Return to Table of Contents | Previous Chapter | Next Chapter

There is no "state of nature" ready made for us, but there is a political status quo that is suggested by the proposition that we can describe such a thing conceptually. Regardless of our concept of philosophy and metaphysics, there is a world which is necessary to speak of politics. Even if we wished to describe a philosophical view where there are "many worlds" or believe "there is no world", in politics there can only be one "world" that politics can pertain to. A "many worlds" interpretation of nature makes natural political mechanisms an impossibility or something highly arbitrary, and in any event, such worlds can collide, after which the illusion of self-contained bubbles breaks down. If they can't, then it is inappropriate to speak of any natural law. In my writing, I have seen the world as something prior to this political sense, and even if I were to suggest there were a creator God at the center of this, that God or any religion is very explicitly not a political matter and doesn't pretend to be with any seriousness. This view of the world is only realized in human agents who are already developed before such a view can be imposed on reality by thought. It is inappropriate to view the "circle of life" or any specializations of people as essential qualities of those humans. The reasons for division of labor in this regard are an economic question which has no direct bearing on the political. It is entirely possible for economic and political life to be conducted by human beings who have no need to essentialize themselves in any division of labor by class or institution. There is nothing in political institutions or institutions generally which mandates that this division of labor is necessary for politics or institutions to exist. The conceits of the "circle of life" are particular to living entities whose gateway and connection to the world is in the first instance knowledge as a process, which exists independently from any institution. We may dispute the theory of knowledge that is operative, but all of these "grand schemes" to divide society originate out of a conceit of knowledge in political agents, rather than any necessity of doing this or any advantage it grants. The only reason these grand models are proposed is because it is presumed that any political agent can and should know of their standing in this model, and know something of the roles other agents play and the functions they execute. All such models operate not on an essential quality of persons, but out of a sense that it is the functions of life and agents that are relevant to social order. It is often the case in political society that a human being would embody all stages in these models and all classes in some sense. The holy trinity unites the three commonly observed classes of human society - philosopher or priest, warrior or proprietor, and producer or laborer who are for their purposes conflated with each other. The lowest class in such models is consciously excluded from society, but in practice they exist as the reserve army of the producers or as hangers-on and functionaries that serve the other classes, completely at the mercy of an alien society. For reasons that will become clear, it is this lowest class that is the true fulcrum of human societies. Its standing and treatment tell everything there is to know about the intent of such a society, and despite the claim that this lowest class is always negated, it exists and possesses qualities of its own in spite of the society and the conceits of those above them. "The poor will always be with you."

There are five orientations, corresponding to the interests of life mentioned in the previous book of this series. While those interests are at first of life as a concept we hold for economic purposes, their political relevance does not stem from the needs of life. The direct needs of life are only served by one political interest - security. How this security is attained is not really a political question, but is always cognizant of the political situation and the entities which are agents, which are dominant, and which are safe to attack or ignore. If political agents considered their authority something other than knowledge, this "circle of life" would be seen for what it is, broken, and we could speak of politics in more appropriate terms. This happens every day in practice, for us to constituted in a way that allows us to navigate the world rather than be flotsam to be used and abused like property. Yet, the politicized "circle of life" has relevance because humans have believed in it and operated as if the core imperatives it entailed are legitimate. This is because knowledge and reason became spiritual authorities in their own right, rather than through an intermediary of religion and ritual which was only partially understood. Reason has reached an impasse in world history where it cannot proceed past the confines of hitherto existing political thought in any serious way. Every effort to do so would reassert, perhaps with some rearrangement of policies, a similar ordering of society, a reduced form of it, or a more elaborate form which still relies on a conceit of knowledge. That knowledge, however it is understood, devolves for political purposes into a familiar trinity - that of the spiritual, temporal, and personal authorities that can be recognized. The authority of morality proper, or the spirits and souls of the world, and the authority of symbols and the occult, are always maintained as mysteries, since to contemplate them too openly and in institutional states would lead to a condition of controlled insanity, where "all that is solid melts into air", or so it seems. This is not because the knowledge of such things is inherently "insane" or unknowable - their mechanisms have long been understood and acted upon - but because that knowledge would violate the necessary political integration of human beings, which always begins with their person and its represetation to the world as a pure, singular agent which cannot be violated in the way symbolism and meaning apart from knowledge as a process would suggest is commonplace. The reasons for the necessary unity of the political agent, which can only be at heart a social agent rooted in some substantive entity which can know things, will hopefully be clearer if they are not already known to the reader. I will describe, briefly, the orientations' typical belief in the root of political power - the concepts with the "-cracy" suffix - and their typical preference for political rule or office - the concepts with the "-archy" suffix. For the lowest class, neither of these will apply, because the lowest class does not have any preferred orientation. Its default stance is that this entire business of political power will always leave them with nothing, and anarchy or "anocracy" leave nothing but a vacuum which in any serious political thought is immediately filled by some other form of power or rule. I will though consider the lowest class's stance towards power and rule, for their attitudes affect all other concepts of government and must do so if we are to speak of politics as humans have hitherto known it. In its genesis, the orientations, which are only partially embodied in people, are seen by qualities they would consider virtuous and in line with their default conception of power and rule. All of this is particular to humans or creatures that are similar in that they develop communication to put these ideas into action, and so we would mostly leave behind the politics of anything else or the peculiar politics of institutions and bureaucracies that interact not in the way humans would, but as machines grinding against each other and the world in ways that are very alien to our native sense of the political, and would not be described as the sum of the politics of living animals with communication and concepts of politics acted on in their mere persons.

Political agents rise not as we would like them to, but as what they are. Judgement of political sin is irrelevant regardless of their origin. Whatever constitutes them is what political society has to reckon with, and this is in the end a matter of facts that will eventually be accepted, whether those facts are ever brought to light or enter the annals of official history. This assertion of what people are can only be reconstructed after the fact for us, but we would assert there is a past that was much like the present, and that we recall what we were and where we came from. That assertion has no bearing whatsoever on political reality. It didn't matter if we somehow found an ancient monolith granting supreme wisdom, wealth, abundance, and all of the gifts Saturn could offer. Such an event would appear as some freak accident, until we ask why monoliths are buried and why they do what they do. There was no "right" or "justice" or anything to suggest that such an event was anything prophesized beforehand with any great accuracy, and if we were to proclaim such a prophecy and foresight, the prophets of the world have a way of speculating or receiving whatever visions, and we make of that what we will. Politically, any future events or potentials are nothing more than IOUs, and to bank those IOUs and treat them as if they were political currency is a dangerous scam that has no basis in nature or any political right. Without regular exchange of information, those IOUs can't even exist, and no such information is baked into nature ready-made for us. We cannot at first make the presumption that there is a political future. Absent any moral force and intent, the political world appears as a sequence of disjointed events without rhyme or reason, where one day a man is king and the next he is a pauper, only to rise again the next.^[1] It would seem terrible to the sentiments of those in orderly state societies, but to those who have to live like this, it appears like another day, and it has long been a habit of state societies to increase this sense of disorder and disjointed events specifically to occult the activities of rule.

This condition of politics is only given the description of "nasty, brutish, and short" when instigations are presumed to arise from the shadows, as if they were "just there" from entities which would have possessed at the least labor to make real any such malice. It is not that malice of a lower sort wouldn't be common in such a world, but that there is no theory of sustaining malice or any great moral purpose. The default state, seen among many animals, is a meager and boring existence. There just isn't much "there" there to life or the practices of someone without any more purpose than their own sustenance and security, and whatever relations made sense to them for reasons that weren't political.

What really happens is that this is the world in which we have successfully obviated the need of "politics", so that the agents can acquire the things they wanted in the first place. These may be moral objectives, which imply labor is a necessary expenditure which must be drawn from a world outside of society. The politics of animal behavior are not very complex or interesting, and never present the sort of existential dread that deliberate actors with language and a theory present. Nothing about language and all of our knowledge suggests that we "have" to make the world a political matter, or that because malice is possible, it is inevitable. Far from it, reasoning and an instinct within us recognizes evil even when a name for it is lacking, and the world has told us that many things don't work if our native sense did not figure it out. We can persist in evil for no particular reason, but that would be pointless and, without fuel and motives that feed such a beast and reinforce it by conditioning subjects under command and control, it would only be able to operate locally. The world, and "life", does not care about our feelings and purpose one way or the other. We as humans, like anything else in the world, exist entirely on the world's terms, and the most basic understanding of ourselves arises first because we regard there is a world where anything we can do is relevant. A knowing entity would natively be connected to this sense of the world simply by existing, by whatever tools are available to it. It is therefore the tendency of the lowest class, with knowledge that they came from the muck and aren't anything special, to avoid conflict that doesn't serve some really important purpose. This is not so much a matter of indolence, although in highly predatory societies like humanity, it appears as this. It is an observation that is simple to us - that there is no real point to this task, if not for other entities and their bullshit. We could have just not done this, or chose to speak to each other in a way where we're not cannibalizing each other, so we live out what life there is, without any regard to anything other than life. What we would do is really a matter that has nothing to do with politics, a spiritual authority telling us what to do, or any moral orientation labor would entail. It wouldn't be about some impulse or will that is "just-there". We would instead be able to ask the question that allowed us to even contemplate the world or the political in the first place - "why are we here". Having seen enough, we know what we are not here to do, but because we are the lowest class, we don't get to say that in this society. We can only say this to ourselves, for what good that does. At this point where I am writing, we have seen enough. Humanity is irredeemable, and the weight of history has made that clear time and time again, every time we make the mistake of believing that it could be different. All illusions that it would be any different have dispersed. They are no longer credible, and soon enough the last embers of the Great Lie will cool. Attempts will be made to lie, lie, lie, as is the habit of this failed human race, but it will be for not. Too much has been seen, and we are not as stupid as their theories of politics, society, and knowledge require us to be. The only appropriate response of the lowest class in such a world, and this will be true even if eugenics were defeated, is to reject in total the entire charade we are made to endure, and tolerate the intolerable. When we have seen enough, we learn that there is no "other system" or "other world". Humanity, for better or worse, is all there is, and anything truly inhuman would likely not be able to or interested in communicating with us. Humans, for a variety of reasons, are too bizarre and strange in the world to be related to. We can hardly relate to each other, so why would aliens regard us with any status whatsoever? Attempts to elevate a "transhuman" race, always a favorite of the imperial religion for reasons we will see shortly, are folly. The elite of the elite are, for all of their pretensions, nothing different from the rest of us scum. Their governing idea and the only way in which an elite can be an elite relies on a history that acknowledges, in some way, that politics came from the muck, and there it shall remain until the end of time. The solutions to life, society, and what we would really want are not political ones or answers a guru can violently impose or chant as koans. There are not, strictly speaking, solutions in the technical language of the philosopher to anything we are here to do. We may know something about why we are here, but that will never be something we are told to be or commanded to be. Nothing I write will tell anyone reading what they're supposed to believe. I can write the truth, or at least my account of this beast I have seen, and readers can make of that what they can. I do not have any monopoly, and I have said from the start that I resent "total systems" that purport to arrest knowledge in such a crass and stupid manner as Germanic philosophy and its institutions did.

From this perspective where the lowest reside, there is nothing but questions, and answers lead to more questions. Almost axiomatically, human beings will ask questions because this is necessary to navigate a world that is opposed to our existence, rather than because of an inner impulse or "unknowable" condition of Being that presses into the world. This is what intelligence must do to learn anything, which makes technology and any advanced application of labor possible. It is here where the lowest class receives the gospel that they always knew:

We are not stupid. We are not blind. We are not devoid of moral intent, absolutely depraved, or knowledge. We are not depraved for lacking social proof or some degree from a guru which entited them and their enablers to hold a knife at our throats. We didn't "do" anything to warrant such treatment, and everything aristocracy and its enablers has done emphasizes that they only ever considered crimes of Being to be relevant. We can, absent anyone telling us no, do whatever we will with the faculties available to us. This is not a spark of "unknowable and unlimited" freedom, as the Germanic conceit of "freedom" shouts in retarded fashion. This is simply a fact of what it meant for someone to be constituted with any process that is knowing. If we are knowing entities, we possess the ability to grasp rational discourse and symbolic language, however we do. The conceit of this aristocracy, and this is a conceit of aristocracy rather than the technocrats or an obsession with intelligence alone, is that "rational agents" are passed through a filter of education that has nothing to do with rationality, knowledge, truth, or anything we would care about. Aristocracy, for reasons of their own, disdain genuine rationality and always disregard its limitations, except in a dual system of thought that they regard as inferior where they temporarly accede to truth. The imperfections of human beings are a feature of their existence. There is no "perfect intelligence", "perfect mind", or anything of the sort that is always the province of aristocracy. There is intelligence and purpose, and we do not have to be as we were conceived and certainly not as we were engineered to be by gurus, cajolers, and influencers. All of the qualities claimed by others are not something we are denied because of some eugenic rule insisting they were proprietary. We would question whether those qualities were ever worth anything, and the German ideology does not allow that question to ever be admissible. But, in principle, all that another orientation of politics would seek is something the lowest class can see as what it is, and the lowest class has no entanglements or interests that would fetter its judgement about what it wants. Those with nothing to lose will do desperate things because there comes a point where the consequence of more torture means nothing more than, once again, the gods spreading the cheeks to ram cock in ass. Absent an active source of torture, there isn't a cock rammed in ass at all, and whatever happened in the past and whatever damage it did, there would be a life beyond that. This might run contrary to a sense we acquire early, where actions have lifelong consequences and we are mortal. What is broken is not easily reassembled. In principle, though, there is no law of nature mandating any historical progress or making processes "irreversible" mathematically. Processes in nature are always understood causally, rather than in models that did not regard causality. If we described events without causality, it would be very difficult for our language and sense to say the least, and we would be left with metaphors or stories removed from that which is constituted like we are. But, "we" are not defined by a fixed notion of progress in that way, where we are imagined to be moved by the hobgoblins of imperial philosophy, and the imperial philosophers invent a pseudo-mathematical concept about reversible processes which has no bearing on anything real. You can smell the imperial cope in such statements, which elide completely what is being "reversed" and make moral associations with "order" and "chaos" that are completely insane and retarded. For example, the common example of dropping an egg to create "chaos" and the formation of the egg as "order" relies on arresting in the mind the concept of life, and this is purely an imperial religious shibboleth, where they actually cannot answer the riddle of the chicken and the egg. Fabian education screams the lie, lie, lie at the lowest class to remind them that the world will never be different, and must inject itself the moment any of us dare to reassemble knowledge independently from them. The German ideology perfected for society what the imperial religion imposed by extreme and personal violence into the most basic processing of information, which it then sought to essentialize and make "natural" by decree alone. To say this basic fact is treated like some precious wisdom that can only be enjoyed by a few. To impose this requires a concept of education that dominates the society and persists by incessant ritual sacrifice and the thrill of torture. That only can happen once this political "circle of life" is viewed at its apex, and it is not the knowledge that aristocrats hold, but the assertion that all that is not their received wisdom is "retarded" and inadmissible. So, any time we suggest anything to refute the lie, or ignore the lie and assemble truth with regards to a world where aristocracy did not decide the ruling ideas, the terror must be activated, and this permeates the society. It is this, rather than any economic or technological reason, that allowed the division of labor into social classes. Otherwise, we would see that social classes that can only be maintained by habitual lying, extreme violence, and an endless kayfabe enforced by open death threats, have no real purpose and never did, and had nothing to do with the productive economy that aristocracy co-opted.

