Return to Table of Contents | Previous Chapter | Next Chapter

23. The Division of Labor by Social Class

So far I have written of social class purely as a construct of institutions and conceits held by those who aspire to rule. In that view, class consciousness is driven primarily by the desires of aristocracy, and other tendencies latent in society instinctively defend their holdings. In this way, institutions form out of the raw materials of the world, which are purposed for management of this situation where rule is one of many interests. There are interests of institutions other than rule, but invariably, institutions are subject to the same rules as any other social ecosystem, and take on a life of their own. The chapter ends with institutions never doing what we hoped they would do, despite all of the reasons that this is completely wasteful and pointless. Had institutions formed to serve the functions we had in mind, or the things that we actually wanted, they would - and do attempt to out of some necessity - resist the baser instincts in life in order to accomplish that which was needed to actually live. Not one instinct that would orient management of institutions generally, that would give rise to a division of labor in this economic sense, serves any real purpose. The argument of expedience arising from specialization would have seen labor as the sole commander of itself, because the management of wealth, the ruling mind directing humans like cattle, and their officers to realize that direction, is completely unnecessary and counterproductive towards any genuine utility. The creation of the institution itself does not form the entirety of social class. All classes would be meaningless if they refer to institutional society alone. Without institutions, the only thing that would constitute a social class would be an identifying marker bereft of context. There is no such thing as an inborn "race-consciousness" that suggests a race has any political orientation or affinity for each other, and the same is true of other identifying traits of humans in observation. For any grouping of people who may share an identifying characteristic to be truly a class implies institutional representation and organization, or the existence of institutions organized against them. The slave, which in American history was identified with a race of black men and women, has no institution to call their own, and like any slave system, control of all institutional relations is developed into a full science, in which every minor act of the slave-holders is calculated to suppress revolt, and every act of the slaves is meticulously studied to detect signs of rebellion. The race itself is not relevant - black Africans in the 21st century immigrating to America would have nothing to do with the slaves who arrived in the 17th and 18th century to suggest they were subject to any of the same institutional history. In some sense, slave systems generally abide rules, and the oppressed people of the world share in some struggle over freedom and slavery, but the American slave system and its consequences is a definite historical event, rather than an inborn genetic feature of black Americans. The descendants of said slaves are, with some exceptions with their own reasons which are beyond explaining here, very wary of anyone suggeting that historical knowledge is irrelevant, for all the reasons that make sense. The advocates of historical revision on this matter are invariably the sort of scum who are always enablers of some rot. It does not take any great genius to learn of the history regarding slavery and race in America, and any adult feigning ignorance is a piece of shit and knows exactly what they are doing. The genuinely ignorant would be more likely to not press the matter at all, and there is a general sense in humans that slavery is bad, or at least it is a highly unpleasant experience for slaves, and the neoliberal habit of self-abasement is not eternal or natural at all. The existence of social classes is not dictated by institutions at a whim, such that they can be decreed to exist or not exist, or can be re-defined or re-interpreted once knowledge that there is a class is established. A vague feeling or sentiment is not a proper social class or institution, or even a consistent grouping of people. While "white" became a legally understood definition and a general indicator of European ancestry and inheritance from a largely Christian civilization, there is no "white nation" that amalgamates all of the white people into one culture or thing, and the white people ranged from indentured servants, convicts, and the institutionalized who are de facto slaves or lower than slaves on the social hierarchy, to an aristocracy that viewed most of the white race as cattle just as they viewed any other race by its lowest common denominator. The same variation can be found among black Americans, though marked by far more historical discrimination and their actions specifically being curtailed to uphold a racial theory of society that was nonsensical. There are those who were thrown into the residuum, there are those who work in every grade of the laboring clases for whom the worst outcomes of neoliberal racism are less apparent. The neoliberals attained the highest form of essentialism and stripped all social identities from social class as it was historically understood.

In the past chapter, I wrote of the intellectual germ which made the formation of institutions possible, which is a necessary pre-requisite for speak of a class generally. Social class is understood not as an institution unto itself, but as a historical and ongoing event which is regarded by institutions primarily. Human beings in their flesh have no need of any social class to understand themselves, but their person will be involved in social class whether they wish to be or not. Social class is not a mere sentiment or feeling. We should stop for a moment to remark that "class" as a designation is something of a misnomer inherited from philosophy, and this is not an accident. It is with the rise of philosophical writing and what I have called the "philosophical state", or the institutionally held theory of states and how institutions converge to form it. The philosophical state to be comprehensible supposes that the people are sorted into classes for its purposes, and those classes are regarded by laws. The philosophical state proper is beyond the scope of the present writing. Its antecdents are not too difficult to grasp, and do not require any grand theory or narrative. Roughly speaking, the philosophical state regards three broadly defined classes as necessary to construct any further development of social class, and these classes are entirely defined by holdings of property and wealth. The rise of class consciousness is facilitated in part by the rise of currency and the interest of sovereigns and states in treasuries, because the state could now requisition its wants by paying coins that are minted with the blessing of the state, rather than extracting tax in kind or through a number of competing schemes. Wealth that was formerly represented by landed property, the product from that land, and the holdings of slaves or what were effectively serfs, would be represented by coin. It is with the proliferation of currency and the state's interest in it that theorists of the state isolate the class of those who hold wealth but do not hold the title of warriors or state officials, and who are not priests or the intellectual elite of their day, but who are not slaves or dependent on labor. Monied interests were criticized by nearly every philosopher, as philosophy was the domain of the aristocrat who resented these commoners having anything, but the reality of economic life suggested that a class of free holders would exist that did not need to offer themselves as slaves, and had functions other than whatever they could sacrifice to a conqueror or the local deity and that deity's mortal racketeers. Classical civilization can observe in greater detail the variety of products, and the class managing the wealth of this product would be termed the producers, the merchants, and various other titles. The men of this class - and the rules of the day were that it was men who held the wealth and did politics with few exceptions - did not exist purely for production or wealth extraction, and wealth was a very helpful asset for launching a political career, which usually meant the rich men sought to become generals, lawyers, statesmen, and find a way to get into the aristocratic club. The producers certainly understood their position and its precarity, but usually did not identify with the producer class as if it were virtuous at all. Depending on the civilization in question, merchants ranged from disreputable as in Rome but useful because money could buy opportunity to rise in the republican system, a caste assignment in the middle as in India, or with merchants regarded as lower than peasants and artisans in China and viewed with extreme suspicion, but regarded as a necessity due to the complexity of the economy and imperial operations in the region. The producer class today is best understood as the nascent form of a technocratic class, or a "new class" that is neither laborer nor attached to the prestigious offices of merit or aristocracy, but whose wealth and product is very helpful for facilitating the opulence of the latter and keeping the former in line. The new class suggests a general path for commoners to rise in classical society. In some way, most societies permitted class mobility so that people of talent can replenish the quality of stock, which was regarded as necessary regardless of any aristocratic conceit. Weak nobles would give way to those with the cunning to climb or who could present some argument as to why they could win and rule, but the producers never seek to overthrow this arrangement altogether. They merely seek to gain position within it, and protect each other and what they consider their base of interest. Because the aristocrats live a world where currency and new technology quickly become necessities of empire, they must bend to what those who would become technocrats want, and surrender some of their true wants to survive in a world where cities rise, fall, and come back in a generation to fight once more. The classical world was not one of unqualified imperial success, but one of daily struggles of emerging states and empires against the tribes and tributaries. Without any concept of nationalism or a mechanism by which large territories could be integrated as nations rather than a collection of aristocratic alliances linked by wealth and jockeying for position, aristocracies could dominate at the city level and maintain some hold on the landlords, but in the main, classical society is a martial society. It was typically generals who came to lead states or men who proved themselves in battle, rather than the conceits of pure aristocracy huffing their drugs or the men handling the money and the desultory business of producing war and consumer material.

