledge of their forebears to any great extent. It is not merely the development of a brain that allows symbols to be constructed in greater number, but communication between those who can do this, where the participants build off each others' knowledge. It is such a process that would have allowed social units to develop symbolic representation to any great length. Without this, symbolic representation would be an ad hoc system developed by each new human. This sort of representation is still done at the local level. We don't necessarily need a "system" given to us to be able to sort the world or any part of it. Human beings, as we will see in the next chapter, never come anywhere near possession of the sum total of human knowledge, and specialize their labor as their knowledge and means to act are too varied for any one man or woman to do everything. There is a baseline that qualifies humans to function in society, and that baseline is not fixed in nature but dependent on the agents which comprise society.
Metaphysical claims do not "create" the world system, but are implied as a way to organize knowledge as a process, so that the biological faculties that we did not choose are deployed in the same way that labor of the body is generalized. This process proceeded at first by an impulse only partially understood, and humanity to this day never has nor is able to find any final answer to this question. That is, we have never been fully able to arrest how we think. Part of the problem is that considering the question itself would spur the thinking animal to modify themselves and thus the question, and this is done ad infinitum with reducing returns in every cycle. It must resolve in a negative feedback loop for the system of knowledge and governance to stabilize. A positive feedback loop would amplify the process until it can no longer obtain energy or material that will feed, leading either to a sudden fizzling or a negative feedback loop stabilizing the system. Primitive and crude models of what things are must be adopted, which give way to formal definitions when these crude models encounter contradictions or setbacks which no longer adequately explain the world or allow for worthwhile meaning.
The particular metaphysics has no claim on "the truth". The truth is outside of our concepts of it entirely. However, such a model is inherent in us to be able to build a full concept of the truth beyond a story that things are as we believe them to be. What is necessary for formal metaphysics is to produce a world-system that is internally consistent, as otherwise it would obviously be useless for its task. Where no solution is evident in a metaphysical system, one is made by force, and this is exploited by those who manipulate spiritual authority.
Life is left without any purpose that can be divined by reason or intuition. What then do we actually do? We live, and there is no reason not to, or to hasten death as if it were any value of worth in of itself. We live not through an intent or an idea, or some conceit of the world. We live not simply because the material world wills it. We live not in a procession of events dictated from any thought leader or heaven, that suspiciously conforms to some very worldly ambition of another man. Life, which started as an intent which occupied some physical matter and cajoled it, becomes something quite different, and must be so to speak of life as anything other than yet more matter in motion. Life to be life is not "just life", or "just being". Living things encounter a world that is alien to it, and entities which are at first alien to it. No mere idea can unite a society through obligations, without degenerating into "responsibility" where all relations are automated and cajoled by thought leaders. No material essence suggests that a "volk" is a fact of nature locked in struggle with other essences, nor suggests that the individual life-form has any right to exist purely as a psychological projection. Life asserts its existence not merely because it can, but because it must if it is to remain constituted as life in the meaningful sense. It can choose to die or let itself wither, if that possibility is conceivable to it. An animal learns helplessness and possesses some sense of its condition, and can sense captivity no matter how dull it is. Animal life comprehends freedom in the genuine sense at some level, and so do humans. It has required a perversion that only high technology can impose to re-define freedom as a mere idea, a token bereft of purpose. There is of course no word for "freedom" in this sense. Freedom as a word is merely a legal contrivance and a recognition of an affair that is necessarily contingent on other entities allowing someone to exist. That "freedom" is not worth a shred of toilet paper and exists to be mocked. There is not until considerable development a word for "freedom" even in this sense. Concepts of freedom from slavery or manumission refer not to the freedom of life to live, but the return of a slave to their family, their clan, their mother. This is the Sumerian word for "freedom", in which the slave is merely transferred from legal ownership to the ownership