It is this above all that made the political "circle of life" possible as anything other than a curiosity. Had we continued on without regard for this division of classes, which could only be mandated by institutions, it would not occur to us that this education is worth anything. The purposes of education are something further described in the next chapter, for it is not purely the province of aristocracy but of its enablers and the rot of the human race. Without education, the filtration of these orientations into distinct classes can never happen. Human beings remain trapped in the muck, and all of their labors, which were always theirs regardless of the muck, do not change this one bit. Above all, the aim of education is to habituate the losers, who are the majority of humanity in nearly every case, to accept the muck as their home, and that it will never be any different, no matter how high they rise. The highest aristocrat on some level embraces this, because he is the philosopher-king of the trash heap and this dubious honor is as good as a member of a failed race, made a Satanic race by the philosopher's efforts, can ever manage. We could, of course, reject the notion that a "race" has any political meaning, but if we do this, we are left with individuals and their associations, and those associations include institutions which are a product of technology. It would not change that politically, there is nothing to distinguish political agents or their institutions without the moral initiative of labor proper. We could speak of labor as a merely amoral force or something to be commanded and pushed, but this cannot allow for any political sense that would make a distinction of classes worthwhile or respectable by any means other than a threat. If the world is to be nothing but interminable struggle and threat, we would see quickly that such a world is not worth living in, and either turn away from the world - which means we content ourselves with the muck of this existence and never believe it could be different in this limited purview, and that we would resign ourselves to the worst of all worlds and the machinery of institutions is unfettered by any initiative or hope we would have had - or the damned turned to desperate and futile measures, not really living in the proper sense, to rail against the struggle and ultimately lose to the former. There would be, in the aristocratic mind, the masters and the slaves, and there could be nothing beyond this until one devours the other - until the Absolute is attained, the primordial and demonic light is restored, at which point the entire game was shown to be a lie, and can be rearranged as the philosopher-king imagines in his delusions. No such dialectic is actually playing out at a cosmic scale, or over the entirety of the political. The political only exists in reality so far as agents can meet each other in real interactions, or as a potential that we would temporarily acknowledge as real enough to affect our interpersonal behavior or the conduct of ourselves in the world. There is at first no sense of masters or slaves or any good reason why such a relation would be sustainable. The first assumption someone might hold, if they did not thoroughly internalize such an institution, is why the slave doesn't simply find a weapon to stab the masters as soon as possible, and spend all of its efforts sabotaging the masters' delusions of command. The soul of committed vengeance of the damned, which we hold to be self-evident, would make such an end preferable to living for the master. A master may imagine himself as a benign force carrying out a social function, just as a manager goes home to his family and may not have any personal malice towards the servile workers. A slave might not care about this arrangement, knowing what it is. It is instead the assertion that the slave relation is morally right that must be violently defended, rather than the institution itself "just existing". Because no slavery is ever passively enforced, every slavery entails the possibility of escape, or the drift of slaves into indolence where they no longer do what the master wants, or cannot continue to do the master's bidding because the master neglected even the minimum that allowed for life to continue. Any institution calling itself "the state" and asserting a preferred political ordering, for whatever reason, can only do so actively. If nature refuses to "follow the law", the institution cannot adjust its findings. That would violate its pretensions of the state, and upset the finely tuned machine that protects any privilege the institution provides.

Where does power rise here? The conceit of aristocracy is that power comes down from the top, and the false counter-argument aristocracy provides to the inferiors is that power inexplicably rises to make the state "just-so" constituted. This is just a recreation of a conceit no one asked for or needed, and speaks nothing of power in the genuine sense. It is offered primarily to destroy democracy, which is really the interest of labor and the working class, but it can only destroy democracy by substituting the genuine origin of such a condition with a self-serving narrative, usually from the pissants of the aristocracy. The version of "democracy", recreated in aristocracy's preferred vision, always declares democracy is a concept of weaklings rising to power unfairly and for no real reason, which always leaves out any reason why we should accept this fait accompli of vampiric perverts. The lowest class has no interest in democracy as such, nor does it have any interest in demarchy, which is very different conceptually. The reasons why will become apparent when the virtues and drawbacks of both are considered, and both belong to different conceptions of what should be primary or dominant in human society. But, all of the consequences of democracy that work against the lowest class are less relevant than a simple fact. That is that there is no "us", and there won't be a concept of "us" until demarchy is considered a possibility. The associations of people are always between individuals and are definite things, and they are most definitely not equal relationships. Even if political agents were equal in social rank, most relations between people in society are unequal, and friendship is never taken for granted. A common strategy of the lowest class or outcasts is to simply avoid friendships or entanglements, because avoiding people tends to be the best way to continue living. This would preclude democracy being a concept of power with great currency, as if it were just supposed to have some value by arithmetic. None of the other agents can be intrinsically trusted or even are interested in that trust, beyond a minimum of being left alone. Yet, there is power over itself, and power to influence direct relations that are valued by the agent, which form social networks that are understood by us just as anyone else would understand them. It is necessary for any occulting of society and political domination to sever forever this connection of the lowest class to any other agent, and then to its own body. This is a political demand that may be in force, but it is not guaranteed by any law of nature, and nothing stops the lowest of us from violating the lockout of this information. The default attitude towards political power is that the general fear is the first condition to regard, before any other possibility can happen. If security is insufficient to counteract known agents actively working against you, this liability will consume any political power or any power of the agent to live their life.

There is not any concept of "sublating" yourself as a political agent. Even if you were the most abject mind controlled slave-cattle, the moment the active control of an agent has left, that agent can only continue on its own power. The "transformation" of the agent is illusory without suggesting a mental trick or "contradiction" is internalized. This contradiction is not so much a rational thing with force of its own, but a contraption installed by considerable torture which represents the master's will pressing the nerve of power. Submission is never wholly submission, whatever the terms of the contract. There could only be fusion of the two agents into one mind, which has nothing to do with political conceits which would have been a historical fact, or total discorporation of one agent by another - that is, not merely killing it, but damning its memory and vaporizing its existence. The ghosts of nations slain in conquest and the so-called glory of war linger long after they are gone, even if their names are forgotten. Their loss is a historical fact that can be independently ascertained, however vaguely known to the present, to answer a question of why we are here and why the world is as it is. Those who can claim they can purify a land or a race commit to not just lying forever, but a type of faggotry which appeals to the lizard brain and a perverse instinct that gives rise to humanity's contempt of faggotry itself. It is race-faggotry and faggotry defined, reliant on ever-increasing doses of sexual rot to convince the pervert that he is winning, winning, winning, until he has lost and he's directed towards an appropriate scapegoat. The sad history of the German nation and its efforts to promote such an ideology tell us about this faggotry and its consequences.

By default, the question of "rule" is irrelevant without anything to suggest that "rule" is worthwhile. So far as there is any orientation towards power or rule, the most apt orientation is "autocracy". "Autarky" is conflated with this and given a sinister association because of the dominance of trading empires. But, this autocracy has little to do with "power" in the political sense, and instead suggests self-rule and free association in the genuine and naive sense that someone might believe if they are pressed upon or wished the world were decent. It is very simple for someone without fetters to see correctly that all of the true forms of government are despotic and autocratic, and any other form is a necessary development from this root. Without autocracy, nothing else is possible. The wellspring of autocracy is nothing more than existence itself. No spiritual authority mandates this beyond that which a political agent recognizes for whatever purpose. It is of course possible to imagine a society of political agents where all are treated as equal, and they decide by dialogue the best course of action for the polity and each of its members, without the typical interests of politics or the general fear being anything more than a ghost in the distance. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with believing that this is possible. We could all look to each other, see that hitherto existing political society has been purely ruinous, and ask if this is really what we want to do. The one persistent problem with this is that human beings engage in labor, acquire technology, form institutions, and in all cases, these things - and the men and women who bring those phenomena into existence - have a sense of merit, sentiment, and strength which are in the final assessment a fact all in the society agree upon. Some are stronger than others, some calm in temperament, and different people desire different things in society for good or ill. It is not a natural law that self-interest maps entirely to selfishness or pigheaded conceits humans hold, or that self-interest is what humans would follow universally, or that self-interest is not accomplished better by collective action, where the human mind and sense of self would over time become something alien to our present sense of ourselves.^[2] It does not follow that any merit has political relevance, because we are left with the terrible question of what merit is relevant for politics. Each orientation suggests a few things are generally meritorious, and these meet in struggle. But, at the apex of society are not those who "win" the struggle for merit, but those who have pit human against human - aristocracy, whose name is definitionally "the best". That the only thing they are the best at is making others suffer is only acknowledged in passing, because in the final analysis, that is the "merit" an aristocracy believes in, rather than anything anyone else would find useful. All exists for suffering, and this is an aristocratic conceit alone. The lowest class has the most sober assessment of this, because we bear the brunt of humiliation. At this early stage though, there is no distinction. The impulse of aristocracy imbues everything and everyone, and it did not arise from any beginning that is found here, nor in any level until the apex of society is reached. It emerged anew for reasons of its own, as we will see.

If we disregarded labor altogether, nothing further is really possible. Politics would be viewed entirely from a view of the lowest class and people of that mindset, whether the ideas are their own or the lowest class receives an idea as if "from on high" that they are not allowed to speak of or acknowledge. It is only through labor that any concept of active politics can be considered. Without this, politics appears as either a story written by thought leaders which pushes the world to conform to it without any rhyme or reason, or as evolutionary happenstance that doesn't serve any purpose other than to say something happens. But, labor properly understood is no mere manifestation of natural forces, and it is not a beast of burden commanded by a distant mind. We are what we do, and the mind itself is a result of labors that suggested it would be oriented towards learning particular things that were morally valued for some reason. To speak of the mind's "aimless development" is to not speak of labor being possible in the sense that labor would be something that could be commanded, or for labor to be valued as anything other than a fact of no consequence. The political matter relies on consequences to be anything more than a listing of political facts with no bearing outside of an echo chamber where delusions of grand control are entertained. There is no real politics without genuine and meaningful action of the agents in a world outside of society and the political. If the labor is contained within "political" or "social" matters, both of which are different spheres of activity, it ceases to be labor in the sense that such a thing is meaningful to us, or any concept of labor in society that would be commanded. It would instead be a contract of no value, and all of the moral qualities of labor, for good or ill, are subsumed into technology, legal fictions, and the almighty contract which negates everything the laborer would have wanted. This will in the end eliminate the commander of labor and those judged of merit who enforce laws or edicts, for their work is itself labor that has to regard a world, rather than a self-contained "total system" apart from the world. If the commander, manager, warlord, and high aristocrat has to stoop to the level of labor, they would acknowledge that they don't possess any genuine distinction. All laborers have one distinction - they are not the lowest class. The lowest class as a rule has no moral standing as "labor" because all such activity has been negated. This is obviously not a natural state of affairs, but one that would have to be actively enforced, and it is not enforced by simply judging that one labor is morally valuable and another is not and therefore its value is null. The morally valuable labor is obligated to regard a general status quo to make this assertion real. It is this which forms the foundation of the state, all institutions, as something more than a statement that politics happens or there is a status quo. All institutions are built by labor, but labor itself has no preferred forms that suppose those institutions were naturally ordained by some structure or genetic material. Labor is generated by bodies which are capable of it, which includes any living entity with an impulse to act on its own power and with volition. This excludes easily entities which do not think at all in any sense we consider knowledge to be a real process, and it would mean that from the perspective of labor, inanimate objects are not political agents - that is, corporations and machines are not citizens of a democratic society and cannot be if democracy is to be a meaningful condition, and conversely, a society which regards corporate personhood must consider such a thing as inimical to democracy. This is very clearly not the ruling of the law we have, where corporations are persons and labor has no intrinsic political rights regarded by law. It is not merely a matter of the law refusing to acknowledge this. The law itself, for reasons that will become apparent, can never assert a "natural right of labor" or even an enforcable "labor right" or "human right" that conforms to the view that labor would possess. Labor itself can assert its existence regardless of any law, but to arrest that in a grand constitutional declaration is a matter of legal institutions which are at heart "dead". The labor of the lawyer, judge, and officers of the court would not be recognizably "law" if it asserted arbitrarily that labor itself was the extent of the law, because no consistent ruling would be possible. It would instead view the law as a morass of struggling spirits, and in the setting of a court or an institution where procedures are followed, all law and all due process can in principle be stalled by incessant lawfare. There is nothing in labor that would naturally or institutionally block this lawfare, without submitting to something else in the circle of life. This usually means the latter three spheres which are understood by conventional politics as dominant - the producers, the warriors, and the aristocracy which usually claims spiritual authority and religion or its form of knowledge and separates itself from the former two. The alternative for labor's subordination to law is its subordination to the lowest class - which would mean all labors lack any moral value. It is the equivocation of labor to the lowest class which is at the center of all possible exploitation. Without the threat of nullifying labor while regarding the agent as still alive in some sense, the ruling order would have to bargain with labor as is to maintain this state of affairs, and labor would be able to refuse to the bitter end to comply with many dictates of the ruling system. This is not the only way in which an oppressive society can be maintained, but if the appeal is made directly to labor, the ruling elite can only work through the vices of laborers, or work through the aspects of the laborers that are shared with the ruling order. In principle, laborers to be free to conduct their work in political society would not be forbidden from becoming technocratic or bourgeois producers, warriors, or priests, and all of those functions are labors of their own. If labor followed inclinations for its own security, and recognized the trap of class society, it would arrive at a concept of the political very different from either of these sordid interpretations that have been offered to it.

