Return to Table of Contents | Previous Chapter | Next Chapter

Proper imperium rests on one question and one question alone - temporal power over life and death. This pertains not to a philosophical, natural, scientific, or personal question, but a political one. That is to say, the holder of imperium issues its fatwa, selecting who will live and who will die in the realm of mortals. This question is not foundational to the political in the sense that its ideologues presume. We can always choose to spite temporal authority, for that authority is of a world which is finite and can only be asserted by agents capable of it. We can choose to devalue the concept of life and hold the Empire in contempt, and the universe and the political will go on. The concept of what it means to "live" or "die" is itself contingent on the type of entity asking this question. It is a different question for humans than it is for animals, and among humans, what value if any they place on life as a form, function, or force in the world can be what they make of it. Nothing about us really requires us to value life at all - we can easily live in a world where life is cheap and uncertain, and this is the default. We ascertain with simple reasoning that this is a very bad situation for existence, and yet, there has not been a single period of human history where the cull and the threat of such has not dominated political thought. In the most primitive conditions of humanity, there is serious doubt about whether any of this project is truly worthwhile, but at the end of the day, the impulse to live in animals is strong enough, and however nasty and brutish human political life is made, life and death do not take on the meaning that they would once methods of torture are discovered, and the ritual sacrifice birthing this foul race had been standardized, perfected, and glorified to attain a type of abomination beyond the initial, primordial act that is harkened to with every symbol of the imperial fear. Those who hold imperium do not value imperium for the same Satanic thrill of today's imperialists. It does not take a great mind to see that the eugenist imperium is deliberately and peculiarly foul, and it is only the eugenists who both deny that imperium is valid, and the eugenists who made imperium unmentionable and thus, for the first time, imperium could theoretically claim to be total. The holder of imperium, whatever airs it puts on, is a finite creature and knows it. The holder of imperium does not hold this power for its own sake, but because it is politically necessary in a world where life struggles against life. The holder of imperium who actually knows what he or she is doing is perfectly aware that this imperium is neither necessary nor desirable as a natural law. That thinking is for the most incorrigible fags, and they are disgusting fags. History has borne out examples of imperial malfeasance from unworthy heirs and the snot-nosed brats of a failed race that dare think that this power allows them to become gods. Even the middling emperors, and many of those who hold this power in their hands, are aware that life and death are not toys or abstractions. The crude technocrat and its forebears is not averse to conscience and a sense of sentiment that would stop him or her from doing obviously stupid and counterproductive things in the name of imperium. Generally, it would make sense not to kill viable life without a particularly good reason, for the thrill of torture and sacrifice does not hold the power aristocracy and its running dogs assert in grand faggotry that it possesses. Imperium and aristocracy pertain to very different claims and very different interest. The imperium is held in the final analysis not by some aristocratic virtue squealing "me wantee", but by property and that which property secures. The eugenic interest of life plays a role here, but even the nastiest officers of imperium, as foul as any soldier the legions could belch from the bowels of Hell, understand that once Humpty Dumpty is broken, he will never again be reassembled - and so goes the eugenist nursery rhyme of a disgusting and foul race. You would think people who obsess over this question and know scientifically the frailty of life and the mind would not be so reckless and promote this much Germanic screaming and every Ritalin-addled middle class brat kicking down to get ahead, but a foul race cannot change its nature more than most individuals or viable nations could, and English and "Western" civilization is a failed race beyond the norm of humanity.

No imperium acts instantly or can act instantly, and imperium is not the sole connection between political abstraction and material science. In principle, the polity's claim over life and death is absolute as it is over all things - no natural or constitutional limitation can be claimed to hold spiritual authority overriding what our sense tells us about the world. If we were to make such claims that are above the political, we would invoke some law of Heaven or the gods that has regulatory force over temporal affairs. We can make this claim, but the nature of temporal authority is that us mere mortal can and do choose every day to "disobey Heaven", even if we operate with a cosmology where acting in spite of Heaven is folly.

What this means is that while the holder of imperium has unilateral say in what is done with this power, with nothing in the world acting against it, there are limits. Those natural limits are played with by technocrats, who exaggerate their destructive weaponry while at the same time downplaying how much death, terror, and misery technocratic institutions have brought upon humanity in the past 100 years. Nearly all of the death of humanity in the past century has been deliberate, vicious, pointless, made far crueler than it ever had to be, and for all of that death, the life of humanity is regimented and herded towards a model of exploitation that is grossly inefficient, incompetent, contradictory, and serves nothing more than some jacked up gangsters who insisted we have to respect them. Nothing about imperium and this power moderates society in a way we would consider good, nor does it regulate for what we would consider evil or bad as the ideologues insist. The death and torture inherent to imperium are largely pointless, as the eugenic interest and the proprietors' interests are, but we very clearly are creatures with property. Such claims are necessary for us to mitigate untrammeled technology or the sentiments of an evil race - the human race. It is the lowest class alone who are relatively blameless by their inclinations - but we are beholden to the society the higher orders created, and we merely exist, not even live, in their world, so far as imperium and its consequences have a say. The lowest class is always the first in line when someone thinks of life and death, and this was not a whim of imperium or something that Empire deemed necessary. The ritual sacrifice that birthed the human race came long before imperium, and imperium existed only because it was informed by that fact. But, the imperium does not stem solely from ritual sacrifice, and ritual sacrifice is almost always a thing excluded from explicit imperium. The reasons why are clear - if imperium officially declared that ritual sacrifice was morally upright and the highest virtue, then it becomes clear that everyone living under that imperium could just as well be sacrificed next, up to the man in the castle "up there". There are lines imperium sets for what can and cannot be done to those who live under it, and though the specific decrees of imperium do not carry any weight to decide what imperium is, there are lines imperium cannot cross. The death, or for that matter the life granted by imperium, must hold the force of law, and the law codes - which are not themselves a basis for imperium - maintain that both death and life must be lawful to be sanctioned to exist. The claims of imperium do not leave gray areas that are outside of this power - if something is allowed to live or if death happens against the law of imperium, imperium is de facto sanctioning this event. Imperium does not have any ability to shirk its guilt, and the law of the world is guilty until proven innocent. Brazen violations of the imperial claim thrown in the face of the ruled make one or two things clear - either imperium is held by someone who does not control the beast, or imperium is held by nudists who care not about any decency or merit that imperium would have represented. No one can dispute imperium - its judgements once passed are final, even if the sitting emperor very much would not like the death or life that happens under their watch. There is no right of appeal, nor can there be such a thing. Any justice under the law would be judged by the court which only exists because imperium exists to legitimize such a thing, and and claims of written law or jurists are in the end written with the expectation that imperium means imperium - that this power is invested or accepted by the court, and those who sit in judgement serve at the pleasure of imperium, regardless of any flowery words a child can learn to see through, even when the child is forbidden to speak the truth and will only be lied to. Nothing about imperium requires honesty or any sense of fairness, but if imperium's edicts are deliberately and maximally contradictory, the judgement of all who live under it is clear - no one is safe, and even the rule of fear would appear to be a blessed state compared to the lawfare of the 21st century. At least with the rule of fear, there will be no more pretending, and the insult of the lie no longer works. Only when the thrill of torture must be maximized, as the eugenic creed does, can such a nightmare exist, and such a thing does not really make a meritorious or definite claim of imperium relating to subjects or anything. All eugenism and the "unlimited freedom" of Germanic thought create is a faggotry shouting "DIE, DIE, DIE" and granting to it status above the law and above all other sense.

