Return to Table of Contents | Previous Chapter | Next Chapter

Education and the drilling of the school must be dismissed when discussing genuine learning, knowledge, and intelligence without those fetters. Underneath all conceits about intelligence and institutions is a reality that flesh and blood humans learn and acquire a quality we regard as intelligence. General intelligence, which is mystified by horrifically bad statistical deception, is still a valid concept of the overall faculties of a single mind. In the model described in the first book of this series, "mind" is not a philosophical construct but something that emerged out of the world. In our case as humans, it originated out of the processes of life, and so all of our faculties of learning in a genuine sense arose from that seed. With technology, media, and communication, human learning becomes something more than a biological construct, and what we learn and think is never contained within the atomized subject. It remains the case that human beings are constituted as individuals, and this is not just an institutional conceit we hold about persons. The mind cannot be divided from itself for too long or split into faces that the occulting interest of life would revel in. Regardless of the true nature of this existence we call ourselves, we orient around a singular conscious experience and that is the active part of any process which can learn or possess intelligence as a quality. Stable intelligence implies more than a mere knowledge process, but implies both a material origin, a genesis, and a going concern of the entity which knows. It further implies a history and development of the knower that interfaces with a world, and this extends to our next chapter and our moral sentiments. Among the moral sentiments is our attitude towards intelligence and knowledge itself, and it is here where so many follies are made regarding intelligence and who is smart, who is dull, and what precisely the brain and mind do that constitutes intelligent activity, or how that intelligence could be judged in comparison to other intelligences.

We return to our focus of this arc of chapters - struggle and authority, which the practice of war mentioned in the last chapter must pertain to as well. War and learning in this sense are almost never conjoined, unlike the conceit of the eugenist who believes the learning institutions must conduct a war against the weak and never allow the weak to rise ever again. War as a practice involves little learning, except learning about the enemy. An education in conditions of war and siege emphasizes management and coping mechanisms rather than learning that provides a stable basis for genuine knowledge. The most essential learning is anathema to conditions of war or the militarization of society, and learning as a process is local. Institutions, particularly institutions held by hostile interests, are terrible places to learn anything. The institutions which understand learning best are not interested in judging and sorting the population or assessing students at all. They are instead libraries and present the seeds for those who wish to learn to approach knowledge independently, and relate to a world that is outside all of the institutions and came before them. The effective library would suggest a syllabus to pursue independently, tests that learners could take themselves to judge their knowledge. If that is accomplished, then the final sorting of academic knowledge or qualities could be accomplished with very little pedagogical intervention at all. Very little of pedagogy or the role of the teacher is needed at all, given today's information technology and rapid delivery of text and images from electronic libraries. For various reasons, this program is never put in place. Something like this could have been done since the late 18th century, and in practice something like this is how humanity managed to learn and independently attain high literacy, without the onerous mediator of the pedagogue or the militarized school. Were someone insistent on the need of a pedagogue or a teacher to guide learning, the effective teacher has long understood what the learner needs is a guide and some explanation of why learning the material presented, or a habit of learning in general, is beneficial. The earliest guidance is not trivial. Few can learn to read independent of some instruction linking printed letters to sounds and meanings. The methods of pedagogy to teach language are deliberately maladaptive. Once learned, language instruction concerns not the understanding or composition of language, but bullbaiting and cajoling and teaching children vulnerability to propaganda and humiliation, and maximizing the thrill of demonstrating ignorance. Children are taught to value lumps of horseflesh as prized wisdom and trained to be incurious about anything meaningful, and this is not just intended but a core expression of the eugenic war itself. Pedagogy of that sort is designed only to beat children into submission. Adults could not learn in this way, and the eugenic ideology asserts that humans cannot learn independently and do not learn past the age of 16 in any significant way. The aim of eugenic education is to program students to stay in their lane, follow the caste and professional assignment handed to them by the leaders. If someone is "free" to choose their career, they are in actuality consigned to the residuum and expected to hustle and grift, which is the chief product of these ruinous institutions and their whole filthy way of life. To make matters worse, children are never told exactly what is expected of them, and the thrill of humiliation is recapitulated with that idiotic line, "figure it out for yourself". The dumb fucks who revel in this torture are the trained killers and rapers, which is what this failed race produces in sufficient quantities to commit to depopulation. Sadly, this is the standard of the human race. It is not a peculiarity of our time, as disastrous as the Fabian project is for America and the world. The tragedy is not that a good institution of learning has been lost, for education in the world has never been good. It selected a caste of professionals and told them their bourgeois vanity was great knowledge, while denying them meaningful knowledge and supplying to the aristocracy of technology a wealth of strategies to extract knowledge and labor with minimal cost. Whether this is done in capitalism or communism, the result has been the same. The elite of the warriors and proprietors are taught venality and never match the accomplishment of their ancestors, and this is often what is harkened to when society is allowed to bemoan what is "lost". The past education only differed in that a higher quality of man was required to meet the bare minimum necessity of suppressing the weak. The advance of mass poisoning and drugging, and the perpetuation of the thrill of torture in Reaganism, made it easier than ever for aristocrats, proprietors, and technocrats to cajole and degrade the lower orders and each other. The aristocracy itself, whatever airs it puts on, is visibly degenerating, and if there is some secret world where aristocrats really are atomic supermen, it must be very well hidden and does not reflect in the pathetic spectacle our lords and masters have erected, even when they are attempting to hint at the wisdom of the better men and women. Why would the aristocracy be better, without any sobering influence, and when aristocrats view ability in themselves to be suspect? Above all, the aristocrats fear a Caesar or Napoleon rising from their ranks - men who were independently intelligent and commanded armies and loyalty, and who possessed a strength that the lower orders could respect. Caesar and Napoleon both serve aristocracy, coming from that class, but understood how virtue could command men in ways that the decrepit forms of republicanism could not.

We see the difficulty of viewing learning, or education institutionally, as warlike or a struggle. Even the aristocracy can't bring themselves to defend such a method of learning, and never utilizes it for their secrets. The struggle sessions imposed are entirely an pedagogy for various gradients of failure. Education and the sickening ritual of the guru, which this author despises, is left for another time and another writing. I concern myself here with the genuine processes humans do to learn, which often take place in education and in spite of the pedagogues' rank and deliberate incompetence. It is well known that pedagogues have always liked most of their students to remain dumb, and it is not out of any belief that "hard" lessons make students smarter. The pedagogy is designed to fail students, bark contradictory orders in their face and laugh at them when they fail, which always happens. The more extreme forms of this destructive "learning" teach indolence, fear, and arbitrary authority which the student is forbidden to name. Such is the learning of an occulted, guru-ridden, fad-ridden shithole. The defenders of this pedagogy make their usual false equivalence when they claim that making children suffer is the same as presenting children with challenging problems that require them to test the intelligence. None of this is intended to be a challenge. It is a game the child is expected to fail, while the favored people are given the cheat code, which has been the fate of intellectual so-called meritocracy for a long time.^[1] The resulting "synthesis" is invariably a dumbing-down of education, with fingers pointed at the "retards" for bringing down standards. All of this is repeated and violent recapitulations of the eugenic creed, divorced from any process of learning, and it is a violent recapitulation of the militarized school and its grinding down of selected populations to fit this role. The learning of the school is not a passive process of eliminating a natural learning potential. Children are not by nature "natural learners" in that sense, because most of what children like any human do has nothing to do with learning or knowledge gathering. The incuriousity of children is expected, particularly in such a stultifying environment. The true learning the school imparts is to assert positively the eugenic creed's dominance over a space, and suggest that members of society must internalize this without criticism. That is the only way the Germanic tradition of schooling could function. Most genuine learning is expected to happen outside of the school, but the school does indeed teach certain knowledge and values. The learning process is not intrinsically good or pure. People can learn lies and how to lie, and the malevolent arts of the human race have always been the most valuable knowledge in the view of society and institutions. Learning for the sake of productivity or spiritual development is not just irrelevant but a thing considered odious, both by the eugenic interest of life and by life's primary and overriding interest. A fetish for technology and conceits of knowledge is known to be maladaptive. The applied science taught to workmen and expected of labor is only that which will keep people submissive to aristocracy. This is why we, who must learn rather than receive pedagogy, have out of necessity worked out systems of learning in spite of education. It is the educator's job to subvert all independence from learning, and the republican society is far worse and more insidious in this regard than the fear-dominated education of despotism.

To best understand this mechanism, we may suppose for the moment that the knowing agent is an abstract "mind" of unknown qualities. We do not care for the moment about its internal workings, but what sense information and communication it receives and puts out. In this way, the mind and all that comes out of it may be treated like a factory, technocratically planned and arranged within itself to function in the way we expect it to. For many reasons, this is incompatible with what life actually does. Our first entry point to a scientific view is the knowledge process itself encountering a world alien to it. The mind in the abstract is wholly alien to the world, even to the body that brought that mind into existence and the most minute functions of the brain that allow the mind a real manifestation in the world. Before someone can look inside the black box, they encounter a world where the concept of a "black box" would be relevant; and if the world were nothing but the mind itself, then the only sense data available is the contents of the "black box", unfettered by any sensory input from the world, and someone can contemplate those signals as they please, as the contents of the black box would allow. In living creatures, the mind and the whole body exists because it was in an environment, and that is what oriented the development of the body beyond the most primitive. We have thus returned to the initial example of a simulation universe we started with, but with what I have written up to now in mind about the nature of life, society, and the question posed. Some version of this would be evident to a child asking the question, in some way, if the child is asking a question about their own mind and self, and it remains evident every time we ask a question about how we think and assemble knowledge.

The basis for all of this sense information is symbolic representation rather than "true reality" in of itself. It is not difficult to see that symbolic information is not all that exists - that the thing we describe as "A" is not "A" in its entirety. Names and representations of anything suggest an underlying nature, even for things which we do not regard as dubious. The symbol "A" itself for instance is something recognized regardless of what media it appears on, but we are aware that it is written on some media or some representation, and we can ask questions about that media's material composition. It is entirely possible to invent an imagined world underneath the symbol, and this is an error we seek to correct. Much of this covers the thought on knowledge and metaphysics from the first book. To summarize, there are two ways for this symbolic sense-information to be modified. The first is recognition of patterns and an ability to relate meaningfully two symbols, and this recognition is not carried out by a rational algorithm but by the functions of the brain, body, and tools we use, which are adept at this pattern recognition task. The second is to rationally break down formally the symbols we see, in line with a metaphysical thinking we adopt necessarily when we do so. That metaphysical thinking is not fixed in nature, in a way which obligates all valid knowledge processes to believe any metaphysical reality. No formal metaphysics is established in a way that is undeniable to us, for if it were, there could not be a question that things "are" anything other than what the sole natural metaphysical model declares. That is, we could not even engage in the argument about what things are, and attempts to do so would be short-circuited. We would be forced to be honest, which is at odds with our basic understanding of reality. The only metaphysics which could be universal and natural is that A is indeed A, but this is an expression of equality in symbolic language or some representation. It would require someone to believe that symbols are in of themselves the whole of meaning, and this means that a symbol could in principle be pressed into the brain without any critical faculty to derive unacceptable meanings. We can indeed adopt that metaphysics, but it will run into an immediate processing error if it receives confusing or contradictory symbolic realities and is told to believe both. This fugue is intended and was described in the prior book, and should be familiar to many of us, so I need not repeat that state of mind here. The only such metaphysics would be to declare that there is no such thing as metaphysics... and thus, no reality. All of this metaphysical knowledge must be a thing acquired by the basic seed of knowledge, and the earliest origins of our knowledge process are the processes of life and the procession of matter, chemicals and physics. None of those things "create" metaphysics in of themselves, but instead we acquire metaphysical knowledge in order to relate all concepts of what things are, whether they are natural objects or concepts only comprehensible to those of us who think about them and construct them mentally. There would be no other way for this sense faculty we possess to acquire meaning and for knowledge to operate on the world. The world itself operates in ways that preceded us or anything we thought about it, but these ways are not governed by any metaphysical or rational hobgoblin. They are consistent enough that we cannot arbitrarily invent metaphysics as we please. Metaphysical models to be useful must not be internally contradictory, and must comport with a world that is alien to any of our conceits about it. Without any knowledge of the internals of the brain, we would reconstruct a sense of our own thought process as best as we can, and could not do otherwise. It is necessary for any knowing entity to think about how it thinks, even if that proceeds with the crude sense of an animal, to establish its sense of its faculties, which allow it to refine any knowledge about the world beyond recognition of symbols or signs. There are then things we sense that lack an obvious symbol, but that we can detect in vaguer forms with senses; for example, a feeling that something is wrong with a pattern we see does not grant us immediate answers of what, if anything, is wrong. When we do, we can assign names and symbols to describe that vagary, or we can isolate symbolic things in the environment to clarify the causes and effects of that vague sense, so that in future it is less vague. There is a danger of inventing phantoms when doing this, but this opening would have to exist for the first recognition of symbols to be possible. The world itself, the universe, is not comprised of any symbolic representation imposed on it by thought, but a material world we have to accept on some level as meaningful. Ideas we construct, even if we hold them to be abstract and above conventional matter, are things that have to be substantive in order to be truly conceivable; that is, ideas about something like a "god" would have to relate somehow to the world we observe, even if the "god" itself is an abstraction. We wouldn't believe in a god unless it said something about the world, and the world is inclusive of ourselves and all that we are; and so gods are not metaphors for nature, but metaphors for political thought and wisdom, and possibly something more that we hold to be meaningful in ways conventional knowledge cannot assert by reason.

It is not difficult to see that the body preceded the "mind" as a construct in this sense, and we separate the mind from the body not for any genuine philosophical purpose but because doing so is beneficial for the integrity of life. This separation is never complete, but it is an abiding characteristic of symbolic knowledge that we never truly contact the world or ourselves. We only contact approximations of both, and this is the version of ourselves which is communicable. This is not merely a matter of language, but of the materials that allow us to think in the first place. In the final chapter of this book, I wish to mention the field of cybernetics and its influence on this entire question. For now it is enough to say that it has been established that regulation of energy permitting governance - what we would construe as "mind" - is only possible through a negative feedback loop. This is the only way in which we could truly arrest energetic motion in the world in our thoughts to perceive of a fixed construct. Every symbol - and the "symbols" here include the very particles that comprise all matter, and the developed constructs like neurons, cells, bones, muscles, and so on - exists not because it was foundational to nature, but because that is a form that is appreciable to us, about which we can say anything about what things are. We never quite touch those structures in our language, and even by recognizing any of them, there is a slight delay between the motion of those structures and the recognition of them in thought or abstraction. We are of course aware that all of these things suggest an underlying reality that is meaningful, and so the symbols we arrest are not crass fictions or a false reality. The muscles may not be the muscles as we imagine them, but they very much exist and move in a world that does not regard what we think about what we're doing. The thought of the mind is always behind the actions of the world. We are aware of this, and so much of what we do with the body is to correct for this lag time, and this would be necessary for the body's functions to remain integrated effectively. We would be able to see that the muscle is never "just a muscle", and we also recognize that our concept of ourselves very closely resembles the event that actually happens. At the same time, the symbols we accept do not in of themselves mean anything. A part of the body may be explicable in a way a child can understand, but the implications of the existence of anything pertain to history and suggest that something could be more than we believe, and can do things we did not believe possible. By symbolic representation alone, it is never possible to truly arrest all potentials of anything. We would have to compile a vast wealth of information and suggest a total system by thought alone to suggest we can command reality in this way, and eventually the wealth of information is too vast, and too incomplete for the task we envision. Errors arise from the reductions we must accept for us to process so many symbols, using only the faculties available to us natively. No technology to enhance the faculty of knowledge will compensate for this problem. There is further a complication of mind-extending technology, where the use of something like a computer produces an effect on the user who is habituated to it. The tool can, in such a close relationship with the core of the self and what we are, come to command the user. The tool in the hands of a hostile party can command the user, even when the hostile party does not fully know the consequences of doing this or does not care. The parts of the body themselves are such tools, and we would seek to command them for ourselves and the body's integrity. This is not so much a philosophical requirement - it is possible and in some times necessary for someone to yield to another mind in order for their long-term survival, and there is no intrinsic reason why we would value our "self" let alone an institutionalized version of our person in the mind of other people. It is rather that life and its functions have many reasons to resist such an imposition if it were onerous, or sought to interrupt deliberately the thought process, so that life could be cajoled and destroyed. That sad fate has already been mentioned in this writing enough times, and will continue to be mentioned. We can imagine this as a crude thought experiment without authority as such. For life to be more than mere life, though, it will recognize the existence of authority of some sort; and so intellectual production in any sense we appreciate it rests in the end on spiritual authority, rather than personal authority or temporal authority. We begin assembling knowledge not by the will of pedagogues or a "just so" story of life seeking knowledge by some process that is itself unknowable. We begin seeking genuine knowledge because we recognize something as a spiritual authority that can speak of truth, where the will of humans or any machine they build, or any dominance they assert, is moot.

Spiritual authority is not a "germ" of knowledge itself, but something we recognize in a world that is alien to any part of us. Even if we were to recognize our own mind or conceits about ourselves as the authority, we would in doing so split our mind from itself and the world, reproducing a tripartite structure appropriate to the technocratic subject if we followed that through to its conclusion. The way we would resolve this if not blinding by ideology - ideology which would arise from an overbearing and imperious temporal authority or the personal authority of a bully or cajoler - is to recognize that the self does not have any more authority than it can know it possesses, and to reconcile the self with the world around it. Since the environment of someone varies wildly, there are no fixed rules suggesting how we "must learn", as if these were hardcoded. Humans respond to both society and its agents and the environment around them. It is a technocratic conceit that there is nothing outside of society and its agents, for all in the technocrat's mind was enclosed long ago and it could not be any other way. Their concept of the meaningful world relies on a belief that the world is subject to the whims of superior minds, regardless of how well they know this to be a delusion. It is not out of hypocrisy or ignorance that the technocrat does this, but out of the necessity their vision of government and thus of mind places on the subject. To do otherwise is to be wildly at odds with the environment a technocrat lives in, if the technocrat has established position and isn't cast out of power. Even outside of power, those with a technocratic mind - perhaps someone who dreamed of such a world before it could impose its institutions - are given over to a conceit about themselves despite any knowledge or wisdom telling them not to do this. In doing so, the technocrat must choose one of the other interests of life to align with. Due to the tie of the human mind to its genesis and biological activity, and the existing dominance of property, the technocrat almost always chooses the eugenic interest in one way or another as the best ally, and disdains the people. The technocrat with some knowledge of politics further discovers that human society, in all practical matters, has always been directed by aristocrats due to the advantages of aristocracy to wage war from their hideaway and make the rest of us suffer. The technocrat's loathing of the lowest class is a particular sort that would make the most selfish robber baron blush, yet at the same time the technocrat is obsessed with the idea that the lowest class will learn to love their slavery and humiliation, all while the technocrat cannot hide utter contempt for anything they deem stupid. This author has been at the receiving end of that hatred, against increasingly spurious arguments of those who retreat the institutions, for no reason other than their pigheaded conceits about their mind and intelligence. I have to live the consequences of what they did to me for nothing more than a cargo cult, and the bastards are trained from birth to keep pushing that reward button, even when they didn't gain anything from it. Such is the curse of mind, knowledge, and wisdom, no matter how much it has been clothed and made out to be our savior.

