Return to Table of Contents | Previous Chapter | Next Chapter

The "state of nature" is the starting point of modern political thought, and it was supposed to exist before Antiquity to describe a heroic age where men ruled by strength of will and did not need such things as laws. It is, almost nakedly, a null state that is imagined and superimposed to make all other political thought operative, and for as long as such beliefs prevailed, many retards - and they are retarded - insert themselves and their fickle desires as an aspect of some Nature-god, invent rituals and koans to suggest that nature works in this highly arbitrary and specific way, and keep running this scam until its consequences lead to predictable disaster. When that happens, the scammers hoard all of their ill-gotten virtue from the world and hightail it to the next group of suckers to vampirically feed from, so they won't have to endure the muck of labor and knowledge about the genuine world, which is for slaves, simps, and fags, the last being a designation to project the typical perversion of their race on eveyone else. This concept has to be understood not as a starting point, but as some that became retroactive in the ruling ideas. It has an origin in something real - that we would have to conduct politics in some sense to speak of a world where events and history happens - but quickly turns into an excuse for enclosure and the usual scams of humanity. This idea did not appear overnight, as if political thought would be impossible without the state of nature as a "null hypothesis". Nature did not need nor want a "state", and wouldn't have been seen as such by naive reasoning. States, or any institutional understanding of society where politics is a concern, are very clearly the creation of men, and whatever natural forces they abide would have been understood not with the language of science or naturalism, but with the language of religion, superstition, animism, or crude precursors of science that were worked out individually and were never valued as instruments of rule. In the experience of most people, spiritual authority did not rule this world - temporal authority, represented most obviously by the force that human beings projected, ruled this world. It would be the same with any entity sensing the world naively, whether it is described with language or not. For any political agent lacking symbolic language or a library of knowledge that is sufficient to contemplate the state as an abstraction, the "law of nature" would prevail, but this law is not a scientific one or a series of urges pressing the nerve of animals to obey. That is a preferred conceit of drovers and hunters, but anyone who actually has to manage the animals can tell you of their stubbornness, no matter how long domestication has set in. Animal husbandry did not work by imperious will of political assertions of "me wantee", but could only proceed by accumulating knowledge of animal patterns. This would have been worked out in systems of men who were tasked with droving and hunting, and it was never an exact science or rigorously understood. Even today, the "hard science" of communication and control in the animal and the machine is difficult to pin down, as if it were so natural that we could move animals like puppets. Drovers must work much as they have for many centuries even with today's technology.^[1]

To speak of a state of nature is to speak of cybernetic regulation, and the political agents, however they exist, are as much a part of nature as anything else. It is only the models of technology we adopt which are truly alien to nature. The soul, passion, and much of our knowledge proper is a part of natural existence in the sense that is important here. The machines we build, the representations of technology that can be regarded as real, are the same sort of thing. It is models of technology alone that are alien to nature. I have in the past regarded "life" as an aberration and not truly a natural thing. Outside of our models of technology, "life" really doesn't entail a distinction from "death", at least to the sense that the state - a political arrangement - would regard it. We could, in political sense, issue decrees that a thing that is clearly living is dead, and by the laws that politics would abide, it might as well be dead. All evidence that would be found in nature that there is a "living" entity would be dismissed by an endless chain of arguments, always resting on declaring that the life of a politically dead thing is absurd, rather than any moral appeal that making this claim is for the greater good or some other excuse. Politics of course must abide a sense of reality in order to be meaningfully politics. A political thought which declared that reality could be controlled by simple assertion or the Great Leader waving his mighty hand to change history would not withstand any scrutiny, or be able to survive against political actors that regard a material world where the distinction of life and death are very relevant to decisions someone would make, and cannot be denied if the "dead" object has a gun and intent to shoot. The bloviators of the human race, numerous and incessant in their folly, will insist time and time again that this always works, and any event where the dead strike back must be edited out of history, until many such events make a zombie apocalypse seem real - anything to allow the bloviators and cajolers to continue their scam, since not letting them do this would be a much worse fate to the political mind. Yet, the "dead" here will, after long enough, have no reason to not pick up a weapon, unless the political mind has an elaborate machine to stop this from happening in reality, rather than in the models of technology they developed to control minds. This can work in another way - legions of ghosts, which are not permitted to be acknowledged, strike from the shadows, and it is a rule of all secret societies to disallow any mention that "ghosts are real", even when the ghost in question very obviously is a human with a name and address. A crass koan ostensibly lifted from Jewish wisdom is that knowing the name of something grants power over it, but this is a fool's power, one of many insults told to impressionable shits who passed through the shitty excuse for learning humanity calls "education". It may seem absurd to expound upon this, except for one truth that I have to believe in - that there is nothing natural about "life", and the behavior of life and natural events are very different things. Life exists not as a real "thing", with some substance of life-force that is universally acknowledged and identified in a lab. It exists instead in a model of technology - and it is the technological interest which obsesses over life and its functions, more than any other interest in life. The eugenic interest is at heart more concerned about claims of property and history, establishing the genealogical record and marking it with the name of ostensible power. Names held in secret are only held if no interloper overhears them, and in political life, no channel of communication is so secure that no power in the world can detect it but two minds with the latest super secret black box technology. That form of ideal communication only exists in a model of technology, and it is only with some effort that communication can conform to that. Aristocracy, at heart, does not need to rely on a eugenic claim or any property to do its dirty business. Doing so is expedient, since claims of property are the only way aristocrats can convince important technology like "the army" to rape and kill in the name of whatever god the aristocrats wear as a skin-mask this time. "But", you say, "is this not just wordplay?" The problem of ascribing to life any "natural" qualities is that there isn't any one thing that defines life's essence. We have models of what life is supposed to be, but in politics and science alike, the definitions of life are loose and intended to be so. Life alone is granted this sacrosanct status in science, and there is no real reason why it should be so. We can have very consistent models of what life should be, so it is possible for all of us to talk about the same thing without having to laboriously define the boundaries of "acceptable life". Politically, this makes perfect sense for any political thought beyond the most basic. What is politics among humans, or entities like us who abstract it, without imperium - the power over life and death? It would be impossible to speak of politics for living, thinking animals like us if we did not regard the question of life and death as the foundation of worthwhile law. It makes no sense to try something that is dead not because it passed away, but because it never lived. The inverse is very sensical - a court can rule that someone presented as living is, in fact, not really alive, and everyone in the courtroom must accept this fact no matter what protests the "dead" defendant or plaintiff makes. The same would be true if the officers of the court, the judge, the magistrate, or a god that supposedly oversees this institution from above, were declared to be dead and never lived.

There is an effort to reduce the political to life-functions, such that all that is living is politicized and all that is dead cannot exist at all. The reality of politics is that the dead world is very relevant to the affairs of the living, and this "cult of life" is a weapon of depoliticization. It has no explanatory power and does not even acknowledge what life is, its present manifestation, or any function life does. It is contingent on a belief that Being overcomes anything we do, or any result of action in a material world. Such a belief is, for reasons that will become apparent in future books of this series, necessary for the ruling ideas to perpeuate themselves. In our core political sense, both in theory and in practice, we know this cult of life, or a cult of death, is entirely alien to the political question. Political agents do not have to be "living" agents to be relevant to the question. The institutional apperance of political agents is always "dead". The person is not the flesh and blood human, but a corporate persona, a name written on a ledger and invoked as a curse or, in rare cases, a blessing.^[2] The institutions of the state are consciously presented as unliving, and yet they are the sole definition of life in today's ruling ideas. This is not how it always was, where the undead ghasts of the technocratic state are imposed on history. "The state" as a construct is always unliving, even when it is described with the behavior of an organism. Only in this way is the concept of imperium philosophically reinforced as an idea. Even before philosophy proper, this conception of state force, or the will of rulers, is established and rituals act on this knowledge. "The state" does not establish its monopoly on this ritual or this knowledge from declaring it so. The argument of a state of nature is to impose on the past a conception of the political from the present, and suggest we always "kind of" did things the way they were done in the present. This is a trope among 21st century imperial anarchist thinkers and their hangers-on. The reality of nature does not draw a distinction between life and death for political relevance at all. It is instead, in models, a description of scientific laws and substantive things that they pertain to. The laws of science do not move in a mechanical sense to "make" the world or anything in it move, where laws are like angels on needle points and indescribable. The things in the world are perfectly capable of doing as they do on their own power, and it is the work of science to understand the world. To change the world is a potential use of science, but science describes a world that existed without us, which only changes in accord with the world's motion.^[3] Life in total is a very small part of the world and a very small part of what politics has to contest. Economics, religion, and any other "central focus" of the political fails spectacularly as a basis for politics. Appeals to the state for its own sake as a going concern, or appeals to institutions and the corporation, are even more farcical than that. The closest to a genuine understanding of the origin of the political that enters the discourse is a theory of the human mind, or any other mind that might conduct this task, and theories of knowledge and technology which are able to perpetuate themselves. Knowledge in the form of philosophy fails too. Technology, or things that were created on the basis of a model and refined through science that was at heart the domain of labor rather than "proper knowledge", forms the most consistent basis for the understanding of the state, because the state itself - the only way in which political agents can arrest the political into units that can be worked with by reason - is always a type of technology, rather than something with a spirit or moral purpose of its own. States are never anything other than machines held by political agents, and can only be that. Making the state a "workers' state" or suggesting there is something grant theory which makes a state something other than this is tragically missing the point. So too is placing the authority of the state in an appeal to armed force or the expertise of soldiers, out of a belief that victory in battle will make reality what it needs to be. This works for social engineering in a model, and it is the primary reason why wars are conducted rather than any material benefit or purpose for doing so.

We would, if we think about what technology is, see it as something that only appears as "technology" to life, rather than proclaiming there is "technology" in nature or a grand machine that must have been intelligently designed and made for political purpose. Worse still would be to assume in the most grand foolishness humanity ever conjured that the universe is built in accord with an "anthropic" principle.^[4] The state and technology are only relevant to those who see anything in the world as a tool to be used. This is the necessary basis for political agents to conduct "politics" beyond a level of feelings and struggles that cannot be directed or regulated. This is another meeting place of politics and economics, but economics concerns a goal that is in the main antagonistic towards the political altogether.^[5] The aim of economic agents is to abolish the state and the political so that untrammeled force can be assigned to whatever is valued. The aim of the political either navigates a world where the basic behavior of agents would suggest state society is a terrible thing and tries to mediate their relations so we sort of get along, or decides brute force and tyranny is preferable. There really are only those two poles - anarchy and despotism - that political economy as a construct deems relevant. If anarchy is ruled out correctly as something which has no bearing on the genuine political - if anarchy is understood purely as an ideology or a temporary conditiion - then all hitherto known political thought tells us that despotism is the only genuine form of government humans ever really held, and that all others are just more elaborate forms of it. To claim otherwise requires discounting the economic as politically relevant, or negating its relevance, and to do this requires some substantive force rather than a mere assertion or some technology which makes resistance impossible and rule natural. Natural law is at heart a despotic claim, in which the despot claims the name of nature and can do nothing else. There is not, by any genuine natural law, a genuine "republic". A republic, or what is called such, is really the development of technology particular to the management of human beings and their relations, which shows open disdain for its subjects from the outset and never was anything else. The ideas that a republic suggested - justice, a sense of fairness and free movement within the city - were not really political propositions or things which were enforceable by any political power, and usually the claims of goodness were specifically repudiated by republics. Nothing suggests the despot is ruled by avarice any more than a Good Republican, or that a despot is obligated to do the worst possible thing by some natural law in a way that republics ever avert. This argument - that any evil that is possible is inevitable - is at heart a pretext of those who knew exactly what they wanted before there was any "politics" to conduct as a serious business. It is not inborn, as the eugenic creed insists and must insist, but it rises early in life and those who taste that early blood in education never, ever look back. Never. Never. The counterargument, given to failed men, is that the despot is the only path back to goodness, and that failed men are supposed to identify with the despot who will save them from this beast called "the republic". There is never really a government that truly wishes for its people to be demoralized and disinterested in the political. If people were truly disinterested in power, they do two things. The first is that they will flaunt the political elite and transgress any law or decency that appeals to aristocracy, because there comes a point where the threat of violence and torture is no longer a deterrent. If there was never any hope and it was truly all a lie, and there is nothing to hold on to, why wouldn't someone decide to scoff at aristocracy in everything they do? The second, and this is what truly must be averted, is that depoliticized subjects tend to find each other and bypass the mediation of thought leaders, and a lack of political engagement will make it difficult for the mediator to have any pull over the mediated. Without any reason to care, the passive subject will likely not understand efforts to persuade or influence behavior. The militant pigheaded fags who typically become aristocrats, and they are fags on top of being retards, seem to think gratuitous displays of violence will impress the gullible, but this will - after making the passive subject fearful and distrustful of authority and learning that one lesson - likely lead to not just more confusion but someone pushed too much lashing out and doing things that the disciplinarian doesn't want.

