Return to Table of Contents | Previous Chapter | Next Chapter

There are two ways we can suppose the existence of the polity. The first is to construct, out of nothing in particular, suppositions about what polities are and the proper purview of politics is. The other is to regard politics as historical facts that are self-evident to those who live in polities, and work backwards to ask why politics is as it is, instead of some other way, for there are at least as many theories of the political as there are human beings who content with the concept, in whatever way they do, and it is entirely possible for human beings to hold distinct political theories for different domains, which they consider separate from each other or things that only intersect when it pleases them. We can only hold as self-evident that which is commonly accepted enough to hold significant force in the world, rather than something which was evident by a revelation nature delievered equally to all without regard of time or place, fully formed. If the latter were the case, there could not be any dispute about the political whatsoever, and what happens could only be us going through the motions of nature's way without any particular purpose or reason to care. This would not rule out that there aren't transcendent values that exist "outside of history" that would have to be regared to speak of politics, and this refers strictly to politics rather than the world itself. The world clearly existed, in some form, before politics, or without politics. If politics is co-equal with Creation and genesis, then it could only exist as an indescribable and inchoate urge of the world, and anything we think, do, or construct outside of that chaos is inadmissible. Politics to be anything relevant must first be something which came about in the world, rather than something fused with nature itself. Nothing about the natural world suggests that it has a "political" character whatsoever, as if it were designed to create this very peculiar sense that we made. Politics is very clearly an artifice made by us, whether we "chose" it as a rational agent or not. It is only sensical to knowledge, rather than some substance that can be found in the universe with any form suggesting why we "ought" to conduct politics at all, let alone in any particular way.^[1]

If there is a natural tendency in existing matter or entities that know, that is not an intrinsically "political" matter in any sense that we would value such a thing, without making "politics" and "existence" one and the same, which obviates the former as a meaningful category. What I hope to do in this book is make a number of suppositions which have been made before and tested by history and our native sense, because this is the only way in which politics can be constructed at all. For politics to be politics, it is the result of deliberate actors. We do not need to ascribe a "rational" quality to those actors necessarily to speak of political life, but there is some process which has to be deliberate and not purely random and unpredictable. In principle, the process is knowable, even if it is not rationalizable. There are never any "unknowable truths" or logical contradictions in politics proper. If there is uncertainty, it is a thing which could be resolvable enough for us to know what is spoken of. Whether this ever arrests to a rational piece of information is not necessary - only that it is knowable in some way. The unknowable has no place in politics, whereas in economics and in science, there is much we do not know about and cannot reasonably be expected to know. Where ignorance is possible for the scientist or the manager, it is forbidden for any politician. The moment a politician fails to know what is what is the moment to strike and make a fool, and fools do not survive in politics. Fools can thrive in economic life and fools can muddle through science, for on a cosmic scale, all hitherto known human knowledge is the knowledge of a race of foolish apes. We should not be so quick to discount humanity's scientific knowledge as irrelevant, but it does not take too much knowledge to see that humans really are foolish compared to what we know to be possible, and yet scientific thought grows. If someone is thrust into the political arena without sufficient knowledge, that person is jackal feed and there will be no mercy. "Once retarded, ALWAYS retarded" is acutely felt in political society, whereas in everyday life, we can sometimes avoid the judgement, and accept the much less damning status of mere fools. Even the politically retarded can see that life is enough, but in political society, life is never enough.

As with economic life, political life exists because on some level we want to do this. This is where the first encounter between politics and economics - which is ultimately a matter of societies and institutions finding their sustenance, and individual humans are always members of a social organization in some sense if they are economic or political agents - is the beginning of an on-again, off-again relationship between the two, where they occasionally meet for the procreative act and can't stand each others' company or the hassle this relationship entails. Economics has many creepy brothers and uncles who insist on telling Mrs. Politics how she should live her life, while Mrs. Politics has her own family insisting Mr. Economics should be dumped and she has to keep her eyes on the true prize. The sexes of the two in this contrived and rather useless metaphor can be switched around, and while men and women are different creatures, both can imagine themselves as either sex and with the obligations of their fields of knowledge. It is also obvious that these being anthropomorphic representations of concepts, they didn't need to envision a sexual union, and they could be asexual best "buddies" in a terrible inhuman comedy routine, alien to our conventional wisdom about human relations. The point of this bad metaphor is to make clear that this relationship places politics and economics not as partners but antagonists, which have for historical reasons been conflated or pushed together by elements in knowledge generally which are neither political or economic, and which Mrs./Mr. Politics cannot control no matter what s/he declares to be law, or whether it puts on the uniform to become Dr. Politics, General Politics, Grand Overlord Politics, or almighty Politics-Allah most Merciful and possessing 99 names. Both of these things suppose not only a world that preceded them, but that to even exist, politics and economics were contingent on a situation of developed agents where they could be relevant. There isn't an easy way for Politics and Economics here to have a happy relationship, and they weren't really into that, as the married life is not what the Priestess who married them told them it would be. It was not that Politics and Economics had some essential ingredient to ensure this relationship didn't work, or that they were just bad people. Despite barely standing each other, Politics utilized Economics to justify her spending sprees or his drunken indulgences, and Economics utilitzed Politics to make his subordinates do stupid things that they did not want to do, or make her bratty children and the shits she has to teach at her job comply with an obviously unjust and pointless society. This is a relationship of users, but the human beings which take on these two deified concepts and have to live with them in a world that isn't a world of deities did not ask for that, and it isn't as if politicians and economics could exist on the basis of misery and suffering. That was always a spiritual decision that was outside of any political or economic logic, and only afterwards would either of the two be invoked to justify the decision of humans.