Absent a more compelling spiritual authority that this, the most basic spiritual authority of formal knowledge is the crown of knowledge - the self, or other entities comprised as such. It is this which forms the proper basis for all further development of society and learning and political consciousness. For Man to be a political animal, he would first be a spiritual animal reliant on knowledge to command his faculties. It is knowledge which forms the basis for all of his political decisions and any non-trivial decision regarding his life. That knowledge is informed by something greater due to his labor and his use of language, and the knowledge operates with symbols that are accessible to him before he can derive meaningful knowledge from the world. The knowledge process itself, as mentioned before, is not beholden to labor or language intrinsically. We were able to know things without alienated labor or language, and would have had to. The further development of these things is for the next two chapters. When they are reduced to their most essential components for education and learning, the knowledge process in humans is remarkably simple and versatile. The human brain, for all of its qualities, does not do anything so magnificent that its functions are unknowable or sacred. Nor does any part of the body, reduced in this way, suggest that humans are any sort of sacred animal, fundamentally apart from nature or qualitatively distinct in a way that makes them a unique substance in the world. When dealing with knowledge in a more basic form - which is to say, when knowledge is formalized and sorted into our library as information to read, recall, interpret, and so on - we operate with a very simplified version of the actual world we live in. We do not process anywhere near the totality of information or symbols available to us, and couldn't realistically do so with any device we would use to expand our knowledge faculties. Processing every minute fact of the world is not relevant to the task of knowledge, and knowledge is not essential because of a quantity of processes in the brain or an arbitrary complexity of knowledge which makes men sentient in that way.

If we were to imagine an animal with far superior processing capabilities than our own, it would not be essentially different from humans. The human advance was language faculties, technology, and a society where we could communicate ideas. While this is a threshold of some complexity, the faculty of language in humans varies considerably among them. Those with lesser abilities, who wouldn't have conjured language on their own as specialists, learn from those who did spend considerable time defining and honing the language. Those who are experts in adjudicating proper language - educators, pedagogues, academics, wise men, and those who make it their business to be the authorities on proper language - are not so blind to believe that their intellectual lessers do not think, or that the words they say aren't meaningful. Language in human society was rarely developed by one person and imposed on society in total. The seeds of a full language beyond organic constructions might have been largely worked out by one mind or a small committee, but languages circulate and develop in societies, as humans communicate with each other, mimic each other, and pick up new words without any thought leader telling them the word was valid. The outline of what a language is, its proper syntax and so on, is set so that language can be parsed and picked apart for meaning, but new words appear and may or may not be noted by the men who write the dictionary, or who are the Guardians of memes to decide which new words will be permitted to flourish in the information network. We can trace each new word, each new expression, and how it is adopted for each social agent, given sufficient information. This circulation of language, which leads to its development, is not directed necessarily by any executive. So it is with the communication of information in any network. The internet as a network is designed specifically not to be centralized in a way where someone with command of the hub can dictate from on high what new ideas appear from a node. In principle, one node can communicate with any other node with a matching protocol. The protocol was designed by someone, and for the internet to function reliably, there are always protocols that a machine must follow for communication of digital information to be possible. In principle, protocols are necessary for any language or any knowledge, including those in our own brain. There is always some protocol at work with the basic knowledge process, even if it is carried out without any conscious design. The integration of the body of a human in a single mind is never a thing existing in isolation, nor is it guaranteed that the mind is a singular "self" or identity, or would see itself as an ego in that way. The self-awareness of human beings is not due to any metaphysical law of what the self must be, but a reality of the world - that the parts of the body do not communicate so intimately with another body in any circumstance we know of. If we could, it would be a form of telepathy that goes beyond mere instincts or foreknowledge of another person's thinking. All of this is to speak of how we conduct ourselves when we learn things, and how humans communicate information to each other when the intent is to genuinely teach or share information for the development of knowledge. None of that can be taken for granted, as if communication and sociality "just happened" or are a given of nature. For example, the koan "humans are social animals" or "humans need hierarchy" mean nothing and communicate nothing, but instead terminate thought and present sentiments as just-so facts. There are reasons, not difficult to divine, for how humans socialize, how humans form social and political hierarchies, and how knowledge prefers hierarchical structures to best assimilate formal knowledge and information. There is always a way in which this knowledge is gleaned, just as we have protocols for determining who can be trusted, who is intelligible, and so on, that have nothing to do with any preferred structure imposed on us by a thought leader. We would require such a thing internal to us, regardless of a thought-form suggested by any ideology. Nor does any knowledge attain legitimacy because it is just more complex. The useful and productive knowledge is often very simple, even if the systems it deals with are far more complicated than the models we use to operate on things in labor. A very complex house of cards will fall just the same, and doesn't intrinsically serve any purpose just by being complex, or because the formalism looks so elegant or can be defended in a dissertation. The knowledge process we rely upon, once it is developed, would answer all of these questions and more, before we would build for ourselves a theory or working model of how we think, or how we learn. In some way, every one of us will do this out of necessity, as we learn early in life to never trust bureaucratic authorities, and to only trust anyone else so far. Parents will teach their children about lying, lie to their children, and have many incentives to never tell the whole truth to their children. Humans, we learn early enough, are liars through and through, and to trust anything from them requires careful adjudication. We will for the moment concern ourselves with our native process of knowledge, communicating with a world which we have no reason to distrust. We will presume that we trust ourselves enough. This author will tell you one of the worst things someone can ever do is tell themselves their thinking is wrong and must be corrected by another, no matter how incorrect your thoughts may be. It is unavoidable that the most fundamental thought processes will be molded by another human, particularly for young children whose defense against this is nearly nonexistent against an experienced manipulator, who built an environment to entrap the naive newborn. All throughout life, there will be forces to sow doubt, fear, and uncertainty in us, for we are alone against a world full of humans who at a basic level have no less capacity than us to act or think about this question, and we have no immediate knowledge of who is talking to whom. The conspiracies between humans are things we can diagnose another time. The world itself has no use for such conspiracies. The particles in a cloud of gas are not conspiring to hide their secrets from us. We might defeat ourselves in building an accurate model, but this is our problem and one we can overcome if we learn that our current model of that phenomenon is flawed. We also figure that, after sufficient experience and stability, we know ourselves well enough to resist the cajolers and the bombast of authorities relying on fear to tell us what we are, and that they know us better than we know ourselves. We have spent our whole lives living in our own heads out of necessity, and imperious, demonic assholes with a uniform and institutional authority have always used this line when they couldn't care less what another person thinks. The only thing those people ever think is "retard, retard, retard", when they say such things, and they don't even pretend otherwise. Such stonewalling and cruelty is inherent to the institution, and usually inherent to the person who is an exemplar of that institution's venality and stupidity. Even if they did understand the inner workings of another person well enough to say something useful, it is never the case that people who are trained to lord over others imperiously are interested in actually helping. They only seek to give whatever they need to make the subject compliant with an alien philosophical construct, then thrust the subject into a position of abject humiliation. If they cared about helping someone, they wouldn't pronounce that they have shrunk your brain and life experience to nothing, or engage in the venal stonewalling and cruelty of their institution with full knowledge of all participants that this exists to grind down and destroy the will to resist.

The need for spiritual authority is such that humans will seek it out of necessity, even if it is a crude one that does no more than serve immediate purposes. This, though, is often unsatisfactory in human society. We are acutely aware of other humans who are like us, and our judgement of other humans takes precedent over nearly everything else in the environment. By far, the greatest threat to a human is other humans. Therefore, it is common for humans to seek spiritual authority in an older or wiser human or the words they speak or write, because we naively assume that older and wiser people would know things that we do not. We know the older and wiser human would understand the thought process much as we understand ourselves, and while this is not a safe assumption, a human would more readily engage with another human - whether older, younger, or a peer - then they would engage with a rock or a tree. Rocks and trees do not talk. Abstract concepts we cannot touch or work with are even more arcane in conversation, if we were to imagine one. We do, though, see anything in the world as potentially an authority to tell us something about the world.

Humans, or any animal, do not see the objects assigned spiritual authority as pedagogues, or believe that spiritual authority grants to the object a power to dictate reality unilaterially. Spiritual authority is actively sought by humans and never granted unconditionally. Even if a human wanted to do so, the things in the universe humans avow as idols do not give us information freely. Humans beseech the world for an authority and find something, or many such things, that provide it. The authority is always taken as a singular, in order to match the coherence of a mind that can speak of authority; and so, many things which may be regarded as spiritual authorities are lumped together as "one". It is understood that this is a shorthand, rather than a crass reduction or an invocation of a primordial light, and that "the one" is really many things of a nature which is not reducible. For a mind to have an adequate guide towards any knowledge, one authority must rise above all others as the most prominent at any given time. One cannot learn from two gurus so to speak. Here we see the true heart of "contradiction in nature" and the philosophy of contradiction. It is not a struggle in the world itself, or a struggle of war or some battle. It is not a struggle of material incentives. It is not a social relation or competing vows of service to a lord. It is a contest between two gurus who seek to jump in front and claim that they are the sole fount of knowledge. This, of course, is absurd from our perspective as a would-be student. We seek spiritual authority not to be fed the right ideas, but because past experience suggested this is a thing that can be followed and believed to grant some explanatory power we lacked natively. This continues back to our primitive thoughts, which are driven more by sentiments or whatever constitution we were born with, or some luck of finding the right environmental stimulus that drew early attention. The earliest stages of intellectual production are common fodder for the eugenic creed and eugenic interest to assert all of it was inborn and cannot be altered. This works because we cannot help but be influenced by early conditions, and any future condition is contingent on the past allowing us to recognize an authority that can tell us anything. Within our own thought process, we cannot create anything new, and would have to continue operating on the authority we held prior to ourselves. If we hold ourselves as a spiritual authority, we can only do so to a point. Granting to the self absolute spiritual authority leads to solipsism, autism, and eventually regression and degeneracy, and this clearly does not serve the purpose spiritual authority would want. It is evident enough to a child that such a belief is moronic and counterproductive. Only through ideology and a great preponderance of external threat are humans driven to turn inwards in that way, and this is almost always an imposition from outside and by temporal authorities that can impose it as a constant condition. Spiritual authority is never asserted from on high in the way an ideologue would desire it. It is always recognized by individual humans and must be so, and no spiritual authority is a given of nature or a thing taken for granted. Spiritual authority that is so jealous is no spiritual authority at all, and it is a doctrine of the proprietors and pretenders to temporal authority that this is what spiritual authority is. The reason for that particular doctrine, if this is not clear already, is that the spiritual authority of the bullbaiter is the most direct route to commanding a human as a slave and managing its internal affairs, and this is desired for managers and proprietors who can turn the human into an informational machine, detached from the real and made alien to itself and all that exists. Anything else would present a barrier to the claim of property and thus managers construe this as impedence of their desire. The most crass managers take this as a natural law, having given themselves completely to a retarded ideology beyond mere managerialism, but a master who simply sees this as expedient is liable to fall into the same trap of ideology if he does not temper his managerial intent, to keep it in line with the master's own sense of reality.

It is not that the student engages in a struggle with the teacher. That antagonism is anathema to genuine learning. The learning relationship, unlike the educational relationship in society, is one of true cooperation. It is indeed the only true cooperation and friendship that humans know at a basic level. All other friendships are either contingent on mutual fear or some interest which makes the status of "friend" questionable at best, or they stem from developed knowledge which makes open hostility pointless and counterproductive, which would have required at some point the genuine cooperation we imagine. No other relationship would be genuinely cooperative between two social agents. Two agents may share resources out of a sense of kindness or affinity for each other, but this is not "altruism" in the meaningful sense or even an act of genuine cooperation necessarily. It could be many things - an instinct that draws humans to like each other or seek each other for crass comfort, a suckling of the breast that is only natural for an infant and that a mother would often provide out of some sense that tending to the young would preserve her legacy and would be in line with her affinity for life. The sharing of resources in of itself is not cooperation, for sharing may be premised on mutual distrust, or obligating partners to cooperate by presenting a shared interest without transaction. It is only in the process of learning that humans can genuinely know of each other and speak of cooperation as more than a convenient fiction. If knowledge is the entry point for us to contact the world, then sharing knowledge in genuine cooperation is the closest possible connection. This is not carried out uncritically, but hostility and domination are not the limiting factors to the relationship. They would, in the ideal learning relation, not exist. If we are given reason to distrust the teacher at all, then all that we learn from the teacher is suspect. When humans find this knowledge not in another human but an inanimate object or some machine, there is a great comfort between the human and this object, especially if the object is the human's own tool and the human is aware of the tool's uses and its behaviors, if the tool were outside of absolute control. The human does not dominate tools or inanimate objects in the way it tends to dominate other humans, because doing that is stupid and pointless, and creates a hobgoblin hampering a relation which is very obvious.

Between two humans, this relationship is not intrinsically untrustworthy or marred by some moral fiber inherent to the human race. It is not marred by any original sin. It isn't even marred by sins that happened a moment before the essential act. Two humans can choose to be straight with each other at any time, regardless of their past. We would have reasons to distrust this, and there is a native instinct to distrust humans. That instinct is honed because we learn that humans are liars, usually sadistic for no good reason. When offered the possibility of the simple learning relationship, the human will go out of its way to lie and terminate that simply out of a pigheaded sense of itself. This pigheadedness is not merely a result of the other interests of life, as if the technocratic germ were made pure and knowledge was its own reward. Typically the distrust of humans arises not from the eugenic interest of life defending property or crass material things, nor from anything that was built in to the human constitution biologically or in its current environment or state. The distrust is not premised by any moral code or laborious interest. The distrust is not a matter of valuing occultism or the precarious situation of the lowest class - if anything, the lowest class due to their position are the most willing to ignore their sense of distrust, because necessity requires them to assimilate new knowledge to compensate for their position, regardless of whether the knowledge is trustworthy. The occultists and mystics are known to be eager to spread their knowledge not because they're natural born grifters, but because they believe on some level that sharing this occult wisdom is beneficial and will lead a student to the genuine knowledge on their own. Very often, the teacher or guru relies on the student's own learning process, as we will elaborate on shortly. The distrust between humans, and the entire reason for our terrible calamity, is at root in the technological interest itself, and the conceits of knowledge humans hold. That is, that humans will through their knowledge and possessions become conceited about their identity and empty vanity, and this becomes something they value more than any other interest of life. The eugenic interest of life only asserts itself so far, for it does not take any great knowledge for a human to see that obsession over property and the past is irrelevant to humanity's continued existence, and the property or tokens of status are not really life's prime want. Where the eugenic interest manifests its vileness is in alliance with humanity's conceit about its knowledge process. That process then seeks to corrode any other interest and bring it into alliance with the interest of technology and knowledge. It is here where the aristocracy can be born - not of any one interest, but by the marriage of the primordial interest of life, the eugenic interest, and the technological interest.^[2]

Between two knowing entities, what is the nature of the learning relationship? It is not hierarchical, competitive, based on respect, and not necessarily dependent on any preferred social role. Those considerations are made after the essential act of contact between two minds, and are not inherent in the contact or exchange. It is not a dialogue in the philosophical sense, where two people just say words to each other and the symbols are believed to have meaning, or the reader observes the dialogue to suggest to a third party what the nature of this interaction is. It is not one mind feeding another or a pipeline of pure information transfer between two black boxes, or two points of light in contact with each other by some spooky logic. It is not two wills meeting to become one, or two meeting to create a third and only a third outcome, in some philosophical struggle. It is not any of the things that are conventionally described in the relationships between humans, for what humans do in their relationships is more evident by exoteric knowledge retained after the fact. Strictly speaking, the contact is not between humans in their material conditions or any abstracted and preferred idea of what the humans are.

What this entails is two systems connecting with each other by some link, and in doing so, all of the faculties of knowledge, interpretation of meaning, and recognition of symbols are operative at a scale far more minute and intimate than the typical process of communciation. To truly learn anything at all, we do more than merely shout symbols or jabber words, and we do more than material exchanges of information or substance. How much connection exists between the systems may vary, but there is always a definite connection, and for the period of learning, the conventional laws of sociality, physics, and all expectations of how learning is "supposed" to happen are set aside. This is an interaction of systems in their rawest form - that is, that two systems are operating in the realm of metaphysics, rather than the finalized ideas suggested by philosophy or some interaction that is reduced to a cruder model. The two systems may not have a "compatible ontology", in that two knowing entities do not necessarily need to share the same ontology to communicate with each other in this way. They would recognize that there is a way in which these systems are arranged, and an ontology in the other mind to be discerned if interaction between the systems is possible. There would be, in principle, no necessary protocol whatsoever to allow the learning process to commence between two systems; the protocol may be developed based on what the systems can learn about each other once this starts. It would have to be so if any learning process in the real world can be possible. The world does not fundamentally regard any of our protocols in language, when it comes to the essential act of learning. A protocol would not be possible if there were not this communication before protocol existed. This is quite different from our everyday experience mentioned above, where machines like computers on the internet must share a protocol allowing them to communciate. The computers would not be able to recognize electrical signals as significant without a known mechanism to detect them, and reliable communication networks would not recreate the protocol in every exchange of information packets. It is different from our everyday interaction in the physical world, where we quickly discern which objects are capable of communication and how we can communicate with them. We readily classify the distinctions of different types of people and different objects, and store that classification in our mind for future reference. The essential act of learning operates at a level which does not regard that at all. It is that essential act of learning which makes possible anything that discerns meaning of things, and eventually allows us to classify one object as different from another. We have no ready-made mechanism to detect what another mind, or another object, "is", without having some analytical ability, which implies contact with the system so that its classification is discerned. Any time we are to interact with the same thing again, we would have to ensure that the thing we are communicating with is the same entity as before, or conforms to our expectations of it by remaining in the boundaries of knowledge and behavior we imagine for it. If someone we knew yesterday as an old man were to reappear to us tomorrow and possess the mind of a young woman with very different experiences, we would either know that some transformation took place, or we would fail to recognize that the entity we contact today is the same entity we spoke to yesterday. We would discern that the entity has a continguous history, however much it transformed, and there is a reason why such a transformation took place. There is not in nature any break in the conscious entity that marks one class we assigned to it as a different entity than another class. Someone might have been a noble yesterday and became a lowly worker today, but would still have the same face and geneology and a story to tell about his fall from grace.

