Return to Table of Contents | Previous Chapter
If there is something to take away from this writing, it would be to place the subject of economics on better footing than that which is typical of the miserable science, and to work around the pseudoscience which dominates today. In short, all economic thought is, out of necessity, the command of technology. This can be construed in two ways. The first is that all technological command is operated on through "genius" or intelligence, and all of the particulars of technology, abstractions, and that which is commanded are servants of this intelligence. In this view, all other ideas, including the "noble virtues", are subsumed into intelligence. The second is that technological command concerns technology "in-kind" - the machines and things which are manipulated, and understood through science which itself is a method that is a machine in the possession of knowing entities. In either case, it is what these machines do which is the relevant subject matter of economics, rather than what anything "is". The first approach is the one that historically won out, and there are many descriptions of such economic thought that I do not need to relitigate here. The second approach is only occasionally in force, and the command of technology and systems as a general rule is never too general. It is the second which actually describes the world we live in, but no "singular value" or "unit of value" is evident from that approach. No "unit of value" in reality can exist. The conceit of intelligence, for a variety of reasons, breaks down, and that is what the bulk of my entire arc of books here seeks to explain if that is not apparent to the reader. The rule of "intelligence" is really the occult of occult political knowledge, rather than intelligence as a raw substance which doesn't actually exist as that. Yet, all of the philosophical views in vogue with state society and institutions will always revert to the worship of intelligence and idolatry, and by now human technology has made it impossible for any other virtue to exist. All such virtues would be co-opted by some trickery of the intellectuals, subsumed into institutions, leaving behind a flesh and blood body and a world dessicated and turned into a parody of what it was.
To clarify why I structured this as I did, it must be clear that all economics exists at the level of societies and institutions, rather than "in the world". Nowhere outside of the minds of human beings does "economics" figure into anything, and this economic matter is really an affair in societies rather than for individuals. Individual people will, absent any "economic order", invent one on an ad hoc basis to meet their needs. There isn't a strong "economic law" compelling me to clean my room or arrange my house in any way that is mandated by society. Any such law would require the active intervention of other social agents in my life and my home. There are laws of nature which constrain what I can do, which I must abide in the home, but I am not compelled to "truck and barter" for my own sake, as if I am negotating with a technocratic committee in my brain or sub-conscious mind, or other people are in my head transmitting messages that I must obey or react to. Nothing I do in that regard is particularly interesting to the economic question in society, and nothing I do in that regard is any great secret. Nearly everything that is internal to me is lumped up in the economic question of society as either "nothing" or an assembly of some assets, the only valuable one being the home I reside in. To understand the economic problem, it is most necessary to maintain an awareness of genuine distance between the agents and the things that are appropriated, and this is not just physical distance but the proximity of causes to that which affects economic life for society as a whole. That distance is not prescribed by the economic problem itself and certainly not by ecology which is an imposition of the most foul kind. It is understood because there is a void - there is a world outside of society, and a society outside of the abstraction of "society" that is beaten into us from cradle to grave.
There is a game played which is really based on a political pseudo-logic to see economics as a projection onto the world, or internalization of social ideas and geists in nature. None of that really pertains to the question we wish to solve, and this economic question does not directly suggest any preferred political outcome. Economics has a limited purview. It does not answer moral questions by its own developments, for at root the moral aims of labor - the moral sentiments of social agents generally - preceded economics and were carried out for reasons that had nothing to do with economics, politics, or society. To this day, much of what we do - and this is not particular to humans - is not an economic or political matter, nor is it really a social matter outside of the purview that is appropriate for the task at hand. What I have done in my home or in free association is not intrinsically the concept of "society in the abstract" or busybodies whose imposition on me has always been malicious, pointless, counter-productive for any aim, and stupid. It is a particular sort of person who insinuates this non-stop, because they learned early in life that by poking and prodding, they can enable the rot of the human race and gain wealth, status, and security at no cost to them, and society could be engineered in a way to grant those people absolute impunity. It is the sad outcome of humanity that those people can do this to the world, but none of that behavior is mandated by any natural law, nor is it universal in the way their ideology proclaims. Such behavior is not even politically mandated or politically useful. It only exists because these people have, by numerous tricks, insisted we have to kowtow to a failed system which cannibalizes anything useful, in service to nothing good whatsoever. There are perhaps spiritual reasons emergent from political life that would make such people inevitable, and grant to them advantages we would have to abide for now. It would be quite trivial though to simply forbid forever such people, and for such people to invade our personal matters for the most spurious reasons is a very modern affair that relied on extensive enclosure, glorification of torture, and an ethos which demands ever-increasing energy input which it wastes in a giant bonfire of human failure.