This is not any new concept, and summarizes what is a much larger construct in language that is familiar to students of history, since the formation of states was not merely the rule of classes or even a big club of institutions and the assholes who inhabit them. In short, though, one reason we view the increasing relevance of social class and associate it with wealth and division of labor is because the niche of classical society heavily encouraged this thinking. The thinking met the conditions of struggling city-states and nascent empires, who experimented with institutional organization, technology, and theories of society that were novel and had never been done in this way. Social class was not a crass reduction of the many interests in such a society into three groups, and writers at the time could document the nooks and crannies that were exceptions to the rule. The isolation of these three groups is not the isolation of classes in whole, but isolating three of the mechanisms that were deemed politically relevant to those who had any say in politics. Labor as a rule was left out of that bargain and never had a serious place in any discussion. Any small yokel without money or status was completely unqualified, and saw correctly the entire apparatus ruling him was yet another racket to make him work harder. This applied to the disposessed free man who was caught between the new monied interest and the older society's invasion by it, but the dispossessed knew this was not just about money tokens. The dispossessed had no reason to believe in the classical equivalent of a Little England myth where things were better in the old days. Aristocrats wrote those histories, but the ordinary laborer saw the new bosses of all three classes as yet another group of perverts that want to take their stuff. If any laborer identified with any one of these classes and thought he had an in with them, he was deluding himself. The best hope for a laboring woman of low rank was to catch the eye of someone with wealth or status for good looks and some quality men lusted for, which was the most likely way someone of low birth could be something just by existing and doing the things women were expected to do to be considered virtuous. Men of low birth and no money were very unlikely to do much, short of a talent for meeting the right people and an absurd level of opportunity. There were ways for even the lowest of men to rise in theory, and the ancient world being what it was, a local aristocracy in power today could be yesterday's news and conquered tomorrow, only to throw off the yoke the next season. The strife of this age of imperial consolidation, and the wars initiated by barbarians to push against the encroachment of imperial civilization and win some place in it for their tribes and confederations, was a haven for aristocrats who knew what they truly were, but punished severely aristocrats who couldn't get with the imperial program. Further discussion of the matter moves far beyond the purview of economics, but this should illustrate for the reader why social class rose in prominence. Before the rise of the philosophical state and its theory, and for a long time after its rise, associations with tribe, clan, and the numerous backroom deals and dealings in favors and sentiments, remained a force that resisted economism altogether. Economic concerns in Antiquity were predominantly agricultural concerns, and the command of farm labor usually meant the command of slaves or peasants who were made to toil and expect little on this Earth. The thinking of aristocratic philosophers did not conform to the true conditions then and there of ancient society, and the more capable of the philosophers were aware of this, and aware of the difficulties of the aristocratic idea in implementation. It is for that reason that class consciousness, first among the ruling elite themselves, and then the marking of military status as the chief backbone of state society and the promotion of the classical way of war over barbarian formations of warriors, would find a greater niche. The rise of producers whose product was a logistical necessity for war and empire made clear what aristocrats had understood long before the philosophical state, and encouraged further investigation into the theory of history, rule, and everything that would make new technology increasingly relevant. Even when the aim was not a Whiggish faith in technological advance, concepts of how to revise institutions like the army made others adapt to the situation. The barbarians themselves in time learn that their older society was no longer operative. The later confederations and empires of the Goths and Germanic peoples, and the empires of the steppe which marked the greatest peril for civilization in the eyes of the settled aristocrats, and the peoples at the periphery of the Old World who would become clients or entangled in that world in one way or another, had to see their societies in much the same way, where classes and the interests of money and knowledge are increasingly necessary, and displace loyalty to clan, family, or some institution which would cross class lines more readily. In the long run, the aim of the new institutions is not to defend classes for their own sake, but to regard classes as their vehicle for ruling. The ideal would be that the classes would no longer be distinct classes with property, but that all classes wquld be subsumed by a ruling interest. That ruling interest would lone be allowed to transgress class, while others are assigned to whatever desultory existence the rulers demand. This does not preclude that the ruling interest would be every last person, such that there wouldn't be classes to transgress, and it is not impossible for the ruling interest to question the sanity of all historical philosophies of rule and management. Ideology is a terrible motivator for a member of any class.