All of this is to say that our conceits about the mind, philosophy, and the world itself are not relevant in the essential act of learning, however much we secure ourselves from the consequences. For learning to begin, the contact would be between systems understood as metaphysical constructs, rather than contact with the natural world itself. There is learning an inherent disconnect between the knowledge process and the underlying substance or matter that comprises that process; and in that way, learning is not evident by any necessary substantive transformation, where we say a particular learning has happened if some light is activated in the knowing entity's material structure. Even if there is no particular change to the internal memory of the student, the student still recognizes a different environment around it and will act accordingly. The new environment, a new teacher perhaps, will affect the otherwise inert student after the fact of contact. Only then does the transformation begin. But, the student is not always inert, nor is the teacher. Both can be inert or refuse to speak to the other, but if that is so, there simply isn't a learning process, but a process of hostility occuring outside of that contact. Hostile parties do not want to learn from each other in this way - they instead maintain a studious distance from their opponents, or they only pretend this contact with the intent of betrayal. The intent of betrayal is usually obvious to those who are acutely aware of humanity's propensity for lying, but those with this contempt do not intend to conceal their betrayal. The betrayal is a necessary component of their interaction with an undesirable, for it is never enough for the conceit of knowledge to leave someone they judge stupid to be. They know, whatever their bellowing about natural social inferiority, that humans constantly consider their situation and resent slavery. The daily humiliations are only found in technocratic society. This is not merely because the technology to enforce humiliations exists, but because the very conceit of knowledge and learning must be interrupted for technocratic society to remain viable. If the technocrat ever gave up this practice, it would undo the entire enterprise from intent alone. "Once retarded, always retarded" must be religiously enforced, even in the absence of any eugenic mission. The mission of eugenics is merely a highly aggressive posture, rather than the machine of technocracy which envisions itself as defensive and besieged by an army of the stupid. Eugenics adopted the Fabian strategy^[3], consciously granting "concessions" designed to weaken the resolve of resistance while aggressively attacking isolated pockets of resistance, until such a time that Eugenics could attack openly and begin the present program of total lying and disintegration of hitherto known society. The technocrat, at a basic level, is not committed to any degree of offensiveness or defensiveness in this mission, and may concede that the technocratic conceit about knowledge is not a moral claim. In other words, the technocrat only enforces this conceit of knowledge so far as it is useful for the aims of the system, and does not need to arrest class mobility or paralyze society altogether in the way eugenism must. It always enforces a grossly unequal society and celebrates hypocrisy, but suggests a vision that the world could be different and that the direction of human history remains progressive and forward-looking. This matches not any genuine goal, but the necessary conceit of knowledge and learning that makes the technocratic society possible.

We can see that external barriers present a number of challenges to learning, and by "external barriers" I include the habits of the body, past experience, and other interests that impede learning. By no means is this learning inherently good, for many things humans learn are highly maladaptive, even when we know better. Learning does not make sound moral judgements. That is left to a much more developed faculty to discern which knowledge is good, which thoughts and processes we absorb are good, and which things we absorb are good. We must consider every consumption which enters our knowledge faculty as a type of learning. Our actions in the world are never reducible to "pure learning". For example, we consume food, and what we eat determines much of what we are. This is mostly substantive and affects the flesh more than the mind, but we contemplate what we eat and every routine we adopt, and we contemplate in some way the most minor of things. Even if the effect is beneath our notice, where we place the thought in some recess of the mind we call "subconscious", there is some effect that passes through our cluster of thinking. In the main, though, the system of the mind most readily engages with other minds, or things we construe as minds. The contact between two entities with knowledge, even if their knowledge faculties are far apart, is something very different from the knowing entity encountering a mere object. Fundamentally, there is no difference. The mind, ultimately an abstraction of some process in the world, is as much a system or object as a fruit. The nature of the mind and developed knowledge is distinguished from ordinary systems, because we set the subjective experience apart from the world conventionally. We expect the same of other humans. Two minds meet not in a physical space, but in the unusual event where our subjective experiences can merge in some way. In this way, the wall separating our mind and sense of self from the rest of the world is temporarily relaxed, and we can in this way meet another for the first time, as we would have liked to in a better world. We never quite know another person just by physical proximity or social relations, no matter how much society exhorts us to accept a spurious "friendship". The closeness of two minds in contact need not conform to any friendship, as it can occur between rivals or two people who scarcely recognize each other in society, but have met in the realm of the mind. However the interaction happens and however it is communicated in physical space, the mind connects not with the models of physical reality we reproduced, but with other minds. In this way, the mind has a proclivity towards idealism, in this and only this interaction. In most things, humans are inclined towards materialism, as that is the most evident ontology compatible with our existence in a real world. When two minds, two systems arranged as such, meet and are mutually aware of this status as minds, it takes place in the realm of our ideas about thought before it can be reflected in physical actions - including the very physical actions which allowed thought to manifest. The minds may be ultimately governed by the limitations of that physical basis, but in this meeting of minds, the material world is temporarily nullified in the ways that the mental systems do interface. Two people meet each other not as entities of meat and worldly desire, but as two minds. Even if the minds are clearly disparate and one is superior to another in their mental facutlies, the weaker mind is never truly reduced to a material thing or a zombie if it is to be seriously engaged with. To declare someone a philosophical zombie requires someone to first eliminate the possibilty of mind in their mental models. Since that habit precludes any serious meeting of the minds in this sense, that conceit is little more than a thought-termination exercise. The exercise is inherent to the eugenicist conceit about intelligence and its political relevance, so you can guess this author's opinion of that concept.

The separation of the mind and idea from the material arises not merely because of a necessity to do so, but because the mind's proper task is to interface with other minds. This is not the same as conscious experience in of itself, but a system resulting from it that we would have to reproduce. The mind in of itself is not the fount of knowledge or dependent on any part of the knowledge process. It is a resultant entity from the knowledge process, and only developed in a form we appreciate with symbolic language. The mind, therefore, deals not with meanings intrinsically or with the raw process of consciousness, but symbols and facts. It is up to the faculties available to the mind to discern which symbolic representation is factual, and which is merely a symbol detached from its sense of the world. For the typical trinitarian view of thought, the mind is held sacred and exists on its own, with the world subordinated to it and political matters between it and the world a thing to be governed by the mind. This thinking is intentionally divorced from what we actually are, and must be so; and so, the theories of mind invoke contradiction, tricks, and koans. Mind does not exist as a fount of knowledge or wisdom, but as something which terminates knowledge and arrests it. It is the process of learning in the genuine sense which makes mind valuable, rather than the mind possessing an ineffable quality allowing it spiritual authority on its own. Because minds are fragile and contradictory things, they are beholden to spiritual authority, and without any sobering influence, minds will always be dominated by that which can claim authority. Minds are never the masters of their own destiny, and yet in their contradictory thinking, mastery and management of the world is entirely a mental faculty. The mind seeks to change the world in a futile effort, but does not on its own terms understand itself or the most basic process which allows mind to be relevant. So, learning as we appreciate the concept is less something fundamental to the universe, which we would do by some impulse of mind which is inexplicable or a just-so story. The mind is perfectly capable of refusing to learn, shutting itself off from another mind or the world itself. It is the underlying process of the world which compels the mind to submit, and against the world, mind is a helpless coward no matter how elaborate a game it can construct for itself. Fortunately for the mind, the world in its genuine sense is merciful enough to allow mind to continue. It was never the world itself, by some inexplicable force, that had it out for the mind. The greatest danger to a mind is not the world in some vague sense, but other minds. That is the language and interaction the mind appreciates, because that is what the mind does to be the mind. The mind's essential task is not living or anything attached to the world, but learning which it conducts on its own terms, and with other systems that it presumes to be like it in some way. The mind attributes to objects in the world and transcendent truths the same qualities of mind, even when the objects are clearly unthinking and do not appreciate any such concept. For example, humans presume in their arrogance that gods would think in any way like humans, who are known to possess their frailties, and at the same time, the gods are an ascended form of existence that are unlike worldly thought. Religion has for a long time acknowledged this contradiction. The crass metaphors that a technocrat, philosopher, or intellectual utilizes presume either that the gods or objects of the world conform to its theory of "mind", or that the "mind" of the philosopher and intellectual alone is a special substance, distinct from the vulgar thought processes of the rest of the human race and anything else in the world. In other words, to speak of a theory of mind is really to speak of a form of autism the philosopher treasures and considers, by the mind's perverse operations, as the true social and spiritual existence. This, as a child can see, is utterly retarded and pointless. But, the singular act of learning in its true form, which forms the basis of our sustained knowledge base that we willfully access, is what humans or any thinking animal would have to do in order to navigate the world. Even if we envisioned a very different thought process at work, it would still assemble something like "mind", and must do so. Learning to be learning is not a mere process of the world we call consciousness or knowledge, nor is it something that is implied by the world-system we would reconstruct to understand the world meaningfully. The mind does not contain anywhere near a full reconstruction of the world-system we use to discern meaning and properly judge facts. The mind is not even guaranteed to construct an accurate model of the world or its own thought. While the world cannot operate with contradictions, and knowledge in the useful sense does not process contradictions without pauses and gradual decay, the mind can freely and shameless pronounce contradictions and revel in the thrill of doing so. Such embrace of contradiction is not seen as a violation of reality, because the mind can on some level know it is playing a mental trick, especially when it bellows repeated and flagrant lies to minds it deems inferior. The mind is a creature contemptuous of all else that exists until it proven innocent of that charge.

Learning in this way is not a trap because one mind feeds the other information without any barrier impeding the pedagogue's will. That particular trap is something that must occur in the world and be realized as closely as the world will allow. The trap of learning is instead the mind's arrogance, and insistence that it is the true seat of thought and the person, without any regard to a soul, a world outside of the mind, or anything the metaphysical interaction of minds would point to in the actual world. The learning process is most necessary, but it is hardly the true form of knowledge, as if the world were moved by the conceits of mind and this process of leraning. Learning or the transmission of this information does not in of itself have any force in the world, as if the truth will set anyone free. The truth, more than likely, will make clear to the mind its precarious position, and that the true existence of a human being is something else altogether. The mind's truly useful function is that it is a mechanism that best processes this learning task which we must undertake to develop formal knowledge, and it is only that. The mind has no claim to anything outside of this task, and no claim whatsoever to the world or anything in it. If we are to speak of the right to property or the right to exist, or any claim we could forcefully make about the world, we are speaking of something the mind has very little to do with. We are aware that the mind is a machine with a function, rather than the definition of "us". Even the very concept "I" or "me" is only relevant in a social context of some sort, rather than any property of the universe itself that we must abide. Absent society, it would be quite possible for the mind to accept that it did not identify with any institutional person representing the flesh and blood human, and could change its name and frame of reference as it needed. The mind has no intrinsic commitment to intellectual integrity, and can by its own volition choose to suffer for some perverse reason. It is only with some sobering influence that the mind is ever disciplined, whether that comes from the world in the moment or a history suggesting that doing particular things is bad or against the interests of life or the soul, or whatever someone might value as their genuine existence.

The obsession with mind and its conceits is a disease not of thought itself, as if it were the inescapable trap of mankind. We can escape this trap without great difficulty and must do so simply to live. Human evil and malice preceded the full development of mind as such. Humans always knew of their evil and malice, as it was the condition in which the race was born - and they knew well what they did and why they did it, and thus humans are always guilty until proven innocent. So long as someone believes thought alone sits at the crown of human accomplishments, and this thought is rendered as "mind" with all of its faulty conceits, the sad fate of such a person is clear. It did not take any great insight to see this, but throughout human existence, the conceits of mind were taken to mean something they never did, in a vain effort to make the world conform to something alien. Usually, the vanity ends with a faith that regression to the primordial light is the inexorable result of human progress, and that ends with defeat and the woes humanity has thus far known. That is the curse philosophy and hitherto existing religion have bequeathed to the world. That is the curse where humanity as we know it began, and that is what we have been beholden to in all serious recreations of the world. The struggles over temporal authority and politics are largely inconsequential to the form human society and its institutions take. The personal struggles for life are all in service to this imperious conceit of certain people, which escaped its proper purview and insists that anything new must be wiped out.

If we did overcome this, the contact of two human minds would be one of the most desirable conditions humans would want. We are, out of necessity, seeking contact with other minds like ourselves. The most obvious causes for this contact are security. Without such contact, we will never know with any certainty if a human is friend or foe, or if we are in danger. Only through genuine cooperation is any peace in society possible. If we accept the philosopher's conceit, then mind exists for the philosopher's thrill of dominating others and nothing more, and no contact is possible without the philosopher's explciit permission. In effect, the command of thought suggests something greater than ordinary imperium over life and death, when seen as what the aristocratic philosopher wants the world to be. The desire of humans to connect to another mind is not a baseless impulse but something the mind recognizes. The mind can choose to feed on another mind vampirically or associate with a mind in some way that is mutually beneficial to their concept of that, but in either case, the minds in contact do something that is vrey relevant. The mind deals not with the world as it is but their conceits about it - but minds will always, in some way, recognize other minds. The mind declaring another mind to be a philosophical zombie is another contradiction, believed and not believed at the same time. Whatever conceit the mind has about a retard, it can see the other entity suffer and act as if it had a mind of its own. The deliberate lying, the throwing-in-the-face of contradictory orders, only serves to maximize the thrill of torturing a retard, which is a celebration of the mind's conceit and the ultimate suffering to inflict on another mind. It is never actually believed. When it is truly needed, the superior mind will abandon its prior claim that a philosophical zombie is a zombie, and deal with the retard, no matter how depraved, as another entity like itself. Immediately after the need is abandoned, the superior mind will assert that the inferior is once again a philosophical zombie, editing history to eliminate all reference that the retard was ever valid in any way. This approach is a basic conceit of minds when they have ruled another mind as an enemy, and it is particular to the mind rather than reality or any necessity of doing so. The superior mind can, and often does, recognize that such a conceit as a "philosophical zombie" is stupid on contact, and does not need to disdain the inferior, no matter how stupid the inferior may be. If the mind ever were to acknowledge permanently that its judgements of another mind were wrong, though, it would violate everything the mind stands for. To be retarded is the greatest sin of all - the original human sin, which became an absolute sin once mind took the forefront over the full existence of human beings. If that is ever forgiven, or worse forgotten, then the mind itself is suspect. A predatory instinct is acted upon by minds in a way that no bodily instinct would deem worthwhile or beneficial, even for the most nakedly eugenic interest it can summon. The mind, then, is the entity which is most capable of suffering and pleasure in the genuine sense. As a material phenomenon, "pleasure" and "pain" are nearly irrelevant. There is only pain in nature, and pain in nature is a sensation of the nerves which may tell the body and brain and mind something useful. Pain does not have any inherent moral quality. Pleasure in nature is a non-entity, a fiction. Pleasure in the mind is really nothing more than celebration of this most vile conceit of mind, the egotism and the thrill of seeing the inferior suffer. There is no other pleasure which can be said to be consistent. Enjoyment of life, contentment, satisfaction, and so on are not reducible to this substance of "pleasure" that the utilitarians revel in. The quality the mind seeks is not pleasure or pain as points of sentiment, but contentment and security which would allow it to operate. Because this mind is not truly detached from the body as its conceit would require, humans maintain sentiments and moral values, among them a desire in most cases to continue living and a sense that their lives are worth something and could be better than the sorry existence they have likely lived up to now. The mind is cognizant of these sentiments of human thought and existence which are not purely tricks of the mind, but premised on a reality existing outside of it and outside of the entity which processes them. In the essential act where minds meet, though, they never are fused with fundamental nature or anything material. They can appreciate each other as two minds with different experiences, and through this exchange of knowledge and teaching - for teaching can be a two-way street where minds learn from each other and share notes, and this is far more effective with interested parties so far as it can be accomplished - the wants of the mind can continue without a regard for the material world, beyond that in the material world which must be regarded. The material world is not intrinsically worth anything morally, as if the natural world had any intent. The vital tendency that the mind reproduces is particular to life, and is how the mind as a system is constituted. The mind in turn construes other systems as possessing this vital tendency, even when it can be discerned that no such tendency is intrinsic to the universe or the natural world. The systems still are real enough because the mind must operate, in the main, with systems rather than vague and inchoate ideas displaced from any context. Regardless of the ontology at work, for anything like our mind to operate, the mind for some moment becomes a monist where all that exists must exist in the same wqrld and be inter-related. The mind may be able to reconcile this with an alien ontology, but in the essential act of connecting with another mind or anything that would allow it to learn, the mind has to accept the existence of something it did not foresee, that preceded it and does not regard any conceit mind holds.

The metaphysical system that is the mind cannot help but impose its thinking on the world as best as it can. We can be aware mentally that the world is not the systems we engage with, which are necessarily reduced to systems our faculties can work with and process. In doing this, the mind construes reality not as what it truly is, but as something mediated. Information is communicated and interpreted. A proper view of systems is not reducible to bits of information transferred, as if information were a hobgoblin pushing the world into action and cajoling it infinitely. We learn quickly that such a view is infantile and stupid, but that does not stop the advocates of a cult of "mind" and technocracy from insisting that reality can be cajoled and manipulated in this way. All of the sobering influences in the world will not change the tendency of mind to continue believing that reality is mediated by thought alone. Our awareness of a world outside of mind does not change what the mind must do in order to perform its essential task of learning. We can be aware after the fact of this learning that what we learned pertains to a real, material world that is not contingent on mind. What we cannot do is assert that our learning process bypasses this mechanism. We are constituted in the only way we can be. More than that, for us to speak of learning, rather than mere information transfer, requires us to operate with the world as an assembly of systems. That which we hold to be transcendent has to be set aside and given a special status in the mind - the "global constants" or "global variables" of the universe, if we are to use a programming analogy.^[4] The mind does things not as a computer does, for the mind is not itself a "rational agent" in that sense. The mind as a system is informed by the genuine process of knowledge which created it, and does not conform to any preplanned conceit about what the mind is "supposed" to be. Therefore, the mind can work with analog information or signals readily, and the mind inherits the human's biological faculty for pattern recognition, along with the mind's difficulty of disassembling logical algorithms. This is a quality of human minds rather than minds generally. We may envision the computer as a "mind" in this way, even though from the computer's perspective, there isn't genuine thought as such. We built the computer specifically to interface with us, with the expectation that the computer is doing what the mind would do and would only be appreciated on those terms so far as the computer is regarded as a thinking machine, rather than a mechanical device for regulation and governance. The "mind" of the computer is a facsimile we create, and often an object granted personality. The dumber of the technocrats remark that we build machines to "act like men" while men "act like machines", but these people are stupid and should be ignored. The computer's mind is very intentionally not the mind of a human, and the aims of technocratic society would see mechanizing humans to be a waste of the biological machine's potential. For all of the things that a technocrat cared about, the presumption that the ruled were effectively biological machines was already a given. The scientific dictatorship that was established had to operate on that principle - that men were ruled by "science" and ruled by institutions that were utterly alien to them and alien to the world. Interally, though, technocrats understand that men are men and will continue to behave as such. The smarter technocrat does not negate the human condition, but works through it and harnesses the human like any livestock or asset would be commanded. This is not terribly alien to the human condition, because for most of humanity, to be human is to be in some way a slave to another human. How this is done may vary, but with the scientific dictatorship, freedom in a genuine sense could no longer be a serious consideration. Freedom in technocratic society would be rebranded overnight as a sentiment, a feeling, an idea bereft of history or purpose. The older concept of liberty and security was still remembered and still acted upon, but the freedom of labor and the freedom of thought would be circumvented in every possible way. What freedom was permitted was entirely on the terms of those who ruled, and while this freedom was not purely an illusion, it is still clear what really governed humanity in the past century. The moment freedom transgressed a ruling institution shibboleth, freedom and justice were shown to be sadistic lies, shat upon and ridiculed to drive home the point. This, as you probably can see, turns on itself after a few generations. We see here the instability of the conceits mind holds about the world, and its efforts to arrest the world. The state proper is no mere mental construct or apparition and could not be so, and neither is the person who is presumed to possess a mind. The frailty of the mind on its own terms has long been understood. The conceit that the mind was inviolable in this way is at odds with everything we have lived through, and this conceit rises not because it is true or even as part of the program of deliberate lying. It arises because the technological interest in life could assert itself, and must do so against the existing interests within life itself and within society. It cannot help but see the world around it as a thing to feed it.

