Return to Table of Contents | Previous Chapter | Next Chapter

The political "classes" theorized thus far are not true classes or interests, but inclinations that are inherent to life. They do not settle in any particular locus, person, or body in purified form, where those inclinations exert any effect on what actually happens. The inclinations only manifest as distinct social roles or functions, or particular functions of life, once the philosophical state is formed. Until then, the precursors of the philosophical state, which return to that first ritual sacrifice which birthed humanity as "human" in any recognizable sense, note these inclinations in people, but humans remain ultimately entities whose existence is mostly non-political. The non-political existence is not purely a natural or base existence, but it is one that does not regard the conceits of aristocracy as anything worth fighting and dying for.

In the primitive conditions of society, there are already evident failures and solutions to those failures. None of us asked to be alive let alone live under the thumb of some warlord. In the next chapter, I can present a model - for there are no reliable histories - of the formation that would result in the philosophical state. I cannot speak of every location in the world, for as we will see, education would be the basis for any such formation, and education is a formal institution with particular locations. There are similarities in education around the world, for all would have to work with the same inclinations in life-forms and the men and women that were available to it. Yet, every social formation, every tribe or nation or city, would be a new social experiment, down to the families where mothers picked which of their children were selected to live and which were selected to die, as she was the most obvious educational source for early childhood, and mothers and women would remain a feature of education throughout history. In modernity, women were specifically selected because they would sever the familial bonds that were, for natural reasons, formed around the mother who nursed her children, and whose co-operation in society was necessary for any complex society to exist. If mothers refused to bear or raise children, no force on Earth would allow the would-be fathers to produce and raise children on their own, and attempts to break youth from their experience with mothers, or some maternal figure, would pervert a part of the animal life-cycle that made the formation of basic knowledge possible. A father that wished to replace the mother in raising children would be tied to commitments that were possible, but that would have precluded the political function that fell on men for a variety of historical reasons. This would have also required men to be independently wealthy and able to manage that wealth in the conditions of antagonistic relations that would arise in humanity. That antagonism was never about an inborn impulse to blindly attack other humans, but arose because genuine cooperation, like education, is local, and no natural law can allow any of us to take for granted a friendship, let alone the type of friendship that would have made antagonistic relations in close quarters so intolerable that clear alternatives were needed. These conditions would be evident in primitive society, such as it existed, if anyone were to think about their situation and the nature of the men and women around them, and their relation to a world that was never made for them and did not need to regard the creature called "human" as anything special.

Education originates not in the simple act of learning. Much of what humans learn, whether it is from the native faculties of an independent human against the world, or humans communicating knowledge to each other with deliberation, is a thing outside of education entirely. In many cases, such learning is explicitly against education and hostile to all of the institutions and conceits regarding what an educated person ought to be or can be. It arises instead to fulfill a function in society and in the real existence of human beings, or any other entity which would be educated. Both of these functions - the social and informational function which is an abstraction in the mind and always remains so, and the physical or material actions which constitute the outcome of social relations that are the first evidence of a "society" - are distinct things, and the distinction is the first marker of someone being educable. If someone cannot tell the difference between abstract fantasies and a concrete, material world, and is given over to one or the other, they do not receive any "education". They are instead fed an ideology and live in a mental trap, when they are locked in abstractions and illusions as is common, or they become crass evolutionary flotsam to be cajoled by the first lie, forever locked out of a game and trapped "in the world", where all abstraction is declared a black box and "unknowable". These are the fates of those who are thrown away by education, and mothers have long used these tactics to demean and degrade their offspring who they do not like and do not wish to keep in any way. So too has the rest of humanity picked up on this tactic of segregating humanity and all things, whether they had a philosophical understanding of why this works or sussed it out by trial and error, "monkey see monkey do", or some system that worked well enough to approximate what formal institutions and philosophy do. The germ of learning and intelligence is necessary for any education, even a crude one, to take place, but once that trap is set, education is presented as an occult pedagogy, where approval from the guru - whatever shape it takes - is with-held as a limited resource, enclosed. No matter what anyone learns or knows, knowledge means nothing if that mark of approval is never granted, no matter how true your claims or any material claim you make to counter education. If the material world interferes with the pedagogical jihad, that would be something greater than the fall of a state or an empire so far as the institution is concerned, and the gurus and pedagogues will find some way to pass from one regime to the next, unless their game is truly over, which provokes in the Academic mind an existential dread far greater than death or even the more rareified forms of torture. A force which disdains aristocratic education and all of its attempts to impose it on the world, and has the will and force at its command to see this mission through for a long time, presents to intelligence and wisdom something which is unanswerable, and draws its spiritual and temporal authority from something that none of our efforts, up to today, will ever answer. Try as we might to reconcile with such a thing, or keep it apart from us for eternity, the truth has a way of making itself known. That truth is not "for us", as if a piece of the world's fundamental knowledge will liberate humanity by gnosis. Such a quest is a foolish adventure that doomed many men and women for the sake of a lie. That dread would have been sensed, however it was, by those who institutionalized pedagogy and saw the consequences of such institutions if they lived it for their entire lives.

A malicious drive to enclose and ensnare the world did not have to be the whole content of education, and in every form it has taken, it does not and cannot conform to the exultant shouting of "DIE, DIE, DIE", that Fabian and Germanic education extol. Those educational regimes, too, much sort society and reproduce the institution with regard to a world which exists outside of the institution, and even to the disfavored classes, some transmission of information is necessary, or must be tolerated outside of the institutions. Only in that way can the educational institution be a going concern, and maintain a host it parasitically feeds from. It is not the case that education corresponds to a miltiary structure or the social engineering that war entails. That aspect of education has always been a choice, and any educator with a martial view of the world and humanity will see that without a productive and laboring base, the dream of an antiseptic death machine commanding the world imperiously would be just that - a dream without any potency, that cannot fulfill any of its directives. If the idea is to present a geist or a spook and plant that in the mind undigested, so that thought is terminated, that would be something education must command. Even if most of the society is reduced to an abject and counter-productive status of mind control, something in the institution reconciles with the world to feed that process. There is no real "mind control" without a controller, even if that controller itself is controlled by some impulse, including that which is regarded as a natural beast, a Hobbesian Leviathan that is transcendant. It may be seen, for good reason, that all efforts education aspires to are in the end a process in the world which is as futile as anything else. But, education is uniquely aware of this futility, and the futility itself is another core truth of the pedagogue, the guru, and the priest that arose from education. Someone who believes this mind control is a good thing - and there is no argument to make that this is intrinsically bad or certain no argument that it is un-natural - would see that every hitherto known form of mind control has been woefully inadequate, and denudes drastically the qualities that would be desired of a mind controlled slave.