Most often, the enablers of such rot - whose behavior follows a political and spiritual thought peculiar to humans, and not even all humans or something that existed outside of historical periods and places that allowed it to flourish - invoke the language of life and biopolitics, because humans are not just social agents but life-forms, and life itself is what created the knowledge process in humans, rather than any intentional design. The particular direction of human intelligence and our concepts of knowledge is not strictly an economic question, for political and historical thought had far more to do with how humans saw themselves and why we are what we are. Economically, the demands for human beings are very little. It has been the aim of those I called the cajolers to push and prod so that energy expenditures are soaked up in the cost of security, and the cajolers and their fellow travelers impose a protection racket which they insist we have to "respect" at the least. Yet, for all of their efforts, they can only extract enough cost to suck dry a life-form by elaborate torture and at great expense of human labor, which their reward mechanisms tell them to do 100% of the time. That working did not appear overnight, and did not take over all that exists as a fait accompli. Even now, it is far from the control of reality it seeks, and its development is the long story I hope to tell with this entire series of writings, if I am so fortunate to complete it. All of my account is necessarily a limited story, which others will have to fill in or reproduce with their own knowledge of events, especially if they pertain to a time long after I am writing.
When all is said and done, much of life's activity is surplus rather than "economically and politically necessary expenditures", despite the onerous toil demanded of us. This surplus is spent in three places - "technology" and "knowledge", "spiritual and moral development", and "occult knowledge", or the knowledge of signs and symbols and their relevance that is not immediately evident. These three are distinct aims which cannot be reconciled, and for the producers, they are given a wholly different ideology which reproduces the tripartite structure of the state in economic life. The producers, who are properly speaking just the commoners who eat shit, are told they are the kings of the mind and intellect, a permanent and hereditary "natural aristocracy" arising among them. Labor is militarized and trained to embrace a low cunning and moral depravity. The lowest class are told lies and their efforts are consumed with contradictory orders and the sadism of a ruling order that purely exists to regulate technology. Meanwhile, the state proper and its holders are secured against all consequences, and the producers chase after phantoms and various fads. It does not have to be so, and in practice, this entire setup of society is ignored. The reasoning for this is not economic but purely political and spiritual, and the conceits of institutions which exist for purposes other than economic necessity. Economics works through institutions, but institutions are no more beholden to economic necessity than individual persons representing a flesh and blood body are. Indeed, nothing about our flesh or body implies "economic necessity" as a pressing motivator. The needs of biological life are not exorbitant, and this is not a "bare minimum of life", but the substantive material inputs that would be compatible with a happy and fulfilled life, if not for the pressure of politics, struggle, and the obtuse demands of aristocracy, or the internecine conflict which thus far dominates humanity's existence. All that has placed is in this deprived condition is a choice of those with the authority to impose it.
Authority is a tricky word, since at heart, authority is a spiritual rather than political concept. There is no authority which does not ultimately derive from spiritual authority - our ability to know what is what from a source outside of ourselves or naive sense. Our own thought and native sense is necessary to recognize this authority, and it does not take long for a knowing entity like a human to see that its own existence and native sense is necessary for authority to be relevant. That is, while we look outside of us and to the world for the truth, we only do so through the faculties available to us, and we know ourselves and trust our sense as an authority. We know, on some level, why we sense and think the way we do, rather than accepting "sense" or "reason" as primordial substances or impulses. The primordial theory of mind falls apart in a way a child could determine, if the child's thought was not beaten into submission, or the child were not inclined to give in to the thrill of imposition from an early age and, after tasting first blood, never once questioned the thrill of victory. Personal authority only exists because there is a world to recognize, which includes our existence and native sense, however feeble it may be. That authority is in the end a fact that all in society have to abide, regardless of laws or conceits held in language and all of the tricks of language and self-delusions to control reality.