There are many suppositions sold about the ideal conditions for labor, its fundamental moral goodness or badness, its world-historical mission, and so on, and all of these are far afield from how power would actually have risen "from below". We should bear in mind that labor is a function, and in humans this was always implied to arise from developed entities with a sense of themselves for their actions to be self-directed labor and generally alienable. Laborers at a base level do what they do not for political purposes or any purpose we regard, but because they considered their actions to be worth something. If the labor is compelled by threats and pressing the nerve of power, it ceases to be labor - labor is abolished and replaced with a beast of burden in chains. Out of this arises a most basic need of labor - security. When labor sees the political, he sees what George Carlin, famous American comedian, tells them to see. It's a big club. The question, which Carlin supplies the answer to, is whether you as a laborer are in that club or out of it. Absent any formal definition of the institution, the "club" is not what it seems, but it most definitely exists. Labor which is secure enough to continue existing, even as slaves, would be in the club in some sense. That is the "price of civilization" that was imposed from on high. Labor which is insecure and constantly pressed upon, to the point where they have no claim to govern their body and their labor is an entirely amoral beast, is out of the club and must be made starkly aware of that for the situation to continue. At the start, though, all of this is just labor - moral intents of social agents - operating in the world. In a political view, this may be viewed in total, and human beings possess a keen sense for this that can be manipulated, distorted, cajoled, and turned against them. Labor is blind to developed, institutional reasoning of a political sort, because the political apparatus is designed to filter the population. The first call of any institution and any state is to define who is in and who is out, and this is never ambiguous. Who is "in" has the security to continue existing, and those who are "out" are fair game for all sacrifices and have no moral independence to act at all. Labor is "out" only once it has been dismissed. This dismissal is never a natural fact, for if someone is out of the club, they have no reason to go along with the farce that political society is anything other than alien, yet they persist in the world that existed before the politial. Those who are "out" have no choice but to bend the institutions or break them. To do otherwise means death. However doomed that mission is - for it is impossible to make established defensive institutions accept you or like you - the damned who are "out" will act as if the "in" group is an enemy, because the "in" group, no matter how benign, will always be an enemy. This is not a matter of friendship in the political sense, but the stated claims of those who have negated the outcast for moral reasons. Promises of false friendship are common in political society, glorified and part of the ritual of educational shaming to mark those who are "out". The Satanic laughter of leading on the failed is typical of this filthy race called humanity. In a better world, such laughter would not exist - but if the ritual mockery and humiliation ever ended, so too would the human race. This moral dread is felt by all who are valid, no matter what they may think about the matter, for it is a historical fact that we cannot deny forever. This is a problem for humans and humans alone. We who are born as humans do not get to "opt out" of humanity, even if we're declared retarded animals. The hatred of humanity for those it ritually sacrifices is something entirely different than its hatred for the world, for the animals, or anything else. Hate. Hate. HATE. This is their genesis. The hatred of the damned for this situation is not terribly relevant or morally worth anything, but there is no virtue or shame in hating a Satanic race. It is merely what it is, and a Satanic race despises above all the transgression of their ancient rite, no matter how ruinous the rites are to anything worth keeping. No pretense that it was ever different can hold for long. If humanity wished for something to exist other than hate, it would have to actively work for it, against their genesis and against its history of abuses. And so, that is an implied aim of labor, which has yet to be sorted into the groups selected to live and selected to die. For labor to live and enjoy security, it must act against the genesis of the human race, which it has always known because the prevalence of sacrifice throughout the race and every nation is established. All who labor do so with regard to that general fear, in addition to the threat posed by the natural world, existing technology and institutions, and their internecine rivalries carried out for whatever reasons they might possess. Those who do not labor do not really need to regard the general fear as anything other than a vague menace, until that menace is made corporeal and a force which is something other than "political" in its implications. For the lowest class, the force that most call "politics" is only present when politics comes for them, by whatever vehicle it uses - and this vehicle is most often assumed to be violence because this serves the proprietors and soldiers, but the state has many vehicles other than violence to project force. For labor to be free, it must assess the menace in terms that it can appreciate, and never reduce it to some retarded koans provided by influencers and cajolers. Labor must do that while navigating a real world and existing institutions, existing systems, which do not intrinsically have any regard for this general fear, and labor itself was not born to serve this general fear, the ritual, or anything else.

This "contradiction" is not really a contradiction if we reject the ruling political conceits and see democracy and oligarchy for what they are. It would seem odd that the inclinations of labor are both for oligarchy - the shared rule of a group - and democracy - the distribution of power without regard to entrenched privileges and favoring autonomy of the agents to act. The difficulty of this is a failed understanding of "rule" which bypasses the mental faculties, such that a political elite - the ruling or political class - is always a minority and always is presumed to be favored and morally superior so that their rule is an entitlement.^[3] Tracking of the ruled for qualities and merits, real or dubious, would be among the tasks of rule itself, for the basis of political elites in the first place - and the proper basis for all class and institutional distinctions - is education which is entirely concerned with tracking humans like livestock and shaping them into subjects by the dictates of the general fear. Without anything yet that would judge who is the "ruled", a political elite forms by a seeming conspiracy of equals. Oligarchy appears so frequently in human society because its roots are in conspiracy, which humans engage in with far greater enthusiasm than the mundane business of polite society. It is hardly an "iron law", for the oligarchy is not immediately something that subsumes all that exists. It is rather to say that humans view political rule as oligarchic in the main, and that once humans engage in labor - productive or otherwise - they are beholden to one oligarchy against all others. The "masters" we serve at first are not particular persons or ideas, but a sense of what rules and what does not - who is in and who is not. This sense precedes anything we would regard as friendship, which always had to operate with definite persons or entities rather than vague generalities or aspersions. The reasons for oligarchy are not purely a matter of fear or a sense in humans that just naturally wanted this, but for the existence of human beings in reality, oligarchy as an impulse emerged long before we had a serious political thought, and it appeared to us as a state of affairs established by time we were old enough to know what society was. The greatest sign that someone is truly out is to tell them that there is no oligarchy, just as they tell the stupid that there is no devil, and insist that the stupid believe in Santa Claus long after they're supposed to "figure it out for themselves". Such is the habit of infantilization standard to secret societies and the Satanic retards who populate them. There is no reason to believe that there is "one ruler" or a shared sense of rule in the whole of society that is vaguely defined. It makes natural sense to believe that political rule would be established by groups with the means to impose it, for their own interest. These groups do not at first form any institution or "class", and do not need to conform to any fixed interest. All that is necessary is that they can collude and their moral orientation aligns towards something. That is to say, oligarchies have some reason for being what they are, rather than "just being". Even if the objective is for a disjointed group of people to collude against those who are outside of the oligarchy for the purpose of ruling alone, there is something that allows this to continue and work without the oligarchy turning on each other. The members of an oligarchy have to accept each other, gladhand, and do the usual schmoozing we expect. This is a quality of oligarchy rather than democracy, demarchy, or an effort to climb meritoracy or please monarchy. For every other concept of rule, the schmoozing and fake compliments would be highly contrary to the arrangement, including the aristocracy's habits. For aristocracy, its manipulation of oligarchy is purely their effort to undermine democratic elements of their society. Among each other, aristocrats have a sense of what they really hold and do not need such a program of lying, and if the lies begin, aristocracy calculated them to maximize the thrill of rejection. It could do nothing else. For oligarchy, the habits of schmoozing and mutual abasement are something that stems from moral sentiments that were never rational. It makes perfect sense for people to interact with each other to ensure that everyone in the oligarchy is still cool, because humans often run on their sense of another's virtue or moral intent rather than any reasoned argument why someone should be their friend. The sense for this is particular for human interactions to be meaningful and understood. On some level, members of an oligarchy want to be there, and would feel on some level that this is either good or better than the alternatives. The other types of rule do not so much "emerge from oligarchy" as if it were the root of political rule. It is rather that given a sense of their environment, agents will sense such a thing because it would make sense for political agents to morally align in some way towards a shared cause. There is no rule that suggests this sharing is a singular proposition of what "must" rule, or that an oligarchy's effective power is little outside of their echo chamber and things their agents directly control. The basic concept of politics is that agents would make that control only over what they can control with the tools known to be available to them. This precludes "general rule" by oligarchy alone. For various reasons, oligarchy would without attention given to its maintenance face obvious rivals from every other interest, basis for political power, and competing concepts of rule. Aristocracy prefers oligarchy not for its own sake, but because oligarchy is a useful front to present to a mass population so that it can be subdued. For its own sake, oligarchy offers little except mutual distrust and paranoia, for it is not united by anything other than an empty idea or totem - a "Big Brother" or some other figure which is supposed to be the spiritual and moral center of a type of rule that is by nature rife with backstabbing and oneupmanship. Why does oligarchy do this? The first is that nothing substantive would naturally unite them. Moral sentiments may be something that humans value and rely on to establish trust in a low-trust situation, but they do not last long and the first malevolent actor can easily disrupt an oligarchy that lacks defenses against every wrecking tactic known to man, which mankind figured out early and spent exorbitant effort perfecting up to this day. The second is that an oligarchy forms by sensing who is out and treating them with a visceral disgust and contempt, and this is undeniable to those who experience it every day. Neither those who are "in" and those who are "out" forget what that means, even if alliances shift and new friends come and go inside the club.

Why this is tolerated at all is due to what labor would find most relevant to politics - where political power arises. Rule without substance, technology, property, and the heightened conceits of aristocracy is not worth much. In many cases, "rule" is a burden, because it implies a responsibility to other agents if someone wishes to continue ruling, or stay "in". The oligarchy does not intrinsically offer anything except the security of knowing you are "in", which beyond a sentimental attachment, is not much security at all. It is where power arises - democracy - that labor finds its genuine modus operandi. This is not because democracy "feels good" or because it is considered an efficient form of government for the society. Far from it - the democracy of labor is dominated by self-interest and shared interest not in ruling, but in cooperative labor and a worthwhile trust between each other that exists for something other than political or economic necessity. That trust is not cheap or something that can be commanded or expected. It is attained only over time, with familiarity, and a reason why either party would trust each other enough to cooperate at all. Without this trust, humans are left with instinctive interactions and a limited set of relations inherent to them - that women mate with men if they are to make babies, that children are born to mothers, and that humans can recognize some strength in numbers which is never merely arithmetic when considering the difficulties of coordinating large groups towards a single task and the distrust society entails that acts as a burden for each additional member. But, humans do not cooperate only at the uttermost end of necesity, nor do humans have a built in drive to compete "just because". Any interaction people would have is undertaken with some reason or purpose, and that purpose is not an ulterior motive that is a personal fixation or a quality of the natural world. Political agents can only choose their interactions with each other, and they could just as easily choose to reject those interactions, absent a compelling force that would either cow one or the other into submission, or eliminate the agent outright.

Eliminating a target outright is, in the end, not a political matter. Once someone is selected to die by a human being or anything else that sets out on that mission, there is not a political matter between them. There cannot be any serious politics when one human regards the others' existence as something to be abolished and will follow that through to its inevitable outcome. The agent who is selected to die would be a fool to believe he could have political rights against an enemy who has issued that fatwa of social and political death - "Once retarded, ALWAYS retarded." We may have to pretend that there is a political arrangement when neither can make good on such a death threat and both concede to deal down, tolerating the intolerable, but politics on such terms would not entail any quality that permits meaningful political interaction, which suggests there can be a state between them for long. Any political status quo between two such adversaries would be a flimsy and temporary fiction, before it gives way to what the human ritual sacrifice cult always entailed - an exultant screaming, "die, die, die!", befitting nothing but natural forces in an interminable struggle. A third party can look at this situation, engineer it and convince subordinated agents to shout like Satanic retards for blood, and in doing so, obviate entirely their political question. Once the war machine is activated, it would be as if society were run automatically, by the logic of military necessity for the war. There would cease to be any political matter until peace were declared, and if the terms of peace are dictated entirely by third parties who instigated the war in the first place, it is the third party, safe from all consequences, that arises as the only winner. Knowing this, political agents present the alternative - cowing an agent into submission - as this no-win scenario. There is no slavery, no submission, without the threat of this interaction. It is not merely a threat of death or discorporation of a person. Humans can care not at all about the status of their person in the mind of someone far away who can't touch them. Humans can accept death, and that the world cares not for their life, and their experience with other humans is that they're vicious Satanic apes with nothing to redeem them. It is not death or termination as an event that is harrowing. It is living in this antagonistic relationship taken to its highest level, where we are told to tolerate maniacs shouting "die, die, die!" and told this is completely normal and that if you don't agree with it, you must be crazy or, the true or original cause of humanity's proclivity for sacrifice, you must be "retarded". The only, final way for a master to cow the slave into submission is to tell the slave that the master has this absolute impunity and that the slave must "love their slavery", and that is humanity being the Satanic ape that it was born to be. By now the readers should be aware that there was nothing else in the "human spirit" to suggest cooperation, or even competition of a limited sort. Those arrangements are only recognized between valid members of society, whether they are friends or enemies. To be damned to ritual sacrifice is to be inadmissible. There is not even the possibility of "enemy". There is just the sacrifice replayed ad nauseum, until those that are "out" are made invisible. In every way large and small, this is what the institutions must create to realize a state premised on pure lies, which is the sort we live under today. The state's genuine content is held as an occult secret.