We could speak of the political without "society" as such, where instead of dealing with social information or the existence it points to, political stories are entirely metaphors detached from human affairs, and we on Earth behold the acts of the gods or some heavenly forces and mimic their behavior. This would require those deities to be treated as something other than a metaphor, and since those deities aren't making themselves evident to this author, such suppositions are not a very useful political treatise. Such treatises exist and are the most common, for a simple reality - most human beings in this society are not "political animals" or attached to political life beyond the necessity that states impose on them. Most people have no stake in the political process that is significant, not individually or in any mass formation they have assembled. There is a concept of mass politics that rises and falls throughout history, but never does mass politics form anything like the overpowering legitimizing force that aristocrats dread and constantly write bad fanfiction to oppose. The reasons for this are not reducible to a just-so story about what humans ought to be or what politics out to be, but arise because political life is not a game and not something that can be done for free or from a fount of effectively unlimited energy for most of us. Nothing about political life or economics intrinsically suggested any fixed classes or social hierarchy. All such concepts arose within society once politics and economics could continue, or they arose from distinctions in society that were not "political essences" or things that held any such predictive power of what someone was or what they could be. If such fixed classes were "written into nature", it would obviate the need of the political at all, even as a story of what the gods did to tell us what we are. There might be an imperious command to organize society in accord with that model, but it would not be a "political" model. It would mean instead that there simply is no politics that involves human agency, and for us, it might as well not exist. What difference does it make that some entities in a world removed from us do things a particular way? If the gods came down to Earth to command us like hobgoblins or body thetans, the political question is moved to them in ways that would be evident by a material analysis, and we would only punt the question of "organic politics" to the divine and the metaphysical, and ask about the meaning of those agents so far as they can be read from physical acts. If there is no such interchange where the divine and the world above "reveals its knowledge" to material senses, then there would be no politics, and whatever inertia human beings did to do "random" things would constitute political life for our purposes - it would therefore not exist as anything other than a pseudoscience, which is what eugenics and things like it were, and such pseudoscience was recognized as such from the start by anyone with a brain at the time and now. Some clever schemer might believe he can eliminate the political and the grubbiness of humans by telling them this story that politics is for the gods and unknowable, but all this accomplishes is the establishment of political life in some reduced form among the lower orders. Slaves, and whatever life someone might find in an institution of the residuum to be exterminated, would exhibit some sort of political behavior that is beneath the appreciation of legitimate politics, but which is important in the struggle for position among slaves to survive the institution. The true aim of "eliminating politics" does not actually do this, so much as it regulates human behavior and works through fear and all of the tools of command and control to cajole subjugated entities to the "master politics". It can only do so by replicating the political logic of its own class - ultimately the political logic of aristocracy - and superimposing it on every other person and every other thing in existence. It is here where economic logic is most egregiously abused to justify the naked power grab and get-rich-quick schemes of aristocracy since time immemorial. To truly eliminate the political is only possible by neutralization in total of agency, so that not one speck of the agent can exist, and its past - for the agent would have existed if it was a stain or garbage to be removed - must become inadmissible as a true "political" fact. Reality must be controlled to speak of political life, if we are to speak of the polity as something above society. Not only can we indeed do this, but we will in any serious assessment have to acknowledge this. Politics is never a thing that can be confined to "society", in the way that economics can. Where economics can be limited to its purview, politics insists by its nature that it is something more, and then fails at that mission because it encounters a world that was never a political creation. This failure is forseen from the start by all known political thought that is worthy of being called "thought", and yet, politics keeps trying to be something it is not, and can only do so.

In the prior book, I spent two chapters elaborating on the knowing agent and the rational agent as it pertained to economic thought. Those categories pertained not to a political task but a task of management which was at first something humans did. Nothing in nature suggested "economics", for the nature of economics pertained to a very mortal problem - management of the house, or a construct that exists in the here and now. Economics does not have any claim to that which is not formally brought into its house in some way, however that happens. The social information and agents that economics manages are things which were not "economic" at their inception, and they were not necessarily political or anything other than what humans are. There is nothing "intrinsically human" about politics or economics, for humans in any form we imagine them are not special entities with any natural title to anything in the world on account of merely being human. This applies both to the sense of humans as Man, a type of animal that rose from the muck, and the conception of humanitas that was partly political but at heart suggested a spiritual conception that was never a purely political tool. Here, I do not grant to humanity any special political or spiritual status. What I wrote in the prior book and will write in this book would pertain to any entity, any agent, that may be considered "political" or in the purview of politics. The human subject in particular does not possess any special claim beyond our own bias because we are humans, socialized for centuries to believe in such a concept. Even the concept "human" has, as I have noted repeatedly, shifted throughout the ages, and today the racial concept of humanism displaced nearly all of its prior spiritual connotations or any sense of civilizational development. The imperial cult of those who rule today openly declares the human race to be a slave race, beholden to some parodic gods a bunch of inbred Satanic retards on a foggy island decided we were to abase ourselves to. That story is only part of why I write these books, and I do not grant to those retards, and they are retarded, any monopoly on the concept of the political or any assumption that they hold any more authority than being in a particular time and place to make us miserable for the sake of many lies and scams. How we arrived to that is not a unique tale, for humanity has known many such scams in the past, and has always known there was, and still is, another way. The future of the world, if any is allowed to exist, will proceed to things that I cannot predict from here, nor do I consider it my place to proclaim eternal laws of what humans are like some guru handing wisdom to the unwashed inferiors. It is precisely such conceits that I would dream I could attack, though I know anything I do would be futile to stop such people from operating their cults. I can at the least describe those conceits to the readers in this book, or at least a part of them, so that other human beings can see this for what it is and treat it with appropriate contempt. Those conceits are one part, but far from the entirety, of the political question that arose among humans. There was obviously a time where humans did not hold this conceit, and political thought like anything else is something emergent and adaptive to what the thought itself encounters. It would have to be adaptive enough to survive, not because "politics is war", but because struggles are one reality that can be conjured and that anything in the world would have to face against a mind that would invoke them. That which did not possess a mind or anything to resist another mind would not be able to meet struggle. It is further evident that this struggle itself precedes politics, and really has nothing to do with politics except when it is invoked. At heart, the world does not regard struggle or contradiction as real or relevant to its workings, and politics like anything else is something that arose in the world if it is to be at all real.