If economics is to be anything other than a series of just-so stories about life, it would regard an authority which is not in of itself economic. Economics cannot contain within itself its own justification or purpose. We can establish the agents of society, but this is not a basis for economic life, but social life generally. All economics concerns societies not because economic behavior can be contained entirely within society, but because the authority outside of any particular agent, and personal authority dependent on that, allows for any relevant fact or value, including moral values and sentiments that guide the behavior of those social agents. The economic task is one of limited aims, and cannot be made into a general rule of "total system" to explain all that exists. Yet, all we value can in principle be judged as an economic affair, since there is some technology that would be managed. It is important to remember that economics and ecology are always managerial approaches to the world, and presume the role of managers who are, in an economic sense, worthless to the entire project. The sole purpose of any economic idea would be to understand by reason how this task of management could be obviated, rather than emphasizing struggle or the wants of those agents as a political matter. Political struggle may be carried out for many reasons, but "economic necessity" is a stupid one that turns inward on itself - unless managers decide, in a fit of incredible stupidity and vanity, to destroy the world for such a cause. It begs the question - what is any of this for? In all of the economic thought that enters the discourse, not one aim of it suggests there is anything worthwhile to gain for most of humanity, and the "reward" of the philosophers is worth even less than the fleeting pleasure of opiates. At least with the opiates, some salvation from the misery of economic and managerial drudgery is possible, until the drugs wear off and we are left wanting more. It is no surprise that capitalism arises when the global opium trade becomes a lynchpin of imperial rule. Such a foul cause as the opium trade has ever since dominated the political mainstream, even though we're supposedly creatures of probity who would never ever do something so terrible. From the starting point of the Opium Wars, the depravity of the partisans who want more of that only grows worse and worse. We have handed over our lives, our knowledge, our sense of the world, and all of the future, to these perverts and monsters who did nothing but push a reward stimulus because they could, and told us this is all there can be. They can't even say they hold anything real behind the facade of bullshit. They only ever offered a low cunning fitting of a failed race, more failed than most of humanity, and insist that their stupidity is some sort of genius we have to kowtow to. Yet, they won. The secret to their victory, or at least what appears to be victory, is that absent anything that will say no, there is nothing in the world that prevents ideology and a mind-virus from cannibalizing reason. The sacrosanctity of the mind, which was always upheld for spurious and vain reasons that a child could see through and the better philosophers always acknowledged to be a farce, did not account for a simple truth. This is that the mind and knowledge was never comprised of any special substance. Anyone who actually contemplated the mind would tell you that such a view was foolish and turned inward on itself, and that human knowledge and thought was always a manifestation of something in the world, at a basic level. The thought on the soul, or humanity's spiritual component, was never about "thought" or "consciousness" that was animated by a higher power in some unknowable realm. A reading of most of the world's religions would have viewed such a thing as either easily disproven, or Satanic in purpose. Guess what the opium lords believed in and what it was really for - and that's all it was ever for. It was always a lie to get to what these people really wanted - the shortest possible route to hijack thought and make it theirs. Eugenics knows no other way.