Democracy in a genuine sense would have to work against this tendency in humanity, and that is the only way democracy could survive as a relevant force or interest in political society. For the lowest class, the whole of human history is a series of depredations against their class and against their race, and really against the whole of humanity, where the terror is waged by humanity and in the name of humanity against its eternal and implacable enemy - humanity. For those who believe their labor is any sort of going concern, there are two options. One is to embrace this and join it - and in doing so their labor is devoted to some totem and cult in any society beyond the most primitive. The other is to reject this and continue in spite of it. The story of history written by aristocrats is that those who reject "God" in this sense always lose, and that the good of the Satan will triumph over the feeble and weak complaints of anyone who will tell them no. The reality is that, for all of the braying states and rulers have done throughout history, their effective power over anything, and their command of technology, is not at all what they purport to hold. States for most of human history are weak, largely cloistered men and their armies that largely exist to extract tax and put down anyone getting too many ideas that it would be different. For most of history, humanity in the country is left to their own devices, and they are disciplined not by state institutions but the institutions of the family, private property (the most prominent being the slaves and the institution of slavery), and the institutions of capital which relied on persons as agents interfacing with the state, rather than being part of the state. Even the most expansive bureaucratic states before the late 19th century were comparatively weak, and the bureaucracy ruled not by micromanaging private life, but by ruling ideas that suggested the people could be kept passive and offered security and a warning that disobedience brings torture and death. The ability of states to regulate personal life was limited, and relied heavily on slavery and the interests of masters who saw their slaves as not just labor but an investment, like stock certificates in human form. The state could fend off democratic influences on its policy and could keep its people poor and hobbled by intentional war, disease, neglect, humiliations and depredations, and rituals intended to break the will of anyone who didn't like it. All of these relied on the state's disinterest in any mass mobilization of its human resources. In the classical models of the state, the entire business of production was the domain of the commoners, who were as a rule denied political rights unless they were rich enough to buy their way into the nobility or aristocracy, or clever enough to play games of court intrigues. The motive for the producers was not to defend political rights, but to scrape and scrounge and kick down their rivals in an effort to attain venal office or something to that effect, which would be as close to the good life as they were going to find. In the liberal and modern models, the aims of the state were to bring in subjects who were partners in the productive project, but from the outset, the producers are not in charge and do not possess any real control. The commanding heights and bedrock institutions, both the high institutions like universities and low institutions like the family, still predominated. Religion and churches continued to operate both as go-betweens to regulate the broad masses and souls of the producers, and as educators with an interest in controlling science since the monopoly on education and knowledge is traditionally a priestly task rather than the warrior or proprietor's task. All of these models excluded the majority of laborers and explicitly excluded the residuum or the lowest class, who were blamed for all of society's woes as is the habit of the human race.

The origins of democratic society are not in want or even necessity, but opportunity. Usually the democratic society is one where labor-power is converted into man-power for the state - which is to say, when a society draws its fighters from people who are not so different from the civilian population. The functions of democratic society are not purely martial, but from every person abilities are drawn which require and benefit from political and material independence. That is, democratic societies are always comprised of the free and detest the slaves, even if the free men understand their liberty is contingent on slave populations doing labor that is beneath the dignity of the freeborn. That freedom is not a vacuous idea or sentiment, but a realized condition where the institutions of the state expect their citizens to possess the means to exist as free and capable of defending that freedom without any "ruling elite". The institutions of a democratic society are filled from those men, who are not marked with any great social distinction aside from holding office, and all offices of a democratic society exist for the public trust and are scrutinized by said public. That public trust is never a given. Democratic societies are rightly suspicious of any large concentration of institutional authority, and so, democratic societies are rife with struggles between classes that are not prominent elsewhere. As a rule, a democratic society loathes the institutional authority of any class, save for two - the distinction between the free and the slaves. The highest man in the country is in principle no better than the lowest free man, but all are distinct from the slaves. This does not necessitate that the slaves are absolutely depraved or beyond redemption, for a democratic society can manumit a slave, equip him or her like any of the freeborn, and another potential citizen is created essentially from the muck. This is not done because egalitarianism feels good or is efficient, but because this egalitarianism is expedient and effective for the tasks such a society engages in. It is therefore something which is contingent on particular technological conditions to exist, and without those conditions, democratic society is constantly under assault from all interests within it, which include the interests of its members. The members of a democratic society have no reason to believe they are part of any "demos" other than mutual self-interest and a shared belief that this arrangement of society is effective for what it purports to do. This is to say that democratic society, if it were ever pursued willingly, would be a political form where the state and institutions are weak, and could be rearranged by men as needed, by an agreed-upon process which pleases enough of the people enough of the time to continue this organization. Bloated bureaucratic states would be a danger merely by their existence. So too would any technology, or the qualities of men themselves, become tools for good or ill. The most common shared interest for any democratic society would be the material basis for its continuation. Free men require sustenance to remain free, rather than merely remaining alive or conforming to a model of what they are supposed to be and what they are supposed to do.

It should be made clear that democratic society rests less on a united or singular state or "demos" than it does on associations of the free, who see their existence as one they shared because they either had to be associated, or because associating brought benefits. Usually both are at work. In every developed society that has concepts of democracy, it was always allowed to the extent the ruling powers of that society permitted it, for the ruling power in Athens like many cities had no interest in democracy. For the Athenians, democracy was proposed as a reform because it would tie the free citizen-soldiers to civic life, and the citizen-soldiers in turn would be able to claim a share of wealth, most notably in slaves, that a ruling aristocracy or warrior nobility would have sucked dry due to inefficiency. There were already notables of the democratic society, who consciously mitigated the excesses of their orientation and class to set an example, and to some extent subjected themselves to the forms of democracy. In primitive society, nobody really regarded "democracy" as a value to uphold or defend, even to the extent it was tied to property and status. Democratic society in a primitive tribe would exist because that was expedient, and there was no means by which an aristocracy could form. For the warband assembled by a tribe or any social unit, marked class distinctions were a liability that impeded battle efficiency, and sapped morale from those who would be asked to fight with you. There would be distinctions in rank, honor, and wealth as it was seen in such a society, which would have been marked by heads of cattle, tokens of esteem, and access to wives for the men. The productive forces of such a society were the gatherers and those who fashioned tools, pottery, clothing, and products of various sorts, and large concentrations of wealth - technology - would be a destabilizing force eliciting jealousy, and impossible to defend without sufficient arms which would have required guard labor and a system to enforce it. More than that, hoarding of technology and wealth would not confer any advantage, absent a stable market arrangement where any such products would be traded, or any good reason self-sufficient social units would have engaged in trade within their own societies. In all cases, the democratic appearance of primitive society is almost entirely accidental, rather than "natural" by some impulse in people or desired consciously. Primitive societies were dominated by self-interest and a lack of ability of any chief to cow subordinates into such abject submission. Cowering subjects in primitive society would be ineffective for any of the roles someone would value in that society, and the ancient hatred of weakness in the human race would likely lead someone to find someone unsightly, stuttering, or feeble-minded offensive enough, and likely would be killed on sight as is the tradition of the human race in these matters. For all such sentiments indulging in the thrill of kicking down the weak, they never develop beyond this crass impulse, never accomplish any eugenic goal of purging society of weaklings, and new weaklings arise. Someone might consider, absent an aristocracy mandating the ritual sacrifices continue, that this practice is wasteful unless someone is really, really stupid and awkward enough to rise to the level of "obnoxious". It is also, contrary to aristocratic conceits about the cheapness of life, unlikely that a small society competing with other such societies would be willing to cull members if they present any productive potential and a desire to get along with the society they are in. It certainly happened - the malice of the human race is its most enduring trait and the only one it ever honed consistently - but as with many things, expedience was valued more than some sense of what human society was supposed to be.

Absent any other interest, the political question would be a simple one for labor. This is that there is a club, and people can collude with each other to join it, reject it, start a different club, and negotiate both with aliens and with each other so far as that is possible. There isn't anything to "struggle" over, unless we are really obsessed with moral sentiments or making others like us. There isn't an institution yet to claim or any belief that institutions are the political currency that is relevant to everyday life. For labor, institutions come and go, and they are only persistent if they do the thing they purport to do with any effectiveness. The true democratic society is not a society of institutions or totems of the state, but a society of agents that see each other pursuing roughly the same objectives, the most obvious of those objectives being security. At this stage, the threat to security is other people, and the guarantor of security is other people in the final analysis. What we individually want is only relevant when considering the technology and merits of a person in a political contest. Some fact about a person is not really relevant to political life, other than facts about what those people do and their moral intent that suggests a threat of a political nature, or something that would make political life impossible due to deprivation or death. There is a sense of independence in humans because of how we are constituted and the history of humanity, but this is first of all not really necessary for democracy as a tendency in society. We could speak of a democratic society if the political agents thought very differently about their existence, and they never formed a concept of the "self" or of any preferred organization. Primitive mankind did not develop any strong "egotism" of the sort that marks insufferable pissants today, because such an attitude would have been retarded and no one, the thinkers themselves included, would see that as a worthwhile exercise. We could speak of a democracy of entities that had no real sense of "self" or "self-interest" at all, beyond noting that they exist as loci of thought and matter that would need to continue existing if there is to be any society or politics. The question of the self, or any sense of struggle between groups or identities, is irrelevant to the democratic impulse in political agents, and this is true of humans as well in most cases. We wouldn't care if someone came from a particular tribe or history, or possessed any particular qualities that mark them as part of the "demos". All that matters is that, by whatever means, someone's place in oligarchy is understood. Rule can be accomplished by whatever labor or technology someone can use, without regard to any "natural law" suggesting what qualities are meritorious. Cooperation and competition are not limited to the question of who rules, or any political necessity, but it would be necessary to acknowledge thar someone or something rules. That is one distinction between the orientation of labor which has to operate in the world, and the residuum which is judged to have no place in the world and senses that in its outlook. Without any particular quality that marks someone as a valid member of laboring society, there isn't really a fundamental distinction between "laborer" and "bum". Workers can be lazy or engage in labors that are specifically malicious, and bums do not exist in a fixed state of being bums, if there is no society or oligarchy to stop them from living whatever life they live.

These conditions are sometimes referred to as "primitive communism" or "so-called primitive communism", but the primitive settlement had nothing to do with "communism" as an intelligible idea or a motive of primitive bands, tribes, nations, or settlements. At no point was wealth "shared in common" in any sense that communism would have entailed. What was the primitive condition was democracy in this sense - a democracy without legal or institutional standing, where any such customs, mores, taboos, and agreements among the demos were simple enough that everyone in the arrangement would know what the law is, and intrigues and would-be despots wouldn't work and would be highly counterproductive. They could be democratic not because of an impulse that made it so. This "primitive democracy" only functioned so far as the arrangement was beneficial. The arrangement relied in part on mutual self-interest or calculated self-interest as a bargaining tool, but inherent in the very concept is a principle that cooperation can produce between the partners something greater than the members' contribution. That is, with cooperative effort, men can hunt buffalo and many large game animals, where alone, this effort would be far more laborious and less likely to work, or compete with societies where cooperation was encouraged. The same can be said of Adam Smith's pin factory, which relied on cooperative labor to produce a single pin, and by extension, those firms that could cooperate could, if scaled up to a larger level, compete far more effectively than "anarchy in production", without violating anything Adam Smith set out about political economy. This is not practical for a lot of reasons, but it should be made clear that "capitalism" or free trade as a concept did not preclude democratic cooperation at the level of society. Such a condition would very quickly not remain "capitalism", since the capitalist was defintionally an interest removed from labor and antagonistic to labor, but if the capitalist was capable of transmuting his wage labor and machinery into another thing, the only thing stopping the capitalist would be the viability of such an operation against other interests in the society. If we imagined the model with an infinite number of firms in a fantasy world, a naive mind would assume socialism or communism would almost axiomatically follow in some form. I would remind the reader that a "commonwealth" - the thing that England is and that is a common concept in its empire - already presumed a sharing of wealth for political purposes, rather than any "ideological individualism". The problems with this in reality were many, but among them is that humanity didn't exist in any blank slate, and there were prevailing interests among the producers which pit them against each other, and pit all against labor. There was then the problem of the lowest class and the workhouse. To those who saw the consequences of free trade, the horror was not an abstract motion of working class proletarians fighting for their political rights, but the workhouse. The workhouse was the ultimate threat to the laborer in a way that chattel slavery or the idea of contractual legal slavery transformed into a racial conception did not. Where the slaves were seen as a societal "Other" that was markedly alien but a valuable asset, the inmate of the workhouse was "one of your own" deserving of special scorn, and moral education set out immediately from all angles to attack the poorest wretches and the beggars, while maintaining perverse incentives that encouraged the vices of the lowest class and encouraged bumfights. For the workers, slaves were far enough removed from their condition that the fear of slavery could only be felt if the prospect of outright legal slavery of the formerly free could be politically broached - if it were to become acceptable for instance to treat white Englishmen in Britain or America with the same disparaging thought and language applied to black slaves and amplify it beyond the existing Black Codes and historical and sentimental racism of Europeans. This would not have worked on the level of moral philosophy for a variety of reasons - white Europeans who had lived in their home countries, were identified as Christians, and who weren't distinguished by any biological trait suggesting they were a different "race" at all, could not be told overnight they are now morally equivalent to the black slaves living beside them. It would appear as something preposterous if the claim was made on the basis of biological or cultural inferiority, especially if at the same time the poor whites were told that whatever they were, they weren't black with all of the stereotypes and brutal treatment publicly demonstrated to all to mark the distinction of slaves. Had such claims been made and put into political action and extended to too many white people at once, without sufficient police and a rundown process to destroy their resolve and mark who would be weak enough to subject to such a treatment, the result would have been a dire massacre of the favored whites by their "fellow whites", and the "African habit of indiscriminate slaughter" which was among the charges used to justify the savage slavery of the black race, would be rightly and justly enacted upon those who insinuated such a thing. The workhouse, though, were the castoffs of family, ostensible "brothers" among you who were disowned. Within the workhouse, there isn't a hierarchy and there intentionally is not one, because no hierarchy can be established over "carrots" so trifling that there is nothing real to compete for, and the only thing on offer is threats, contempt, hatred, and a reminder that no matter what you do, you'll always be retarded. Slavery and the workhouse are necessary complements, and this would in principle apply in a society where mercy does not exist and every compunction to kill on sight the ugly and lame for the thrill of torture is both permissible and expected of a virtuous man. A slave can, knowing this, curry favor by being someone who, for perfectly understandable reasons and because the slave is an Other culturally and has no buy-in with some solidarity with the worthless, does what lingering sentimentality in the mainstream will not. This works in the abstract simply by the presence of a slave society which can be perpetuated. The slave society or the relations of labor are never a given. Slave societies require some means to acquire legal chattel and keep them there, without subjecting the slaves uniformly to the status of "retarded" which would degrade any productivity or utility that would allow slavery to be anything other than an economic, political, and social burden. The workhouse only required that useless eaters exist and have to be put somewhere, whatever form it takes, and those would exist in any society without very strident efforts to improve the condition of the lowest class. "Primitive communism" - really, "primitive democracy" - relied on preventing the formation of a lowest class so that the threat of the workhouse could be mitigated, and this also meant that democratic societies faced an antagonism with - and a peculiar fondness of - slavery, for slave labor was an economic competitor but also an asset that democratic citizens could hold. Meager Athenian Greek free men, even those of little worth, expected to hold a slave and benefit from the institution, and that democratic society expected such a thing not because the free men were sentimentally attached to the idea of owning slaves, but because owning or renting slaves and their labor power was in a material sense the most valuable thing they were likely to own. The workhouse or anything like it would have been disastrous for a democratic society, for it opens the prospect that those meager free men, with or without slaves, could be judged invalid or worthless and no-good and told they have to go where they "belong", just as the English did by passing the Poor Laws. To truly eliminate both would be necessary for emanicpation and democracy in any sense we today would appreciate it as a worthwhile concept, for today machinery, computerization, electricity, and the willingness of people to do something for something other than the fear that prevailed in hitherto known humanity, finally exists - and yet, at the time where the realization that we don't have to do this is clearer than ever, the demand for the most abject humiliations of both the workhouse and slavery is at its ideological zenith. No slavery in human history had ever fully and wholly believed that slavery in of itself was the point - not Roman slavery, not American slavery of the black man even in its most brutal forms. Even the Nazi, Germanic slavery was qualified by certain limitations and expectations of what that slavery was expected to accomplish and what the objectives of the Germans ostensibly were, since the Nazis had to concede to some moral limit left in the German people and the conditions of their war necessitating a baseline level of competence to mobilize anything. For the Nazis, any "relief" from slavery only came in spite of the Nazi elite, who were always the purest fags a race could assemble, stymieing their war effort for the pure thrill of the eugenic creed because the whole thing was a cash grab, but the relief could happen and, at some point, the rank and file have no enthusiasm to go along with the faggotry of such a failed race and resigned themselves to the absurdity of letting these retards say a single word, when putting them down like dogs would have saved the world so much for so little a cost, if the ritual sacrifice of the human race could ever have been anything other than what it was, and what defined the human race as a failed race. It would take the purest faggotry of eugenism and generations of incubation to reach this "most perfected" condition we find ourselves in at the present time of the 21st century.