The claims of education are moral ones, like any labor, and so they cannot claim to be morally neutral institutions. Not only are no institutions or things truly amoral vessels as many a pseudo-intellectual bray, but education in particular suggests the transmission of moral values and their imposition as part of its purpose and mission. Moral education is one of the few generative aspects of the institution. It is more important, even in primitive pedagogy, or the efforts of human beings to reconcile with a society where education is the norm, to select for desired qualities of labor than ideal forms of technology. All technology, all intelligence, and knowledge would derive either from labor or natural forces, and this is not a new idea that required a great revelation. It would be intrinsic in any activity we would regard as educational. The education that strips away all context and starves students of any guidance or moral values is not itself amoral, for doing this implies certain moral values regarding the student and knowledge itself, and a moral value to occult, deny, starve, restrain, and make clear social distinctions in that way. No education can ever "destroy the world for its cause", in the way I have mentioned throughout this writing. Education might superficially espouse a value as part of an imperial doctrine or some grand vision to arrest history, but the educator is obsessed with command and control of the world in such a way that they do not seriously consider the end of education as a process, and do not consider the end of moral values inherent in pedagogy and the institutions it creates. If new institutions exist, they would be brought in line with a genealogical history of institutions that were propagated by pedagogy and the designs of men, and could not break from history. To the educator, anything new is anathema to the mission. The rigidity of educational canon is proof of this. For example, Roman educators maintained a strict list of canonical texts to learn reading by throughout the existence of the Empire, starting from the period where Roman history is committed to historical record. Romans learned Latin from reading the core texts of the High Republic, and Greek pedagogy was exported to the Romans and did not change its standards until the Christian era. When Christianity is asserted, the Latin and Greek texts remain the standard of education, and are taught now through a Christian bias. The Bible itself, the Talmud, the Qu'ran, and the holy books of religions, are established specifically to be the core book and reference allowing others in their respective religions, and they persist in part because two believers can read the same book and recognize the same language, parables, and so on. The particular attitudes towards religious texts are where education gives way to the genuine development of spiritual authority and how people approach education, and this is a function of religion rather than education or learning. Educators remain stubborn to the point of being completely out of touch with what their religion preaches, and at heart, the educator upholds the values of aristocracy throughout the ages. Those values were always hostile towards the religious views of the commoners and laborers, and violently displaced by extreme force any religious view of the lowest class in order to establish their status as living abortions to anyone deemed educated. As late as the turn of the 20th century, educators were mired in this tradition, yet espoused continually theories of "progress" which did no such thing, because such progress is anathema to the cult of education as described here. When education reform did happen, it was only to strip away past decencies, and purify the aristocratic doctrine. What results from Fabian education was designed to denude the concept and declare that large swathes of humanity were too retarded to learn anything, to accelerate and maximize the conditions of eugenics. At the core, the same functions of state education changed little, and those functions that changed denoted a change of sovereignty and the destruction of any nascent democratic idea that was once tolerated. Also changed was the exhortation of religion, as pretenses of Christianity were no longer desirable to aristocracy, until Christianity could be replaced with a dopplegänger that was a Nazi experiment and test of the aristocratic educational cult's longer-run aims. Ever since, the defenders of the accursed institution continually retard anything that would question their continuing mission, and every reform is nothing more than a more elaborate degradation continuing the same mission of eugenic schooling - to weed out, disrupt, and destroy anything that would reject the aristocratic ethos and its material aims regarding the world. Religion belongs to a higher stage of development above the philosophical state and philosophy, and is not immediately the topic of interest.

The most primitive education is self-education. By whatever system someone devised for their situation, they have discerned what they perceive as a general pattern of behavior in society generaly. The generalization of this rule is most important to distinguish education from management of a particular social unit, like a family. Familial life, common to humans even in primitive forms and observed in every viable human society hitherto known, would already exist, but its form was never as fixed as the customs and taboos regarding family relations developed over time, in reaction to learned experience that at first was individual before it became a general rule. The relations of families, or any band assembled for ostensibly cooperative purposes, would be the earliest fodder for the development of education. It is not difficult to see that in the conditions primitive humans saw, humans were untrustworthy and generally hostile, and endemic war, ritual sacrifice and humiliation, and a casual attitude towards all of the depravities common to the race, were proof of this that recurred often enough. There was a whole world outside of that depravity, and an inner world humans developed, whether they were born with it, it developed by some impulse of knowledge to create such a world as a personal system and mechanism for handling existence, or it developed as a result of particular experience which humans drew from the world. So too would the physical acts, consumption of food, damage accrued by the body, knowledge of its healing, knowledge of life cycle from seeing other entities like oneself or familiarity with animals, inform this early basis for education. The educator does not take this information in without a filter. Far from it, there are obvious problems with treating education as an obedient receipt of whatever forces the world enacted on a person. The first, the general hostility of the world and other life-forms to life, would be apparent before anyone could ask this question. The second is that, with all of the potential information in the world, there is too much "state" to transmit uncritically. A lack of direction would impede genuine learning, as anyone would have figured out from the prior book and from common sense. A lack of direction would be even more damning to the role education and political consciousness entails. Political knowledge - that which is most relevant to a general theory of knowledge, intelligence, society, or anything in the world - is scarce information which must be refined and carefully selected, for the habit of lying was already inherited from animal sociality. The barking of animals and the humiliations of such a race was already etched into humanity and many of the animals they already knew. These two need little introduction. The third is that formalization of any system of knowledge is not a trivial act that was self-evident. The first educators, whether they are yourself, an elder, a peer, or if need be a social inferior, did not need to know they were engaging in "education" as a unique discipline or role in human society. There were no self-evident "teachers" or authorities who should be followed, and reasonable skepticism about anyone giving formal instruction even in the best of cases. This applies to self-education as much as it would to the vagaries and hostility of human sociality. We have good reasons to distrust ourselves when encountering a world of entities far older and stronger than us, who have themselves acquired some education and act accordingly. The crude inheritance of the most savage existence itself would have made that clear even before formalizing the process, and the workings of an animal honing its tool use are already a type of formalization, rather than a merely intellectual task of learning. All of this work in education is a honing of not just intelligence as a resource, but the whole body and existence of the student. It entails a physical component so that it is possible to make real any result of this formalization of knowledge and practice. The presence of other entities who are doing the same thing, whose hostility has been demonstrated and who have formed associations - conspiracies against those who lack the received knowledge of education as a conspirator must believe in order for conspiracy to operate successfully - makes clear a number of dangers of education of the wrong sort, which does not fulfill a need to conform to the world, which also means conforming to a society no matter how fucktarded and failed humanity is. We do not yet possess in this primitive stage a eugenic or hygenic function regarding particular people, but such a function would be evident to aristocratic values, when they enter education. Finally, there is a recognition that there is a way in which this formalization occurs, and that it would in time be a specialized trait. Whether someone regards this as a valid use of anyone's time is irrelevant. If self-education can be worked out as a system and general rules regarding the world can be understood, it follows that education itself abides these same rules. There would in short order be a social designation or role of those who can perpetuate this process itself.^[1]