Nothing about this was "necessary" or economically efficient or worthwhile. The cost of this empire has been ruinous towards any productive goal. The true purpose is something very different - that under eugenics, suffering itself became life's prime want. This is not a political or even a spiritual matter, or indicative of something that had to prevail in humanity. It prevailed because there was, in the genesis of humans, an endless foulness in the act in-of-itself - in "species-being" that is captured by Germanic racism more than anything else. When the two foul centers of global eugenics merged their doctrines, the result has been the modern states of Nazi Germany and what remained of the United States. The former proclaimed the triumph of eugenics over all other concerns. The latter would be restructured from within, and the eugenic creed would find in America the most toxic stew humanity ever created. It is this that I, the author, lived to witness, and I am not the only one. In the end, it would be only the lowest class who cared or wanted it to be different, and the rest of the world would be made to witness this filthy race's coda. It returns to where it began, but all else that went into humanity and all of its conditions were to be negated. This is the heart of the philosophical creed the eugenists espouse - eternal regression to a primordial state, and the elimination of anything else, including the world itself. This is an ancient idea, and for it to work, it would have to be based on something real - that humanity is a sinful and shameful race from its creation - and then proclaim that all redemption is a lie, and that there cannot be anything else. This didn't have to pertain to us, out of some infantile egoism. "We", frankly, do not matter for much, and that was never the concern of the vast majority of humans who ever lived. We never premised our existence on the belief that we possessed any inborn goodness, because we all understood that it was the world that made us good, in spite of ourselves and everything we ever did. If we possessed some virtue to call our own, it meant nothing without doing something with it. As a possession, virtue is not worth all it is made out to be, and those who bray incessantly and get on the highest horse humans ever rode do not and never did possess such virtue. It is all projection for them, and the cajolers and liars never needed it to be anything else. Most of us, though, regard our possession of any virtue not as an entitlement that others must bow to, but as something which exists because we were always aware of depravity. How could we not, given the sordid origin of humanity and the states that ruled over us? We choose to do good not out of some innate destiny, but because we have always seen the alternative, and this is done not because it meets ethical or moral criteria or some vanity, but because we have seen enough rot and misery in the world, and no one has ever given a particularly good reason for any of it. Those who attempt to do so look like bigger retards than I ever did, and that is saying a lot, but under eugenism, such retardation is glorified and we are told we are not allowed to be anything else.
The only way to sell this imperative is to insist on a division of labor, first by function and then codified into classes of people. This is only possible once economic life is controlled and becomes an ecological claim, which is "above politics" and not something that conforms to anything that would manage any worthwhile affair. If we cared to make the most of economic management, we would study its mechanisms which are proper and pertain to a society we cannot seriously deny, and seek to eliminate as much as possible the role of managers and proprietors. No one needed "ecology" or the division of labor for anything. The study of natural resources was always better understood with genuine science, and did not need any such enclosure for us to know how much stuff waited in situ within the Earth. All ecological models are beholden to society to be intelligible, and from the start, they mar the natural environment and our understanding of the situation, and impose a model of the world and a preferred division of humanity into castes. It serves nothing but itself, and this is one part of the inversion of reality that would be codified violently and flagrantly with eugenics. At great expense, a caste system has been imposed on humanity, and its final development is to be exported to all nations if the bastards have their way. For all that is invoked with ecology, not one part of it resembles the genuine world we live in, even if we accepted the demarcation of territory into more or less fixed economic zones. The retrenchment of economic barriers is not a barrier to the invasion of free trade, but the full proliferation of free trade's intent - to enclose the world and proclaim the freedom of predation alone, and the slavery of everyone and everything but that. Had the management of limited natural resources been conducted with earnest goals, the proper domain for this is not economics or the claims of the state or political. The proper domain, aside from natural science and the talent of engineers who do not obfuscate what they are doing, would be society itself and the interests of its members, who have every reason to resent imposition of the new plantation. What is at stake is the battle between freedom in the genuine sense and slavery - and so, we return to the founding struggle of America, between the institutions of slavery and an expectation, however dim, that there was something other than this that it was for. That struggle is not particular to America, but it is around America that the struggle for the world has been waged up to now. All other states were beholden to the trajectory of America, and this is not merely because of its imperial status but because of what the country meant for world history. Everywhere the slave interset and its current manifestations arises, it is the darling of foreign powers, and the enablers of slavery have always hated America and especially hated Americans, and always wished nothing more than to sell it off for cut-rate prices and piss off to some estate. In no other country is the slave power so shameless in its purpose and so devoid of any merit but what it attained from the rot of humanity. The Nazis did their best to emulate it, succeeding in destroying the host country before infesting every other country the Nazi diaspora found and eagerly awaiting the next opportunity. What has followed has been a war within the institutions which cut loose everyone outside of the system long ago - and this played uniformly to the advantages of slavery and despised any concept that it was going to be anything different. That struggle was carried out around the world, and it has come to this sad impasse in the 21st century.
