Return to Table of Contents | Previous Chapter | Next Chapter

If this political problem were limited to the aforementioned categories - if it were a type of economic problem with a limited purview of political matters, where merit and force were the principal currency rather than any moral conceit or a fetish for technology or commodities - then it seems the solution is simple. Victory in temporal authority would be determined by the victors of struggle, who form the elite of the warriors or proprietors and command, by whatever virtue they possess. All of the struggles would give way to merit in some battle or contest which would be the sole political currency, and all other expectations of the political are subsumed in the rule of those who can claim property. That property may be held by individuals or held jointly by a pact, but whatever superficial appearances the proprietors maintain about their way of life, there would be no genuine political content save for the struggle for merit and position. All others, whatever contests they may raise to become proprietors, would be beholden to the same contest for merit, and this contest never forms social units beyond those which are technologically possible. All technology which suggests a different social arrangement would ultimately be judged by the merit of property, and would be a servant to the same impulse that allowed humans to rule humans in any capacity. The sole argument and raison d'etre for the state is thus - "violence is the supreme authority". Without anything else, there would be no argument to make against this, whatever the mechanisms of the proprietors to command other humans. Some may coax the slave into a false friendship or sense of security, some may lie to the slave about reality itself, some may threaten force and consequences. All are beholden to the general fear which made the political possible. The basis of the state in technology, labor and its moral purposes, or the mere existence of social agents who are in a sober analysis no better than any other shit in the world, would always be on the back heel, because property possesses a claim to temporal authority which, when realized by possession and force, continues. Technology absent purpose is a dead lump of utility. Labor absent a vessel cannot be channeled for long, whether it is fixed into particular technology, particular people, or allowed free association to be as it would have been in a better world. The damned of the Earth are the only ones in this arrangement with the correct and sober understanding - humanity is segregated into rulers and ruled, whether the ruled accede to the rulers or not. Because they are the damned, whether the ruled comply with rulers is irrelevant, for the rulers made it clear they did not want the damned of the Earth for anything, and this has dominated all human societies from the sordid birth of their race.

None of these groups can ever reconcile with each other, but the overt political struggle - sold to the masses either as a story or a system or some historical fact - is between the proprietor and the property-less, denied even the dubious right of being slaves to the proprietor and attacked viciously from cradle to grave. It is also the damned who are traditionally excluded from the tripartate ordering of society. If they are acknowledged in the tripartate separation of the state, it is only in the view of the naive technocrats, and then only those who believe "there is no such thing as merit", "everyone is a winner", which is taught as a way to pretend the ruling order doesn't really exist even though it definitely exists. In this view, the technocrat - the producer, the bourgeois, the capitalist, the merchant - is acutely aware that their rule is premised entirely on the suffering class continuing to suffer, and feeding labor the droppings of capital and telling them this is all there will be. It would not matter if a "worker's state" fulfilled the role of the capitalist class, if the place of the lowest class remains the same and the essential enemy of society. Usually, though, the demands of meritocracy sweep over the fetish for technology, and the tripartate arrangement is as follows: The strongest, who won totally on merit of strength that was adjudicated and made into a claim of property of one sort or another, play the same game the technocrats play with labor, but with the capitalists, who are made to jockey for position in a gigantic zero-sum game. These capitalists are, in the struggle for life that the proprietor class would be drawn to without an aristocracy to insinuate it, increasingly despondent, and eventually come to view their struggle as one which co-opts labor for one program or another. Because the capitalist or bourgeois class is not ideologically wed to money or a fetish for it, the classes and interests of the bourgeois instead break off based on the technology they hold. An industrialist wishes to establish the necessity of their industry, going as far as planning obsolescence and consumption for no purpose and favoring war and supplication. An intellectual seeks an alliance with aristocracy and those of the soldiers who are amenable to that program, even if their intellect is just the same low cunning that the historical middle class learns by heart. Labor is lumped together with the residuum or the reserve army of labor, and the aim of both middle and high is to drive down the conditions of labor as rapidly as possible, with the unspoken but omnipresent assumption that if labor refuses to comply, they meet the fate of the residuum, and the residuum - regardless of the ruling ideas - will be made to suffer and made an example, something inherited from all of the slaveries of history as the most expedient psychological motivator. We see here the origins of the aristocratic conceit of the philosophical, tripartate state, in which a new class - the aristocracy - can arise from the largesse the proprietors exploit and that technology allows, which clamors for labors common and exotic. Aristocracy will create in time the common tripartate formation observed throughout history - a priestly elite which implied some connection to the gods or Heaven that allowed it to rule through a special type of property that is beyond temporal claims, their warrior auxiliaries who perform the grunt work and are the natural allies of this new aristocracy, and the producers who are purely seen from on high as pieces of technology and dead labor, or capital to be used and abused. The aristocracy encourages the reproduction of the "trinity of low cunning" that the producers would operate in if there were no strong meritorious ruling power, mentioned above; but, when aristocracy informs that trinity, the producers are exhorted to internalize the values of aristocracy, and see themselves as temporarily embarrassed aristocrats with all of the pretensions high culture and its parodies encourage.

There is not one thing from the ingredients involved in society that suggests that any "aristocracy" should exist. Superficially, the first claim of aristocracy is that they are the "best", and that this status becomes first property, and then a hereditary and eugenic interest for the whole of society. This leads a naive mind to associate aristocracy with merit and strength. But, we should see this from the view of proprietors, for whom all of their property is in the end something they hold to be a fact established by history, if it is to be relied upon for anything stable. We can proceed with the view of the proprietors, whose role also covers the warrior elites, bureaucrats, and purely institutional figures whose power derives from holding an office as property - where the institutions are nothing more than fiefdoms for the exercise of power.

For the proprietor, the lowest class is, by default, a null threat. They have nothing of value because they do not work, and their existence is irrelevant to anything that their interests truly care about. So too is the world itself nothing more than a feeding ground. The properitor is, by its own admission, a vampire upon the world, and so too are the soldiers and warriors, who admit freely none of their work is productive or truly necessary for existence itself. What is valuable to the proprietor are claims that society makes on things in the world, which are specific things with names, a record of their existence, and an ability of some institution to record the claims which the proprietor asserts. That institution may be the person of the proprietor, or an institution deemed to be neutral and an authority regarding this matter. It is not a rule that the authority is a state institution. Far from it, the proprietors are the class most averse to centralization of authority or subsuming the society in either demarchic claims of shared property or, the thing they truly dread, democracy. If property is shared at all among the proprietors, their inclination is to pool resources only as a temporary measure. The proprietors recognize oligarchy as a threat just as most people who have thought for five minutes see oligarchy as a threat. Oligarchies will already promote distrust and dissolve any bond that united them when the fruits of shared labor are no longer competitive for merit. While it is not a rule that the proprietors would turn on each other like slavering jackals the moment it suited them, a sense of distinction within society drives the proprietor so far as the proprietor's interests can be distinguished. This occurs because merit, technology, and the claims of property are always local and pertain to things. In particular, they claim things which already are acknowledged by society. That which is beneath the notice of society - too valueless to be judged as an asset and marked with a claim and deed, like many commodities - does not intrinsically hold value as property, nor should it hold value. It is that which is judged to be a valuable asset which is most relevant. Claims to territory are the most ancient claims in political history, but they are not the first claims. The first claims of the proprietor are social relations themselves, which precede any ecology that they might have claimed.^[1] The claims to landed property rarely conform to the claims on human property or claims on a piece of technology, for the proper claims to territory and space are really the claims of aristocracy proper. The presumption of the landholder was not just that a piece of land was theirs to use and abuse, but that they were the stewards of the land and possessed a spiritual claim to that space. The reasons for this become apparent as this view continues. It is further complicated by the claims of the political being at heart transcendant claims, rather than claims that can say anything about space. Politics begins as a social affair, and at first, only the agents of society participate. The claims to mere things, like the tools of people, and beneath the notice of the political until their impact on society is significant. Those things remain under the personal authority of those who possess them, as even if the power of those things is known, the primitive state does not possess tools of its own to police the personal lives of members, nor does the desire to strip a man of all tools - including the faculties of his body - appear as if it were "just there" or natural. So long as the agents of society lack the means to question property - so long as they lack the merit or virtue to question the rule of property over society - no pressing need to control society and pressure its members with enclosure and humiliation would be self-evident. Far from it, the proprietors are among those who understand most acutely the concept of freedom, rights, and that which defends such things. The proprietors are inclined towards a sober view of freedom for themselves, but they are also the most likely to recapitulate the ideology of "freedom", especially when ideology can be weaponized and planted in institutions to automate the claims to property. By doing so, the proprietor is freed from relying on bureaucratic labor, which very often is not done by members of his own class but by the subordinated producers and clerks, who are a constant thorn in the side of the proprietors.