A political agent appears to be a social agent at first glance - politics is a product of social agents' behavior and nothing else is really "political" by nature - but its true nature is not that of a substantive thing or an idea at all, and it is not a "contradiction" or "struggle" or some essence which is irrational and therefore unknowable in any way, or a thing that cannot be understood rationally and diagnosed. What is missing in a crass analysis that attempts to arrest political knowledge is that politics deals only with that which is held to be transcendent if it is to be found in unadultered form. There is no "local politics" which can be switched off when it encounters the transcendent. There may be social agents whose behavior is limited by the faculties available to them, and these may be the vehicle through which politics in the form relevant to us is realized. All truths that have political relevance are things which must refer to a world that is both real, and an understanding of it which does not regard any local ecology or interest. All such mortal agents and interests are beholden to this concept of politics that is transcendent, rather than any local idea that is merely a contrivance for men. If we wished to describe the dickering and dealing of humans in the muck, what we are describing is not really "politics", and reducing politics to such makes "politics" completely value-less and irrelevant. What two people do to each other is ultimately a private matter that has nothing to do with politics, and really isn't tied to the world in some way that obligates either party to consider that behavior "politically necessary" or "materially necessary" based on some economic pretext. They may be bound by something entirely different, but that something does not have any bearing on politics, and cannot invoke the transcendent awareness that politics entails. This transcendent awareness is not something inherent to social information as it was described in the prior book^[2], but instead speaks to a truth of the world that is not subject to adjudication or management of the economic variety, and that cannot be pinned down by any law of science that mandates political actors to do anything. We can in our private relations choose to ignore the political altogether, or claim that there is no God, no Allah, and Muhammad was quite obviously a fictitious person. Politics to be relevant has to suggest that it is possible to make such a claim, and the claims need not be religious. It is also clear that such claims as those made by Islam are not political claims, as Islam can regard that politics is a human affair among men and God's role in that does not push history in the way a manager might imagine. I would not wish to delve into the particulars of Islam or Christianity or any one religion, since there are better sources from the believers who will tell you their doctrines and theories about the political, but the point I make here is that spiritual authority and political authority are very different creatures. It would be quite impossible for spiritual authority to supercede what conditions on the ground will allow. Since our assessments of those conditions on the ground themselves derive from a spiritual authority we regard as relevant to answer that question, the usual way religion and politics are reconciled has been to claim that the will of political actors and the events of history are the work of God or some gods, or that Heaven in some way is an authority that can regulate human behavior where mere force cannot. Politics proper does not mandate any abasement to a god or Heaven, and often a religion worth noting specifically rejects such self-abasement as contrary to proper spiritual authority and the purpose of the adherent of a religion. Very often, the political class in any society maintains a very different concept of spiritual authority and holds it as a secret of their institutions. Spiritual authority in the main is something that religion or its familiar trappings can only partially capture, and religion proper speaks of something more than even spiritual authority, which is very important to investigate. Since even a passing account of what religion is would be too difficult to explain in this book or any of my books, I expect the reader to have some familiarity with religious concepts and will reference them as necessary, but I will only touch religion and the history of cults in hopes that the reader can look at these things in their proper context rather than issuing bold and idiotic proclamations about "fighting religion" like some teenaged Galtonite pissant. This is not a theological work and nothing I write here should be interpreted as any revelation. At most I regard such revelations as something to investigate, since many people have believed in them and acted as if they were very real.

We may crudely invent a materialistic narrative to explain "why" we think like this, by saying that human thought or any thought is ultimately a physical event, and so we think the way we do because it is appropriate to us, and there is nothing more to it. That is not what politics as a meaningful game or a domain of behavior is referent to, though. For politics to exist at all, we suppose there is a transcendent truth to anything that happens, rather than a naturalistic story where politics rose from the muck to make the world in the image of "me wantee". If someone did think that way, they would learn, as many humans have, that there was a world before them, and that ultimately these things arose from something that was outside of the agents and outside of any material domain that could be identified. Material origins explain much about what we are as animals and what we can become, but that is a question of humans or particular life-forms, rather than anything that describes politics. Politics instead concerns our investigation of the world at the point where we would begin a proper reconstruction of it in our learning - at the acknowledgement that there is a world to know anything about. Where the materialist view of history, events, and systems proceeds to classify all that exists and connect it to meaning, politics concerns a view of that which is transcendent or "common wisdom" that has to be accepted as a reality if we are to engage in the activity. It is not a material compulsion at all, and cannot be. It is instead an admission that there is a condition of this world that can be held, regardless of what we would want to believe is relevant. In one way or another, politics comes for us, or this threat is always actionable, for politics to be politics. This does not grant to politics any legitimacy as "the real truth" or an authority to dictate reality from behind a curtain. The political institutions and our activity can be a public affair or held in private by particular persons or institutions, in secret places where we do not have access to political knowledge. Nothing about politics is rooted in the study of information that described economic behavior in the prior book. This is not to say that information cannot be ascribed to political concepts or their Earthly results, or that we cannot learn of the political. The political is necessarily something we can assimilate into information for our use. Information, though, is not its substance, whereas for economic life, information and technology are the true substance of economic value, rather than a political impulse, a psychological pressing from an ultimately natural source, or a spiritual longing that is assigned the fetish object of coin or a commodity.