For us to learn anything, rather than merely process information like a computer, requires engaging with the world and anything in it like this. Even the more thorough processes of knowledge described in the prior book do not constitute meaningful "learning", as if learning were merely the assembly of information in a planned pedagogy. Systems thinking for the purpose of learning does not favor pedagogy, but reverse-engineering and a proclivity in humans to disassemble and reassemble systems. The instruction received in pedagogy is always something students work with and pick apart for themselves. That is why it must be reconstructed for each learner, and why people can and often must learn outside of pedagogy. The pedagogy of education in practice does very little to teach anything, as if barking words at someone will force them to receive the knowledge. It is well known that this imperious barking does little for learning. If someone were to didactically feed information to students, it would only be possible if the student already took on board a working system that was explicit and not violated. This can work, but it implies the student trusts the teacher not out of fear or respect or self-abasement. It implies a well-established protocol by which the learning is conducted, rather than a relationship that is always in doubt. In any event, the mind deals with systems as metaphysical things, and then categorizes them as biological systems, physical systems, social systems, or whatever system is appropriate for the purpose. So too are political concepts, social relationships, economic relations, and all the senses of the world treated as systems and sorted into some framework. The mind proper only has access to a reduced form of this framework, for even the replica of a world-system stored in the brain is too vast for conscious mind to hold all at once. Further, the necessary task of mind is divorced from a total understanding of the world, even if that understanding is a reduced model for the purposes of knowledge as a process. Mind, unlike knowledge in its more raw form, has to concern itself with the task of learning and can only view systems as something apart from the everyday world. Where knowledge has to contend with a world outside of it, mind only operates on systems it chooses to operate on, in order to be mind. It may be possible to induce mind to think about things it does not want to think about, by some environmental condition or by deliberate material intervention. While this is no problem for knowledge itself or the integrity of the body, the mind cannot stand for a moment any violation of itself. The mind must tell itself that it remains in charge after this breach, and edit history however it needs to so that this breach is either unmentionable, or that the breach was no breach at all and the world still proceeds according to mind's plan.

This is where the analogy of a computer algorithmically processing information breaks down. Computers do not exist in any state of contradiction the way the mind does and must. This is also why the computer is so useful and became an imperial shibboleth itself. The ruling ideas of the British Empire suggested the world was a gigantic clockwork governed by "nature", with the ruling elite and the sovereign substituted for nature and given the name of capital-N "Nature". This was a particular conceit of theirs, where elsewhere in the world the concept of nature and the state's relation to it was understood differently. Eugenics and this cosmological conceit go hand in hand. The question, then, is why this was appealing, and its parallels with other mentalist cults in history. It is not inherent to the theory of mind that eugenics was a sensical policy at all, and in so many ways, all forms of eugenics were anathema to the technocratic tendency in humanity. It was not eugenics in of itself that possessed this strength, for the genetic pseudoscience eugenics relied upon was so nonsensical a child could see through it and freely ignore it. It is instead the conceit of mind and intelligence itself, and the necessity of this construct for humans to learn anything, that granted to the eugenic creed its allure. All of the eugenicist ideas that were pursued revolved around intelligence, rather than any other trait of mankind. No other trait in humanity was spiritually or politically relevant in the way intelligence was. Eugenics as a program was - very crudely - an alliance of oligarchy and the intellectuals, which claimed the name of science and locked in the aristocracy that the liberal idea asserted. It would be the intellectuals taking the lead in this alliance, and the intellectuals who were always the most devout advocates of eugenics. It would be the intellectuals who saw eugenics as their chief and only vehicle for political relevance. Other technocratic ideas of society would in the end disintegrate as the alliance eugenics suggested had numerous advantages. Eugenics granted to the intellectuals the prospect that they would, in the end, eliminate their partners in the alliance and rule alone, absolute and with all the power of pharaohs and emperors. The intellectual's seething contempt for allies and each other is inherent to their entire sense of themselves. It was not that the intellectual was corrupted by money or some ulterior motive. Internecine competition and an autistic obsession with command and control is inherent to the intellectuals as a class, and they cannot help but do this despite the total lack of any reason why this is beneficial. This is because intellectualism and crass conceits about it were consciously elevated among them, and with no one around to tell them no, all sobering influences would mean nothing. The hatred of the intellectual towards the workers and residuum was far greater than any capitalist could ever attain, and greater even than the hatred of their fascist peers who lusted for power and prestige. The intellectual will claim that this vapid and insolent quest to be the Luciferian God is some sort of virtue, even though the entire project of intellectualism has been a failure. Technocratic society, whenever it has been tried, has been a dismal failure. It only succeeded in the past century because anything else had been eliminated, and the machines and real force humanity could harness granted to the intellectual and scientist a temporary opening. The intellectual could give him or herself to something other than intellectualism and mind for their own sake. Many did indeed have visions that technocratic society would lead to a future where their way of life was no longer necessary, and the illiteracy and misery of the past were no longer limiting factors. Yet, every conceit of mind and the pedagogy intellectuals treasured - since education was their chief institution and a monopoly on it was their only political card to paly - defeated such a goal that to a dumb pleb like this author would seem very easy to accomplish.

The investigation of knowledge in philosophy branches in two directions. One is to indulge in a perverted ceremony where every philosophical stupidity and vanity were taken to 11. This is where the Germanic line of philosophy, continental philosophy, went off the deep end and everyone began to dance like retards and cavort in their orgies and clubs, all favored by the eugenic creed and granted greater sanctity than the parties and orgies of the past. The other is for the study of knowledge to be reduced to the study of mere information, so that the intellectual could arrest the natural world, and by doing so, attain one of the master keys allowing intellectuals to neutralize their allies. Above all, the informational science would allow the intellectual to defeat their two most enduring enemies. Labor had always chafed under everything the liberal Enlightenment imposed on them, and resented the bourgeois producers and their aristocratic allies confiscating the land and machines laborers held as their stake in humanity. When that wasn't enough, the bourgeois subject labor to humiliations they never suffered under any prior slavery or serfdom. Given the history of aristocratic and eugenic depravity the commoners were subjected to throughout their existence, this is saying a lot. The bourgeois, who are the natural basis for the technocrats and intellectuals, did not appreciate the human engines that produced all of the useful articles they coveted. Almost immediately, the bourgeois mind accepts the dictum of Malthus, and the bourgeois indulge in the most petty hatred towards labor. Labor had the temerity to suggest that their conditions could be slightly better, and in return the bourgeois revel in avarice and amplify the rot of their class. In the cities and the country alike, the bourgeois and the wealthy rural freeholders do not see nor want to see any objective except the crass ambition for more profit, more manna, in their quest to "fake it until they make it", as one of their many stupid sayings go. Even when the bourgeois man understood the money left him in hock to a banker who is not their friend, they temporarily turned off this sense because their intellectual tendency told them to hate labor. The hatred for labor reaches its screaming apogee when the bourgeois and the intellectual turn towards the lowest class, who are by moral obligation included in the working class. Out of necessity, those who would be in the residuum attempt to find work. What lives they managed to hold onto in the long years of estrangement from vicious humanity and its society were now at the mercy of the capitalist. Whether the residuum failed on their own lack of merit or due to the typical viciousness and malice of the human race falling on basically decent people, the bourgeois hatred of the beggar is intrinsic to the free trade project. Free trade comes immediately with waves of famine and death in all of the imperial colonies, and it does not take long for the same death to come to the mother country. It is not the bourgeois lust for money that compels this hatred, as if the capitalist is "just doing business", or "nothing is personal". It is the intellectual current that animated the bourgeois liberal and the conservative running dog whose expression of it was a more base and pathetic form. Hatred of the lowest class was entirely motivated by hatred of stupidity, which had always been the human race's founding attribute, its sole claim to existence as human. In this, the bourgeois make alliances with those in the laboring class who understood the fight for position dominated this failed race called humanity. Capitalism is no friend of beggars, and so the intellectual tendency to hate the stupid is amplified by the moral incentive of money and placing excessive constraint on the wage fund. This policy of deliberate starvation did not serve any productive aim and did not really discipline labor. The large dislocations of men and wealth that came with free trade were wholly unnecessary and not a "just-so" story, as many a middling Marxist try to insinuate to cover their asses and true affiliations. Economically, even the slightest modicum of effort to foster productivity would mitigate the most egregious abuses of the lower classes. As it was, the waves of death were not good enough for one Thomas Malthus, as we have seen. In all of the economic discourse, how people learn was forsaken. This was pawned off as ignorance, but the pedagogues knew full well what their monopoly was and what they really wanted. Those with the most impatient hatred of the stupid found their niche and wasted no time figuring out what side they were on, quickly doing their duty as soldiers of eugenics before there was a eugenics movement as such. Everyone else, who saw that this was clearly not in their interest, naturally resisted the intrusion of this intellectual movement and its craving for command and control of all information. Throughout the 19th century, those amenable to eugenics hone their hatred, finding ready echo chambers and every enabler from the ruling interest and the bourgeois. There are those who see the danger these people pose, but bourgeois society was founded on conspiracy, and those outside of the conspiracy could never see who was with whom until it was too late. The intellectual revels in the thrill of betrayal and rejection, considering excessive displays of both to be highly virtuous and demonstrations of their interest and core want.^[5] What this means is the development of information as a science divorced from "genuine knowledge", which is sectioned off to a philosophical ghetto to die an ignominous death.

What this also means is a growing Luciferian urge in the human race, most of all in the imperial core, which regresses that informational science to the primordial light. We see here one of the origins of the eugenic creed, which forms at this time with all of the other neo-reactionary tropes, all of which are launched with tremendous force and coordination of the message. Finding a singular origin of this regression towards the primordial light is missing the central secret that allows its coordination. It is the conceit of mind, a tripartite structure of human society that was inherent in the philosophy of Antiquity, whose antecedents are found in a demon inherent in the geneological legacy of the human race. This conceit of mind is transformed into a Demiurge-like construct, even though mind is no such thing and is really a very feeble construction if it so readily accepts this cargo cult and marches to its own doom. The reality of this neo-Satanism is that it is a creature of later modernity, bearing little resemblance to the mystery cults it gloms onto. The Luciferians do not even all agree with each other, or harbor the same malicious goals of the hardline eugenists. Many who join this regression to the primordial light are saps who believe in some way that they are in touch with some divine wisdom, and who believe they are doing good - and by some foolish fortune, they do accomplish good and perhaps maintain a kindness and decency that eugenics would strip utterly from them in the process. The full nature of this is difficult to describe here, and strays from the topic at hand. It is trite to reduce the modern cargo cult surrounding mentalism to "Satanism", and stupid to actually believe that these neo-Satanists are the sole and dominant trend of human thought. Without ample luxury and deliberate enabling from those who do have political sense and an agenda far more capable, this stupidity would never have been able to become the great mind disease it became, dragging the world into the abyss any reasonable person would predict. The conceit of mind did not itself possess this power, for all the mind can do is learning and this for all of its importance to our lives does not have the immediate effect its partisans claim. It is instead a reality that mind could, unfettered by any true sobering influence and finally possessing machinery that allowed it, remake the world in its perverse image, and with it, the veil that once existed to protect us from the ravages of aristocracy would be removed. It is here where a new ruling idea is expressed. Where regimes of the past were either distant from the people or issued platitudes to mollify them, the new ruling idea glorified cruelty and depravity that no regime in history could fathom. All of the cumbersome details of governance in the past were to be eliminated. The past would be rewritten to suggest an unbroken chain of "historical progress" where the Satan was inevitably victorious and glorious, and human decency or anything we would have wanted was to be humiliated. The virtues of the new society would be the bourgeois vanities, the meritocratic backstab, the democratic grubbiness, and the worst simpering and kakistocracy of the lowest class put on full display. The aristocracy would be purged of its last few limitations, free to express the malice that was always the true desire of their class and stripped of the sentimentality they considered helpful or pleasant in the past. The new pleasure and life's prime want was that mind would be fed its pleasure by the shortest route possible - a nerve staple feeding the mind the thrill of torturing another human, and a moral philosophy proclaiming the goodness of this thrill above all others. The Satanic impulse would be associated with not just high wisdom, but the most basic act of learning itself. The injection of that impulse into all potential learning was necessary for the project to continue. If that is the case, then the ruling ideas must proclaim that all reality and all truth is mediated by mind, and in particular, the Satanic conceit about mind. This structure of the state must be reproduced immaculately in individuals and in every description of every sub-system that comprises them. This Satanic conceit is then conflated with technocracy, even though most of the technocrats believed they were getting something entirely different, and could see the self-evident futility of such an aim. Eugenics, on the other hand, did not have any such encumberance. There would be other approaches to society, but eugenics would be granted imperial backing and a grand conspiracy made it sacred, then granted it unlimited and absolute impunity to act while all other concepts of mind were suppressed, even innocuous ones.

Learning is never a physical process to be meaningfully such. It is a number of causes and effects, which must proceed from each other in a recognizable chain from each cause to effect, to effect, and so on. There are never vagaries in this process, if something is to be learned in the genuine sense. We of course know that there are many events in the world between these causes and effects that are elided in the mind's model of learning, but all of these are not necessary for the essential act of learning. The finer details of knowledge and the things to be studied may pass through thought and be processed before the mind consider them as a system for learning anything. The mind does not learn of transcendent truths in the way it learns of any other system, where humans could just contemplate the "oneness" of the universe or some vague quality and acquire genuine learning. If humans did so, they are conjuring some object or fetish that stands in for the sublime secrets of the world. This is not to say that humans do not learn of transcendant truths, but if they do, they are mediated through some object, real or abstract, that they use as a symbol of the transcendent. For example, the gods' true forms, so far as they are ever "learned", are always told in metaphors or idols or something which is a placeholder for a concept that is highly alien to our everyday experience and intended to be so. No one would speak of a god in the sense we appreciate the concept as if it were an object in the world like any other in total. So too do we not actually work with things in the world "as is", when concerning the mind's learning about them. Information, knowledge, and meaning pass through processes that have nothing to do with mind or learning, because human consciousness and experience is not reducible to some mental energy or construct conforming to philosophy as we would like. If that is so, then learning is mediated, and the media we learn from are very relevant. This is where many a liberal will turn to the high priest of "the medium is the message", one Marshall McLuhan, whose name and work I highly recommend the reader have some familiarity with to comprehend this theory of information that prevails in the public consciousness. But, this is not the whole of the story, and there is around information and media a lot of sensationalism and bullshit which McLuhan and those like him contributed to, which is of no use for our genuine inquiry.

In information theory, media are necessarily physical signals, as described in the second chapter of this book. This is a common mathematical model of communication in the world. We might naively construe learning the same way, in which the sender and receiver of the message can only operate with the signals sent to them, and anything that can be gleaned from them. For example, the medium itself says something about the message. Books, scrolls, the various types of written materials all operate slightly differently from each other, which are not the same as voice, digitized audio recordings, movies, film, and so on. There is something further to say about the environment and meaning surrounding a message, which provides to an observer context for anything that is sent or received. Film in a cinema is not the exact same experience as film at home, or film in a schoolroom with the typical assembly and ritual schools invoke to show the brats a movie to shut them up and give the teacher a break. All of these things are informational and acted upon by the "black boxes" which must interpret information into knowledge, derive the meaning, and recognize symbols regardless of the media they appear in.