The intercine fight between proprietors only gives way to their conflict with the orders of society that disagree with them. Without any clear victor in the struggle for rule, the proprietors view their cause as a labor much like that of any worker, and so, in some sense there is democracy among them and an understanding of oligarchy as the status quo. It does not follow that the proprietors have a "class interest" as such. Their mindset is fundamentally feudal, and they are the masters of clients and seek to bind them. The prevailing relationship from the view of the proprietor is between themselves and their property - master and slave, ruler and ruled. It is a temporary degeneration of the preferred tripartate ordering, but this is understood as an expedient approach to what the proprietor really cares about. At a basic level, the proprietor is really only beholden to himself rather than his peers, and it is only the condition of competition which establishes the oligarchy of his peers. The proprietor is under no obligation to "win the struggle" or view the struggle as one that can be won. By his own theories of society and sense of rule, the struggle is definitionally unwinnable, short of an absolute claim on all that exists. That claim is impossible by sense that is obvious to a child, and isn't one that can be seriously defended except as a legal fiction. But, anything approaching this claim requires the proprietor to command technology beyond his person and the claims hitherto available to him. All of the technology in human history does not come close to realizing this claim, but it is implied - for the proprietor's self-interest alone - that the proprietor would command technology, which is typically the domain of producers. The reasons for this come back to the constraints of life itself. For a "pure proprietor", any energy expended on something other than rule and command of his property is a waste of energy, so far as it refers to the political situation in society and the proprietor's need to acknowledge that condition. What the proprietor does in his private life - his hobbies, his personal joys and sorrows, his indulgences, and all that is not part of the political question or a consequence of the property relations he holds - is also a waste of energy for political purposes. The producers serving the proprietor can exploit a simple fact - that all that comprises private life is in principle something that can be claimed and utilized. The proprietor's view only concerns maintaining the claim to property, but the producer - the would-be technocrat or merchant or other suitable position - has very different motives in the struggle, if the producer wishes to become a proprietor. The proprietor has no choice about this. He cannot relinquish in total his claims to property and continue any of his claims or the lifestyle that arises from it. This is not an ideological necessity, as if the proprietor will experience existential horror if he loses everything and can't be anything else, but if property is abandoned or the proprietor cannot transfer an older and obsolete type of property to a new type - exchanging slaves or serfs for liquid capital and machinery, for instance - then the proprietor has nothing that allows his private life to continue in the fashion he deemed fit. He would become a pauper, reliant on nothing but base labor, and he knows what he has done to the orders of labor historically. If the laborer cannot survive, the proprietor sees his ultimate fate in that most hated class of all - the residuum, made to beg and scrape, with the added shame of having fallen from grace and a dishonorable discharge from the society he once held a piece of, or ruled outright.

The directive of feudal competition is passed down to the producers, who chafe under the watchful eye of their lords but live in a society that is clearly not their own. This, the producers claim, is a grievous injustice, and because they have wealth and the means to acquire more of it - they possess some form of capital rather than just assets or the precursors of capital in earlier times - they have a say in society regardless of the nobility's disdain for low-grade opulence. The wealth of the proprietor is premised on the exploitation of both labor and technology, rather than something that passively generates a product. Without an aristocratic elite to regulate "nature" - for the proprietor natively does not possess a claim to natural laws with any deed or temporal claim - the proprietor is reliant on the active command and control of labor, which itself is a laborious task that detracts from the proprietor's basis in political society. The proprietor did not win the struggle because he was a manager or a capable leader of men, or virtuous, or popular. The proprietor, and the lesser shadows who operate much as he does in the lower orders of society, wins by combat and social engineering affected by it. This means historically the proprietors are associated with militarism when they rule in their own right and person, rather than property or capital. The task of producing is pawned off to the "middle class", though this term is not yet available. What classes function as producers varies based on time and place and the technological basis for their society, if they even constitute classes rather than interests that fill this role. They are, in our time, technocrats, planners, middle- and petty-managers with no particular political assets beyond the property of their salary and holdings in a commonwealth or stock market. They are identified as "bourgeois", though the interests of the city and interests of the producers do not match one for one, and there are bourgeois proprietors and warriors and bourgeois aristocrats, and bourgeois interests and sentiments within the favored grades of labor and supplicants of the lowest class who seek patronage and find some way to make themselves useful to the producers - always in the sub-basement of the society, either as the reserve army of labor or tasked with unclean professions beneath the dignity of proletarians, and beneath the dignity of useful slaves. Capital as a concept is the modern birth of the producers as a class with associations and aims of their own, and so the "abstract capitalist" is the perfect indicator of the producers' preferred social ordering once capital is stripped of its association with property and aristocracy. For many reasons, much of the capitalist class of old, ranging from the petty-bourgeois with small holdings to the lower grades of the haute-bourgeois who found themselves in a subordinate role during monopoly capitalism, were more like the abstract capitalist than what the property claims and rights of a capitalist state suggested. The liberal settlement, contrary to the naive faith of ideologues, was not a philosophy of the producers or the political ideology of capitalism. Many a capitalist will be the first to decry liberal excesses, and many a liberal will tell you that property and capital does not have any inherent spiritual significance. Many liberals did not even regard what they were doing as an ideological or class project. For the liberals, their leaders styled themselves from the outset as aristocratic, and the concept of a "liberal" would be unintelligible if they did not adopt a thoroughly developed aristocratic program that their governments always promoted. Liberal political thought, far from actually supporting "small capital" or "national capital" for democratizing purposes, was obsequious in the defense of monopolies and the interest of the largest proprietors and the role of the state to regulate society. If liberalism was just a makeshift defense of capital or property rights for the lower orders of the capitalist class, it would not have advocated for free trade, and no "liberalism" was necessary for the rise of the producers. Mercantile Europe already enshrined favored industries and interests, and far from favoring the rising capitalists, free trade was immediately disastrous for those interests, and the conservative order found fast friends among those capitalists who saw liberalism from the start as a dangerous folly and a social experiment imposed from on high. The commoners with property who did embrace liberal ideas did not do so because of a faith in the moral right of property or money, but because liberal theories were a vehicle for political power and secured either an alliance with the crown, or established what was effectively a new monarchy. The switching of office-holders in a republic, and the distribution of court favors among a representative body and a cabinet of advisors, was no different from appointing a new king every four years, with the tendency being that competent presidents usually served two or more terms by an unwritten custom and expectation of the process. The real heart of the liberal theory, and why it really worked, was the transformation of the state. Under the rule of proprietors, the state was nothing more than a glorified warlord called a king or an emperor and whatever assholes could afford venal office or make themselves useful for the interests of that glorified warlord. The liberal state, starting at first from whatever favors were traded in secret societies or backroom deals of convenience, suggested many institutions at the heart that would perpetuate a ruling body as a thought-form, and the chief institution of working liberal societies was the university or some educational and accrediting body that would elevate and train the new courtiers and atheistic priests of liberalism. Just as the crown jewel of education was to train priests during the height of religious authority, the crown jewel of liberal education was to become a lawyer, a philosopher, an orator, a leader, a general of a new type more inclined to favor high culture and intelligence over the typical officer who saw political power in the barracks and through force, and increasingly, the scientists whose specializations were becoming so volumnious that no one student could hope to be a master of all of them, and so mathematicians, astronomers, engineers, and very importantly, doctors and biologists, would be prominent fixtures in every society. These professions were not wed to liberalism as an excuse or self-serving lie. To the liberal, the political theory was not an "ideology", but a description of institutions and societies that, to this day, is the most accurate and correct one. I do not wish to be bogged down here in describing ideology or the liberal idea, but it is important to note here that the conceit that the producers as a class were ideologues or "tricked" did not hold water among those liberals who were at all competent at politics, and it would be the vanguard of liberal intellectuals themselves who had the most to do with trashing the liberal condition in favor the ideologies of the 20th century, all of which were understood as instruments of rule rather than anything a competent person believed were the point in of themselves - that is, the purpose of the state was not the state itself with nothing for it. A theory of the origin of institutions that was rooted in a study of systems and information in the base of the world, rather than a theory that institutions were handed down from on high or rose by a raw and unrefined will of men, from a time where there was no university or educational core, made sense for a nascent political elite, which had successfully restructured the state as in Britain - and this was the original expectation of the French Revolution of 1789 - or raised a new state out of what was originally little more than a colonial assembly of merchants and slave-holders as in the United States. Liberal ideas would be superceded when the state transformed, as would be expected under that theory, into a bureaucratic state, and the aristocratic aims of liberals had were evident. Ideology proliferated first to uphold the conservative order, and then as a tool for liberal aristocrats to obscure their future, ominous plans, so far as the liberals had a say in it. What resulted was the aristocracy of capital, which superficially denied that there was an aristocracy. The period of bourgeois decadence as monopoly capitalism was established is the most readily accessible historical example of the "copper rule" - of what would happen when producers of low to moderate cunning take on the aristocratic functions once held in the main by warrior aristocrats and the large estates of land-holders.