For politics to be meaningfully described by us, all political knowledge is translated imperfectly into information that is meaningful as that, rather than merely the symbol that beats us over our head and tells us that this is "political". For example, with the spectacle that is the republican election extravaganza, nothing about the process is inherently "political". In the American example, the entire process is played up for laughs, even at a time where the republic was taken seriously and office holders made genuine political decisions. It did not necessitate that elections were "pointless", or that the votes had to be rigged in all cases to produce the correct outcome and move history. There is in elections a presumption that mass politics, or the interest of any large group, is politically relevant, but it is never determined by the electoral process itself. No one who participates in an election does so as if they are voting, for no particular reason, for particular symbols or sentiments that are unmoored from anything that has genuine relevance to the transcendent reality politics entails. In short, no one who participates in an election believes that this process is entirely meaningless or "for show", or that their vote is symbolic and a performance that is granted fetishistic power by asserting "me wantee" at the polling booth. The vote is never something that is random or unpredictable chaos, as if people could be cajoled by the right symbol or public relations wizardry. Even where public relations dominates and mass politics is defeated, the electoral process is believed to represent something that is happening, or the spectacle of public politics is conducted by men and women behind the curtain for particular outcomes they hold. For example, no one should believe Donald John Trump, 45th President of the so-called United States, is actually moving history with any of his retarded proclamations and stunts. In the one situation where he was expected to demonstrate some quality of leadership, Trump cowered behind an army of public relations ghouls and behaved like the sniveling retard he was, and his function was to show to the defeated Americans an image of themselves the public relations ghouls desired. In effect, the purpose of Trump and everything that was done to elevate him is to present a symbol of abject retardation to Americans, and the thought leaders point to him and tell the defeated public, "This is you. You are retarded. You love war and violence. You love this." This author can tell you stories of ritualized child sexual abuse, and the public relation ghouls are using the same tactics - the exact same tactics. That is the point of putting up such a foul entity - to reflect what public relations created to perfect a Satanic race, and tell us there is no alternative. This did not begin when Donald J. Trump was elected, and the function of Trump is more than just this symbol, but Trump was elevated for a reason, rather than "spectacle" or a distraction. Nothing in politics is purely a distraction, and even if it were, distractions are only effective when they point to something substantial. There are many grifters and filthmongers who saw Trump as a useful vehicle for their various shitty agendas, and so there were among the masses many enablers^[3] who could be seeded and act as a viral contagion, using methods that are not simple things or truths we hold to be self-evident. If not Trump, there are many other suitable vessels that perform this world-historical mission. Most of the people who are made to accept Trump as a reality did not want any "world-historical mission", and find this entire Germanic imposition on our society disgusting and a failed system that never should have been allowed to start, let alone be encouraged by so many influencers and the aforementioned enablers.

This sad parable is sold as "politics", even though the story and its intent have little to do with the genuine article. The entire sad spectacle and many like it are a projection of force, a symbol of fear shouting nothing more than "die, die, die" to the true enemies of the present political settlement, who are told they have no agency and do not exist as anything other than this image of themselves that is reproduced ad nauseum and resembles the most wicked of the aristocracy and their enablers. The narrative has nothing to do with anything substantive in the political sense, and its material substance is exploitation and a moral rot that is not reducible to "Satanism" or some other token. It is a moral rot that is not even reducible to eugenism in total, or some temporary condition. The material substance and its effect is real enough, but for all of the expense and shouting, and all the lives that are sucked into it, none of it accomplishes anything, and ultimately what happens in a genuine political sense is far removed from any such grand narrative. Those who promote the narrative - both the public relations ghouls and the numerous enablers in every class of society - do not actually believe it reflects a political reality. If anyone believed that this spectacle was what politics was, they were swindled and given rude awakenings. Most people voting for this farce accepted long ago that the United States and global society threw them overboard long ago, and there was nothing in humanity to salvage. They were quite certain that they weren't going to get an actual "vote" on the matter, and only by carefully controlling all narratives was Donald J. Trump given any legitimacy to act. If anyone believed Trump served any agenda except one we could predict before this began, which could have been fulfilled by any suitable puppet and did not involve any quality of Trump as a man, they were quickly corrected. What actually rules, and what Trump and his enablers wanted, was carried out largely in secret, or in some petty activity of grifters who never want the rot to stop, and insist everyone has to be as dull and Satanic as them. As they say, "many such cases!"