Learning and the mind do not operate on the mere principle of information, and do not operate on such signals in an immediately obvious or reactive way. It may seem like physical sense that the human body, brain, tools, and all that emerge from it are reducible to the same physical processes as the rest of the communication's chain of events. How would this be so? It is because the mind concerns itself with this learning task in a way that does not comport to what the world actually is, and must do so. Where there is in the real world something between cause and effect, and causality is not what we would naively assume with cruder rational approaches, the mind must concern itself with comprehensible cause and effect so that it can be rational. The mind then is our bridge between knowing and rationality in that way, because the mind is perfectly aware that there is a world beneath what it rationally can understand, and that no "pure rationality" exists in nature. If it is to conjecture something like a "rational God" that makes all that exists rational, that is a proposition which the mind must be able to assert and defend, and it can never be a given that all must accept. But, the mind's task deals with rational matters first, and it approaches deeper knowledge and what underlies rationality through its rational faculty, rather than the other way around where the mind is pushed like a machine to produce reason by command. Nothing in nature, nothing in "phenomenal knowledge", concerns the mind at all; to nature and science, all of that phenomenal knowledge is just another event in the world, and it does not possess any quality called "mind", any more than any other system or energetic event in the world would. Without this rationality, learning is impossible and the function we attribute to the mind is not operative. The mind can play tricks on itself or the senses, or be tricked by another mind cognizant that it is deceptive and intends to be so. Intuitively, the mind seeks meaning not by some instinct, but by deliberation; and so, the mind does not accidentally seek outside references to cross-check any information it receives, but very deliberately does so, in accord with principles that are sensical to the mind rather than any physical nature mandating it. Simply put, the mind exists in a world apart from mere material conditions and must if it is to truly learn instead of process information. This is what makes the mind and conscious experience something different from the automatic reflex of a cybernetic network. It operates with foreknowledge that the world it interfaces with is something different from the world of base matter, however related they might be. The mind is what tells the difference between fact and fiction, and between fantasy and that which the mind must regard as reality. I speak of course of political reality rather than the actual reality of the world. While the mind's sense of reality is not necessarily political in the proper sense, the mind is aware that it operates with a dual system of reality on some level. The mind can, if it is capable of dissembling and memorizing the various faces it wears and access levels for each other mind it interacts with, conjure an appropriate reality it wishes to express for that particular facing, in that particular situation. The world itself, and the base instincts of humanity, have no regard for this game of compartmentalization. The game the mind plays with other minds is silly if someone actually asks themselves what they are doing, and asks if this habit of habitual lying serves any purpose. The mind did not need to rationalize the human propensity for lying. The mind is a natural born liar in ways that base knowledge couldn't accomplish. Its very existence is premised on a number of lies it has to accept, and how many lies a mind accepts as part of its normal functioning may vary. The society a mind interacts with, the dangers the mind faces, the lies other minds tell that this mind must adapt to, are things the mind picks up without fully realizing what it is doing. It is not that the mind carries two contradictory ideas simultaneously without thinking - that is irrational and impossible. It is rather that the mind did not form with perfect knowledge, and couldn't have. The mind learns only what it can learn from anything it interacts with, and if the human race has lied profusely since its sorry existence began, so too will the propensity for lying be inherited, and those in the know of educated wisdom and the secret societies specialize most of all in the arts of lying and cajoling. Since lying and cajoling are, properly deployed, the most effective tools humanity ever produced, this art is so sacred to the human race that it forms the basis of every religious tradition and many of the habits the human race takes for granted, refusing to question them no matter how obviously ruinous and maladaptive they are. Only at great risk does the human stop lying, for abandoning the lie means abandoning a position the mind took relative to other minds in political society. Privately, the mind can conduct itself as it can, so long as it believes that its expressions are concealed from other minds. The mind can guess how far knowledge of its inner workings spread to other minds and the capabilities of the other minds that recovered this knowledge. Even the most honest of the human race will learn the propensity of lying, if only because the art is very easy for the mind to process and the mind already must adjudicate between fact and fiction to properly learn anything. Nothing about the mind values truth, honesty, justice, or any high-minded virtue. Far from it, the arts of deception have proven to be very useful for the very task of learning that is the proper role of the mind. The best defense against a liar is to be a better liar, and to retain enough sense to watch the other minds lie without having to give up the game of your own lies.

The fine art of lying is a topic for another time, but lying is essential to learning. Add to that the known necessity of social information being incomplete and this makes the mind's propensity for lying even more evidently necessary. Even if social actors were honest, the simple lack of information leads to uncertainty and distrust. A society with perfect information and perfect interactions would, in effect, cease to be a society, and the minds involved would be laid bare. This is at the heart of the Austrian School approach to economics and the Germanic mindset towards "freedom" generally. The necessity of social information to be less than complete is not a characteristic of society requiring "mind", but of the simple reality of information transfer within society - that a total image of the society in the moment will be perturbed the moment that information is out of date for its agents. No sense of society "in total" exists outside of the information agents of society communicate and comprehend, in a sense that must truly be acknowledged as social - the very concept of what a society is suggests it is maintained by these informational exchanges, rather than any necessary tie between agents which fuses them together as an inseparable whole. Human society in particular is, as noted before, versatile, with members coming and going, regardless of the form of government or the pretenses of the state. It did not make any intrinsic social sense for serfs to be tied to the land or the lord, and in any case, the serf could be traded to another lord, released from service, rebel against the lord, or be killed at the lord's whim, without the society's irrevocable destruction. The nobility of feudal society openly preyed upon the serfs, and were the serfs almost entirely eliminated, knights or the free peasants would begrudgingly accept that they would have to till the land. This, of course, was not an issue to the ideal citizen-soldier landholder who fought war and returned to plow his own fields with his own tools; and no matter the laziness of a freeholder, it was expedient for the freeholder to till his own land, or command his wife and children as a labor force working alongside him, as was the expectation of patriarchal society. The opulence of the patriarch did not necessitate that he refused to work out of a commitment to laziness, in a way that was natural and irrevocable. It is further the case that feudal society was comprised of men who were free to act as they pleased, and so it was entirely possible to abandon entirely the feudal labor obligations. There was never any one "feudalism" that worked as a total system, and the free trade capitalism that arose was never a singular "system" in that sense either. Nor would socialism of any sort have been a singular "system" with inseparable parts. It is the conceit of mind that allows lying rather than mere disinformation or a lack of knowledge, and it is mind that allows the deliberate occulting of information - where information that we would interpret by knowledge is replaced with purely symbolic representations that must become "hyper-real". In other words, A is exactly A, while at the same time A can be anything the holder of the symbol or the name decrees it will be. The distance between material things, however it is envisioned, is not something the mind engages with. Void in the sense we have described doesn't exist, and spirit in the expectation of mind is a singular force or essence which implies a teleology for everything and anything. The world itself has no real teleology or purpose that can be proclaimed by nature. For mind, all that exists has a purpose and a clear line from genesis in sin to absolution of that genesis. The old is sublated or abolished so that "the new" is ostensibly born, not in the genuine emergence that the world exhibits, but in some working that the mind considered appropriate for its task. Mind learns not to appreciate the truth for its own sake, but because learning meets moral goals the life tied to that mind held. If the moral goals are a commitment to truth or an reckoning with reality, this can be aligned and the mind is perfectly capable of understanding that. The moral goals of life do not intrinsically require justice or honesty or anything we would consider good if we are naive. Indeed, to many classes and interests in society, justice and honesty are anathema to their concepts of goodness, and such sentiments are for the weak and therefore they are either bad or are deemed an evil greater than any other. In their place, a spurious justice dictated by imperious will is declared to be the spiritual basis for good law, and honesty is dictated by those who are the best liars, and the liars brag that they invent truth and the honest are the worst of all things in the world - retarded.

When the philosopher declares "reality is mediated", they speak of their preferred conceit of the mind being reinforced. To the world, reality simply is, and has nothing to do with us or any knowledge we hold about it. This is so simple a child should be able to see through it. We can think of no other definition of "real" that is superior to the world itself. It is more strange because to the mind, the very concept of "mediation" does not exist in its assessment of systems, in the sense that the mind's operation with other minds has any concept of void or a necessary disconnect in nature itself. The mind is not a natural phenomenon that can be studied in nature, and it is even more alien to nature than knowledge as a process. It is highly artificial, and in the final analysis, transient. Humans are not locked into the learning task that the mind is really there to accomplish. When the mind truly learns, it is only limited by its faculties to assimilate or communicate with other systems, rather than any necessary natural law. Humans are very adept at developing learning strategies, if they were allowed to think about how they think and isolate the most essential feature that defines the mind as something different from other knowledge. The only mediation at work is that the mind makes a haughty conceit that it constructs the true reality, and the world that allowed it to exist is an alien of no consequence. This is more retarded than mere solipsism. It is nothing more than a philosopher guarding a scam or a trick he has used to get rich quick, by mystifying something that is actually very simple. In the mind's operations with other minds, the interaction proceeds by any tool the human imagines that can be used to learn of them. Humans may develop rules of thumb allowing them to operate with very complex systems rapidly, by reducing them to elements which are appreciated by the mind, but which are not evident by any natural pattern suggesting the mind should isolate that pattern. We must remember that the systems the mind deals with are not strictly physical systems, and the use of the language of natural physics to describe mental operations is missing the point. Humans with mind grasp metaphors and analogies, and can by referencing quickly known meanings derive the meaning of something alien to its prior knowledge base. This task of mind is expanded greatly in humans because of symbolic language. We do not assume that mind is unique to humans because humans possess some special ingredient, or their symbolic language attained a level of complexity which allowed the creature "mind" to exist as a point of light. The animal "mind" is no less capable of comprehending symbols or operating with the world must as we do, in the most essential task that the mind accomplishes - learning. The distinction with humans, and within humans, is merely the complexity of the systems humans operate with, and the library of human language being adept enough to work with systems no animal could, and grasp abstractions that are highly counterintuitive if we were not in a society where those abstractions were very relevant to daily life. So much of what humans do in society is very alien to what humans or life would do if it had retained its native connection with nature and recognized mind as a small part of itself, useful for its task but not in of itself granted any spiritual authority. What is at the center of this conceit is not a logical error or circular madness, but that which has always been regressed to and upheld as the holy of those who want to arrest the world. A unitary, primordial light is imposed on all of our learning and the world itself so that the world may be destroyed, all useful learning may be destroyed, and the germ of learning itself can be snuffed out before it happens. The unitarian is something worse than a nihilist. While a nihilist, in denying that spurious authority granted by the Luciferian entity, opens us to the question of what this existence truly is, the unitarian shouts like a screaming retard and tells us this is the limit of truth and the apex of mind itself - the grand goal to which all of our learning, labor, and the energies of life are to be committed. The trinitarian facilitates this because his haughty conceit of mind preferred a vision of reality that served his ambitions, and he forgot that the mind does not have any of this authority. Why would he need to remember? This learning task is the cause for every developed technology, every political instinct beyond the most basic, and directs human effort in ways that were previously impossible. It would be quite impossible for humans to be humans without a working mind. Yet, for all of its development, the mind is still a pitiful thing, easily broken. On a cosmic scale, the greatest human mind is remarkably flawed in ways so basic, it is a wonder anyone thought this entity was the height of anything. Until eugenics and its associated philosophical tenets, many philosophers and poor men alike were aware that "mind" did not actually possess the ability of reality control, and such a goal was after sufficient consideration not a thing to pine for. That way led to insanity and a retarded ideology. The distinctions among humans' mental facutlies are, for the purposes of their actual lives and social existence, things that shouldn't have become the political barrier they did.

The mind's operations can only proceed based on its prior learning, which ultimately derived from something that could be known. The mind is completely capable of learning from pure abstractions or fantasies, or learning from hypotheticals. It would have to assume certain hypotheses to learn anything non-trivial, and then hope that their assumptions and developed theories match the actual world they model, or the thing they believe their mind is interfacing with. The limitations of mind's reach are not really material ones. The mind can, by simply knowledge and a plan, assert its will over a distance, setting in motion an imagined Rube Goldberg device that would allow a mind in New York to affect actions in Shanghai. The financier moves the world by manipulating numbers on a ledger, and to the conceited mind, this manipulation is the change in reality. It is not difficult to see that the numbers on the ledger are only relevant because of a causal chain linking the real bodies and spaces with the minds that regard any of this manipulation. It is not that the concrete or real is made to obey an abstraction. Concretely, the "real material conditions" that someone would blame the financier for mystifying are themselves preferred constructs of people in association with their environment. Abstractions humans create can be valued and meaningful for reasons beyond a mere idea. Money's value is itself an abstraction but one we appreciate because of the society where money would even be relevant. There is no reason intrinsic to the natural world or the human constitution to believe money, whatever its form, has any of this power, or that we couldn't ignore the tokens if everyone refused to play along with financial kayfabe. It is the mind's command of learning that makes money a useful lever. Money is only useful if we learn that the token is assoicated with moral incentives which can be used to push people. The smart users of money, however much they possess, understand that what really happens in economic life is the manipulation of people by other people, and this is never a one-way street where the holder of money imperiously commands a lump of utility called man-flesh. Every relation of labor is bilateral. The master and the slave, whatever the protestations of either, have to cooperate on some level for anything to be produced. The slave can refuse to the bitter end or fail to even get along with the master's demands, or the slave simply can't do what the master wants. The master does not exist as a point of imperious will alien even from himself. Those who envision the master-slave relation as pure imposition and the thrill of doing so do not envision slavery as it has been practiced. They envision only shouting "retard! retard! retard!" at the inferior, and in effect, shouting "die! die! die!" like a slobbering beast. None of that has anything to do with mastery of another person or anything. It is a conceit of petty-managers, and not even one they sincerely believe. It is nothing but the punishment mechanism, a way to inflict a stunting of the brain which prevents learning. The purpose of maximizing this is not slavery or any utility of labor, but the utility of suffering itself and the utility of accelerating as quickly as possible the death rate and insanity of the human race. The mind learns through the command of anything how to command, and stores that for future usage - but the relations of the mind to anything else in the world are not reducible to the crass proprietor's faith in pure, idealized "command" of that sort which does not truly command, but only espouses a primordial fear and pressing of a nerve.

What this means is that, so far as we are conducting learning and use that as our own basis for understanding the real world, it proceeds not by any fixed natural law that we must regard. The laws of physics, biology, politics, or anything else, were not written into the universe as any code to be executed by an unknowable hobgoblin. They are things we learned, through the faculties available to us, and reconstructed in our mind so that we can learn more. That is what it means for us to know in the sense that is conventionally accepted - that we learn of things which were once alien to us. This does not mean that the mind can actually "change the world" by thought, in some way that allows infinite degrees of motion. But, it also means that the mind is not truly locked into a chain of historical progress that is fused with natural law, or that the mind must proceed by the dictates of a pedagogue. Education and learning are very different things, and schooling itself is something different from education proper which entailed something more elaborate that was cognizant of what it was. Schools do not teach nor educate. They conscript, condition, and beat the young into submission because that serves the state, property, and eugenic interests, without regard to any knowledge. School religiously avoids any mention of learning, because learning in the genuine sense is anathema to what a school does. Schools go out of their way to avoid that germ of learning forming. Education, unlike genuine learning, concerns adapation to institutional authority and the interests of those who hold educational institutions. So far as education concerns genuine learning, it is always expected that learning is something the student does independent of pedagogy. For example, the ur-example in European history is the Allegory of the Cave, in which the institutional approach to learning is mandated and manipulated by those who have enclosed that cave long, long ago in their own mind. For those who have learned, we see this example of the cave, conjured by a thought leader who won the great game of human politics, and ask why on Earth we would ever agree to such a thing. Our experience is that education is rigged, and the rigging is thrown into the face of every student to remind them that this will never, ever change. However much education suggests it is not this, every instinct and everything we do when contacting these institutions tells us that the educator is above all concerned with institutional authority rather than any genuine spiritual authority. They seek in their mind to supplant the spiritual authority with their own will, and tie that will to God or some other construct that the students must abase themselves to. Hence, the commandment to worship, bow, and scrape before a godhead that is very obviously an avatar for men and women who hold the students in contempt.

When the mind comes into its own as a going concern, it is not beholden intrinsically to anything but itself. It operates on its own terms, set apart from ordinary existence and even the basic process of knowledge that is necessarily a material thing. The body, brain, and existence of a person is beholden to the world, but the mind is not, and couldn't be if it wished to learn. No law fixes the mind in a way that obligates it to learn, and among the first faculties of the mind is to learn restraint and command of the biological faculties it co-opts. And so, just as life vampirically feeds off the world, the mind vampirically feeds of life and by extension the world. It cannot do otherwise. There is no solution within the mind itself that breaks this cycle. The mind is aware that it does this, and that this is obviously nonsensical, but if the mind seeks an answer to that, it cannot assert that by reason alone, as if the world had any purpose the mind would intrinsically appreciate. The mind, at a basic level, is utterly amoral, because the mind's genuine task did not exist for any built-in moral purpose. Perhaps the life that gave rise to it had moral imperatives that are inherited from its material constitution in some way, but those moral imperatives do not conform to philosophy, religion, or ideology ready-made to be imposed on the world. The mind's learning was necessary for us to speak of the full development of moral sentiments. The mind's treatment of morality is called ethics, and ethics as many know is something wildly divorced from the moral sense we would intuitively adopt. That topic is further explored in the next chapter. The mind, in learning, makes contact with other minds, and then reckons with those entities in whatever was it wishes, or is made to reckon with a mind that chose to attack another. The mind was never truly sacred enough that it can wall itself off from all that exists, but for the mind to process the origin of another mind, it has to reckon with a world that is not intrinsically tied to "mind" in any way. The mind cannot fuse its conceit of the world with fundamental nature. And so, spiritual authority proper is never reducible to "mind", and treatment of the spiritual authority as a "super-rationality" or treating Nature as a giant computational device or crude clockwork is wholly inappropriate.

With that considered, the mind learns things not by a blind impulse, or because the body compelled it to learn, but because in the end the mind did appreciate this knowledge, and had a sense beforehand of what it set out to learn, for whatever reason it had. If the mind were truly disconnected from the world, it would not intrinsically seek to learn anything new, and perhaps would not sense that there is a world where there is something to learn, or another mind like itself. This is not the case because we are, very clearly, created in conditions that are outside of the mind. We are beholden to material conditions not due to any thought experiment or rationality declaring that it had to be that way. Rationally, we are aware very early that our existence and the world does not have to be any of the things that we are told must be attributed to material conditions. The reality of human society is that imperious minds were able to see what they commanded, saw their competition, and decided that because they can enclose the world and destroy the world for their cause, that they would do exactly that. This goal is not intrinsic to the mind at all. Most minds and most reasonable people in full awareness can see that such an approach to learning and existence doesn't work and won't allow us to live any sort of life that is purposeful. It turns on itself and very quickly cannibalizes the world as it was, replacing it not with the new but with a regression to primordial light and a eugenic interest. The mind can consider that its proper purview is limited to this task of learning - and it is only the essential act of learning that defines the mind and establishes it. Any preferred construction that would be reified as "the mind" is secondary to the essential task it conducts. The conceited mind, which must impose itself on all that exists, construes "mind" as something entirely alien to its true task and suggests the whole world conforms to it, and must be made to align with it.^[6] The reality is that minds are only mediated by that which they learned in the past, and can do - or not do - with that learning as they are capable of, and that the mind sees fit to do. There is no rule that suggests the mind is pure or infallible, and much of what the mind learns is to verify its contents, so that the learning task can be conducted not in the realm of its fevered imagination but in a real world, where the learning task translates to useful outcomes.