There is not a "natural law" mandating despotism or any preferred political thought or institutions. We could, in theory, suggest that humans are a hive mind or the product of communication of language primarily, and that the willpower of human flesh is irrelevant to the political matter. In some sense, this is human existence. We are beholden to information of political importance which is scarce, as any information or technology in the world would be. There is not an endless fount of technology ready-made for human consumption. The productive factory is not a trivial investment. The enclosed farm and all of the markers of agriculture are not mandated by nature. Evidence of this is that agriculture could only rise in a few places, and it rose not merely by technological advance but because there was a quantity of men who could be forced into farm labor, organized in formations where tool-use converted the human body into a tool itself to conduct agriculture with any efficiency. The tools of agriculture required inputs to exist, and a society which provided for those who specialized in producing those tools, and perpetuating knowledge of agronomy which was not so trivial that it would be pedagogically fed. None of this could be built by a single person recreating the knowledge from scratch. At the very least, there would need to be some seed for someone to reasonably reproduce enough technology from human history for that society to continue, and the only source of that reproduction was another human being. For most of human existence, this was the rule. Humans were taught by other humans, and had to receive knowledge and systems from them. Independence in this could only exist because it had to, because humans realistically cannot feed knowledge into a subject like a machine to which information is uploaded. There is a twofold nature to automating this dissemination of information, so that humans are replaced by books, writing, media that is dead, music, and theories of knowledge which suggest a very different seed for learning than the native faculties would develop if these were reverse-engineered from the environment. One is that "common sense" radically changes in one niche from another, and this has only accelerated in the past few centuries. Until the 20th century, the full ramifications of technology like television and mass media could not be ascertained until the experiment of distributing this was imposed on a population. Very likely, such an imposition would have been rejected by past societies as corrosive to a sense of goodness, and I have mentioned before in passing that the media culture of the mid-20th century was at first marketed primarily to children. News magazines and the information of importance to adults at this time disdained the trashy entertainment on television, radio, and sports that were derived from ball games intended to occupy the time and energy of children. Information and communication do not follow political laws or prefer any structure of society or the state, or any institution at all. They are for us only referent to society, and the models of the world we have reconstructed. There is a society and an assembly of human beings that we can say much about, but there is no "society in the abstract" that is anything other than the sum of those parts. The political question is very different from the social question, because no structure we call a state nor any preferred mode of government is evident from the facts of existence. Human beings, and humans do not have a monopoly on politics, have shown their adaptability to institutions very alien, often in the same lifetime. An old dog might not learn new tricks, but contrary to the eugenic creed, humans are not dogs. Elders will, if they truly must, adopt new ways. Humans tend to be stubborn and older humans have more sense of the foulness of this race, and that anything new is likely to be bad in their experience. It does not take too long for humans to see correctly that the models of the state and society given to them as children and young people in their prime are a bunch of malarkey, and by middle age, most of us have to ask why we did any of this and why we would put future generations through the same failed models. Most of us, who are left behind and did not reap any rewards from this arrangement, have no regard for the state in old age, seeing correctly it is a menace like so many others in this world. It is not so much that anyone can win against the state or rebel against the state, or fight it, but that human beings would if reasonable see the entire setup of hitherto existing society as a great travesty, and by late middle age, most of us have seen enough of the rot. It is even more pronounced if we trudge through life without producing offspring, as is the fate for many of us. The peculiarities of mating rituals or the lack thereof for most of the lowest class have much to do with this conception of so-called "natural law", because it is understood by the beneficiaries that no matter what, the orgies and the games must never stop, no matter how ruinous they are. "Once retarded, ALWAYS retarded."

It is most necessary to view the state of nature as the conceit of a primitive would-be aristocracy, or those who could count as such. The egalitarian constitution that seems to exist in tribal society only exists because humanity contains the rituals that founded their race. They are practiced in secret or in games, and only after sufficient initiation are members of this race brought "in the know" of this game. Whether anyone wanted to play this game is irrelevant. However many humans actually play this game is irrelevant. The important thing is that there are those who saw the benefit of cheerleading the ritual sacrifice and malice of the human race, to make sure it would become a Satanic race where their kind thrive and select for each other. After the fact, "it's just nature", despite such an arrangement being ruinous, pointless, and accomplishing nothing more than the perpetuation of people who would see the world as an endless parade of victories and endemic war of low intensity. The fighting must deliver the maximal pleasure to the sadistic for the least effort, and the thrill of weakened prey is more satisfying than the hunt of a skilled animal. Why is this so? Because the "game" has nothing to do with anything meritorious, and is intended to be the exact opposite of it. Those who lead ritual sacrifice and the gory malice of the human race are not weak. If the aim was to herd the animals, there is no reason why that wouldn't be applied to humans as much as possible. There is a glorification of this perversion because it is a winning strategy. After the fact, this is what counts as "politics" in a society without the state.

Of course, the true conditions of nature do not support such an ethos. It is very clearly the behavior of humans and humans alone, who knew exactly what they were doing in a local event and wished it to be a general rule, relied upon for comfort and removal of ambiguity. There is no goodwill or even necessity that stops this ritual from happening. What stops it has nothing to do with rational self-interest recognizing that this state of affairs is politically bad. It may be uncouth, counterproductive, or a liability which leads to worse consequences than the pleasure of dominating other humans. There is never really a good reason for the ritual, but humanity does it all the same. If we didn't, prostitution would be a marginal trade and there would be no great effort to glorify such an odious practice, and the men who are rejected would be the first to attack the oldest profession and among the oldest institutions of the human race. So too are the women who have no reason to join this filth cast out and shamed for their refusal to play the sadistic game that birthed the human race. Some, maybe even most, refuse to participate in something so pointless, and carry on through life. Nothing in nature actually stops them, but the world offers little protection. The mercy of the world was only the void and distance between people. In political thought, that which is void must not be admitted as a real thing or something that would be at all relevant. It must be closed by any means necessary. If void is sanctioned to exist, it is only that which serves the purposes of enclosure and this ritual - or so the theory goes. Yet, the void always exists, and human efforts to circumvent it are folly. The political mind of the sort I have described, in a fit of impotence at being denied more and more "pleasure", makes promises of "eternal life", "abundance", and every sop that offers no such thing, in the habit of secret societies that transform all that exists into parodies of the world. None of this ritual accomplishes anything, but there are those who for whatever reason continue to do so and insist we're supposed to like this. The true motives have nothing to do with politics or anything we should care about, but they persist because there really is nothing that stops this in nature, or in the will of human beings. Human beings can always reject this. They can always stop the cycle, right now if they wished. None of the cycle is internal to the human body or the mind in a way that makes it a necessary condition, despite vast efforts to engineer society to produce such an outcome. What protects the cycle of sadism is a crushing realization - that if it ended, then there really was no point to any of it. It was all a lie, all for nothing. Most of us come to that realization at some point, usually sooner rather than later. Some of us are fortunate enough to reject the crass narratives of a fascist retard, and they are retarded, and finds there is a world outside of this "society". There are others who build society outside of this ritual and would happily do so. In a better world, this would have been close enough to a natural law to expect that the sordid origins of the human race would not be so great an impediment to anything else we would want. If there really is nothing for us, then we could pass from this world. There was never a particularly good reason to hasten death because of some pissant ennui, but that was never the reason for the ennui in the first place. If suicide really were caused by boredom, it is very likely suicides would be the majority of deaths, apparent and not assigned moral shame. We know very early in life there is much worse than death, and it would be nearly impossible for someone to not have seen enough human malice to know the sort of person who clamors for that blood. But, if we lived in a better world, such things would have been less prevalent, never glorified, and the results of that behavior would be mitigated. This would be done because we place enough faith in self-interest and moral education and believe that would be enough. The problem with this is that education, intelligence, and information will never accomplish this on its own, and there is no method or plan by which an eternally stable "system" can be constructed that makes rebellion against decency impossible. We humans have a much more curious problem - those who proclaim they would arrest history for the "greater good" are typically the most malicious, and the "greater good" they protect is nothing more than carrying out torture and sadism in secret until a time where their "Jehad" can revel in maximal glory. Those who had no use for this cycle, and most of humanity will not, never had to proclaim that they would maximize goodness or make any particular moral claim that rested on an intellectual conceit. We did not need a pedagogue to replace moral sense with ethics, and if we were to seek moral education, we would have sought something that was useful. It does not require a great intellect to declare something as absolutely retarded as "Greed is good", the Satanic credo of Reaganite filth. It is the sad crowning acheivement of human intellect to build an elaborate system of sadism and its perpetuation. This is not because intelligence is "just-so" malicious, or because intelligence has been abused. It is instead because a fetish for intelligence and the superficial displaced what technology really is, and a worthwhile understanding of the state and the political. All of the intellectual trends of bourgeois society, aristocracy, and the cults of human faggotry calling themselves men of honor, are more interested in low cunning and the occult symbols of "smartness" than anything intelligence actually is, and this is sufficient. It was philosophically proven that it would be easier to rule by low cunning and reality control than actually using intelligence to answer a problem of the world. The chief problem of the world became, more than anything else, other human beings, and the solution for the intellectual was to degrade and insult the lower classes and grind them down to slurry. That would be the most efficient course of action, since a productive economy was no longer of interest or too great a liability for intellectuals to allow. It was only when the conditions of enclosure advanced enough that a "state of nature" was at all credible. In the past, there was a vague theory that cults of Saturn-worship referred to a time where men were heroic and did not need laws or states, but so much of this is just occult pablum and has nothing to do with anything an ancient society did. In any event, such a condition is the exact opposite of a "state of nature" - it is instead the dominance of spirit and flesh over spirit and flesh, with little to show for it other than an occasional thrill of victory. It is not surprising that Saturn-worship is among the tropes of the British imperial cult, in reduced and retarded forms to appeal to the low cunning of a failed race.

We would understand a "state of nature" not as an institutional state, but as its precursors. Institutions are formed by social agents, which are by nature political agents to someone. We can envision these agents at any level we like, but the "politics" of the unthinking is not interesting. To invoke "science" for anything political is unsuitable for describing the task, because science is at heart the behavior of intelligent entities which can carry it out. The reader should not forget that any way in which science is communicated between people had nothing to do with "science" as a process. The seed of science is not language or institutions, but knowledge itself and the thoughts of human beings. It would be carried out even without a language as such, and the development of language is itself a product of science in the genuine sense. Language is not beholden to the seed or genesis of science as a process, but all of the ways in which we approach language can be studied with scientific thought, and we can use the same methods to describe this abstraction we use to describe the natural world. We could only do so with some caveats in mind, and with the understanding that much of what we think has nothing to do with "science", and the things we talk about pertain not to scientific inquiry but all of the things we would do. It is not "science" which is the motor of language, history, and thus politics and what we do. It is technology itself, which is ultimately a product of knowledge generally, regardless of its scientific veracity. Science suggests we can arrest things into a "state" in order to produce anything we can express as an idea, and at some level, life and neurological functions only exist because there are stable systems of matter, which are themselves a state before we conceive of anything else. It is for this reason that a dialectical view of nature and history is woefully inadequate for anything constructive. Dialectic can be used as a type of logic with a limited purview. Where we assemble knowledge formally is not by dialogue or communication with other humans, but by means that are particular to each of us. There is not a single human being that is truly devoid of knowledge. Someone who is comatose still processes information in some sense, and "brain death" is a legal fiction with a sordid history.^[6]