The first observation that distinguishes the rule of the producers is that proprietors are overwhelmingly dominated by self-interest in their property, and their rivalry is that of warlords competing for fiefs. The producers do not have any natural affinity for each other as a class, as if it was just natural for capitalists to befriend other capitalists and mind meld. The producers, and this is true of their equivalents in any era, are more acutely aware of the nature of exchange in their society, because their existence depends on it in a way that property-holders have secured themselves against. The capitalist rises and falls from the volatile mechanisms of the market, and would love to attain the rents and effort-free income proprietors and warlords extract by the sword or by tributes if they are playing the good cop. The capitalist lives under a regime of taxation where he would be the party for whom tax is relevant, until the capitalist is in such a position where he becomes the bank, at which point his interest is no longer productive capital but a lordship of a different sort. A common mistake of crass minds is to associate the capitalist with a grasping proprietor or a miser swimming in his money bin like Scrooge McDuck. The capitalist is far more aware of society and the basis for his place in the world, and far less indulgent in himself than the image of "greed is good". Far from it, the capitalist's obsession is with restraint, deliberation, moral posturing, calculated hypocrisy, technology, and most of all, his intelligence and command of knowledge. The capitalist has no sword he swings on his own, and his command of armies only lasts as long as he can provide coin. Unless the capitalist owns a bank, he is only capable of recruiting a private army of dubious loyalty, as the capitalist is not a commander of men in battle, and at first lacks any pedigree among the warriors. The capitalist's love of pedigrees, when he becomes an aristocrat, is an exaggeration of all of his vices regarding money and intellectual hypocrisy. He lionizes a propensity to truck and barter, with full awareness that this proclivity is one to be controlled and used to animate the vices of others, while his own vice in this regard is developed into a whole intellectual regime celebrating "business sense" and whatever is expedient for screwing his rivals and subordinates in any deal.

The producers, in any era, rely on command of labor and the lowest class, and these are the only classes that will regard the capitalist's pretensions of lordship. Among his own kind and among the warriors and priests, and their intellectual office-holder counterparts in the past two centuries, everyone scoffs at bowing and scraping to a capitalist as they would to a king or a pope. That, for many reasons, indicates a despotic aim that would immediately be recognized as a danger to the other capitalists. Because the capitalist's success is far more tenuous than that of the landholder with vassals, a despot or a Caesar is the worst plausible condition for most of them. It is also, in the end, the only way capitalism could end for good. If there is a socialist or communist revolution, the chairman of the Party would have everything he or she needs to be that despot, if they can truly command the people and peers. In practice, communist parties rule collectively, as the machinery a technocrat - prior to communism, the captain of industry and financial kingpin - does not come anywhere close to making real any despotic rule without reservations or placating peers, while mollifying the lower classes. There would be too much to do for any one man or small group to rule despotically, until technology magnifies the command of labor through technology in such a way that one of three things happens. One is that the whole of society is automated and the master key is held by the despot, operating a machine so all-consuming that to go against it is very difficult, and the despot commands the loyalty of all officers through an immediate fear. This is the stated objective of the current interest of producer, soldier, and aristocat alike, but it is impractical with the current plans drawn up to rule through computerization and artificial intelligence, for numerous reasons that have circulated among those familiar with the technology. The second is that the despot rules by a form of mind control where the officers "love their slavery" or "love Big Brother", but this mind control would be far more effective and insidious than the idiotic speculations of the dystopians. Far from it, this fate - which is the only fate now possible for humanity's history, I will remind the reader - would be the best possible outcome, and such mind control would likely not make ideological or sentimental appeals. Instead, the ruled will reconcile with such a fate as better than the torture that continuing any vestige of a republic will mean on our current trajectory, and there is no worthwhile form of republicanism that can survive once the more efficient and humane despotic mind control is possible. The greater difficulty for this is that, at present, all existing theories and practices of such mind control are wholly inadequate, and so long as eugenism is a prevalent desire of the producers or those who lord over them, it would be impossible. The third case is that the despot eradicates outright anything and anyone that threatens absolute rule from a small group, and in this situation, technology will have frozen or regressed dramatically, and the human population will drop drastically as there is no realistic way for a small group to control even one billion humans on Earth. Such a despotism would maintain the world in a perpetual fear of death, and once the death machine starts, there is no turning it off. It would appear superficially as a continuation of the anarchy aristocracy in the 21st century espouses as a fool's politics, for most of the people would be ruled by such deprivation that their thoughts would be stunted. This is the future of maximal eugenism, espoused by the most rank filth of aristocracy and the most venal of a failed human race, which rises in peaks of depravity and has its antecedents. The importance of mentioning these fates here is to keep in mind that the producers, though they are interested in subsuming society into collective rule of some type, are inclined in the end to the realization of a despotism with one of their own winning in all possible economic situations. Where the proprietors could continue indefinitely in feudal conflict and have no particular interest in what natural order rules so long as they personally keep their holdings, the producers never had the same marriage to their property. Property for the producer has always been a means to an end, and so, capital exists to beget more capital, until the capitalist can win property, standing, and the command of men through his technology and coin. The capitalist's property is entirely a tool for expanding his power and rule, rather than the point in of itself. If the capitalist had an alternative form of property, that did not require the uncertainty of producing anything, he would readily choose to extract rents, or rule as a pure technocrat and sever labor from wages altogether - that is, the capitalist's inclination is to create the most abject slavery possible, whatever his belief about the institution's effect on the balance of power among rivals. The capitalist cannot avoid this for long, even if the capitalist has to abolish formally the institution and uphold the freedom of labor to exist so that most necessary technology and industry can exist. Without any product whatsoever, the capitalist would be quickly forced to retreat from existence, and a barbaric form of the proprietor's religion gains enthusiastic support among a broad coalition of classes and interests - and this is where filth like Nazism and the more brazen fags of the eugenic creed arise.

For the producer, the favored grades of labor are his auxiliaries, and the residuum the "true proletarians", albeit lower since the property of their children and their bodies has been taken from them, whereas the proletarian yet retains that dignity. The proletarian of Marx is envisioned as the petty-bourgeois of labor, and this is intended - in doing so, the biases of Marx's bourgeois audience, and Marx's interests are quintessentially bourgeois and conscious of that, are transposed onto the struggle over labor and industry. This mentality, naturally, has little to do with the proletarians' actual demands, but a few proletarians know a vehicle for social advancement when they see it, and see a way to escape their predicament by political alliances and climbing through a game in the secret societies. The residuum, as a rule, is denied any such promotion, and here, the ancient rites of sacrifice continue, already implemented by the doctrine of Malthus with enthusiasm and artfully reproduced by grifters from every direction. The great drive is to induce labor to internalize an identity which pits them against the residuum and declares the lowest class is an existential threat to labor. Once this is acted upon, the most necessary act for breaking labor as an independent force is secured. That is the price of the blood pact the favored grades of labor are willing to pay, whether they do so by supplicating to the capitalist, or by a fake friendship of labor which consciously accelerates the destruction of the lowest class and exhorts labor to adopt a political form utterly alien to its interests, then tells labor to "support their interests" after making it clear their genuine interests have no basis in political thought and have no future path. This is not a trivial task, and it is not entirely the working of Marx to realize this or even the point Marx cared to make. Marx, quite frankly, has little regard for labor altogether, except as something to co-opt. If there are proletarians that can understand Marx and make themselves useful agents for the cause, then it is no loss to him, but aside from elevating a few useful idiots as saboteurs, the lowest class is repugnant, and this came to match the trends that were already baked into the human race's spiritual constitution anyway. Marx would not have had to do much but heighten that which was already demonstrated in spades before him and without his influence. When considering those around him, Marx was no worse than nearly all contemporaries in this regard, and in some ways the theory could be adapted to be more amenable to the lowest class. In the main, though, the Marxist view of the proletarians mimicks the proprietors' stance towards the middling grades of the producers, and in this way, the alien bourgeois culture and national myths are imported to the workers.^[2] The final step would be to gradually poison memory of older folk religion and superstititons of use to labor and the lowest class, and suggest that alien thought-forms are the shared heritage with labor, when labor high and low has always viewed aristocratic culture with appropriate contempt.

