Return to Table of Contents | Previous Chapter | Next Chapter

So far we have noted the division of labor by psychological sentiments and sense of the mind and divison of labor by functions which include extraction from a world that preceded labor. Both of these encounter a world which must be known and studied, because the division of labor can only proceed in environments that allow it, and the social agents themselves are part of the world with a history that was once dependent on it. That knowledge creates nascent institutions, where the interested parties in any society would gather. Because the interested parties have both goals and a history, and see the environment not merely as a mathematical problem but a home and a way to build something new, they organize around those institutions not for the sake of the institutions themselves, but for their long-term interests which are informed by the knowledge. Simply stating a fact like "2 and 2 make 4" does not have any meaningful implication that would require an interest to believe it is profound. The history of the interests and their institutions is itself knowledge and a part of the world, which forms further institutions, jockeying for position, and all of the things which allow labor to divide into the familiar social classes. This starts in a more primitive way, amidst a society where clans, villages, cities, cults, and a whole lot of ordinary humans are living, without any regard to this task of management or any division of labor. The clans and smaller social forms have their own interests and institutions, but these give way to the division of labor in a polity, and the division of labor in an ecosystem where certain interests rule. The rule of the interests must establish collaboration in order to rule, and the ruling interest attracts those who seek power over the world for various purposes. Anyone who wishes to survive has to abide the ruling interests no matter how stupid they are, but the ruling interests are each their own thing and have no intrinsic spiritual connection or identity as a singular thing. The social classes never really form in line with the philosophical framework that suggests a general rule of social classes, as if they all shared one institution and mindset. The broad social classes conform more to the presumptions of rank and prestige and a sentiment that can be programmed into people, then the actual coalitions of interest that comprise them and shift their position in relation to the ruling interest. And so, while I have referred to aristocracy as a tendency and there is definitely an aristocratic mindset that recognizes itself and people like them, aristocracies have to be drawn from existing interests to rule in this economic sense. The core tendencies cannot remake the world to conform to their preferred image of it no matter how much they insist history only moves by thought leaders pushing events into existence, as if their thoughts were fused with fundamental nature and they alone held the master key to command it.

The will of those in social classes to act in accord with those interests cannot operate infinitely, or make whatever meaning they wish, such that they can truly make the world into a reflection of their will. All economic actors can only work with the representations of the world they can hold onto. We only briefly hold onto the meaning of these things, and we hope to isolate mechanisms at work that allow us to formulate general laws of motion. This applies to physics, society, economics, or anything else we would hope to manage. Each of these concepts entails very different things, and the language of society and institutions has no place in physics which pertains to a world that cares not about our conceits. Economic thought proceeds not as social or psychological behavior and its emergences, nor as behavior inherent to life that explains the genesis of all of its behavior. Economic thought arises only when it is possible to conceive that it is possible - and so, the formation of social classes in reality is not something that is read into nature's laws, but a thing born because humans develop symbolic language. Without the idolatry and fetishism inherent in this task of economic command and control of large spaces, our economic behavior would remain a local interest, and we would see correctly that economic behavior has a limited purview. Economics is not the true origin of politics, or really something that would have anything to do with disputes over the polity. Economics is a potential means by which politicians can act, if they choose to make economics into their cause. If they do, the politician or the manager of society imagines themselves as the only ones who are sacrosanct, and "homo economicus" is treated with disdain placing them beneath cattle. The default of mankind under economic management is to be treated as vermin or a threat lurking, which must be cajoled to comply with increasingly absurd expectations. If not for the managerial impulse, economics would have been a simple enough affair, and economic life would be oriented around things we actually wanted rather than imperious wills insisting we are something much different than what we do and what happens beneath the surface representation. Economic management, more than the typical for mankind, is given over to the superficial, and exaggerates its attachment to vanity. The shorter route to command and control people and interrupt the native thought process is preferred when knowledge itself becomes a prized asset and the property of an elite, whose values become a mixture of aristocratic and technocratic conceits. Aristocracy has always found the worst of all worlds to be highly effective in its mission, and so they co-opt merit, technology, the meaning of the world that labor produced, and claim that they are the patrons of the sick and weak and the only way to salvation. Never are the subordinated tendencies allowed to suggest that the aristocracy is full of shit and does the most to guarantee that the worst of all worlds prevails. The only limitation for all of this is that humans, no matter their conceits, really do only grasp the surface representation of the things they appropriate. The meaning and germ of knowledge is not easily accessible to us in the same form, and we must out of necessity compress a lot of information about ourselves to that which is easy to work with. If we do not, we are lost and indulge too much in thinking about how we think, without arriving at useful conclusions. We do require some self-awareness and an ability to disconnect from our conceits momentarily, and in some way acknowledge we are alien to ourselves and never whole or pure, and never were. Humans from birth are tainted by the history of their genesis and the genesis of the human race generally, and this is not some incomprehensible divine sin but a past we know very well. Many of us attempt to do something other than this, but there are those who are drawn to the genesis and primordial light because that is a short route to command and control people, and it destroys meaning and eventually the symbolic representation of anything that is inimical to eugenics. This is why the aristocrat and the eugenist crave sameness and regression to a universal subject, and promote the creation of echo chambers almost by instinct. They are aware of how this is constructed, but in their heart, the aristocrats and those who make the echo chambers are no different, and believe everyone should be as depraved as them. The thing they hate more than anything else is the idea that anything new is possible, or that difference can exist in a way that is not distinctly inferior and sorted into some grade of civic worth. If there is social distinction, it must be declared by the superior who declares which identity groups are inferior. Once aristocracy has its way, it becomes a grand taboo to speak about this declaration of civic worth, and false egalitarianism is the aristocracy's calling card, one of the egregious insults spewed to the ruled. The ruled know this game, like every other humiliation the aristocracy craves and the thrill of the subordinates who align with this demonic impulse. By systematically denying that any symbol inimical to the ruling interest is admissible, and associating such symbols with ridicule and humiliation, aristocracy's foul purpose for the human race is reasserted. It has been, sadly, too easy for humans to do this, because that is what humans were born as and conditioned to accept. Every effort humanity makes to change this, which it must undertake simply to live let alone break free from aristocracy's conceit, must be stopped before it can even form a representation that would suggest a meaning that anything new is possible.

A division of labor can arise organically without any intent, and in some way it is demonstrated by life's functions and the cooperation of living things, as they are distinct from each other and, whether they wish it or not, they live in the same world and in some sense cooperate with each other. Without any concept of inherent race or species, life as aliens to each other cannot persist for long. Noting the distinctions of living entities does not entail any economic or political objective, or suggest competition must ensue - nor for that matter that cooperation is required within a race or between races. The default of life would be to recognize the world and other inhabitants, then revert to their own lives and not step on each other. This is not done out of some political autism or a conceit of life, but because in most circumstances, doing nothing and letting each other be and do as they will is the least likely to make a situation worse. If people are to cooperate, that is only possible with some understanding and shared purpose. If people are to compete, they normally have something to fight for. The reduction of struggle to an impulse for its own sake is another aristocratic calling card. The first step to realizing any division of labor happens not in the intent of life, which does not need to necessarily regard this division as relevant and often circumvents any division of labor for expedience. Since the division of labor is premised on the control of spaces that existed before us, division of labor is in the first instance a reaction to a world as it appears to us. The efforts to shape that division of labor to fit a philosophical conceit or preference can only be a long-run mission. The understanding of actors to create their preferred division of labor is only formed so far, and there have been various schemes and minutia in this division to push and prod the subordinated to comply. It is thus that the division of labor, and all sense of economic worth, is really the command of information, rather than the substance itself or the meaning of any of that information. Knowledge itself as a process must be subordinated to a model institutions impose on the world and the subjets, and so the splitting of the mind must increase as the division of labor becomes more sacrosanct. This splitting of the mind is counterproductive and doesn't actually accomplish anything, and would be circumvented if we had perfect knowledge and all of the necessary information to not need any division of labor in the way it has been imposed. There would remain natural distinctions among people, but these would not be seen as particularly relevant, and it would not be out of the question to consider that people could all be better, without any regard for economic dickering and the infliction of suffering purely to keep this order in place.

All that has been discussed in the prior chapters could only be ascertained after-the-fact, without knowledge of the history that led to it. We were not born with a genetic code telling us what the whole society was, and every new member of society must re-learn the vast majority of that information. Only scant information is passed in a way we would consider hereditary and inborn, and this information is nowhere near enough to understand the game played. It is both an aristocratic and meritocratic conceit that superior ability will be inborn, and so they always like to portray the division of labor like the rest of history - as a series of just-so stories that have no meaningful connection, and assert boldly an alternate reality. They need not hold to any science or fidelity to the truth - only the appearance of truthiness that appeals to some primitive sentiment that can be pushed to continue the process of dividing labor, or start anew a process or a particular initiative of social engineering.