To reduce the origin of settled agricultural states to happenstance of technological advance in a vacuum fails to acknowledge what humans are, their malice and precursors of political behavior which would have preceded the establishment of farming life. There was never a period in life where before this threshold, we say "there is no politics" and after "everything is politics", or "political life may begin and the world was created". For all that is written about war, struggle, technology, the prototypes of religion, animism, rituals, and the evils of the human race, there is one merciful good that humans could possess in abundance. This is solitude and the space for life to proceed absent these influences. Pitched battle was the exception rather than the rule. Interactions with other humans were infrequent and, in primitive times, an oppressive presence of other humans was unseemly and one of the decencies that were transgressed when the cycle leading to ritual sacrifice and the most ancient practices of the human race were prepared. Other people could speak to each other with kindness and without living in constant fear. If that didn't happen, human society would never be able to assemble, for humans are not by their functions inclined to the great malice, and would in normal functioning need to abandon this practice. In the main, human interactions are distant but the default behavior, absent any niche favoring conquest and the ritual shame of the race, is to do as little as possible and avoid harm to others. Among the great values stolen by aristocracy is to claim that only the "golden souls" of aristocrats with their known vices possess the wisdom to do unto others what they would do unto themselves, as if this was some great accomplishment. Yet, primitive society shows that no such received wisdom was necessary to figure out that if you can make others suffer, there is no law of nature preventing an equal and opposite reaction, or much worse. Nothing about human society is just or fair, but it does not take much to figure out that other agents like you will probably consider the same actions to be morally equivalent in of themselves. Torture is torture, love is love, and property of any sort is property. There is no essential difference if it is applied to a different political agent, and there is no real moral value to identity or a symbol. Saying "I am special because I was chosen and have a unique symbolic identification" is profoundly retarded thinking, and this thinking has an origin that is not reducible to a crass pseudoscientific narrative. A violent assumption is made to suggest a political sense in humans - that absent any rational reason suggesting the distinction of agents, all would be equal. This quickly fades because political agents are human beings who already possessed property and an inheritance from their genesis, for good or ill. But, for political thought and the state to begin, the null hypothesis is that "genesis" and "inheritance" do not have any bearing on the question, or suggest any preferred orientation. The political agent, to meaningfully answer the question, is free to do with an inheritance from nature whatever it can. This is not true of social agents, which are confined to the information that is relevant for genuine society. The social agents, or the information that pertains to technology and society's relationship to a world outside of it, includes within it the political sense of any entity which can communicate the concept. And so, concepts of equality, liberty, and cooperation can be expressed by humans or any other entity with some language for those concepts to hold social currency. The concepts are not lies, or half-believed, or "against nature". By natural law and by any sense science would possess, whatever we were born with and whatever the natural world does has no morally necessary outcome to dictate a political format. Nature does not suggest a fixed and rigid state of society or economic life, either. The labors of human beings were never beholden to "society" in the abstract. The very recognition of society beyond the fact that information can be exchanged was contingent on some want of members to recognize social institutions, organizations, tribes, nations, and so on for all of the reasons that would be a good idea, and also because there is potential in social organization that can be recognized by any mind. That recognition did not require a "political" awareness, where the leaders of the state move history and all others are flotsam to be pushed and cajoled. Political awareness is both a threat to society and a potential boon, because it is only with political sense that the nature of our problem in society can be diagnosed properly. Politics is possible so long as there are social agents to speak of such a thing, and society as a concept inherently concerned a transcendent concept of "society". That is, society is premised on the belief that there was not any natural barrier that forever segregated any potential agent in society from another, and that any such segregation had to be the deliberate choice of social agents to reject others.

There is nothing in the state of nature except society itself. This concept of society excludes all that is "outside of society" pointedly and does not regard property as anything other than an alien. This is not true of society in the genuine sense, which regards all that exists as something which it might cooperate with, or navigate for whatever reason. Society proper does not revel in "contradiction" or struggle, or mandate any competition. This is not because our social sense is benign or weak, but that it would be clear that all of the struggles, wars, and posturing of social agents is the equivalent of throwing vast human effort and the inheritance from nature into a bonfire, and placing a strange moral value on the dumpster fire we have always known to be the result of this. Nothing prevents society from doing this, but we never "had" to do this, as if the rot served any purpose that stabilized society, or made political sense. Political leaders have long known that this condition of humanity is ruinous for whatever order they wished to impose. But, there are those win politics who, if they so choose, consider this rot to be an asset and property. It is here where the tale of ritual sacrifice is invoked, where because humanity is born in ritual sacrifice and torture and malice, that is what it should be, and anything else is retarded. No reasoning is ever permissible regarding this - it just is, in the Heideggeran sense that glorifies any faggotry.

It would not be necessary to invoke the ritual of sacrifice and all the malice of the human race to segregate the agents, nor does this ritual prescribe any fixed segregation of agents into classes. The ritual of sacrifice is one of the few things humans do that transgresses all distinctions, and this is presented constantly as the only way the human race can be unified, and that societies of distinct classes, whose people are presumed to possess different essences, can only be unified in this way. Any other concept is inadmissible. Yet, this is not based on any genuine natural law or purpose. It is based purely on one law - that ritual sacrifice did happen, and it was the origin of the human race as anything recognizably human. Obeying that law is a choice, but it is a choice that taps into a power unique to the ritual, that cannot be replicated by any other chain of reasoning or causality. To regress to anything prior to it is to give up on humanity as "human", and to give up on everything that the ritual produced and sucked from the world. Yet, political agents existed for many reasons before this sacrifice began, and most people were drawn into it not because of any inborn proclivity, but because there were a few leaders who saw the sacrifice as a vehicle for personal power and glorification of them and their friends. The sacrifice gives nothing, and doesn't really destroy the "threat" of the weak or the damned. The entire arc of human sacrifices glorifies the impunity of those who conduct the ritual, and it is never to be implied that the "threat" is actually a threat. If humans regard a serious threat to their security or prosperity, their behavior is very different and cannot indulge in the glorification of any part of it, nor does it concern any question of "justice", moral right, or ethical excuses. There may be a moral line to cross if someone wishes to continue existing or a question of how life will end, but the founding sacrifice and all rituals similar to it is hilariously pointless and glorifies the total and absolute mismatch between the glorious and the damned. It can't do anything else. Nothing about the ritual sacrifice represents "absolute sacrifice', "yin and yang", or a division of the world that is made natural. It would be a trivial matter for that which is alien to be regarded as alien, left alone, and the competition for resources may lead to a confrontation where one must die for the other to live. The ritual sacrifice is not conducted as a necessary prelude for killing, as if humans were naturally incapable of killing without this ritual. We kill, terminate, destroy, abolish, and negate so much simply by executing standard life functions, and no such glorification of torture is evident in the consumption of animals, the hunt, or the science of agriculture or handling of its products. The ritual sacrifices to "bring the harvest" have nothing to do with the quality of the soil or the bounty of the Earth. They are always a practice to repeat that genesis of the human race for its own sake.

There is only one reason for the sacrifice - that the symbol of sacrifice, the ritual and performance, evokes something in all forms of knowledge which short-circuits native sense. It is for this reason that faggotry involving the symbols of language, symbols and idols exhorting mankind to enjoy the ritual sacrifice, is ubiquitous, making out of something which is stupid and pointless a grand narrative that asserts its own morality and own reality. The sacrifice works not because it grants any virtue, strength, purpose, or truth outside of it. It works because knowledge itself as a process is, damned by heaven and the world and the soul and mind, irredeemably retarded, and it senses the symbol of fear and sacrifice as one with unique properties that are unmistakable. It does not matter what sense the thinker has about this symbol or any quality of knowledge. The sacrifice does not need to conform to human conceits of sentiment or emotion. Far from it, the ritual is carried out with the exhortation of the Galtonite screamer to abolish sentiment, and to proclaim that sentiment itself is the enemy. This is not because sentiments are any salvation or necessary for us to avert the beast. Sentimental and passionate people carry out the same disgusting act for the same reasons, and their passions are all shit and all faggotry. The fake-stoic posture of the Galtonites is itself a display of the same emotional faggotry, and it is only the symbol and appearance of calm that they need. It is not the posture and symbol "in of itself" or "for itself" that is relevant here. It is instead what the symbols indicating ritual sacrifice all reduce to - the same fetid urge that evokes in knowledge termination of anything but the Oneness, the Great Working. This fetid urge is not reducible to anything else or any name. Often it is conflated with "Satan", but "the Satan" conceptually is much more elaborate and really does not necessitate any of this sacrifice. The Satan, as I will describe later in this book, really concerns the command of knowledge as a process, command of technology, and the view of all life and knowledge as something to be imperiously controlled. But, this "root cause" of Satanism does not explain in total what it is and can be. A Satanic and a eugenist are different things. It is possible, though highly unlikely, for eugenists to not really understand the Satan or to even pursue eugenism as the result of naive faggotry rather than the fullest malice. It is not possible, as we will see in later books, that a eugenist can ever be "good", and the doctrine they espouse is on some level knowingly malicious and seeks justification. A Satanic or a "Satanist" can regard eugenics in total as either a means to an end, or actively harmful to their theories of morality and rule. It is even possible that a Satanist could see their behavior as perfectly upright and pro-social, though the Satanic values don't have any regard for naive cooperation. Both of these propositions are something different from the genesis in human sacrifice. Eugenics as a movement, though, would only be sensical to its true believers if they were absolutely aware of the true purpose of this ritual, and believed passionately that the thrill of torture must be maximized. Nothing else would allow their behavior to be persistent. Even the philosophy and praxis of eugenics cannibalizes the work of past philosophers, or repurposes the work of those who had aims that didn't care about the eugenic creed, and subsumes them into this drive for pure, unrelenting eugenics. The only way eugenics could summon this spirit is something beyond merely "Satan" or a denouncement of all morality outside of the Satan. It must degenerate all that exists to this primordial chaos, make it undescribable, and isolate the path of least resistance to its intellectual mission. Only the ritual sacrifice I have mentioned throughout these writings would allow it to be so. If the ritual sacrifice were not the genesis of the human race, it would be necessary to invent a story that it was so, against all evidence suggesting otherwise. At first, this author being naive did not believe it was so, and humans or anything about us were not formed out of this sacrifice. It is only after sufficient inquiry into the matter that I sadly must admit I was wrong. Such events would have to happen often enough to leave this mark on human behvior, and they are too consistent across the human race to be an accident or something created after the fact. Humanity has had thousands of years to reconsider this action and no real force in the world stopping it except other people. The first transgression was to allow those who revel in the glorification of torture and sacrifice to continue at all. The second was to suggest that their existence was a utility beyond a limited purview. The third was a failure of philosophy regarding life, death, and killing to consider "clean death" and rituals contrary to the glorification of sacrifice. Philosophy goes far out of its way to avoid acknowledging something that makes sense to many of us natively - that there are better ways to die than this, and the eugenic creed and ritual sacrifice is not content with death. The thrill of torture must be maximized, and every performance of this sick ritual is an affirmation of its power. We have always had the choice to reject this tenet, and anything worthwhile humanity built was the result of rejecting it. The ritual, its glorification and its material aftermath, did not one thing to improve the human race, and did not through struggle challenge us to be better. If we wanted the moralizing effect of struggle and hardship as a test of some virtue, we have far more effective ways to do that, so effective that children can recognize the difference, if they were not given over to this faggotry that the predatory element of humanity insist we have to love. Most children are not naturally inclined to go along with this, for the obvious reason that any such sacrifice can turn against them any time. There has been, throughout human history, those people who were either born with an intense proclivity to seek the ritual sacrifice and never once believed it should be different, those people who are inclined towards ritual and seeking knowledge generally and fall into this trap, and those who turn to the ritual because it provides a path to power to compensate for something missing in their life. Eugenics as a doctrine relied on selecting for these three qualities more than anything else, and that is the only "race betterment" that program could have entailed. But, this question of eugenics was not foreseen in total at the start of this monstrosity. Precursors to Galton's eugenics exist in the lurid cults and immense faggotry of the human race, but none of them had a theory of intelligence, operations, institutions, and social machinery that could meet any of the greater goals that create "the conditions of Eugenics", and Francis Galton called them. There was only the thrill of torture and sacrifice, carried out for superstitious reasons or as the working of those who specialized in torture and occult mind control. This thrill of torture prevailed in all of the religions of the human race, but all of those religions had to moderate and command that most ancient ritual and regard a world outside of them where the religious institutions and the adherents would live. If religion did not do this, it would disintegrate or be consigned to ridiculous cults that drive the believers into pure autism, and it would dissipate as soon as it formed like so much chaos in the world.

It is important to regard this story of the ritual sacrifice not as the start of "the state", but as something which informed the state's creation. The state as an institution and politics generally has no use for this faggotry, not because the state is an entity which can defeat the lurid practice and bring order and good to the world, but because such faggotry has little to do with political life. It is instead a highly private matter which circumvents the state, politics, society in the older sense, our own personal integrity and presentation, our native sense of what things are, and ultimately our very body. The thrill of torture is one thing which can create another world, but it does not possess a monopoly on this, and it only exists in a world where "there is no such thing as society" - that is, the climate where open season is declared and the torturers are granted absolute impunity. Such faggotry does not serve the state in any way, or even seek the state for some material benefit as a parasite. The faggotry of unlimited and maximal torture seeks nothing less than to become a new institution of institutions, the outcome of which is never quite here. It superficially resembles the state, society, the political, and portends to something new, but it always regresses into the same faggotry that started the cycle, and insists that nothing new is possible. Where the state does not exist, such faggotry sees it as expedient to fashion a state or a facade which exists purely as a projection of force.^[7] The holders of such a state may have other motives, but the faggotry demands its cut of the action and extracts a glorious tribute on top of the torture that is its core purpose. The faggotry is not the sole burden on the productive classes of society or the state, as if it were tantamount to "corruption" or a lack of virtue. The faggotry of this torture must compete with other drains on productive society. These "drains" are often the things that the lower classes hold on to, rather than anything malevolent.