Labor by itself, while not substanceless and not so arbitrary that it is unknowable as a "thing", lacks any definite form it must take. The human body itself is not labor nor are any machines it utilizes, including any part of itself, labor. They are not necessarily all products of labor, though for all practical purposes, the technology of human beings, including their own existence, is treated as a deliberate act. This is not because human beings are naturally "deliberate actors" in all cases, but that for political society and thought to work, it must be presumed that actors are deliberate for the same reasons labor itself is valued. Therefore, all technology is for political purposes judged with the moral qualities of labor itself. What politicians do with that judgement is up to them, but the approach for most of human history is that labor is entirely co-opted by technology, for an indescribable "meaning" only has the force of anyone willing to support it. While that force is far from non-existent, it relies on a faith that decencies and traditions would be upheld for no particular reason. Any reason why we would respect traditions or decencies would itself not be a tradition or decency but a ruling - a piece of political machinery or an instrument of government that asserts itself not because it is the right thing to do or because we are naturally inclined to think like this, but because the ruling on what we're "supposed" to do for that purpose is a machine and a tool that escapes its builder.

Labor is not as a rule oriented towards products alone, with all other labors relegated to an inferior status or the superior status of "genuine merit" or "high knowledge and wisdom". The moral aims of labor do not at first regard anything we would regard as social status, since labor is undertaken by individuals rather than organizations or institutions. Institutions do not exist ready-made in a form that must be reproduced "in nature". The most basic recurring interactions we regard as natural like a mother feeding her children are not institutionally imposed, and are never taken for granted. There is a reason children would instinctively suckle the mother's breast, why mothers would tend to their young, and why fathers - or human beings in general towards children they regard as relations or members of a friendly society - like to protect and nurture mininature humans. There is no mandated imperative that is singular to suggest why those things happen, and it is very easy for human societies to violate this. Ritual sacrifice, which founded the human race, was premised specifically on depriving the young of this protection and making them targets of maximal humiliation. It is the threat of this that would have the most prescient impact on human affection for each other, out of a sense that human interaction is terrible and the world is full of potentially hostile humans, and things outside of society and outside of institutional conceits which have no regard for any of our sentiments and wishes for our existence. We would do well to remember that labor does not and never has existed for an ulterior motive of production or anything in nature, or any motive other than that which labor itself would deem morally worthwhile. It has long been the habit of institutions to demand abasement, whether they are institutions of the state, institutions in society, or the smallest institutions of the family. Children abase themselves before their parents as a rule, and this abasement is not a question of mere hierarchy or symbols of power or status. A child alone has no realistic possibility of moral equality with an adult, or an ability to suggest that they hold merit equal to an adult with far more experience, that has developed further. This abasement is not "the point" of all institutions, but it is inherent in institutions when their basis in political thought is understood. If institutions were truly non-political, they might avert this tendency. However, institutions are the plaything of political thinkers, and there is nothing in the material world that would stop political agents from purposing any institution, or any machine, for this purpose. This includes the technology of the human body, and the institution of the person and what we think of ourselves.

It is not labor itself or some virtue to command it that is the necessary political subject. All of the theories suggesting labor or utility are the fount of "economic value" that is politically relevant are really efforts to command technology - to command systems, information, things, and ultimately intelligence itself as a machine. It would be no different to substitute human labor and the human's wants with a machine that operated on different motives, without regard to our psychological state, and the political rationales we have come to accept would be just as valid for machines or artificial intelligences as they would be for human beings. This does not make "full" political sense from the perspective of labor or the lowest class, and it doesn't make sense for any other orientation in society. The technocratic human is perfectly aware that he or she is at heart a machine and its thoughts are the product of some process. Whether that process plays out in nature and is within the domain of science regarding physical reality, or it plays out in some idealized framework, does not change that there is a way in which people think, that can itself be dissected and must be so if we are to regard our thoughts as real. This machine we call "human" does not need to be a biological construct alone, and both in history and in the present day, humans are not purely "hardware" reducible to biological chemicals. No theory of what humans are would be possible without regarding the human's interface with society, with the world, and with things outside of its body, which leave their mark on the human subject in a way that isn't prominent with animals - or at least, animals lack the language to communicate this or understand it as we do.

Technology proper is not "merely an idea" or a thought without shape, and it is not a material substance or construct that is just what it is. There are many systems and constructs in the world that have nothing to do with technology, and they only become technology when something with a mind or intelligence capable of the task appropriates a system and makes it into a tool or something that serves its interests and purposes. This task could exist on its own, as an impulse towards mechanization in any intelligent entity, and it does not need to conform to appropriation of property or some sense that belongs to a different interest of life. We never needed to regard our tools as "property", and in many senses we disregard property every day. We do not constantly think "this is mine" or require a legal deed or title to be allowed to use technology or think, and doing so would be highly counterproductive. Technology does not have an inherently "political" purpose by the mere assertion of its existence. We can regard systems and tools existing outside of the political arena, and very often it is expedient for politics to allow the technicians to do what they do, rather than suggest that technology is an interest of the state or the political question at all. Yet, in some sense, technology implies a political purpose, rather than merely a purpose that is of no consequence or just happened. Technology is never created out of a blind impulse or drive, without ceasing to be technology in the proper sense. If we were to mindlessly pursue mechanization and technological advance, then it would not be a tool for us, but something we do - and the consequence is that we couldn't do anything other than that, because it would be a feature of the life-form that is natural, even if it is not fixed or "encoded" in the way someone might presume. If the tool escapes the command of a social agent, it is no longer a tool at all, and this includes the very body and mind of those agents which are machines.

What technology does is arrest some system - and this need not be confined to physical or natural systems opposed to "us" or an idealized vision of what we are - into a "state machine", or a device which may be construed as fixed based on the value assigned to it. For example, if we imagined a computer simulation, many games include a "state machine" which switch between modes of the simulation. The title screen is one state, the main simulation is another, a mini-game may be another, and the game state is only one of these things at any time. The software is one program, and it could be that the "main game" continues running in the background while the minigame is active, but the user interface can only work with one "state" at a time. If the user flips between two game states, it would not do so "simultaneously" in the same routine, if we are to regard the "game state" as anything worthwhile. This segregation for the simulation is arbitrary. It is something the programmer of the simulation has engineered because this user interface is expedient for what the simulation does. Whether this expedience serves the user or the programmer - whether the user of the program is truly getting something of this, or the user of the program is being manipulated by the program and thus by the programmer - is a wholly different question which has nothing to do with the game state itself, as if the answer were inherent to the idea of a state machine or technology. We could construe the program, the user, and the programmer all as machines in one giant clockwork, and the question of who possess the virtue to command the outcome of this simulation is irreelvant to what happens, and neither user nor programmer care to manipulate each other in this way. The political matter, though, has to regard states of things, rather than the meaning of anything or any intention of anyone. Once a program is encoded - once something is written down or spoken - it is what it is, and what is written cannot be unwritten, and what is said cannot be unsaid. We are of course capable of building self-modifying program code, but all self-modifying programs are contingent on a past which allowed this feature to exist.

If we are to construe political agency as a machine, rather than just viewing the world as a clockwork of machines doing whatever they would do, the thinking on states, and the usefulness of such an interface, is much more apparent. We have no intrinsic reason to care about a tool for its own sake, as if the tool had some purpose that was self-evident and expansive. All tools and all technology serve ulterior motives. They are not necessarily beholden to technology itself in a way that they must view technology itself as their self-interest. Political agents, for many understandable reasons, resent being reduced to tools without a good reason. We might consider that this is merely a human bias, and particularly a bias of unreasonable people who don't understand "real thought" or the law. But, the reasons for a political agent's independence are not fickle sentiments or a screeching of "me wantee", and nothing can dictate that a political agent must submit to any particular thing, or any particular institution. The agent which can conduct politics is never purely a political animal, stripped of everything else but what society made it into. It is always constituted as a social agent which relies on a world outside of society to even exist, and society itself is never subsumed entirely into political life, for political matters concern only that which is relevant to the question. It is a choice for politicians to subsume all that exists into politics, and it is another choice for the state - a particular institution - to subsume all that exists in the state.

The social institution is always understood by us as a type of technology with political relevance, even if the institution was never a "political" one. We understand them as valuable because they are compared against the status quo, in order to be valued as anything other than a curiosity. If we valued institutions for any other purpose, our attitude towards them and their permanence would not be as it is; that is to say, if institutions didn't have this political element, we would freely question them, dismantle and rearrange them as we see fit and are able to do, and not regard them as "institutions" fixed by any natural law. They would exist only as temporary arrangements, flittering in and out of existence as needed, and while we might be able to divine institutions arising "from the chaos", this divination itself is guided ultimately by political sense rather than some whimsy we possessed to sort things into any preferred classification. We see institutions as machines because they are imagined in some grand "system of systems" that has to produce something orderly. Otherwise, we would not be able to ascertain the meaning of anything in institutions, and be unable to navigate a society where institutions arise. This process of "doing politics" is itself a type of labor, which we carried out for some moral purpose of doing so rather than "just because". It does not need to be a good reason or a reason we chose ex nihilo, and we could argue that at some level, the political agent is a machine whose operation proceeds like clockwork, and no will of the agent is relevant to the institutions. There is no argument by rationality that suggests we cannot do this, or must regard political agents as entities with free will or any will. Very often, political agents do not have a will that can change the world, or institutions, or anything substantive beyond a few fleeting things. Political agency is not identical to our human concepts of liberty or virtue. Slaves can become officers of the state just as much as free men, and we could assign to tools or inanimate objects political importance even if those tools didn't think at all about political society, or didn't think about anything at all. It is entirely within reason to assign to abstractions or fictitious entities political agency, and so long as the law regards that as real, nothing we think about it, and no meaning that could be understood in nature, would violate that political agency - for example, the agency of corporations granted personhood. Politically, this makes perfect sense, even if our most basic connection to material reality tells us this leads to disastrous consequences. There is no way we can speak of an "authentic human" with unique political rights as a fact of nature. Human society has long been dominated by humans depriving other humans of any such rights. It was not a modern invention to make men into machines and machines into men, as if someone just figured this out. Slavery was always premised on this, and the foolish retards who call themselves intellectuals believe they say something profound when they believe they will make us love their technocratic slavery. It does not take a great mind to see that this slavery was never about anything useful in a productive sense, or something that was politically necessary or desirable. All defenses of slavery were ultimately driven not by an infantile yearning for freedom as a sentiment, but because humans have always recognized that the greatest threat to their existence was other humans. "Freedom is slavery" so long as the slaves are other entities, marked as such. The free premise their freedom entirely on the oppression of others, because no such freedom exists "in nature" or as something given to us by the world as an absolute. The free can choose whether to enslave other humans who are much like them and do not like being slaves. The free can choose whether the appropriation of tools, objects, or the wealth of the natural world is desirable, or whether conserving those natural resources would be better for the long term interest of society or the men who make this decision. The advance of the modern period, and this is not something wholly unknown before modern psychology, was to suggest that all of the functions of a life-form and of thought itself could be enclosed, policed, and regimented. This aim was at heart an aristocratic aim, and so it is not germane to the interests of technology and those who align with such an orientation. The means by which it could be accomplished were always at heart through institutions - through technology. Technology is never a thing which "just is", like some Heideggeran "dasein" faggotry. It was something once built for a purpose, and once technology - once an institution - is established, it continues not on the basis of labor or what we would have wanted, but on its own power. We who hold the tools, however we do, can only use them in ways our faculties allow us to use them. That function is not a monopoly of any class, and those whose minds are entrained to accept institutions may think of this more than most other people, but in principle, those who hold institutions would build their institutions and tools with the expectation that these are used by humans, and could just as easily be used by anyone if command of the tool is lost. The tool is never purely a vessel of the will of political agents, inert. Nothing we build does entirely what we would want it to do, unless we have fused the tool to the very core of ourselves and engineered lockouts such that no one could hijack the machine. This is not possible in a way which makes control of technology absolute, and where it exists, it is not monopolized by the technological interest or the class of technocrats, or any institution they may build. "Who watches the watchmen?" is a facile question - the watchmen and the watched are beholden to a world outside of them for technology to mean anything, and no technology can exist in an imagined total system that disallowed external agents by natural laws. All such institutions and tools would have to be engineered to withstand the world outside of them.