The imagined man in savagery fashioning his own weapons, his own system of education, is almost certainly not where the educator arose, as if one day savage man decided out of the blue he would deliver to the other humans like Prometheus the secret of education and knowledge, and before then humans were dumb lumps of flesh to be cajoled once this terrible scam was unleashed. We see in the recurrent Promethean and Luciferian myths the origin of the specialized educator or guru that perpetuates not so much education, which is a scarce function, but aristocracy as a distinct inclination and eventually the first true class to be distinguished from the mass of humanity. The true native conditions of humans are that humans are born to mothers at the least, who are accompanied by fathers or some other humans, and this mother would have had parents herself and whatever associations were possible. The native family did not have any preferred institutional form that was pedagogically taught, but instead consisted of whatever social dyads were suitable for the task. This would have been necessary for the function of rearing the young and only this. For the purposes of taboos regarding consanguinity, both mother and father would have been marked down and known, and it was expected of anyone to know who their parents were, their grandparents, and so on. A line could only last so long before it would be extinguished, or so many would share a common ancestor that nearly everyone in the nation, and a great many people around the world, could trace their family line to one man. This line was not uniquely a patriarchal line or a family name with property. The passage of aristocratic-like qualities from mother to daughter remains a trope to this day, given the female's role and the motherhood of an infant not being seriously doubted unless a child were abandoned in a hurry. Immediately, the role of the educator, which is active and takes place long after infancy, saw the native bonds of family as the chief obstacle to their profession. This included the biological parents themselves, who did not have any natural right or role as educators, nor could expect to be good at it. To tell a child to take a mother or father's love for granted is to imply to that child that he or she is a fool. Valid children are never spoken to that way, and always fear the withdrawal of genuine affection. Those children who are held in contempt are either lied to or told "the truth" that they are rejected from society, but in either case, no redemption is ever possible on that front. The disaffected cast-offs of the residuum begin with those who are marked for failure in family life, and here is something the would-be educator could exploit, or induce, or intensify, for whatever reason education may wish to do this. If a parent's affection for the child cannot be taken for granted, the educator's contempt for children is far more pronounced and carried out with greater deliberation. Humans with their native sense, even if they can't stand an obnoxious child, would face difficulty throwing a child to the wolves, let alone suggesting that such behavior is laudable for its own sake or an honorable duty. However lacking the affection or competence of parents, ritual sacrifice creates in most of us a disgust, especially knowing that on some level, this is the sin that brought more malevolence into the world than anyone ever needed or wanted. So too does the crying of a child indicate to most of us something that could be remedied, or a sign of a child's weakness that he or she will have to adapt to somehow. The naive sense that crying children need comfort and blind affection is another exploit to mark the fools from the valid, and the insult shown to the invalid is made clear with every contemptuous sneer and fake affection that is given to them, a way of marking their inferiority to the others; yet when the invalid acts in spite of this assignment and, by objective merits, is good enough to be in society, the aristocratic precursor begins a howling and shrieking which makes clear the true soul of a failed human race. It will happen every single time. Every time. To do otherwise would be to give up on an ancient impulse. Yet, those who are not given over to that impulse, of which there are many, do not natively see any reason to follow along with this shrieking, or even necessarily that a child hated by their mother or the elder should be hated by all, and the sentence of shame and the taboo carried out religiously. The answer to that problem is not a simple one, for any concerned party who takes a shine to someone and wishes genuine cooperation with them. But, it is far from an intractable one. Most of us invalids only wanted something to do with our lives besides a life of fear. The educator can choose to spare the child, and do so for various reasons, or can ignore the child, or grant to that wayward child something in the hopes that the wayward will figure it out, eventually, and be less annoying to others. But, the educator would be shriking a duty that he or she could detect in this situation - that the educator could very easily accelerate this process of rejection and shame, and decide who lives and who dies, just as mother-right in the end cannot be stopped if a mother really wants to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy, and it falls on the mother to smother a child to spare it from starvation, torture, or the ugliness of humanity. The rite of ritual sacrifice is a reminder to mothers of what would happen if they refuse to "do the right thing", at the prodding of a would-be aristocracy.

If the educator as a specialist cannot access the children directly, the next best thing is to make this role an obligation of all parents or those tasked with raising children. At a basic level, the nursing of offspring does not entail much; feed them, protect them from much larger humans until they pick up a spear or use whatever weapon or abilities they have to fend for themselves, and try not to damage them psychologically. The biological habits of child-rearing common to mammals are not so fixed that they are truly obligatory. If a mother is absent for whatever reason, another can pick up the child and do the same to the best of their ability. There would be in a small and familiar group other adults who, while they do not raise or protect a child, are around it and will be an influence for good or ill. No expectation that these other figures are "educators" should be expected, and such an introduction would be seen as indecent - not because of a mother's right to her offspring or some genetic legacy, but because of the general malice found in the human race. Every child will learn not to speak to strangers, and refusing this dictum invites great peril. A sense of decency would, at the least, convince adults to not disrupt children for no good reason. It does not require education to avert this; far from it, humans without education or the biases of such an institution are the least likely to want to interfere with another's child, and also the most likely to see the sober reality that childhood is far from a magical or happy time. Childhood in most of our experiences is a nasty and bitter time with crying, defeats, failures, and an introduction to the general fear because adults and the malevolence of other children already make apparent that this society is not good and never could be good. The default and correct view of childhood and humanity is one of seething contempt for "blind faith" in anything, and to see indicia of genuine cooperation as a rare break. The regular betrayals thrown in the face of everyone are the first sign of aristocracy's emergence in humanity, and its selection of sacrifice and humiliation which establishes the aristocratic tendency in humanity.

This environment became evident soon enough that the members of society, whatever their attitudes towards education, knew that this would be required to survive hostility. The conditions of persistent antagonism in close quarters are not yet realized, and are still far away from being lionized in settled society. For normal people, the best solution to persistent antagonism is to go away and find another place to live. Someone can only walk away for so long before they find themselves enclosed and shunned, but so too can no one impose the strategies of insinuation and fear for too long before this exhausts any willingness to cooperate with the cajoler, exhausts the efforts of the cajoler to impose this on reality, or the cajoler meets an enemy who will fight, or worse, raise a warband to remove the offending agent so that some decency may be restored to the world. Among the chief objectives of worthwhile education - one of the few things recommending that this institution not be simply abolished so that we may learn and socialize in a proper way for the first time - is to both gain awareness of this condition, and to weed out those whose cajoling would be a clear and present danger that overrides aristocratic desires for the world. The awareness of the aristocratic secrets are never freely given, and above all, no general theory of aristocracy's rot is allowed to form, as this would undo the project of humanity if it ever became generally accepted and the ruled both see and act on the belief that aristocracy is a disease to be wiped out. But, to be in an environment where this exploit is possible will educate someone not by a transfer of knowledge, learning, or intelligence. The physical disgust towards aristocracy - or the pleasure of such cajoling and backstabbing among those humans with a more or less natural inclination to embrace it, a foulness beyond the norm for a monstrous race - can only be guarded against by training the body and soul, much like a muscle, to resist its tactics, and the force of a sinful act which glories in ritual sacrifice and every manipulation that has marked the worst qualities of the ape called human. Even in the best of all worlds, a familiarity with the impulses in life that aristocracy has manipulated, and a familiarity with the aristocratic view of herding humans like animals since time immemorial, is only possible through education. No transfer of information alone conveys the horror and sentiment that these rituals and humiliations inflict, for they are a particular hell that rely on the particularities of the person and their body.^[2]