The proper understanding of social class is not in simple definitions or the management of information, but in the meaningful relations of people to the world and to each other. In primitive society, social classes do not rise to the forefront of politics, because there is no vehicle where the history of a class and the exchanges within it and to those outside of it can be cleanly established. The primitive state or its analogues in political sense generally did not consider social distinction to be the primary purpose of rule, but the members of society knew who was ranked where, who held prestige, and what property a person held. Primitive society, contrary to the beliefs of crass ideologues, had a concept of property which was intelligible to those in a different society where property could be upheld by formal institutions and the organization of labor with certain legal rights to property in mind. The concept of any legal rights in primitive society did not exist, but there were expectations in a society that allowed humans to coexist at all. Those who take the status quo for granted are fools of the highest caliber, for every state that arrests society is only maintained at great expense. The aristocratic conceit is always that people are either cattle or drovers, and the aristocrats claim that they are the only true drovers. Their surbordinates are cattle, who are tasked with driving the cattle beneath them, and so on, and through this the aristocratic herding of the population takes place. Since this driving is ineffective without both tools and a command structure which has no inherent reason to go along with this, aristocracies tend to promote warriors and managers as the proprietors of land and men, and the tokens of wealth that belong to the productive citizens or their analogues are always something to be controlled. The holders of wealth see their coin as a way in, but the tokens of wealth by themselves do nothing but measure some claim, which is backed by the toil of those who work and enforce the scheme. All of these are only basic mechanisms which construct the history of each class, and suggest their long-standing antagonism and also how they would cooperate with each other. Within that tripartate framework, there is an understanding of all participants that both labor and the lowest class must be locked out at all costs, and so the slaves and undesirables are excluded from political life. Certain expectations are created about who can and cannot act in institutions, and these actions can only be forced based on the history of the institution and its members. They are never things that are truly inborn or inherent, but are made so because they were possible. Labor as a distinct and suppressed class arises by this conspiracy of those with the tokens and idols that allow for rule to be reduced to information which can be managed, and the ruling arts and sciences are held as occult secrets. Eventually, the dissemination of those secrets in education is undertaken selectively, as one of the carrots to discipline labor and, on occasion, the lowest class. False promises of promotion are made and then withdrawn the moment a laborer would hold that wealth that would allow him to live as more than a laborer in such a society. Because labor is necessary for all of these functions, there is a certain acceptance that workers in theory could promote to producers or enter state service. At a basic level, the classes are fictitious entities, which do not conform neatly to the institutions that allowed them to exist. It is the command of institutions which is sought in the class struggle, rather than the command of the world directly or direct relations with the humans or persons. Working with individuals is doomed to fail before a conspiracy which appears inhuman. Working with the world directly leads to either a vague and inchoate program, or would entail a general theory which questions whatever interests rule in a given society and a given place. As a rule, any theory which is inimical to the purposes of rule must be declared inadmissible, because those who jockeyed for position in the ruling institutions knew how they came to rule and what ruling meant. Any general theory that is not commanded by the ruling interest would suggest that the entire project of rule is a farce, could change, and does change regardless of any pretenses a state makes or any existing theory of politics will uphold. No rule of nature suggests that the state has any inherent existence, but politics will happen regardless of our beliefs about it and a status quo - the understanding of the situation which is informed not just by information and symbols but by meaningful connections that can be said about it - will be apparent regardless of whether there is a ruling interest to claim it and shepherd it into existence. At its root this happens not because of any inherent purpose to politics or the state, but because it could happen and there wasn't anything stopping this except another entity which thought in a similar way about rule, power, and management. The knowledge of who and what rules becomes general regardless of efforts to suggest that this knowledge can be occulted, because everyone is acutely aware of what it means to be ruled. The lowest class is the most acutely aware of all, and as a rule the lowest class exists to be ridiculed and humiliated, as a reminder of what is necessary for rule to be established. The thrill of doing this became in modernity the highest governing principle, celebrated by the eugenic creed and the most crass of today's technocrats.

The social classes do not form neatly around any institution or their basic functions or intents, nor do they form purely by sentiment. They form around interests that can be recognized, claimed, and then mechanized so that the processes necessary to claim this interest are a going concern. For a class to truly exist, it must do certain things, but the things that are done do not conform to any necessary or natural function, and do not reduce purely to psychological sentiments which can be manipulated. What is needed is for the interests of management, and the desire to command the world, to become spiritual callings, and to grant to a particular aspect of the world the status of an idol with seemingly supernatural powers. It is necessary then to have a second theory, held in secret, suggesting that this supernatural appearance is a bunch of malarkey and that the appears of the "gods" is a trick, a game. By doing so, human labor and effort is expended chasing after symbolic representations and statements of knowledge or information which claim to supercede the native reasoning process we would use to derive meaning. The third result, intended in advance, seeks to arrest the mechanisms in a way that automates them, and this is where the role of money tokens and the historical interests of the producers take over and subsume both labor and the lowest class. It is possible, though scarcely actually believed by competent people, that the producers who command money or something used for exchange are the true governing power, and that money is more real than anything in the world it claims. This, though, is not how any competent merchant thinks. A merchant or anyone with means understands money as a tool first, and understands the social relationship and classes as something altogether different. The aim of the merchant is not to glorify money like an Ayn Rand follower retard, but to make of this token something more substantial, whatever it may be. The mercantile interest, due to many historical examples, dreads the thought of a demagogue going to the people and circumventing the desires of everyone else in the class, and so class solidtarity is felt strongest among the producers, who are numerically larger than the aristocracy or soldiers who threaten them. In many cases, the men who hold some property, even scant property, outnumber all other classes, since those without money or some means to survive will not last long or be able to do much in institutional society. It should be clear that no matter how vast the institutions are, there is a large world outside of the institutions, where none of the conceits of aristocratic rule are regarded as anything more than a nuisance. This is not to say that the other world is inherently lawless or antagonistic to law as a concept, but that the law and institutional authority over any space is limited by mechanisms that the authority can deploy. The workers who are outside of the tripartate structure save for their meager holdings of wealth that they hold onto for dear life have no reason to roll over for some great plan which purports to tell them what to think. The merchants too are acutely aware of this threat, which the greatest of them seeing in the long run that their rule is contingent not on the idolatry of money or a simple mechanism money can buy, but with technology generally and science that was by nature the action of laborers and work rather than opulence or rule. The mercantile interest would to best to co-opt labor and convince them that they are actually producers in the rat race, instead of saying that labor are slaves and consigned to mud-sill worker status. That threat is reserved for the lowest class, who are seen as undesirable and who remain the sole class who has no reason whatsoever to go along with any of this.

Social classes form around interests in the real world out of necessity, and there is both a history and an institutional representation where that history is gathered. Without that history and shared experience, there is not a class as such, whether it is for itself or exists in of itself. A class of workers may be designated, but the working class remains organized as bricklayers, factory workers, service workers, tradesmen of various sorts, and these laboring professions recognize each other as sharing an interest because of the society they live in. It is never a fait accompli, and the interests workers can control are the particular talents they possess. The specialists do not exist as their profession, but this specialty is the property they could utilize. The same is true of the interests of the property-holders, who become merchants, bankers, shop owners, lawyers, advocates, priests, soldiers with various specializations and domains where they are active, and so on. The interests pertain not to any preferred organization of society, but the means by which they can perpetuate rule. The interests can only exist here in this sense of economic thought, and do not exist as any part of the natural world, as if nature intended us to do the tasks of lawyers, workmen, soldiers, or priests. It is understood by all that the other interests in society are potential rivals, and the ruling interest is comprised not of a singular intent or idol at the base level, but the interests which can exist. Therefore, the ruling elite tend to pick a number of professions that are deemed honorable, and suggest a way to rank them in a hierarchy. The particular professions, and the qualities of men they suggest, may vary, but in order to rule, those professions and those acts must be conducive to ruling.