To an orthodox republican, there is never any ambiguity - wages and conditions should remain as low as possible, and any "undeserved" wages beyond this minimum are an inefficiency in the system. There is not in principle a divide between "labor" and "the city" - laborers could in theory be regarded as social equals or morally worthy of luxury beyond that of those that have traditionally held the state. There is not even in principle a necessary deprivation of the lowest class of beggars or useless persons, who do not engage in anything productive or morally valued at all in the society, but whose conditions are comfortable enough that they do not consider this existence too bad, given their knowledge of the alternative. It is entirely within the bounds of republican society to suggest a minimum standard of living compatible with dignity for "cretins" and the desperate, regardless of any knowledge they possess or status assigned to them or claimed. Yet, for the purposes of the state and the political, any wealth whatsoever that is granted for purposes other than the state's perpetuation is an inefficiency, no matter what someone may think about the necessity of wealth for life functions to continue or for the decencies of society to be maintained. This applies only to republican societies governed by such an idea. Despotic societies are under no such illusion about the claim of the rulers, and have no particular attachment to wealth suggesting that there is any justice whatsoever in trade or social interaction. There is by nature a sense of wealth in human agents, and some substantive input would be necessary for any political agent to continue. There are then those activities which don't seem to serve any purpose of state, society, or the whims of people in an obvious way. These are things that are for whatever reason intrinsically interesting, and the free time of people in political society. That free time is, at the end of the day, the real reward of the social enterprise - for us to be able to live as we would want to, rather than sacrificing to the state or anything else. Yet, in a political sense, all of the costs of sacrifice are a burden to the state, to society, and to anything that would actually be accomplished by institutions. The ideal of the state, and this has little to do with a particular political thought about it, would be if there were no sacrifices at all, and all that we do in some way facilitates the society's continuation. This does not necessitate that the state as an institution or set of institutions is eternal, but because revolution and upheaval usually bring lots of this sacrifice, reform and peaceful transition would be preferred, with the holders of the state moving from one to another arrangement and no particular barrier to the recruitment of new men or removal of old men. This cycling of the political class does not need to conform to any expectation of why such a thing must happen, but it would likely occur due to the reality that people of any class or background have some stake in the political situation and a mind to suggest how it would be different. This does not need to conform to the holding of political office or even the existence of "office" as such, but it often would, and in principle someone of the lowest class with no particular merit or ability could fill the office and the state could go on. Men of grand distinction could very well tire of public life and desire nothing more than to grow cabbages. They rose to the pinnacle, perhaps rearranged the state vastly, and had seen enough, or it was clear that there was no purpose to holding the title if a suitable successor was found. The dickering over office, merits, wealth, substance, or anything else has little relevance to the structure of the political apparatus, or of institutions if they were to fulfill any function. Yet, there is a constant - if all of these things of the better world can be purchased for a cheaper price, where less taxes are paid or the inflow of wealth to society were increased and that which is unnecessary and undesirable is removed, would that not be better? A drive for earnest betterment can be an opening for the worst faggotry, if we forget what humans are and always have been. It seems fine enough that the greed of producers, to say nothing of uppity laborers or beggars, should be curtailed for the moralizing effect of such poverty and to prevent the same indulgence which plagues aristocracy. It is another to proclaim such thing when the gross indulgences of the human race are well established and no illusion can suggest that this goes away because you proclaim that the law is good, the law is great, and we all surrender our will as of this date.

There is one problem with this model - nowhere does this state exist in nature or in the constitutions of men, in a way that allows it to function in accord with this design. The wants of human beings are for themselves and those they associate with, and not for "the state" or "the political" in the abstract. They are not for any institution. Institutions exist for us, because the stability at one time was desired and this made sense at a local level. Someone might see that their neighbor formed families and so they should do likewise, and this follows from that prehistoric educational principle that is highly effective to this day - "monkey see, monkey do". The origins of the state, or anything like it, are not any purpose or germ that told us we have to do this. Institutions and social interactions occur because we have the capacity to do the latter, and there is nothing that stops this. The state's proper origin is the exact opposite of ritual sacrifice - it is cooperation, so far as such a thing can be allowed. Cooperation between social agents is never premised on mutual self-interest or fear or studious contempt. Such conditions are acknowledged as pre-existing conditions that would need to be maintained for cooperation to continue for long, but they are not the point of cooperation. At a basic level, we associated with each other because we wanted to, or because it was something the impulses of life suggested we would do and there was nothing to stop it and nothing wrong with it. There are limits to this cooperation, and for cooperation to be relevant, it is between two distinct entities and minds which remain apart, however close they are and whatever experience they share. The cooperation is not to be confused with "friendship" or a legal status that states recognize. People can share an existence without any title of "friend", and could even dislike each other but recognize that they're stuck together in a buddy comedy gone horribly wrong. It is not intrinsically good or "the point". People can join together specifically because they share a love of malice and all the horrors of the human race, and this is often the sad fate of brotherhood and friendship. But, the reasons for cooperation are between us, and they do not belong to anyone else or to any abstraction. Our native sense can detect this without any need of justification or excuses. There is no natural resource requirement to do this, other than two bodies for whom consumption and extraction are their private business. I didn't need to watch someone eat bread or take a shit to get along with them, and really don't see it as my business to concern myself with those activities unless they impugned on me or something external to us that I would want to preserve. The same would be true of the other party, and we're not so stupid that we can't see this, even if our intelligences were wildly disparate.

Competition never forms the basis of sociality or any institution, as if struggle or force had any such creative power or communicated anything other than struggle or force. It is possible to struggle and force, but this never forms genuine society or any institution. The state and its officers, whatever the doctrine says about climbing the ranks or individual initiative, must cooperate enough to conspire against any institution and any organization outside of the institutions. So too will mafias conspire, form alliances, make contacts with other mafias, and conduct politics. The most important alliances a mafia makes is with their aristocratic backers, and all aristocracies in history have seen mob bosses, street lords, ward bosses, drug dealers, pimps, prostitutes, and their institutions not as "corruption" or "vice", but as key allies to holding power over society. Why would aristocracy ever engage in a mission to eliminate drug culture, unless an alien state or empire used the drug trade with deliberate knowledge of the force that can managed and deployed for controlled demolition of an alien? Even here, the drug lords never touch the aristocracy as a threat. Aristocracy, as a rule, enjoys all of the vices that the mob protects and polices, and is immune to any consequences. Any mafiosi who would protest the injustice knew from the start that aristocracy is nothing more than a larger mafia, organized for the same essential purpose. The idea that these entities were separate is at odds with aristocracy's history, where families or houses asserted boldly that they were actually descended from gods or won the favor of the gods, and that the ruled should love this divine wisdom because the symbols and idols created an impression on the gullible. Most of those symbols harken back to this singular ritual because that one ritual evoked the strongest psychological response - sacrifice. The sacrifice may be changed to an offering of wheat or an animal or sexual sacrifice, but the true ingredient remains the same - the orgiastic celebration of that first sacrifice, where the unwanted were disposed and the victors in unison declared "good riddance". After the fact, this sacrifice is viewed as the necessary component of cooperation, but there is no cooperation towards a useful goal. The purpose of repeating this ritual is the exact opposite - to foster distrust, a sense of loss, a sense of inferiority and recognition of what ruled and what did not. It is premised in the end on a third party which must lose, despite this third party having nothing to do with the cooperation between the participants of this ritual. Nothing material or cooperative or productive is expected of the third party for the sacrifice to be relevant. Far from it, any product of the third party, even if claimed by the conspirators in sacrifice, is a potential liability, for the product does not bear by nature any stamp that recognizes this retarded and sadistic practice of a failed race. The third party, or any other party, can just as well take what they deem theirs, and there is no force in the world that would stop them but fear. The reality of course is that cooperation has little to do with this ritual, even among those who conspire to rule or hold political institutions. The ritual's relevance is that it evokes a force that stands alone, and there are forces at work that either derive from this ritual or accomodate it as part of a wider set of practices. The Satanic ethos that prevailed in settled society as a ruling idea entails this and more and scoffs at any suggestion that sacrifice should ever end, or that abating it can be accomplished by anything other than occult and aristocratic wisdom if such a thing is desired. Most religions entail sacrifices and elaborate rituals and doctrines regarding it, including Christianity which makes the totem of Jesus Christ central to its religion and the symbol to impose on the gullible an image of themselves - defeated, humiliated - and transfer that to the aristocratic leanings the religion served openly. The poor adherent is supposed to see themselves in Christ but this is superficial. The true purpose of the symbol is that Christ is Big Brother, or Hitler, or a strange caricature of socialist or communist thought, to those who find those ideas appealing. Christ can be a warlord, a regulatory check on finance and merchants, a workman and model citizen, a Luciferian figure of light and wisdom, a vagabond, a saint of the highest probity, a messenger aligned with the Satan with full knowledge of those who wear Christian symbols. It is not hard for students of philosophy to see Plato's teacher Socrates, unjustly executed by the ignorant, as the true meaning of many parables concerning Christ, with all of the indulgence aristocrats would wish to suggest to true believers is natural and normal, rather than the story that suggests Socrates had it coming and his student wrote a lot of cope and birthed much of European political theory in the process. The cipher's context and personal meaning is less relevant than the sacrifice of Christ on the cross and the repetition of this ritual in Christianity in ways large and small. There is in Christianity hints of a vampiric legend, played out in the eucharist, in which the blood of Christ wards off alien vampires - or, for some, symbolizes their intent to taste the blood of the damned and project strength, as many thought systems allow. But, the vampirism, and all it entails - for it is not difficult to see where the trajectory of the human race leads and this has been reproduced often enough that I think the readers know it when they see it - is not the point of the sacrifice. Nothing is actually transferred through this ritualistic torture and humiliation. It is done because the symbol invokes something ancient, and the educational paradigm of "monkey see, monkey do" has yet to be improved on when concerning the evocation of such ancient signs, no matter what pedagogy is supposed to negate this.

We could, and should, rid ourselves of this retarded practice of sacrifice, without nailing anyone real or fictitious to crosses or ritualistically consuming transmutated substances that become the flesh and blood of God-made-Man. None of that was necessary and served mostly to institutionalize the sacrifice and continue its conduct in secret, and in new ways. There is not one religion on Earth which can claim to do any better, and most either do worse or explicitly glorify this sacrifice by placing it near or at the center of their program. If we did this, it would change radically human existence, and we should think carefully if this is ever to be done as a true program. Nearly all we have assumed up to now would no longer be operative, and the thinking of where we can go - or if there is a point to any of this - would adapt to a reality that we have never actually lived in. We of course live in a world with much more than sacrifice and toil and blood, and nothing we have created - including the religious rituals themselves - would have survived if sacrifice was all that was to the religion. Every religion, including a new one, would have to regard the historical fact of this sacrifice, and there is enough to suggest beyond a doubt that it was this sacrifice whicih birthed the human race and no other. Whatever constituted human beings aside from it cannot reckon with the meaning and purpose of the sacrifice. This is that the sacrifices were always intended to eliminate the deformed, the unwanted, the nuisances, who were selected from an early age and never for any genuine crime. They were selected because of crimes of Being, and when asked to ground these sacrifices in any other purpose, the perpetrators hem and haw and make excuses, because the eugenic interest can only make half-hearted claims about technology or Reason rather than any good reason such a thing was necessary. If that doesn't work, then a ridiculous fear of the poor and the stupid posing a "danger" is the eugenist's trump card. This danger is never specified, and the vast majority of sacrifices are neither in a position to strike back nor possess much interest in doing so. The damned have so limited an ability to fight any of this that the scale of their revenge would be so small that it amounts to an imperial rounding error. Nearly all of the "damage" that results from the existence of the residuum is due to the misdeeds of those who enforce the sacrifice and mandate that everyone participate, because most normal people see no benefit to this and recognize that if one soul is sacrificed, any other - like theirs - would be sacrificed as well for the same purpose. "Justice" is blind.