Labor and the residuum coexist as the "low of the low" to the rest of society, and however much the distinction is emphasized for the interests of the two prevailing groups mentioned here, the two classes have enough reason to see each other as hostile and alien from the outset. The problem with this is that, down here, there is not any consciousness of a class, other than their lack of membership in the associations of the producers or proprietors, and the obvious that they are not the officers. The distinction between who is "in" and who is "out" is stark and apparent from childhood on, and above all, human labor never forgets this regardless of where it resides. This is necessary for labor to be labor - to distinguish that which works from that which does not. Their attitudes towards this distinction may vary, but neither those who are in nor those who are out forget this for long. Fake friendship and fake egalitarianism are among the oldest jokes humanity has ever pulled, delivered with predictable contempt. So far as there is any alliance between the in-groups and out-groups, it is because both are out of a much greater group, pressed upon, and see that if they are divided and conquered, the greater third party will sow more discord and force a deeper cull of the group that was once "in". Labor's existence is pressed upon natively by proprietors and producers, without any spurring by a class above them which has yet to make its appearance with its own world-historical mission. Labor does not have the luxury of too much idealism in their view of society, or being able to choose their associations and mitigate this strategy. If, however, labor were left entirely to its own devices, the situation towards the out-group would be no different. If primitive society is any indication, the plight of those cast out would be even worse, with nothing moderating the traditional vices of labor and humanity.

At a basic level, political elites only exist because they have made themselves so, rather than any default setting that was intrinsically respected. A leader might inspire followers by virtue, deception, or fear, among other qualities that may exploit the sentiments and passions of people, and this neither requires any great theory nor marks a permanent political settlement. It could be that leaders are assigned out of necessity, drawn from men who were rightly reluctant to take on the role. Before we attribute this elitism to some malicious heart in humanity, we should stop to make clear one thing that will probably be clear if anyone thinks about it at all; politics is hard. Leading people, and managing all of their wants and attributes, is hard. For many who hold office or respect, they find that the reward is not what was promised, and may have asked what any of it was for, unless they had a particular reason for commanding political power or rule that was not for its own sake or a promise of rewards. A pressure in our society, felt since the classical period, was that if you did not rule, you were by default the ruled, and that meant eating shit. Without a concept of republicanism and no stable oligarchy beyond the crude insinuations common to humanity, ruling jointly was not a realistic possibility, and the basic tendencies of humanity had no need or want of a "republic" or institution of shared rule. Where labor tends towards an oligarchic view of the world, for that is the practical sharing of power that prevents one man from overpowering others in the demos and favors a clique-within-the-group that favors the human penchant for gladhanding and bullshit, its democratic basis is at odds with such an oligarchy. Even a benign oligarchy presents the danger of ejection or hierarchy within it, for there is no concept of equality in rule. Rule is only exercised by executives which suggest a singular head, even if participation in the ruling body is jointly held or subsumed the whole mass of society. In the oligarchy, there is at the least a leader or steering committee that is the heart of the ruling power, and the task of the ruling power is to maintain that oligarchy to the bitter end, or usurp it to initiate a different concept of rule. This may be demarchic reforms to subsume the out-group and drag it into a society that is by all accounts its most prominent enemy, but usually it is the transformation of oligarchy to monarchy by the simple virtue of the ruler or some interest in the country obtaining a significant share of wealth and influence. There is no hardcoded law which political elites follow in all historical periods, nor is the size and proportion of an elite fixed by any law. This will be revisited later in our writing as it is very important to define a political elite, wherever it exists, and see that it does not conform to any one of these classes, including aristocracy's eventual claims to pass from regime to regime as the true blood of Man.

If the role of technology and property is entirely subsumed into labor itself, or labor itself possesses the majority of relevant technology and property is limited to territorial claims of tribes and the commons of tribal society, we have obviated the proprietors and producers as independent interests. In primitive society, the free man who is valid only answers to the virtue of men who demonstrate leadership, and abandons those who cannot maintain that virtue, for there is no real way to hold members together unless they are under the strain of war and can't leave. Those who are not valid have little say in the matter - they live with whatever the valid, the in-group, choose to do, and the first taboo of the human race is that this must not change. If it is temporarily abrogated, it must be proclaimed after the need of this abrogation is over that there never was such an abrogation. This does not require editing history or actually believing that it is so, or any scientific or reasoned pretext for doing this. The necessity for this act is political, and its cause is simple - if the invalid can be redeemed, what does it say about the rites of manhood? Only if the invalid could be claimed to always have been valid can this happen, and if that happens, there was the gravest miscarriage of justice. If this was a rule rather than an exception, what does that say about the entire enterprise humanity undertook? We may argue that the true invalidity of humanity is the exception rather than the rule, but this conceit only came into vogue as the producers become a prominent force in settled society, and a need to subsume and degrade labor and the lowest class together could be appreciated. In every society, it is a human habit to identify who is retarded, who is out of the know, and make sure they stay there once detected and marked down. Word will spread, and it is a taboo to acknowledge that others talk to each other if you are an invalid. Valids are never spoken to this way. Invalids are always spoken to with the utmost contempt, and to even speak to them in any other way violates a sacred oath of the initiates into manhood and womanhood. Satanic race. Failed race. Always. You can look around and see the proof of that today, and the abrogations of this rule are always temporary, always ignored in any serious evaluation of a society, and never believed by the invalid. For the invalid, even temporary abatement of the human race's typical proclivity is something they will pretend to go along with, for what little good that will do. From the birth of this foul race to the present day, and for any forseeable future, this is what it means to be truly out - forever. The boot stamping on your face as the damned has always been the rule, and comes as no surprise. The only surprise might be that humans actually are so shitty that they would rather commit to unlimited torture and sacrifice themselves before they make us legal. To know the political elite as a concept makes clear why this calculation is always made by the valid, unless they are suicidal, in which case they simply have no further reason to care about this farce and will join the ranks of the invalid if they keep it up, or they will follow through with their suicide. Those who are truly ready to die have little reason to play along with any more kayfabe, and it is only the dead and those truly committed to dying imminently that will be honest among this whole race. This, after all, is why martyrdom, so far as that is ever really the cause, evokes a rare honesty among this race of retarded apes.

There is not a blind impulse that makes this just so or intrinsic to nature or life. What I describe here is the necessary germ for all other class society in political thought - that at heart, the contest is between who is consigned to suffer, and who is granted the blessing to inflict the torture. No other distinction carries any intrinsic moral weight to make this distinction at the level of the state and the political. Natural abilities, the happenstance of geography, the formation of ecosystems that favor those in one location over another, the technology humans build, are all ulterior motives in service to this. The rationale of all involved - the proprietor/warrior, the producer/capitalist/manager, the worker, and the damned - do not make of this any grand mission for their class, which at this point does not exist. There is only at heart the infliction of this suffering and sacrifice, and there is not yet an exhortation that this in of itself is "the good" or what humans really are. The ritual sacrifice did indeed happen, and it could happen without even labor proper to inform it. The residuum and their antecedents have done this sacrifice on their own power for no reason other than the cheap thrill it provided them. Labor, though it very much values its status above the damned and must if its labor is to be worth anything, has no real reason to continue the cycle beyond that which makes clear the distinction. It would not be out of the question for labor to redeem one of the damned, rehabilitate them, and make out of the filth something presentable enough as a worker, or an adjunct to labor that is afforded some dignity. This has been an expedient, since the true conditions of labor in any era are that they must work with the tools they are given, and other humans are tools just as their axes and hammers would be. Those tools need not be slaves to be managed, and the workman does not treat his axe or any other implement with the disdain and constant policing that slavery required. It has also recognized a condition labor readily understood and has to operate in - that what is done to the damned could just as easily be done to them, for labor is acutely aware that no natural law enshrined any of their virtues over the damned. This did not grant to labor any moral righteousness or wisdom as a gift from the heavens, for labor can easily decide it does not care one way or the other, but labor on its own does not possess a general theory of technology that the producers would require to arise as an independent interest, and does not possess the legal property claims that require the state or prototypes of state societies to exist. Labor long understood both technology and property as dangers to their genuine condition of freedom, rather than things that defined them as free against the slaves. The opposite of genuine freedom did not require a theory, technology, or legal deed to be apparent. The condition of the damned, the residuum, made clear the distinction between free men and slaves, even when there was no institution of slavery as such. The aims of the producers then are first to see this situation and pit labor against the damned, while hypocritically claiming progress and a crass wisdom appropriate to the low cunning of their station. The proprietors in turn refine their sense of labor's value until they arrive at victory in battle as the sole determinant of what is worthy of life. This, though, is never all-consuming, for proprietors rightly fear other proprietors, and though one must be king, the vassals are always difficult to control, and feudal lords are the quickest to sell out, being exemplars of the cowardice of a failed race.