Vague narratives and aspersions do not possess any agency and do not move history, nor do they predict history with any credibility. If there is anything to be described in politics, the transcendent realities it entails are described not as metaphors but as agents. The purpose of the story is either for meaningful agents to be derived from them, or to obfuscate those agents to those who are not permitted to hold this political knowledge. Deception is not inherent to politics in such a way that there are "contradictions in nature". The truly worthwhile political knowledge contained in any narratives, if any exists at all, is derived from context and knowing who or what created that narrative. If a narrative is a purely contemptuous lie, there is a reason why such lying is allowed or encouraged, and something to be attained through the lie. The stories people tell, which may be spiritually relevant to them for reasons which are not political, do not have any political claim simply by their regurgitation. Politics is not to be studied in the same way that the natural world would, or that science would view an object where political agency and the concerns of politics do not apply. There is nothing inherently "political" about a life-form, genetics, biological processes, physics, chemistry, the procession of orbits of planets around stars, or any scientific fact that describes nature. Political truths do not derive from any study of nature at all, nor do they exist in a special metaphysical space that must exist in accord with any conceit we hold about the political. To speak of politics is to speak of the status quo at its highest level - that is, political legitimacy supposes that the agent, or whatever is constituted as a force with political meaning, is only answerable to other such agents or entities, rather than a natural fact that can be claimed as capital or some other property. Property is not an intrinsically political matter at all, and property did not mandate or need "politics" to be asserted - nor did the proprietors see the political, the institutions of a state, or the status quo they had to abide as anything other than an obstruction against what they really wanted. Property is a concern of particular entities that would want such a thing, and property would exist regardless of the state, and usually exists against the state's interests. The rights of property by law are a very different proposition from what the proprietor really wanted - a claim to the world which was answerable to nothing but the force the proprietor has to command it. The proprietor, and this is true of all variants of property, relies on possession far more than lawyering a deed or expecting the awards and honors to assert power through the symbol or meaning of them. All such awards and honors that mark merit are not in of themselves the merit, and this is obvious to a child. The awards and honors that mark the distinction of rank among proprietors are themselves another piece of property to be claimed, and so to would anything that the polity or the state entails. The procession of orbits of planets and many large events which are not enclosed property, and things that seem minute and trifling, can have a political effect and agency that must be regarded. We cannot change that the Earth revolves around the sun by any thought experiment and insist that we have changed reality by wordplay, for the sun rises and sets and the Earth receives the quota of sunlight nature has provided. All human efforts to constrain this quota would be vanity projects that go nowhere. Those projects entail scientific and technological knowledge being commanded that is not intrinsically political for those who work and build the great sun-blocking device, or wouldn't be human efforts at all but natural events on Earth that we similarly lack any control over. Small events beneath our notice can grow into butterflies with political relevance. And of course, the behavior of human beings, or any other knowledgeable entity, is affected by natural events and is aware that it is doing this. Even if an animal lacks a language to conceive of "the political", its existence and its behavior are in some way the formation of similiar behavior regarding the world, rather than "just happening" without any thought as isolated events reproducible in a lab. Animal populations will respond to events of global importance and are politically relevant in the sense that contest over their numbers and the product of hunting, herding, or enslaving them for animal labor-power will dictate the actions of other agents. The other agents might be other animals, and a great food chain or cycle of life might be imagined as the "politics of nature", or the "state of nature", a concept which will be revisited in another chapter of this book. A conceit of knowledge that we possess is necessary for understanding politics as a concept, and it is with knowledge that humans built their concept of the political. Nothing about knowledge is necessary for "politics" to exist - we can construe "political" behavior of unthinking agents, so long as it is judged to be of importance to the transcendent level of awareness of the world, rather than merely a local example. The understanding of the agents is not necessary for them to be made into political subjects, even if the sole political declaration is that those subjects are slaves to an alien and unknowable god, whose wrath and terror is unlimited and whose modus operandi is to maximize the thrill of torture in those who pray to that god in some fevered attempt to gain its favor in an unwinnable battle. The efforts of these people whose minds and souls are slaves to the god to escape their fate may be politically irrelevant at a cosmic scale that is considered political thought or behavior, but the mind-slaves in such a world live under a political settlement nonetheless. The settlement is that the demonic god is unknowable, contradicts any sense one may assemble, and that resistance is futile. This god does not need to invoke the language of "the Satan" or even appear as a demon, or hold any malevolent intent or a particularly human quality that Satan implies. It would still be relevant to speak of the agents this deity controls through hobgoblins or its unknowable force, if its existence at all is to mean anything or suggest a political reality.

Whether our existence here and now "really matters" philosophically is not what is argued, and for reasons that will become apparent, such arguments have always been facile. The point is that it is impossible to deny that there is a world in which politics is relevant, and agents or forces exist in some settlement that is political. The extent of that relevance, and how much the agents consider themselves "political animals", does not change that all such entities exist in a world where they are answerable in principle to nothing but the same thing - a political settlement that is observed, by the agents or by an external observer in a thought experiment. There is only really one such settlement which can prevail. Based on the definitions of society that were used for economic information in the prior book, that is the transcendental level of social awareness, which I named the "polity".