If there is one common trait of all mankind, it is that suffering is a constant. This is not so much because of a terrible Demiurge making it so or a perversion of the Monad, but because suffering operates at such a basic level and is the obvious filter for social class and distinction. Suffering is as cheap as free, and if the suffering were to ever stop, existence would be very different. It very likely results in a world where humanity, seeing no good reason to carry on with this sad farce, largely refuses to speak to each other, having seen that humans simply refuse to get along in large groups for much at all. It would not mean that people mull about how lonely and pointless existence is, or refuse any communication of information out of a fear of knowledge. It would rather be that the ways in which humanity communicates would be different, and the behavior of the low residuum today and its penchant for absurdism rather than the thrill of torture is indicative of what it would mean. Such an innocuous fate, which harmed no one, evokes horror in those who have tasted blood and know that if it ends, they would have nothing. A race born of ritual sacrifice like Man faces existential crisis not from peace, but the end of their favorite cult and the oldest religion there is. Without the constant leering of said vampires, the absurdist humor would, having exhausted its appeal, give way to humans finally holding what they really wanted, which was not much more than the muck from which their bodies arose. We might make things because they were intrinsically interesting or because convenience would eliminate an unnecessary barrier. That world only exists in small microcosms the damned have made to tolerate this society, and it never develops too far before it is smashed in favor of this shitfest that is called "high culture" and "high society". A parody of this is sold as the province of aristocracy, claiming their stupid luxuries extracted at great expense are some great treasure, while we the damned learned long ago to expect little from this world and to distrust a human no matter what. In a better world, the damned may relax their hatred, but they would never forget the origins of this sordid race or why it turned out this way. There would be new struggles, new emergences of the beast, but aristocracy in total would be laid bare and we would have no further need of any of it. Our life would no longer be a machine set in motion or a beast rife with contradiction and struggle, and this world is not some unicorn or even something bizarre. We were not born to suffer, and it was not the fools who created suffering compared to the psychotic torture that ordinary society revels in as a rule. What would result is that, having seen enough to conclude that humanity is a failed race and has no shared brotherhood or future, it would be enough to salvage what remains, and dream of a better existence in a world where we never did this. It would not create some transhuman new race or indulge in the fetishes of the property-holders or technophiles, or suggest anything all that strange, and claim this was spiritual redemption. It wouldn't be out of the question for humans to become biologically something different, but this would not wipe away the stain of the human race or really change anything we have described here. The true aims of the residuum, so far as they exist, have nothing to do with what asinine authors decide we were "meant" to be, or really any objective those who are not us would appreciate. Only the damned of the Earth have some sense of what is necessary and what will happen, one way or another. The worst mistake is to pretend it was going to be different so long as the aristocratic idea dominates, or that any of the other interests have any real objection or vision that it would be significantly different. Perhaps on some level, enough of humanity in the more favored classes knows that in the end, they are damned with the rest of us, and all of their aspirations really were for nothing. If they did want something different, the ideologies produced en masse made sure that nothing different was possible. At heart, the ruling ideas - and this is something that long experience has taught me - could only exist if the vision of most of humanity as cattle came early and never went away. That would be a natural outgrowth of the hunt and the lurid sexual rituals inherited from animal life, and "abolishing the orgasm" or any such silly aim does not change what was done or why it was done. It is entirely possible to reproduce the same mentality with very different mechanisms, if humanity were engineered to be asexual and bred in cloning vats. It is entirely possible - trivial even - to reject entirely the absurd rituals and eugenic sorting that mating entails, and instead men and women would mate because they both want a child, which even now is not unheard of. In a different world, bringing a child into existence, while not something to be taken lightly, would not be fraught with the danger of vampires leering for more sacrifice for Moloch or the sick gods that are the true religion of the human race.

There was never a time where such a world existed for us, nor a primordial time where all was good. The primordial image of Man in the cults of Saturn-worship is that of the hunter exalted to parodic heights, rather than seen with contempt, or what the hunter actually was. The glorification of the hunt is even more absurd than the glorification of war, which is saying a lot. A human who hunts for the thrill of it is a greater retard than most, but usually the hunt was carried out for far more mundane things. It was a source of food and raw material, the elimination of a threat - for all living things are in principle threats to another - and honing for war since the hunter doubled as a man-at-arms for savage society, which may be limited to himself against other savages and whatever ad hoc bands they assembled. That sadly is what we were. Rising from the muck is a dignified existence compared to a race that took perverse pleasure in sticking their genitalia in the poopy, and thinking these displays and acts were some sort of great purpose. At the same time, the better world was available as soon as Those People were no longer around, because it did not take any great mind to see the futility of this, and it did not take a great mind to discover how such a vile genesis could be weaponized in various ways to facilitate a nastier project. It has never left us. We have been the beneficiaries for so long of the world's limitations on the human race. Among the tropes of aristocracy is the conceit that the body or the world is a prison, but the body did nothing to us. It was the vessel that allowed us to contemplate any of this at all, and it is almost designed to envision something different rather than a recapitulation of the aristocracy's rot. The world will never fall. Only humans did that, and had to invent a story that would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.

It is the drive to make others suffer that preceded the material conditions of deprivation, rather than the other way around. Materially, nothing justified or necessitated the glorification of torture that was the genesis of the human race. It is not biologically necessary for humans to do any of this, or encoded in any biological truth, such that torture and suffering are natural laws. Nothing about this practice is natural, but then, by nature's law, all we value is worth piss and shit and would not matter one way or the other. A condition of starvation doesn't necessitate acting in this deliberate and malicious way, which always required a level of comfort. Desperate humans do not think to torture others for amusement, for they have more pressing concerns. Only aristocracy believes that desperation creates this, because it is not a desperation of themselves. When aristocrats are against the wall individually, they behave like the cravens they have always been, because eugenics knows no other way, and even at its best, aristocracy has only parodies of suffering once they have theirs. Their personal life, if they had to become aristocrats through determination rather than heredity, must be set aside for them to truly adopt the aristocratic values and act on them. This, they claim, is a "master morality", and anyone who calls it what it is must be slaves that are jealous of the masters, where the slave must invent a cope as an aristocrat would. The truth is that the slaves and downtrodden never required any moral claim to hate the aristocrats, because the aristocrats were a clear and present danger. Those of the subjugated classes, all the way up to the officers, are not delusional to sense the knife at their throat, that aristocracy always reveled in showing and demonstrating ad nauseum. That Hegelian shit and its offshoots has always been a doctrine of the aristocrats to insist the world conforms to their pigheaded conceits, or at best it is an explanation of the political logic the German idealists believed to be operative whether it was a good idea or not - that is, even if the master/slave dialectic is a bunch of malarkey as it demonstrably is, the koan must be reinforced because aristocracy has little else to live by, and it takes on a power of its own. It was the infliction of suffering and all mechanisms to do so that was truly important and valued, and this was not merely an economic choice but a political one. It would only be sensical if the torture were conducted not by peers, but by social superiors who had all of the choice and "freedom" in the world, with everyone else having none. After the fact, it is helpful to tell the slaves that this is natural and indescribable at the same time, and that there is a received wisdom of gurus that they can buy into - a piece of blue sky, as L. Ron Hubbard understood to be the thing Scientology sold to its high value recruits.^[1]