This power is not an idea that can be imposed on the world by some assertion of will or the transfer of information asserting it as a fact. The information in society and information gleaned from science describing the natural world must point to something substantive that has been realized. This is to say, imperium exists because there is a state and specifically technology allowing any edict to be enforced. The state and technology did not "invent" imperium by assertion of those who hold the state and technology. Imperium and the assertion existed as an idea inherent to our concepts of life and death, but we always recognized that mortal creatures can only do so much with this power. It would not occur to an animal that any "imperium" meant anything, and it does not occur naturally to humans that we must obey any such edict. Imperium suggests something very different from brute force to struggle in the world to make it so. It also suggests something more than organized or managed force - force as something managed economically - to make it so. With imperium there are consequences, and these consequences are morally valued in some way for imperium to make sense. If we did not value life, then what use is the power of life and death in a political sense? This applies to the subjects who live under the whims of such edicts, and it applies to the rulers. The rulers would not use this power for no particular purpose. There is a reason why the power of life and death is valued and why such judgements are passed. There are reasons why subjects would want to live or die that are independent of the imperial edict, and the subject may align itself with the empire, or defy it. Both the subjects and rulers abide certain conditions that are particular to imperium and property, and these conditions are not confined to the technology available to the social agents, the nature of the state, any moral value or spiritual thought about what life and death is or what we are doing here, or any fact we hold to be relevant as part of what we are doing outside of imperium or any fact about the most basic conditions of existence that brought us here. The proprietors have a particular interest in Empire.

For most of us, history is a thing we make within the space we have, and history is made more or less as we please given the constraints on motion. Property and imperium do not get to exercise this power as they please. They are beholden to "historical progress" which asserts that the proprietors make history by virtue of their property and the reality of that which property claimed; if that assertion can be made, then the proprietor cannot make history as he chooses, so far as it concerns the question of life and death and that question alone. The reasons why are not a special quality of historical facts that apply to the proprietors' special morality set aside for themselves, and they are not qualities of the aristocratic or educational mindset which seeks to command history. Aristocracy has long known that all such theories of arresting or controlling history and cajoling the world are stories and nothing more - that history does not abide efforts to command it through insinuations, no matter the technology and force used to insist the subjects must obey. Human beings may be convinced by programming to obey this to make it true, but in the real conditions of all, this creates consequences which create for aristocracy a running battle against reality and the beasts aristocracy created. Aristocracy then turns to the excuses of Empire and suggests a bastardization of property and imperium is the cause. This is why aristocracy delights in blaming vague aspersions about capital, profit, "the rich" (in a way that always protects the wealth of those who are truly dominant or about to displace the current ruler with another), and so on. The proprietors are aware of aristocracy's hand in this, and that Empire has been repurposed for aristocracy - but aristocracy proper does not need "empire" or "imperium" to facilitate what they do. Aristocracy's mission, as we have seen and will continue to see, exists without imperium or the state at all, for aristocracy's aims are spiritual, moral, and concern a very different question from the political, the state, and the means to realize the state. The proprietors still compete with each other, and so the theory of history of imperium - the history of struggle between empires - is something that they would abide without any other classes or interests.

When concerning imperium, the language of struggle for life makes the imperial claims natural claims that describe all of history. The history of political life is almost always the history of imperium and Empires, rather than the history of nations or the history of technology, ideas, science, or religion. This is because for all of those things to have potency, they must first live and struggle against other entities for whom life and death are very relevant. Again, we must be clear that the life and death of human beings is very different from the life and death of anything else. Empires themselves think very differently about life and death, as do religions and concepts of spiritual authority and purpose. So too do our concepts of technology and institutions abide different concepts of life and death. Yet, all of them live and die, and they are realized by human agents in the society we live in. Whatever the technology humans possess, no technology up to the day I write this has changed humans so profoundly that this calculus regarding life and death has moved away from human agency. Humans remain the chief threat to other humans and the chief political actor on this Earth that takes corporeal form, and the technology and ideas are held by and for humans. Imperium over everything else - animals, vegetation, and the ascribing of living qualities to a mostly unliving rock and unliving humans - has been taken for granted and none of those things have contested the claims in any human court, even the claims humans make that are spurious like claims to heavenly bodies or the very concept of the universe.^[1] In every case, life and death are very clearly defined and singular states. There are no qualifiers attached to life or death to suggest one life is "more living" than another, no matter how much a eugenist brays about "life unworthy of life" and the usual Germanic faggotry. If life yet breathes, it is still living for the purpose of imperium. The claims of the state to the qualities of those who live under its rule - the claim to define what living things are and what living things will do in all cases, is not a claim imperium can make. It can only pertain to this question of life and death, and this is the claim imperium and property can make at a basic level. What things are - what the parcel of property is listed as - is a fact that is not disputed with any seriousness, and the property claim is taken in total. If it is split into various components, the deed proclaiming the title and its life or death, existence or non-existence, is also split and becomes many different claims. So too does the claim of the life of any particular thing. For life and its termination, the facts of its existence are not recorded in a registry, where the state can proclaim that a clearly living thing is dead. The declaration of legal death or legal non-existence may carry the day in court, but the court still has to contend with this living aberration that somehow exists, and it exists not as the state or court would prefer it to exist, but as a thing which is constituted as what it purports to be on its own power. If a court were to declare that I am not "me" but an assembly of organs, two legs, two arms, a head, and so on, each with their own life-force, such a claim would make further adjudication of the fate of me and those parts problematic for the state. Because imperium is concerned with political subjects, it is forced to contend with those entities that could exist as so, even if I were politically dead and invalid. Whether the state sees fit to make real in physical reality the claims of political death - if it must kill the invalid and unwanted in all domains and shun it from social existence - is up to them. It cannot truly disconnect that which persists in living in spite of the imperial claim and insist that it is supposed to be dead by insinuation alone. If there is such an insinuation - and there is such an insinuation in my case made by those who desire imperium, but by the grace of Heaven do not yet possess it as they would please - the insinuation must be made repeatedly and permeate every action, every mechanism, of the society to enforce the imperial edict proclaiming disconnection, and this has effects that imperium and the court cannot control by wishing it were different. The life and death of anything, and how those states are altered, is a matter of great importance. Every other question may be open to debate, but for the purposes of property and thus of the proprietors stake in the state - and thus the legitimacy of any empire - life and death will be the question at stake, even if the thing contested is an unliving entity like a rock or a house. It is in this way that pieces of property are given the status of life worthy of life and the men and women who just happen to exist here are life unworthy of life, guilty until proven innocent.

Empires are not intrinsically political states, coterminous with any concept of the political. The empire could exist as nothing more than a recognized status quo, without any political judgement other than declaration of the fact of its existence. It is also not the case that empires are the necessary and sole link of political thought to the physical world or something regarded as material. It is technology, the moral interest of social agents which comprise any formation humans create, and ultimately the fact of social agents existing at all, that allow the political to form. In some way, the political is regarded, if not by social agents, then by something that we would observe in nature as a status quo of some social system or some system of agents that co-exist in nature. The empire has particular meaning to us because humans are not merely tool-using animals, but animals aware of property and the lineage and historical facts required to assert property. Property claims are themselves tools, but they are also something more. The claims are contingent not just on possession, but a sense of right to any property, whatever form it may take. Where there is property, there is Empire, or at the least, something that can be fashioned into an Empire where the claims of life and death can be asserted. We could visualize Empire without legal property claims, and many times, the claims of empires are never made legal or explicit. The empire can very easily occult its claims and make them unmentionable, or the empire in its true form is a vast Leviathan or Cthulhuesque squid, whose true nature is unknown to any member living under it. The latter is very often the true case of empires, even when empires attempt to make clear their nature so that ambiguity about what rules is mitigated. This happens because realistically, the claims of life, death, and property create consequences that the holders of imperium did not intend or foresee, and the insight of anyone who sits in judgement is as finite as the empire itself.