Politics is that which pertains to the domain of existence that is regarded as the "polity" - that is, that which is answerable to nothing but other political entities and realities, which is held above other things while existing in the same world. This does not make politics necessarily the "supreme authority" in a spiritual sense. It is entirely possible to speak of a spiritual authority that does not concern "the political". The political speaks of things which are every bit as real as material truths found in science, and can only do so. The political truths are in some sense material truths, in that they pertain to a real world in order to be relevant, but they need not correspond to "agents" in the same way that social agents would point to some physical entities which can be such or was constructed by such agents artificially to hold importance to physical reality. "Society" conceptually had to be rooted in a physical and material reality to be a society worth regarding. If society were reduced to an abstraction of information - and that is the true form of society - then the relations that society entails would break down. If society pertained to an imaginary space, whether that was an irrelevant fantasy of anyone, or a society imagined in the heavens where the gods rain death upon the mortals, it would cease to function as a society and would be a very different creature, and all study of society would either be irrelevant or would pertain to something very different from the society we regard as relevant to anything we would consider a "social question". Societies to be societies contain their agents within a single world, even if the agents that enter society are wildly different, and even if the agents affecting society are not judged as "real social agents". Humans live alongside animals in various ways, and in that sense, they are equals as "social agents", in that there is no law of nature mandating that humans would rule and animals couldn't pick up a weapon or learn to speak. There are material reasons why the constitution of humans allows them to use technology, and those reasons are not determined at a basic level by human sociality, as if "society" or any institution of society could make humans into something other than what they are. Humans possess brains and faculties allowing for communication and the development of technology, among other distinctions, and that distinction is not held by any social institution nor by political conceits as a fait accompli. Possession of those facutlies is and never can be a given, for humans are injured, die, are born, pass through developmental steps, and only live for so long. All of those things are, at a basic level, facts about the world that are outside of any concept humans hold about themselves, or any theory of what life is or what life ought to be. The history that led to animals like humans being as they are is one that happened, and our existence is - or was - the result of those events. Once it is done, humans, like any other living thing, operate on their own power. The qualities that prevent animals from using the same technology as humans have nothing to do with anything a human believes about animal intelligence or what animals ought to be, or anything the animal believes.

So too can these claims be made about unliving objects which enter society. Their true existence is neither social nor political, and it is not reducible to a conceit about physical science or a religion regarding nature or the world. There is not any law dictating, from on high, anything we are. In principle, anything that enters the awareness of society becomes a potential a rival, a threat, a friend, or any othe relation. Every agent in society is "socially equal" in one sense - that, by the laws that allow us to recognize that there is a society, anything could become anything, and agents can arise out of seemingly nothing. The large and mighty have no promises from heaven that society would protect them, any more than the weak could receive the same promise. Society has no concept of inherent political inequality, and political distinctions of friend or enemy do not assert themselves by any law of nature, or any law of information in society. If society did not pertain to any political sense - or conversely, if politics were a "natural event" studied in the same way social information would be, or that any subject in science would be - then politics as a sentiment of friendship or rivalry, or as the conceits of stupid men, that made claims that it was rooted in society, history, and the world studied by science, would be nothing. There would be no "polity". There would only be a bunch of screaming, retarded fags - and they are retarded fags - shouting for war, while everyone involved loots the country and decides they will piss off to America when they've lost the war, so they can sell the same scam again in a generation or two. Yeah, that's the ticket. It also can't be said that these political distinctions were what made humans into what they are, or that politics moves history and material things. Humans, or any life-form, operate on their own power for purposes that have nothing to do with politics or a regard of society, or a regard of economics. They do not even move for any moral purpose or by some sentiment or force that has a preferred orientation. The power of life-forms to exist is something that regards nothing more than the barest conditions of existence, and life-forms could see that life in the muck is really no different from an imagined paradise in Olympus. Beyond that, life-forms exist in a largely dead world, and to exist, they inhabit dead matter, which they did not because they were born to be vampires or "ought" to do any such thing. It did not occur to life that it must oppose the world or make everything in the world its enemy, or that its life was anything special in the universe, granted sacrosanct status to rule over the dead. It did not even occur to life that it would care who the enemy or friend is, or that such a concept was "political". Anything can decide to make an enemy or a friend, and build a whole society around the concept, and none of that would mean anything more than the starting conditions of life in the muck. No such struggle gave to life anything worth keeping, or established anything more than a cycle which refuses to die. The polity that is recognizable to us begins when life reckons with the unliving world it encounters. We could imagine a society of unliving agents who sense that they are agents much as life-forms are, even if they view their nature and principles of existence very differently from the impulses of life. This would make a society or political sense among such entities different in some ways. But, the reasons for the political were not strictly speaking about life and death as constants of the universe. The proper origin of the political is spiritual authority - just as it was for the management of information in daily life, in the management of property, in the management of the person and the body, and for any understanding. Entities without knowledge may be construed as carrying out "political" matters, or being politically relevant. A giant meteor crashing into the Earth doesn't understand politics, but such an event causing a gigantic explosion would be politically relevant, and in the procession of cosmic events in outer space, humans remain as irrelevant as ever. At cosmic scales, giant rocks and balls of luminous gas remain the dominant political actors, and all of the aspirations of some silly apes on one of those rocks mean nothing. Among the rocks and balls of gas that truly dominate affairs, there isn't a single political thought in any of them, but they do proceed through the universe on their own power just as life does. What life possesses that the planets and stars do not is an ability to adapt and alter their behavior, which is more or less varied depending on which life-form exists. Life does not hold a monopoly on adaptability or flexibility, and all of the efforts of life are constrained. This constraint is not purely a constraint of the body it inhabits, but a constraint on the vampiric behavior of life that the world has imposed on it.