No material necessity drives this division of labor, or even drives significant differentiation in operations beyond that which is evident with a cursory examination. Whatever human beings do is some manifestation of labor, and much of this labor is so mundane that it is never considered a thing to be managed. The drive for suffering is not merely a fait accompli, but a wedge which makes opening the subject to unlimited exploitation possible. Without it, exploitation and alienated labor is just another fact of little moral consequence to us. Sure, there may be a ruling elite which holds all of the really important information and enjoys a marked distinction in favor and wealth, but this really does not present a clear and present danger in of itself or anything that the lower classes would need to remedy out of a sense that equality of wealth would be just in-of-itself. It is the suffering which makes that wealth disparity an actionable threat, and no other task could accomplish this. Mere violence and a willingness to destroy life functions will, at some point, be another fact that living things abide. There is much worse than destruction, and compared to the torture cults that were foundational to the human race as anything recognizable, death seems tame and kind. The rulers do not believe in clean death, and the grand ritual surrounding so-called "euthanasia" demonstrates how much the rulers do not believe in clean death.^[2] If there were a belief in clean death, then there would be an open and frank admission that aristocratic cruelty does not give the damned a "right" to suicide, and the language of political rights would be irrelevant. Such abomination that we have been made to live under would make suicidality an almost obligatory rite of passage for us who are damned. In our society, every inducement is made to push the damned to suicidal intent, which would be the only way out, and then the first sign of a lack of faith in this eugenic hellworld is taken as a pretext to both intensify the suffering and disallow clean death, without the last thing we see being the thrill of the Satanic race reveling in the damnation of the underclass. This is intended and inherent to torture, and in doing so, true exploitation is possible. With brute force, it appears exemplary wealth is spent to induce labor that would have been obtained more easily by offering any level of security to the worker, no matter how low the eugenic qualities of the laborer. There would seem to be a point where giving people something is far more sensical than torturing people like this, if economics were merely a question of resource inflows and outflows. All of our sense and history regarding this has made clear that free labor, even if the "freedom" is dubious, is far more effective as a disciplinary tool than this managerial torture cult, because substantive rewards would perpetuate themselves and allow the security which was the necessary companion of liberty. When economics is understood as the infliction of suffering granted value, and only after the fact is this labor deemed valuable when under torture, then the peculiar institutions damning labor and the residuum are perfectly sensical, and this outrageously large allocation of human effort towards making other humans suffer is the only possible outcome of such an arrangement. Politically, this makes sense to many interests in society, but not one of those interests are the goods that economic life would produce or anything most of us would want. If we truly did value anything like justice, then it would be clear the present status quo and those who dictate it have no standing whatsoever to judge who lives and who dies. Those who sought this imperium did not need to believe that torture was the point, because the reason for the state's existence is not the pleasure of some Satanic screamers who squeal "me wantee" and can keep doing it because it is illegal to tell them no. Once established, though, the power of life and death has to accept at its core that the power of life and death is won not by merit or some virtue in the world, but the psychological game of torture alone. Torture has moved the human race since its inception, and little else has been so effective at governing behavior in the final analysis. Even when it would have been much cleaner to have a dialogue, such a dialogue would make clear that all of the interested parties who were blooded on the eugenic creed and its antecedents cannot be forgiven, abided, or even acknowledged as anything other than what they are. This might have been overcome. The damned, after all they have endured, have been forgiving, because the thought of doing what must be done is too terrible for us to consider, and would require a true jihad unlike any this sorry race has ever known. It would seem better to let the aristocrats play their game of sweeping their crimes under a rug, if only to buy a temporary peace. World-historical missions and dreams of arresting history are the plaything of aristocracy and it does not require great wisdom to see that it is all malarkey. Those who tasted blood do not continue to press purely out of obligation or security, and really know that they face no significant threat to that. It is rather than the torture is so valuable that the thought of even temporarily abandoning it is what they believe "suffering" is - and so, they "suffer fools" and do not acknowledge the fool's daily agony and the misery of existing among these Satanic apes. In the place of the very real agony we feel in our bones, the aristocrat substitutes an infantile pissant's ennui because they didn't get as much of the quota of torture as their peers and won't get that badge of honor. It is not that the aristocrat can't feel that agony themselves. We should not take it for granted that they do feel this agony, because an aristocrat or anyone who is safe from the ritual sacrifice is not us and has no reason to think we are the same thing. Yet, suffering rarely stays in any domain management dictates it "ought" to stay in, and enough genuine suffering is distributed to discipline the rest of the body politic, however it is constituted. This is not merely a sense of empathy that is natural for animal life, but a rational understanding that evil begets evil and there is much more evil that the torture cult and ritual sacrifice entails than the act itself. The true torture in the end must not be in a special place while the world is kept secure and happy. The true torture is to live in a world where ritual sacrifice is openly glorified and any opposition to it is "retarded".

It is important above all that opposition to this ritual sacrifice be "retarded", rather than "weak", merely "stupid", "naive", or anything else. Past regimes might have used weakness and bad moral fiber rather than intelligence and knowledge to point at the core of torture, either as a misdirect or because no working theory of intelligence or thought was widely accessible. Humans are more responsive to merits and distinctions in struggles and through violent action than they are to reasoned arguments for a ritual sacrifice which is unreasonable. It is impossible for someone to say with any credibility that this torture has resulted in a single good thing for anyone, even those who revel in the blood and go home to their otherwise dreary but "pleasurable" lives. What can be argued, at least in the short to medium term, is that life is struggle, and there is no reasoning or negotiating with someone who holds the subject captive with a sword or gun about the nature of imperium.^[3] This merit of brute force is undesirable because brute force requires effort, whereas suffering is entirely placed on the subject. It must be their fault, however ludicrous the claim would be, that they were attacked. Such is the most basic tenet of any bully, learned and kept sacred in all educational institutions and glorified beyond any reason why it should be so. The thrill of torture must be maximized and carried out to its logical conclusion. It would not do to merely state this victory as a merit and let it be known that some are better than others, or allowed a right of unlimited violence. That is the overt rationale of the institutions and the state, but the true rationale is that knowledge must become proprietary, and it must be declared, without any evidence, that the victim does not know, and repeat that retarded status ad nauseum. Only in this way is the suffering true. Anything less would be an imperfect admission. Why the emphasis on knowledge, even though it isn't difficult for everyone to see the nature of this institution? There are multiple purposes to this mechanism, which are more suited to a discussion of political mechanisms than economic or natural ones. The chief purpose is that this conceit, this knowledge of the bully's credo and "the secret" held by the institutions, is itself the purpose, rather than a means to an end. It is not done because this method is proven to work, with full knowledge of the consequences. Savage humanity did not really need to know what it was doing to commit to its genesis. It did know enough, and it will always be guilty, for the law of nature so far as one exists is guilty until proven innocent. It is necessary to invert this natural law in the aristocratic conceit of justice, and then claim that the aristocrats who engineered this no-win scenario are here to help you. The thrill of torture must be maximized. We are living with the consequence of this ancient rite of the human race, and rather than face what they are, the human race elected to scream like the Satanic retards they are. So long as they have ritual sacrifices, it will never end, and the thrill of torture will escalate until the bully tires, and not one moment before. This is the essence of the control and "restraint" of the state's officers in total, rather than any determination for something we would consider good or right. Restraint for good as we would see it is anathema to every concept of justice aristocracy holds, and those who thought otherwise were too "retarded" and purged. History and the will of a Satanic race saw to it. The perpetrators cannot ever give a reason why it happens, despite the obvious consequences of this ritual sacrifice, but it must go on. If it didn't it would be as if the Aztecs' gods were displeased and the sun won't rise. The Satanic does not think any more than that when it comes to this question. They are very knowledgeable about the methods of torture and how they can be maximized, and can invent philosophical excuses, which their experts are trained to do, but they never once consider that this way of life is more than futile - that their pleasure and the true heart of the human spirit is why we suffered in the first place. The latest fad of aristocracy is to recapitulate the most vile habits of the Satanic ape as "transhhuman", "progressive" values. This proves that the moment it was technologically possible to cage most of humanity in these institutions and make them abide them, the thrill of torture would indeed be maximized. There was only one way for this to be prevented - never let it start. But, that would work against a concept of progress that the commonplace observation that causes lead to effects, and the causes of humanity's past never had any serious counter-force to arrest history. The world was never adversarial to humanity per se or had it out for us, good or evil. The world, so far as it has a moral inclination which it does not realize, only makes abomination meet its fate when the time comes.

The Satanic revels in this abomination, and must claim the world itself was a fallen reproduction of its own soul. "If not me, than someone will 'naturally' do it", they claim if they ever have to pretend to account for themselves. A Satanic, as a rule, is never made to account for anything they do in service to the Satan, no matter what the law code. They can scoff at the law, and the only punishment against a Satanic is death. What is torture to a Satanic, except another reproduction of its value system? There is no purpose from our view in torturing a Satanic, because they are very adept liars, and the prospect of accounting for a single one of the Satanic race's sins is worse than any torture. They will proudly endure torture rather than accept that, and that is the card aristocracy has held above all - that due to its alliance with the Satan, it alone holds this monopoly on torture, and torture stands alone in its moral hierarchy. The concept that torture would be of no interest to us, and that we would vivisect the Satanic without the slightest concern, only occurs partially to the Satanic. The Satanic ape, most evident with Nazi and Fabian atrocities, evokes images of vivisection for "scientific" aims which have no legitimate value as an inquiry into the natural world.^[4] Yet, this image is only a pale reflection of what they themselves fear - that there is a world with no feeling or sentiment and there is no regard for Satanics outside of the traps they make us live in. The Galtonites exhort their followers to abolish sentiment, but their squealing and indulgence in the most crass pleasure and sadism shows that they very much hold to sentiment. They simply wish all sentiments to be as Satanic as them, and this has made the eugenic creed the most thorough overt expression of the Satan yet known, worse than many who were historically Satanic. It is for this reason that the claim of suffering had to be a claim of knowledge, rather than deeds or genuine substances, or some fact which would be independently adjudicated. The one thing that would void this glee in torture is the recognition of its absurdity and pointlessness, and meeting it not with a rival Satan which is doomed to failure, or "negation of the negation" in bad philosophical thought. It would instead be met with cleansing of filth, just as shit is wiped from our ass if we have any sense of true hygiene. There is a reason, after all, Malthus instructs the creed to make living conditions unbearable, for the greater "Jehad" of depopulation. Something as simple as not living in shit must be made either unseemly, or a flashpoint for political controversy which involves imperious busybodies telling us we cannot clean our own shit, or dumping onto the poor both obligations to work for the masters and punishments for taking any iota of their lives back from the city. Glorification of torture becomes the point, and this had always been latent in the human race. It used to encounter sobering influences that made it unusustainable beyond purviews that aristocracy struggled to impose, against many of mankind who never cared for any of that and had some sort of life that was better than this. Even a dismal life is worth more than the antiseptic vision of a fully eugenist world which they acknowledge is an unattainable ideal. The evocation of the eugenist of such a world where the unsightly weak are destroyed by imperious will is never intended to produce its supposed end result. A Satanic creed understands that the torture must never end, nor does it have any limit to it that would be ordained by nature or some ulterior motive. Eugenics can never be limited in its aims, as if there were some special place where it didn't apply. The claim of the would-be aristocracy is that they can contain it, control it, and set the pitch of the terror to where it needs to be, directed at the "correct" targets. The Satanic resents this control and always takes an mile for every inch it is given, and this is something the Galtonites were from the outset - for their mission had nothing to do with eliminating anything that was demonstrably bad, but maximizing the thrill of torture, so that the worst inbred aristocracy of the human race tells us loving them is obligatory.