Empire is not coterminous with the state or the political. The state's claims are simultaneously limited in reality. Political control and assertion of the ideal state are in practice far more limited than the imperial apparatus; often, the rulers of the state are a small body of men commanding a larger but still limited body of enforcers, and their effective control of anything is limited to the reach of particular institutions. The state to be the state is an institutional claim rather than a material, physical, or scientific claim. The state can claim it is governed by science in the genuine sense or "The Science" of a spurious sort, but all of the state's claims are made by institutions and limited by the reach of those institutions. Only indirectly do these institutions affect the wider society. For example, the central bank may compel other banks and threaten other merchants with the threat of force, and the treasurer of the state and the interest that hold the state are aware of what banks and finance can do in the time and place they are established. All of these financial instruments are the creations of people and only hold any moral weight because people believe in the threat and what money represents, and this includes the interpretations of money and value that the state and its holders do not control. We may imagine a world market and financial tendrils invading private life, but this control is always indirect and can only be mediated by the things money can do and that money actually means to the inhabitants of the polity, and those meanings are limited. Much of what human beings do has nothing to do with money at all, let alone the machinations of finance. The financier and banker are perfectly aware that these instruments can be written off; debts can be restructured, and in principle the collection of debts is not governed by any honor. The bank can flat out lie to the debtor or invent a debt and obligate payment, and with a knife at the throat - preferably from Vinnie's Totally Honest Claims Adjustment Service Which Is Not At All A Mafia Front - the witless subject has no choice in the matter. Doing this too much has consequences for the state, which the state and its holders may be perfectly happy with. The holders of the state may even declare, as the eugenic creed does, that such open betrayals are the point, rather than a means to an end. But, the state also keeps permanent debt as a rule, with the stated intent that this debt is never to be repaid under any circumstances. Sovereign debt is a pillar of capitalism for perfectly reasonable purposes, and if this debt of the state were ever repaid, finance as we know it would no longer operate in the same manner. The reasons for this are a matter of financial science and economic thought that are too lengthy to explain here, and the truth is that the entries in ledgers are less relevant than what debt really represents - a knife at the throat, legally sanctioned by both the state's force and by a concept of law and justice that is at heart a political matter rather than anything representing wealth or the rights of property. The proprietors have always despised banks and banks despise proprietors. The proprietors see banks as the menace and facade that we have described, and the banks see the proprietors as something to be periodically drained and pushed so that the proprietor whips his subordinates and demands more technology, more labor, and more of the valuable *juice* that truly animates empires and any social formation. All of this action could in theory take place behind the backs of the political or the state, with the political institutions only acting as street enforcers and the true enforcement arm being a much more elaborate form of Vinnie's aforementioned service, which Vinnie believes is perfectly right for the purpose it serves, or at least a thing Vinnie has come to accept as the way things are. If it were the rule that such actions were the norm and the state was little more than an arm of lawfare and treachery, the subjects would see Vinnie's organization and his boss as the proper temporal authority and the proper, public state as a nuisance to be avoided and eventually ignored at all costs. Vinnie and his associates would be the agents that one might request a favor of, while the public and the state at this point have become nothing more than a machine shouting DIE, the word etched on its institutional doors. But, Vinnie's organization is not and never will be "the state" as a proper institution. If it were, then Vinnie's good people would be obligated to fulfill the functions that the public front has filled. The state is not there for a performance or empty ritual, if it is to be a state with meaning. It would instead be recognized, if the state were stripped of its temporal authority and made into an arm of mafias, that anarchy is the status quo, and the people are more likely to disregard anyone's claims, go their own way for what good that will do them, and resign themselves to the fate that much of humanity accepted long ago as the real political settlement they live under. Vinnie's people have no interest in being the state for their own purposes - their racket was ultimately a wealth-generating venture and a matter of security, and if they became something more, that brings to them the same risks it would bring to some quaint civic organization. It should be noted that nothing about Vinnie's work would be contrary to civil society and the interests of people who were averse to such violence, and very likely, mafia and commoner technocrat would see each other as friends. In this situation, proprietor would see what is forming and not see intrinsically that this is a bad thing, for the proprietor's interest in stable law overrides "me wantee". There are two classes left out of this - aristocracy, which at this point is probably working behind the scenes to push every other interest in motion, and the lowest class, which has always been left out of everything. The only stake of the lowest class in any of this is a change in the name of their masters and facile promises that the terror and thrill of torture they have lived under this whole time will be abated. It never actually happens, and by this time in human history, the lowest class no longer pines for any of the conceits the other classes value. What would even be gained? But, the lowest class has little function in imperium. Strictly speaking, the lowest class has already been declared dead for all real purposes, and if they ever enter the notice of imperium, that death will be made official with no recourse or expectation that it was going to be any different. The ancient, primordial rites of the human race established that long before imperium did, and the holder of imperium merely conducts the paperwork to make this official. That is the true condition of the human race and the true condition of imperium, and it is a condition that is necessary for imperium to be an actionable threat to everyone else. Without it, imperium would be far weaker, and the interests of the contending parties would be more obvious and backed by substance even for the now lowest laboring class, of which Vinnie is an active member. But, the use of the lowest class as examples, human shields, occasional fodder driven like animals to present a null threat to the rest of society, and so on, makes the threat of imperium far more prescient. The life and death of the lowest class is a very real thing, and imperium works best when it can harness this power at the cheapest price possible, towards the people whose lives were already consigned to neither life nor death since the birth of this foul race called Man.

Empire establishes not class struggle in a form it preferred or structured as an idea, nor does it establish the struggle for life a philosopher understood as his preferred basis for political thought. The Empire does not care about class at all or any conceit about it, and members of the lowest class can readily understand empire and see it as no different from the torture and thrill thereof of any other arrangement humans concoct to make their lives miserable. Members of the lowest class can feel in some way that Empire and its promises of promotion, no matter how fickle and small that may be, are worth more than the political promises of the public and the state. It is imperium that is the most overt sign of life and death. It is imperium that the eugenic creed captured when making its grandiose claims, directing it in a foul "Jehad" against the lowest class to make clear just where it stood. As it does this, the sops the "Jehadists" give to the lowest class become more insulting, and play to the fickleness and fear that the lowest class acutely felt and thought, and so the Fabians can "dope" the public into compliance, or at least use the fear to drive the cattle of the lowest class - and by extension all subordinated classes - to comply with the terror. This terror has its limits, and for the eugenists, it is the thrill of torture and the terror itself that is the prize. Empire is just a means to facilitate it, and a very important means.

What Empire truly establishes is a form of the general fear that is particular to property and its interests, and so Empire plays a political role that is substantial and most important to the lowest class, for whom life is a fleeting thing and the deaths it faces can vary in misery. By forsaking its protection of the conditions of life and death - by leaving the lowest class to "nature's law" - the Empire can modulate the type of death to the extent that its assets allow. Empire can only do this to its most abjectly debased subjects. To treat the valid commoners and valid laborers in this way would provoke not just revolt, but open contempt. By itself, the power of life and death is nothing more than what it claims. Many who live can face death, even a gruesome death, and whatever comes means little for fear. It is the holding of the knife at the throat, keeping the subject teetering on the edge of death, that imperium would need for this power of life and death to hold more meaning than that, and this is the only course imperium and property have on their own to utilize Empire. If the proprietors were to deploy their wealth, their assets and qualities, for constructive ends, that is not really an interest of Empire, and does not hold any of the weight that imperium and its consequences hold. Empires are in the end rooted in qualities its agents possess which were not political or even really economic, and that is necessary for proper imperium to begin. The endemic warfare of primitive times would only produce so much as a result.