The educator as a task, even if they educate themselves or are educated in the school of hard knocks, begins with this knowledge, and if the educator lacks sufficient familiarity with these and many more conditions presaging the aristocratic vice, they will not be able to educate effectively. Because the task concerns a political society most of all, there is no treatment of education as one of many tasks, to be juggled with the others. Education is a lifelong commitment, for educator and student alike, and once its necessity is understood and acted upon, the educational record of a person, even if this account is internal to a person and only for their sense and thought, will be compiled. This record is not a pure historical record, or an account of learning, or even an accurate assessment of merits and demerits by the standards education sets. Education always must relate to individual subjects. It is never a group activity. Among its functions, which are another function of education that is truly necessity, is its role in organizing people in formations that were previously unnatural and did not serve any cooperative or competitive purpose. No one needed to cooperate in the school environment to learn how to get along with each other, or in the family environment. We were always capable of learning of cooperation on our own power, and communicating that through genuine friendship rather than pedagogy or habituation to social units. No one gained anything from competition in an educational setting that wouldn't have been won by economic competition in other venues, and in so many ways, the educational competition that is obligatory among the human race has been a disaster for any goal that competition would accomplish. Overwhelming, educational competition is one of two things. The first is that the intercine conflict spurred by educators, or by the malicious behavior of bratty children, is seen early as the abominable waste that it is, and is either lazily administered due to no one caring, or is so clearly maladaptive that the one thing young humans learn is that humans suck, education and schools suck, teachers suck, work sucks, and everything sucks. If this is intended to build character, it hasn't been successful in any iteration of the educational cult hitherto known. The second is that the educational competition, in some cases, entails direct promotion into institutions, and this is the carrot held over people to induce them to go along with this perverse cult, with the big stick being the rituals of shame, humiliations, depredations against the person or their body, and ultimately, ritual sacrifice and open violence against those who reject the cult. Under these conditions, the competition is under what can only be described as duress, and the aims of educators and aristocracy are far removed from developments that would have served our interests in a different world. There are trials and competitions in humanity which are either necessary to test knowledge and social rank for the benefit education can bring, and there are competitions which are in the end more constructive than destructive. Playing sports will, in of itself, not inflict much harm, and for the valid, the competition of education is hardly the end of the world. The fate of the damned of the Earth, who are openly preyed upon and their torture glorified, the thrill of torture being maximized in the ideal education against the damned, is very different. There is not one of us who does not come out of this education suicidal, and this is intended. So thorough is the humiliation and ritual shame that it is too much to bear, and this allows the thrill of torture to be solidified when the valid proclaim "you can't handle the truth", as if we haven't had the truth of a Satanic race thrown in our faces, usually for as long as we can remember and with no concept that it was going to be any different.

No valid would tolerate being treated in this way by a "friendly" society, which insisted that we must glorify those who did this to us and had nothing to say for themselves when their failed race inevitably meets what comes to such societies if they faced anything that sobered them. But, those who benefit from the institution will almost always learn that the true purpose of education has been solely to weed out the weak. Any benefit from this institution or the role of education is secondary to its core function of initiating the torture cult that preceded education's existence, and perpetuating it. So far as there are benefits to education, it is because some of humanity survive it, and because there has not been a real alternative or a suggestion that it can be different, this really is what humanity is. There are then those who revel in what the institution offers, and actually believe their time in school or whatever form of education was "fun" or productive. It's much easier to enjoy it when you gain all of the benefits at the expense of the losers, and get the added thrill of knowing you're safe and the bad people will be purged faster when your cult wins. None of the secondary benefits of education, save for the roughness acquired from surviving such a cult however one does, would be worth keeping the institution, for they could always have been reproduced far more efficiently if there were any want in humanity to produce those qualities. In practice, education has another role - it spurs, through the threat of its existence, humans to learn on their own power, and spurs those sympathetic to the cause of any human - valid or invalid - to learn what they must to endure in a world where this pernicious cult has taken root. What people are forced to learn due to the cult of education diverges greatly from what they would have preferred to learn in a better world, or what would have been actually successful if aristocracy and its conceits did not accrue the power that they did. This aspect of forced learning on your own would only be fully weaponized in modernity, when enclosure and control of an ecosystem as described in the prior book became possible. It would not be possible to conceive of this enclosure at all without the cult of education. All that would be possible would be the claims of proprietors engulfing everything in physical space. This may appear viable to the cult of the proprietors' philosophies, which are always crude bastard religions scarcely worth considering and have been reconstructed by aristocracy to create their favored running dogs. Such a world would either be reliant on the slavery of all who are not proprietors, and disparity of wealth that favored the monarchical and feudal ambitions of proprietors, since they have no reason to ever allow an equitable distribution of property or consider their subjects to be social or political equals. That is the last thing a proprietor would ever do, because in doing so he would eliminate the one thing he holds in the settlement and quickly be displaced by proprietors and underlings more than happy to take his place. It is in slavery that aristocracy and education truly make themselves a force to be reckoned with, and it is the germ of slavery - at root an economic social relations rather than an intellectual, political, or spiritual one - that must be traced from primordial origins, and placed in the context of the economy of primitive societies that would have been noticed by those at the time, in some way, as their genuine conditions.

Attempts to distill education to some substance or universal form are not self-evident. There is an attempt to link education with intelligence, moral probity, restraint, justice, or some other value to be placed above all others. This is a crass koan and fad which fails to assess what education really does. Education is at heart the teaching of transgression and who holds the right to do so - who can get away with crimes, and who is subject to hypocritical attacks. The first lesson a child is taught is that truth is alien to the world. It is here where "political truth" breaks from easy scientific analysis, precisely because education is anathema to science in the sense we would find such a thing useful. If we wanted to learn the truth of the world, education is not the vehicle for that. Education need not be religious or moral or serve much of a purpose. It may be administered lazily or a thing acquired by oneself out of necessity. When doing so, the student is conforming to a predatory world where education would be required, and self-exploiting as a subject would in an imagined capitalist market society. This self-exploitation might be something for the interest of the student, but only because the student will eventually encounter the alternative of not being educated. The antagonism begins not by any need of it in nature or because of a blind impulse in the human race, nor is it an individual malice. It is instead education as a thought form, which will eventually take the guise of the evil and religion as the latter chapters of this book describe it. At first, there is no religion or an overt concept of the evil, and education in of itself need not be "evil". It can be innocuous and tame, and it can be carried out in good faith, but it is always carried out for a function that is political and in line with social values, rather than learning or knowledge for its own sake.

To the view of education and its models of society, the state of nature is more sensical. A proper history has yet to feature in our writing, and I could never construct that history and reproduce it line by line here, as such a historical account of primitive society would be a series of books beyond my ability to write. Since history itself must be reviewed in the next book, this view of the historical "state of nature" will revisit what we have written up to now, through the vision of educators who know their true charge, and who have no reason to pretend that they haven't been among the elect and know who the true enemies of their race have always been.