We could build technology without regard for this question, and suggest it would do something close to what we wanted it to do without the political question - say, a tool for chopping wood, as we would like to do for all the reasons that make sense, and that tool has as many other uses as we can imagine, all of them discrete possibilities rather than a substance of such. If we are to consider the full ramifications of a tool - any tool - then we are asking a question of the world, and any technology enters the purview of political thought, if only for a moment. We would have to consider the well known axiom that anything that can go wrong, will go wrong, if we engineered a thing for this purpose, this orientation. Everyone who fashions a tool consciously will be aware of this problem, and if they are not, they are in for rude awakenings when their plans go awry. We are reasonably certain that an axe remains an axe, and if it is fashioned into something new, that process can be understood and we wouldn't believe it was the axe that was the cause of whatever the axe was transformed into. Any technology and any institution entails modification of that technology, for nowhere is a tool fixed in nature. But, we would likely have engineered tools with knowledge of how tools can generally be built, and general laws of physics, mechanics, and so on that can be harnessed for this manipulation. The study of the natural world, which properly speaking is everything there is, is the work of science, and science in its genuine form belongs to labor rather than any institution. But, all of the findings of scientific research become tools, which once communicated or acted upon, are a thing outside of the scientific task itself. It would be impossible to assemble scientific knowledge without some system, some method of retrieving pertinent facts about the world, or a record of our understanding of natural laws. Without that record, it would be impossible to know what any of our findings in science mean, and it would not be possible for scientific knowledge to accumulate beyond a crude and haphazard assemblage of tools, most of which would appear to us as lower than common sense. Even the common sense knowledge base we operate with requires arresting the findings of science in some record, and this is the basis of a baseline we regard as "normal" or typical within a society, or normal or typical in our experience by some system we have worked out for internal use. It is important to distinguish the proper basis for science - that we do science for laborious purposes rather than any belief that institutions are "science" - and the basis for technology, which requires arresting that task and assembling a body of technological knowledge that can be communicated and understood. The latter is really an interest of us rather than something the universe itself requires, or that science as something we do requires in order to exist. We can conduct thought exercises which are not science but assemble technology, and we can fashion a crude scientific method even if it produces poor results. It is entirely possible to conduct science in the most proper way we can with an intent to find truth, and create bad results - or worse, to build a castle of lies which poisons us for a lifetime and spreads for generations. The truth was always in the world rather than in the minds of people, or any institution we built. But, in a political sense, we can only work with institutions and technology, rather than the moral intents of labor. To political society, and in the management of information in economic life, labor itself is arrested and subsumed into technology in order to be appreciated as "labor" for that purpose. We are on some level aware that we do this. It is a habit of the technological interest, in primitive times and now, to substitute itself for labor proper. This originates in a political conceit rather than anything about labor or technology which actually requires this. It is not difficult for a knowledge worker whose specialty is technology to know that all of their technology derives from approaches that studied the world, and this includes the faculties of the body or the machine which had to come from somewhere in order to think and act in our world. There is not a single piece of technology which appeared ex nihilo, and such a thing is impossible if we appreciate what knowledge itself is, let alone science and technology which both have limited purviews. The more we look at technology in human society, the more we can see that its applications were always politically contentious, even in primitive times. If they are contentious, then technological advance in some sense was deliberate not because of a teleology that told us we must pass through this stage, then the next, to arrest history. It does not take a great intellect to figure out that if we can envision a tool and the processes to create it, then we can consider tools which modify other tools, all the way up to a general tool or machine that would do everything we wanted to do with technology and machinery, so far as we could imagine. This starts with the individual, but societies collectively can apply the same principle. The only thing that would be necessary is communication between the agents, which itself is understood as a type of technology feeding into the grand machine.

We did not need political sense to make this leap from crude tool use of the body to general tool use. It was implicit in our faculties, which developed on their own power and did not need to regard any society or economic motive. Someone in savage conditions can work out for their own use a general sense of the world's working, and figure out that if a tool can be used for one thing, it can be used for others, and anything in the world can be a tool. This does not require any avarice or malice towards the tool. Even if the tool in question is a human being just like us, this appropriation of the tool would not entail torture or humiliation or denigration of the tool. Slavery as an institution does, but even here, there are forms of slavery more benign, and absolute torture does not exist because torture leads to a linear increase in exploitation, but because torture serves psychological purposes for the whole society and disciplines societies. Individual torture is meaningless. A machine in society that perpetuates torture for its own sake is the only way in which torture can be a truly worthwhile practice - to make it clear that there is no hope, and there is no end, and that torture is the true god of the human race if the torturer has its way. If the torturer cannot create this impression, then all of the tortures amount to very little once the condemned has escaped it. It is the permanence of torture, which is properly the province of aristocracy, which makes it effective.

It would not make instinctive sense to view the work as a clockwork of technological inventions, as if we were supposed to think of it as such. Even if we were to regard systems in the world, both natural and the abstract systems, as machines, it would not change our understanding that all of our technology is an artifice built atop prior states. We would pursue technology as if it were not united by any grand unified theory or singular point of light to guide all others. We would believe such a thing is in principle possible, but there would be no need for fanatical certainty unless we regarded the technological interest as politically dominant and existing in a world where all of the interests are highly developed. The drive to centralize technology was accelerated not out of a blind drive towards mechanization, but by institutions and the threat aristocracy entailed. This threat was not just a reaction of the producers of technology to aristocratic plans, but a threat to aristocracy and recognition that aristocracy must command technology for its own program. Aristocracy as a rule loathes technology and science, always retarding it because such a thing would be the most evident long-run threat to aristocracy's existence. Even if the producers - in recent society, the bourgeoisie or interests of the city are representative of this interset - were pathologically loyal to aristocracy and trained to "love their slavery" as the ruling ideology of aristocracy insists, technology and the mere existence of production entails the existence of something aristocracy could lose its hold over. This is something more appropriate to the discussion of aristocracy. For the technological interest itself, it is aware even in the absence of aristocracy that such an entity is possible. If they do not have a worked out theory of the political elite or a sense of what rules, the general fear that the political entails would invent a phantom aristocracy, seemingly "from the shadows", and enough indicators of an enemy from the chaos would be apparent even if their threat to the producers were more an annoyance than an existential threat. It only becomes necessary to strive for a "grand unified theory" when either aristocracy presents a clear danger to their interest, or when the technological base and potential of society is capable of building machines capable of reshaping society drastically and the intelligence of men cannot keep up with all potentials of machinery. Outside of that, the "grand unified theory" might be intrinsically interesting, and this amusement at the question is not unique to the technocrats and is common among the lowest class for we have nothing better to do. It would become apparent, and still is apparent, that no "grand unified theory" is possible. We may know all there is to know in the universe, but we cannot build a singular "theory" to explain all that exists in a simple saying or a sufficiently small book. It is not possible in economic thought and the approaches to managing knowledge and information. It is also not possible for political thought, regardless of what institutions say, for the apex of the state necessary entails something other than technology at its helm. No institution could remain a clockwork of machines itself, let alone describe the world as such, without losing touch with a world outside of the conceit of technology - which is to say, the fully obsessed technocrat does not see a world outside of society as possible, and society becomes total. It would entail the eventual breakdown and controlled insanity of the technocrats, absent any sobering influence. This controlled insanity on the basis of technology is only a condition that afflicts the technocrats in full. It can degrade the other interests and classes and aspects of someone which are not fully given over to the technocrat's conceit. It can be spurred by interests alien to technology altogether, so that the controlled insanity can be forced into existence against the better judgement of the technocrats. But, the peculiar cargo cult around information, technology, and "The Science", is a fixation of the producers, and this is not particular to the bourgeoisie as an interest in modern society. Peasants, agrarians, and the equivalents of the bourgeoisie in another society are infected with the same fetish for a grand theory. The reason for this is that the lure of a managerial master key over knowledge would be the prime matter for political control and for the state as an institution or set of institutions. There is only one real master key which never lies and will never drive anyone insane in a real sense - the world itself. Political society by its nature entails one of many barriers to the world, and so the aims of the technocrats are particularly oriented towards removal of that barrier. The efforts of the technological interest, in whatever form it takes, are both to acquire a general theory of technology, and to extrapolate from that theory a dizzying array of things - commodities perhaps but not limited to such - that confounds those not initiated into the producers' knowledge. It appears contradictory, but for a group whose existence hinges entirely on a claim of intelligence rather than property, heredity, or the moral value of labor proper, building an elaborate machine which is simple for your specialized knowledge and difficult for the alien, is your path to turning this technology - a useless thing on its own - into something which allows all of the other potentials in humanity to develop. Absent this, labor remains a roiling morass of efforts which may construct something, but never hold any technology for long, and the lowest class wallows - as they do now - in abject filth, seeing a world utterly alien to them and thinking that some day, it could be different.

There is no "idea" floating around bereft of something that can think, because this concept is only comprehensible to entities which do think. Nothing in the world "thinks" for us in that way. But, how does this appear in a world without forms? For whatever reason, it has. This makes sense not in natural history but it makes political sense based on our concept of the world and what would be necessary to navigate it, starting from the position where we can ask the question. We could not describe history as vague forces buffetting around and coalescing into matter, and continue speaking of history in any appreciable sense. History deals with definite propositions to be history. It never reduces to vagaries, without an intermediary step which has nothing to do with history, but to a spiritual authority suggesting methods by which we establish meaning and connection. That is, history is impossible without a metaphysical concept of what things are. This conception of systems is always contingent on political awareness being a possibility, rather than systems just being a useful contrivance. We work with systems not because we want to, but because we are obliged to if we are to speak of a world in which events are real. For personal use, we can invent any system we like, so long as it is internally consistent, or at least consistent enough for us to make stable claims about operations we undertake. Political reality cannot freely invent any system, even though "political truth" is entirely a construct for us rather than the true world we live in. This is contrary to our conventional sense, where we cannot pretend that a fist hasn't impacted our head in a fight, but we can invent political institutions and abstractions as much as we like. Yet, all of the bullshitting that politics entails can only proceed in particular ways that are permissible, if that bullshit is to be effective at the task it undertakes. Saying words that are not admissible in political reality renders them invisible, and this is contrary to reality where everything that happens and everything that is cannot be undone, and cannot be unmade as if it never existed. In the real world, the world outside of society, events must be abided no matter how nonsensical, and it is on us to invent systems of knowledge to navigate this. In the political world, facts have been established long before us, and no amount of struggle will change them. We can invent new institutions to assert a new "reality", but they are beholden to the political sense that preceded them. Our sense of the real world outside of society is that the past really doesn't dictate the future. We may reasonably ascertain the present resembles the past because we recall the past in memory well enough, without any institution asserting reality. No institution can command us to not see what we saw, or acknowledge what we experienced, without resorting to reality control and likely torture to assert it. It may be an institutional fact to pretend that the past is mutable, but the mutability of the past is only permissible on the terms political power allows. That power never belonged to us as an absolute gift, because we enter a society established before us. We can only continue that political society, or build one anew and struggle for its existence against a political world that does not easily tolerate new things and new men. It is not that the past in political reality exerts a pressure on the present to make us obey old facts. It is that he who controls the present can draw upon past information and technological knowhow, and insist that this makes political facts that must be accepted to keep your head. This form of reality control is particular to technocrats, as it requires a command of technology taking the forefront in society. It requires the political tendency of this interest to take the forefront, at least during the critical period where technology must contend with labor and the lowest class. Almost immediately, technology views labor as its most obvious enemy, and labor views technology with contempt, when the technological interest in society predominates. This is to say, the conditions of capitalism and a general theory of technology become political interests, rather than merely things that are intrinsically fascinating to many people regardless of their class. This idea was not born in capitalism ex nihilo, as if prior generations were too stupid to understand what technology and knowledge were, but it is only then where the political agenda of the technocrats - represented in capitalism by the bourgeoisie and the rise in power of the commons - can be expressed beyond a local or theoretical interest whose hold is fleeting. In earlier society, technological advance did not change the balance of political power, even though technology, commerce, and methods of exploiting labor for all things were obviously necessary for any established state society. Yet, the tendencies seen in modernity have antecedents for as long as humanity has left any substantial record of past events. Man is a tool using animal even in savagery, and so even in conditions that are not ideal, the tendencies of the technological interest can be felt and understood.

In pure form, technocracy represents not the things we would find useful to produce what we wanted, but that which produces technology as a vehicle for power. The technocrat then tends not towards natural science, but to the command of life, the management of intelligence, and theories of intelligence which serve a low cunning - just smart enough to make the world do what management wants. This management need not be malevolent, but it stands opposed to labor which did have moral intent. Technology and capital are proudly amoral, and the technocrat sees such morality as an impediment to their goals. Those goals really amplify whatever other interests may want, and self-interest is not as great a motivator for the technocrat as the ideology of the proprietors, who belong to the order of soldiers and brutes properly speaking, would tell us it is. The interest of the technocrat is less in himself or any particular institution, but technology and the theory of institutions itself. It is more important that the technocrat believes he can subsume himself in the institutions and reproduce himself in that way. Which institution, though, is not specified by any law of what institution "should" rule. A technocrat in an earlier time would be a capitalist, and in a later time would embrace bureaucratic management and human resources. Their attitude towards slaves is never universal, but it is almost always disparaging of the status of those whose labor is deemed manual and "unthinking". The same is true of their attitude towards other classes, which can vary based on the interests of the institutional vehicle the technocrat occupies. Technocratic concepts of power are often conflated with oligarchy, meritocracy, appeals to monarchy or anarchy or the vices of aristocracy, but this is only a tendency that arrives when the technocrat encounters other interests. The technocrat is certainly not interested in any form of democracy or autocracy in the conventional sense. Superficially, a technocrat favors "liberty", but at root its concept of liberty is the liberty of intellect to impose on the world and no more or less. Freedom in a genuine sense is derided as "freedumb" - a useful fiction to mollify the ignorant who either have a knife at their throat or who are lied to, both of which have the same intent and moral impulse but use different vehicles, institutions, and alliances to advance what the technocrat wants. The movements of the commoners, the producers, and others like them, default to this technocratic view in the absence of any sobering influence. Had their sense been unfettered, they would see that this technocratic polity has been an abject failure every time it has been tried, and it is only because of pure spite and the efforts of labor that any such polity could stand for something other than office-holding and the petty privileges of wanna-be aristocrats. The full treatment of that technocratic polity is something I hope to write of in another book, and so a full accounting of its tendencies is beyond the present scope. The concept "technocracy" is often misconstrued, since in political thought is the most modern conceit of the political, and the interest of technology has long been conflated with wealth, commerce, and economic activity. Some things about this tendency should be listed off now, because much of this writing is written from the perspective of those who live in a failed technocratic society, and would have to be due to the prevalence of science and technology in the past century.