It is enclosure that makes imperium truly worthwhile as a strategy, rather than just the power of life and death. The power of life and death has other purposes, and such a power would be regarded as relevant even in a better world. It is held by someone or some thing. Only when the crops can be locked up, and the means of sustenance in the land and space can be claimed by property in total, can this threat of life and death mean something more than a function political agents can hold. The conditions of enclosure are not necessary for imperium to be centralized in an authority within society. Chiefs of a tribe, leaders and kings of a hill fort, did not need this economic rationale to decide who lives and who dies, and they could do so for capricious purposes or for purposes that are reasonable enough in the light of history. They held imperium in that sense, but the imperium was just one of many functions the leader held. Imperium as a permanent going concern relies on enclosure, exploitation, and above all the fear of an abject class that can be made an example of what happens to those who transgress imperium. If no such class exists, it would be necessary for the going concern and interest of imperium to create one out of those who were once upon a time valid. This is exactly what the eugenic creed pursued in its models of education, for human beings were not as stupid and foolish as their theories of rule required them to be. It has been a ruinous course the human race chose, and it was an unnecessary one - one that should have been averted in the time where it could have been. But, in the past 100 years, we have learned it was far too late to undo what eugenics did. Eugenics won, and therefore, it can only run its course, even if we did everything we could to fight it and limit the damage such a beast created. To describe the eugenic creed is to describe something far more thoroughgoing than imperium, for the eugenic creed is not reducible to imperium. The true origins of the eugenists and their foulness are far more primordial than imperium, and the aims of eugenism often are realized by vehicles outside of legitimate imperium altogether. Where the law does not extol maximal eugenism, eugenics seeks to override such law. Where imperium, for its own interests, mitigates some plank of the eugenic creed and the interests and classes that clamor for it, eugenism and its followers will scoff at imperium, until imperium itself is overwritten with new values, at great expense to Empire and to all of the subjects - but, eugenics cares not. Eugenics cannot fail. It can only be failed.

There is no road to enclosure without imperium in some form, and this is the true root of political economy, regardless of the form it takes. We do not get to wish away the enclosures by asserting that humanity was supposed to be anything other than this. If humans want to be something different, they would have to want such a thing and see the trap that was made for them. Many humans did see this trap, for seeing it did not require an elaborate theory. So many humans see it in their youth and continue to see it throughout their lives, and continue to ask until their dying breath why there are some sad humans who embrace the worst aspects of imperium and chose to make this worse than it ever had to be. But, if we really understand what enclosures are, we see that doing away with the ravages of imperium is no simple thing, and we would have to ask questions of ourselves and what we are doing that no hitherto known political or social theory has been willing to ask. This author believes such questions could not even have been posed with the proper meaning until recently. At the time where these questions could finally be asked, in light of humanity's growing technological knowledge and knowledge of its history and purpose, and above all knowledge of humanity's mind and knowledge about knowledge itself, the conspiracy to ensure no one will ever tell aristocracy no ever again was well underway. Thie phalanx of the eugenic creed was already marching and would through the intensification of enclosure and pure fear make all who questioned the human spirit targets of mockery - it would make the honest and decent retarded, and could do nothing else.

It is only this imperial enclosure that allowed ecology to exist as more than a theoretical construct - as something we would actually hold to be worthwhile for decision making. By the thinking of politics, the actual nature of life, or any system, no ecology should take place. Here what was written in the prior book^[2] is revealed to originate in a political conceit gone haywire. The polity and status quo do not intrinsically refer to any "ecology", and the state proper is necessarily a dynamic entity whose boundaries and possessions will change before they are assessed as a whole in some instance of time. The state's constitution does not refer to any fixed domain that Terminus set and that Juptier Himself could not move. What the state does as a construct is institutional - that the institutions do not change except by their own accord, and that the state traces its history to its foundation.

How is the regression to the primordial conditions of humanity realized? It is realized only through this enclosure, and imperium asserting - very violently - that the eternal return will happen by realized force, rather than merely legal force or an assertion. The ritual sacrifice which birthed the human race is not merely a thing or idea which can be dismissed. It was, and continues to be, a real event. The first ritual sacrifice, like today's sacrifices and enclosures, was premised on the belief that there was a suffering class or group that deserved to die. No ritual sacrifice is accidental or something the shameless assholes of humanity can pretend did not happen. If it could be ignored, then what was the point of it, and why is it constantly invoked to justify the latest sacrifice, the latest humiliation? Every minor humiliation, every "microaggression", is calculated specifically to harken back to this, for such a concept as a "microaggression" to be meaningful. The internalization of the eugenic creed and the first ritual sacrifice must become absolute, purging all prior conditions of the human race to create this purified, perfected form that eugenics seeks. This goal was foreseen for the ritual sacrifice to truly be a ritual with the power that it held. Every sacrifice to Ba'al, Hadad, or whatever foul god was fashionable in its time, invoked enclosure. Every sacrifice to the Satan above all exemplified every aspect of the ritual sacrifice from start to finish, and reproduced it to perfect enclosure and establish the human spirit - to establish humanity not as a spiritual conception of what we are and can do, but as nothing more than a race judged by its lowest common denominator as a race would be judged. It is not possible for this ritual to hold the meaning it did if it did not entail the expansion of the ritual, so that all who are to be cast out of existence are disposed of, and the wealth of the world would be concentrated in the hands of the victors and the victors alone. Included in the ritual sacrifice was an implicit rejection of all non-human agency, and this is a particular vice and sentiment of the human race. The eugenists, despite their exhortation to "abolish all sentiment", are very sentimental when someone tells these unmitigated fags no, and they truly are Satanic fags of the worst sort. The ritual and glorification thereof is a sentiment and feeling the eugenist treasures, and seeks to make not just the sole remaining sentiment, but a brighter light and feeling which reaches its apogee at the moment of ritual thrill, which is then repeated in the most minute action. Only in this way can the ritual invocation create the god that the eugenist desires. The stronger the primordial light - the stronger the god they are creating by this working - the greater its power to draw adherents to the sign. In this way, by the 21st century, adherents of the eugenic creed need only invoke their symbols, of which there are many, for the faithful to know when it is time for the sacrifice to continue. Eugenics knows no other way. This is what it must do. I repeat here that this is not inherent to Empire as a concept. Imperialism, whatever form it takes, has the uses humanity has for such a construct. Empire did not refer to any spiritual or moral aim whatsoever. The power of life and death is a fact and a real condition, regardless of our moral view of it and what we would use such a thing for. The eugenic creed, as we have seen and will continue to see, views imperium and all of the constructs of Empire as nothing more than a means to their end, and it will cannibalize the very machine, the very empire and all it possesses, to reach its purest stage. This not only does not matter to the eugenic creed, but all of the property and empire destroyed is the property of the enemies of the creed. The eugenist, being true to the aristocratic core, is always in favor of anarchy as its most blessed political state. Empire is never philosophically committed to anarchism. Empire does not care if anarchy, liberty, or despotism reigns, for empire is never about a state of affairs to be established. Empire is the real movement which insists on the state of things - past, present, future, and in all potentials.

All other uses for ecology have such a limited purview that none of the koans and stupidities surrounding today's ecological pseudoscience would withstand independent scrutiny and the judgement of any reasonable court. It remains the case, even now, that any serious court understands ecology to be a pseudoscience of the most foul sort, and the political leaders always knew this. When the ecological koans are invoked, it appears to this author as if a sick ritual and Luciferian light is about to begin, and by now, I have learned to sense this and stay my hand or voice when it starts. Humans, after all, are a failed race, a Satanic race, and eugenics saw to wipe out the vestiges of the world and whatever aspect of humanity was opposed to this. What use is lashing out, especially when I am aware of the eugenic creed's love of goading the damned to fight at inopportune moments?