The end of sacrifice is not the end of suffering, toil, hardship, challenge, struggle, or war by a long shot. This is the false moral equivalence of the cult of sacrifice at work - that if there is just one more sacrifice, one more indulgence, that it will stave off all of those maladies, and all of those things are natural and therefore sacrifice must be condoned. This line never needs any great reasoning, and when intimidation is too expensive, playing on fear and sentiments in the people is their default public relations trick. This requires that the people are beaten down and degraded enough to accept such an argument without protesting. It has long been understood that all of those things were at the beck and call of those who held virtue - those who conducted the sacrifice to steal it from the world - and while the monopoly on torture and suffering is never so total or real, and it is never explicitly legal in the sense that grants the sadists the absolute impunity they crave, those who conduct sacrifice know well that they must summon all of the forces they can to protect their sacraments. Anything less would be a failure of the religion. It would mean the sacrifices stop. It would mean they have to share the world with those damned as retards, and that is too terrifying for them. We, who call them retarded because that is what they are, have to live with that terror and tolerate the intolerable. Above all, the sacrifice must operate on one principle above all others, and this is one that would be a persistent force in all state societies: "Once retarded, ALWAYS retarded." There can be no redemption, and promises of such are always to be pulled back, then edited out of history and reality altogether. Any deed can be forgiven or ignored, but retarded is forever. Why would it be retarded, instead of some vague moral fiber or substance or insinuation alone? It is because all such cults, all religions, are at heart an intellectual exercise, and no other machine but intelligence and knowledge can protect the crown. It is this lesson which left its mark on all mankind, regardless of our proximity to the sacrifice or knowledge of its practices. None of us can be innocent, for ignorance is no excuse and we are born with the genetic taint of that sacrifice. This is why the eugenists must recapitulate the notion that "genes are destiny" in the form of information, rather than any practical purpose for doing so, long after the theory of genetic information has been discredited and was known to exist on flimsy pretexts the whole way through. For the ritual to continue, the sin and shame cannot pass by mere communication. They must pass by the blood and be imbued in all humanity does. All that would be necessary for the ritual to spread is a pedagogy telling all humans from birth that the ritual is in force, and nothing can ever stop it or be allowed to mitigate it for long. Whether sacrifices occur is not relevant, so long as the image is invoked; but if the image is invoked, it beckons to anyone who needs a path to power and the meaning of such a ritual is unmistakable. There is nothing greater because there is nothing else of the sort which accomplishes the same aim.

Yet, humanity endures not because of this, or in recognition of this ritual, but in spite of it, and with utter contempt for the filth that introduced it. We've always known this is wrong, stupid, and destroys anything we would have wanted. Even those who glorify the ritual are perfectly aware that the intellectual contagion serves no other purpose. It doesn't occur to them that it is wrong or should ever stop, and the true believers always terminate their own thoughts if they suggest a different world is possible, but they are perfectly aware of why this works, and would have had to know why this works for the rituals to be established as a persistent institution or practice. The forebears of the human race had lives prior to the sacrifice, and the sacrifice did not extinguish in total the content inherited from animal existence. We continued on as animals much as we did before this stupidity began, and symbolic language was never a thing monopolized by cults or any pedagogy. Once adopted, language was ours to do with as we please, and so many of our words were developed with awareness of this cult, saw it correctly as an enemy and sought ways for us to avoid the reaper. The advocates of the ritual sacrifice argue that this ritual thus has a moralizing effect, because it will "educate" people about how not to be sacrificed. This, though, was decided after the fact. They had already established "once retarded, always retarded" as the purpose of the sacrifice, because the purpose of the sacrifice was to glorify termination of that which offended the creed's sentiments. The ritual begins because a sentiment and thrill in the sadist relies on judgements of intelligence to make the call of who must be removed, who is offensive, or whose intelligence or manna is to be consumed. The moral argument that killing "retards" or anyone deemed unfit is worthy in of itself is never something that needs to be explained, because an explanation would beg the question why any humans should be allowed to live, or why we should tolerate predatory perverts for a moment. If this were about a moral purpose that was evident based on facts from worthwhile science, the perverts conducting this ritual should be ruthlessly exterminated and nothing more needs to be said of it. This would be the only solution to such a ritual that solves the problem temporarily. Those who advance the ritual were aware of this from the outset, and perfected this response and all situations resulting to it to a science. One benefit of the ritual to the predatory is that it creates a universal obligation to adopt the same wanton slaughter that the ritual sacrifice summons and glorifies. There is no "high road" to take once the ritual starts, and there is no more justice or goodness in eliminating legitimate threats than there is to eliminate an entity whose "threat" is entirely implied by the internal logic of ritual sacrifice and glorification of torture. It may seem "good" to a naive sense, but among the games of the ritual sacrifice advocates is to offer "guilty parties" who either operated at a lower level of the cult, or did nothing at all except exist, and most of all, the torture cult pushes those who would stop the process to the altar to feed the Aztec sun god. At first this is done on false pretenses, but when the cult reaches its maximal flowering, those who would stop the cult are openly sacrificed for that purpose, since "we can't give up the institutions". It is then further extended so that the ritual is weaponized, and can be deployed as an unanswerable "wonder weapon" to inflict minute changes and people, creating miniature ritual sacrifices and emblems of great variety. And so, what starts as a crude ceremony of stoning the outcast is turned into an inquisition, mandatory "treatments", slights and humiliations injected in every behavior of society. The value of the ritual sacrifice, the genesis of the human race, could only be realized in technocratic society, and would prove to be its undoing. The fools of technocratic society proclaim that this torture is the lifeblood that makes such a society possible, but for reasons that will be elaborated on in the fifth book of this series, the technocratic setup would be possible without this sacrifice and has to mitigate its consequences, control the inflows and outflows of torture or pretend to, and develop a proper scientific theory regarding it rather than a mere religious doctrine or learned behavior from cruder sources. The torture cult must become institutional to survive, and from there such a cult - and eugenics is only one overt vanguard of that cult - would act as a worm to corrode any other institution, accelerating a process that was inherent in human society from the moment this beast could spread. It is only now that the reckoning for this cult is at hand, and this reckoning will not be a final one or the start of a clean break from history. It is instead a transition for the human race, where it would decide whether it will be anything else, or if this is all there is. That choice was clearly made by the partisans of the cult and committed to, and by all assessments, the torture cult will in various forms hold the upper hand indefinitely. What remains, if anything, is now beholden to the cult. But, it was not always this way, and it was never even dominant in humanity. Even now, the cult's officers could be dismissed, suppressed, or kept at bay long enough to stabilize the society we live in. The elevation of this cult is not a natural necessity nor something serving an ulterior motive, nor did it become life's prime want for everyone. The imposition of the cult is instead one of many weapons wielded by those whose objective has been power by any means, without any consideration of morality or consequences like those I describe. Why would the future be any different to a political mind? For those who are full blooded members of the cult, they don't need to think. The reasoning of the cult is self-affirming. What has changed is that things which once limited the cult are no longer operative, and there is not any real interest of the current ruling institutions to impose new limits. It is impossible to rely on the old limits, as if invoking the past could somehow arrest history or repeat the cycle. Such practices are pale efforts to imitiate the original ritual sacrifice, following poorly "monkey see, monkey do" in an attempt to compensate for the new situatiion. The aim of the ritual cult is to stamp out anything new that would challenge this, and to do so, the hunt of the "retards" must become in full The Retarded Ideology, in which stupidity is doctrine and thought itself is controlled and corralled as much as possible.

We see from the application of torture today why such a ritual perpetuates itself by intelligence rather than anything else, and that its function most of all is to suppress any intelligence that is contrary to what it considers "real intelligence". This does not really concern intelligence as a necessary substance. It could in principle be carried out with far cruder "intelligences", like a machine, an animal, or some object that is construed as executing this regulatory function of "policing legitimate intelligence". The reasons this is not observed so regularly elsewhere is because symbolic language and communication are necessary to teach the ritual in such a way that it can spread in a short timeframe, rather than relying on gesticulation and displays of force. Apes can shout like retards, and they are retarded, and this impresses other apes enough to do something like this ritual, establishing the pecking order and hierarchy among them. Yet, against a clever ghoul, even with the low cunning of animals, this great ritual, the height of ape sacraments for the establishment of hierarchy, can be subverted, never spreading far or suggesting a pedagogy among them for the ritual to be institutionalized. There are efforts to transpose the human glorification of orgies onto their close relatives in the kingdom of monkies, but the purposes of orgies - for humans and animals alike - are not limited to this one sacrifice and often exist without any particular malice beyond the typical amusement and lower malice common to animals and humans.

The appeal of the one, central ritual above all others is that it places a limit on intelligence and disciplines it, in a way that no other ritual can. Intelligence and learning cannot discipline itself very effectively without devolving into circular reasoning which regresses, absent any stabilizing force, to zero. That is, if this ritual were seen by the mind and reason for what it was, and we believed we could substitute it with some chain of reasoning, the only possible result would be total negation of intelligence from within, or the reduction of intelligence and learning to a purely automatic process. If that happened, learning would cease to be "learning" and it would regress to cruder informational processing. Learning of anything novel would be resisted, since intellectual discipline would by default consider all it knows to be a "total system", or it would have to concede that intelligence doesn't really "know" fundamentally anything about the world other than the world's existence. If intelligence were "totally and absolutely free" in any real environment, it would not be able to filter knowledge. This is not necessary for any natural or economic reason. Every entity which thinks and knows has a history and many things within it which are not premised on rational purpose or ethics, and we are guided by moral interests that would have guided us, which intelligence can acknowledge, navigate, and refine. If we are concerned with political intelligence and political sanity - and we must answer this question in society if we are capable of knowing of this political agency and act on it - there is not any intrinsic quality of us or any moral force in nature which would govern politics. We may be able to live in the world without a sense of the political, or we may know of the political and wish to keep it far away. But, politics will come for us, one way or another. There is nothing in nature, and no natural law, which could discipline political intelligence for us. The rituals we undertake, which are a part of institutions we form in society if they are to be understood as potential political agents, are always things we deliberately perform, and they speak not to any natural law or necessity, or to some rational want that we would place in the world ready-made for this purpose. The rituals have some basis in history, but this is at first a history particular to living agents like us. To the rest of the world, the original sin of the human race is some sort of sad joke, and anyone else - and most humans - look at such depravity and ask why such abomination is allowed to exist. Yet, there is no political force in the world that can intellectually judge what is and isn't abomination. The chief purpose of this original sin, this sadistic ritual, is presented to the people as the removal of "abomination" - which is to say, unwanted offspring who never actually did anything to constitute a political threat or any serious threat to society. It would be trivial to feed the damaged offspring of humanity and allow them sanction to live some sort of life. It would even be beneficial in some sense. There is no rule of humanity that tells us slaves and human medical lab rats must be treated with the utmost disdain and hatred. The rituals of contempt and glorification of torture have no disciplinary effect on labor of individual workers - far from it, if a master wished to extract useful labor out of a slave, a carrot would be far more effective than a legion of sticks and shouting maniacs whipping the slaves. All of the tortures of slavery are in an economic and intellectual sense a drain on the institution and society, producing nothing. The ideal of the master would be for natural slaves - slaves that eagerly obey and love their master and know what the master wants instinctively. Both sticks and carrots would be as small as possible, and in doing so, the institution would make the slave effectively invisible - fused with nature and moved only by the master's will. This never works for a variety of reasons, but it is the ideal held in the imperious mind, and like herpes, it never goes away.

At this early stage, there is no institution of slavery, and slavery does not take any preferred form. The purpose of doing this and the germ of this mentality need not concern itself with labor necessarily or any utility that would be attained by doing this. This practice, or any institution for an supposedly economic purpose, does not establish any temporal authority simply by existing. It is not the purpose of temporal authority to defend an economic arrangement or anything we regard as productive or useful in that sense. That is not the purpose of politics, or why any of this is undertaken. What is the purpose of the ritual then? It is not a thing inborn or "just there", as if humans always did this by some unknowable impulse. The ritual exists because it is known to its perpetrators to assert one type of spiritual authority - the spiritual authority of this one ritual, which represents one approach to the eugenic interest of life. Without institutions as such, the association of the eugenic interest of life and heredity with property is not established. Property prior to and after this ritual remains something held for reasons particular to people, who have their own reasons for maintaining property and various concepts of what "property" means and how it can be assured. Nothing about the torture ritual protects property or is necessary for property to exist. It is very often a vehicle for destroying property or claims to it, and rewriting by decree a historical fact of property. Why this works is very simple - that there was an original sin, an original sacrifice, which did have this power for the human race, and it was a particular covenant humans who partake in the ritual sacrifice made with the god and whatever sense of the divine they held. If there was no actual "god" giving the fascist OK sign to tell them, it would be expedient to invent one by assertion. But, those who partake in the ritual would always act as if this god of torture and sacrifice were as real as them, and this is a religion for the believers that all would be made to respect.^[8] The ritual does not establish property, exist for property, or rely on property to facilitate its continuation. Property exists simply as a fact which the ritual can harken back to, reminding the adherents that "the poor will always be with you".