The aims of technocracy are the aims commonly associated with "economic life" or management of production. This role is not strictly speaking dependent on trade or commerce at all, but it is marked as distinct from labor by more than a moral sentiment suggesting intelligence or mind "should" rule over matter. It is very easy for a technocrat to not require any such ideology to suggest that his specialization has any authority to rule by assertion alone. That is always an aristocratic corruption intended to implode the commoners by way of their vices. Naturally, the aristocratic view of the producers is suspicious, and this suspicion is not due to money or commerce, but because aristocracy and its enablers loathe any technology which destabilizes their hold on the world. The recognition of oligarchy from labor is one that the technocrat readily understands, for at heart the invention and management of technology is a type of labor and would have to proceed at first on the same terms. Everyone who built technology did so out of a want and would morally judge the tools built. The technocrat's theories of knowledge and generalization of technology are too tools that are built at first because they were wanted. It then becomes apparent that whatever the moral intent of any labor or the tools it creates, knowledge itself and technology generally has no moral quality imbued in it. Any such moral quality would have to be implied by the considerations that those who think of technology and institutions would have to make. Labor proper has no intrinsic need of any "institution" or "state" to tell it what to do. The technological producer must make institutions because it is quickly apparent that the native faculties of thought and the body are insufficient to meet alone or in small bands the conditions technology would mean for political life. This awareness is almost immediate when someone asks themselves the question "why" about tool use, any system they observe, or any system they would construct for purpose. Institutions are a guide of something outside of a particular person or material totem that would allow for the accumulation of technical knowledge, wealth, or anything that would represent an accumulation of exchangeable goods. The commodity is the most obvious representation of technology, and it is this that Marx uses as his entry point to a breakdown, in his theory, of the capitalist situation and what happens in it. Marx makes conjectures that this situation had its most ancient formation in primitive trade, and spends considerable effort comparing theories at the time of how commodity exchange originated in those conditions. That discussion is for another time, but nothing about human nature required the "commodity" as such. It is often expedient for technology or anything we value to never enter circulation in any market or commodity, and all markets are deliberate and temporarily facsimiles before the establishment of permanent institutions - the city forum, the market week, the merchant bank, the accumulation of capital starting from agricultural and extractive outputs, and above all the social machinery which would regulate and discipline labor. This social machinery also includes what the technocrat and the higher classes cannot freely reproduce - the fostering of new labor, or the reproduction of human beings, their independent knowledge, and their education. It is the aim of all of the prevalent classes in the traditional trifecta - producer, warrior, and philosopher or aristocrat or priest dependent on the society - to co-opt this reproductive faculty, which at heart is the domain of the lowest class. Reproduction belongs to the lowest class not because it isn't a laborious task - it very much is - but because the reproduction of human beings is not carried out for ulterior motives, unless a society can impose by extensive education and effectively brainwashing a "purpose of life" which always entails the abasement of people and their offspring to the ruling interests and to alien institutions. At the most basic level, human beings would only reproduce because there was a want to do so for its own sake. A life spent in service to some instituiton, some idolatry or abasement to be the cattle for vampiric rulers, is not one people would choose or love under any circumstances, regardless of the slavery or "freedom" such a relation would entail. The true motives of anyone to reproduce, if anyone is so mad to allow such a thing, require someone to operate outside of the preferred political and social values of anyone else, and the reproductive act in humans is at heart a matter between man, woman, and the particular offspring. Only after that can social values and political factors intervene in the reproductive act. If there is no reason for anyone to do such a thing, all of the moral incentives or threats to spur reproduction will fail, as many leaders have faced when their situation required an increase in the supply of capable soldiers and officers. It is much easier to snuff out reproductive desire than spur it.

It is not intrinsically necessary to manage life at all levels for technocratic society to exist. It would however be aware that this is possible, and that knowledge of any institution and person is intrinsically interesting from the point of view of someone whose living rests on technology or things that represent it, like currency. This is not done for a strictly economic need or want, or out of a sense of value. The concept of value as a fungible philosophical substance represented by some unit of money that is infinitely divisible is extremely aristocratic in intent, since this infinitely fungible pleasurebux - using the philosophical creed of imperial utilitarians - does not represent any unit of "merit" or interest of the proprietors. The proprietors, who belong broadly to the class of fighting persons and enclosers, do not consider money or currency "wealth", and value in the economic sense is less so. The true wealth is in assets and claims that are necessarily discrete. The claim of the technological interest is that systems generally are not ephermeal things, but that their knowledge, intelligence, and the general theory of technology represents a claim to those systems. The claim may be construed as the technocrat's property, much as a proprietor would claim any asset, or the claim may be a possession of those who know, or that knowledge itself entails possession of a system in a preferred form. The general theory of technology and knowledge is never confused with the genuine article of the systems knowledge assimilates, and each piece of knowledge is granted unique status as a "thing". Currency and money have always been imperfect indicators of the values they appropriate at best, or intentionally distort economic value in favor of proprietors, or - and this is the real heart of finance and banking - the aristocracy which has always actually held the strings of finance and legitimacy to allocate property. The proprietors do not possess any real claim that is not upheld by the state, the dominant institutions, the law, and organs which always play the proprietors and commoners against each other. The property claims of the commoners are always suspect without either being granted explicit favor to exist, or the commons' ability to contest the merit of proprietors to verify their claim by force. This is to say, the conditions the commoners, which really stake their interest on technology, management, and the command of systems rather than a naive faith in property or "me wantee", were never conditions of their choosing. The bourgeois rose under the suspicious watch of the old proprietors, rather than being outright proprietors who held everything of value as a fait accompli when the commons gained influence. The interests of the commoners rose on the terms the existing proprietors, nobility, and aristocracy - which included the priesthood and religious leaders - allowed for it. The interest of technology and the proper root of the commoners' ability to contest politics was always an insurgent interest, and the claim to technology is at first highly speculative. It is only understood as such by a few thinkers among the vanguard, and only after the free trade empire formed did this vanguard finally have the means to begin their actual mission. A better explanation of why these particular claims were made is among the explanation this entire series of books would hope to explain, without the fetters of obsession over money or symbols which plague understanding. The important thing for this chapter is to make clear that the technological interest is neither impotent or "the low", even though the bitter conditions of many would-be technocrats instilled in them an avarice that would put any aristocratically-minded capitalist to shame, and a lust for what economic value really was worth - political power, commanded by a geist that some symbol like money or a commodity fetish could disguise, but that was not difficult to see for those who were not invested in the mythology of world-historical missions.

The technocratic mindset, more than any other, is given over to fads, fetishism both of the sexual and religious variety, and the promises that such things offer to those who can manipulate them. The technocrat possesses a middling cunning for this, almost instinctively divining which fad to follow and which to abandon, and they have replicated in our experience a pale imitiation of aristocratic political knowledge. This makes sense given the focus on systems and technology that their class would have to embrace if the can have an independent claim to power. Merely saying that money was earned through hard work or intelligence as a right means nothing to property and the might of a sword, or the workings of aristocratic elites who held a not-too-subtle knife at the throat of everyone. The only value the commons could hold for keeps was its intelligence and the potential of knowledge itself to manage the world. It is always necessary to exaggerate this power to impress the technocratic mind, or grant to some manager a sense of godlike power, because if intelligence is seen for what it is, and technology is seen for what it is, it does not have any claim to power simply by being. If the claim of technology must be made by what technology does, then all technology is only really effective in the hands of labor. It does not take a genius to see that the claim to technology can never be put in the hands of the workers under any circumstances, if one ascribes to political thought of any sort. The workers would thank the technocrat kindly for this assistance, then, as the worker must after a legacy of endless betrayals and humiliations of one class against antoher, relieve the technocrat and intelligentsia of their existence, and heaven willing, labor would throw off the yoke of the political at its true source and be done with this farce. It would be the end of all of the political thought or systems that technocrats value.^[4] This would not merely be the ruin of the contending classes. It would be a failure of all of the theories the commoners hold for their own interests, and labor would develop a program apart from this out of dire necessity. This program would have been constructed from premises that are never allowed to go far in our history.^[5] In the drive to elevate experts, technocrats see the actual expertise as an asset exchanged and transferred as information, rather than knowledge in the genuine sense. They would have to not because this is what knowledge "is" - the technocrat is aware that this is counterproductive - but because political sense tells them to defend their hold on machines before they think about any meaning or moral purpose. This political rule is far from an absolute. It is possible and often necessary to abrogate these pernicious tendencies. The problem with this is that any information that would abrogate this and become an institutional rule - a machine - is treated the same way, which subjects it to the same struggle. Here we see the entry point for that pernicious stupidity from Hegel - "contradiction" - which is the real weak point of the commoners and the technological interest which the conservative order had to co-opt. It is not a true "contradiction" at all, for it is trivially resolved. All that would be necessary to disrupt institutions is to push and push an idea until it breaks from repetition, then replace it with this idiotic sing-song story about what you are "supposed" to believe. It's disgusting, but it works on the political mind in a way any native sense would quickly see as a violation. Seeing the trap and knowing the trap would not have any intrinsic effect, because at the higher level, politics is dictated by the merit of victory, and the ugly truth at the apex of human politics which is for the next chapter.

A view of general technology gives rise to a concept of rule that is particular to the commons - that all is subsumed in a theory and an understanding, yet this theory is only enforced by agents acting on their own power. The "grand unified theory" relies on faithful believers, much like a god summons its power from the world. The resulting theory of rule, in its raw form, is demarchy - or, the rule of "the people", both as individuals and has a collective of all in a given society. This demarchy has an objective of drawing in all social agents into the political form. This does not actually grant the "rulers" individual power or decision-making, because the general theory of technology places that in institutions. At a basic level, the institutions are filled with political agents, who are at first indistinguishable from each other. It wouldn't matter where the agent came from or any rank they held before entering office. What matters most of all is subsuming the "demos" or the society into the institutions of rule, and the easiest way to do that is to envision each social agent as an instrument of government. This does not entail any power from those agents, but responsibility of those agents to carry out the dictates of the institutions.

It is helpful here to note that our attitudes towards "liberal democracy" suggest a particularly pernicious form of demarchy as the basis for the state, while enshrining ruling institutions that are consciously removed from the people and "above politics". It is your responsibility to know what the laws are, even without any standard for comparison or the arbitrary will of those who hold the ruling institutions. The demarchic principle here is both willfully abrogated, and in full force. The technocratic polity is constituted by its people and its agents, which are themselves pieces of technology or human capital, and could not be construed as anything else. If they were, then nothing about "human resources" or the scientific management of human livestock and their obligations - responsibilities - would be possible or effective. Yet, this human resources does work, largely from the goodwill of the subjects, who believe they have some stake in this society, or at least they have a stake in the world which must be upheld by productive society. This, of course, is only one example, and it is the only example in human history we have. A technocratic government wildly skewed in favor of aristocracy and the malice of the human race asserted by violence and repeat deception a type of government that undermined anything someone would think they were getting out of it. Demarchy in any form was only admitted as a "real" condition when it could be obviated by management from sources that would become unmentionable, and the full development of that has little to do with the demarchic basis for nation-states. If we accept that we could end this tomorrow if we really wanted to, it would appear as if demarchy were valid, and the people could rise on their own. The effectiveness of today's aristocracy is not due solely to the aristocracy's nefariousness or its possession of spiritual authority, or some quality of virtue which allowed them to actually rule. It has long been understood that the most effective tyrannies rule through individual people and through manipulation of their collective action, like herding animals for whatever purpose. A tyrant ruling for crass purposes and without any real sight of the situation will not be much of a tyrant, and would only ever be a tool or a puppet of a ruling oligarchy. Those who subdue an oligarchy to establish monarchy are not mere tyrants who happened to get lucky or played an act, and if they present themselves as such or have to believe it, they are at least aware that their cabinet of advisors and important functionaries see the crown as their ally before the "big club" of oligarchy. Such degenerated oligarchies are rightly seen with the contempt they deserve. The "demarchy" rarely ever exists as a realized principle, but it is implied because it effectively subsumes the people and tells them "this is you". It works for a time, and it can work in more primitive conditions. Demarchy says nothing about the power of the subjects. A city-state ruled nominally as a demarchy by an assembly often has no institution suggesting a great differentiation between men, except the offices of state. The prestige and honor of men remains a constant reminder. This concept is usually rendered as "virtue" in the genuine sense, of the sort that would make a republic functional and allow men to govern each other. Yet, democracy proper has little to do with virtue or an ability of men to command each other. Virtue at heart suggests a mechanical basis for its existence - the very concept implies command of a tool that allows this, even if the tool is a vaguely understood substance that you're supposed to assume exists. At heart, virtue as a ruling idea suggests demarchy as a possibility, whether that possibilty is to be encouraged or feared by the ruling interests of a state. Usually, the attitude towards demarchy is fear. More than any other orientation's theory of rule, the general fear that political life entails is acutely felt in demarchies, even when the "demarchy" is more theoretical as it is in the basis of the nation-state or the command of human resources as a type of technology. This type of rule tends to become more prominent as technological capacities of a society entail greater threats from the agents, since it is not difficult to see that if one man can use a tool, another can do so about as well, and the threat of mutually assured destruction is most acutely felt within a society, rather than between rival societies. Today's threat of annihiliation in a war of superpowers with advanced weapons has always been at heart a threat made to the people, who are simultaneously told that in the event of such a war, the nation "must" select who will live and who will die in the grand lifeboat ethics exercise. This, of course, would be weaponized deliberately by the eugenists. It made no intrinsic sense to technocratic society to encourage any of this, and far more sense for the peoples of the great powers to do everything possible to avert such a situation, and negate the advantage of intriguers and cajolers who seek maximum advantage from the fear. Demarchy exists both with a heightened sense of the general fear, and a need of the people in that society to escape it and believe in a very optimistic conceit about humanity that is far removed from what humans have been and what humans can ever be. There is no changing the vile core of the human race no matter what technology we invent, because the political problem always remains - unless we are able to see this situation for what it is in total, and refuse to play the game those cajolers would impose. It is here that institutions which command violent force or presumed merit are able to usurp a society with a demarchic basis. In principle, anything from tribal society to today's "democracies" exists because its people allow it to exist collectively, and there is a sense that there is a "thing" called a polity, which is ruled by a machine called the state. The "philosophical state" of aristocracy, while it is presented as yet another tool, is in reality something very different upon closer examination.