The division of labor that ecology entails began not from fully formed Empire, but from its precursors. The drive for Empire exists long before any realized status of legal imperium can form. Ecology and Empire can only begin in earnest when the state's technology and machinery have advanced enough, and when the members of the polity are independently capable of wielding that technology. This is to say, the conditions of civilization are established enough that they are familiar to humanity, whether they live in civilized polities or the neighboring nations which contend with city-states and the precursors of Empire proper. The aims of the aristocratic educator and pedagogue do not create by the great lie the essences which constitute the classes or Forms that the philosophical state ascribe to subjects and rulers. It is not even the aim of the philosophical state to create class divisions ex nihilo to simply make reality what they want. The division of labor in every form of the philosophical state had already existed and had utilities. This division of labor was always imperfect, since humans do not conform to anything like it, whatever their distinctions and status in the prior society. It is the aim of the philosophical state, with or without an empire, to heighten those distinctions. Realizing those distinctions in Empire makes clear that the reality of statecraft, and the interests which persist in a society with a stark division of labor, are something very different from the class interests and struggles that are imagined. In all cases, it must be remembered that the division of labor that enclosure creates is driven by the persecution of the lowest class, and the lowest class alone. Whomever is lumped into this lowest or suffering class is the sole class united by a simple truth - that they were selected to die, but not allowed the dignity of "clean death". Such things are not a thing that the claims of empire need to believe. For both legal and spiritual reasons that will be covered in the next few chapters, no empire can ever allow "clean death" as a possibility with any seriousness, and honorable death of any sort is as a rule denied to this lowest class above all. Aside from such a potential eliminating the value of imperium to truly modify behavior, such allowances question the legitimacy of the law and the spiritual authority of religion, if the condemned of the world were to scoff at every idea held sacred for a living empire. Even if the empire had some concept of goodness or virtue held at its foundation, or at least understood the value of positive motivations rather than the most miserable world the eugenists have left us with, allowing clean death of any sort invites very uncomfortable questions about what we are doing. For this chapter, we have to presume that social agents want to live in this world, for whatever reason they have, and set aside the question of suicide or spiritual conceptions of how human beings are to live and how they are to die. The question will be relevant when concerned with the fate of the lowest class, for whom the threat of imperium is made real and constant, but for the valid classes of society, life and death are things kept distant enough that they can be seen as abstractions until the chips are truly down and men and women meet whatever fate the world and Empire has for them. Normal people cannot obsess too much over the question of imperium, and have come to accept that this is the world humans live in, whether they love it or hate it. The blessing of life, even for the lowest class, is that imperium only concerns life and death, and has little to say about the existence we actually hold dear. All of the threats to command reality at all levels have to be premised on imperium's threat being realized a lot, or have to be realized by manipulation of the fear imperium creates to power some other technology. And so, the state school and pedagogy of aristocracy will invoke imperium, death, life, ritual sacrifice, promises of eternal life and glory, and promotions on the basis of the cult of life and an ideology of "life in the abstract", and none of those dubious "carrots" would be useful without the reality of imperium lurking in the background. Those mechanisms are far less useful than their ideologues and partisans insist they must be, since both the true learning and the true functions of education and empire involve things that are removed from our immediate fear of life and death. Only the lowest class lives with the knife at their throat as a palpable threat, openly carried out every day to remind the whole of the polity what happens if we don't abide this program. If the other classes were treated in any way like this, they would immediately cease to be useful in their intended functions, and have an obvious recourse - they simply refuse to work in their functions, and spend every iota of effort sabotaging the holders of imperium who would transgress a line reasonable leaders knew not to cross, but that the retarded eugenists crossed for nothing more than pig-headed stupidity and the thrill of doing so.

The chief distinction between a philosophical state and the empire is the treatment of space. For the philosophical state, space is deemed irrelevant, and for the preferred forms of the philosophical state, technology is expected to make space an irrelevant concern. In the philosophical state, you cannot run nor hide, and this must be stated as an inevitability no matter what the philosophical state aims to accomplish and the aims of those who hold it. The empire's attitude towards space is very different. Distance for the empire is a thing it cannot control, and this is true even of distances that seem short and trivial with the technology available to it. The most minute distinction of space is very important to any concept of empire, whether it chooses to enclose all that exists to punish the subjects, or the empire has very reasonable interest in what happens in its space and in its domains that its subjects can agree would be a reasonable thing for an empire to do. Usually, empires concern spaces which are not things a subject could traverse in a day, and empires can conceive of transportation and movement taking weeks or years. The distance in space and time is treated the same. Where the philosophical state believes it is timeless and its root is not a temporal claim fixed in history but an idea to stand the test of time, empires can foresee their doom and are ruled by people who are aware of both history and the conditions they operate in. Never has an empire claimed "Ignorance is Strength", and those who believe the empire is ruled by the blind are the most insufferable cajolers and fags, almost always in the employ of empire as useful idiots to disrupt and disorient those who would seek any improvement in their station, especially under the empire of the eugenic creed.

The eugenists are retards, but have engineered a situation where they face no serious opposition, and they are intelligent and capable enough to make the ruled suffer. That is all they need to be, and because they have devoted their existence and treasure to the task of human immiseration and the glory of their filth god, they have an advantage in that they can dedicate themselves to destroying and mutilating the ruled, while the ruled are tasked with both defending against this, defending their productive basis, and managing somehow to attack the eugenist beast with the remaining effort which is always in short supply. Among the eugenist claims is that "idle hands are the devil's plaything", without minding that the eugenist and imperial harridans do not a single thing we would regard as productive, meritorious, useful, or at all good, and the eugenist as always revels in the thrill of torture, wanting us to see our humiliation on repeat and loving every moment of doing this to the world. Why would they ever be any different, for they are a failed race and have delighted in making faggots out of those who were once men or at least boys with potential. For any empire that thinks about its assets at all, they have always understood that reliable information is always preferable and that imperium's control of information is desirable to the state and those officers tasked with holding it. The particulars of the state's occulting of secrets within its own officer corps is not related to Empire's general attitude towards information and knowledge, or Empire's attitude towards the knowledge of the ruled. The Empire has no preferred attitude by nature towards occultism and no intrinsic bias about its own intelligence or the intelligence of the ruled. The subjects, the slaves, can be very intelligent and know exactly what the empire is, and it does not change the legitimacy of imperium, for imperium is realized by property and technology, not possession and ideas conjured in someone's mind. The peculiarities of the eugenist Empire are born from its origins as a middle class and technocratic movement, and usually the most depraved sectors of the middle class and whatever elements of the other classes were amenable to such vile faggotry. What they are not is stupid. The biases of the eugenists are primarily an attack upon empires of the past, which were premised on a level of merit and purpose that the eugenists never want to hear of again, and the eugenists believe that the thrill of torture will be maximized and all the world will be a permanent, howling light of their god - all life dies screaming, forever.