At a basic level, all humans in this managerial scheme are by default in the lowest class, and have no interest which is naturally evident. In this way, humans are guilty until proven innocent. One must prove their membership and claim to some interest, rather than the presumption of some interest being natural and expected. In nature, humans possess certain qualities and substance that is presented to society as their character and person, but these qualities do not in of themselves suggest any class or institution. The only possible distinction in nature is not a theory of classes held by institutions, but the distinction between those who perform labor in the interests that can contest for economic influence, and those who do not. Humans can labor for something other than the interests of economics or politics or rule generally, but only those labors which feed into the concept of rule are deemed relevant in the economic and ecological logic. The labors are real enough, and are in reality the only thing, but there is a world and humanity that has no interest in rule or management at all, and no inherent reason why any ecology should naturally form at all, in a way that must be regarded as universal and unceasing from creation to the end of history. History, properly speaking, is not a political understanding or something confined to crass interests of rule, but a sense that there is a past that can be spoken of. Those who claim to reach an "end of history" do nothing but promote idiotic ideologies which are only useful to tell the masses "you can't, you can't, you can't". They never actually rule through this ignorance, but use the statements of blithering ignorance to cajole and berate others - to make us suffer. The suffering that class society entails is only the suffering inflicted deliberately by social actors upon another and themselves. There is considerable suffering of human beings that has nothing to do with the conceits of rule in any way, and a philosophical discussion of human nature and the suffering of life is not particularly interesting. It is easy to see that life entails much more than pointless suffering, and the suffering that is part of our nature is nowhere near as terrifying as the suffering social class and institutions of men bring to the world. The dull ache of the body would not be so bad if we were not aware of a predatory society where those who seek to maximize the thrill of inflicting suffering are loud and proud, always active and looking for the first sign of weakness to attack. If not for the persistence of such people, it is very likely that the aches of the body nature endowed us with would become trivial, and we would make of this situation whatever we could. Existential angst is not the natural condition of life and not universal, but a disease of aristocracy and its enablers in the other intents that society entails. Without society, the pointlessness of existence and the dull groan of suffering would be something we could ignore, if we are aware the suffering is just something the body does and will eventually depart. Persistent suffering and the agony of human contact exists because cajolers want us to suffer and tell us we cannot escape it or do anything about it, or even live our lives regardless of it. Any suffering must become an opportunity for thrill. This is not the only way a class can manage, but it is a very expedient one. To form a persistent interest requires quite the opposite - suffering and agony must be mitigated enough so that labor can actually do the things that allow rule to happen. The prevalence of humiliation and torture is a way for humans to shout "die! die! die!", and it exists not because life compels this, but because humans chose it and made it institutional from the moment the human race was born in its grotesque sacrifice of their own kind. That is a defect of humans, and one that would have been easily repaired, if not for those who see in this history not merely a fact but an opportunity to "return to home" and repeat this ritual, so that existence becomes nothing else. Such a sentiment exists purely to destroy. Here is where a few philosopher retards, and they are retarded, coined the term "creative destruction", or a foul device by which the thrill of humiliation is naturalized and granted the status of an idol and object of worship.

The origin should not be confused with politics in its genuine form, as if politics were nothing more than applied economics. Politics to be what real entails relating to society in a way that is not reduced to interests alone, and suggests a moral purpose for the state and the ruling institutions which cannot be supplied by any economic rationale. Politics and economics both do not encompass everything that happens in society, and have nothing to do with the natural world. They can be understood with the language of science, but only as something that came out of human capacities and the capability in the world that allowed them to exist. In other words, the political and economic, or anything institutional in society, cannot make any moral claim that these classes should exist, or are somehow ordained by nature. The very origin of class society suggests that classes are not things fixed at all, but arise because there is a world in which social classes can impose an existence beyond the conceit that they can be made. Anyone can intellectually construct a model of society with so many classes, or even divine a mechanism by which social classes arise and change. What actually happens in politics and economics is not reducible to class struggle, and the struggle of classes and institutions is itself merely one part of a much larger world. The true motives of humanity are rarely ever political or economic matters, but spiritual and moral matters which are held above the intrigues inherent to society as a whole. There would be no society without human beings who could value it and appreciate it for reasons that are not reducible to society itself. Humans in social relations develop not as tools of an abstracted beast which takes the name "society", but because their genuine wants and aims suggest that there is a purpose to life beyond mere management. Politics as a whole does not and cannot consume the entire product of life, but arises for reasons that are not really concerned with economy. Economics only becomes a political matter because those who hold states see that commanding the world and enclosing its spaces would allow them to rule politically. Some clarification of "rule" is necessary. Political rule, or the rule of moral and spiritual authority in its own right, are different propositions from ruling people through economic incentives and interests. The idea that men must be cajoled and berated to act at all is an imperious project, which is only sensical when sufficiently developed polities can impose this cajoling and berating over a wide space. At first, this is only possible in the ecological niche of a city. Villages and rural settings largely exist by paying tribute to the cities which were the political capitals of empires, or the ruling elite were warriors who constructed a palace wherever it was expedient to do so, and ruled through their officers rather than command of any ecology as such. To the tribes of North America before European contact, tending to the land was not something done so that it could be sold off as parcels and the members of society were serfs. Such a thing would have been highly counter-productive. The tribes certainly saw the land and resources in situ as property, and did not mindlessly tend to the land out of some superstition that was programmed into them. The reasons for preserving forests and game are not difficult for anyone to divine if they think about their environment for five minutes. So it is with the formation of politics generally - it arises not from any economic origin or division of labor. We would conduct politics without economics as such, even if humans were judged to be economically equal to each other or their distinction into classes were irrelevant. Politics and the state are not intrinsically instruments of a class,and would persist even if social class were abolished as institutions or irrelevant. The motives that drive political action are not rational ones, but are always the result of knowing agents whose behavior can be rationalized. Economics is preferred by those who are winning to naturalize a mechanism by which they can rule by tying human beings to an ecological niche and locking up the food. This is not the only mechanism by which rule is possible. People can be ruled purely by struggle which is unmoored from any economic necessity or purpose, and the wars and struggles of humanity have been entirely worthless in any productive sense. The cults of war are so ruinous that economic sense would tell us to immediately abandon the practice and make it so anyone insinuating that such practices should be glorified would be eliminated and become irrelevant. We could do this in a day, and do so at a local level. There is no genuine natural condition of the world that enforces the edicts of rule, and the will of humans to actually change the world is fixed. The true causes of the cult of war are beyond the scope of the present writing. It is possible to observe the actions of economics, war, and politics from afar, as if we were studying aliens in the wild, and we would in retrospect presume that the functions operated by mechanisms that are basic. We presume naively that the actors in society follow core convictions they hold to be self-evident, and it does not take a great genius to figure out that humans need food and that only so much food will be available. The feat of aristocracy is not to divine this basic condition of existence that we're too stupid to know, but to create a whole alternate version of reality where scarcity is dictated by their grand theories rather than any actual scarcity. The gross inefficiencies, waste, cruelty, and stupidity of the aristocracy is a matter of historical and public record, and this truth always comes out no matter how many lies are told about it. It is so evident that the aristocracy holds all of the guilt for encouraging the worst of this that aristocrats don't bother pretending they are anything else. They simply suggest that suffering and brutality are God's will and sole commandment, or suggest that some other group can be scapegoated for what are clearly aristocratic acts. Ideally the aristocrat would have you blame the lowest class, who as mentioned have the least to do with any of this, but that their inaction and lack of enthusiasm for aristocratic rule is somehow guilty of creating a "natural shortage". At the same time, the institutions that exist, which are in any era of human history grossly inefficient and designed to fail on purpose, are claimed to be perfect and sacrosanct. This conceit was only implied historically, but modern technocratic states were premised on an illusion that the holders of the state were godlike and commanded nature through the science they stole from us. For those in the 21st century, it is often forgotten, or deliberately not spoken of, that political life and the life of human beings have remarkably little to do with economics. The economic task's proper purview is to allow us to do a thing to live, and the surplus which is vast would be used for aims which are genuine wants and hopes for what human society could be in a better world. We wouldn't dicker over something that is so basic if we wanted society to be a going concern in its own right. The great victory of aristocracy is to specifically deny to the people that bare minimum, so they are always hungry and insecure. Aristocracy then sells security at a premium price which is no security at all. Aristocracy can welcome opulence so long as none of the possessions answer the needs of life to sustain itself and secure its existence. It always seeks to redefine freedom, slavery, struggle, social class, and institutional purposes to meet its aims. The same is true of every other intent in human society that would have ruled in the place of aristocracy. If a pseudo-economy dictated by aristocratic conceits weren't the vehicle, some other mechanism would be used to force the world to conform to that plan. It is always highly artificial and far removed from the genuine history of classes and societies, or the aims of the actual human beings who weren't interested in the lust for ruling or anything so silly.