If not physical media or natural laws, what then mediates the action of the mind? It must not be reduced to a sense that the mind believes in "me wantee", or that the mind follows Crowley's law to do as it will. The mind itself has no will of its own, for it must feed parasitically off the will of life and the world to assert this. What the mind does entail are value judgements that are sensical to it, which are based on its past learning. That learning may resemble the actual world in which physical events happen, but it also includes the social and political constructs the mind must learn if it is to function around other humans. The other minds we interface with which we are acutely aware of are other minds. In society, humans are expected to regard the other minds as active without regard to distance or connection. Another mind is lurking somewhere in the world, and once known, it can never be unknown. The only way to occult the mind is to refuse to allow its name to be know, or any information suggesting its existence as a true mind. This works both ways. The rulers of society always revel in occulting, and perfected the lie for the sake of lying itself. It works against the ruled, to tell them they are not what they truly are and the world they interface with is to be replaced with conceits of mind. The ruled mind is told to believe that it is a slave by nature. Whether the ruled actually believe this is not as relevant as the essential lie being told. So long as the lie is acted upon and granted sacrosanctity, the conceits of the ruling minds persist. Whatever the ruled think, know, or learn is quite irrelevant, especially if what the ruled learn conforms to a political thought supplied to them by pedagogy. Since the formation of political ideas entails recognition of temporal authority which is in the end realized in the world rather than conceits, the philosophy of struggle for struggle's sake ensures that rulers, in whatever formation, pass from regime to regime, and endure transformation of society. If those transformations of society are brought about entirely by the rulers' cajoling and pressing against the ruled, who by and large did not want any of this, this allows the rulers to push and cajole history entirely on their terms. The ruled are told that they must play this rigged game, and that if they don't, they are retarded, lacking mind and do not know. Before any physical media is present or any genuine information is gleaned, the political mind is trained to defeat itself before it would broach resistance, even when the true conditions of life are unbearable. This imposition is most pronounced towards the ruled, but the rulers will discipline each other, and eventually internalize the very demonic will they imposed on the rest of the world. Absent any sobering influence - and struggle for its own sake will never be a true sobering influence - there is no reason this nightmare would not continue in perpetuity, by the conceits of mind and technocratic thought alone.

There are two directions of this bilaterial task of learning mind conducts. The mind receives symbolic information, and the quantity of it is too vast without a scheme of the mind itself to reduce it to manageable chunks. The reception of the world's symbols, including those from other minds, is to be written on further in Chapter 17 of this book. The other end is the mind's sending of signals and engagement with the world. It recognizes very easily that its thought alone does not move the world by imperious decree, and that all such interaction requires a physical means to propagate it, and entails ultimately genuine interface with the world. The mind has little to do with asserting on its own the protocol by which this dialogue proceeds, and all of this dialogue is in the end reducible to definite back and forth interactions. The synthesis of that dialogue is not a foregone conclusion that can be reasoned by thought alone, as if the synthesis was some great working. That myth should have never been allowed to assert itself in the sad history of modernity. It is an important understanding to understand the political thought that arose, but for a genuine understanding of the world, learning, and the very foundation of the political, it is a worthless understanding - a hermetic and mystical working that could only have been imposed violently and against all of the sense that the most naive mind would reject, unless it were beaten into submission. The purpose of such a political theory is not to suggest that this is what politics is, but that absent anything suggesting otherwise, no one can stop it, and humanity regresses to its most base condition while calling it "progress". I cannot concern myself at the moment with the peculiarities of genuine political thought, except to say that it is no secret humans engage in political lies readily, and this is something that is properly judged by the mind before it is realized in anything material. It does not work the other way around, where the material is interpreted as a hobgoblin "pushing" humans like evolutionary flotsam to obey. Political actors are deliberate actors to be considered so. Mechanistically, this is something different from the processes of war and contests over authority that have been a topic of this book. Mechanistically, political thought and the conceits of mind are not inherently relevant for the mechanisms that are discussed here. The mind is not and cannot be a purely political organ, and to construe it as such is the death of mind, spiritual authority, and the task that mind actually accomplishes.

The communication of the mind to itself and other minds is, in the true learning and connection between them, not mediated by anything physical or materially necessary. It is rather that the mind exists as something manifesting from knowledge as a process, and thus for us our physical bodies, that creates the illusion of physical mediation of reality. Information in the genuine sense, though, is always mediated. The reality of the world, and the reality of mind's concept of the world and its own workings, is not reducible to information. Further, the information is not intrinsically useful at all, and much of the information available to the mind is thrown away as noise or irrelevant. What is undeniable is that for every real communication in the material world, information is discerned not by a rigid algorithmic process but by a mind which is thinking in a way that is very alien to the physical world where communication happens. Even the processes of the brain and body, and the knowledge process itself, are alien to the mind which interprets and composes messages. The mind does what it does not because it was compelled by nature to do so, or compelled by a genetic legacy insisting that the intent of life inexorably acts. The mind is quite aware of its past and future, and that in the moment it both learns and makes decisions about that learning. The mind's decision making is, in the end, only answerable to itself, rather than any material condition mandating it. To claim that there is no barrier between the material world and the workings of the mind requires the enclosure of every process in the world, so that the subject construed as possessing mind is itself wholly automated. That is to say, to claim that the mind works in that way is to say there is no mind at all, and further that there is no such thing as mind. Nor would there even be knowledge or a material reality underlying it. The conceit of doing this is only possible when one mind has decided to destroy in total another mind, and recreate reality to fit its own version of the world - to change the world by decree, based on a mental decisison and learning that the self-declared superior mind can do so. Physical reality, and all that emerges from it, and all that might be perceived to underlie physical reality or exist apart from it but which operates by some understandable metaphysical principles, is a condition mind has to accept against its will and against any conceit the mind holds about anything, including all of its learning and decisions up to that point. The mind can only predict the future hypothetically, even if it can divine that a future is inherent to its processing and that it cannot actually edit history or the real world in that way. Our learning of the physical world and events in it suggest that we can predict the future and our own actions to a reasonable extent. If we are honest about what we have learned in human history up to now, it is not difficult to see that a mind is not intrinsically encumbered by any obligation to conform to a pedagogy or thought leader. Far from it, history has shown that all such efforts are doomed and tragically mistaken. The repeated failures of institutional education and schooling are there for all of us to see, and humans have and will continue to compare notes, regardless of what imperious institutions insist we must obey under penalty of torture. It is impossible to deny in the 21st century that technocratic society has been a dismal failure on its own terms, before we allow history in the genuine sense to judge this beast.

The media available for communication are as varied as our ability to manipulate the environment. No particular medium is fixed. The spoken word, print, calligraphy, visual art, music, and modern media are all things which allow the wise user manipulation so far as their knowledge of the real world will allow. No medium is truly apart from another in the physical world, in that there are fixed boundaries intended by a thought leader for how someone is permitted to speak, write, or compose music. There are physical limitations to any media and thus any communication confined to that media, which are demonstrated suitable for the media to be useful in communicating any information. We cannot explain algorithmic theories very well with music, but that is not what we use music for. There are also limitations to what messages the intended audience is willing to accept and process, and lines which cannot be transgressed. Anyone who considers physical communication is never content to rely on a single media, and always considers the entire media environment when deriving meaning from messages. This need not happen in the instant of communication. Memory of reading allows us to comprehend written words on a television screen, which appear in contexts which are not communicable in print or through a flat delivery of the symbolic words. The television on its own terms suggests a real world the images mimic, and the viewer has some ability to separate what exists on television from images it would see in real life. A cartoon is noticably a cartoon, exaggerating images for some effect that we can appreciate and tie to something outside of the medium.

None of this cross-referencing would be possible if media were not intended for the mind rather than the mere physical act of communication, as if someone could air a television program and produce a conditioned response in the subject automatically. If someone wished to push humans like a button, they would not believe that the mere utterance of a message automatically passes through any critical filter. Quite to the contrary, the primary method of conditioning responses in humans comes from manipulation of the mind, in spite of the inadequacy of all media used to command and control humns. This manipulation of the mind does not work so much by destroying the original mind, but subverting the mind's failures and suggesting to the subject that the mind does indeed create reality. Therefore, the ruling ideas simultaneously declare "A is exactly A", "A is not exactly A", and "A is whatever I say it is including the things that contradict the other things". The contradiction is not between black and white as declared opposites, but instead concerns three - always three - statements intended to cover all potential meanings of a thing, which reduce in the end to the only permissible "true" meaning, and a false reality that is always told contemptuously to those outside of the know.

This long chapter has primarily concerned how mind is disrupted forcibly to highlight just how fragile mind is, and mind's noted versatility against any assault out of necessity. Those who are amenable to mind control very often are not really opposed to being controlled in the first place, or are even eager for someone to give them a signal for command and conditioned to respond to pleasure, habituated to be happy slaves of an abstracted society. The mind both readily accepts this slavery, and is cognizant of what the human body and its genuine knowledge are trying to tell it - that none of this is right. The final judgement comes not from any of our conceits but the world itself. The world itself has long told us that this mind control, this reality control, is anathema not just to its puported task, but to life itself. Not only will these methods not work, and are highly counterproductive for the goal they seek, but they only exist to destroy thought and any possibility that learning would acquire something new. The mind must become an antiseptic thing policed by the thought-forms of pedagogues alone, which become the only possible thoughts and only possible reality. But, those who desire worldly power will always seek to usurp spiritual authority most of all. Establishing or usurping temporal authority has largely followed from spiritual authority. The particulars of who wins the contest for the executive, which is the main purpose of the political, are of little consequence to most of humanity. So too are the contests for crass wealth, which were never really relevant to the core tasks humans live for, or anything we learn. Money or the material things coveted were never in of themselves the moral objective, and couldn't be. A cult of Mammon or something similar had to be invoked to grant to the commodity or anything like it this fetishistic power, and natively humans have always known the material things are means to spiritual ends, whatever they may be. A believer in Mammon is not convinced the fetish is the extent of material pursuits - far from it, those who deal in money and exchange have a prescient understanding of what money is, and never believed in any ideology purporting money was something essential to the universe. Those who violently recapitulate such a crass belief in the moral authority of money, like Ayn Rand, are really regressing to that same old primordial light, to defend an essentially Satanic view of the world that has little to do with anything that was materially wanted or any outcome that material things suggested. Where a crass materialist view sees worldly wealth as tied to their higher missions, a vile perversion of that materialism grants to the basest material spiritual authority, and at the same time grants to genuine learning and knowledge no authority to speak of a world where matter - well, matters. All that is solid doesn't even melt into air, but is instead turned into inchoate blobs of primordial mental substance, no part of which is distinguishable from the other or describable except by shouting words ad nauseum and attributing to them the highest power. This is, needless to say, highly inefficient and exhausting, and this is exactly the point - to soak up all human effort and material things into a wasted cause, and claim that this nonexistent goal is the true form of mind, rather than anything that suggests a single iota of genuine learning or knowledge is possible. The only way such a world can be sustained is by ever-escalating production of mental rot and material incentives, devouring the very world it hoped to conquer and enslave.

It is this struggle to confuse and befuddle that humans navigate. It is not something defeated by any amount of learning, for the learning that the mind conducts can never find a way to defeat for good the mechanisms allowing this. Such an obsession would only serve to corrode the very mind that is trying to defend itself. The drive to regress the mind - literally the Retarded Ideology - always seeks return and repeat of an imagined past, which is in actuality divorced from any real history. The regression of the mind is carried out on the terms of the mind alone, rather than any physical or spiritual necessity or purpose to it. The mind that wishes to defend itself sees its material environment and everything around it as what it is, or seeks to reckon with the world as best as it can, while recognizing the value mind and the learning process has for our wish to assemble our understanding of it. Because we know the world is never what it naively appears to be, the mind learns over time methods of how to learn, and how to better reverse-engineer anything it contacts. This includes other minds like itself. If two minds were to contact each other without the fetters of a philosophy of struggle - of the conditions of antagonism in close quarters which have defined civilization - the contact would be considered bizarre and unseemly to many senses humans have of themselves. Given the danger other humans pose, such a closeness is inherently a vulnerability, particularly for third parties who make it their business to interfere in the affairs of two parties who had nothing to do with them. Conversely, two minds in conspiracy turn their aggression towards a third who wished to be left alone, and concoct a cosmic and transcendant struggle that really doesn't involve the third party at all, dragging the third party into it for no good reason other than an impulse of conspiracy to suggest this works. All parties could see the absurdity of this tripartite construct, which never really served anything but the impulse itself, but they are still left with the very real danger other humans pose. Humans cannot change their past and everything they have learned about each other, and have no reason to believe that any one of the race has moved on. That trust would only be established over a very long time, and like anything else, that trust between two minds, two flesh and blood humans, or two people, can be broken like anything else in the world.

With that all said, much of the world is surprisingly straightforward, because this is a problem for mind, and not even a problem which consumes all of its faculties. The mind is not intrinsically obsessed with politics or defeating other minds. Its contact with other minds and with the rest of the world is for its own purposes, which were never confined to a crass ambition of ideologues to cajole. The things of the world themselves, lacking any mind, are not even there to be seized or corrupted. They operate on their own power just as we do, and though they do not think and do not resist in the way a knowing entity or living thing does, they are not in of themselves out for any moral purpose. We assign them moral purpose not because of someting intrinsic to the genesis of humanity, but because the mind learns of them and of itself. At the most basic level, this learning is for the mind intrinsically interesting, absent any compelling reason why the mind would choose ignorance or to allocate its limited resources and faculties for learning elsewhere. The mind can very often choose to remain inert or operate on lower power, allowing the human to rely on instinct, passion, or a connection with the world which it appreciates not as a mental game but as its genuine relation to the world and to what exists in it. The human being is not a creature to be whipped or devoted to labor or any particular moral aim, as if those aims were a trigger to be activated or a desire to constantly and inexorably devour, or a desire to reproduce itself like Malthus' mindless breeders. The world itself is straightforward, but our ability to process media and interpret them is not, and this is not entirely due to malevolent forces. The malevolence that is possible requires the mind to filter carefully all it senses, and one way to simplify learning is to focus on a particular piece of media - for example, a book, and all that goes into reading it and comprehending language, which is sectioned off to its own process in our thoughts. Yet, to learn things, humans are perfectly capable of operating with multiple media, and in response to situations which are not really mediated at all. For example, a video game is on the surface a computer program, visual output that players are highly attentive to, audio output that often is expected to draw the player into the game, and a competitive exercise which stimulates thought and creates something more than any of the individual media the video game entailed. But, the video game is more than mere media. The simulacrum of a game environment is a whole environment, set apart from ordinary experience of the world. Those who use video games to manipulate thought are conscious of creating a Skinner Box, and this is accompanied by making human society so unliveable that two generations of children turn to the video game as their only remaining friend. There is an alternative - that the simulation of the game is appreciated for what it does teach and the learning it allows independent of peadgogy. There are in games wonderful accidents that were not the intent of the developer, and value players found in games that were not part of any conscious design. So too are books read to be interpreted, rather than merely consumed. In ancient times, the holy texts were often your book - your one book, from which children were taught both how to read and their moral and political thought, and concepts of spiritual authority that were appropriate to the society where religion arose. Religion is not confined to the book, but the book, rituals, and all of the media of religion are conscious that they hold an exoteric and esoteric meaning. The conceit of an imperious mind is to abolish all such meanings, so that communication and eventually learning are all digested uncritically, in accord with a pedagogical plan defined by thought leaders that eliminates all possibility of anything new or unintended consequences. Those who produce a communciation are always conscious of how others will interpret it, even if they have no knowledge that a particular other will ever receive the message, let alone understand what the communication was intended to convey.

If media are for the mind to do with as it pleases, rather than the property of thought leaders or oligarchs, this makes the vision of manipulating public opinion by expression alone difficult. A full treatment of these efforts to herd and corral public opinion is beyond the scope of this writing, but enough indications that this happens are already referenced. The greatest difficulty of such manipulation is that human beings, even dull ones, do not like to be lied to and cajoled, and have always despised this regime of intellectuals and their supplicants telling them what they are allowed to think today. I leave the social and political implications for another time and accept what is self-evident - that humans natively possess a connection to the world regardless of their state of mind or whether a "mind" proper exists at all. By no means is mind guaranteed to exist in the way it is appreciated. It is very likely any human, even those screaming in an institution, have some thought process that is deliberate from their view. The conceits of imperious members of society are inconsequential to the most basic functions of the mind, and the mind is not something proven by legislators declaring it does in fact exist. The mind existed before there was any law or adjudicated fact to say it did. We are accustomed to a society which declares by education that anyone without the mark of social proof has no mind, no thought, no will, and is fair game to attack; it is further decreed that those with the mark are granted absolute impunity against those who have not. This is the key break in the human race, and its result is clear - the race's origin in fratricide, ritual sacrifice, and every lurid ritual humanity ever knew. No ideologue or partisan of mentalism can ever claim they are anything else, and it is the intellectual who hates the inferior far more than any capitalist ever did.

The mind does not get to assert its own facts without problems arising. We can learn lies and more lies, but the lies always have to produce an immaculate totality to replace the actual world. Those who conduct genuine science do not construct such grand models that disallow then to be meaningfully described. In principle, it is philosophically possible to impose reality control, and convince us that this is how humans actually think. In practice, the human propensity for reverse-engineering makes this difficulty. This propensity is not hardcoded or a tendency which is always active. The reason it exists is because reverse-engineering is such an obvious learning strategy that it is cumbersome to tell students they are not allowed to do this. Imposing a very diseased pedagogy was only possible by conscription, imprisonment, routine humiliation, and every terrible imposition of schooling. When that was not enough, mass drugging, economic depletion, repeated threats of terror that were acted on, because institutional necessities. All of this is intended to reverse a process that is very convenient for us down here, because the ruling ideas must violently recapitulate that there is no mind in the vast majority of the students. The institutions are set up entirely on the belief that humans are not even dignified as animals, but that humans do not exist at all. Only the new race of the aristocracy may exist in the ruling ideas, and all other concepts of thought are inadmissible. Yet, all of these efforts are only successful at frustrating and exhausting people. It remains too useful to learn in a way that pedagogy cannot destroy. This is why violent recapitulation of lies, barking contradictory orders to the face, and the thrill of doing so must be glorified and granted economic value of its own. This is only fully effective when the ultimate penalty can be imposed, and enough fear has drilled into the human animal, making it a pure philosophical zombie and driven by base fear and terror. This is the dream of institutional science and its vision for the world - a world where aristocracy is the only possible vision for humanity.

Among the disruptive tricks is to claim "authenticity" that is spurious, and destroy standards of comparison by repeating an echo chamber. After enough inducements, the subject is trained to believe the last thing the news man told them, delivered in a familiar tone and style that is trained and follows military-speak, as this is conducted purely as a war against the people. If it is impossible to stop people from reverse-engineering things, it is necessary to bombard their senses and then place a clear and present danger in the entire society. This is merely an extension of the antagonism in close quarters that defines civilization, but it must reach a pitch that was previously impossible. Yet, for all of these lies, they still only wear down resolve. After sufficient exposure, most who are not targeted with more direct depredations adapt to the lies, and new lies must be created periodically. In the 2010s, this habitual lying would create whole systems of lies upon lies, changing aggressively definitions of any word so that no idea in circulation resembled a genuine or meaningful thing. This is the fate of the scientific dictatorship of the Huxleys and all eugenist ideologues - a world of maniacal screamers who did what they did for eugenics, while claiming their world was the only world which avoided "totalitarianism", the familiar weasel word of the anarchist and Galtonite.