The path from proprietor to residuum, and from residuum to proprietor, terminates at each pole. The proprietor attains victory - property - and this is, for his own self-interest, all there is and can be in the world. The residuum seeks to avoid this fate by whatever means are available to them. For the residuum, the only winning condition they can know is to not lose everything. The residuum as a rule loses every battle, and is designed to lose. Any "win" they ever experience in proper society is taken from them, and this is not caused by any grand conspiracy or demonic force "corrupting" the world. It is instead something perpetuated in the base of society, among the laboring classes - "even if you win, you're still retarded." This, though, is not the point. The losers of humanity do not seek equality or membership in a demos that was always an alien to them, or a society premised on their defeat. The losers do not really have a place in that society, even if they are kept as slaves or made to fulfill a use as expendable reserves. The residuum may from time to time take part in some labor and hold some scraps, but none of this activity is consequential at the level of politics, and usually it is not consequential to anyone but that member of the lowest class. Even their own families segregate the failures and leave them to their own devices in the best of times, and any success or contribution the failures make to their family or society is made invisible or attributed to the victorious and valid. This is something we down here have learned is the only way humans will ever be, and expecting it to be different would be even more foolish than our daily existence. The default attitude of the lowest class is anti-social, and in this, they share a common trait with the proprietors, who really have no use for "society" beyond that which will recognize their deeds and merits and that whicih consists of their property. But, the proprietor still works and labors, even if his existence is parasitic upon the productive classes. What the proprietor does to defend his deed is never taken for granted, and any proprietor who believes in automation is a worse retard than the lowest retard of the lowest class. On his own, the proprietor's mission has little purpose outside of his self-interest and that interest which serves his property. The property is outside of the proprietor's person. Even the body of the proprietor is an alien to his person and has to be, and this is not a surprise to any proprietor, who sees his body as nature's barrier to his will and merit. His own failures, both of the body and the mind, are demerits that the honor- and merit-driven existence of the warrior and proprietor cannot abide, but they exist. For the producers, their chief aim is to become proprietors, and no other vision would be self-evident to them. If their aim were to make all men equal, as the retarded ideologies suggest, the producers and commoners did remarkably little towards that aim, and when we read of the plans and missions of the commoners who held capital or served some role managing capital, no aim of such egalitarianism or levelling was even implied in their theories of government and society. The capitalists and their antecedents adopted not the conceits of property, as a bad philosopher would presume, but the principle of possession and the technology to realize it. For the producer, possession ought to displace property.^[3] This makes perfect sense if the producer's role meets not the needs of wealth or assets or their accumulation by some inertia, but technology which is uniquely obsessed with command and control. For the proprietor, their claim to slaves is a deed and their role is to whip the slaves, or hire drivers who work out the slave system to a science. Without this science of slavery, no slave system will be productive or not result in escapes, rebellions, failures, or slaves doing as little as possible to get away with their miserable station. In all of that circuit, the futility of slavery is not difficult to see. For free labor, none of the circuits of class society or the political really speak to what they see as the core conflict. Labor historically has demonstrated far more antipathy towards the residuum beneath them than their masters. The quality of life for labor has little bearing on this - nor for that matter, the quality of life for the residuum. The fundamental conflict between labor and the residuum is a moral one, and the wealth either possesses is little more than an excuse for both to do what they wanted to do in the first place. No material necessity prompted this conflict, and in many cases, the necessities of the world, which did not conform to any political ideal and often didn't regard political institutions at all, mitigated the desire of the valid to attack the invalid on sight for nothing more than the disgust in their sense.

In this way, the attempted circuit to create a "circle of life", or self-perpetuating machine, was terminated. No one in this really had any incentive to play the role assigned to them or what a naive grasping for power, rule, and social standing would presume. Where this led is that, absent completion of this circle, the participants of society would have no need of these transcendant "classes" as true social distinctions, and they would default instead to their interests and that which they genuinely value in this world. The proprietors hold not general property, but particular property with qualities they very much care about. The producers, capitalists, and commoners and their antecedents primarily command technology which has various purposes, and they see this technology not as a servant to property or any political conceit. The main purpose of the producers would, in a different world, be to produce goods that meet some end they deem worthwhile, and do with those goods whatever suits them. They primarily live by exchanging those products, and while the proprietors press them into an unwinnable competition, it would not be out of the question for producers to rise by some merit and become novus homo. Nothing about the proprietors suggest that they would not, ultimately, be averse to the rise of a new "king of kings" as a reality they must abide, and it didn't matter where that king came from or where his throne was. The proprietor is dominated by self-interest that would make his first sense one of surviving in the new world order, rather than a foolhardy crusade to "win the world". Those worthy of being the high kings usually did not get there by impressing others with tales of their merits in war, but because those kings commanded slaves and wealth that were managed by producers. And so, the proprietor takes on producers as his clients, and if one such producer becomes a proprietor and a king, even in a single lifetime, then that is how the cookie crumbled. In principle, there was nothing preventing a mere worker or peasant from rising, and no great conspiracy saying that this was an unthinkable travesty. No "aristocracy" yet exists, and a man who came from the lowest condition had no less claim to glory than a great noble warrior simply by their association with an interest of life. In practice, this could never happen as the material conditions of this nascent class society placed labor in such a position that it could never acquire the time to rise to high office, with most laborers never coming close to genuine money and never being able to hold it for long. The stigma against the lowest class is felt most of all by the laborers themselves. The workers are the chief enforcers and kapos more than any other, and life in the streets, in the mines, or any other workplace, quickly tore to shreds those who were life unworthy of life in the eyes of labor. The lowest class figures not at all to any proprietor except as an annoyance, not even counted as part of society in most cases. To the producers, the lowest class is a nuisance and potential asset to use against labor, to remind the laborers that, at any time, management can declare a worker retarded and make their life hell, until it is made true and more fodder is destroyed. But, for the producer, this is only a local expedient, rather than a way of life. It would make little sense in the long term for producers to cannibalize their human livestock or deplete their machinery. If members of the lowest class improved themselves or demonstrated that labor, for all of its braying, really didn't possess the virtue they stole from the world, usually at the expense of the lowest class, then a producer might see that "Once retarded, ALWAYS retarded" could be set aside in the pursuit of more money. It made little difference to the producer whether the vehicle for his advancement were "good workers" or the residuum and lowest scum. Both were viewed dispassionately as lumps of utility for the producer's purposes, as long as the producer obtained from the sweat of those in his employ a product. There is not intrinsically any reason for the producer to see himself as a "pure manager" in society, for his role as a "capitalist" or any other role of the sort is not what defines him or what he perceives as his true interests. The producer's products are, in the end, his to possess and utilize for any aim. He could very easily turn his back on the whole charade, and this has granted to many a bourgeois the belief that they are the universal class, and that everyone is secretly like them. He could be a man of the people, or a highly promoted worker who sells his own labor along with the laborers beneath him without managerial talent. It is indeed the case that not one of these "classes" truly constitutes itself as a class, with everyone in their place and purpose. The true divisions in a society were at a basic level the competing interests which can vie for political position, and these are organized around natural or emergent divisions rather than any concept that "social class" itself was what defined division in a circular machine. The interests that prevailed in political life were machines with basis in the world and science, and the interests of the men themselves who were, ultimately, human beings with wants that were not political at all. It would seem simple enough that, knowing all of these things, the moderation of interests would be conscious of these emerging social class distinctions and see that no such project should be allowed to go on, and the chief aim of the constitution would be to mitigate this disease called "social class" or abolish it outright.