There are other rituals and practices and deeds in the world which fulfill this function of regulating intelligence and directing its orientation. This is the task of moral authority in the genuine sense, which is something outside of "spiritual authority" or the lower types of temporal or personal authority. That is, all authorities will have to acknowledge a world outside of them. Moral authority itself is answerable to a world of things and symbols we can ascertain, whose existence is not seriously doubted. We may interpret symbols in different ways and understand them as referent to meanings, but there are those things which appear persistently as facts by repeated independent adjudication. The symbol of the first sacrifice, the original sin, evokes something that no other ritual or symbol can, and it insists on its oneness in the universe, despite it being nothing more than the fickle behavior of a failed race. Said race has by and large spent its existence trying to redeem itself from this beast, or move on from it, because it does not take a great intellect to see that this ritual is shit and always has been shit. By any conventional knowledge we have acquired though, nothing in the world can guarantee to the intellect that the beast is slain. Its existence, its history, is one we have to accept if spiritual authority is at all honest about the world it encounters. Spiritual authority then has two options available to it. The first is to claim, half-heartedly, that the only thing they know is that they know nothing, even though we know quite a lot simply by virtue of what we are and have done in the recent past. The second is for an imperious intellect to claim that its knowledge must be a total and internally consistent system, an iron trap which will withstand any critique or debate. This can never hold, because no intellect is ever sacrosanct. The symbols of past sacrifices and foul rituals are facts that will be reckoned with if any spiritual authority is to contend with the world we live in and have lived in. We would only be able to overcome them if there were a willingness to ensure, now and forever, that ignorance will be banished, and political agents in society decide that there will be no more sacrifice. But, this is a mere political assertion, without anything to back it up. Politics and society only exist through their agents - through the believers in the spiritual authority that politics would need to rest on to be anything more than a contest grasping for a world they never quite touch or hold onto. Those agents are not points of spiritual light "above the world". They are, in any form we can imagine them as a real thing, part of a world where information and knowledge are limited. Knowledge may be emergent and highly versatile, and it may encounter something novel which disrupts the state of affairs they believe to be operative, but all of the knowledge that intelligence and rationality handles is limited, quantifiable and sorted by some quality and in some system that is sensical to us, rather than any way that nature suggested we "ought" to do this. The choice to make this original sin, this first sacrifice which birthed the human race, paramount and sacred above all, is a choice of those who see it as a vehicle for objectives of worldly power, and chose something which is for humans the sole path of least resistance. The ritual torture creates its own truth and this is the sole "total system" that an appeal to reason alone can create.

If the appeal to spiritual authority rests on intelligence, learning, and education most of all - and this is not necessarily what spiritual authority is - then the paths of least resistance will be to recycle the past, rather than seek something novel in the world which is unlikely to happen. The default assumption in rationality is that the future would resemble the past in the laws of nature and science that are reconstructed in our models, and that this represents a tendency of the universe of things to do as they have been doing. We don't expect apples to spontaneously cease to be apples without a good reason why this would change, and no amount of wordplay or technological magic can transmute anything into anything by casting a spell to control reality. If there is something else in the past than the ritual sacrifice, it would be necessary to repurpose it in service to the Oneness if the ritual sacrifice is to evoke this power. Scientific inquiry into history in the institutions always stubbornly refuses to acknowledge anything else existing regardless of the evidence. The reason for this is that a ritual sacrifice that is at heart premised on the intelligence of the damned and those who conduct the ritual torture is unique in the world. Whatever forms that torture takes, they always regress to a singular point of Luciferian light - the oneness that is deemed primordial and that creates the world in the view of the institutions. If we were to appeal to a moral authority above spiritual authority, it would be a very fatalistic view, where we "leave luck to Heaven" and see that we are fated for something, whether we like or not, and that this fate has little to do with our rational conceits about the world or the states and political sense we established. Yet, political sense, which we can only establish in institutions that rely on rationality, is perfecftly aware that there is a world that our intelligence does not immediately grasp. We know from an early age that we, and any entity like us, are limited in knowledge, and that what we know is neither insignficant nor omniscient. It is impossible to suggest there is a truly omniscient "god" that functions in the same way a rational intellect does, or that would be appreciated in those terms. There is only one way to invoke this sense of omniscience, so that partisans of the philosophical state's pretenses can satisfy their lust for the Absolute. That is the ritual of torture, habitual lying, and vileness that seeks as its goal the neutralization of any intelligence but the One, the primordial. It is not enough to simply eliminate the victim. Someone who is killed with their intellect and soul intact will be outside of the reach of this intellectual authority forever, attaining the true immortality simply by denying the cult its most valuable prize. The thrill of torture must be maximized, not merely done for a purpose. There is in the end only one such aim of torture, and this is the one that humanity chose in the late 20th century and which seeks to dominate the present time. This is that the aim of the ritual torture is purely intellectual control. The damned cannot be merely insane, or morally wrong, or declared evil on spurious grounds. That is a slave morality in their eyes. The damned cannot exist at a fixed level of regulated stupidity that relies on independent judgement and a theory of intelligence that is beholden to reality. There is only one aim of the ritual torture that it values above all others. The damned must not be simply killed, or declared insane and evil by a moral code that is consistent. The final judgement of humanity against humanity is one word which must be maximized, to become a curse unlike any other:

And yet, this curse, singular and unique in the human race, never won the world as a fait accompli simply by declaring it so. It does not win now despite its command of exorbitant violence and machinery. It can never win, and it is never intended to "win". It is eternally imminent that all retards will be marked, tracked, put on public display for maximal ridicule, and the thrill of torture will be beamed into the faithful, who exultantly scream for more in their churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, Satanic cults, natural groves, and every other place where this filthy cult assembles. Why this is done ceases to matter, because the lust for doing this appeals to a sense of power and authority that creates its own reality, and answers to nothing. It might be possible to invoke another ritual or koan. "Creation" is one, in which the origin of the physical universe, or the eternal steady state of it, is invoked as a cosmological view that can justify the state, the regulation of intelligence, and provide purpose. "The good" might be imagined as an abstraction above and outside of the world, difficult to access but bestowing revelation upon those who need a way out. All of these though are things which came after this cult which was able to continue on its own power, whose truth is self-evident to the believers. The good was premised on an evil, which the ritual torture and sacrifice which birthed the human race certainly was. No ethical subroutine can make the evil into the good by wordplay, no more than dialectical woo woo can make lead into gold or vice versa.

The origins of the state proper are not the singular oneness of "the state" or philosophical conceits about it, nor is the state something handed down by God. Far from it, every religion has shown studious contempt for the state and insisted that religion assert its particular rights apart from the state. Religion and state are not so much separated by artificial decree, but speak to entirely different interests. The claim that they were ever "one" in the philosophical sense has always been a doctrine of predatory society, so that spiritual authority can be claimed by fickle men who chant like the retards they are and tell us they're gods with magical powers. But, this one ritual does not actually possess the power it does. It only could come to the forefront after significant development of society, which allowed technological means to perfect the ritual and institutionalize it in ways that made it impossible to escape. That would take many centuries, and the ritual always exists as one of many cults and religions humanity creates. In all forms of state society, the state is something that has to be appreciated rationally to be meaningful. The state never exists as an indescribable force, or an appeal to violence as the supreme authority. If we wish to worship violence, we would obviate the need of a "state" as such, and the state would be little more than a warlord's command of lackies to make us suffer. While this can form a state, such a state does not last for long for reasons that aren't too hard to figure out, but should be investigated in detail to ask why the obvious solution to our quandries doesn't work. If we wish to worship some primordial force or virtue which makes the state viable, we would quickly arrive at a realization that the virtues that are coveted first are intelligence and technology, which are the basis for any other virtue that would be appreciated as politically worthwhile. The "human spirit" or some primordial virtue as a force unto itself has even less staying power than violence, since that spirit like anything else can be broken by the first malevolent actor. It is this general fear which is acknowledged in the "wheel of life" that reassembles itself in human society, and that wheel is ultimately rooted in aristocratic conceits about politics and subordinates all life to feed aristocratic vampires.

The general fear is not of any one thing, but of all against all, intellectually understood from all of its sources. It does not need to point to any moral center or purpose. Weather events, exploding stars, plagues, animals, and all natural events are threats just as human beings are. It is a matter of fact that the greatest threat for humans, by far, is other humans, but this would not be true of politics generally, and it is only true of humans in the niche they have developed. It was never uniformly true for humans in a way that never changed in history. In primitive society, strong warbands preyed on the weak and nothing stopped the carnage, and this is the "noble origin" the filth of aristocracy always invoke as another of their favored symbols. It accelerated into something grotesque in technocratic society, where technocratic conceits - the vision of the primitive tribe arranged just-so by the philosopher-king transposed onto a chief - are written into the past, while retaining the essence of noble savages that appeals to the aristocratic tendency among today's world controllers and planners. No such "noble savage" existed and the trope is understandably offensive to people who lived in a society with others like them, and maintained a studious contempt for aristocracy as they should. The first settled cities invoked lurid rituals and priesthoods, bringing mankind into civilization by hook or crook. Those who are not absorbed become barbarians, and humanism - humanitas - as a concept originates from Roman attempts to integrate alien tribes into the Roman system of empire, rather than an effort to "assimilate" those tribes and attach to them a Roman identity. The Roman sense of empire, and why they did anything they did, had nothing to do with an "essence of the nation" or a preferred identity. Where the Romans recognized civilized subjects as friends of Rome, the Romans did not need any program of "humanization", and recognized that the peoples of the eastern empire already had cities and customs before Rome. The Romans only had to appoint a governor, assert Roman authority and the pre-eminence of Roman legal institutions, and the locals typically paid their tribute and went about their business much as they did before Roman rule. It is in this way that the empire overtook the construct of the city-state in European society, and similar practices are at work with great empires around the world. Each empire has its preferred strategy for collecting tribute and managing relations with barbarians. The barbarians, for their part, did not exist as a null threat with the sole aim of ruining the supposed goodness of civliization. Every barbarian nation that posed a serious threat saw their project as the formation of rival empires, at first to fend off the aggression of civilization, and then because, just as the Romans did when they saw the promise of winning Italy for their city-state, the barbarian nations under a strong warlord saw what was possible, liked their chances, and went for it. Occasionally, they succeed, as the Mongols did when they ruled the civilized centers and put Mongols on the throne, and as the Germans of Europe were able to win by taking piece by piece the Roman system of empire and feasting off its remains. There are then barbarians who come close to winning, but are cut short by assassination or intrigues and their efforts fall apart. This was the fate of Atilla and, if you take the Persian side of history, this is how they saw Alexander and the generals who succeeded him. Modern civilization forms empires not in the manner of Antiquity, but from trade, betrayal, elevation of drug lords and mafias, occult rituals, command of information, and at the heart of any modern empire is a theory and practice of science, which is never uniform in nature, contrary to the claims of institutions which claim a monopoly on thought. This continues to the present day, where "barbarians" no longer posed any threat to civilization and often bend over backwards to make it in a world dominated by technocratic polities, only to be met with the gross realization that civliization was all a lie, and the very heights of civilized imperial thought are little more than a glorification of that most ancient ugliness of the human race, with nothing to show for it. By the dawn of the 21st century, anyone who believed there was a promise to civilization had figured out that there was nothing, and as I write in the opening of my first book, the great crushing realization of this time is that it was all a lie - and I mean it was all a lie.