There is no other basis for a rational division of labor, where labor is divided by ability, merit, or sentiments other than this that originated not by reason but by the instincts and interests we natively possessed. It was not alienation in some vague sense that created this, for labor was always alien to what we really are at a basic level. The soul of man being alien to its body is not a travesty or a weakness or a cause for discord, but a simple fact we could easily have lived with. We should feel that this spiritual existence we developed is an alien to a more base existence, because it is alien and so too is all of our pursuit of higher wisdom or any meaning to the world other than that which is evident. The meaning of life, so far as there is one, is not a great mystery at all. Life is what it is, and this is not a circular koan where an ideologue invokes regression to a primordial state, or places effect before cause. There is no "circle of life" or "wheel of life" that nature ordained in any way. Life is an aberration which is snuffed out either by forces in the world or the will of men. Without the threat of torture and the general fear, a human race reliant on brute force to snuff out life will be little better than the animals it has enslaved, and this is intended. The brutishness of police and the lower enforcers of the ruling interest was cultivated and calculated to be just effective enough to immiserate the ruled, including the low-ranking enforcers who are taught to attack each other like slavering dogs and believe this is some sort of virtue. It has been honed in the 21st century that it is now evident as various types of psychological conditioning, rather than a cruder sentiment as it was in the past. This brutishness is not imposed by genuine ignorance, as if the cops were too stupid to know what was what. The limitation of intelligence in the police is not because cops must be stupid to be brutes, but because police functions would be in a position to detect the rulers' conspiracy and see no reason to go along with it. A policeman who is smart enough would be pulled in to the conspiracy and encourage inferiors in the force to get on the take, as the alliance of aristocracy and organized crime is an ancient one. If the policeman refuses, or cannot feign ignorance and keep his or her head down and follow orders, the cull begins, and the Satan does not abide an iota of independence from it. Eugenics took what began as a municipal police function, formerly the function of men-at-arms to terrorize the peasants and drive the slaves, and applied the most egregious and ruinous type of policing to all social activities.

I have here invoked the most extreme example of the "pure Satanic". Doubters will claim that no such entity actually exists, or isn't embodied in people who are flawed but redeemable. I and so many of us know better - that while there are no good humans, there are many who chose to be demons a long time ago and never thought any differently. While no one is born a demon as the eugenic creed insists, there are those so inclined to develop the inclincation that it might as well be an inherited trait. Eugenics, in typical reversal, essentializes the evil by declaring it is virtuous and glorious, and honesty is "retarded" and evil, or more in line with Nietzschean stupidity, just bad in that way a simpering pissant understands morality. No torture would be effective if the maximal position is not evident and practiced by its believers. There are many who are pure evil, or purely devoted to the thrill of torture, and those serving two masters will be conflicted until one can assert itself. Torture itself and the cult of maximal torture stands alone and is unique in the world. This torture is often a visage ascribed to "the Satan", but it predates anything humans conjured and did not start with humanity. There are such sentiments, however primitive, in animals, and torture does not need to invoke any deity or developed theory or principle that "Satan" would imply is operative. It is torture itself which is but one tool of "the Satan", but the tool is something unique in the world. The tool of torture is not identical with abomination. You may invent a moral argument where torture is either justified or necessary. I for one would not hesitate to torture Satanics, if I believed such a thing were possible or were worth anything. In my heart and soul, I have no regard for Satanics who have shown their proclivity time and time again, for I know they have no concept of shame and their thoughts or feelings are quite irrelevant beyond the threat their actions pose. I long ago learned to tolerate the intolerable, which makes the Satanic's autistic screeching about my wrongdoing puzzling. It is only when learning more of their cult and psychology that much of human history can be sensical, and this torture would be exported to economic thought. This is admitted by acknowledging the value of labor as the value of toil, rather than the value of genius which could be measured and allocated like some substance. The latter is not easily measured by any metric. Suffering as a psychological event is also not easy to pin down and rationally allocate in the abstract, but the results of the suffering are evident. It is evident not merely in the quantity of labor-power that torture can provide basically for free, since torture begets torture and the thrill of it is the point for its partisans and many in the empire. It is evident in the qualities that torture can induce and the orientation of labor's ultimate objective under management, if management is given over to that cult rather than any other purpose, such as anything at all worth living for. The suffering is not the sole substance of labor's value, for commanding labor is never purely a matter of screeching "me wantee" like the Austrian School's proverbial bourgeois man in the desert. It is however the most evident expedient for commanding labor and suggests the extent to which it can be commanded. If subjects could not be seriously tortured by the ruling interest, then it is far easier for those subjects to scoff at any command, and see that the emperor has no clothes. With sufficient torture, the emperor no longer has to fear this, because the emperor can declare that nudism is morally righteous.^[5]

Torture to be torture, like any morally meaningful concept, is never simply an utterance or a thrill. The thrill of torture, the terror of the deed, and the veneration of the symbols of torture and the Satan are inherent to the practice, but they are not in of themselves the substance. To know the name of something is not to hold power over it, but to conjure its image in the mind of a rube and twist it with wordplay. Only through manipulation of perception does the name hold power, and this is not limited to torture or hostile manipulation. Dialectic is used and abused for far more innocuous reasons, and humans in their language are obviously engaged in an interplay between two agents when communicating. We may imagine information as feedback from one agent to another, but how we actually process it, out of necessity, has to send and receive on the same instrument. It is not intrinsic to this dialogue that any environment outside of it exists. This use of the dialectic for torture is very helpful for any torture beyond that of the enablers, who can only act in mass and at the direction of the thought leader. The dialectic is a favorite of torturers, bullies, thugs, cajolers, schoolteachers, inquisitors, and everyone who is in the business of dragging us good males and females in their bullshit - and in the insulting dialogues that are mentioned here, there is a superior presuming all of the virtue and an inferior who is denigrated and humiliated, not granted the title of man or woman which are honorifics implicitly denied to the tortured from the outset. In situations where the torture is overt, this denial is explicit, thrown in the face of the damned, and glorified until it is made true - but it is not made true by any autistic behavior. Autism is the natural end result of torture, intended beforehand, and the Satanic cycle that is of great political importance is reliant in part on this mechanism of torture and malice that was the birth of the human race. The modern psychological inquisition deals not with substantive conditions ready-made in the brain, but political diagnoses which are the ideal forms of subjugated slaves. If they were to deal with the decay of the brain, inflammation of the organs, or some mechanistic action that would be diagnosed, no term like "schizophrenia" - literally describing the splitting of the mind which is the result of torture of the soul rather than thought in its genuine manifestation - would be sensical, unless those mechanisms and physical symptoms were attributed ultimately to a political crime or some bad moral value that the accused was guilty of. "Autism" is this but in its purest and most sadistic form, where the Satanic cycle that humanity learned early is most perfected. It is the ritual sacrifice given modern pseudoscientific terminology, and the thrill of torture is truly maximized whenever this curse word "autism" is uttered. While I have liberally used "retarded" as a curse to describe the ruling ideas, I must relent in invoking the curse of "autism", even though the eugenic creed is profoundly autistic at the least and revels in a high level - though not the highest degree - of Satanic ethics and moral values. While "retarded" may be forgiven as a figure of speech on occasion - the full insidiousness of the term "retarded" is not always evident to children - "autism" is the most unforgivable sin, for it is the maximal and idealized form of retardation. To be "retarded" is not a passive state, but an active state of permanent and internalized regression.