Who can invent the state of nature and make it real? At the level of political thought, only education can make this a general rule. All of the petty violence, claims to property, and technology available to man, can only affect local areas, and cannot enclose those areas except with tremendous force. Labor and the lowest class see the state of nature correctly as an oppressive construct of no interest to them. If there is a general, moral view of society and what it could be, it is one that finds pedagogy terrible in its worse forms, and at best, education is a barely acknowledged necessity. It is labor's task to ward off the lowest class, who are dealt with in short order, but labor finds itself oppressed by the tools and property of those who established themselves before they did. A rule of education is established that what is old is good, and return to primordial conditions is heightened as a instinct in humanity because the past and history have power over the mind, regardless of their relevance to here and now or any truth of the historical claims. All that is necessary is the insinuation and some value of the past that can be summoned, for good or ill, and the belief that the future cannot allow anything new. If anything new is possible, the "state of nature" is quickly exposed as a farce and the affair of humans in various conspiracies to claim something that was never their birthright, and in practice never was "theirs" beyond their ability to inflict violence or lie to others to convince them that this was something they had to abide.

This is not how humans come into the world, though. We do not arise fully formed as adult points of light, but as infants born to a human mother, who had a male parent who might be - and usually was - an influence on childhood. So too have infants and children been under the guard of elders, and the young are inclined to seek out something stronger to learn from, and gain the acceptance of. A child alone against adult humans who are hostile is almost certainly dead, and this is not difficult to see. The obvious entry point to establish a state of nature is not the command of arms or tools of production or industry, but the reproduction of the agents of the state. Nothing else is more necessary for material existence, and the natural resources in situ someone requires to simply live are not that much. So too are the tools of humanity simple enough. Even the tools of the past century that are available to human beings are simple things, for needless complexity is counter-intuitive. The technology, the property of greatest importance to society are the humans themselves, and it was not difficult to see the human as a machine. The idea that this was a line that could not be transgressed required someone to ignore all of the evidence in primitive humanity that treated humans, young, old, healthy, or sick, as liabilities or tools for some purpose another held for them. The grace to allow humans to do as they would have wanted in a better world, created ex nihilo, did not exist as a given. It was not self-evident to many of the people. It would have to be taught. The manipulation of this goodwill gave to those who intiated the precursors that made the cult truly necessary the tool they required to "fix" a problem of their own creation. Nothing about property, technology, labor, or the lowest class merely existing required any "education" to tell us what we are and how to act. We could reassemble for ourselves this understanding, and communicate it in some way that we know to be intelligible out of a sense that the conditions of humiliation that defined human existence were moot. To a large extent, these conditions already existed, by some inertia of people to do what suited their self-interest. Seeing enough rot from ritual sacrifice or the animalistic orgies of humanity was enough to provoke disgust, and it would take only one honest human to speak of what this is to counteract the rot of humans in social groups. It would also only take one malevolent actor to renew this cycle, this time with a more perfect knowledge of how the cycle began. In every case, the knowledge and technology which counteracted the malice that gave birth to the human race was never an occult secret that was only accessible to the favored groups or "the best". The stupidest and most feeble of humanity are, as a rule, nearly inert in their effect on the world, and do not want such an effect, except to fend off the predation of their "fellow" humans. Absent that predation, the weakest of humanity, and most of humanity, would have preferred solitude, seeing correctly that social relations that are this antagonistic could not be repaired, or transformed into something they were not. This is to a large extent what happened. Knowledge, technology, and merits that would actually affect historical change, were discovered not by those lionized and granted social proof, but the hermits and witches and those who were able to explore the possibility of a world without this sacrifice, without this cult, and without the animalistic humiliation rituals that were lionized. So too did the first educators, the first gurus, come from the loners who tried, for whatever reason, to speak of these things to others, so their lives would be easier. How the educator's life would be easier is not morally neutral or something favoring one moral orientation. The hermit did not need to be a decent person, and in many cases, the hermit had fewer commitments to moral probity than the man or woman in society. Being solitary usually meant the hermit was childless, and was not beholden to social proof or shame regarding their offspring or anyone who would be a social inferior to the hermit, in the hermit's own space. The hermit's commitment does not consider society at all one way or another, and does not suggest an "anti-social" ethos even. Many hermits are left to do their thing, for most people would by default see the old man or crone as no harm to anyone, and so hermits could fill a role in social existence and their distance from the common affairs and rituals was not inherently an evil thing. The hermit did not need to see their function as opposed to society or the world at all, and were quite happy with their space and the status quo of mutual solitude and peace. That was certainly better than the rotten rituals that human malice had already asserted in cruder forms. So too did the malicious, in their free time, find new and creative malice to inflict, and solitude for them was liberty to refine their foul art.

It is not difficult to see that humans to be anything operated on their own power, before their social existence could be asserted at a basic level. Any development contrary to the machinery of society is one that was carried out on terms that were not comprehensible in the way societies were comprehensible. For this to be relevant for education, as opposed to learning which was a curiosity for individual consciousness and whatever system it worked out, no "social" consciousness had to be inherent to the act. Political awareness has always been at heart anti-social and imposed against the transmission of information in society, and it is this which informed institutions which staked a claim to social interaction. This includes the institution of the primitive family and the repeated interactions of offspring with adults, which were noted as rules of political importance, rather than material conditions or evidence of any "society" that was relevant. What happened between teacher and student, mother and child, or between two humans whose interaction was direct and not mediated by preferred conceits about society, is something altogether different from the pre-existence awareness of society, which had to be taken as-is rather than re-interpreted in preferred forms.^[3] In the prior book, this is viewed purely from the view of someone managing the social information that is evident without any political awareness implied, and so education is set aside. Education is conflated with learning, but its genuine content is entirely in the hands of the guru or schoolmaster. The student is intrinsically viewed as a slab of matter and thought for this process to begin, and usually, the student is a child who cannot resist this against a clear social superior. The self-educated person must view its whole existence as an alien temporarily while conforming to the demands of education; which is to say, self-education implies a type of self-flagellation and submission to something far removed from what would be evident to our own wants, or to a world which did not have it out for us. Education in particular notes the most prominent threat in any of our lives - other humans - and so education is the first cult to exhort believers to uphold the values of Man and humanity, which were of no interest to the world or our genuine existence. We feel, correctly, no kindness with other humans, because the reasons we sought education responded to a general fear rather than curiosity that might have attracted us to another human. There is no "education" in a mother nursing a child, nor does the mother see her purpose as education for the sake of political society, nor the father see a natural law obligating him to be an educator. There is no natural law enshrining education at all, and to this day, no such law could be asserted, and no necessity of this dubious education is demonstrated. It is the general fear which spurs the demand for education, and the educator, whatever its intentions, is always aware of this and acts accordingly. Attempts to make education into something it is not are foolish and miss entirely the purpose of the institution.