The particular biases of the eugenist empire must be seen so they can be dismissed when speaking of the history of imperium. When eugenism prevailed in the world, among its first declarations was "history is bunk".^[3] Empires are always historical entities, and they are not historical entities in the sense the proprietors regard history as a struggle for existence. History does not actually work that way.^[4] The language of science and naturalism is more helpful for us to understand what Empire does, without the fetters of ideology or political conceits born in aristocracy. To see it that way in full is very unpleasant and leads to unfortunate conclusions. We can, based on prior writings in this series of books and what we have written about the political so far, see that "struggle for struggle's sake" is a constructed narrative to explain the political history of rulers. Such an understanding of history has its uses, for political struggles and the campaigns of kings, and their efforts to push history in their preferred direction, tell us much about what happened on the surface. All of these struggles, whatever an ideologue may say, are carried out by men, and not just men of the ruling orders. They have primarily been carried out by the males of the human race for many reasons that are clear to anyone speaking about history, and there have always been niches of history carried out in secret, which official historical narratives are not permitted to acknowledge too frankly. I do not concern myself here with those niches, of which there are too many to count and which have their effect on the world, and such a treatment of history is better left for the next book as an idea. Nothing I write can explain in total the full extent of history or come anywhere close, and in reducing history to struggle - whether it is class struggle, the struggle of nations, or struggle of ideas and technology and institutions - so much is left out. I ask the reader not to fall into the familiar trap of looking for the struggle or the Freudian penis which was conjured during one of Freud's cocaine binges when figuring out how to interrogate and ensure the locking of ranks for what was to come. We can look at history instead from the perspective of most of humanity and especially of the lowest class - as a series of depredations against their race, which was always marked as something subhuman yet tied to the fate of our failed, sad human race. Aristocracy always kept for itself a conceit that their race was of a different substance^[5], but for all of the ritual to insinuate this is so, no evidence demonstrates that the highest aristocrat is anything more than a filthy Satanic ape, and their behavior and the institutions they create suggest they are filthier and more disgusting than the typical Satanic ape. Even in the best of cases, where the aristocracy managed to put all they have stolen to some use we might consider good in the world, history has judged and made apparent to even a simple mind like mine that the human race in total is wanting, its wisdom amounting to piss and shit. This truth I hold to be self-evident. If the aristocracy has a special substance, it did not amount to much based on anything it has done, and in any event, enough of that blood has filtered to the lower classes and no evidence of aristocratic superiority or superhuman qualities has been seen. If they did possess this, it would be evident in a way that obviates the need for the eugenic creed. The better exemplars of aristocracy are not the eugenists at the apex of their cult, but those aristocrats who are detached from the grody business of eugenism and have for better or worse steered the genuine political situation. Whatever we may say about their results of the true qualities of the men and women steering this disaster, anyone who truly ruled would be able to tell that the retarded pseudo-history the rubes are told is both really bad history and hasn't worked in denuding the minds of the people well enough for the habit of lying to be upheld. The sad situation of humanity is that many who actually rule have found this wholesale destruction of the human mind, however weak its potential, as bad for the aims of rulers; not because the rulers want people to be smarter or happier, but because the retardation of those who clamor for more blood has become a liability for producing anything but more rot, and this damages the people in the "castle in the sky" in the end and wears down anything other than clamoring for more eugenics. They have learned, as I have and as most of humanity suspected before this began, that this machine only moves in one direction, and there is no off switch for the process.

The destruction of space, and therefore genuine standards of comparison, has been essential for the eugenists - to make it appear that the empire is not an empire by destroying all concept of space and void, and replacing it with a preferred notion of space. For the philosophical state, "destruction of space" is not the goal. The space this takes place is will be understood to be any theoretical space, because the philosophical state is at heart a thought experiment rather than a plan of action. Any real plan of action considers space and the potential of any system, or any thing to be beheld, as something operating for its own purposes, rather than the conceit a philosopher assigned to it. The philosopher has no problem with this, and the philosophical state is premised on the belief that the philosopher has some fidelity to reality if his designs are to work. Whether the philosopher's fidelity to reality holds is another matter altogether, and this is not for the philosopher a moral question about whether he should regard truth. He can lie to others and even lie to himself and continue to rule, so long as the mechanism works and he remembers that all of his designs have to be exported to a real world. The victory of the eugenic creed requires the logic of empire to be purified and reduced to its most destructive elements, while denying any language that suggests the empire is a system that can be beheld by any reasoning. Here, the subject matter of our first book^[6] is very relevant, particularly my scathing comment on Karl Popper and his loathsome "philosophy". The program to destroy all sense of space itself requires an acknowledgement of space and void, and then an act of doublethink to suggest that no space exists. This is one of the few true instances of doublethink in the imperial cosmology. It is not possible to truly hold two contradictory ideas in the mind simultaneously when they deal with something that is either concrete and independently verifiable, or the concepts are simple enough. Only by sufficiently elaborate abstraction and sleight-of-hand, reinforced by beatings, humiliations, and the visible thrill of torture glorified above all other moral values, can this process begin, and for the education Fabianism prescribed, it was already a dogma of those who would become the new aristocracy. Avarice and a clamoring for power, animated by the technological interest and its obsession with fads and the shortest possible route to success, motivated this thinking at a primordial level - that the abolition of space was expedient for philosophical purposes, and this would override the judgement and momentary doubt that would have been necessary to ameliorate the excesses of the creed. Anything inimical to the eugenic creed - inimical to Ingsoc - would be abolished, and so the language of abolition which once referred to the righteous mission to defeat the slave power would be co-opted by a more vicious and thorough slave system.

What does the proper treatment of space mean for empire that it does not mean for the philosophical state? All of the classes, all of the interests, are placed in some locale, and operate through mechanisms which can be defined. There would be no Guardians without things to guard, and ways in which they conspire. Those things would not be the property of a limited intellect, for the evidence of their existence and the lies they tell would be evident. The auxiliaries would be seen not just as an edifice or faceless state, but agentur whose position would be extracted and recorded by hostile parties. The empire exists in a roiling conflict not because of a natural law or a philosophical purpose of Empire, but by the nature of its foundational claim of imperium. The contradiction is of life and life alone, and this contradiction is really a political matter rather than anything intrinsic to life-forms or their passing. That is, it is a contradiction only in the minds of the proprietors and their institutions, and in the judgements they would have to make for their thinking on property to remain intact. It is a contradiction the proprietors can and do overcome, seeing past the farce very clearly, and it is a contradiction which can be weaponized if they so choose, with or without allies from other interests. In the main, the contradiction which abolishes space is deployed against the two classes for whom space is very important. The class and interest with the greatest interest in space is labor, since labor operates in and lives and dies by its knowledge of space and substantive things. Nothing labor does occurs in an abstract space, and if the laborer works with abstract things or theories, he or she will find it necessary for that abstraction to match something substantive and real as its proper root. The computer will exist as some sort of hardware somewhere, and this is intuitive both to labor and to anyone who thinks at all about what a computer is and does. Only the most insufferable ideologues can believe the computer is made of magic or defines reality, and thinking of information and knowledge as magic is not the thinking of the really intelligent and wise people. The invocation of magic, ritual, religion, and spiritual concepts when regarding the computer, information, or knowledge is not the crude and disparaging lie produced en masse as digital shit for the rubes. That topic is fascinating if I choose to dwell on it, but in this chapter of this book, it is not the proper time for that. For our purposes here, labor cannot afford to see information and knowledge as something detached from space and substance, and any worthwhile systems analyst is aware that anything a computer does corresponds to a machine with definite qualities, and that machine is built to specfications we understood from physical laws so that the machine could be produced. This applies further to the many tasks labor has performed, which must meet standards of quality for labor to be good, useful, and worthwhile for its purpose. This is always something labor concerns itself with, whether empire exists or not. The conditions of empire make knowledge of space even more necessary for labor, since their space is going to be much more limited than it was in the past. In primitive society, space was not too relevant for the task of labor, and there wasn't much of a "laboring class" in primitive society. The functions of labor were usually part of the tasks of hunters or gatherers, rather than a specialized class. The laborer was primarily not defined by any work task, but as a man or a woman with the marks of validity for their sex. Those who lacked those marks were of another class, already formed in primitive society and barely acknowledged, for their lives were consigned to a grind and it was not going to be any different.