What is the general fear? It is not a fear of any one ritual or symbol, a fear of the new, or a fear of the old. It is not a fear of degeneracy or a fear of strength. Both of those things are the claims of braying retards, and they are retarded, rather than anyone who asks a simple question of what it would mean to generate or produce anything. It is not a fear of fear itself, even. The general fear is the condition that political society abides because the malice of intellects is read from our experience, even reading malice in things that had no thought or emotion like the weather or the desolation of outer space. There is something that partisans of ritual torture despise most of all, and this will keep them up until they are finally, heaven willing, purged from this existence. This is that much of what is to be feared did not share in their malice or even appreciate it in the slightest. A giant meteor from outer space could easily lay waste to this failed, Satanic race of apes, and all of the rituals and symbolism would mean nothing. It is all faggotry, and when viewing most of existence in the proper context and recognizing that almost everything that exists is unliving, the enterprise is even more futile than it is to us. The torture cult's next move is to co-opt the language of the unliving too, and to present parodies of death and gore. The ultraviolence of technocratic society and the media it promotes to habituate children to accept it is an attempt of the torture cult to claim something that all of its tortures cannot truly capture, for the true death of the world has nothing to do with their torture. This is why the torture cult insists on playing out the disgusting Fabian ritual of grinning with a smile as they prepare painful and torturous lethal injections, and glorify the lying about "clean death". Satanics like that do not believe in clean death or anything we regard as decent. The thrill of torture must be maximized, and the point of such displays is to make it clear you never forget what really rules. However much such people insist they alone possess the master key to the general fear, they fear generally because that is the condition of political life. If we lived in a world without the general fear, it would be very different. Even a much more enligthened humanity, which mitigated its original sin enough to recognize it on sight and repair the damage rather than throw people away so readily, would still recall the general fear. That would be a motivator of people to be decent to each other. The arguments for goodness, freedom or liberty, or for that matter productive systems of slavery that could function in reality rather than by "me wantee", justify good behavior not on some primordial light at the center of the human spirit, but on the exact opposite - that humans are wicked by nature, and we've seen enough of the bad and the evil. That wickedness was never absolute depravity, nor was it the case that virtue existed entirely within and can only decay because of the pre-eminence of original sin. All of the virtue human beings acquired, and that any other agent could acquire, came from the world, and humans themselves are a part of the world like anything else. The "world" we regard as politically relevant may be something apart from the base material world, because so acute is the human sense of each other that we prioritize the language and affairs of humans or other intelligent agents over the baser material world. But, all of that which we regard as "real thought" in the political world is still in the same world as the birds and the trees, and it abides the world and the elements in it. There was never a "state of nature" suggested by this. There was only at its heart the general fear, which can be seized upon by anyone with a mind to detect it and act on it. For animals, long adapted to seek sustenance and integrate its body parts, it is not difficult to recognize other entities like themselves and assign priority to them over the dead or that which is not edible. This at first does not proceed by a formal rational process, but there is intent to it. The eugenist must terminate that sense and any other sense to complete its mission. It seeks the ritual torture not for its own sake or because of an ulterior motive that is rational, but because the general fear can be controlled most effectively by this symbol that is important to humans, but not relevant to anyone or anything else, and not even relevant to all humans in the way a eugenist insists we must "respect" it.

Technology is the only basis for the state to be realized, and for any institution to have a meaningful representation - to be corporate and regarded as something other than a mere idea. To speak of a system just being suggests something different from what systems are in a world where political thought is the norm, where language is strongly informed by the political and spiritual thought that allows us to express much at all. It is the habit of the state and its leaders to claim technology as identical to the state, and that without the state and its wise and all-knowing leaders, technology would disappear and humans would revert to the blackest savagery. This idea is such malarkey and trivially disproven by any sense and independent thought, but so overpowering is this insidious idea of aristocracy that it is not admissible as anything other than "retarded". For as long as humans possessed language to command technology - and the command of technology sought for most of human existence has been the command of human bodies and labor, from which any technology would have arisen - there has been a trope of cajolers and various assholes to assert that technology and intelligence are proprietary and a monopoly held by some interest, some institution, some class, and ultimately some person. This conceit did not require any ritual to make it so, for many humans are inclined to claim knowledge and its products as their, absent any other claimant or any reason to believe sharing knowledge, technology, intelligence, or wealth is worthwhile or can be trusted not to backfire. Yet, the claims to this technology are not at first any property or something that could be appreciated as something from a genetic legacy. There is only possession or the manual control of technology, which includes command over the body and its faculties by the native integration and sense that we possess. Absent any reason to believe our body is compelled or cajoled from without, the integration of the body and all of its faculties is given to us for free, to do with as we please. This is the world's gift to us, and it did not ask for a single thing in return. It should dawn on many a mind that the unliving and the dead are far more generous and honest than anything living, including the animals who don't really have the concept of "lie" perfected as humans do. What sad condition of existence made this happen is something to pontificate in another time and place, but for the political question of the state, such questions are removed from the beast we have encountered. Whether we like it or not, political agents only answer to other political agents, and as soon as we are gripped with the general fear, we will have to operate in that artificial world, rather than the world in which technology can mean anything we value.

We might imagine technology developing without any "political" content informing it. By default, this is what would happen. Technology did not exist because of any imperative of states to make it. This is no less true today, when the state takes an active interest in managing science. Nothing the state does, even a technocratic state like those that came into being during the 20th century, can "make" technology by the dictates of the state, or make people conform to what the state declares they are. The state cannot even command people to do particular things. It could only somewhat command people to do not a number of things prescribed by its laws. Even here, the state never expected goodwill or fear of the law to make the subjects comply, and could never perfect machinery to make out of its subjects obedient and faithful citizens. Religion and spiritual authority fare no better than temporal authority in this task, so far as religious functions are imbued in the state or serve functions that take the place of institutional states. The one control states have on human behavior that exists by the declaration of the state is invocation of the general fear, rather than the fear of whatever armed body of men the state possesses and calls upon to enforce its laws. What this means is that the state either establishes as its founding principle the defense of the city, the society, the nation, or the world, in response to the general fear and the general fear only. It does not defend the actual people of society, or any particular thing in the state's domains. This general fear is not invoked by any ritual - the state, its holders and those under state dominion, can all be perfectly aware that the general fear existed without the state, because the general fear is appreciated by all regardless of the existence of any state. The state may declare in some statement that it is a temporary or ad hoc measure, like a provisional government to be replaced by something constituted "properly" in the minds of those who are to be ruled. The state may be held by officers who possess, strange as it may seem to humans and their history, a sense that the power of the state can be used to change the world in some way, or that those who hold states are obliged to govern wisely, justly, or towards some product. That is to say, it is entirely possible for states to enter the muck of productive activity, or labor, or the affairs of the lowest class, as a seemingly benevolent force, and there is no law of nature to suggest that the state would automatically turn its back on those promises. The subjects would be fools to believe any such promise and have no way to make the state honor such promises, but those that hold the state would do this not out of some sense of justice or rightness with the world, but because the holders of the state are behind the facade people living under the same general fear as the ruled. Even if the ruler were an abstracted deity or some ruling thought-form perpetuating itself, anything contesting the political world exists under the general fear. Abstractions dissolve before the fear just as easily, if not moreso, then flesh and blood men and women. Hiding the ruling elite behind a Big Brother or Christ or some idolatry and ritual doesn't grant to the symbol of power anything more than another thing in the world, beyond that which gave to the abstraction its meaning, history, and traits that would be appreciated just as anything else in the world would be appreciated for political purposes. The problem for the state is not that it is necessarily wicked, or given over to a particular ritual or a particular type of person or ruling force. Force, however it exists, can be anything suitable for the purpose of answering the general fear. The problem for the state and anyone looking to it for answers is that it can only exist because general fear is a recognized condition of life, and of existence. If we were unliving entities, or we didn't fear death at all or regard our existence as anything other than a happy accident, the general fear loses its moral authority, and the state - or any institution - finds it difficult to motivate any human behavior, for good or ill. States live and die off of their ability to respond to the general fear and nothing else, however they do that. Institutions generally will have to abide the same test to survive. Institutions that have nothing to do with the state, though, can exist for their purpose, as temporarily arrangements that need not be codified into law or spread as a thought-form fixed in any preferred state. The institutions that are most enduring are those whose function follows from some material basis that is recognized and difficult to escape. For example, human children need parents to be conceived, raised, and defended against a highly predatory society. This would make the family, or some institution for the rearing of children, a necessity. It does not mandate a particular idea or conceit about what families are "supposed" to be, but "the state" as a philosophical idea, or some legal fiction that violently takes the place of organic family relations, does not succeed in replacing the family. Very often, familial privileges and biases are reproduced in the state institutions, and favoritism continues along blood lines. Worse, the state's intervention into family life likely entrenches elite families and paralyzes any sense of class mobility. This has been the outcome of eugenics every time it has been tried, intended and glorified because maximizing the fear was chosen. The state is under no obligation to protect the people, and can choose to increase the presence of general fear as a strategy to cow the ruled into submission, and enforce lockstep discipline among their own ranks. All that is necessary for the state to continue is that its own thought-form is reconstituted, and that the institution can feed off enough flesh, knowledge, and intelligence to persist. It is not difficult then to envision the outcome of such a state being what we have long known to exist - an aristocracy living vampirically off of the state and all of society, without actually doing anything and having every incentive to intensify the fear so that more and more *juice* can be squeezed.^[9]

The models of the state and political society that aristocracy favors never produced a single thing, accomplished a single merit, and never did anything except live off of the general fear. We would regard these assholes as human failures and dispose of them, but the predatory behavior is not a monopoly of particular people, where some are wicked and everyone else is pure. The same vices of aristocracy were prevalent in the human race, in local theaters down to the internal committee of the person and the body. They are not so universal that we are beholden to it, but the same impulse that those who joined the most lurid ritual and cult was something all humans could adopt. Their recognition of the ritual and its significance, and their acceptance into the ritual and the cult, was what made them human rather than animal. It is this and this alone that creates the illusion of a clean transition between "animal" and "human" in the imagination of political thought. It is this which grants to aristocracy much of its privilege, beyond the wealth, merit, and souls it extracts and the ultimate "pleasure" of torture it revels in. Nothing suggested that particular bodies or genetic lineages had more right to do this than others, and the eugenic arguments common to Satanism and beliefs like it are so facile it's a wonder they are still recapitulated. If the claim to the ritual can be transformed from a spiritual and moral practice to property, and this property could be turned into a vehicle for further regression, it would allow the ritual potency and meaning it did not possess when it initiated. Humanity knew, and it was always guilty, but it did not know the full ramifications of its existence. No one could possibly know from a standpoint what would result thousands of years into the future, among people whose technology was very different from ours. It is this which must be revisited throughout this book and further books of this series. For the brief remainder of this chapter, though, I wish to write about the impulses in humanity that formed technology and the state that were not this. It should be noted throughout all of this writing that the general fear is something that all have to be aware of and account for, no matter how proximate its agents would be and regardless of any doubt or sin within oneself.

There is not much in humanity to recommend it above any other animal, or really to recommend it should continue existing at all. There are a few impulses that are more or less an inheritance from nature, that human designs cannot refine or improve upon, and usually the designs of technology are not to understand ourselves better, but to retard and degrade faculties that were already ours. The philosophy of enclosure, described in part in the previous book, has its origins not so much in political thought but in developed modes of production which made such a thing possible. Yet, its precursors would be evident in other values that humans hold, even in a savage state. At no point is the human soul whole or pure, inviolate and immortal in the way bad religion says to those it intends to lie to. Every serious inquiry into the soul suggests an entity which is highly malleable, for which any mistake is permanent and traceable in the historical record and in the accounts that never enter our perception of causal events. The general fear that political society entails, and awareness of that through language and the faculties of reason that humans adopt far more effectively than any animal, heightens awareness of the soul and anything that can corrupt it. To the naive, unaware of the games of human communciation and tricks every cajoler learns by heart, the symbols of ritual and the terror that birthed humanity are summoned from the shadows, for among the ritualistic tricks the cult learned early is to make open discussion of what this is haram, and in language only appreciable to technocratic society which can control information minutely, inadmissible. If the symbols of the ritual are treated with the disgust and contempt they deserve, the cult will make it clear that Oceania is at war with Eastasia, Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia, and there never was a Satan or any devil, you silly retard.