A state of nature, or the first institutional representation that could be called the state, is that which is taught to children to explain the ordering and classification of persons and things pedagogically. This pedagogy does not need to regard any native sense, and it exists primarily to correct errors that we would have if we had to reverse-engineer this knowledge. Our native sense cannot re-assemble, from a few propositions, the vast accumulation of historical knowledge and observations that elders have made, pertaining to social information that preceded us. We would, if attempting to reconstruct it independently, spend our entire lives reconstructing this knowledge and never succeed, while those who received this political knowledge would always hold an advantage. It is then helpful to generalize this view of political society with a few simple rules and a metaphysical knowledge which allows for the assembly of new educational knowledge on the basis the pedagogue has established. New theories and methods to construct this core, or kernel, are strongly discouraged, as they are anathema to what education establishes. The status quo or the genuine order of things that would be observed dispassionately, is not just overridden by the state of nature pedagogy suggests. Pedagogy itself affects that status quo. The polity proper, which did not necessarily regard any institution but instead is an awareness of an active society where the status quo is contested, is also affected by the introduction of education, in whatever form it takes. At first, this education is the parents' selection of offspring, and tribal authorities and valid members selecting new initiates for their society, on the terms of the society that was established without us. No other society is possible "from the ground up", once the educational cult has perpetuated long enough to establish its existence as the definition of who is "in" and who is "out". We can establish for ourselves conceits contrary to this, but to contest to political is a transgression against this new "society", this abstracted form of the original sociality. We can protest and struggle against it until our face turns blue, and there is nothing which would ever convinced the educated and valid to give up that which they are invested in, which gave to them everything and ensured that those outside of the valid race receive nothing. The Germanic conceits of education perfected and distilled this to its ugliest form, until Fabian education in America combined the worst of all worlds to create a true abomination and export it around the world. At this early stage of the disease, though, pedagogy is limited to what some old coot who used to be someone declared. Whether the students care or religiously follow the dictates is not relevant. What is relevant is the monopoly on virtue and admission that education always entails, and this is the only substantive function and the entire point of the enterprise. If we wanted to learn, or adopt received knowledge, it would not take the form of education. Books can be written from a neutral perspective. Speeches and oral transmission can be made not on the basis of occulting and selecting who will live and who will die, but for purposes far removed from the political, or an effort to break the political settlement. The proper spiritual authorities in any developed society are never purely reduced to education, but are at core religious matters that require believers in something far more developed than anything education can insinuate.

This educational task is not a necessary step for the establishment of spiritual authority or religion, as if the only way this spiritual authority was established was from on high, master to slave, now and forever. The educator often styles itself not as an arbiter of that authority, but as a critic of it, in defense of their peculiar institution. It existed, just as we developed any knowledge with native sense, because it could exist, and there was nothing stopping it. There were many advantages to receiving this educational knowledge, and all of those advantages were not due to a necessary learning of facts or the natural world, but from learning political knowledge which was never self-evident. No one was born with innate knowledge of who the proper authorities are, let alone had any reason to believe uncritically who the valid and invalid were, or believe that this struggle ever could be resolved or was useful to their genuine wants. Most of humanity gains nothing whatsoever from this cult or the struggle it creates.

Education arises for dubious purposes, but in of itself, it does not mean anything. The proper educator has contempt for students and plays the would-be aristocrat to the brats who are, wherever they came from, scum of the Earth under the educator's tutelage. The essential relationship of education is the grossest inequality imaginable, moreso than any other relationship expected in human society. Even if the educator is yourself, the parts of yourself are set against what you would have done with your naive sense and wants, in order to respond to the general fear that education makes apparent. This is wholly appropriate to the task education sets out to accomplish. It is not a pleasant task, and it is good thing it isn't. If the world were all roses, we wouldn't be able to smell this shit coming for our souls. But, for all of the education we might undertake, two pressures against it arise. The educator does not intrinsically have any affinity for property, and despite the aristocracy's eugenic interest from its creation up to now, the eugenics of the aristocracy is something altogether different from the vain eugenic interest of the proprietors. Modern eugenics arises not as a monpoly of one inclination over the other, but an alliance between this new aristocracy, the proprietors, and the commoners, who preach class collaboration around a central interest. Modern eugenics is yet to be developed, and was never as natural as its advocates claim. Even in the most eugenic concepts of the philosophical state which we will write about shortly, modern eugenics required such a development of technology - properly the domain of the commons and productive capital - that was far beyond anything the ancients would have forseen beyond fever dreams. Yet, the alliance, and the locking out of labor, was seen as early as there were those who wrote political treatises. The particular alliance varied from polity to polity, and rarely ever conformed to the most base interests of life that have been described up to now. Such thinking is appropriate not to viable empires or societies operating in the real world, but to philosophical principles which seek to arrest those values which are technological at core, rather than proprietary or the work of aristocratic deceit. In early humanity, the proprietors - the warriors who could assert by force their claim to the world - arranged a crude but effective alliance with the priesthood, and the priest-king and the greatest warlord were one and the same. The priesthood would then declare the warlord was made of magic, nothing less than a living god surrounded by ritual in the court and abject slavery in the world. The reality of pre-historical civilization almost certainly did not conform to this conceit, but in the matter of who ruled the world and got to dictate the political history of the time, the warlords, warbands, and barbarism overruled the nascent commoners. Without a very effective aristocratic swindle other than the king and the warlord being the same, a stable aristocracy as an independent interest is only implied by secret societies and occult rituals that are the hallmark of humanity. This usually meant the deities and beliefs of such societies, and examples can be found on every continent where humans could migrate, were little more than an idol representing the nobility. None of the religious mysteries offered much besides lurid practices to entrap those poor souls who could not escape civilization or the ravages of barbaric warlordism, and in the "lurid practices" department, barbarism and savagery were no better than the rot of civilization. That's just what humans are. In all likelihood, what anyone actually thought about the mysteries of the world was found not in the state cults or secret soceities, for they didn't possess anything but a ticket into the spoils of a society at war with its people and among the "gods". The necessity of sovereigns to command labor, and the existing composition of nations and tribes adapting to all of the tricks of swindlers, ensured pre-historic societies were woefully unproductive and could only think of exploiting labor by making it suffer or playing the usual cruelties humans have done in freedom or slavery. Life as a laborer was, in a word, miserable, but you weren't one of the poor sods ritually sacrificed to Moloch or whatever god was in vogue this time. The world being what it was, the weak either did not survive long, or survived purely because it was more work to find them and they found whatever place they were going to find in a society gone horribly wrong. The tribes of early settled society - for the formation of the city was almost always tribal associations, with the family and clan being the facilitator of the slavery institution - had no reason to pay to the religion any more heed than was obligatory, and since the obligation was compulsory sacrifice to feed an insane aristocracy and their enablers with armies and swords, no serious attempt was made to suggest the people, or even the more favored commoners, had any reason to give a shit about the ancient mysteries. What this meant is that labor and proprietor both spent more of the educational and intellectual effort honing the talents that suited their inclination, and saw their interests less aligned with any "circle of life", but with interests that were local to them and that they held a stake in. In this environment, mercantile activity, a class of traders, loan-sharks, men of finance with backing to carry out the functions of bourgeois finance historically, could gradually assert power, and it is here where education found a home among those who saw a potential greater than this week's orgy or the celebration of more blood for the blood god.