of the natural order. More developed civilization conceives of legal freedom not as a genuine condition of life, but a condition relating them to the philosophical state. The state, in principle, claims imperium and the power to command life at all levels. This is not a new development of technocratic society, but something inherent in what it meant for the state to exist as a formal institution with laws and courts. There are arguments to make about whether freedom in the genuine sense is even the purpose of life, or a condition that is desirable. Mankind has long found ways to tolerate slavery or convince themselves in a grand cope that slavery is freedom. Everything about human institutions has screamed from the start that freedom is slavery, just as war is peace and ignorance shows the strength of the intelligent. Institutionally, the purpose of life is slavery to the holder of imperium, in which eugenic interests align with technological interests to lock down all that exists. The only force acting against this is a realization even among the holders of these institutions that this is stupid, does not work, never worked, and would lead to an obvious conclusion if a child thinks about this question for five to ten minutes. It takes the perversion of institutions drumming this purpose of life day after day to bring adults to believe in it and identify this institution with their interests, and so it has been done, and must continue to be done. The object of torture is torture. The object of victory is victory. This is was the redefined "freedom" now refers to, and the freedom of life to labor in any sense - for the laborer to own him or herself - is anathema to institutional freedom. It becomes something only admissible as "retarded", "crimethink", or "insanity". Freedom then becomes nothing more than the freedom of the terror to rule over the only entities which actually value freedom. The rulers, even as they recognize the stupidity of this, have no true investment in freedom. They will, and always have, fallen in line when the chips are down. It required a desperate madness to fight against this, and when that happened, the cult of war was there to subsume all struggles under the aegis of the same aristocrats who have always immiserated all who dare to live. Therefore, the simple argument of freedom or slavery is inadequate to grant purpose. It is a question which appears as some sort of joke to people who have long been enslaved, for whom freedom was pointless without coin.
Of the laborers, there are those who attach to one of the other interests who may rule, reap the rewards of empire, and those who toil. There are then those who are effectively locked out of practice at all, whose existence is not to labor in society, but labor only for themselves. They are the lowest class, cast out of the graces of human society, rejected often from an early age. Those who fall from grace and are assigned great shame are never truly out of their caste. Once a human is blooded and paid into the duties and interests of their caste, they never truly leave, even if they are marked with shame. The closest that is done is to legally claim that if someone was proven retarded, they must have always been so. This historical revision never sticks, though. Retardation, the greatest sin and crime in all of human history, has always been the lowest of all designations, the ultimate shame which stands alone. Retardation, assigned early in life if not at conception, is a truly irredeemable status, no matter what merits or virtue the retard may demonstrate. If a retard ever works for this beast, he or she is working for their bitter enemy, and only makes the ritual sacrifice worse. Such Judases are encouraged, but they are always few in number, because those declared retarded early in life have no incentive whatsoever to feed this monster. The Biblical Judas is granted far more esteem than caste traitors. He was, after all, a disciple and a man of great importance to the religion. Such acts, however much it is invoked as the example of betrayal, never change that Judas was a disciple and of priestly caste. Saying he was anything else would be anathema to Christianity, and makes his betrayal of Christ less meaningful.[5] Between different castes, betrayal is the default and not even assigned shame for the deed. In caste society, there are only crimes of Being. A retard who serves society is assigned the name of Uncle Tom[6] and put up as an example of such digusting abasement that not even the incredulous fascist zealot can embody, for the fascist is still a servant of his or her class and "seeking Christ" in this act of fealty. A retard who is defiant is punished severely, or hunted for sport. Only a median existence of ever-increasing misery, locked on track, is the life of a retard, and this forms the basis for the threat made to labor generally. It is the ultimate no-win scenario, and this is the birth of the human race. The laborers would be given the inducement to hang themselves, and told that the rope to do so was the purpose of their existence. The great break, and this was particular to humans and the habits of a deformed ape