The capstone of any good torture is to essentialize that status of unlimited regression. This is not merely infantilization to break the resolve of a subject, but the very heart of the torture cult which exists outside of any particular instance of torture. The language of regression to primordial light, the "eternal return" which is always a koan of the most depraved reactionary, is not merely the torture of one person, confined to a personal matter. The cult of torture feeds on torture itself as a process, and few things stand on their own like torture. The torturer channels the most ancient rite of the human race in his or her foul deed, and the torturer takes on many roles, with allies in tow who have always been amenable to the cult. This oldest of human religions is protected and coddled like no other. It did not form as an institution ready made, vast and incomprehensible. It finds its allies from the crudest societies of the human race, or in savages or outcasts who are "humanized" by way of this cult rather than by the more pleasant options civilization usually presents. Civilization itself was premised on this torture cult existing, with a knowing grin of the Egyptian, the Bablyonian, the Roman, the German, the imperial projects all the way up to modernity, which all in the end fell to the empire of an opium- and tea-addicted island of eugenist perverts and the people who inhabit their colonial dumping ground for the rejects in the Western Hemisphere. The barbarous nations were no less aware of humanity's true soul and its predeliction for torture, and so the Hun, the Mongol, the Aztec, the kingdoms of Africa, could readily understand this cult, and this was a common language that allowed these people to find each other and form their brotherhood without regard to race or creed. What further proof would we need to demonstrate that humanity really was in the main a Satanic race, and modernity only purged the virtuous residue and perfected a primordial root that insisted nothing else could exist? It is then declared that because it did happen, that it ought to happen and that there never was anything else. Of course, it didn't have to be this, and the victory of such a race is far from complete. For all of the glorification of the eugenic creed and its enablers, and the dominance of its ideology, it is still so loathesome that much of humanity only goes along with it because the general fear is intensified, and the agents and enablers are never a majority of the human race or even a substantial and organized minority. The psychological inquisition and the medical pretext for this torture of the underclass is just one way in which the torture cult is normalized, and made to appear as if it were either just there or something different than what it really is. The native sins of the damned of the Earth pale in comparison to the poisoning and ritualistic humiliations which made real their place in the division of labor, for this is scarcely something that could be tolerated if it were done to the formerly valid. Great preparation and normalization of torture as a way of life would be necessary for the eugenic creed to amass its critical support for the current "Jehad".

We are taught to believe torture is the exceptional case handled by trained experts, but no great degree is needed to perform the functions of torture. Schoolteachers, mothers, fathers, and all enablers detect little Satans early and induce them, either by appealing to their base pleasures or by fear or both, in the hopes to blood new members and bring them into the cursus honorum of the enablers. As a rule, enablers and functionaries are used for the purpose and tossed aside, as a Judas goat is of little value as a person of merit. They may promote to some low rank only after accepting the Luciferian Christ or its analogues in whatever cult happens to rule, but the more capable torturers are selected from the ranks and trained to disguise their activity, using up enablers and patsies and creating as much chaos as they can to cover their asses. Their fidelity to the act does not need to be immaculate, for the big club has protected its officers when needed, and at the end of the day, the big club is not a meritocracy or under intense pressure for success. It is actually surprising to this author, having been around long enough to see this machine's visage, how lazy and ineffective this beast is. If anyone believed the Thought Police in Oceania were efficient, they did not understand the modus operandi or why this works. They are effective enough and one of the few institutions the rulers would care about in such a world, but other than the necessity of torture, there is no serious demand for results or even an expectation that the damned will be changed on the inside. All that is necessary is to stamp the word "retarded" on their forehead, make sure the rest of society is aware of that stigma, and inflict the necessary suffering for such a duration. More important than the torture itself is the social acceptance of the practice and granting to torture an allure so that new recruits to humanity's true oldest religion can come on board. The adherents of this cult need not be "Satanics" as I have described, for they include in their ranks people who believe they are Christians or pious in some regard, and people who espouse a false godlessness and superficially believe they are actually spiritual atheists with a moral core. The true godless would see correctly what torture is and the wider cults around it, for the Satan and the ruling imperial cult does not actually possess a monopoly on torture. Torture can be found without any prodding, reproduced in the family unit and with every bully and thug, for it can only operate once the confined space seems inescapable and there is no fighting or ignoring the beast forever. Torture can manifest as intra-family squabbles or abuse of a continuous and foul nature, and no one had to direct it from outside, but it was nonetheless deliberate on one end. Once it is normalized, the cycle is expected to be perpetuated on both sides. They cannot make humans truly love slavery as a status, but they can in some way addict the victims to torture, because all comparisons suggesting it could be different have been shattered. It would appear to the torture victim that if he or she weren't tortured, "the world" - the general fear and the Satan that all torturers wittingly or unwitting channel - would somehow find a way to bring the nightmare back. This is intended and encouraged, and if the torture is internalized, the cycle has succeeded for its core task. Every internalization of the torture cult has been encouraged, and this is not a modern practice. No torturer and no bully would ever allow redemption for a moment, and laughs at the idea. The thrill of torture must be maximized. Eugenics only distilled this cult to its essential ingredients and proposed formulae for its reproduction as a whole industry of torture and filth, extended to new media and new opportunities modern technology allowed. For the conditions of eugenics to exist - which are a highly developed form of a torture cult at their core - the torture is not something in a special place, but imbues all the world, or makes the appearance that it can reach across time and space and disregard distance, proximity, or conventional sense. It both speaks of a divinity that is not readily accessible to normal knowledge as a process, and yet it is rooted entirely in a crass parody of the material world and knowledge itself, always centered on the light. The nerve centers of torture are never dark dungeons, and those who staff the dungeons may believe with seriousness a truth that those who know torture understand well - that the torture chamber and the dungeon are, in fact and in the myth, the light, and the rest of the world is the muck. Whatever depravities happen in that place become a super-truth greater than any philosopher's koan or any charlatan's trick, because that super-truth is made real. The substitute for the world, the world that was taken from us, is where the bulk of torture happens, for torture is not merely one event. True torture seeks to deprive any virtue and any good, and tell us that this is the world and all other thoughts are retarded. The thought that it could be different must be retarded, or autistic, or something equally depraved, and nothing else. It would not be a mere moral affront to a temporary sensibility, but an affront to the very concept that the tortured could independently operate at all.

Only in this way can the torture cult make real its practices, and anything less is such a paltry half-measure that it hardly qualifies as anything other than a performance. The transgressions of decency, the shock and awe of Crowley's idiotic posturing, is just a preparatory phase. There was nothing else in the human spirit that wasn't a product of that cult, for the torturers were the first to decide who was human and who was not. Those who decided who lived and who died were never guided by a benevolent wisdom or necessity at the end of the day, for all of them were beholden to this most essential division of labor to be in any such vaunted position. This, of course, is absurd if we follow crass historical materialism or the inferior dialectical parody of it. Crass historical materialism substituted the performance or "forms" for the actual thing, without including the necessary study of forms and mastery of their meaningful content, or the understanding that formalism never subsituted for reality in the way a bad academic would believe. A healthy skepticism is perverted to protect the torture cult, despite sufficient evidence in life - if only it could be admitted into the record without immediately being stamped as retarded, insane, invalid, and inadmissible. This is not an accident, but was as we will see a necessary feature of legal codes, for a court of law is not the proper place to adjudicate insanity or sanity as concepts, but the court of law must acknowledge that genuine insanity is a condition humanity recognizes. If law did not do this, law would break down into a morass of absurdities and procedures. This is exactly what has happened by design, and so, "Oceania has no law". Torture is not incidental or merely a machine to facilitate something deeper. Torture is not just the point, but life's prime want, and it was rooted ultimately in a contrived division of labor. It is not inherent to the division of labor that it is must become an absolute or an inexorable trend without cessation, nor is it even inherent to politics or the most disturbing sausage-making of temporal authority. It is not a spiritual authority simply by virtue of "me wantee" being able to assert itself and no one being allowed to say no to it. It is not even a particularly coherent laborious undertaking, for the torturer did not need any divine or received knowledge that is too arcane for lowly plebs. Often the torturers are drawn from terrible specimens of the Satanic, failed race called Man, who are good for little else and only effective enough at the job because decent people couldn't return to civilian life or believe this nightmare is worth preserving. Eugenics' great accomplishment is to select for these people, proclaim the maximization of sadism is the highest and sole virtue that will perfect the race, lock in the ecology, and increase considerable the ratio of enablers against the decent who have no reason to ever go along with this. This plan can only proceed by generations, limited as it is by procreation and the maturation, education, and screening out of offspring to promote vileness and the eugenic creed above all.