Those who could see this in advance, even if they weren't inclined to the technological interest, could see the nature of education was at heart a technological approach, rather than the aristocratic gurus who only had a bunch of bullshit and a few tricks. Most of the guru's knowledge was swindled away from suckers who thought they would gain some favor by surrendering their intellect and research, and true to their nature, the typical aristocrat could think of nothing but stealing this resource, or letting it live only for the promise of a greater harvest in the future. There would be consideration among all inclinations in society, and regarding all interests, of the prospects of education meeting their inclination, the material interests which made them stronger, and eventually their class as social class becomes the prominent distinction from the classical period onward. Even for those whose material interests and inclination did not align with technology understood education as a technology too valuable to pass up. It is not because the education was a resource or property - proprietors have always hated their educational betters and disdained the more enlightened versions of education, invariably favoring the kind of retarded screeching familiar to us in the education this author despises so much. It is not because the education made someone a better human, or made them richer by some productive gain from the cult of education. Far from it, the commoners almost entirely view the aristocracy's monopoly on education as a tax they must pay, and care so little about the process. They don't have to endure the humiliations of the lowest class, and are grateful for it, nor are they are boorish and degraded as the would-be Deltas of the laboring class. The aristocrats themselves see education primarily as a harvest of the souls of humanity, and have no inherent unity as a class that would require them to show decency to each other. The value of education is first that it generalizes the laws of human society, and then it becomes clear to the more clever of the race that those laws of human society could themselves be altered by deliberate working, and that education was the only vehicle capable of accomplishing this in the long term. All of the struggles of war, and all of the cruder technology of production, meant very little in any study of history, going back to pre-classical settled society. War primarily has meant a change in the name of the masters, and war would become conscious of class alliegances across societies. Education of a crude sort made clear to enough of the favored of any interest or group that "the best" could run a racket far more effectively if they get the sheep when they're young and defenseless, rather than waiting passively for the flock to grow and expecting to rule from a citadel because the people are too afraid of you based on reputation alone.

Education of any sort made clear that formal theories of knowledge and perpetuating them was a very cheap - almost free - tool. It also made clear how easy it was for humans to attack each other, and consider new ways to do so. Even the benign education is treated as a furtive enterprise to be occulted from others. Faith in sharing knowledge for mutual benefit is not the human spirit, and education made clear how to force humans into increased antagonistic relations that they could not escape. It was the offensive use of education which produced the most reward, whether the target of education was other humans, the world, or the evils of the world. Education and the interests and class which rise around it always seek the offensive position. This is not done because it is materially demonstrated, or inherent to a natural law where the attacker always wins. The fortunes of war and the technology available to fight anything of substance have, on average, made the opposite come to pass. In war, and in the struggle for institutions, defenders hold all of the tactical and strategic advantages. It is the pedagogue and educator alone whose practice is overwhelmingly giving over to the predatory and aggressive nature of humanity. Usually the warlord or tribal warrior fights a pitched battle when they fight at all, and the aim of war isn't the glory of it, but to win it so the soldiers can come home, live the rest of the life, and do something with those spoils of war that are continuously promised. As much as possible, the intellectual aristocracy wants those spoils of war to be diverted from the fighting men, and so the aristocracy received the majority of spoils for free, while soldiers fought, suffered, died, and lost their treasure and property in the hopes that war would upset the balance of power that came to dominate human society. These "intellectuals" may have been warlords who rise and fall, only for another warlord to rise again the next season or the next generation, but the competition of proprietors to be "the best", rather than merely men of property, was the driver for war, rather than any necessity or gain to be won. War, for many reasons, is a terrible business model, unless you have by some cleverness engineered a situation where you gain the spoils without doing any of the suffering and dying. What was needed was to stoke the avarice of young men who were impressionable, and who would be told of the most fickle of glories - social approval and postures of toughness. This sad habit is older than humanity itself. The braying of a filthy ape, not even human, was the model the aristocracy taught to get men motivated to start wars, or begin the cycle of instigations that are intended to "heighten the contradictions" in ways large and small so that the cycle of desperation for approval can goad the society to some war, or at least ritual sacrifice to turn against the losers. This sacrifice does not solely fall on the lowest class of the time, but it is a suffering waged in every inclination, interest, and class of society, each in its own ways. The aristocracy turn on each other, but because of their origin in the technological aims that education entailed and the knowledge of how this machine worked traded as secrets to those in the know of what the real glory was, they are the most likely to make coalitions. The carnage aristocracy and pedagogues create is intended to keep those out of the know out, and keep them on the brink of misery if they lose that most important social proof. The arguments to teach by pedagogy the greatest malice and evil made far more sense to a would-be aristocracy if they wished to be "the best". Kindness, generosity, or literally anything that humans would have found productive, meritorious, morally sound, or compatible with even living, were not just weaker than the alternative of aristocratic malice and its secrets. To do those things as an aristocrat would be the worst of all things - retarded. The aristocrat and pedagogue is most committed to the rule that students are to be given as little as possible, and as much as possible will be asked of them in sacrifice. The only moderating influence is that this is a very bad idea if there are any sobering influences from the world on this political settlement. Here is where aristocracy found its foulest tools; the scapegoating of a lowest class, the intensification of humiliations common to the races of apes, to strip back the parts of the human constitution which rebelled against the oppressive societies seen in the animal kingdom. A birth of the race in ritual sacrifice was moderated by a very clear and present danger felt by all, which was met with violent force to those who transgressed too far. The aim of the educator and the aristocrat, established in pre-history, has been to push further the limits of how much sacrifice, torture, and humiliation the ruled could endure. The risk of pushing too far was not so much rebellion from immiseration, although a particularly incompetent ruler draws the ire not just of weaklings but of the strong who see an emperor with no basis for continuing this. One obvious problem is that a society given over to pure hedonism would quickly devour any natural resource it has claimed. Another is that, if this is really what humans are and the rulers see no reason to ever do anything different, there is no reason for anyone to go along with this. Pure hatred for humanity would motivate a terrible retribution, and the cycle of sacrifices would be reversed. Those who cheered and hollered would be burned alive without a single shred of remorse, and it was good. Whether it accomplished anything or was "real worth" meant less than the example that the pedagogues would heed in their lessons. So much as it is possible, it is a task of education to make invisible such events, because if any image of the people without aristocracy were to gain credibility, educators would be desperate beggars treated with studious contempt. The great working and making of the human race would be undone, oh horror! This impulse would feed the bitter who turned to education, pedagogy, and the received wisdom of gurus, and adopted the values of aristocracy. What would be needed, as many humans figured out, was a way to weaponize these impulses so that history may be set right, and humanity will be bombarded with anvilicious calls to be on the right side of history.