If the world is to be divided in this economic sense between those who work towards the rule of an ecological niche and those who do not, then there will inevitably be those interests with greater influence in rule. No one of these can rule alone, no matter what identity they may exalt and demand obedience to. There would only be, in every calculation, those who have a place in the plan for society, and those who do not. The decision in the mind of the planner is between life and death as they see it. This is not life or death in the genuine sense but in the manager's conceit. The genuine infliction of death or the granting of life is only possible because of the manager's command of suffering to make it real, and that event is not dictated by any economic or spiritual logic insisting that it is the natural order. Whatever the claims of those who rule, they never actually do possess a natural right to decide who lives and who dies, and such a right is always claimed violently and with no rational purpose or further motive. At its root, the ruling interest is not born out of economic necessity, as they often claim. It preceded any concept of the economic beyond the basic senes that humans would have possessed out of necessity, and the very concept of an "economy" over a fixed space implies there was an intent to make it real rather than a natural condition. It has long been understood to even the dullest mind that avoiding such a situation is necessary to speak of living as anything other than a lump of utility to be cajoled, and even in captivity, the ruled are defiant against this invasion of their bodies and anything they held dear.

It is impossible to speak of class society in general without an established ruling interest, which is comprised of the various interests which can assemble some scheme to rule jointly. Class society presupposes that a ruling interest governs "above the classes", or behind their back. There is not, at first, a sorting of humanity into any great class structure. There is not a "universal class" from which all others derived, as if social class were innate to life itself. There are not two classes that are defined in a Manichean struggle of who is in and out, as if we were natural self-abasing fascists and this master-slave dialectic consumed everything that exists. The world in general does not regard slavery as a natural fact, because the world has no such conceit, and in practice the actions of most people do not revolve around some game of domination and slavery, like it were a fetish to replace their genuine conditions. There are not three classes which just-so happened to exist in a way that allowed one class to get the other two to attack each other while the third laughs it up and grabs popcorn. There are not five classes which assembled in an immaculate structure, where the germ of knowledge and its products or some construct held above the world suggested it would be the only way humans could organize themselves. Outside of the ruling interest, it is impossible to speak of any of this as the action of a sensical person. It would be presumed that someone held as a slave would refuse to follow orders the moment the slave no longer had to, unless the slave were compelled to behave in line with alien dictates regardless of any native thought process in the slave. If there were a "natural slave", then this would not be the case, but this would have to suppose there is some inborn condition which attracts slaves to masters, as if everyone were living in the kink lifestyle. Even this would not conform to the managerial or political conceits regarding slavery, which are the equivalent of chasing one's own tail for absolutely nothing. Rule to be realized does not justify itself and never can. If there is a potential ruling interest, it can only enforce this over a limited space. If we revisit our thinking on society as information, as we must for economic plans to be sensical, economics occurs not in the raw form of society at any level, but in institutions alone. Politics and the very concept of a polity must concern the social agents themselves rather than the institutions they create, and so the political is not and never can be an economic matter. This does not make political economy a seeming non-sequitur[1], but suggests that political economy as an approach doesn't answer what it purports to answer. Economics as a new science is even more removed from the genuine source of class society, and goes out of its way to be nothing more than a cargo cult. The ecologists are the worst of the lot, brazenly arguing for democide and suffering for its own sake, when it is clear in the past century that the conditions of plenty were easily attainable. It is not only that those conditions could be built, but that it would be almost trivial to do so. The new aristocracy covers itself in the most obnoxious fake morality they've ever constructed, brazenly lying about basic things and suggesting social class, which was at one time so easily understood that it wasn't a question, was something other than what it was to our native sense. It did not take too great a mind to reconstruct what I have traced so far to see why social classes arose, because this is reproduced with every new generation. Class society must be taught to all members of society from a young age, and how it does so varies but becomes an expectation of every parent and authority. The demand of the malcontents is less to abolish social class by decree, but to simply have the things they wanted without the intermediary of class society and the ruling interest. This, though, would require them to either fight or join the ruling interest, and while the ruling interest could be inclusive, the aristocratic tendency never wants to include anyone and always seeks to cull the club as soon as the opportunity arises.

The classes evident in a society are drawn by the ruling interest, or those who aspire to join the ruling interest and influence it. There is only ever one in a given domain, and the rule is not strictly speaking economic nor political. Classes may be defined globally at the level of the polity, or they may exist only in some niche where the classes are relevant. There is, for example, a hierarchy of classes in workplaces that can be entirely local to it, and the classification in one city-state does not need to conform to another. At the level of a polity, the class distinctions are not questioned by anyone. Beneath that level, all local class distinctions are superceded whenever the polity steps in and exerts influence, which as you can expect happens often. There is always a distance between those who are members of the ruling interest, whatever it may be, and the ruled, so nothing the ruling interest decrees is "just so", as if their mere thought changed reality or cajoled it through some philosophical working. Rule in any meaningful sense requires some mechanism to deliver it, and ideology would only be effective if it inhabits human agents who would become that mechanism - and so, ideology and all of the conceits men hold are only as effective as the machines they possess, which includes modification of the body itself. The development of classes truly begins when the rulers of a polity can consider social engineering at the level of the state, in an effort to create particular types of people. The city-state which is sufficiently developed, diverse enough in the labor functions that specialization is very expedient if not required in that time, and capable of reliably commanding officers who will execute state business faithfully without abandoning the mission, is very different from a more primitive society where the social institution of greatest important is not the state as an idea but the clan, and the ruling house is the dominant clan relating to other clans rather than a philosophical state relating to individual subjects. In a society where the theory of the state is not very well developed, the ruling interest faces difficulty consolidating its machines in one place. The ruler in an earlier time may be a king, or a glorified warlord, who claims the favor of some deity, but who doesn't maintain any pretense of commanding the city the way the classical city-state did. The state as a formal institution is not the sole contender for the ruling interest. Religions may become something more than a cult of power, and often did become mass religions with traditions independent of any particular sovereign. Philosophy enters the world as an aristocratic version of religion, available to those with the means to acquire philosophical texts and engage with the ancient masters. The philosophers typically aren't themselves rulers, but aspire to rule and may be close to those who rule, or may be men with considerable influence. The philosopher might be hired out, as they are today, to be a hatchetman for the ruling interest, either producing effusive praise or a series of lies and more lies to protect the mechanisms of said interest and keep out those who are not selected to advance - and I think you all should know by now that the ruling interest does not encourage independent thought or initiative in any era, unless that initiative matches an agreed-upon plan of that ruling interest and can only ever serve them. No ruling interest will ever sell someone the rope to hang them, and believing that this can be cajoled by thought alone is the desperate clawing of those who only can say words, and not even terribly convincing words at that.