It is the lowest class that has a concern for space for a very different reason - their space, from the moment sacrifice is invoked and their name is drawn as the next target, will be one of hostility, where the greatest aspiration is some form of escape and distance between the damned member of society and any human that represents potential for threat. The threat the lowest class will face not only grants to them an acute sense of spatial threats and the need of void, but the threat begins a process of distorting perception of space that was necessary for enclosure to lock in and become internalized. In some way, all classes face this internalization of the distortion, and labor certainly can sense their bodies wearing thin, being worked and stretched beyond what nature ever expected of them. It is only possible because the methods of distorting space, and the thrill of imposing the lie, is tested on this lowest class, whose lives are consigned to being a living example of the victory of this thrill. That thrill is not done in service to empire. The empire will in whatever way it does control space, and the perception of it is not particularly interesting for the lower orders. The thrill of lying and humiliating the lowest class preceded empire and preceded even the regular humiliations that became the stock and trade of this hideous human race. The lying does not work unless spatial awareness and how to distort it - how to cajole and beat and humiliate and mock the damned, to ensure he will never know, he doesn't know, he doesn't know, he doesn't know, will be internalized. Whether he knows anything is quite irrelevant - only the repition of beating is necessary, to make clear to all valid members of society that this one is to be rejected, and once one learns of the rejection, all others must reject him. The same would apply to a rejected female, but this rejection very often extends through appeals to sexualism. It is this which grants an unusual affinity of Empire for orgies and sexual decadence, and this works very well for the desires of aristocracy which were already given over to lurid orgies. Where before the orgies only had a tribe or a city-state to feed from, empires deliver to the orgy prizes from the whole world, slaves in hitherto unknown quantities and of varieties from many races and nations, and cosmopolitan delights that grant to an aristocracy and its hangers-on wealth, knowledge, and control that they never before possessed. It would become so intoxicating that it infected the brightest and most knowledgable elites of all empires, the present global empire included. Where past empires were aware of this vice and its consequences, the global empire of the eugenic creed - the extension of the British Empire to today - embraced this vice and placed it at the apex of their project, glorifying what it has done to the world, as for the first time, such people engineered a situation where no one can tell them no ever again.

Every interest now has some interest in space. Institutions communicate their directives not in abstract wishes, but through some medium that acknowledges physical space. The diagrams engineers draw are very clear about the necessity of space in all of their designs. Technology, knowledge, education, armies, formations, all concern space which the philosophical state is not terribly interested in for the purposes the state's ideology or "program code". A great difficulty for the computer and the human mind is really grasping the minute details of space, and this ultimately becomes a philosophical problem of what "space" is and how to translate our readily accessible spatial awareness to abstrat terminology, and build a theory of physics and understanding of how our models of the world translate to the world we live in. This interest in space is never about a thought exercise, though. The interest in space is pressed because empire and enclosure make humanity measure space in ways that prior societies did not. Primitive society certainly understood concepts of territory, who was situated where, and knowledge of the land would be an expectation of any tribe or band that wanted to be a going concern. Empire is able to build not just one city, but many cities and can conceive of a general plan for those cities or legionnaire camps, fortifications, and how to administer such a large space that an empire expands to. It becomes clear that the empire's true governing power is not any class or interest that purports to rule, and whatever the desire for solidarity among an interest, rule of any large space requires accepting the reality of space and interests which are local and particular. This local interest is not fixed to parcels of land, but to the nations that live on that land, which can move and share a history even when they become a diaspora throughout the empire.

With the philosopher's preferred language of the political, no understanding of Empire beyond some generalities is possible. This has not stopped political writers from writing extensively about Empire, mostly using the language of history and natural science to make up for the disastrous lack of wisdom among philosophers. This is done because the leaders of the world require a useful model for knowing what they rule and how to command it, but the rulers do not want the lower classes to hear of this in a language that is familiar to producers and labor. The lowest class, as a rule, is not allowed any political language whatsoever, even that which would be appropriate to the lower orders. The philosophical ideal of political thought for the lowest class is that they are herded like animals and slaughtered openly and merrily. If there is any acknowledging that the lowest class will not be cattle in all cases, or that the lowest class retains humanity or some impulse of their own, it is prefaced with a warning that these statements never hold political weight. This is usually accompanied by the favored classes, including labor, winking to the audience that no matter what is said, the lowest class will always be retards, and their fate has been ordained - and it has indeed been ordained. No political thought anyone can write, myself included, can contribute one iota to the liberation of the lowest class, or even a significant improvement in their position with regard to society. The aim of the lowest class, whenever they have an aim, has been to avoid not just political society, but humanity in total, and this it does because there is no other way. Recent history only locked in a rule that prohibited even the smallest redemption. The best the lowest class could hope for is a temporary reprieve, where by some fortune of the world that works against all political sense, the member of the lowest class held on to some share of wealth to call their own. Their existence, in political and imperial thought alike, is an error - a stain in the system to be corrected if it enters the notice of the valid. A fake, precarious existence is allowed for the lowest class, with the open admission that any such "liberty" can be revoked at any time, for any reason, and absolute impunity is granted to those who humiliate the lowest class and ensure the correction of history as the philosopher has seen it.

What can be accomplished by exploring the position of the lowest class is a worthwhile description of what empires and the political really are, and how they have appeared. Without the understanding of the lowest class, where the political is correctly seen as nothing but an endless series of depredations against their race and everything they hold dear, the image of the empire and the political always lacks definition. It is not possible for me to write such a view properly, as such an undertaking - especially at the present time and with the volume of knowledge and technology available to states and institutions - would exhaust the time of one internet jagoff whose abilities are limited, especially when he lacks some key information that would be useful for a proper accounting. But, what I can do, as I did in the past book, is describe properly some of the mechanisms that actually exist in empires, to better describe what the empire is to those who see the empire as a threat for this acute purpose more than everyone else. For everyone else, the empire remains an abstraction or some terrible menace moving to and fro to extract some concession from them, and for labor and upward, their aim towards empire is to either capture it if they are in an organization that can do so, or shift the war guilt and all consequences of empire to the lowest class. To engage in any other strategy regarding the imperial question and its prerogatives is a waste of energy, and in the past 100 years, this understanding was attained by the holders of empire and weaponized. This created a terrible effect on all institutions, making starkly clear something that was always part of common knowledge - that empires do not go away, and a world truly devoid of Empire is a very different world than the one we have lived in. It is far from an impossible world, contrary to the crowing of the dystopians who proclaim that the latest version of aristocratic faggotry is a perfect and inviolable system. If we did imagine a world where empire was not merely abated but eliminated as a serious concern of anyone, this would not upset our concepts of the political or the contest for power. Humanity and the world did not grant to Empire any special privileges to exist or a right to exist. That had always been the position of those who saw an empire as a useful construct, and this happened both for perfectly reasonable causes that even the lowest class can regard, and for the stupidest fag-ridden rationales that cannibalize the very thing that makes their existence as a distinct interest possible. It is simulatneous with the isolation of the lowest class by the eugenic creed and the middle class "Jehad" against us that the fag-ridden imperial rationales rise to the forefront, and this is intended. The glorification of such faggotry, and the displacement of rationales for empire that were rooted in anything we would consider useful or meritorious, elevates the interests which feed the empire by cannibalizing far more than the hated residuum. To truly cannibalize the residuum, productive capital must be cannibalized, and the qualities of labor that allowed that capital to exist must be cannibalized. The proprietors must be cannibalized so the defense of their position is eroded, and this is accomplished by elevating the worst of every class and interest. All that remains of the empire - and all that will remain of the republic - is aristocracy. For us, this means the rule of untrammeled eugenics as the final phase of the human race. If eugenism reaches its maximal program - something that, absent an opposing force of some sort, it will do - then aristocracy and eugenics alone will rule, screaming exultantly as the last vestiges of resistance to its idea are snuffed out. If that happens, all life dies screaming forever, and if humanity can't find it in themselves to resist the eugenic creed at all, it probably deserves this fate, and we are only here to salvage something out of the time we have, to make of it what we would. But, if the aim is just to salvage and survive against what eugenics is bringing to the world, that plan will not last long. I estimate given the current state of the world that if eugenism triumphs, its triumph would be truly inevitable 50 years from the time I write this book. If that happens, it will not take long for the great thrill of torture to consume all remaining existence, and that will be what humanity is. The aim of the eugenists, scarcely concealed, is to reproduce humanity by machine, so that the thrill of torture will be maximized in a new way - to create tortured slaves who exist to be tortured, congealed in some machine, where brain matter is born screaming, lives screaming, and dies screaming, pressed to create the substance of torture and terror the eugenic creed represents. A few aristocrats, seeing what they created, lose the last vestiges of sanity that regulate this, and the screaming becomes a true god. Nothing will stop it and nothing can stop it.