What would be necessary would to be reverse entirely the circle of life. The vices of aristocracy, who have held all of the cards to regulate human society and cannot use their competition with the warriors as the eternal excuse if you think about it for five minutes, would be imposed on the lowest class. The moral probity of a worker, which was always in doubt but would be valued if the worker is to endure this life, would be inverted into a low cunning and a game of backstabbing, lest they be retarded. When these inducements did not push enough buttons, or men and women remained too good, the ancient ally of aristocracy was found - alcohol, drugs, and substances to weaken resolve and foment addiction. Above all, sexual depravity, combined with the most ludicrous posture of moral probity from the aristocracy and the warriors, would be encouraged in all ways. Finally, the technological interest of the middle class, which really had the least reason to see value in any class society or interest until recent history, would be induced to turn inward. An interest that at heart saw human society as a machine which could be far more efficient, and not contain the vices which had plagued it, would be taught to value low cunning, individual genius, the power of the Big Lie to win strength in their struggles, and would squander their intelligence and all product on invented causes. The promise would be that, in various ways, someone could buy their way into social promotion, if they deployed their commerce and nascent capital in ways that conformed to an established aristocracy. That this aristocracy simply asserted by imperious will that it was a thing - and the particular aristocracy may cycle throughout history, but enough from the old order have always survived into the new and re-asserted the aristocratic value system. It did not matter so much if a fraction of them died, so long as the dream of a human race dancing and reveling in worship of the living gods would gradually re-emerge and beat back something so hideous like "democracy" or any other inclination. After this, the proprietor and warrior - whose interests were in the main selfish and disinterested in "the state" as a philosophical construct - would be told they must aspire to the moral probity aristocrats postured at. It was very easy for aristocracy, once established, to establish a norm that aristocracy was "too big to fail" and would not suffer in the way other humans suffered. While the proprieitors and soldiers would grasp, fall into the vices of their class and interests, or fail since their habit was already one of intercine competition, the aristocracy could with opulence and security appear through every angle those who hold a philosophical state and its institutions could imagine. This program would not appear overnight, and it has never worked in the way the philosophers desired. It would be the chief aim of aristocracy to tighten its choke-hold. The greatest reversal was that the rulers would proclaim that they were friends of the world and friends of the people in some way, here to enlighten us with dubious wisdom. Everything they ever had was premised on making everyone else, including their own order, suffer. This seed was identified very early, and the struggle - the "Jehad" - is waged primarily to feed this beast. The objective of war is to inflict more suffering as soon as it is over, so that peace and war appear to be irrelevant states, and genuine peace is only known in the comfort of slavery or the family - for a time, and always tainted with the knowledge that it's all a lie. If, though, it was seen that not only did no one care enough to fight that hard for aristocracy, but that in the main the genuine state of the world involved remarkably little war in the genuine sense, it would upset this world-historical and predatory mission aristocracy set for itself. The misery of the world, by all reasonable assessments, is almost entirely due to the presence of these pernicious cults, the dissemination of drugs and filth, and an eager embrace of this by most aristocrats and most sovereigns who are beholden to aristocracy for more reasons than their own membership in the class.

The chief aim then was to subsume the world in a spurious struggle that is like war but without consequences or risks that were too great, and to subsume intelligence and management of production in dubious enterprises and various scams which heightened the drive for social engineering - for the true war within a society, of the rulers against the ruled, of the power of conceits and the posture against any power of the world that would ever tell them no again. All other objectives were either a holding action to delay this goal, or a mistake in their eyes. Strong rulers put down revolts and treated humans with contempt in the aristocratic retelling of history. Weak or evil rulers were those who failed to maintain the kayfabe, but aristocracy's greatest seething contempt is for the rare ruler who, out of necessity, salvages their filthy race from the mess they constructed, and did so because he believed that he would need to in order to have something to pass on to successors. We should be careful to judge who the "good" rulers are, as usually what aristocracy - then and now - believe is good were the times of horrific disaster for most of humanity. Augustus ushers in a notoriously corrupt regime which pays off the Senate with bribes, makes a big show of rebuilding edifices while the remaining virtue of Rome's people is pissed away faster than ever. Diocletian did nothing less than the unthinkable - preside over the effective enslavement of the free citizens by means of his various reforms. Both of these men did much aside from this, and acted primarily in response to the intercine struggle at the peak of their societies. We should not take away merit from the rulers and their operations which kept something intact, given that the typical aristocrat only thought about how to get more torture points as soon as possible in the Great Spiritual Continuum so he didn't wind up in the Vault of Eternal Retardation. But, aristocracy is happy to eliminate entirely the dramatic upheaval of such times, because the end result - the poor becoming much poorer - is entirely the point. Revolutions and democratization of any sort is the worst possible fate for them. How this narrative changed in early modernity is not what it seems. That, though, is for a much later time. Aristocracy today is simultaneously defined by five traits which mimic the purification of the inclinations mentioned thus far. One is their utter contempt for the ruled, laid bare and without any of the nuance or sense of an actual person that they once encouraged out of a sense that those human passions were more than a tool to be cajoled out of them. The second is their untrammeled power compared to aristocracies of the past, by virtue of the property, technology, human willpower, and suffering they command with full knowledge of why they do so. The third is their utter impotence if they do anything other than the purified form of aristocratic behavior, and so this leads to the fourth. In the place of past passions or any definition that is recognizably human is a perverse celebration of depravity and all of the worst vices humans have ever known. Finally, the greatest benefit to aristocracy has been the decency of the ruled, who don't have it in them to be as vicious and cruel as such people, and who see more than ever that this way of life is not just ruinous and creates suffering far beyond anything humans should have ever lived through. Near the end of the 20th century, it was clear for the first time in history that it was indeed education, the enclosures, and this drive to "perfect" humanity by eugenics, that granted to the ruling power everything it truly possesses, rather than any shred of goodness in humanity. Humanity, despite this, acquired, absorbed, and internalized much we would call good, and this goodness was not just comforts unfairly taken from the world. It doesn't meet my standards of "men being good" in a true moral sense, but humans, and even the effect of aristocracy when they cannot mask off, know of decencies today that rarely occurred to humans of the past. The same humans often don't realize the decencies that were lost, and above all lost sight of any genuine fount of virtue.

So far, I have overly focused on the five-tiered segregation of society based on a conceit about knowledge, which was really at heart a conceit about life rather than genuine knowledge - political, scientific, historical, economic, moral, or any other knowledge. The conceit of life and a cult around eugenics has been the most pernicious overt and dominant influence which amplified this far beyond what it would have been if humanity could have chosen right. The geist of aristocracy looms large today, but in the past - despite the histories proclaiming the aristocracy's eternal victory from the cradle to the grave of humanity's existence - aristocracy as a force in the world was far weaker than its claims and pretenses. As I have mentioned, aristocracies in the past rose, fell, swapped members with every interest and class of society, and broke ranks with all expectations of class or interest solidarity for reasons other than expedience. The society of the past required a concept that humans were, even in the conceits of aristocracy, not actually too different from each other, because their history and experience taught them the fragility of power, civilization, and the vehicles by which aristocracy could realize their world-historical mission. This class mobility was sharply curtailed during the 20th century in a genuine sense. There was still a swapping of the roles humans played, but the nature of that game of musical chairs to become "the best" took on a wholly different character. No longer was class mobility a serious proposition. If someone attained success that did not meet with the approval of the new aristocracy, it was the sworn mission of those who ruled - and this was not particular to eugenics - to make sure those intruders were not "really" victorious, and that uniformly the New Man was presented as the only model to aspire to, perfected and free of sin. The stark alternative was made of the lowest class, who were now not allowed to be anything but sin, their existence marked, tracked, and exposed to the public humiliation that was only possible with mass media and propaganda. That development is far from our present time, even as the seeming dominance of propaganda in the 20th century insists "this works" - for people are either too decent, too self-interested, or see correctly that going along with any of this is a very terrible idea.

With that said, the five-tiered segregation of human society that has been a useful prop for introducing economic and political mechanisms must be set aside. That construct, still not yet fully here in our time, was only possible after many developments. The political institutions which did exist are, in the end, far more interesting than the theories and narratives philosophy constructed regarding the political.

Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

Return to Table of Contents | Return to Chapter Start