The division of labor does not proceed as ecologists please, but by certain laws of motion that the ecological pseudoscience must abide. It is always the position of such aristocrats to proclaim their victory is a fait accompli, that it happened a long time ago, and so on, but the eternal war of social engineering is far from complete. It is a war that is never designed to be truly "won" or come anywhere close to attaining its aims. The purpose of the war, so far as there is one, is the torture and liquidation of the lowest class, to glorify the suffering of a failed race and make the lowest class into living abortions. The thrill of torture must be maximized, and this became the sole remaining purpose of humanity. It is this which the eugenists isolated scientifically, which has always been at the heart of all division of labor. That is, the division of labor was premised not just on suffering, but on who was selected to suffer. It was premised on a presumption that intelligence was proprietary, occulted, and "special", and was entirely rooted in hereditary right and legal rulings granting to intelligence itself absolute impunity against those it deemed stupid. The final step was to make this ruling arbitrary and completely unassailable, and to abandon any pretense that there was a productive society or anything worthwhile in humanity. This has always been a choice. Humanity's rulers can end this any time, but if they did so, they would be immediately destroyed, and no one has any reason to trust any institution promising the sky and the moon - literally - after all of the carnage eugenics has done. It can't stop itself, until it has assured that mankind is split into two - "brights" and the most abject and humiliated slaves humanity could produce, with not a single purpose behind it except the vanity of a failed race deserving of being burned out of existence.
Economic thought offers no solution to this, because the nature of the problem is not really an economic one to begin with. At any point, this could end with a simple observation - that there is really nothing to struggle for, and the institutions were never something for the lower classes. Those who march through the institutions remain beholden to them, and are receiving their fate. We could have told them this would happen, and some of us did, but they did it all the same. Those of their lot who were naturally oriented to it were always going to do what they did, and let thought pass through them without a care in the world. As vile as aristocracy and the proprietors have been, and they are utterly shameless and devoid of anything worth keeping, it is the technocratic middle class - this new class which held the world, and they do it to themselves while they do it to us. Why they are so eager to march to a story of aristocracy is beyond political reasoning or the allure of aristocracy's spiritual knowledge. It is, and always will be, eugenics which damned us to this world, and that stupid religion is the overt face of this abomination, always cajoling the world to conform to the most insane vision so that we become fully and forever a Satanic race. As a "race", humanity is done. This concept of humanity was always a degeneration of humanist ideas and intended to be so, just as racial nationalism destroys the genuine basis of nations and replaces it with a gaudy aristocratic story.
If there is a future for mankind, it will not be as a "race" or a false univesalism where we are told we should all be the same or join a single world order, and it will not proceed by some idiotic faith in eternal national struggle. It will not happen when some novel technology makes us "better than human", because that never happens if anything is not completely fucking retarded and understands history and the litany of errors committed for such fads. There is no easy way out, and it will not be something humanity can begin on any power of its own, individually or collectively. For now, humans can only live day by day and continue through this nightmare. Expecting it to ever be better is a waste of time, for us or for any who come after. There is some solace - that there is a world outside of society, however small, and those fleeting moments are all we ever really had, disjointed and removed from a project that was never for us. Most of us have no future and will meet a terrible end, one way or another, and whatever anyone can keep in this failed society is not worth much or something to take any pride in. Whatever comes out the other side will be a grim world, and when the promises of paradise are given, we will have learned that such things no longer interest us. What good is "paradise" when it is just a lie to be snatched away by a few people who will obviously be favored and never wanted to share with the poor kids? But, perhaps, there will be a day when the eugenic creed is no longer, and if there is even one who can say that it was bullshit, it was always bullshit, and no one ever needed this stupid, retarded religion to tell us what we were, then our efforts would not have been in vain. But, saying the truth is not enough. Power laughs at truth. The real value of this is that we would retain native sense and be able to create the new, in spite of a ruling idea which says that anything new is automatically "retarded" and promotes pure Satanic drivel and has ceased to think that any other project is worth anything.