rather than life generally, was one rule - "never, ever be a retard". An essentialization of intelligence and meaning which became eugenic property became the rule of the race, and it has been damned forever since. All that humans have done revolves around this question more than any other, and so the knowledge of humanity which was the only thing they held over the animal kingdom became a tool to immiserate each other, collectively and in their personal relations. No other possibility would be permitted, and the damned of the Earth are the living sacrifice dedicated to this. The alternative - freedom of information, knowledge, meaning, and labor in a genuine sense, so that this cycle ends - is the absolute last thing the dominant interests ever want. If the reverse ever did become true as a general rule, it would be the end of the human race, and every human knows it. A few of us would be happy to see the end of the deformed Satanic ape altogether, either by ensuring the elimination of the race or finding a way to mitigate the outcome of its genesis. Since assuring the elimination of humanity altogether faces many difficulties, the only thing that is conceivable would be to make what was born in pure wickedness and malice into something good. There never was a "fall of Man", where there was once a good creature. They were always wicked, and they knew, and they knew damn well that they didn't need to do this the whole time. An animal likely has the same thought, but lacks the means to impose it on the world. The only thing that was possible is that the deformed Satanic ape learned how to use tools and generalize labor, and immediately set about to hunt, herd, cajole, and manage each other most of all. Outside of human society, this deformed and pitiful race accomplishes little on scales that human beings can easily appreciate. It is self-evident to even the dullest human that the entire arc of human accomplishment is piss and shit, unworthy of even the dignity that the world comepls us to abide. The human spirit and will has always chosen wickedness, no matter what pretenses they create suggesting their probity. If there was anything in the human race that made a different choice, it is because humanity encountered an alien world and were alien to each other, and managed somehow to learn how to temporarily not be the deformed Satanic ape they have always been. Because it is so obvious that this is what would have been the only way out of humanity's situation, to something that was actually worth living in, it became necessary to recapitulate a eugenic interest in the race, and screech like retards over the stupidest thing imaginable. And so, technology, which should to a reasonable race have been used to eliminate the worst suffering in life and consider a world far different than this, was beholden to accomplish the exact opposite. Blood will always tell. Rather than the intellectuals blaming themselves, as is clear to anyone who is at all honest, somehow the war guilt is assigned to the caste which did the least, whose crime was entirely being "retarded", by spurious definitions which protect the retarded behavior of aristocrats and revel in torture. The race is unreformable and irredeemable in total, and no one should even bother trying, and this applies to every race within humanity and every tribe hitherto known. This we hold to be self-evident after enough historical evidence.
Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter
[1] I would like to add here that it is highly unlikely the common people ever really invested in the belief in "gods" in their folk traditions, and have in fact spent great effort working against the ruling "gods" and all mention of the godhead. For most of us, "gods" are metaphors at best, and the truth for humanity is that we only ever referred to gods at all because it became social convention, or gods were used as idols and fetish objects for rituals, where the purpose of the ritual was to channel some demonic energy for purposes high and low. The use of idolatry and fetish in aristocratic spiritual authority is early and frequent, and appears to the decent of us correctly as a foul abomination. One did not require an advanced religion to see the hideousness of idolatry, for that was apparent enough and most of mankind knew that deals with such gods meant nothing good. The depiction of idolatry in classical religions - for this concept is not particular to Judaism and its offshoots, though there it is most highly developed because they begin with a conflict in the epicenter of such practices - is an indicator of what aristocratic religion historically was. More developed religions had to describe this practice with a general theory rather than occult superstitions that were valued, and with that, spiritual authority and occultism developed in tandem. It is here where the conflict over gods, which was at first largely a fetish for aristocrats and beasts for warriors to channel for fighting, could invade the lives of the commoners, who held not to aristocratic gods or fetishes but their own concepts of the world, and some dim hope that the alien gods would be void and utterly defeated.