Before there is an "upper class", "middle class", "lower class", or a general class assignment for the workers, officers, and elites, there are the interests that can exist as basic propositions. For example, the landlords hold land, and naturally those who hold the land would have the obvious advantage in controlling space. Never in human history has a ruler abandoned or discounted command of the land as rulers deem it should be commanded. This does not necessarily conform to highly visible claims, but it is difficult to seriously deny who owns the land if their actions must be prominent enough to affect anything. It may be taboo or illegal to reference the true lord of the land, but generally, such a charade is counterproductive, only carried out to keep those who are cast out of society altogether from acknowledging what is done to them. In today's society, the oligarchic families are known and documented, and a history of those families can be found with little searching. It is not too difficult to see their intent and how they have ruled for the past century, and assuming you are at all competent, you will be made aware of what truly rules. Only those who are deemed to live in the residuum are never told the truth, and it is not so much that they are forced to be genuinely ignorant of the true names of their masters. Enough information about who owns what and the nature of the oligarchy, and many deeds of CIA and other intelligence agencies, is freely available and discussed widely. The lies about the nature of power, social classes, and the ruling interest are a way of shouting "retard! retard! retard!", telling someone in so many words to die. It is like telling an adult to believe in Santa Claus or romantic love - an insult so brazen that it would only be uttered when it has been decided now and forever that this person is not selected to live. No one of any standing, even that of a lowly worker, would be lied to that profusely with this much intensity. It is only because we live in a society that decided most of humanity was selected to die that such lying became a habit. The reason this is not done is clear if we see the frayed minds of those in the castle during a siege - sieges are terrible on the beseiger and choke out their intelligence, since so much is spent on lying and hiding their tracks from an angry mob with every reason to tear every aristocrat from limb to limb. The formation of classes which are presumed to exist because of relations to the means of production has to presume that there is some work persistently done and that the labor will be done by guilds as they were done during the 19th century. None of the emerging trade unions had any reason to dilute the advantages they held and every reason to collude to protect their interests, and make alliances that were sensical to them. Within the working class there were divisions over things that appear trifling, and while those divisions were overcome out of necessity, it was easy to exploit a tendency to value horseflesh in a siege environment. The strategy of propaganda from the ruling interest reflects this in every decision made, and even minute effort to engineer society to advance the divisions within the working class, and to exacerbate the strain of merely living as a proletarian. The offer of strengthening the proletariat by casting its members into a hated residuum was offered as the carrot to break any possibility that this ends. It did not happen overnight, because there was a sense of solidarity with people who suffered much like they did, and a sense that if this torture machine continued it would devour the formerly valid interests. The shared interest was not about relations to the means of production, which were only the mechanisms through which actors could do anything about the situation if they held any relation at all. The shared interest was in the idea of democracy, and a spiritual affinity for freedom in a genuine sense. That affinity was informed not by ideology or a just-so story about natural freedom from birth, but because humanity had long experience with the alternative of slavery and knew the results of the peculiar institution. The unity of the people was premised on something that wasn't economic or even political, but was both a sense that the people could collectively throw off this ruinous beast that served nothing worthwhile and was advanced by imperial perverts and their enablers. The aim was not to capture the state in some clever coup, or to abolish the state in an infantile display, but to build outright something that would resist this imperious invasion of the lives of most of humanity and then confine the beast of aristocracy until it could be snuffed out for good. If that meant defeating the existing state and building anew a ruling interest, that would have only been the start, and anyone who knew the history of these things likely figured out that they better have a plan beyond cheering for a revolution that would likely not be in the interest of most of the people but in the interest of a revolutionary intelligentsia with their own aspirations. Such a program would not have existed purely as a story or a narrative to be told as a cope. It would have entailed organization of the interests opposed to aristocracy in total, which likely meant that the basis for the aristocracy's effective rule - the army and the rising bureaucratic state - would have to be met with a counter-force that was anathema to a totalizing view of society. It would have required the development of a world outside of "society" in the aristocratic sense of a controlled ecology.

To illustrate how disparate interests can form a ruling interest, we should step back from our assumptions about civic worth and social rank and see what rulers do. Properly speaking, this is more of a political question than an economic one, as much of what is effective for rule is economically worthless or damaging if viewed as a productive enterprise. The question is not confined to a political theory or view. For politics to exist, just as anything else that would be above the economic, it requires mechanisms which ultimately derive from a process in the physical world rather than the strength of an idea alone. And so, all of the functions described in an earlier chapter would be picked apart, dissected, and their utility considered by those who work in the other functions. This process in recent history did not happen with a blank slate but with centuries of accumulated history, grudges, institutional memory, and so on, but much of what has been built in modernity is novel to our time and has few antecedents before modernity. New men and women could rise from nearly nothing if they understood what this really was and how to climb the ladder, as difficult as that would be and as often as that resulted in nothing but failure and a kick in the teeth. Above all, those who rule need to consider the economy of making others suffer, and how to do this in the most effective way that eliminates resistance to rule. It is possible to rule by virtue or something other than making people suffer, but the shortest and most economically efficient expenditure of ruling force is to give the subordinated groups as little as possible, and rule through threats and impressions rather than good deeds or forthright promises. It was necessary and desirable to use both carrots and sticks when building the technocratic polity, and to suggest that rising through the new institutions was better than anything that would have preventing the chokehold from happening. If enough people could rise and saw the institutions as serving some social end that included them, then it could work, and those who were merely cogs in the machine could tell themselves that they're aren't the living abortions that the residuum would be made out to be, who are punished most severely for crimes of Being rather than anything they actually did, since what the lowest class did was irrelevant and often didn't register as any coherent attack against the ruling interest. So far as the lowest class did have a plan, it was to piss off and wreck the machines of rule and management as much as they could, and this was often pursued with little vision beyond making the bastards suffer for doing this to them and to the world. Very often the lowest class were not the gangsters and pimps, but the targets of gangs and the lower of the prostitutes who couldn't climb up the ladder to status in that world. Included in the lowest class were those who were sick, or who were thrown out of work and once upon a time were respectable enough, but now were just deemed fools who somehow deserved it, even though the ruinous arrangement of economic affairs for urban industry was clear to people in every class. No one could claim with a straight face that capitalism was a perfect system, and no one ever suggested that capitalism could be a perfect state and maintained indefinitely. It took a new reactionary push to suggest that capitalists should become feudal, venal, and petty thugs of the lowest sort, and glorify that rot for its own sake, and this was only possible by seeding it in institutions for generations and letting it fester, while forbidding anyone to defend themselves against predation. What we have seen is that low cunning, avarice, cruelty, pettiness, and a propensity to lie are closer to the ruling arts and sciences than anything productive, and this makes perfect economic sense if the role of a suffering class or suffering generally is understood as essential to the arrangement. It became necessary to make suffering invisible or something abstract and distant, and to convince the struggling to blind themselves to any greater awareness but Operation Impending Doom II. This idea didn't sell, because anyone who was at all serious about changing the situation would not accept an essentially bourgeois narrative of seizing the state to fulfill some kooky social engineering project. The would be socialists, from their earliest incarnation, knew that selling the concept would not be easy without any idea of what is to be done, and this was not merely a suggestion of a nicer world or a technological question, but a matter of what someone would need to do in order to contest the ruling interest. The rulers themselves cannot rule simply by backstabbing and low cunning. The ways in which cravens would be enabled and allowed to present as virtuous men and women were a long project that was incredibly costly, entailed stoking wars and a war industry that sucked away resources that would have improved the lives of the people, and only began to show its results in the last third of the 20th century, and then only because it was technologically possible to invade private life in a way that was previously impossible and against the interests of all of the people who would have manually enforced the ruling idea in an earlier time. Before computerization could automate the managerial task and discipline the enforcers, it was necessary to feed the venality of the middle class and teach them to clamor for pigheaded answers to life's spiritual questions. The simple truth is that how people ruled had less to do with any great mystical secret that required occult initiation, but instead dealt with approaching society, psychology, finance, and all of the key instruments of rule as scientific matters, just as a workman would know his tools and how to use them by heart. Raising the specialists and indoctrinating them with a mentality is not a trivial thing.