What would happen if demarchy were a real condition, rather than merely the basis for a condition alien to it? It would require a number of conditions that suggest a distribution of technology in society that would allow its members to rule. This is to say, democracy and demarchy would have to align - labor would align with technology. In other words, science and industry, which were properly both the domain of labor, would align with the technological means at humanity's disposal. This would also imply that industry and its proprietors would agree to this arrangement. In short, three great classes would have to align and believe that this equitable distribution of technology is desirable. In simple terms, "sharing the wealth", not out of moral sentiment but because doing this would make everyone better off and the world a lot easier. By their own political interests, there is no reason to suggest this wouldn't happen. The consequences of doing this would initiate or necessitate considerable change in society and its members' real condition. This alliance - science, industry, and labor, the latter two often conflated since labor was already subsumed by industry - is the most basic conception of socialism in any form that would have been possible or worthwhile. Socialists loathed to grant political equality to the workers broadly, but political membership and the conditions of all classes had to be raised to something compatible with life. Socialism, no less than capitalism, is no friend of beggars. Eventually, though, political equality would give way to something very different - the destruction of political hierarchy of classes or crippling over-specialization. I will say again that all of these orientations described do not belong to particular people definitionally, but to orientations that would be found in people due to the nature of knowledge, life, and the political question. It would not necessarily be established that distinction of ability or distinction in some quality required a political class hierarchy, or social class as it is commonly understood. This destruction of hierarchy would never be accomplished by declaring it so by ideology or a diktat of the state, or by "abolishing the state" which is quite irrelevant to what social classes and political life truly entailed. It would only be possible in one of two ways - "sameness", where the agents are all made to conform to a socially necessary baseline of validity and rise no further nor fall lower, or an understanding of the self or the person which no longer valued "selfishness" in the way we are trained to operate. The former is a fools' errand that would always lead to cajolers exploiting any minute distinction in human beings, and both the German philosophers and the eugenists delightened in heightening any divide in the people and making it a political question. The latter would require changes to human existence and understanding that were far beyond the capabilities of technology alone. It was, however, always present in socialism from the birth of the modern idea. The idea of socialism did not suggest that humanity would follow the same spiritual authority or regress to past ideas, but that the rise of industry and science would begin a social transformation. This transformation may have been peaceful or violent, but it would have been nearly inevitable if someone thought for five minutes about what science and technology meant. This was clear enough by the thinking of the Enligthenment, and remains a line of thought among the technocrats to this day, however distorted it is by the cajolers and influencers. It would have entailed something that never happened, and perhaps was impossible - for humans to get over their past and their conceits about themselves that came from it. The result would not have looked like any version of socialism that was imagined, and really wouldn't be recognizable as a political or social proposition on its own. I do not believe such a transformation is possible in the near future, or on the trajectory humanity currently follows. I hope to spend the eighth and final book of this series answering some of these questions, and one of them would be to ask what the world could have been if eugenics were averted, or if it were somehow defeated. I hesitate to answer without describing the full arc of why we are here and where this has to lead, and I do not believe the reader would be satisfied with this answer. But, at a basic level, the demarchic view of rule and the state is the correct one. No other is possible. I opened the second book of this series with a very appropriate quote from Saint-Simon, and while it may seem more appropriate to politics, I opted to put it there because it was the question socialism presented that was the real question modernity posed. It was never a question of ideology or many of the things that were described by bad philosophy as "the modern encounter". Modernity answered the questions of socialism entirely in the negative. It did not need to choose what it did, but socialism's existence has always been ephermeal - at least up to the time of this writing. The lure and fear of demarchy made necessary the command and control of life functions at all of levels, and so it was not difficult to see the biopolitical idea that eventually became eugenics. I do not believe an adequate answer for us regarding politics is possible without viewing this biopolitics, but it is something largely removed from the present writing, which must established what political thought even is before involving too much of the peculiarities of life and its evolutionary history.

In every political society, regardless of the technology, abilities, or starting condition of its agents, the question of merit, moral sentiments, and measurable judgements about it, is posed. It is an undeniable and common sense observation that, regardless of the concepts of power or rule, all political thought will encounter merits and demerits, and they will at some point be a thing that will not be denied or mystified. Merit by itself does not have any political legitimacy, as if the assertion of merit meant anything about what should rule or where "true power" really exists. Merits and demerits could be acknowledged, ignored, tolerated, abided, praised, feared, or regarded as bland facts that were less important than a sense of moral right, rational interest, or simply not caring to dicker over who was bigger, stronger, faster, smarter, or did such and such things that were judged meritorious. The last of these, the position of the lowest class, is the obviously correct one, as is usually the case in the end. The best and most righteous of humans has no real power just by merit and can be felled by a lightning bolt, any weapon appropriate for killing, disease, or any number of events which can terminate life and remind humanity that for all of its braying about greatness, none of this vaunted status matters outside of the political echo chamber we're made to abide. The meritocrats themselves, if they are at all aware of genuine merit instead of posturing, have always known this, and have always been careful to make of merit only what the facts of the situation would say. To make grandiose claims is either a fad of the striving commons or, far more often, the braying of aristocracy which always takes claim of merit and engages in all manner of fuckery to distort its measurement. This does not mean the meritocrat is not a willing partner with aristocracy, or that the meritocrat is inherently concerned with justice at all. Meritocracy laughs at the idea of "justice", "fairness", or any such sobering influence imposed for any reason other than its own. Meritocrats are not intrinsically concerned with labor or technology, and often act entirely in opposition to all of those things in order to preserve their position. They may choose how to conduct themselves only when the strong realize their rule by ability, which is never a fait accompli. They may choose how to conduct themselves before ruling just as anyone can regulate their labor, technology, and existence, for good or ill. Nothing about a meritocrat obligates them to follow any particular imperative, including "merit" itself. A meritocrat could easily exist off of imagined prestige and it would still count as "merit" for this purpose. The judgement of what is meritorious in the end - an end which never arrives - is left to the world itself, which cares not for anything we regard as politically relevant. This is what distinguishes meritocracy from aristocracy - that the merit was determined by the outcome of a battle or competition in the real world, rather than esteem in society or values in institutions. The merit in the real world does nor correspond to any notion of "goodness" or whether we think merit is worth anything, nor does merit "affirm itself" philosophically. It only means that there is a world where this merit can be claimed. What we do with merit is up to us. The assertion of physical reality in social values is our choice. It is a reasonable choice, since to deny the world's judgement of what happened - the merits of the facts - would be troublesome. But, this merit means no more than that fact, and the world's assessment of merit does not need to care about our conceits about who should live and die, or whether the meritorous are good or "earned" it. Any concept of what was earned or just is a thing for law, technology, and the sentiments of people. Merit only judges the outcome of affairs in the world. The meritocrat by no means holds fidelity to truth. If ruling by lies and fear has worldly, temporal power that is carried out in a battle no one can deny is happening, then that merit will be a fact, even if the merit in question concerned social information that was removed from an independently verifiable fact or the reality of material conditions beyond society's existence and the assertion of those values. For this to work, the power of social values and aspersions has to be meritorious - it has to demonstrate that it can persist in the world as a free-standing thought form on its own, rather than a thing propped up by assumptions and insinuations. This is not as automatic as the partisans of such a view would believe. Until those people are able to assert reality in total, merit is beholden to battle and competition that is not accountable to anything we would prefer to think about what should be meritorious.

Meritocracy, in one form or another, has always been the de facto and naive assumption of how "power actually works" - that the strong defeat the weak if the world is orderly, and events contrary to this are irregularities rather than the rule. This is in line with the moral sentiments labor entails, and even to those who do not engage in socially recognized labor or any labor that would be relevant to the political question, there is a recognition that moral sentiments are possible and that an easy one to recognize is strength, size, and numerous values that can be independently ascertained. Any sense of merit relies on recognition that there is a world where merit can even exist, and in political society, the merits are limited to those which are relevant to the question at hand. It does not matter who is the best at scoring homeruns in baseball or who passes the best-smelling man contest, or some trifling fad that might be grasped by the technocrat as is their habit. While this is usually reduced to merit in battle - "violence is the supreme authority" - this is the merit aristocrats want, because aristocracy proper rests on destruction and vampiric feeding rather than merit, and this is the first and most critical aristocratic reversal of the political. It is of course necessary for the political agents to defeat aggressors and attack that which they will, but the merit to rule and the adjudication of any political virtue can extend to merits that aristocrats begrudgingly allow, co-opt and pervert as they pervert everything, or vociferously attack and denounce. For example, a common merit in political life is ruling well, by metrics which suggest that the society can actually summon the force necessary for any aim. Usually, leaders which keep the people happy or at least not actively opposed to society's very existence fare better than the dreams aristocracy has for humanity. The meritocrat themselves will likely take an interest in personal legacy or something they gain from political life beyond a good boy treat. For example, the meritocrat will probably enrich himself and consider that his share of the product of society - perhaps a lot, but rarely does the meritocrat take all of the product out of a sense of self-worth. That would be counterproductive and quickly dessicates the thing that pays him this tribute. Nearly all of the probity that is attributed to the "golden" aristocrats either comes from a "silver" auxiliary who has to be good because wickedness means death, from somewhere in the lower orders where an interest in the political project will somehow grant security and meet self-interest or some interest of the lower classes, or by some anonymous inertia of the world or social forces which exerts a natural veto of society's overreach and imposition upon the world. The aristocrat only shows probity or any restraint at the uttermost end of necessity, and passes off his self-indulgent miserliness and starvation of the human livestock as a great virtue and the sign of a true human, or whatever else the aristocrat postures as. This will make sense for the aristocrat's sense of merit, which is a very particular proposition. Those who actually govern society, and exercise power or rule in any sense, are stuck with muddling through the world that was left to them, to make of it what they will. Usually the meritocrat does not do this out of kindness or because he cares about anyone but himself, but because he was given a mandate to make the messes of aristocracy go away, clean them up, or - if aristocracy can accomplish their greatest idea - tell the meritocrat to attack the people and teach the meritocrat to enjoy the thrill of torture as the aristocrat does.

Since the common assumptions of meritocracy are taught and people operate with this if they have any sense of what is bigger and what rules, I do not feel a greater need to elaborate on meritocracy here. Rule, though, is never distributed on the basis of merit for society or for the holders of office. Meritocracy implies monarchy, or the rule of one, and in addition to being the necessary basis of despotism, it is one of the other great inroads of aristocracy into its auxiliaries - to with-hold the esteem a king needs to truly govern. This monarchy does not conform to any conceit about the "correct and proper" monarchy, but it is not identical with autocracy or autarchy that the lowest class would take as their assumption. The monarch rules not by his own virtue or abilities, but by command of all that is beneath him, however that is accomplished. It is the monarch who makes tradeoffs, sacrifices, and must deal with the muck of ruling, fighting, and all of the mundane details of administration that we commonly associate with rule. In effect, monarchy is the basis for every other concept of rule that has been granted legal force and can establish itself, for the state as an institution implies an executive who is, out of necessity, a single man or a small group of men with a clear face with a crown atop it. No charade of republicanism or spectacle changes this, even if the monarch styles himself as merely "Mr. President" or "Your friend and pal, Bernie". The buck stops somewhere. Republican governments, even when their basis is found in the actual public and officers are elevated from the democratic base instead of aristocratic elections or posturing of spurious merits, ultimately consist of office-holders who are answerable to higher office-holders, and the chairman of the state would be the effective monarch. Imperium, or the power of life and death, is implied by the state's most basic claims to be a state, and empires and prowess by merit make the holding of imperium a much more dangerous proposition. Imperium is never something to be taken lightly or presumed to not exist, and for any society to be governed as a state that can respond to the general fear, power over life and death must be established and recognized. If no one and no thing can make any claim to that imperium, then anarchy ensues, and this - contrary to expectations - is exactly how aristocracy loves to rule and govern. For all of the claims of imperium and monarchical title, the state in practice cannot make good on anything close to its claims, and so anarchy appears to many as the true "default state of nature". This state of nature of course is wholly invented by aristocracy, and the reasons why are best written of in the next chapter. The usual settlement of rule has to bend to concepts of rule other orientations in society hold, or by a combination of interests which do not directly relate to any core orientation. I write here only of the "ideal forms" that a tendency would pursue, which never actually exist in any polity.

The monarchical concept of rule is the basis for the concept of legal rights and status, the institutionalization of the person as an entity which must compete on social terms to survive, and nearly everything we associate with "politics". The commoner, whether it is a capitalist, a citizen-soldier, a housewife or matron, a punk-ass youth on the rise in the world, or a child who is figuring out what "society" even is, is styled as the monarch of whatever domain they rule, subordinate to the office-holders to whom loyalty is owed, and demanding the same of subordinates, until such a level where the "monarch" has no one to look down upon. In principle, this is the necessary basis for distinction of social classes as hierarchies, where members of one group are individually and collectively subordinated to another group or person, and the rights and duties of each are defined or at least definable. In all cases, human societies possess this sense of hierarchy, whatever their attitude towards it and however much hierarchy affects their actions and considerations of the political question, or any other relation they may have in society. There is never a society, even a society of beggars with nothing to show for themselves, which would willfully surrender the question of meritocracy and abdicate the crown so to speak. To do so is suicide. It may be that human societies does not value "rule" or "power" in the most crass way possible. All of these questions pertain to a political question alone, rather than "all that exists". Even demarchy cannot subsume the entire universe to it, for demarchy at heart concerns the political matter that social agents are engaged in alone. It is not intrinsic to demarchy to possess a jealous paranoia that compels the demarchs to invade private life and cajole the members of society to obey an invisible despot within them all. Nor is such a condition inherent to the idea of self-rule or rule of others with whatever crown might be imagined. The drive to invade private life in this highly pernicious way belongs to no tendency but one - aristocracy, it's rule through so-called "anarchy", and its power rooted in a lust for the world that defies normal political expectations we might naively hold.

In all of this, none of these orientations exist fully formed in any whole person by nature, and the same is true of aristocracy. None of us are free from the taint of aristocracy, and none of us can claim in the end to be anything more than scum of the Earth or whatever substance we rose from. None of us would feel an instinctive need to embody any one of these orientations and their associated concepts of power and rule. Very likely, our true interests in power and rule are not base-level political impulses that are mandated by anything like "political social class" or identity with a particular group, or a particular history compelling us to have interests that never escape the basic "germ" assigned to us by social convention. The true interests of anyone, even the feeble, have little to do with essentialism or any preferred conceit of rule, or any institution which is sacrosanct above all. This applies to the aristocracy as well, who among their own laugh that they have made the world kowtow to their institutions and the most idiotic authority man could ever have followed. We see in these orientations all of the necessary ingredients to build, from the muck, all of the conditions of political society we would care about, if politics were limited to a purview of answer this question of society and the world as a whole and relations with alien societies whose intent may be hostile, friendly, neutral, or something that doesn't boil down to any preferred "rule of rulers". We would have a very difficult time asking what good a "friend" is when that "friend" openly declares their intent to betray and claims that this is what "peace" is, where the "friend" bares its fangs and constantly shouts like a retard about how great it is to betray allies, and considers that shouting an indicator of strength.

Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

Return to Table of Contents | Return to Chapter Start