Political thought appears not as the sole province of life against death, or the power of those who hold the polity to compel death or create life. It arises instead because there are agents who can sense that there is such a condition and can act in regards to it, rather than continue in their orbits as the stars and planets do. This sense does not necessarily entail "sentience" or a language to communicate the idea - only that the entity will act in ways that regard a general situation that it can react to. The planets regard physics and the force of the world - all things in physical space must - but it does not occur to the planets that they could defy their own motion in any way, and for billions of years this continues, with planets devoured by stars, which exhaust their existence over many more billions of years. The planets "caring" or not caring is irrelevant to the political question, because human beings can spend their existence not caring about political life or anything in this world, with full knowledge of what that would entail. Knowing in of itself did not make politics possible. It is deliberate action - moral agency - that distinguishes political society from society generally, and this deliberation pertains to the political status quo rather than a sense that politics and the world at a basic level are coterminous. This distinction did not tear reality into two, as if Prometheus broke the compact or Lucifer gave Eve the forbidden fruit to establish ex nihilo aristocracy's recreation of reality, and the gods decreed now and forever there would be master and slave. The distinction in of itself does not carry any moral weight. Moral claims of labor have been proven in our history to be not just worthless, but actively destroyed and mocked, turned into parodic forms - and the incessant posturing is one of the worst perversions carried out about labor as a force in human society, intended to produce this parodic nightmare and weaponized by the moderns in a way that was previously impossible. The distinction instead is asserted gradually, as any social agent that would become a political agent reacts to their environment in more sophisticated ways. At first this distinction is simply a development of techniques and knowledge, however crude, for life to continue its functions. We could imagine unliving entities that are adaptable to their environment in deliberate ways, but living entities were the only entities that would have arisen from the natural processes of the world that did this most effectively. Rather than mindlessly consuming, producing, and reproducing their essence, life-forms typically arrested the body they inhabited after the spurt of development following their conception. Life continues to grow by an impulse it cannot control, but that growth is not towards a singular outcome or locked into any preferred trajectory by anything that constitutes it. Life inhabited a largely dead world and had to proceed with the machines available to it, and so the passing of biological material from parent to offspring is the "technology" of the animal world, and remains to this day one of the few technologies aristocracy covets, based on their own conceits rather than any genuine desire for good. Such an existence can allow a crude mind to ask why this happened, and if there was a purpose to any of it beyond life itself - and there was a purpose, and it is a purpose that doesn't devolve to self-indulgent pissantry. That purpose was particular to the life-form or the entity passing through this process but always regarded the world. The purpose is open-ended, and it does not conform to a "game" or an economic problem, or something that could be solved by any conceit of knowledge, any merit to be won in the world, or the mere application of labor and its force. It is a purpose that doesn't conform to any of the categories of knowledge I have written aboout in the first two books, for that purpose has nothing to do with knowledge, our "being", or an exchange of favors as deeds to placate a purpose alien to us and the world. This transcendent purpose is not political, social, material, or something that conforms to any preferred conceit about it.

There is one problem it always faces - other entities with their own purposes and their own modus operandi, which may and likely will come into conflict with theirs. No claim about the transcendent can be rooted in some base process which reduces all such purposes to sayings or koans, like "all is water", "all is change", "all is knowledge", or any other such faggotry. It is not a purpose that only a few chosen can claim, with all others being irrelevant. Most humans have nothing to do with other humans and never wanted much to do with society, let alone a beast called "the state". What becomes clear, and this does not require a great developmental leap, is that whatever purpose life may seek, or may find and take as its own, faces immediate and specific dangers, and chief among them is the danger of other entities like itself. It is with knowledge that we both learn of those dangers, develop systems for recognizing them and forming the first "political knowledge", communicating those systems of political knowledge and developing them in our own space, and knowledge that this information and knowledge itself can be claimed as property. The process is recursive - we can imagine a computer function continuing ad nauseum because that is what life does in an algorithmic sense. The aristocratic view of this algorithm is, invariably, a straight line behaving just as the drover would like cattle to behave, and the aristocrat does not intrinsically need to see itself as fundamentally different. The aristocrat only needs to believe that its position in the "circle of life" that it invented is superior and entitles it - and aristocracy as a concept - to continue as it wants and double down. The reality is that life turns inward, or to the world, and reconstitutes its body every day. There are limits to this reconstitution, and eventually the process exhausts the body it inhabits. The power over life and death is not a power over some substance or essence which is fused with fundamental nature. Everything about life is an alien to that fundamental nature, for the world is dead and always will be. A dead world in this sense is still a world where events happen - the world and the multitude of dead things in it are very active. What is meant here is that the conceits of life, and the claims of imperium - derived from the power of life and death - are not "the point", but are instead the vehicles political society used, since very obviously the dead do not return to life, and life's existence will always be particular to its purview. Nor was knowledge pertaining to life, death, or the world, a monopoly of politics. For most of human history, knowledge and politics only meet when regarding the knowledge of political secrets, or whatever knowledge would be useful for the army to appropriate against its enemies. Knowledge proper was viewed with unbridled contempt, and this view of knowledge persists up to the present day. The particulars of that development are among the million and one reasons I chose the title for this series that I did. Nothing about knowledge itself, or the sentence of "retarded" to damn us here and now, is definitional of any polity. It is, too, a tool, just as the imperium over life and death has been - an imperium which can never be abandoned for very obvious reasons.