The tools of the state were never created "for the state" in the sense that the state as an institution possessed genius and initiative to make the world conform to it. Those who hold the state use the image and idols of the institution as their preferred guise, because it will shield their body and protect their face, but the tools, including all of the tools of war, were made outside of the state's guidance, for purposes that made sense to the inventor. Even if the wizard behind the curtain built his own tools "for the state", he forged them first of all for himself, and the state was another of his machines, albeit one that had to conform to specifications outside of his control.^[10] The tools that formed the state were not built as a response to the state, even when the officers and machinery of an enemy state were the obvious source of life's problems. States to be states never stand on their own - they occupy some social formation that existed prior to the state, and states can only act through social agents. The political agents are things that are only relevant if political agents are construed as a type of social agent, with all that entails, on top of specifically political matters. Nothing about politics exists outside of social agents that is meaningfully "political" in intent. This includes large parts of ourselves and what we do. We started life without regard for "the state" as an institution, and while we are aware of the political, the political served functions that were limited, and in many cases should remain limited. We did not need the personal to become political, and we did not need the vast majority of economic activity to become a political matter. If we did wish for political matters to affect economic life, we are not confined to a singular approach where imperious managers insist we have to follow this one idea, this one institution, which tells us what we are allowed to think. It would be in the interest of those who hold the state to not do this, because overbearing management has consequences beyond the immense cost in energy, labor, and anything worthwhile spent on it. The same laws that encourage the economic agent to mitigate overbearing management are even more true of political agents. The motives of political agents are very different, because what politics speaks to is not any want of our bodies or anything we would truly value. Where productive society is ultimately premised on moral behavior to be appreciated as something we would want, political society is dominated by the appearance of power and authority alone. Any genuine power and authority, and any machine which facilitates that, is something a political mind siphons from another sector of society which can do this, like the martial or productive sectors. The last thing the holders of the state wish to do is work in any capacity. This is not simply a matter of laziness or bad moral fiber, or a sentimental attachment to the pleasure of ruling. The entire purpose of a "state", or the arresting of the world's political matters, would be to feed the luxury of those who hold it. The state would feed itself and feed the holders like food handed in paradise, and this trope is reproduced in everything humanity and similar such agents would do with such an apparatus. It is nothing more than a get rich quick scheme, and somehow, despite all the braying about the state, to acknowledge this and bring it to its logical conclusion breaks kayfabe. Even if the state is questioned, the luxury is never questioned. That would be the same as presuming that the tools we built to simplify our labor or amplify it should be a liability.

There is a difference with the implements of labor, whatever the type. This is that all machines, technology, or ideas we construct for the purpose, are known to hold potential for both gain and loss. The machines we build can be turned against us, and as tool using animals, we know that we form a symbiotic relationship with those tools whether we like it or not. This is expected. For the state, for the political matter it portends to and the general fear that dominates it, such a symbiosis is fatal to the soul and to anything worthwhile in the apparatus. The fascist conception of the state - "all inside the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state" - is nothing less than an open call to plunder all within it, so that gangsters and thugs cannibalize all that was built and call this "civilization". This is a crude interpretation of fascism and does not adequately explain how it rose and what really animated it, but for many officers in such a state and many who enable its rise, there is nothing for it except a promise of cannibalizing as quickly as possible the public property that state society entailed. There can be no commons, no shared existence, and no cooperation, except on the term of overbearing managers. In short, fascism is the political form of the eugenic creed, and could only be sensical in world history once it has found its true believers, who can use various types of states and ideologies for the same purpose. The enablers who thought fascism existed for something else are like so much flotsam, given over wholly to the worst aristocracy this failed race can create. Eventually, the rot of the eugenic creed is too much even for a gutless fascist weasel, who either must give in to a wholly Satanic thrill particular to Galtonism, or wither like a sniveling faggot retard. But, that explanation is far ahead of the present moment. None of us built tools, or looked into political life, as an excuse for plunder. If we really wanted opulence or luxury, we can think of far better machines to create it than the state as it has existed, and the state could easily have facilitated a quality of life that allowed a productive base to do what it would have done, if institutions did as we designed them to do. The problem with this is not that "the state" is imbued with a unique malice, but that human beings chose this, and those who could capture the state saw that the most efficient route to power was to eliminate anything that isn't in service to power alone. That is a very particular claim and it devours everything in sight. It could only create fascism, after which the political thought leading to it would remain at a dead end, and such a thought would see it as necessary to extinguish anything novel or anything unsightly. There was no rule suggesting eugenics was "natural" because the political theories themselves were never natural, and continued to be question all the way up to the 20th century. Afterwards, the control of language and dialogue was imposed violently and could only herd people by an immense preponderance of violence, sadism, torture, and glorification thereof. It is not that political thought froze in place because nothing new was possible "by nature". To this day, so many spend considerable effort thinking of how it could be different, and the ruling interests can never say what this is or why anyone should go along with it, or why this is good. They can't even claim that what they produce is stable in the long term, without invoking a koan that subsumes all existence within their preferred models of reality. For fascism - eugenics - to win - it knew from the outset it must destroy the world for its cause, and claim a monopoly on this. That impulse was latent in humanity since its original sacrifice, and it can only attack flagrantly and with the maximal thrill all that stands in its path. Such a seed answers to no one, and eugenics is just the latest attempt, and will not be the last. Not one thing we built was truly for this purpose, or even something we built to protect against it. Much of what we built served operations that were valued in-of-themselves. If you're going to build a weapon like a firearm, it should not jam or misfire, and we have numerous metrics to suggest the effectiveness of a shot and the resilience of targets. The tools of production are all things we built in the first place because someone's life would be easier for whatever task they had in mind. The computer could automate management and eliminate this useless strata of human labor, and when the computer's potential is understood by those who understand philosophy, logic, and its operations, it would be an invention unlike any other in human history. It would have been matched in importance only by the harnessing of fire or agriculture, and the latter was not merely a matter of technological knowhow but a question of how to bring labor to toil in the fields, how to fortify villages and cities, and turn a society in primitive conditions into a society of antagonistic relations in close quarters. The state and the offices thereof, though, are tied to rituals and prestige and evocation of force that disallow such a view of the state as a machine in its own right. It must be made sacred and corporate, and the officers with the uniform fetishized in ways that we would never fetishize any other tool. The "commodity fetish" of Marx is really a projection of this fetish of the philosophical state, rather than any quality of money that would exist. Money as a tool has failed many times before, with whole currency schemes and banks collapsing, and everything a bank does must mitigate this risk. At no point do those who hold a commanding stake in finance operate with any illusions or fetishes about what money is. It is the pretenses of political power, often by people who did nothing but backstab to win prestige rather than anyone who built a productive thing, that create this sense, and it exists most of all for the graspers and cajolers rather than the province of the producers or those who must work with technology every day.

The influence of this political society and the general fear on technology, and technology's ability to influence political history, is vastly overstated. Science and technology do not in of themselves suggest any orientation or motor that "ought" to happen - something a novice philosopher should be able to figure out. The real innovation is to discover all of the means by which seeming inevitability of the ruling interests can be projected, and this itself is a type of technology valued by certain sorts. They exist in many strata of society, from the philosophers to grifters to con-men to hopeful idiots looking for something that will allow them to claw back a few things. It is not that this makes such actions "bad", or at least no more bad that a level humans have come to accept. One lesson to learn is that any such political co-option of technology requires exploiting someone who didn't have that interest at least for a little bit. The other lesson is that attempting to "make change" and enter political life misunderstands what you are doing and why the machine would work. Such an aim would taint a process of technological development that was never intended for anything but the general fear. We would build technology while acknowledging the general fear and politics and remain aware of the consequences, and likewise politicians would acknowledge their role and the consequences of their actions, if they were to govern with any interest in maintaining a productive economy they can feed from. There is not, intrinsically, any suggested objective to either side. Those who wanted to be left to their devices, for whom politics is an intrusion or something they regard as a necessity, are more concerned with those relations that are close to them and build technology for much more immediate matters. If the engineer engages in conceits of commanding the whole world or arresting society, he has moved far beyond anything technology would do very well and falls into a trap such conceits always will fall into. If a politician must manage technological life, it only has the tools of the state and politics - fear and overbearing management barking orders. It is the habit of the political class to view the ruled with studious contempt because the arrangement is very clear - those who rule are exploitative and vicious to the ruled, and no attempt to fuse the two can ever last without far too many compromises of either. Yet, this is the situation we live in, because antagonistic relationships in close quarters created for the rulers a competitive advantage over societies that did not do this, which compelled rival societies to adapt to those who adopted this technology. The adaptation is never purely mimicry, as is the conceit of aristocracy in all things. Rival societies and rival people are free to adopt strategies acknowledging the real situation, rather than reproduce forms, and everyone competent will consider this strategy. The philosophers themselves are very aware of this, and their pursuit of knowledge and theories of rule is itself a novel adaptation to their situation rather than the autistic screeching of the typical Galtonite.^[11] Usually precursors to sociology describe a society's progression in stages as a whole, but this was always understood to be a rough model requiring further inquiry, rather than a reduced model to abolish all understanding. The German ideology was the most visible culprit for destroying this nascent understanding and replacing it with a cargo cult understanding of history, and its rapid adoption by the new aristocracy was due to its effectiveness at stunting the brain and making anything new impossible.

What all of this means is that we were only able to be anything in life because it was allowed to happen. This "allowance" was not intrinsically given by another person, but in principle, the moment a malevolent actor decides to attack, the defender is responsible for the political outcome. This is the inverse of what science and an understanding of the world that is not political would see - that agents are always considered deliberate actors. Political agents are always deliberate actors, but the political agent's security is guaranteed only by its impunity to any responsibility for aggression. Defenders are always responsible, as the literal meaning of the word "responsible" should tell us. This impunity never exists by any natural law. Yet, simply by the lack of agents that are willing to attack, for reasons of their own, humans could develop in their own space, on their own power, and there was no good reason that this should be any different. The aggressors certainly never required any justification and scoff at the idea that there is any accountability for or a suitable response to for their actions. In reality, aggressive political acts will be noted and remembered, and an ill-timed attack is punished very harshly. The lesson in political consciousness is to never, ever lose, even for a moment, no matter how many ridiculous lies must be told to pretend that losing never happened. No one is without sin, except those who were able to establish authority to tell others to throw the first stone. He who throws the first stone will surely establish that he is without sin, and if anyone has a mind to say no, he has no shortage of stones or influence over people to kill anyone who disagrees. Such is the despotic nature of political, and this is a simple matter of logic and mathematics. Whether anyone likes it or thinks it is just or fair is completely irrelevant, and there has not been in any human society a serious faith in justice. It certainly is not found among philoosphers who laugh at the idea more than anyone. The laws in nature that operate like clockwork are very simple - that there will be an equal and opposite reaction in some way, and the truth always comes out, for the truth was always in the world alone. It is necessary for politics to rely above all on conspiracy, because the truth is that this question did not possess any of the temporal authority it claimed, and any temporal authority that the state or the political could claim was ultimately the result of technology human beings made for purposes apart from this. This did not necessitate that all were atomized individuals in the savage state of nature, because that claim could not be substantiated, and it did not necessitate any preferred or natural sociality that constituted the state. Just as institutions are no longer ours once they are formed, technology is no longer ours, and this is not because technology is a material thing or a kind of property. It is instead because technology as we understand it is a very local attempt to arrest the state of something, rather than something that exists for an ulterior motive in all cases. We built technology of any sort because this state of affairs is something we used to impose on the world, and this includes the technology of the human body and all it does. In that sense, technology has some "political" content, in that the machinery we use for institutions is much like that used for any other implement. But, the technology did not exist "for the state" or "against the state", and the state itself does not even do this. The status quo exists as the result of the deliberate acts of agents, and the state is something deliberately constructed, but like all tools, it escapes the command of users without continuous management. We might devise some system by which we imagine the technology operates automatically, but this is ultimately a conceit that requires a political approach, even if such an approach of contrary to what we would like technology to do. Direct command and management of the technology fares little better. What truly guides the machine and the institution is the symbiotic relationship made with its users, which are always flesh and blood persons before they are construed as an assembly of such entities in cooperation. This is not as simple as the user commanding the gun rather than the gun commanding the user, for command of the gun in a genuine sense requires us to accept what the existence of such a weapon means to everyone and everything we can imagine. This is a laborious effort for every machine we develop individually. It is therefore only the case that technology becomes a truly political matter when some general scheme of learning, intelligence, and education is promulgated. This occurs much earlier than imperious minds insist, even as they rewrite history to transpose the present onto the past. It is still a choice to make this general scheme of learning universal or something mandated by the state. The state can easily accept that its subjects are better off with degrees of independence, even though its claims clearly state that any such freedom is illusory. The state is not obligated to maximize the managerial torture or command out of some sense that this is the most good or most effective rule, and if it were, it would quickly encounter what any worker can tell you - management is a burden on anything the state would actually want. It is, however, a very effective form of job security for many interests in society, and it makes the completely useless aristocracy appear like the most useful class because such a narrative rests ultimately on a secured elite barking at the slaves to love their slavery - or else. The orders beneath aristocracy will, for reasons that become apparent, see correctly that such an arrangement cannot last forever and has a habit of promoting internecine conflict or excessive strain on their actually useful endeavors, and so would see such a situation as one that could be ameliorated and conducted for cheaper, better, and without aristocratic suet insisting on its opulence.

Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

Return to Table of Contents | Return to Chapter Start