Nothing in the world would make this truth self-evident or inevitable, but nothing in the world would have prevented it either. The lowest class, in the main, could not be used as an excuse. For one, the lowest class is entirely local in their effect, and in most respects, they are simply locked out of wider society as meaningful influences. Any reasonable view of human society and merits would see that the lowest class really has no part to play in the entire human project - a project they never wanted any part of, and which has been their chief enemy for as long as they have been trapped on this Earth, around humans who openly hate them and make no secret of that. It is the job of a novel class or interest to complete the circle of life, to make this self-perptuating machine a reality - the aristocrat.

Humanity is truly united by one and only one reality - that for all of the distinctions they regard, fight and die for, society really is comprised of scum who were never, ever going to be anything other than scum. By no means is this a cynical or disparaging view of human society, or even the human race. It is an admission common to religions and philosophies which regard anything real. There is not a reasonable or knowing basis to regard any of the statuses or interests of humanity, let alone their inborn conditions, as any form of civic worth or purpose. Money or commerce are no help here, for money itself and all the commerce humans conduct is really nothing more than the exchange of tokens issued by some institution. The tokens of currency are no more valuable than money in the board game of Monopoly.^[4] Politics begins with the general fear, which becomes an awareness that are general mechanisms of action that humans in society can engage in, rather than local ones particular to one agent or one place. At first, the purview of the political is no more than that which makes sense to the actors. The actors are not blinded by any ideology or class affilitation, and so the proprietors, technocrats, laborers, and scum of the world all understand the position of each other. This understanding does not need to be perfect or even a thorough system, but every political agent will out of necessity detect that there is a system, and a way to predict human behavior from some general rules. The same science which is used to describe the natural world, in whatever crude form, can also describe society and human behavior with laws that seem as natural as clockwork. We know, and establish as a rule early, that humans are very much not clockwork machines and resist such efforts to enclose their minds in most cases. The humans who have a built-in preference for slavish obedience exist, and are noted, as are those who are natural leaders, or defiant to the bitter end. A grand schema of personalities is developed by all out of necessity to figure out what a human is like based on gut reaction and any sign from those humans to suggest their nature. This is done even in the most desperate cases among humans who are treated like animals. For the damned, this is something they are acutely aware of, because the capricious terror the human race inflicts every day has fallen on them. Even if they are stuttering messes and "out of the know", when knowing the intent and modus operandi of another human is a pressing matter of life and death, some system will be worked out.

The proprietors and producers, in contrast, rarely face such a direct threat with anywhere near the disdain shown to the residuum from birth. The purpose of property in the first place would have been security, and in this, the earliest proprietor does not pass through a stage of evolution to reach the pinnacle. A scumbag with a spear, muscles to wield it, and nothing stopping him, becomes the proprietor of some piece of land until someone or some organization of entities fights him and takes his holdings. The only evolution is that property implied the existence of some technology to recognize what a claim even was, evident from the spear and fighting technique someone picked up by whatever means he reverse-engineered it. Pedagogy did not transfer a monopoly of knowledge to build the spear or wield it, or a monopoly on all techniques of war that is forever sealed from those without the mark of initiation. Those who received the pedagogy will be put to the final test when they are blooded on a member of the lower class, which as we see is the nature of education - the blood sacrifice the gurus so clamor for. The pedagogy is not merely an information transfer or evidence of a superior intellect that can reverse-engineer more effectively in all situations. Whatever intellect was selected for by the guru when taking on initiates, if that intellect does not match tangible results from the labor in battle, all of that intelligence, training, and the preferential treatment that initiates received over the damned, meant nothing. One fated move with the spear from the damned is the only thing in the world that made men equal in the eyes of God, the world, and each other. This equality is fleeting, but for the damned whose life was given over to a horrible terror, retribution for generation after generation of ritual sacrifice is a holiness difficult to match - and it was good! This mechanism worked in reverse will be very important for us moving forward, because it is something so instinctive that it would require extreme ignorance to pretend it would be the crudest and truest justice to our native sense, and the basis for any other sense of the concept, however distorted. The accumulation of knowledge and technology being what it is, though, the victories of the damned were short-lived in the pre-aristocratic order. It remained the case, and would remain the case for most of human history, that the rule of humanity is that a defeated nation or city would rise the following spring, whatever its fate in battle. Wholesale slaughter of a nation or destruction of a city was the exception rather than the rule, and tribute was a far more attractive reward than the glory of blood. The reasons for this seeming disinterest in total annihilation were covered in part in the second book's treatment of the war machine^[5]. A second reason is not inherent to the genuine purpose of warmaking as a social engineering project, but to the self-interest of the warriors. The laborious task of exterminating a defiant nation or city is made more difficult when the defeated do not present themselves for ritual sacrifice by some right warriors respect. If the victory of one team over another is established - and regardless of what either side agreed to diplomatically, someone gained the upper hand on average in every exchange, even if in the end the gains and losses of war produced less than the desired result - then the necessary outcome of war is attained. Absent a particular religion of empire or cult of war, the conflict may have been seen as nothing more than a temporary matter, and total defeat only really meant defeat for the damned and the suckers. Men of property, who would recognize each other even in primitive conditions, understood very well what this really was, and the feudal nature of proprietors and warriors played out. Behind displays of honor, pride, shame, and glory, those who know what war is are more than willing to get in with the victorious master, and the reasons for this are not particular to a time and place or require a material motive. A clever warrior who is not particularly interested in actually following through with a vow to fight to the death can find a way to turn tail, even pretending he didn't actually lose. Whether anyone believes him, or what esteem he retains after doing this, is less relevant than the warrior's property which was usually among the causes of war in the first place. Sometimes, life is enough, and the shame of defeat is really not so great if we are to abandon the shouting and display of war cults and think for five minutes of what we are really doing. A third reason, particular to the rise of aristocracy, is religious veneration of war and power. Such a religion doesn't see death and destruction as any objective. For the proprietor or the producer, property and technology are at stake in war, and these are tangible things. The workers wish to not be in a war zone, not be conscripted or raped, and very likely can think of literally anything else that would be better than this, if not for the pressing necessity that reality forced upon them and the subordinated classes. The damned of the Earth of the lowest class see war correctly as little more than an excuse to cull their numbers and encourage more sacrifice, even in the cruder pre-aristocratic forms it takes like endemic war or the petty conflicts ubiquitous in human society. But, for an esconsced class which sees this pattern for what it is, they are far removed from the consequences of war for a very different reason. Victory is more abstract, and in some cases victory would actively harm such a class that did not have to fight the war themselves. If the proprietors expend their wealth and effort in war, this would weaken them collectively and place them in conditions that counteract a conspiracy among them to ensure no such esconsced class would be able and willing to sacrifice them. Even if the proprietors themselves have the same self-interested goal, the reality of society is that men of property must commit to the war, rather than the men who manage technology or the men who work. Now, in many cases, the warrior and the producer/laborer are all one and the same, and these functions are not cleanly divided, but in these cases, all of the incentives of their inclination would take effect, even if those inclinations do not yet form different masters. All property must be defended by merit and combat at some point, however that combat is conducted. It is no less a matter of war if the combat is between two lawyers and their staff, trading favors with the magistrate and rhetorical blows with the opposing counsel.