I don't suggest any "program" in any of this, for I am no revolutionary and no leader. I highly suspect any course of action would not require my input, and if there is someone who wants something other than this filth who can suggest a better course of action, I wouldn't want my words to hamper such a glorious cause. If there are those who wish to constantly relitigate 1917 or phantoms of the past, they're idiots and should ask the obvious questions, rather than herd more people to a failed thinking and tell them to stay there. Certainly, most of the left is aware of their function and refuses to change this, because that has been their role in the great game. They have had too many opportunities to turn away from this and suggest anything else, and went out of their way to jump in front of anyone suggesting anything different or even something that would make life tolerable. Nothing short of total abandonment of the present institutions would suffice. The resistance that remains will no longer aspire to fantasies of that sort.
Hate, my friends, hate. If I have learned anything, hatred for all of the lies is one of the few saving graces humans possess. We do not know a true or worthwhile love without this hatred, and when we have embraced the true and divine hatred, we learn that the fickle and simpering parody of love on offer is not at all appealing, or offensive to the senses. When we have the true and divine hatred and cease lying to ourselves, a love worthwhile will be apparent, and it won't be a love for "Big Brother" or the typical bullshit ideologues uphold. It won't be a love of your fellow man or any particular person, because that sort of love is fickle and doesn't mean anything. It won't be a love for things or empty rituals. It won't be a love of justice or some sense of goodness. What it might be for you, if anything, I cannot say. What I can say is that it is far better to have hated my enemies than to go on lying to myself. It is when eugenics makes us lie to ourselves and drills through ritual the maximal contempt of their Satanic creed that they score their most sadistic victory. The art of continuing to hate in hard times, and managing to continue living in this world, is far too difficult a matter to describe here. But, I do not believe there is a way forward without this hatred, and that we can find within us. It cannot be taught by any pedagogy or theory, and it is not a thing born within us. Wherever we came from and the experiences of our lives, many find the hatred of such a foul enemy as eugenics. It is common to feel a correct disgust and revulsion at eugenics, but without true, unforgiving hatred for the creed, there is no expectation of anything else, and everyone will have to dance around the centrality of this movement and pretend it isn't real.
Before closing, I would like to make clear that the structure of this book has presumed the human element is removed, and we viewed the economic problem as a great natural clockwork to the best of our ability, with knowledge of the social agents being political agents. Cybernetics, or the science of automating governance, would be presented as the final solution of economic management. There is one great problem with this, and it is not because political problems are intractable in nature. We could, if we really set out to do so, solve the political and historical problem cybernetically, and in that way, humanity and all we know really would be a machine working in orderly fashion. If we did this, though, we would not be able to do this with the educational, philosophical, political, and economic thought given to us. All of those thoughts were premised on the subjectivity of humans which is itself the greatest problem for economics. If we wanted the simplest solution to the economic problem, it would be to simply remove all humans and disregard all of their wants. No people, no problem. This is undesirable not because it is an unsolvable problem, but because the problems we have truly faced in our lives were never economic, political, or historical ones. They weren't even deep seated moral problems. There are two conditions of humanity. One is that humans really, really do not like being told what to do, given the historical record of philosophies asserting that others will think for us and act in our name. The second is that those who rule simply hate us too much to allow us to have any nice thing ever again. We have available to us many very easy solutions that would obviate much of humanity's struggles in the short- and medium-term, leaving us with the relatively minor gripes of existence and general human shittiness. Nothing about the present suffering is at all necessary for any purpose, and it has been a choice. The sick and terrible thing about humanity is that, by the conceit of intelligence more than any other conceit, this suffering is mandated - and that suffering is not done because of pigheaded religions asserting it blindly. All of those religions premised their statements such as "life is suffering" on reasoning that made perfect sense to them in their time, and still holds relevance today. God, or Buddha as it may be, is far from dead.
The problem of intelligence seen cybernetically for the system of humanity as a whole is quite simple. General utility is, by reason, an intractable problem which is intended to have no solution, and general utility has been the chief driver for human intelligence and all of our tools and automation of that intelligence. We seek the simplest and most elegant solution to any intellectual problem, and computer programmers are trained to write the simplest and most elegant algorithm they can when solving a problem by machine. To do otherwise is shirking what intelligence would have to do.