In an earlier society, before there is even a state to rule, the mechanisms will be different, but fundamentally there is a calculus implied - that ruling through trickery and malice is very quick, and since there isn't an organized interest that can unite to stop this, a priest-king could accumulate followers gradually and work them over until the cult practices are fervent among enough believers, and fear of the supposed "gods" of a cult of power could cow the rest of the people into submission. The foul origins of the human race come back with a vengeance when the city-states form and institute orgies and all of the vices of urban life, and this is one way in which people can be habituated to rule and believe that it was somehow their fault or a vice they couldn't control, because the allure of the temple's mysteries is greater than what they had before, and because they were going to be slaves and driven like cattle anyway. A philosophy of kindness and technological advance would be dead on arrival for most of the people, and the rulers kept such secrets for themselves and their favored subordinates. Part of the mysteries, and why education came to be dominated by gurus and pedagogy, was to protect the ruling interest and work towards its interests, rather than educate people to increase the available manpower that could be called upon. Rather than educate people in a way that suggested society was worth defending, the default of education was, and would remain up to today, fear and humiliation and a celebration of the venal, the pigheaded, and the superficial. This is intended. The people in early society do not arrive as a mass that had implicit solidarity, but are drawn to the city and trapped there by some form of bondage, then told that their life will consist of farming, harvesting, and praying to the gods that the weather will be good. If the weather is bad, and "the weather" includes the capricious terror of aristocrats, their soldiers, and the scum who have always been ready to enable the former, it was on the peasant for not sacrificing hard enough, and the sacrifice of animal blood is replaced with the sacrifice of human blood. This has to be normalized and seen as natural and somehow moral, and that is the character of ancient pagan gods. The gods of monotheism would be little better, and usually more focused on the philosophy of rule and religion's role to facilitate rule, while the pagan gods ran the gamut and included both the ruling arts and the tasks of workmen, in an effort to subsume workers and their pleasures in the lurid cults that were associated with aristocratic status.

Social classes never consolidate neatly into a preferred philosophical arrangement, however much this is attempted. The philosophical treatises are not meant to suggest classes that actually exist in of themselves, but suggest principles by which groups of people can be managed. The working class collectively has no interest in claiming that one interest is "the true working class", because that would be stupid and obviously servile to bourgeois or aristocratic conceits. The workers want much more basic things that are somehow forgotten, like "not dying for stupid bullshit wars and the conceits of assholes with a loudspeaker and sanction to speak", and "maybe we can actually have nice things and security instead of being threatened by this racket you people call the state". This interest is not particular to proletarians, since it would be basic to anyone who likes living and knows what this is. It has to be declared by ideologues that certain of the lower class - the lowest class which had long been identified and pushed as the benchmark to make the other classes comply - are incapable of understanding the mysteries of ruling. The lowest class, however dull they are, are acutely aware of the ruling ideas, because they have borne the brunt of humiliation and defeat. We are the humans who have been sacrificed in droves with nary a voice to call our own. The workers who struggle most are typically not the ardent revolutionaries, because their lives make such a career problematic. The workers who succeed might consider their options and choose a side, and more often than not the better off workers side with the lower class in shared sentiment and purpose, because they're not far removed from the threat themselves. All of this, though, requires a very particular situation in modern cities, where urbanization, industry, and the rise of technology made some plan necessary for all factions. Past society was predominantly rural, and so the goings-on of kings, courts, and cults were not particularly interesting to most people, and the land-holders would prefer to keep that land by any means they can. Among the land-holders are not the rich but men who hold their plot of land, or are tenants and have a decent enough thing going compared to slavery. All the while, anyone who wishes to rule cannot simply rule by fear or impressions, but needs large quantities of various qualities - product that can supply armies, cities, and stimulate further development.[2]