The producers here, broadly speaking, are in a very interesting position. Their inclination suggests to them a global and general view of the world through knowledge and intelligence, which is represented in their technology and the precursors of currency and capital. This is unique among the inclinations. Only the lowest class shares this general view of the world, but where the lowest class sees human society as hostile and the world as something slightly malevolent and never too protective of their interests, the producers live and die by their command of technology. It is the view of human relations as technology, rather than property or moral labors, that makes aristocracy possible, and this is a quality particular to humans. For this to work, the would-be aristocrats must find their unwilling "partners" as the justification for this new technology - the technology of human manipulation, mind control, seduction, and every terrible secret humanity ever held. The lowest class, who already share a view of the world as a global conspiracy, are the obvious choice not just because they're the most obvious targets, nor because of their pre-existing rivalry with labor dating back to animal sociality. Even if no one is yet of a "lowest class", animal and human instinct alike is inclined to sniff out all signs of weakness, and this instinct is heightened. It is not immediately absolute or all-consuming, but it has been enough for humans to know who the stupid ones are, and intelligence in particular has a quality that inspires pride and contempt in the race. It is, after all, intelligence which sparked a primitive sacrifice cult in the earliest proto-humans, and we take it as self-evident that this would have had to happen to make humanity as anything we would recognize. If this is not the terrible truth of humanity's genesis, it did not take too long for such rituals and their utility to be evident, and once it began, only the decency of animals and the world impeded it, and those who summon such rituals place a value on them that nothing else could replicate. If they did not explain an origin of the human race, they quickly took on a value close to that, and would evoke the greatest fear. Yet, this ritual sacrifice did not create a new class of aristocrats out of the blue, and it would never accomplish that. Even now, the eugenic creed's glorification of maximal torture did not assert on its own that torture was the point and made anyone great. That goal could only be accomplished by technology, and it would be technology rather than property. Property is a historical artifact and, once assessed, it is a fixed thing, however the proprietor modifies it. Technology and a general theory of it would be necessary. What truly recommends the lowest class in this "partnership", though, is that the lowest class, out of dire necessity, learned that if it cannot fight and cannot run, its only course of action is to hide. In other words, the existence of the lowest class was depending on hiding for as long as possible, and doing as much as possible to not be marked as "stupid", let alone the damning title "retard". Weakness and other demerits may be cited, but the true heart of aristocracy, and therefore the overwhelming favorite trait of any aristocracy, would be intelligence, knowledge, and occulted information. This made the prototypes of the producer class the best originators of aristocracy. There was one problem with this; primitive society, with the crudest methods, did not possess any sort of technology suitable for the task at hand, and there was not any good reason for this primitive society to grant to the malevolent an impulse to seek such technology. In the main, the producers, desiring security, would desire the opposite. Far from glorifying torture, the aims of the producers would be to seek alliances with all other interests, whether the goal was to subsume them with technology or join them as equals, or if need be, submit to another interest in one way or another. No intrinsic honor or integrity suggested that the producer wouldn't be happy as a slave, and in many ways this mentality would be seeded and encouraged all the way to the present day, and remains a persistent barrier to understanding basic things about the human condition. A desire for decency and kindness, which may be self-evident to a better soul, makes the producer terrible with money and property, but very adept at technology and social navigation, where friendship and coaxing are far more effective tools than a sword or the warrior's barking. The warriors in turn can appreciate this, and without a firm class distinction or any good reason to embrace pigheadedness common to the later auxiliaries, the warrior and producer in primitive society are typically one and the same. The line between all of these groups is not as fundamental as later class society would require, but the distinctions of human types, the tendencies of their behavior, and why someone would behave as they do, were already evident by various schemes individuals worked out.

Throughout this setup, there is not a single "good" incentive and many sources of malice and mischief, but not one of the malicious interests of the orders, or any evident interest that would be intrinsic to the concept of political and economic life or what a society would do to remain viable against competitors, is singularly strong enough to dominate the others. Many of the malicious interests work against each other and would, on their own or with tactical alliances, not produce anything stable. The state of political affairs is nasty and brutish, but not too short which is a wonder given the lack of much to say for this arrangement. Primitive society, and human society for a long time afterward, is dominated by warlords and a band of their buddies, and that really is what all of the vaunted aims of the proprietors and their lackies have been. This really doesn't serve any interest of anyone, and for most of humanity's existence, battle is the decisive political currency and no other will count for much. The technology is simple, the labors common enough and expected of most members of society. The small size of bands, tribes, and nations at this time, and the difficulty of commanding any large mass of primitive warriors, made any division of labor problematic. Wasting too many bodies, whatever the human penchant for torturing and killing that it considered retarded, was not compatible with a viable operation; and besides, unless the sacrifice happens when young or after the hunters chase their human torture-source, anyone who really didn't like things here could leave society as much as possible, as a grim life of solitude is better than the shit that would be human company. As a result, even fairly weak and stupid people could survive, and without any well-developed or communicable theory of intelligence and only crude general theories of technology and language, the ritual sacrifice cannot create any of the conditions of eugenics. Realistically, the incentive, which would remain for most of human history, was that intelligence or virtue didn't factor much at all into mating decisions. Property, the charms of low cunning, the intercine conflict of humans who love to create bullshit where none was needed, the superficial cravings of men and women which would later be manipulated and maximized during the dominance of eugenics, and something as strange as men and women actually wanting to make babies, were the prevailing forces. Concepts of a bookish and quiet nerd were not particularly valued or devalued, and so far as they were considered virtues, the virtues selected for the female population's task more than the male's, for it was the largely female gatherers who tended camp, tended children, supplied most of the product of primitive society, and were the obvious core of any stable genetic population. While ad-hoc bands or tribes may have formed, a tendency of tribes was that they were collections of families, and intermarriage rights were among the properties that could be offered in diplomatic relations. A very hostile band of violent thugs could just be shunned by all neighboring tribes, and even if violence could assert dominance over turf, the primitive warlord would eventually face a problem to perpetuate his property, given that warbands for obvious reasons were exclusively male and few women were attracted to such uncertainty, nor could they be kept confined for long without settling down. If this was accomplished, a would-be warlord would have no levy or tax system to extract tribute - only a protection racket, in a society where there are no products to exchange that would grant an imperial advantage to that warlord, and where the numbers of the oppressed would have no technological or organizational barrier to throwing off the jackass who wants to rule over a dumpster fire. This didn't stop endemic war and the usual malice of the human race from wiping clean, repeatedly, any progress in technology or culture someone might have preferred. If such ideas existed, they had no outlet and most of society had no interest in what would be considered learning and education today. The education of primitive society was in war and the human arts of malice, and labors that would be learned primarily by that most successful of human pedagogical techniques, "monkey see, monkey do". That which were not learned by mimicry were learned by that faculty of reverse engineering that has done the greatest work in developing human learning and knowledge. While the contemplative tribe member could work out some systems, the most evidently useful technology was that which manipulated human relations. If humans learned to herd animals, it is not a great stretch to figure out that humans could be herded with the right incentives. The mother's abuses of her offspring, frequent among a failed race, were a test bed to see how this could be done, and how young men could be manipulated by lurid rites that are the precursor of the formal prostitution and foul manipulation of man by woman, much of which translated well enough to manipulation of man by man, or the manipulation of woman by man who proceeds to be a proxy for breaking any nascent solidarity of the men against such manipulations and rituals. The manipulation of women by women to form a primitive republic of the foulest sort is a conclusion of this manipulation, and a primitive celebration of orgies, harems, abuses, and an incubator for the foulness of the human soul, is evident in this habit of herding humans much as animals were hunted and herded. No law of nature and no familiarity or sentiment prevented this, and a savage existence in a failed race already made clear that little friendship can be taken for granted, or even considered a thing worth pining for. In the main, the constitution of primitive society is egalitarian and aloof, distrustful of close relationships which would be associated with dependence or manipulation, and understanding that small decencies now would save a band or a tribe much difficulty later in life. Even stupid humans could see this, but the most capable and cunning who manipulate humans see very easily that those decencies, that aloofness, and above all that egalitarian ethos is the greatest barrier to a very terrible plan that would establish humanity as a truly failed race, and in time, a Satanic race.

This plan never had any self-evident material benefits, and everywhere it has been imposed, it always spread through insinuation, threats, and enclosure of prior decencies and goods humans once enjoyed or had to abide despite their foul soul. The goal instead fulfills a blind ambition to be the "best". This does not correspond to any merit, technology, intelligence, moral virtue, the act of labor, or any particular quality deemed good. And yet, this blind ambition consumes all of mankind, and makes the political circle of life complete. It is not necessary for this "best" to rule forever, but their rule is a going concern and must be stable enough to persist, for their mode of operation implies a natural and passive order that constantly presses to complete that circle. Win or lose, for however long they last, the "best" consider this ambition to be the point, and always have. All other merits by which "the best" could be judged are secondary to this congregation of ambitious actors, who will use anything and everything to attain it. All expectations of rule, all barriers impeding it, give way to the purest form of rule itself, and the power is rooted not in any purpose, but the nascent class which adopts this form of rule. The one merit it possesses above all is its knowledge of the human subject and a claim to spiritual authority, which it wins by hook or crook. But, where, of the valid sectors of society, does this group draw its strength? Labor, technology, and the warriors have no need whatsoever for this. There is but one truth that can be exploited - that all humans, in one way or another, suffer because they are scum, or can be made to suffer. All who live either possess faults, or can be assigned fault simply by bald faced lying until it is made true by insinuation.