What are the tools of the torture cult? The most basic tool is metaphysics itself and the understanding of systems where the concept can be theorized. Systems thinking was not itself some demon mandating torture or created for that purpose, and did not accelerate it greatly. It did give to torture and aristocracy - and aristocracy is at heart a club of torture and depravity that masquerades as godly - an understanding of science they wished to co-opt and neutralize as a threat to its long-term ambition. The new tools of the 20th and 21st century are not in of themselves or in concert particularly effective, but they do change a few conditions of the torture machine and its reach. Media and transportation allow for the closing of space not just in ideology but in genuine motion, and poor education displaces reading - which was the only media capable of promulgating edicts en masse and could reach audiences before a representative could speak in person to use the standard public speaking manipulations of older times. These innovations changed little, and in practice propaganda has little effect on the core acts of torture. It only exists to reinforce a much larger apparatus that cannot be discussed too frankly without laying bare the nightmare that humanity created, and the ugliness of this failed race that has been evident for long enough. The greater technology of relevance to torture is a detailed model of anatomy and the connection of bodily systems to consciousness. This has been stymied by an absurd doctine of essentialism, and when that pseudoscience could not impose itself on institutions, the doctrine became rank lying about everything and anything. This forced ignorance and wishy-washiness is not an accident. It is a torture tactic, which would be part of the most basic toolkit of a sadist. The torture is repeated not just in special places or by trained maniacs, but taught to children who are presented humiliation and fear, and told that going along with the crowd in Hitlerian fashion made you "smart". The cult only grew worse after Uncle Adolf showed the way. These tools are relevant but did not invent a new torture atop a world that was once good and pure, as if humanity did not figure this out until the best and brightest super secret scientists at CIA collected enough digital research beakers to attain the Maximal Torture technology. Technological advance is an iterative process, and the most ancient cult of humanity is no exception or something that is above science. Whatever its claims to spiritual authority and its re-definition of science, science to be worth anything is never a thing of the institutions, and particular men do not get to define science. Only the world itself does, and as I pray, the world does not abide abomination forever, whatever it may do to them. The world, to say nothing of those of us with nothing to lose, have mocked and spat upon the Satanic race, and despite their efforts to modify and edit history, we have won more often than not. This is not because we are good or because there are more of us than them, or because the world or anything in it granted us merit for being victims. It is because for every action, there is a necessary and opposite reaction. No action in the world is unanswered, and once a word is said, it can never be unsaid. What is used against us will haunt the torturer, no matter how often they congratulate themselves. All the damned have to do, if anything, is live in eternal spite, for we may lose the world and the world itself may die, but the Satan must always return to its home, and always ends in delusion. If those who wish to cajole the world want to follow this to its only possible conclusion, a conclusion a child could see with little effort, they are retarded. They will do it all the same, and though they have all of the power to end it and know they could, they will not. The machine they needed to accelerate their advantage against the tortured to the necessary heights for their security only has a setting to perpetuate itself, and consumes its master just as it consumes so many slaves. That is one but only one germ of the Satan, and far from its entirety. The Satan, for all that can be said about it, concerned a political reality that was substantial and a necessary explanation for the human race, and likely applies in some sense to any knowing entity for it is at heart a product of many aspects of knowledge. The torture cult, and the most overt enablers of the eugenic creed, has no such grace. It is just rot and filth by a bunch of screaming retards who think that by doing this, they will actually become gods. The particular facade does not change the underlying mechanisms are at root performances made "realer than real". Nothing about torture was mandated by natural law, and the expense required to maintain it in its meaningful and most relevant forms is enormous. The millions of little Satans of the world would be safe to ignore if there were anything in society or the world where their rule didn't apply, and redemption were not merely possible but a trivial matter - if only it were allowed. The little Satans would, in a grand scheme, not be indulged or rewarded for advancing the one and only true Satan. They'd get past it, get their dose of blood, and find something else to do with their life, and we could go on as if were not as big as something we would care about in a better world. The core which made division of labor possible is not the mere performance or symbol of torture, or the occult symbols and hoodwinks that are common to secret societies premised at heart on this torture cult. It is that which makes it a great jihad - and the torturers who are truly committed do not engage in a "Jehad" only when given institutional approval from some influencer but have always clamored for a demonic jihad and made it their way of life, when times were good for the torture cult and when times were dire.

A truly committed torturer is not some weekend Nazi, but recites faithfully the imperial religion and sees it as a path to the good - and in their experience, that would be correct, if one accepted the Satanic ethos. The torture did provide to their class and interest opulence, status, security, and things so many of us have to scrape and beg for, only to have it taken away. The oldest religion of the human race has job security going for it, as ending the torture cult would be an undertaking beyond anything humanity is capable of. The torture itself could end tonight. The enablers and many little Satans who are habituated to instinctively follow the creed without thought would lose their nerve the moment their filthy race knew one iota of the true fear, as they have often scattered and succumbed to their disposal as the institution planned. What stops the people is not that their moral purity makes them too good or some slave morality as an aristocrat insists exists, but a number of factors which regulate the torture cult to a pitch it is capable of managing. This is one function of the state or the political status quo, which would be lumped into the imperium that is inherent to any state that is a proper going concern in human affairs. The torture itself, though, precedes the state, and it is not the sole ingredient of the state, as the partisans of eugenics and other such filth insist. Far from it, the torture cult really serves little purpose of the status quo, other than acknowledgement that it exists. The state and politics are not at heart concerned with any economic affair, beyond that which is necessary for the state to supply its organs. How it does this, or fails to do this, is the most important economic task of the politician, rather than any commitment to the soundness of the commonwealth or any expectation that the state would direct economic policy for our sake. Nor is economic life beholden to this torture which, speaking materially, is really quite little in substance, though there is a substantive force and its effect on labor discipline is the most dramatic of all of the disciplinary forces. The role of the suffering class is not the role that allows exchange, fighting, and knowledge to exist. We can and do fight without torture or the thrill of a superficial victory as the goal. Very often, those who fight are aware enough that the "victory" proclaimed by trained liars has nothing to do with anything that happens in battles, or what the fighting organizations of the human race are tasked with. Many who fight are not given any decoration or esteem at all, or they get the standard pay grade and punch the clock. The fight typically concerns little more than a ritual of slaughter, advance, retreat, recreation time, and a seeming lack of seriousness about the affair compared to what they all know it could be. For the warrior, pitched battle is atypical because it would be taxing to conduct war in such conditions. For those selected to die and subjected to the open torture cult, humiliations no valid person would ever accept have to be accepted, and a condition of deprivation and needless suffering is forced to continue. It is not enough to exhort "personal responsibility", and "responsibility" itself is as mentioned before a creative PR technique to destroy any sense of obligation or purpose and create a reactive subject that can only die, die, die. Every time the "responsible" victim does take on this fools errand, the thrill of torture is increased, because the religion of the torturer has been internalized and that's when the Satanic really draws its blood and value. Somewhere, the torture for its own sake doesn't create any value worth exchanging, and does not directly translate to any token of wealth or esteem. It is only through the torture that people are made to do things they really don't want to do - and this is not merely a matter of alienation or overcoming the laziness of human beings, but about making people do things they really don't want to do, like abide this Satanic rot and the idiots who squeal like the true retards they are if the rot is turned off. It is the suffering and moral value of inflicting it as the good itself that disciplines labor that is bonded. The other disciplinary functions can only operate on labor once it has presumed a level of freedom and maintains agency - that is, that it is valid. It is the definition of who is valid and invalid, which abides a singular metric in the end, that opens a target to unlimited torture, or grants to that subject certain rights to not be tortured, which is one of the few rights still held to be relevant to liberal thought so far as "rights" exist at all as a principle. This is not so much a legal right, which is entirely the volition of whomever holds imperium, but a reward that makes all of the torture effective. The tortured are not tortured to make the individual suffer, but set an example for all others in society. This requires the domination of institutions over private life and an intense general fear that only state society can present. Once the torture cycle is established, deliberate neglect - only intervening to ensure that the damned stay damned, reinforcing that ancient tenet of "once retarded, ALWAYS retarded" - is the rule and itself a form of torture. Aside from ensuring a lack of invalidity, the torture cult sees it prudent to remind the damned periodically of their status, lest there be a stain on the sterline record of this cult. This is not done out of a belief that the residuum will actually be eliminated or that such a goal has any end condition, for is the torture ever stopped, the thrill which sustains the life-force of that interest is gone. I have mentioned before that the propspect of losing the thrill of torture offends believers in the creed more than defeat itself, so long as they can damn the rest of us as they die.