These things create a status quo, or a way the world generally is, which is not a claim about social institutions or particular technologies which are reproduced - and institutions are themselves a type of technology, just as the bodies of humans and the labor of humans is. Politics as a concept is not dominated by technology in the way that The State would be dominated by technology and its consequences. The status quo exist regardless of any moral intent or any labor. It is the prior, continuing, and future understanding that there is a world about which anything can be said generally. This is different from claims about specific things, persons, substances, or parts of the whole. The status quo does not intrinsically suggest that there is a classification scheme for all that exists, but such a development would be very useful for understanding what the status quo is, and navigating it. The status quo is not coterminous with "the world" or "nature" or an eternal impulse of the human spirit or anything particular to us. The political status quo concerns only that which is relevant to the question being asked - "what are the conditions I can operate in that I must regard if I am to do anything in the world as a result of other entities with purposes not unlike my own?" It would not matter if there is a vast disparity between the participants, or if the members recognized each other as political agents. It does not encompass everything that exists unless someone acts by the maxim "the personal is political". It refers instead to these purposes and that which would either interfere with them, or would be potential avenues for realizing those purposes. Those purposes are not purely moral ones or the sort labor would or should value, nor are they the property or technology of anyone. At the same time, not one political agent, however powerful, can assert what is and isn't the acceptable boundaries of the political, or drag anyone forcibly into "politics" and make them sit in session by any natural law. There can be a technology to move humans into cages, or shock their brains to make them obey under the threat of unlimited torture, but any such technology is premised on beliefs that would forbid such forced participation from being "politics". It would instead be a lot of pointless suffering, and it might produce compliance, but it is always carried out with the goal of turning the political agent into evolutionary flotsam, devoid of any purpose or energy. However much politics invades any other domain or is answerable to something outside of it, the domain of events which are "political" is circumscribed and only pertains to a question which is actually narrow, and does not allow certain claims to hold true regardless of the conceits anyone holds about what "politics" should entail. This does not lock politics into any preferred condition, but it means that certain things will never be political no matter how many times they are insinuated to be so. The personal is very clearly not the political and anyone telling you it is has either told you in so many words to die as soon as possible, or wants you to get in on The Secret and join them as a conspirator against those who are not let in on The Secret. "The Secret" itself is not really a political thing, but a spiritual koan that is invoked to make reality at this level conform to wishes of mortals. The political relevance of such a creed is only as strong as the worldly force it can hijack and the ability of anything else in the world to work against it.

We may simplify the politics of humanity by stating one common sense fact that may be politically contentious and lacking in scientific proof, but one that we would have to accept to speak of politics in the sense humanity has usually spoken of it. That is that human beings act on their own power, for their own purposes, with sufficient knowledge and agency to act as if they live in a political society, or are subject to such a thing. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, and the ignorant who do not know the entire law code or history of law at least know they have encountered that at some point in their life. It is important here not to take this definition for granted, for at the very heart of humanity's sense of its own politics is a history that is particular to humans, and not at all a given of any political society. This is that political information for humans is always limited and gated by access held by particular human beings, or institutions which are themselves populated by human beings and any machines in their possession. Humanity long ago chose to excise anything from its political and social settlements that was not human, and humans only deal with other humans to establish who or what has any political pull. All non-human things are either aliens which have no bearing on human polities or what we do among each other, or they are subdued and transformed into either property or a natural commons claimed by political society and those who are allowed agency in it. This decisively excluded slaves for any function except those granted to them as machines employed by their masters, and any human deemed invalid and therefore deprived of any political existence whatsoever and treated accordingly. Who is and isn't part of political society has been expounded on by many men and women, usually inventing the most spurious and idiotic pretexts to justify their shitty behavior and say it was totally natural or inevitable, but that is not something I care to rail against at length as a critic. One of the worst things to do about such things is to react entirely on the terms set to ensure that the status quo never, ever changes come hell or high water, and that isn't a contention I would waste my time making. A political status quo, however such a thing is regarded, is what it is, and no amount of wordplay, reasoning, or struggle will change that just by asserting it is so, as if the truth could change political society. Politics is not beholden to truth or justice or anything we would value to be politics; but by the same rules, no political status quo is granted sacrosanctity to continue as it has, and so limiting politics to a human understanding will miss exactly what is and isn't political in the first place and what is contested. What is contested in the political arena is ultimately a social perception in the minds of humans, and only indirectly will that lead to a struggle in politics proper that will lead to perceptible change in the status quo. A free society may, of its own volition, allow its members to alter the political settlement, and regardless of the stated settlement of proper political institutions, there will be dissenters or those who ignore political society as much as possible.

Politics as an extension of technology or economics is sometimes deployed as a physical avatar of politics, or the preferred facade of states that occults the faces and names of those who operate states. The technology, though, abides its own needs and effect on the world, and this is neither a political, economic, or social question on their own, nor is it a question which places human agency in any sacred role that we must regard. All of this machinery, and all of the struggles over politics, economics, society, humans, machines, or anything else, really contest what political agents see as the status quo and what institutions would exist to represent that, rather than "change the world" by political struggle as an idea. Politics for humans is a psychological projection creating many egregores that we may regard as "politics" but that often occult the political, or draw attention away from the political, or simply have nothing to do with what is really contested and the political acts are carried out for matters that aren't really political at all. There are many who see politics as nothing more than a vehicle to feed their hideaway or some hobby horse, and these people are most insistent to tell you that this is all politics should be and that if you think it was for anything else, you're retarded for not allowing a political class or enablers to do as they please with their state and their political status quo. Politics for its own sake has its advocates, and such a mentality is associated correctly with many perversions humanity has long known. The point here is that many of the things humans presume politics is really aren't political matters, and the political beast is not truly a machine that can exist for an ulterior motive. This beast is not really about knowledge or social agents that we would regard, for we can ascribe political influence to many thing which do not think. Institutions for example have no mind of their own and no existence outside of the human hosts they inhabit, yet nearly all political thought we possess concerns institutions rather than flesh and blood humans. The political status quo of the human race scarcely regards our genuine existence as politically relevant at all, and when it does, it is almost always a way for politicians to claim some aspect of that genuine existence, and bring it under political discipline rather than personal discipline or the discipline of the market or some other force that is ostensibly moralizing.

Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

Return to Table of Contents | Return to Chapter Start