If this technique is familiar to you, then I can speak of the many ways in which humans backstab, cajole, humiliate, shame, lie, and insinuate to create this condition out of nothing, and this is an old and ancient art. It is far from universal, but its values percolate and it will in time enter the other classes. Those who learn of the aristocratic arts of lying and cajoling - "true wisdom" as they call it - see that all merits, all claims, are farcical in a grand scheme of human behavior, and so too are the vain efforts to acquire technology to compensate for a lack of merit, a need of labor, or a need for the damned to aspire to anything great. It is the damned who are first segregated from the general populace, and this provides to the nascent aristocracy fodder for their foul social experiments. This had already been an instinct in humans, but for aristocracy to exist, the experiments must be encouraged and condoned, and it must become a taboo to prevent them or speak against the insinuations of aristocracy. The damned are, in the aristocrat's mind, transformed into living abortions, Judas goats to manipulate the rest of society.

But, finding a scapegoat alone is insufficient. The next step will be to find the vices of all men, and heighten them. Here is where the scapegoat must be utilized. Education primarily concerns the identification of these scapegoats and holding them up as examples. The learning, as we will see, is entirely on your own time - except for the habits of aristocracy and the values that perpetuate it, which are interpreted as sacred wisdom in all ages, and all forms of education from the father-son relation to today's university. The secrets of women are among the aristocratic conceits, and in practice these "womens' secrets" aren't really the property of women, but of priesthoods and temple prostitutes. Most women are about as clueless as men, except for the habit of aristocracy to form harems, orgies, and insist that the conspiracy against failed men is sacrosanct - one of the first entries of aristocracy into the habits of the human race. Homosexualism and nearly all perversions are nearly unknown in the animal kingdom, and those who exhibit the vice most are close relatives of humans whose sociality follows a primitive instinct suggesting that, if foulness reigned, the ritual sacrifice that birthed the human race would be repeated. But, for the sacrifice to become a true ritual, aristocracy had to assert all that followed from the ritual sacrifice and make it into the ne plus ultra of human ambitions - to be the one joining the ritual sacrifice, and to revel in the thrill of inflicting it. No other purpose would be universally evident among the human race but that. And so, that would be the inroad to insinuate who is the "best" - by emphasizing the worse and a monopoly on its judgement.

For as long as humans have conducted this ritual sacrifice, the rituals of social advancement, the habitual backstabbing for its own sake, there have been those who noted this tendency. It did not have to overtake all else that exists, for the aristocrat is still a human who must contest in the world like everyone else. No aristocracy was self-evident or ready made to dominate. The purpose of these rituals was never fixed for all participants. Some were obligated to join out of fear, or saw them as a vehicle for property, wealth, informational access, or promotion. At the very least, it was a rite of passage because to do otherwise was "retarded", and that is the worst thing anyone can be. In the absence of any scientific judgement of merit based on objective qualities, subjective and sentimental manipulations effected by the rituals took the place of science. It did not take long for the study of subjectivity itself, and study of the mind, soul, and what became religion, to become a science of its own, and this science had a special quality and special morality associated with it. This dubious "science" has nothing to do with the science of ordinary labor or the investigation of technology. It doesn't have much to do with merit in war, which is a very particular social formation and activity which could not be a general rule. Every war, even if it appears incessant, contains battles and merits that can be judged from its conduct, however spurious the pretenses for that war, and with a mind towards its purpose of social engineering. The war cult would be a seeming inroad for this aristocracy, but for one thing - aristocrats as pure aristocrats shelter themselves from any conduct of war, and their attitude towards it is very alien from that of any other class, and it is most alien of all from the warriors and proprietors who see correctly such a beast as the clearest and most present danger to their property.

There is a talent for such rituals and the so-called "art of politics", but aside from that, aristocracy is painfully vacuous, and proud of its vacuousness. Its "high culture" is at its best trite sayings, or simply stolen from the other orders of society and appropriated, either in its genuine form to steal valor from the lower orders or perverted to become a lionization of aristocratic mores, or to assign to aristocracy the values of their betters. The virtue of aristocracy is not the cunning of merchants or mobsters. A greater grubbiness than any other is granted an aura of seeming inevitability by its repetition. Somewhere in there, the aristocrat acquires by vampiric feeding the virtues of others. As a rule, aristocracy loathes working, an act beneath them, and they fight only as postures. "Power projection" and displays of force are a more elaborate form of the ritualistic chest-thumping and barking of the animal kingdom, and this is how the aristocracy wants the people to view force - as a parodic lie, as divorced from reality as anything truly useful that came out of them.

To match this vacuousness, the greatest trick of aristocracy is to appear as if they have no "rule", and that "power" consists of these displays, co-opting all other concepts of power and rule and perverting them to its aims. In doing so, the orders of society, which were once dispersed among people who have human qualities apart from politics, become "political animals" conforming to a classification that matches aristocracy's needs. The preferred rule of aristocracy, reproduced by some of the lower orders who believe that such a rule constitutes "natural law", is "anarchy", or what appears as such. The Devil's greatest trick is to tell you that he doesn't exist, and aristocracy revels in not letting anyone acknowledge the nature of their rule. But, anarchy serves another purpose. By promoting a society where standards of comparison are forbidden, rule can be occulted.

The central germ of this is the infliction of suffering and the infliction of disinformation, both of which amount to the same end. The habitual lying of aristocracy is done not to convince anyone, but as an insult and another stamping of the boot on the face of everyone else. So too is the strategy of fake friendship, schmoozing, and all of the managerial tactics to cajole anyone to obey something that should never have been followed. It is this which made the lowest class their central focus. The aim is not universally to make the class suffer, but to set the lowest class as the baseline for treatment and policing of other classes. Most of the lowest class will be tortured and sacrificed for less than nothing, but some of them become Judases or useful agentur. So long as they never truly "win" - so long as their victory is like a victory at the Special Olympics - they can be given titles as yet another form of mockery.

We have here only described the inclination of aristocracy, rather than the class itself. Doubtless, aristocracy did something to be where they are that was substantial, since the vice and malice of humanity is as common as dirt and readily summoned by the inner will of all humans, and the company of such humans in their parties, orgies, clubs, and such which constitute the genuine core of the aristocratic cause and the true want of their efforts. The aims of aristocracy are roughly speaking "pleasure", but theirs is a particular pleasure given its true form, rather than the utilitarian hogwash given as fools' gold to the lower orders. Any time "aristocracy" is to be mentioned here on, just remember that I type the word with the utmost contempt dripping from my fingers. Aristocracies often are drawn from one of the other orders, or a combination of like-minded people from all interests, and in this way, "justice" and "equality" of the brotherhood are frequent values of theirs. Warrior aristocracies are the most obvious, since until recent history, armies and levies of wealth they command are the chief political currency, and coin was merely a contrivance so that the state could outfit its army, which constituted the majority of the state's expenditures and its chief aim, rather than "good government" or any other aim we might imagine. Today, the aristocracy of capital, and its technocratic successor of the order that is commonly called "bourgeois" with increasing disconnection from the origin of the term, is the chief image of aristocracy. Capitalism as a situation, commonly referred to as the order of the producers, has been in practice dominated by a nascent bourgeois aristocracy, that was perfectly aware of its aristocratic aims. The liberal revolutionaries almost to a man and woman^[6] saw their commonalities not with the High Republic of Rome, but with Cato the Younger and the opposition to Caesar, and so the aristocratic and oligarchic tendencies of modern republics were set from the start. To further advance this concept of aristocratic grasping as the mover of the political cycle, the rest of this book will operate on the belief that aristocracy, with few exceptions that are almost always periods of historical tumult, have run the tables on what we call political history and theory, and successfully co-opted every movement of the other orders in one way or another, even if they fought a bitter battle for decades or centuries to restore their idea of the natural order. To truly understand aristocracy requires us to investigate the institution which would define it more than any other - education.

Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

Return to Table of Contents | Return to Chapter Start