It is for this reason that humans cannot trust another human for anything, even trivial things. It is this which made science in the genuine sense a spiritual authority. In the past, religion or philosophy could serve well enough for a few people, and the spiritual authority of the common people was always pagan or something they constructed with their own sense and connection to the world. Pedagogy and the cult's insinuations that all of humanity were too stupid for lacking some bourgeois symbolic feiths had yet to rot the native intellect of people. Had educators done things that would have been basic if they had any genuine interest in learning, humanity would have been spared the horrors of modernity. This actually would happen, against the wishes of imperious pedagogues who understood their monopoly on mediation of learning. Too many books could be reproduced cheaply and distributed, and even in conditions of deprivation, the proletarian clung to anything allowing him or her to see that their entire situation was constructed by a death cult. They did so not because they had any political mind animating them to have "real thought", but because the conditions of society were intolerable, stupid, and pointless. More than that, the books had to assume people were not stupid and would call bullshit on what was written. Humans had long figured out not to trust anything they read, but were not illiterate. Only after considerable pedagogy could words be presented as triggers to be digested uncritically, and both the way we read and write and the way speech was constructed could not allow the profuse lying that became standard for humanity in the later 20th century.

If you are familiar with science fiction and its imperial tropes, you are likely aware of "uplifting", where the guru - a Prometheus, Lucifer, or black monolith from space aliens - tells humans what to think, therefore allowing fire, weapons, and any advance humanity ever knew. No such thing happened, and no such thing is the norm in any learning. It is far more likely that learning recurred many times independently of any central hub, simply because no great guru would travel far enough for any idea to have a singular origin. The singular origin is always a reproduction of the imperial myth and the godhead, among other tropes of aristocracy, which suggest that aristocracy is the creative and generative force above all. This is a bald faced lie and reversal of how anything was ever learned.

It is also an abiding quality of learning that what is learned cannot be unlearned. Once one learns of a particular word spoken at a particular time, that word cannot be unspoken and all who learn of it remember the time it was spoken. This is not because some physical space will store pristinely memory, but because learning to be persistent cannot digest new knowledge which sublates the old and abolishes any mention of the past. The new never displaces the old in full, such that history is arrested. The new remembers the old, and does not bear any birthmarks as such. The transformed does not forget its genesis, and if it were to look back, it would see a long chain of geneology that ultimately descended from the muck like life always does, in all places and in all times. Even if the muck were on a distant planet and one believed in panspermia or ancient aliens, those aliens came from muck and have no intrinsic moral authority because of an impressive symbol or any mystique a human cult dressed itself in. I would think any space alien would look at humanity as a failed race, and the retards prancing about Freemasonic origin stories are the exemplar of that failure. No ordinary retard, who has the shame of that status, could be claimed to be so damaging to the human race as the aristocratic retards who are told how smart they are and given license to tell us with a small modicum of intelligence that we are retarded for questioning them.

It may be simple to claim that each new mind, each new human experience, is a blank slate in learning, to be pressed with new ideas. This ignores the obvious connection between people and their native connection to the world, which readily recognizes that there are other minds, regardless of any conceit held by the imperious about who has a "real mind". It would be quite impossible for someone to not ask about their own origin, and in doing so, recognize that every other human has an origin just like theirs, and everything comes from some prior conditions. This is reproduced in learning, and without a pedagogue or parent or someone to supply answers, humans would independently arrive at some answer. That answer would have to comport with what they have learned about the world. There is nothing in the world preventing humans from comparing notes or choosing cooperation rather than the antagonistic habit of habitual lying that has become standard for their race. This history will eventually be shared in one way or another - if not by two people talking to each other, than by people looking around them and asking where this came from, and knowing that there were minds active before their own minds were active. The pedagogue believes all of this information transfer comes from the master to the slave, but that is not learning, and it is nearly impossible to tell someone not to see what happens around them. That is the chief method by which humans learn social rules, since the habit of lying is most intensive when discussing the unwritten law governing all human societies. Even if the laws of society were openly acknowledged and honest, it is far more instructive for someone to see other humans in action and note their hypocrisies, then it is for the hypocrisy to be explained as an intellectual theory. It is only because the human propensity for lying is so developed in technocratic society that it became impossible for normal people to discern social rules in this way reliably. The society of the past century was premised on doing everything possible to obscure all mechanistic understanding of society, and this could only be imposed by deliberate control of the environment and a preponderance of force to prevent natural learning that would circumvent this. While nearly everyone sees that this ideal vision of technocratic society is insane and unworkable, few can compile in sufficient detail a map of the entire institutional web affecting society. The institutions are too large and too occulted for any individual, particularly a young one, to divine their working and the true nature of the unwritten law. Even the brightest who are connected to social affairs often don't know what they were born into. The officers that do regulate society only know so much, and can only govern the domain where they are posted. Overarching theories of society are nearly impossible to compile, because the leading institutions are highly adaptive and aware of the need for occulting at the highest levels, and the need to disallow a wide-scale understanding. If that happened, no one would trust the institutions and would proceed to conspire against all institutions, sabotaging their most minute actions and behaving in ways the institutions do not control and cannot resist for too long. If it is to be a siege against us who are damned, the siege will involve retaliations large and small and a bitter resistance against all vestiges of the beast. If that happened, all of the technocratic institutions, no matter how well funded, would not be able to hold their walls. They would need to push against the people before they were prepared, against an enemy that is waiting for them. One pleb with a rifle or some useful weapon in a defensive position will, when tipped off, prepare a last stand against multiple officers tasked with door to door raids. If that became a general rule, the arithmetic works against the institutions' available manpower, and the interest of the neutrals to go along with any such purge. Those who sit comfortably and laugh as they get groups of those selected to die to kill each other would have to leave their forifications, and would have to create for each raid the absolute impunity their society accustomed them too. If that absolute impunity were no longer the visible face of the regime, their prestige would be permanently damage. As always, once something is learned, it is never unlearned.

Enough has been written expounding on intelligence - general intelligence, how to measure it, and various metrics that are largely dependent on pattern recognition and numerous tests of particular faculties. It should be made clear that any "intelligence quotient" is purely a political assignment. It is, simply put, a political filter which allows those who control the psychological inquisition a monopoly over who can rise, and where anyone and everyone will be sorted in the institutions. Every use of the political number is purely used to regulate cybernetically which persons are deemed worthy of entering "real society", and has little to do with genuine intelligence. The assignment is arbitrary based on life experiences and the assumptions of whomever wishes to promote someone. It is well known that someone can train to the pattern recognition test, but this is of little consequence. "Once retarded, ALWAYS retarded." That can never be violated, and it also conversely means that no matter how poorly someone performs, the status of retarded will never be assigned once someone is judged normal or valid. The inquisition must go to great lengths to defend the claim that retardation is a natural and born status, and never acquired regardless of brain damage. There is still some basis for this general intelligence assessment, which largely involves pattern recognition, wordplay, and political knowledge. It is political intelligence and avarice which are the most prized traits, and those who are adapted to the essentially Satanic morality of Galton will always score higher on these tests. A proclivity towards obsession and compulsion, inherited from the degenerate habits of the English aristocracy and their proclivity for dealing in drugs, can mark someone for higher intelligence. There is some neurological basis for this - the sensitivity to drugs would likely lead to faster processing of neurological signals, and so this processing power produces for the acclimated and selected subject a natural proclivity for the signs of intelligence. The Satanic value system is designed to maximize the traits of these subjects in particular, either to drill them into the most loyal and fanatical believers in the creed, or to destroy those who refuse to comply. Above all, the test for fanatical loyalty is the marker for reaching the highest echelons of general intelligence. Fanaticism for the eugenic creed above all is mandatory for anyone marked as a genius. Those who refuse will be systematically destroyed for their lack of loyalty.

This political judgement is largely useless for the genuine task intelligence pursues, and therefore anyone who is truly useful will pass through a battery of tests, sorting by proclivity their place in the eugenic order, or throwing them away as is the case for most of humanity. I do not concern myself here with the testing of genuine intelligence, however it is defined. It is certain that such measures exist and can be compared against genuine standards. It is taboo to acknowledge the testing of the military, and a shibboleth of the eugenic creed is that mildly intelligent grunts are trained to value their lump of horseflesh, as if a 110 IQ was special. To anyone of value, anything less than 120 is considered basically retarded, and they will violently recapitulate this if someone forgets this. Any high placement, such as membership in the officer corps or significant ranks in the civil service, requires at least this value. They do not make exceptions. So too is this the benchmark for membership in the Communist Parties of the world as anything other than a low functionary. The more specific tests concern less the political judgement and more what the inquisition hopes to read from their human livestock. In practice, the truest forms of intelligence resist measurement, not because of pigheaded dishonesty of the psychologists, but because the human mind is aware it is being tested and must adapt to situations so varied, which must be acclimated to. The trials that would be the most reliable tests of intelligence cannot be conducted under lab conditions, and this has been accepted by anyone who is serious about adjudicating this trait. Looking at the brain offers few answers, aside from detecting neurological brain damage. A religious shibboleth of the creed is that all neurological evidence cannot be judged as "intelligence", no matter how clear it is that the errors in judgement are the result of seizures which have been deliberately invoked through the terror tactics that are routine for eugenic society. The drugs used to inflict neurological damage and condition subjects for slave conditioning - psychiatric medications - are "just so" implied to reduce intelligence as if they worked by some magic, even though many like SSRIs were designed to drive the patient crazy so they are more sensitive to trauma-torture and the thrill of maximizing it. This was known when they were trialed, and those who attempted to resist would be systematically destroyed. To violate the "Jehad" is death.

With this done, what does the mind do to exhibit general intelligence? It is not an arbitrary processing speed, which means little, but an ability to retain recollection of meaningful details while adapting to technocratic and eugenic society, which imposes an endless regime of lying. Against those selected to die, no success is possible. All mobility except that cybernetically regulated to be allowed by the creed is denied. This creates the situation where labor is entirely at the mercy of managers, who revel in holding a knife at the throat of all workers at all times and teach all managers the thrill of doing so for its own sake. The particular conditions in which this general intelligence can be demonstrated inform how it can be measured on average. It is presumed that the habitual lying of the human race is not only natural, but desirable and ought to be maximized. The various Masonic tricks and games are glorified, even though the Masons are a notoriously stupid lot. Games of low cunning are the stock and trade of every secret society and mystifier, because that is adaptive to the society they live in. A similar game of low cunning is played to promote thuggery in the caste where that is appropriate, and interest outside that caste assignment in intrinsically retarded because it is pointless. Recognition of social rank and its assigned position is obligatory. It would be quite impossible to measure general intelligence using this mentality before technocratic society is asserted. After technocratic society is asserted, the dominance of the cult of education and its stranglehold on life is such that it is the chief measure of general intelligence. Intelligence in a prior society was demonstrated less by conceit and certainly not by the bourgeois' preferred values. Typically, intelligent men were attached to military functions and demonstrate capability of tactical and strategic victory, or espionage. Espionage remains high on the list of professions valuing all forms of intelligence, and also these officers are the most aware of its dominance and how to occult their intelligence. The relegation of generals and officers is a feature of technocratic society and the dominance of its preferred classes, where before the miltiaristic proprietors disdained those who would be scientists. The dominant professions in the society are the surest measure of general intelligence, because they demonstrate the values of that society. Artists, subordinated scientists whose work is not tied to the politicized sciences, excess academics, and so on may exhibit intelligence, but their loyalty to the dominant values is taken as a sign of this intelligence, because it is intelligent in the human race to recognize the Satan, the dominant spiritual urge in humanity that exemplifies this foul race. It was born rotten and became Satanic early from its development of symbolic representation of spiritual concepts, as that was the first god and the only god humans ever truly believed in. Naturally, Satan and Lucifer are identified with genius, and so are their related figures in every other religious tradition. The identification of the primordial light with genius is both an indicator of humanity's Satanic inclination from the inception of its complex society, and an indicator of mind's frailty and disinterest in any other objective but the appearance of "smartness" and the vicious attack against perceived stupidity. At its core, there is a mark of "perfection" that general intelligence always aspires to - a Luciferian Christ that is sometimes acknowledged as an example, but never acknowledged too frankly as what it is. Guruism and the cult of personality is tied to this technocratic tendency, and it is a habit of general intelligence in any era. Very intelligent men and women are almost religiously inclined to follow gurus more than their native sense, because in human society, obedience to the teachers and indulgence in the institutions would allow a wider access to formal learning and systems the mind is adept at working with. Outside of the institutions, the brain expends much effort reproducing work that was already done in the instituitons, and outside of the institutions the natural world offers fewer useful markers of what is important to learn. Even without a bias towards the institutions, it would make sense absent any other evidence to believe that institutions are a fount of knowledge for the mind, until those institutions are judged wanting and unfit for purpose. Reality outside of the institution presents both a sobering influence against institutional rot and something for the institutionally inclined mind to co-opt and command. Those outside of the institutions are always subjected to a barrage of humiliations and insults, because that is what it means to not learn. Whatever natural gifts may exist, general intelligence to develop requires compliance with the institutions in some way. If someone is not a member, it is seen as natural for mind to seek membership or to copy the knowledge of institutions by raiding it. Reproducing that knowledge independently is wasted effort. Production of intellect outside of the institutions is harrowing, but had to have happened for the institutions to exist in the first place as mind-centric institutions such as teaching and the gurus. The guru tendency leads to both followers and leaders, or overly confident braggarts who try to be gurus. Your humble author here has been accused of that overconfidence, which his miserable lot in society has made him adopt despite his seething hatred of the guru as a figure.

I hope this is not taken to claim that "intelligence is relative" or any of the idiotic koans that eugenists offer as a sop to those they deem retarded. It is rather to state the nature of what intelligence seeks. Intelligence is not a passive quality which can be directed arbitrarily. The passions of someone, their particular hobbies and niches of specialization, are of little relevance to general intelligence. Nor does a given profession inherently suggest any level of general intelligence. Knowledge of nearly every standard profession in technocratic society and in past societies required little more than literacy, a drive to succeed, and sufficient security and social proof to fulfill the job. There is a competition in the professions to rise in rank, and a competition against other people who want the same job. There is an expectation of men rising to a rank appropriate to the sense of their general intelligence. Smart men do not allow themselves to be ruled by stupid men, and if this natural order is reversed, it is inherent to intelligence that the smart subordinate despises passionately the "stupid" superior, even if the distinction is trifling, or the intelligent subordinate obviously wasn't intelligent enough to figure out what this failed and demonic race always was. Human malice aside, there is an expectation that smarter men rule their lessers, or at least that superiors demonstrate that they are both intelligent and capable enough for the role assigned to them. This is most pronounced in meritocratic institutions, or those that ostensibly value meritocracy and do so because the necessity of it is made clear. It is evident in all of humanity's efforts, down to the hierarchy within families. Invariably, someone is at the bottom, the stupidest. If this person did not exist or exhibit marked distinction, it would be necessary to create them - and humans being what they are, the stupidest and smartest are the males, not due to any genuine measurement of intelligence, but because intelligence was the great division in mate selection, and it was the male who was to be selected or rejected in all institutions. Humans are inclined by the origin of their race to seek this hierarchy of intelligence and tyranny of it, even if the grounds for doing so are spurious. We can see the strategy of the Fabians - to teach the lower classes to value superficiality and barking as signs of genius, while the elites are granted impunity and security to pit those classes against each other. These strategies to control, direct, and discipline intelligence affect the final product and how it can be detected, but do not define intelligence. There is not a "neutral" condition of intelligence because the dominant institutions and the other intelligences it interfaces with are the primary function intelligence would navigate for humans. If we measure intelligence as the ability to match patterns or write pleasant words, this is a spurious and limited sort of intelligence. If we conflate many metrics, none of which answer what humans would learn in genuine conditions, we only select for the intelligences of a well-trained submissive pet. Intelligence is not merely a reaction to the environment. It is active towards pursuing the aims of the thinking organism, and it concerns solely the learning task, rather than anything stored in the brain. Humans could, even with poor intelligence, gather and systematize useful knowledge and record from experience that allow them to function. Nor does intelligence necessarily act as the cybernetic regulator to allow people to do this or that job, as the political forms of today suggest. It is known, but never acknowledged, that the present society is designed to drive people senile by the age of 40, and older humans will lose their mental faculties rapidly. This situation is made worse by the various poisons and the strain the social arrangement places on anyone who relies on their intelligence to survive. Inherited wealth is no indicator of intelligence, for a trained monkey could inherit a million dollars and coast through life without having to do too much. It is certainly easier to survive in a world with accumulated material wealth. It is further not at all the case that avarice for material wealth or money is indicative of intelligence. Intelligence has little to do with the opportunity, luck, and fate that allows capital to arise, beyond the artificial value intellect had on the entire Enligthenment project. The markers of obsessive high intelligence are often impediments to the moral virtues, temperance, and qualities that recommend someone for good business sense.

The intellectual is not, as their eugenic religion declares, the hoarder of all virtue. The intellectual who worships intellect is a fickle creature, given over to lurid cults and far more hateful and cruel than the most piggish soldier or most venal capitalist. The sole thing they ever do is accomplish this mental task of learning, which is always a double-edged sword. Very often, the most intelligent in this society select, of their own volition, highly maladaptive ideology and social values - and because of the environment of eugenic society, it would be genuinely stupid not to do this. Intelligence has nothing to do with making sound moral choices or being a good person, or strong, or the traits the Galtonite Satanists ascribe to themselves. Why the Galtonites believe they are anything other than demonic perverts, I do not know, but ideology is a hell of a drug. It is finally clear that intellect as a quantity has no fixed teleology to suggest any type it must turn to, as if Man were to be perfected in the image of their Luciferian Christ. If that is the perfect man or woman, humanity truly is a Satanic race and a failed race beyond all the curses I could summon. We could see that smart people exhibit many behaviors, and this intelligence is not degrees of freedom to act while the stupid are constrained to limited functions by an imperious mind. With intelligence arises consequences that the intelligent have to abide, and cannot hide. The stupid are, with what intelligence they possess, perfectly capable of navigating the world. Their great barrier is purely the conceits of other mind, rather than the world demanding the stupid remain in some fixed ecosystem where they naturally belong. Learning in all the ways humans do requires no great intelligence to arrive at conclusions about what this world is, and what societies humans build. All of the mystifications intellect creates are a gigantic waste of effort, a burning of human potential for the sake of every class's vanity, each committing to vanity in their own way. It would be better to not burden ourselves and each other with such a conceit, and recognize that human existence is not so terribly complicated. It was made far harder than it had to be because of a grand internecine struggle in the human race that defined it from birth. That is not a natural law, but a choice. On a cosmic scale, human intelligence is so laughable that it is a wonder these Satanic apes believed their accomplishment meant anything, or that they have attained some new consciousness in the past century during their drug binges and aristocratic obsessions. All of the intellect in the world does not get around the moral and spiritual failure of the human race, or answer the genuine questions we consider valuable for what we do. We could choose to reward intelligence, cultivate it, and direct it towards that which we actually wanted, or we can gaze at our navels like every failed civilization has and watch as it burns to the ground. The barbarians who did threaten civilization throughout humanity's existence were not stupid men, by the standards of their society and by human standards overall. Atilla and Genghis Khan are not dumb brutes who got lucky - they built empires and played politics at the highest level, and understood what they held when attacking the decrepit state of their civilized enemies. The political and aristocrat leaders recognize each other not by some unknowable germ of intelligence but by what they do and what they recognize as relevant to life. If we want to make useful assessments of intelligence, we would not be colored by the asininity of venal men and women who are trained to follow the path of least resistance. We would not make of intelligence anything more than what it is, and make of mind anything more than what it does - which is to learn in the simulacra humans construct, rather than something which has the great explanatory power the eugenic creed assigns to it.