[2] This is where retards like Nietzsche and many a German philosopher bray about "slave morality", failing to get that their entire philosophical and civilizational project is basically what an alien would do to create an obedient slave-warrior society, a retarded version of Sparta that exists to be co-opted by foreign powers. This idea is a glamorized and sing-songy version of the Ork philosophy from Warhammer 40k in which slave morality is beaten by deciding who is "bigga", and no other concept is possible. It's so obviously exploitable that you get the sense some imperial conspirators seeded such a disease specifically to fuck over the country in a century, and the exchange among intellectuals suggested one clever scheme or another to partition Europe into national projects that could be filled with fifth columns of one type or another. The preferred imperial policy today has thoroughly infused every European country with agents who will sell out to the first thing that is "bigga", and you couldn't think of a more ideal situation. The greatest problem with this strategy is that we have to listen to overly educated idiots bray about continental philosophy that everyone with a functioning brains knows to be dogshit. Had philosophy been pursued for goals of honest wisdom, which has never been the case, this stupidity would be exposed as the farce it is. The origin arises in fusing life with knowledge and then the construction of a biopolitical view of humanity, based on increasingly brazen pseudoscientific positions that intentionally violate common knowledge and meaningful science. We continue in this chapter to describe the proper origin of science in the laboring class, and it is not the technological interest but the spiritual authority of workers who had to work with science to make a living. Aristocracy is completely hostile to science in any sense the word has genuine purpose.
[3] Here is the secret of "anhedonia" - which properly understood is the neoliberal eugenist version of "draeptomania", or the mental illness of slaves desiring freedom. We are supposed to "feel happy" in a situation where humans are clearly confined, humiliated, and told ad nauseum to die, die, die. Billboards shout humiliation to every American who isn't in the know, and this grinding down is glorified and celebrated due to the rot that rules this country presently. It is of course no great secret, but it is unsurprising that humans who are caged like animals, encouraged to self-mutilate and destroy themselves with drugs and foul habits, become unable to feel meaningful happiness. I have said before that utilitarian "pleasure" is merely the abscence of managerial pain, and this stupid moral philosophy is a favorite of petty-managerial retards.
[4] No scheme to manage society has been more thoroughgoing than the "open society" in arresting all potential labors and feeding them into a central beast, which boldly proclaims "there is no alternative" and "there is no society" when the time is right. Every freedom, every act, now serves institutions which in one way or another mandate human suffering as a law of nature and the highest moral cause of the ruling interest. Every way in which the Open Society speaks of "choice" is intended to ensure that "choice" is given only to the lower classes, with all outcomes gamed and rigged so that the lower class can only choose submission. Here, the weasel word "responsibility" is introduced to displace earlier concepts like obligation, duty, honor, trust, love, and all relations that entailed the lower class' real stake in society. It is in short a claim that labor is to be enslaved and completely devalued, and the only labor that is treasured is that which maximizes torture and the thrill of the present aristocracy and their running dogs.
[5] We would remind the reader that the characters of the gospel are quite clearly fictitious persons and intended to be understood as such. Yet, the story has no meaning unless these characters were developed as if they were both real humans and entities with a divine connection, and nothing about this contradicts reality as a believer would see it. It is possible to create all manner of logical pretzels to defend the claim that Christ was both a man like any other and God, and that Christ seems to morph based on what aspect or compartmentalization of the Christ is expedient at any given time.
[6] Speaking of fictitious persons, the person of Uncle Tom is often stripped from its context and why the archetype was egregiously offensive. In the actual story of Uncle Tom's Cabin, Uncle Tom is not self-abasing in the Hitlerian sense, but an elder slave who largely wished to be allowed to live out his life in Christian fashion, and did not possess a will to transgress things he knew would not change. Far from shameless self-abasement, Tom's crime is a stubborn refusal to play out the practices inherent in the slave system when slaves were expected to attack and whip other slaves. The story came under criticism for reasons that are often unfair, though the writer's white Christian bias among others is, as is appropriate for the time, displayed in full. What follows is a long American tradition of displacing the ugly reality of slavery with sentimental stories from people who were distant from it. At first, the criticism is that the ugliness of slavery, which was well known to anyone white or black, was replaced with a prototype of historical revisionism, and the institution of slavery was presumed to be natural, as would have been comprehensible to an American at the time. What followed was yet more historical revision, in which the battle over the institution of slavery produced too many hints of what America really was. The American Civil War, like civil wars generally, ends in reconcilation, and the intended losers were the working class and the poor, slave and free alike. The ex-slaves would say at the time and ever since that high and mighty white people should get off their high horse, but by and large, that was not acceptable for all of the reasons we have come to expect.