Most of us are familiar with the marshmallow test. Under utilitarian thinking, it is a rigged test - a way to tell the lesser classes they are impulsive, retarded, evil, and will always be tempted. There is no other way, and repeated, maximal violence will assert the utilitarian creed whenever one of us rejects what is "supposed" to happen. The reason it is rigged is simple - we are taught that the value of the aristocracy is intelligence, and intelligence always seeks the shortest solution to a problem. This will also be the source of a tendency among the commons and the middle classes politically - that they are quick to jump onto fads, because the faculties of intelligence and tool use would always drive them to seek the shortest answer to a problem. No one would make learning a problem more complicated than it has to be and think this sophistry will make them smarter. That has always been occulting, contemptuous to knowledge and barked like so much of the Satanic pablum of this retarded race. And so, the manipulation of "pleasure" - the cajoling and insults that such a filthy race as the English, and they the most filthy, Satanic, and retarded race of all mankind - insists we will love being stimulated, because that resembles the thought process of those who value "pure intelligence". The aristocracy of captial and this empire premised on trade is an aristocracy of low cunning, one befitting the commoners who were, for all of their bragging, jumped up gangsters, and unworthy of their ancestors who were jumped up gangsters but at least intelligent and sober enough to recognize their situation.
Eugenics, in total, has been one giant marshmallow test, where the impulsiveness of a Satanic, retarded English race is maximized. This, I believe, is by now a genetic trait of the English, one mark he has inherited. The English and the Germans are the two races of humanity most imbalanced by their personal practice of the eugenic creed and a generally depraved and Satanic mindset that permeates their races - and they must truly be regarded as races of the lowest sort. Perhaps we need an equivalent of nigger with far greater vigor and contempt to describe these two failed, demonic races. Yakubian is a half-fit, but we should not forget the origin of the Nation of Islam is the same imperial Freemasonry that contributed so much to our woes, and that stupid fruity club may burn in hell forever and ever, the mark of a truly Satanic and failed race. So, as tempting as it is to believe the Yakub story as a plausible explanation of the white race's insanity, I decline to use the term Yakubian to describe the monstrosities of the English and German races, an insanity far beyond the norm of whiteness.
We see here a large problem is the obsession with race and the intelligence of races, rather than nations of human beings who would think for themselves and have a collective interest, a shared experience, and something real to reference with that intelligence. Even with this, though, the cybernetic problem of intelligence remains the same, and a haughty appeal to moral fiber or some high horse does not fundamentally change anything.
There is only one solution, and it is a solution we have known for a long time - the lowest class and the lowest class alone would be the scholars. This falls on us because it must, because this filthy, retarded race of Satanic apes - all of them - refused to let us live and refused us any other existence but to look upon the ruin a filthy race has created. The claim of intellectualism by aristocracy, and the most perverted and obviously retarded aristocracy humanity has ever been cursed with, must be reversed in total. They are retarded. They are retarded. The lowest of the lowest class, ignorant and petty as they are, is a far superior specimen than the filth calling itself the best and brightest, because our so-called better have chosen a wholly negative influence, to exacerbate this problem far beyond anything it ever had to be.
This still doesn't solve the problem, as if it were one that were resolved by thinking about it and having the right ideas. It is not a problem solved by moral right or struggle, or even the lowest class asserting that it had a voice. The solution is very simple - if they aim of humanity has been torture and misery, it is the lowest class that has always been the first sacrificed, the first to suffer, and the only class that really wanted anything to be different. Everyone else will, as we will see in the next book, have investment in nothing really changing, because it will always place them at greater risk to identify with the lowest class than it would to let some sacrifices happen. The economic problem is at heart a problem of torture, and this is ultimately one rooted in political thought rather than any natural reason why it should be so. If we wanted a cybernetic solution, humans would inure themselves to suffering altogether, and probably abolish their conceits about themselves or stop thinking there was any other purpose to this enterprise. The torture cult is not just a political assertion, but one that percolated throughout history and has been the chief driver of our knowledge of history and education. Sadly, humanity refuses to do better, despite knowing that there are clearly better ways, but there is no way to solve that problem without assessing to a reasonable extent the damage the thrill of torturing things has left for us, mostly through no fault of those alive today. That cult began long ago, and only the most depraved and shameless true believers, incorrigible and worthless filth, have insisted "my country, right or wrong", that old Germanic drivel to justify their filthy race's continued intransigence.