We thus see intelligence as not equivalent to "mind", but a quality of the mind's ability to adapt to solve particular types of problems. General intelligence is most often political intelligence, since realistically, it is impossible for humans to reverse-engineer enough knowledge to compete with those who are promoted through formal education and receive for free what is denied to the lower castes - and education demands in the long run a caste society and nothing else, with all of the ruin such a society entails. But, political intelligence itself is a niche and one that can be made arbitrarily difficult, based on what politics is. The world itself, and the genuine task intelligence must pursue, cannot be infinitely mystified. There arrives a limit to the lies of a race of filthy liars, and a limit to how much propaganda can be spewed by any institution, and how much the world can be infested with any mind-virus. Simply put, intelligence is largely contingent on the society it relates to, since the chief threat to the mind, like the chief threat to humans, is other minds. Unlike the fear of humans for other humans, which is a matter of history and something very real, and which has its limits, the general fear of one mind for another is foundational to what it means for a "mind" to exist, of the sort that allows the actions humans can impose on the world. This general fear for the minds is not really needed or inherent to the mind's existence, as if the mind were engaged in the same Schmittian struggle that is eternal and unwinnable. If the mind were detached from the eugenic interest and hitherto existing politics - and this happens every day simply for us to have anything in this world to call our own - then the potential of minds to truly communicate is possible, and we would not have any arrogance, especially the undeserved arrogance of humans for their meager accomplishments even at the best of times. It does not take a great mind to see that the sum total of human endeavors produced not much at all, and that human beings could easily do better than what we have done. The mind understands more than anyone that the "battle of wills" and "struggle for life" is the most spurious and retarded shit an ideologue ever uttered, and in practice, the ideologues use this philosophy of struggle as a doctrine for the slaves and the losers and never actually believe it themselves. It is a weapon, intended to grind down intelligence and the mind to that which a pedagogue of the worst sort wants it to be. It cannot create, and will never create anything - and here is where the Germanic screamed like a retard about the Marxists being destructive, and Marx will say from the outset "I am creating a thing that destroys ideas and that is all it does", while advancing a completely destructive and corrosive civic religion and insisting the Germans are the only race which can create anything. It is typically of all things German to impose this brazen reversal of basic sense in order to promote false equivalence and culture war - culture war that the wiser fathers of the United States sought to forestall in some way because they knew how that shit ended. Sadly, the Germanization of America and then the world continued.

With all of that said, what the mind and intelligence do does not exist on its own, and does not truly exist to place itself at the crown of conscious knowledge, let alone the whole life-form, the society it interacts with, or the world it inhabits. It is instead a task which is conscious from an early age that it does confront an alien world and alien minds, with alien entities it will have to contend with whether it wants to or not. If intelligence were viewed without regard to the entity that is intelligent - if intelligence were truly a mind apart from its host, as the conceit of mind must claim - there would be no particular orientation of intelligence or any biopolitical claim of intelligence. It would be trivial for this faculty, like any, to be extensible by tools. Humans cannot help but form a symbiotic relationship with their tools, and the learning task in particular is why. Among the tasks of intelligence are for reasoned and deliberate honing of that tool use. It would be the same for an artificial intelligence or what is construed as such. The demonstration of learning would not be an arbitrary number of processes, but the effective integration of the machine with its peripherals in deliberate action. This would imply a genuine artificial intelligence would be autonomous, rather than a clockwork commanded by an imperious master. This is not what computers do, because computers as we know are not conscious at all. We instead observe the intelligence of this software through our lens and bias. The computer itself doesn't demonstrate any actual intelligence independent of that - it just follows the instructions on tape as its mechanisms insist. We might view humans or life the same way, except for something that is very relevant to us and relevant to society - that life is, absent any compelling cause, autonomous and not enclosed by any overarching order. Life is, in this society, only oppressed by life, and the machines life has built. The natural world does not have any intelligence or imperious will to dictate what our life will be. By nature, we are only beholden to ourselves and whatever affairs humanity inflicted, and beholden to the natural forces which are real. We are dependent on the sun for energy, the existence of water for sustenance, and all of the other material conditions. Those are, on their own, not the masters of us, as if the plants or a rock were commanding us like slaves to obey it. It makes no difference to any of those things what we do, and those things did not exist to serve us by any natural law. Humans chose to subdue their environment, and among the objects humans chose to subdue are other life-forms and, above all, other humans. That is the primary condition of mankind - that man oppresses man, and chose to do this the whole way. Humans can choose any time to not do this, and at a small scale, they have to. The outcome of taking this impulse of the human race to its conclusion is obvious from an early age, so much that a naive sense in humans resists the urge to do the thing that brought this race into existence. You might think an intelligent human would see this more readily, but it is actually the opposite. Intelligent humans are invariably more malicious, more given over to the vanities of the race, and more amenable to slave societies in either role. The intelligent are religiously devoted to the conceits of the master, and the intelligent are the most loyal and effective slaves. It is not that "ignorance is strength", as the eugenists squeal when confronted with the failure of their conceit. It is rather that the essential task of intelligence suggested that, absent any compelling reason, it would regress to what it had always done. An object in motion stays in motion, and if the motion of the human race was that it was born of ritual sacrifice and malice, that would be the primordial eugenic root of them. This is pointless, but intelligence has no answer and will never have any answer to suggest it was different.

What intelligence does has no answer to moral questions or transcendent truths. Wisdom has no answer, and philosophy has no answer. Religion has, in its doctrines and its practices, no answer. Life itself as a topic of study has no answer - life for the sake of life, or life for the sake of death, are futile operations. What intelligence does grant is this relation with tools and with other minds. The dominant thought-forms of humanity always speak of sublating the slave by the will of the master, to cajole the world and everything in it to obey. This is a really awful strategy if someone thinks about what would manage slaves for five minutes. It is appropriate that this thought about slavery was made not by the slave-holders and not by the slaves, but by those who envied the slave-holding empires and invented a cope. The German ideology is the ultimate slave morality and slave system, and yet its thinking, this mind poison, is ubiquitous because it is useful. It dominates because intelligence finds such a tool useful for its purpose of assimilating rivals, rather than this tool being the purpose in of itself or being effective beyond the immediate task of defeating enemies. Intelligence would choose the path of least resistance when dealing with the danger humans pose to other humans, and so the poisonous ideology has a selective advantage so long as human society is oriented around values which are compatible with it. This would mean only that the poisonous ideology must snuff out anything inimical to it. Since it was born in a world where imperious rule and slavery were a given, and its reasoning was inherent in the civilizations of the world and of Christian civliization in particular, it could operate within that milieu without too great a resistance. The people who resisted were almost entirely outside of the political reasoning - the laborers and those who would become the residuum, the beggars, and the depraved. The commoners and freeholders, who were in early modernity neutral and inclined towards a form of democracy that advanced their interests, would be caught between two worlds - that of the eugenic interest and aristocratic fuckery, and that of the grubby workers. It would be stupid to deny that this was the struggle at the time, made evident by the actions of empires that sought to enclose the world. Modernity presented to humanity for the first time the prospect that the entire globe would be controlled by one master, and one ruling idea that could perpetuate throughout global society. The strongholds that once ruled gave way to the rise of nations in the genuine sense, which would have entailed in the long term international cooperation as the preferred strategy of most of humanity. A man of one nation or one race, on average, sees their most obvious threat not as a particular genotype or phenotype or a symbolic expression of what humans are, but the very real and evident classes that existed. Aristocracy, in one form or another, was the default of every society of significant size and development. The rise of technology and tools that allowed the enclosure not just of the land but of every minute movement of social agents, presented a threat not in of itself, but because aristocracy would have the most obvious built-in advantage to use those tools. The technocrat is always beholden to the mystery cults and lurid rituals which preceded them, which his intelligence primed him to believe were a mark of genius more than something that the laboring classes, the genuine fount of science, would regard as useful or intelligent. Because labor had no money and no political standing as labor, they were presumed to be in an alliance with the monied bourgeoisie, who at first had no noble status and were under pressure from the high monied interests, who were by social convention "bourgeois" but had always been more akin to nobility and aristocracy, often having bought into the aristocratic values before modern revolutions. The reality is that these two groups were already distinct things, and the lowest group was rapidly identified as the necessary scapegoat to temporarily unite them. By kicking down, the bourgeois would be conditioned to accept the values of aristocracy and turn on their lessers, and so this was the only intelligent course of action. Intelligence does not play the long game, because that is not its function. The cult of intellectualism and knowledge was doomed to produce this result, and every appeal to intellect only intensified the malice which lay at the heart of it.

We can see here the danger of the learning task - that taken on its own, its immediate incentives and long-term projections incline it to do things which are anathema to most interests a person would hold, and the interests of the life-form apart from society and the institutions which command intellect and spiritual authority. This is why the socialist concept of spiritual authority was tied to science, rather than reason generally or philosophy. Science at this time was not the domain of aristocracy, but the domain of the bourgeois and laborers, who were in this task similar in outlook. If the bourgeois invested their intellect in natural science, it was for a purpose similar to the laborer's - to study the natural world because this was necessary to produce a product. The bourgeois and laborer had very different purposes in producing product and a tension over the production of luxury and the distribution of goods for mass consumption - that is, for the needs of the many against the wants of the few who aspired to gain position and opulence. Labor had little interest in fineries or the values bourgeois society treasured, and labor saw correctly the political thought of aristocracy was entirely alien to their interest. The bourgeois did not see the aristocratic thought as alien, but did not see aristocracy as intrinsically theirs either. Where that leads is beyond the scope of this chapter, and this rough history of social classes is not the whole story of why it turned out this way. The same incentives based on social situation work in many ways large and small, down to the intellectual failings within a family, among people who know each other and are not divided by classes or any ideology. Human failures and the failures of their very being are just as persistent as institutional failure. The veneration of institutions and belief in their infallibility is nothing more than a cargo cult, for institutions are always comprised of people, no matter what effort is made to present a faceless entity. It would be ameliorated if we were allowed to actually learn instead of be schooled and drilled to conform to a political idea, and if educators got out of their own way and saw the damage they inflicted. They think the damage doesn't matter as long as they're winning. We see now that the whole society, including its managers, is visibly decrepit. The intellectuals were given enough rope by the capitalists to hang themselves - most of them, anyway. They did it to themselves and then they ask why it wound up this way. We can learn that this doesn't work very easily, but we also learn that there is no alternative, and that in the long run, intellectualism promotes its own destruction, on its own terms, and cannot help but do so. The master of the machine is not so much turned into a machine by the tools he uses. He turns himself into a machine by his own conceits, and blames the machine or some symbol or phantom that he has fetishized, which his intellectual proclivity told him to do as the most efficient path to learning, in the society where printed media written for educational purposes was superior to reassembling or reverse-engineering the machines that existed. It is far easier to understand a complex machine with a manual and a formal theory than by whatever system a workman would devise, and the engineer of machines would write the manual for reasons other than pedagogy or an institutional conceit about education. As mentioned, an enduring trait of education is that reading material is regularly denied, as a test and a filter to meet the institutional interest of the educator, for the educator is not there to help you and never was. It is the academic and intellectual who promotes forced ignorance and arrogance, telling the "Deltas" of the working class that instruction manuals are for sissies and indicator lights are idiot lights, rather than indicators someone would have found useful. It disgusts this author to no end that this idiotic meme is faithfully reproduced, rather than accepting what any competent engineer would, understanding operations and the necessity of eliminating unnecessary labor. The academic revels in uncertainty, fear, and doubt, because it allows institutional mystification and occulting. The rest of us wanted to learn as quickly as possible the operation of a machine, so we could hold it and claw back some part of the world that was enclosed, however we do. The run-around is a favorite of pedagogues and sadists, and those who enable them. It is sadly the case that we live in a society where humans are natural liars, and have to judge carefully anything we read and any machine that is produced by them. If you didn't build the machine yourself or possess the means to reproduce it, the machine becomes the avatar of imperious enemies. By the thinking of intellectualism, the machine itself is granted this power, and the ways in which raw intellect function favor this, in spite of our common knowledge that all machines are created by and held by living users in some way. The intellect can only learn from symbols at a basic level, and does not deal readily with complex moral concepts which require experience that is not freely reproducible, and is never persistent in any real world. Koans long used to suggest a natural meritocracy never hold for long, and this is more true as the machines are more elaborate and the direction of technological development is commanded more minutely. Those who command technology never merely do so because they are smarter or possess some substance that is unknowable or adjudicated by occult mysteries. If this mechanism of judging intelligence were laid bare, it would expose immediately that all technocratic conceits about intelligence, in all of their variants, are foolish and stupid, and obviously against the interests of everyone except one group - aristocracy. The wiser technocrats readily accept this and understand the arrangement leaves much to be desired on its own.

Ultimately, intelligence is never a passive trait or substance, or a thing taken for granted. The machine that is human knowledge must become more than a machine, not just from experience of a world-system or a theory suggesting a new germ of knowledge, but by the interests of life and its connection to a world where life and knowledge would be relevant. Relative to others, intelligence can always be judged, but these judgements are ultimately irrelevant to most of the functions humans accomplish in society, and in their daily lives. The true measure of intellect is only available after the fact, and this is why technocracy and eugenics went hand in hand, and presented an alliance that was very attractive to the ruling powers of modernity. The technocrat always harkens to the past while claiming to move forward, and can only see the world proceeding inexorably, in spite of a child seeing the ridiculousness of this version of history. They do this because their conceit of intelligence is removed from the present and anything that would challenge their institutional hold, while the past legacy - just as it does for the proprietors who won their claim in battle - suggests that intelligence will be retained and held by those who deem themselves worthy. The aims of the technocrat then ultimately were destined to align with aristocracy, even as many of the technocrats were made to attack each other in a pointless internecine conflict, to the ruination of their interest and many of the men and women who were dependent on the machine and its product.

If we wished to promote intellect for its genuine task, we would ask some basic questions of how we think and what we do, rather than invoke a story about who the smart people are or some legend about moral values that enshrine vanity over anything real or worthwhile. We would, for instance, promote honesty in the proper space, and allow the meeting of people for things that were once upon a time basic. We would promote friendship not on the principle of social climbing or some avarice, but because that would make life easier for everyone. This, though, does not serve the purposes that direct intelligence and motivate it to learn things. Intelligence on its own has imperatives to expand itself and defend itself which it must uphold to exist in the world, and so the machine will, if made into the core of us and definitional of what it is to be conscious or human, succumb to the same sad fate life always has. Friendship, though, doesn't serve any inherent moral objective, and can't be said to be "good". Secret societies and the vicious of humanity are friends with each other, and so this environment would likely accelerate the malice of the human race. This was the plan of the Open Society, promoting an extreme naivete coupled with the viciousness at the heart of every liberal, to suggest that there was a bright future just around the corner even as the ugliness of the human race was put on full display, and the ugliness of aristocracy was able to declare itself virtue by producing rapidly every image of the subordinated classes as living abortions.

It is after all of this that the finished product is assembled. Intelligence has its own objectives, but the intellect recognizes its dependence on moral purpose and spiritual authority. Moral purpose may be a quality of the life-form or objects it interfaces with. Spiritual authority, though, is not derived from any particular object or conceit upheld as an idol, but from the world as a whole - and it is the world, rather than the visage of a godhead or any other such conceit. And so, in the main, intelligence in humans follows the interests of life before it encounters society. Intelligence can regard the non-living world outside of society, and it would have had to do so. Society in an older time could never create the enclosure or oppressive atmosphere it did in modernity, and humans retained a connection to the world outside of "society" in the abstract, where the intrusion of social actors and political conceits was not a given. Technocratic society, and the very impulse of intelligence rising to the height of institutions above our better judgement, entailed enclosure. The enclosure of the world was not caused by money possessing this power to command men by the mere symbol of it, or by some nefarious impulse that corrupted a pure man. Man was always wicked, long before he devised money or any of his more elaborate tricks to oppress Man. It was intelligence itself that entailed this impulse, should it choose to do so and there was nothing suggesting that intelligence could not learn the art of oppressing another human. If humans spent so much effort herding animals and commanding dead nature, why would humans have seen each other any differently? Given what humanity was not just racially but as a spiritual concept pertaining to civilization, the idea of "inviolable and good Man" is some sort of sick joke, rather than an earnest plea for decency. Humans as humans were never decent and never good, and went out of their way to avoid that even when someone like me connects the most obvious facts to describe human history. Intelligence as a conceit is allergic to the idea that intelligence itself does not possess any authority of its own, and can only conceive of such a thing entailing self-abasement. The thought of Ingsoc, then, is just the primordial eugenic instinct in humanity given a technological and ideological veneer, without anything to suggest it could be any other way. There is no way to think or learn a way out of this, as if some formula will allow humanity to live happily ever after. That was never the proposition, and a child could - if not beaten and humiliated to accept these ruinous institutions - see that without difficulty. The task of intelligence is not managerial or political, nor is it spiritual or something desirable for its own sake. If we really valued raw intelligence, and know what we know about the body and brain today, we would conclude that human intelligence would be enhanced by machines in such a way that all eugenic interests and conceits about the human body and spirit are moot. It would be trivial to fuse the human body with machines amplifying faculties, and this is not a great expense. This, though, does not answer any of our moral questions or answer why we would ever do such a thing. So far as modifications of the human body and toolset are explored, they are always conducted to glorify aristocratic stupidity, the vanity of the bourgeois, or to induce labor to indulge in their crass habits rather than for the laborer to break free of bondage to aristocratic conceits. Labor, the proper fount of science and developed knowledge, is taught to believe that it is only valuable if it adopts an alien approach to the world and the interests of things other than it, and that the interests of labor are to be humiliated and negated in total - in other words, the laborer is to abolish his labor and supplicate it to some totem, whether it is intellectualism, property, or aristocracy.^[7]

Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

Return to Table of Contents | Return to Chapter Start