Many a fool will demand to raise "class consciousness", as if people are too stupid to know their interests and where those interest align. In this economic logic, the interests at a basic level are not difficult to see. A human being will retain a native sense of their environment, and has to be acutely aware that other people are the greatest danger by far. Even without any of the knowledge that is occulted, the default tendency would be to expect something foul until it can be verified that something can be trusted. Far from demonstrating anything that indicates trustworthiness, the cajolers will go out of their way to offend anyone who doesn't subscribe to some cult-like arrangement, and that is what is represented by this stupid conceit that the ruled are too stupid to know their situation. Such insults show an aristocratic bent that is too hideous to ever accomplish anything, and that is the point. The assholes who do this long ago decided they exist to insinuate themselves with the ruling interest, so they can grab some petty position to facilitate the management of their social inferiors. If there were a political reasoning behind this or any coherent purpose that suggests a fanatical vanguard would be effective at winning power, it might have been understandable, but these fools convince themselves they are always brilliant and their war plan will totally work if it is followed religiously. It is a constant replay of the planning that went into 1914, where the generals and war staff insist that this war plan will totally work, it will be quick and easy and we will surely win. It is also known now to this author that such idiotic thinking was encouraged by the eugenists, because the war for them was a grand story where the workers and those not clever enough to get in with the creed would be killed off, and the eugenist fantasizes that he will take the women of the poorer class as breeding stock, or she will ward off undesirable men and feed the thrill of rejection which the eugenic creed glorifies beyond anything reasonable. Invariably, some crass sexual desire is at the heart of eugenism and aristocracy generally, for among the ruling interests are the great games of sexual selection, orgies for those in the know, and command over reproduction. It is much easier to sell the rule of aristocracy when they decide through the sexual act who lives and who dies in the long run, and an obsession with sexualism is inherent to aristocracy in humans. The eugenists are happy to stoke wars because they've never been told no, and they found idiotic war cultists dumb enough to think that abomination of 1914 was anything other than suffering for the stupidest purpose. 1933, 1939, 1941, all demonstrate the same stupidity, and it should be clear now that the second world war was the true endgame that made it clear humanity was indeed a failed race. The craven devolution to faux-nationalism would not have been saleable if humanity was seen as something that would go anywhere but where we arrived in the 21st century, and the procession towards full eugenism is presented as the last and only world-historical mission. Such a change in the national idea was only possible because flagrant lying about basic reality was not just technologically possible, but because there was enough rot in the human race to start the cycle and too little decency to suggest it could have been any other way. The proper solution to overcome class society would first be to recognize what it even was, and the creative re-definition of social class by those who promoted narratives over mechanical historical procession was the first attack on an understanding that literate men and women already held, and the illiterates could discern without too much difficulty should they see enough of the ruling interest. A full theory of class analysis would not be necessary to see that the way social class was re-defined to fit narratives and a thought-form of the conservative order was far removed from anything real. The next step of flagrant lying was only possible because the conservative order insinuated it could do this during the preceding two generations. Meaning was dissolved and replaced with pedagogy and creative use of dialectics to claim that what was in front of our faces wasn't real. A proper assessment of class would have seen the ruling interest not as a united front marching in lockstep, but a machine with moving parts like any other. It was only after that machine beat down and degraded intellects enough that it could present its faceless phalanx to the masses as the ultimate death cult. This took a long time to truly sink in, and up until the turn of the 21st century, there was a dim hope that we did not have to do this. After 2000, it was all over, and aristocracy was ready to make its play to, at long last, win the final war and reach its logical and mechanistic outcome. The ruling interest could only consolidate into the imagined phalanx that controls its soldiers absolutely in very recent times. The political thinkers who cajoled and bought into these cargo cults were active long, long before the present.

Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

[1] For reasons that become apparent in later books, I do not believe "political economy" is a pseudoscience, because it would not be understood as "science" in the first place, and it exists entirely outside of the purview of natural science. Everything in the moral philosophy political economy entailed would, if it encountered an impassable natural barrier, be abandoned out of necessity, and the natural limits to economic planning would be defined. For example, anything outside of the planet Earth is of no consequence in an economic sense, because the sun and the moon, the two celestial bodies with any significant influence on Earth, cannot be enclosed or managed by any means available to us or likely to be worth pursuing. Anyone who wished to claim the sun like Monty Burns would not just face the technical barrier, but the realization of everyone else that such a scheme would only exist to make everyone suffer, paying for something that was as cheap as free and given by the world out of its typical generosity to us unworthy humans. The aims of political economy in its basic form did not entail the all-pervading command and control that sociology and socialism suggested as a possibility, but concerned a progression of imperial strategy over things that were already established, and concerned people and institutions whose existence was not questioned at the time. It is not difficult to see the Bank of England and established finance players in a strong position and working with both free trade, nascent socialists, and the reactionaries who clamored to take it all back. The presumption that the liberals wanted democracy was inserted after the fact by people who didn't bother to actually read the liberals or know where they came from, and what interests they represented. The founders of the United States were not fond of democracy and certainly knew their labor force consisted of slaves, indentured servants, and small holders who managed to survive servitude. It is very strange that the narrative of revolution suggested it happened entirely from the lowest class, when no such revolution was possible or resembled anything that happened. Those who lived through such times remember revolutions not as a grand narrative of success, but a struggle to survive against the culls of humanity, and the winners of the cull retroactively declaring the revolution was about something completely different. It is fitting that a government type premised on intercine conflict and habitual lying would lie about its origin so profusely, but the strange thing is that this origin story only appeared during the middle-to-late 19th century. Those with living memory of the late 18th century and the Napoleonic Wars took away very different lessons, whether they were the radicals, liberals, conservatives, monarchists, or the scum of humanity that jump from one patron to the next looking to make the rest of us suffer. The founding documents of the American and French states did not suggest any grand narrative of history was to over-write things many people knew about, and further that doing so would make the entire project nonsensical. Even as this new narrative arises, the ruling elites tend to prefer upholding their openly elitist governments, and didn't pretend that their governments were democratic or meant to serve the people at all. It is with fascism and the rise of eugenics that absolute lying became the intellectuals' great work, where before these charlatans were told to get the fuck out when anyone wanted to seriously discuss what happened and what is happening in the current day. Those who perpetuate the "revolutions are when people feel bad" line desire to be the next Hitler, and are not in line with past uprisings in history at all. That mentality is what leads to the cajolers who want a fascist coup, who see themselves in the institutions and choking the life out of the world. The strategy of the intellectuals suggested this curious "revolution" and would in the 20th century do everything possible to undermine the possibility that the commons could be restored at all. Those who fought against fascism and suffered so greatly were stabbed in the back and left holding the bag, and told that if they protested this, they were the "real fascists", in the typical lies of these filthy would-be aristocrats.

[2] A note here about population is that aristocracy has contradictory conceits. The first is that they are always convinced there are too many poor people, since the very existence of the poor offends their sensibilities, and so aristocrats crave depopulation in ways that defy reason. The second is that, because this conceit of the aristocracy is known and imposed on their societies inevitably, the aristocrats find it difficult to convince anyone to damn their offspring to live in a world controlled by this. Far from Malthus' conceit of mindless breeders, the subordinated classes often loathe creating new life because it leads to liabilities and few promises of reward. Children are expensive and taxing, and certainly are taxing on the woman's body which would impair her ability to raise the children. Employing children as slave labor on the family farm facilitates some birth rate among the farmers, but slave populations have never been prolific breeders. Even here, the breeding is never "mindless" as pigheaded aristocrats think about their own affairs. The common man or woman has to consider any time they mate if they really want to risk this at any period where it is an option. Commoners do not have "accidents", as if they didn't figure out that when a man has sex with a woman it makes a baby. If a woman does not want a child, she will find ways to get rid of it, and since human sacrifice was often normal in human societies, that was one way to get rid of a kid the mother hated. Even where human sacrifice was publicly discouraged, it is carried out in private. Anyone in America today knows that human sacrifice never ended, and today's aristocrats grin with the knowledge that their sacrifices to Moloch or whatever god they shed blood for will not stop.

Return to Table of Contents | Return to Chapter Start