If torture were a personalized product, it could not produce its intended outcome. At no point are any of the tortures and humiliations and routines of drilling and weeding out a thing that could be a private matter, if they are to perform the function described here. Such personal slights and humiliations are de rigeur for a race that never learned any other way to live with any seriousness, and never appeared to value a world where this stupid shit didn't happen. If untouchability were a personal responsibility, it would not be relevant as a disciplinary force. It never was about that though, and those who sold "personal responsibility" knew from the outset they were shouting "die, die, die", and torture was the only response they had in mind. Who can impose this defines the political class more than any merit or esteem or process that is purported to elect leaders, or grant them title to rule in whatever way other social agents would regard. No status quo, even a primitive one before the state proper, can exist without power over life and death, and this power was never equally distributed by any natural law or political conceit. Humans are unequal in their ability to inflict this, and also unequal in what they would do with such power, if anything at all. It is not a given that acquiring this imperium is the point of life, and if someone sought imperium for crass interests like those who inherited today's empire, it would be a prize worth piss and shit. Power won is useless without being put towards something other than power itself, or worse, the torture cult that has been enabled for various purposes by various actors, not the least of which are the partisans of torture themselves who do not need to answer to any other spiritual authority and scoff at any authority that isn't an enabler. Those who win power do not get it from unlimited transgression and torture as the point, and the Nazi ideology for all of its performance and pomp never "ruled" in that sense. It just shit up a country while the usual business ghouls reaped the rewards of full eugenism, cannibalized everything valuable and ran off with what they could, making a partnership with the rot of the German race like any group of thugs who made it into the aristocratic game. It is the products of torture which in the end win the contest for power, even when the token of moral value is the unit of human suffering and its proud display. It would be possible to procure products without this torture, but if we are to think about what that would mean, that would mean the threats of debt had limits that would effectively make debt a nuisance rather than dread. It would mean the end of the monetary arrangement as much more than an ad hoc accounting scheme to push psychological buttons, which does not last very long or represent anything useful that money could buy. The torture cult loves this, because it can charge a premium for indulgences, which is what a religion that is really in charge would do. It worked for the Catholic Church, after all. Those who must govern cannot afford the shrill harridans and do not see torture itself as an ally, and have always viewed commerce in general as something to be controlled rather than encouraged for its own sake. Commerce may be encouraged because it indicates industrial development or goods reaching someone who would actually use them, alleviating part of the need for security. Desperate people have no need to hear IOUs from the government when they're actively attacked by predation, and it is not intrinsically in the interest of governments to maximize the thrill of torture. Eugenics philosophically arose from imperial anarchism^[6] and so it disdains any government that is not fully eugenist, and the eugenists revel in government-by-crisis, only intervening to protect the creed and cannibalizing all other virtues for its "Jehad".

A political class's rule originates from something. This something is not indicated by any natural law or substance that can be scientifically identified with ease, for political thought is something which deliberately eludes scientific inquiry. The power is not an illusion, for in the end, there is a class of people who may be called the political elite. The elite is not, as the doctrine of political elitism^[7], axiomatically a minority, or possesses the same rank among them. The big club has hierarchies, chains of command, and different levels of access within it. This club tends to be a minority for the same reasons information is scarce - transmission of information is inherently unequal, and much of the political information is of no interest or irrelevant to people who are for some reason or another locked out of political life, or would gain nothing and risk everything by even showing their face. The numbers of an elite relative to the total population is not a fixed proportion. This concept will be revisited further in the next book, but a short introduction to the political class is necessary to fit it in this division of labor and economic management. What is the incentive a political elite, or anyone pretending to be such, extends to anyone who is not in the club? Legitimacy, which must be established in some ledger, somewhere, or by some account of men that grants entry to a place where agency is permitted. As a rule, the public sphere is designed to eradicate agency and supplant it, and this is inherent in the construct of the philosophical state and the arena where men with standing can contest anything. The public is not a mass of free men, but cattle who are not, for perfectly understandable reasons, members of the religion of the city.

The origin of the political class is never from on high. The political class is not defined by a monopoly on political rights, but their impunity to its opposite - the most abject torture reserved for the residuum, who are hated far more than thought-criminals or those who are punished for breaking faith in the code of a conspiratorial cult. The political person must be sacrosanct unless transgressing the political status quo, and transgressors - while they are never considered the same as those who were never in the political class and the distinction is always marked - are no longer people with political rights if they are by whatever mechanism expelled from political life. Within any grouping that may be identified as a political class, there are hierarchies, departments, and relations of convenience which are temporarily. No one trusts anyone, as it should be, for the human race is a race of born liars. Those who weren't natural liars are deemed retarded sooner or later, and honesty itself is unseemly. Freedom in the naive sense is unseemly and made to be so fraught with danger that slavery not only seems natural but a preferable state to the uncertainty of such a false "freedom". The truth of course is that there is in secret a marking down of defectives, shared among police officers who are granted absolute impunity when attacking sanctioned targets. This is a more or less open secret, and even when the damned know, the humiliations insist that retards can never know. It is inherent in the very word "retarded" - slow, forever. The thrill of shouting "retard! retard! retard!" and "die! die! die!" is the true spirit of this Satanic race. That it was different was never innate to us at any point, as if we were born with any gene of goodness or genealogy granted this virtue by symbolic representation alone. Such is the foolishness of this foul creed, which has always marked the failure of any society that embraced the tenet. What humans acquired to counter this came from the world and experience, and that experience might have been passed down or reproduced since humanity presents ample examples of its sordid origin and those who see no need to think any different. They countered it not because they were good or strong or wise, but because it was necessary to survive, and because people could resist, back then. Modernity did not just-so make this change, as if the new inherently were monopolized by the creed. Its origins, its virtue that allowed the foulness to be maximized, could not come from on high, no matter how dear the creed was to aristocracy. All such regimes require enablers, and the same is true of political elites at the apex. For the political elite conceptually, this is not intrinsically about any malice or foulness in the soul of the human race, for the soul and genuine history are not really necessary for political thought. Political thought is at its core mechanisms just like social information in economics, but it is of a different sort and the values assigned to it are not merely moral ones, but part of a great game whose rules are not evident from facts alone. If it were the case, the following chapter describing cybernetics would not present to humanity anything so difficult, and implementation of cybernetics would be trivial and obviously beneficial when ruled by any half-competent and self-interesed governor that built the machine automating government. The political thought is not arcane or fundamentally contradictory - that shit is for the rubes and it is insulting when philosophers invoke that - but its practices exist specifically to spite our naive application of reason to the task. They are comprehensible, but only after we lay down some sensical rules of what government and political society is, and what it is not. They are not as trivial as economic thinking, which after all charlatanry has to be simple enough to be practiced in persons without any great education or theory. Political thought is held as secrets not because people are too stupid to learn, but because the secrets were occulted to promote this division of labor. A political elite only holds more command of those secrets than the norm, but their chief tool is the example of those who are the opposite of political elites - the untouchables. Politicians against the people in total do not have a great track record, and this is not because republican societies were naturally virtuous or despotisms were naturally avaricious, but because treating most people openly with the most abject treatments is only something to be done in conditions of extreme depopulation. Not even war can compare to the "Jehad" presently waged, and eugenics in its heart believed in a much smaller political elite than any of the liberal elitists could have imagined.

It is not that political elites rose by merit or by any orderly process which is openly available to all, with the expectation of goodwill. They did not rise for evil's sake, as if politics were as grody as the heart of a conservative. It is that they rose because the material they commanded was deployed with malice in mind, and because this worked in the past, it was expected to work in the future. The malice preceded the machines themselves and had to. That malice may be directed towards any number of aims, but kindness is never what made political sense. If humans wished to be able to tolerate each other and cooperate in a genuine sense, that was never a political question, nor one that would be resolved with any amount of struggle. Politics is not the realm of good people doing things that we actually wanted. It was a necessity brought on by that primordial sin, which rebranded itself as virtue - and the ritual sacrifices, however stupid and pointless, are virtues of the sort politicians required, for they held worldly power just as substance and energy in chemical or physical objects did. The politician cannot pretend the world he wishes to command doesn't exist - that is retarded - but he is not commanded by the world like flotsam or stuck in a Sisyphean task of pleasing the people. Pleasing anyone has nothing to do with genuine politics, nor with any economic utility that would be commanded for any purpose. If I wanted pleasure, I can get that without the muck of society. It is suffering and the intrusion of others that becomes my problem, and this is the problem of society that has brought us to this condition. The condition where political life developed has thus far been antagonistic relations in close quarters - that we are confined and told that the granaries are now held by a body of armed men, and we must pay tribute for something that was taken from the world and the sweat of human labor. The laborers very clearly will do something to find food for themselves, and it is not intrinsically retarded or evil for those laborers to give or exchange food with others for reasons that are not economic or political. A naive soul would believe that sharing the wealth would ameliorate the worst of this beast, so that we all could tolerate each others' existence and obviate the greatest threat we have faced - other humans. The city or any technological society was viable not because of an inborn proclivity or an "ought" that told us to be together, or because there was any political content required to make people get along. All the way to today, these constructs are only viable because the alternative of solitary existence has been nasty, brutish, and short. It is nasty and brutish not because that is the world's law, but because malevolence in other humans made it so. If we were a different sort of people, or understood the sordid genesis of the human race as something to move on from rather than repeat in the eternal recurrence that is evooked, society may have been something else. Those who saw the power of malevolence found each other and conspired to ensure that no one would be able to tell them no ever again, and then denied us any existence where we mututally agreed to defend ourselves against that. It was not enough for them to deny us permission to exist or live apart from them - the thrill of torture had to be delivered as a seeming physical force across any distance, and then we were to be violently beaten if we suggested a world where this didn't apply. All that was necessary for this to work is an ability to make it so, and that day arrived in recent history. The rest, so long as their logic is deemed nature's law, will be sadly predictable, and there is no hope and there is no end in their world. If that is what they wish, then there is not only no point to continuing on, but it would be necessary for all who are damned to see the end of this failed race as their necessary task before any other. Only from that starting point could we properly view human society, and consider the world where that didn't apply. Ignorance of this is no strength or virtue, and no society in history ever actually believed that.

It is what the political class lacks rather than what it possesses which defines it - it lacks the shame of failure and defeat, and you will never, ever see a member of any political elite admit wrong, no matter how foolish it is to insist that any of this has worked. This lack of defeat is a precious commodity, and the true fools believe this alone is "the good". The political class, if they are at all competent, understands that this situation is not premised on moral choice, but arose from the nature of what it is to live. It is a choice to play, but once the game starts, social agents are policed by each other, for this political task is in the end a social task pertaining to information - symbols - rather than something imbued in nature, or necessitated by any economic task. For the purposes of management - including those moral aims politics must acknowledge - the acts of politicians and their institutions are all expenses blown to the wind. The managerial task itself is understood to be a burden on anything genuinely productive or substantive, but the managerial task in economic life is one we require because of our limitations. Our limitations do not require us to be "political animals", and most humans are and always have been depoliticized. Those who fail to remember this receive enough rude awakenings if they get ideas that they have any stake in the political, because they never did. Politics regards the birthright and geneaology of actors not because the genes are some technological substance that are the point, but because the past will be used against political actors, whether it is the true past or a construct of the past made true by assertion. The former is not strictly speaking necessary for our lives - what we did or where we came from does require us to continue that for economic life to continue, and we can easily recognize the past is terrible and remember it, because there is a future. But, humans being humans with limited information and dominated by avarice, they will note past weakness and never let it go, especially when the truth of the world is on their side. The truth of the world does not bring any karmic justice in politics, just as it does not in economic production, and the truth of the world does not give to us or our conceits of ourselves anyting. The true spiritual authority disregards all of our sense of ourselves, because our sense of ourselves was ultimately contingent on the world allowing us to be, rather than the world existing for this patricular political and psychological arrangement, which has been our artifice rather than something natural or ordained by any god. All of humanity's efforts to make peace with the so-called gods are really humanity's attempt to reconcile its sordid origins with the future and the world outside of a totalizing society. In all the politician does, he is never a "pure politician" or a creature in the abstract. Such an entity would have nothing substantive to hold it up. It is possible to build a parody of a man as such a creature, but it would always be the puppet of something behind a curtain, conjured by magic. At heart though, the political class only possesses that which defends itself from the shame of the damned. No politician of standing can carry that mark of shame. They can do just about anything else and come off smelling like some artificial scent of flowers, but there is one mark of shame above all that a politician can never be - "retarded". It is not that some singular event happens that damns the politician, but that a lack of anything good can be attributed to the damned, and the cycle once started can never end. Politics did not invent this, for its origins are much deeper, but politicians arise in such a world, and live and die by that. Their economic basis can only be that of vampirically living off the world and life processes, because political life is incompatible with work in the conventional sense. Even the duties of fighting or high wisdom are incompatible with politics, which is at heart a very different creature. It only meets with reality in this way, regardless of what a political class would prefer to be, or what they would do with power. It may be possible to envision a political settlement where the order of the state or society is nothing like what we have lived under in the past, but there is no getting around the trap of knowledge and wisdom, and that is certainly not accomplished by this cycle of habitual lying that has become the final solution of all political thought. All political settlements were premised on that because the key material basis for politics was not any generative force - that is not political or even a spiritual matter, for we are no different from any other matter in the world and nothing special in the cosmos - but the exclusion of alien knowledge and those who do not know the secrets of a clique that could decide who lives and who dies. This was done long before the state proper, so far as humans ever have succeeded at realizing their claims. It has never been and never can be fully accomplished. There is only one goal that could constitute the final end of the state, so long as the current political thinking is all that is permitted - total death of the human race, to put an end to something whose beginning was foul, and that has shown no indication that it even wants to be different in sufficient numbers. There is only a vague sense of many that it could be different, but such an idea has no expression among the human race, because those who returned to the race's genesis insisted that it be so, and have by an elaborate conspiracy insisted that this is all we are.^[8] There is no other quality which a political class or any grade with political legitimacy beneath it would possess, except the lack of this stigmata. It may possess some substantive merits which allowed it to rise where others failed, but those merits were never won by "politics". Even a relatively benign state, or a state whose holders understood the need for a productive economy and dignity for labor and even the lowest of us, would have stolen those virtues from the world, and the better of them know not to conflate the state with any moral goodness. A negation of substance - the lack thereof - cannot be said to hold any moral quality in of itself. Essentialization of what is effectively a death cult is at the heart of the eugenic creed and much of what the crass sadists claim as their virtue. Only that which exists and has a substantive basis pertaining to the world can be said to have any moral inclincation or purpose. The political elites and all down the line can do with those things as they please, but they cannot claim that this beast is "the point" or a substance we would want or need.

These are some of the difficulties inherent in automating governance and politics - to bring politics into line with economy and ecology, as was the presumption of so many. Politics did not originate for any economic reason, as if the management of anything required "politics" or any of our struggle or awareness of things which are entirely in the minds of social agents. Politics can use economism and ecologism to police the thoughts of social agents, but this is not really what economics does at a basic level. We would have economic life without politics as such, and we would have politics even if the economic question were resolved and we didn't have to live in deprivation. It was those who saw politics as a vehicle for their ambitions to enclose the world that made political economy into what it became, rather than a frank assessment of why we were made to chase after tokens representing gold, when the gold itself was not intrinsically worth anything and the paper slips supposedly exchanged for gold were often not worth the paper they were printed on. No change in the nature of currency, from commodity money to currency to today's credit and scientific management and tracking of humanity, changes what was really at stake was not a substance, but claims to it which were at heart a desire of rulers to command and control the world. Cybernetics would chase after its own tail indefinitely unless this problem were either ignored or the subjects themselves were to be automated, controlled, and reduced to fit into ecology - that is, economics and politics would not be abolished and replaced for our good, but commanded by the worst of the worst. The worst of the worst would then claim technology was a just-so story proclaiming the rise of these demonic perverts as natural, when none of those perverts did anything to create the machines which automate governance, and the same perverts shriek like the retards they are when the machine doesn't do what their grand theory proclaims it must do. To suggest there is a political science or a general theory of the political is to suggest its automation is possible, whether humans will ever do such a thing or not - and if it is possible, the fallacious natural law theory demonstrates that it does not matter whether a natural law is real, so long as it can be made inevitable in the minds of the agents which make politics possible. The emergence of a political class is always a choice those agents have made in the first place to rule, rather than a necessary reaction. It may be a reaction that makes sense given what life is or what humans are, but it is not as if those who shriek about the weak being a thraet to them actually believe that. If they did, their behavior would be very different, and such cravens respond to fear. It's the only language they ever regarded. Those who are better than that have always known there is a choice to give up political influence, however unsightly that may be. No one who inflicts this living hell is unaware of what they have done to us, as if they were ever innocent or ignorant in any way. Even if they were ignorant, ignorance of the world is no excuse. If a three year old boy can be accused of these crimes of Being by this filthy race on their fake moral high horse, as they have done to so many other people who did even less than I have, they will do anything. Eugenics knows no other way. It would be in the interest of such people to muddy the waters whenever automation arises, because the most obvious tasks for automation by computer are the managerial tasks which are purely informational and not very interesting as a thought exercise. Automation of politics, so long as we were to remain aware of what is actually at stake, would be the same. We would prefer that this political question were resolved not by shrieking like morons to push the world into some preferred shape, but by recognizing the pointlessness of the imperial positions, which were always profoundly retarded and usually spawned from some demonic urge in humanity that was never, ever told to shut up. Their agents certainly insists that we are to shut up and ignore them as they turn all that exists into a parody, but the eugenist is sacred because of a stupid rule that really is just a number of symbols and koans uttered often and associated with terror and fear, so that the correct psychological state is evoked by cajolers. The very deliberate engineering of this, which proceeded long before computerization, is blamed on the computer specifically so that the mechanisms of conspiracy are unmentionables, and the computer is an amplifier in their hands. Information being what it is, there is never a possibility of "equality of information", or a "right of information" or "freedom of information". Information inherently favors the occult over the honest in its distribution, and it is only the world and substantive force that return some balance to information. The ecological trick is to proclaim that it was the world itself that was structured as a series of just-so and random stories that somehow say exactly what the ruling interests wish it to say, split off into echo chambers for each target audience, so that a wide variety of pens are constructed for the cattle. The information and symbols themselves didn't have this power, nor did information have it out for us or carry any nefarious intent. That is always in the end the result of human labor, however it is divided, and it is never locked in any code that labor has to do this or that or conform to a manager's conceits.

Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

Return to Table of Contents | Return to Chapter Start