This fate is one the lowest class has known for a long time, and that could have been foreseen with little effort. It is a fate that has been written in the first ritual sacrifice, and every empire on some level has been aware of this outcome. It is the prophecy of this outcome which grants to the ritual sacrifices and the secret societies that perpetuate them the power over the mind that they do hold, and it only works in one direction and for one power. I ask the reader to keep this aim of empire in mind when discussing any aspect of it, and in the rest of this work. I have invoked this image enough before now, and very likely if you are reading this, the concept has already been thought by you before I began writing, or it occurred to you long before this book would be read by you and you are reading this in a terrible future I believe is inevitable. We have also known nothing about nature, space, or anything we do in society, requires that fate to happen. We never needed to abide any more ritual sacrifice, and the solution did not require sending tithes to a death cult with a symbol of ritual sacrifice on the cross, that has cannibalistic overtones as mentioned before.^[5] It did not require centuries of work and revelation or yet more sacrifice and toil. What it really required was a simple thing - to see this sacrificial filth for what it is, and stop making any excuses for it. To commit to this outcome has consequences for what humans are and how we think, and that has been the challenge for the feeble-minded. Yet, the low, the middling, and the high have all seen that this structure of society doesn't work, and can't work for anything other than more screaming. Nearly every aspiration, including those held by empires that are going concerns, saw such a fate and modus operandi as a thing used for torture, but kept in cage if it were tolerated at all, while humanity trudged along in the hopes that eventually, this madness would end and we no longer lived in a world where culling and humiliation were the lifeblood and dominant purpose of the human race. If that happened, human existence would have to change in profound ways, and these changes are not pleasant or things that would immediately make sense to us. The world where we don't do this would almost certainly be a grim and lonely world, leaving little for dreams of further empire and conquest. It is also a world that very likely would see that there really isn't a purpose for having so many human beings on this Earth, and so a drawing down of humanity would begin not because of "natural limits" or any moral reason why people should not exist, but an inclination of those who have seen empire, seen that other humans are the chief threat to the peace they seek, and see that in the end, there isn't a particularly good reason to produce more humans simply because we like seeing mini-mes succeed and thrive. I say this not as an aspiration of my own or a belief that this is the goal or fate of the world without the eugenic creed. I say this instead because, absent a good reason for us to exist and anything worth living for, we would default to seeing empire and its consequences, and the torture we have lived in, as a thing best mitigated by the most obvious solution - removing the source of the problem, which is malicious human beings and the numbers of human beings who really have nothing to do except exist in a society and a world that does not want them and never wanted them. That is the view of the lowest class, whose existence has always been treated as a disgusting shame. Why we of the lowest class should be ashamed for the behavior of other fucking humans, I don't quite know, but it has been so, and regardless of whether it was just or right or worth anything, we live in the world where that consequence is self-evident. If it comes out that humanity finds this grim future to be the best possible outcome, I will not weep. I've done enough of that. I would try to convince the victors, if Heaven willed them to the first glorious win humanity would really know, that rather than swift and brutal extermination by any means necessary, the drawing down of the human population would be carried out peacefully and openly, and the rationale for it would be clear - that eugenics and eugenism made clear that the human race is unfit to exist with the aspirations it used to hold, and that no further rationale or purpose is necessary. This, as you will see, is something the eugenists foresaw and weaponized; that at the end of the day, if eugenics could transgress the decencies that suggested humanity could be something different and did so enough, it would become self-evident that no future for the human race is worth pursuing, and even if eugenics faced final defeat, the fading away of the human race would appear the correct and true solution in the final outcome. There is no version of this where eugenics does its foul work and humanity decides to resume reproduction.^[7] Rather than this giant rigamarole, or the insinuations that eugenics is natural and some perverts have the "right" to exist, the rulers of this empire could have come clean, stopped torturing the rest of the world with their faggotry. Perhaps a superior race to any of the European races would step in and actually provide a solution to the world, or at least help us extirpate this eugenist menace if they find among them any wise leader. Sadly, I expect little better from any race of mankind.

Of course, the truth is, no great dying or culling is required. No one needs to be sacrificed, and the future population of Earth really isn't something we should consider a valuable metric because of the abstraction. I care more about the real human beings that exist or could exist, rather than some sense that blind reproduction is valuable for its own sake. The commoners, the laboring class, and the lowest class, were never motivated by "blind reproduction" in the way Malthus insinuated, and this is obvious if you speak to any of those classes for a minute. The proprietors too have reasons to limit their reproduction. Children are both competing heirs and usurpers, and the morality and drive of the proprietors has inculcated in the children of proprietors a pathological need to hate their parents and stab them in the back for the most spurious purpose. Aristocracy needed only to amplify the tendencies to promote this split, the selfishness and screaming "me wantee" that would be the undoing of the proprietors in the ruling coalition. If the aristocrats can get them in the pews when they're young so to speak - to teach the proprietors' children the values of aristocracy and the rot before the children could defend themselves, and when the parents lapsed in their watchful eye which was easy given the proprietors' pre-existing selfishness and willingness to destroy their unworthy children - then promoting low population growth among the proprietors was simple enough. The only countervailiing tendency among the proprietors is a sense that they are locked in a race war with every other interest, but the problem with this is that proprietors sense most of all the intercine competition of the human race. Proprietors will never be anything other than feudal, as doing otherwise would undermine the claims they value much and require them to compromise with some other interest, or denude each other. It is there where the middle class screamers and the eugenist vanguard are weaponized to make it clear that this alliance is about an orgiastic rot as a collective, rather than something that served any self-interest. For the lower three classes, there are pre-existing rationales for avoiding children. For one, all three operate with limited wealth and funds, and every child becomes an expense which becomes greater when aristocracy charges more for security services - for example, charging for education as a profit-making venture, and charging exorbitant prices for the state/eugenist monopoly on health care so that no one gets a heart transplant unless Eugenics approves. There is also a very real fear of what happens to child, if the sentiment of the lower classes remains intact. No one wants to damn their child to eugenist slavery or the torture the rulers of the world intend for us. Laborers feel all of these pressures more acutely, and have been shamed all of their life with repeated violence against their person. For the lowest class, the living hell has been the existence of their class since time immemorial. If they have any delusions about having children, it is because their minds are so scattered that they forget about the society they live in. Most of us, though, cannot bear the thought of subjecting any child to the nightmares we lived through, and the eugenic creed revels in ensuring that this will never change, and displaying us and our children as living abortions to maximize the thrill of torture. For the aristocracy themselves, their prohibition on reproduction contains all of the vices of the other classes, so far as it is to produce more aristocrats and legitimate children. Aristocracy and its fellow travelers have, as a rule, delighted in orgies and owning the wives of lower class men, and many women delight in joining this, the venality of their sex and this filthy race having been a known quality to all of us when we have seen enough. So, aristocracy has no shortage of sexual outlets, and very often, the children of lower class men are not theirs. They are children of the orgy, and this is just the way things will always be. There is no point in pretending it is any different, or that men even should want to reproduce if this is what it is. Very often, the only reason men bother with the pretense of marriage or sexual activity is social obligation. It is very likely that, after all of the lies and humiliations, most of the male sex will either shun sexual habits outside of whatever they feel like doing - which will be very limited and distinterested in any of the supposed "pleasure" to be found in this shitfest - or you will see more men, freed from the expectations of such a failed race forever, become eunuchs to make it clear just what we've always thought in our hearts about this stupid, idiotic process which served nothing. Let the others reproduce the race - what difference is it to us? If all men refrain from this, if all women are disinterest in reproducing, then we have created the conditions of population decline, and there is no reason why this would stop. I say this not because it should happen or because any of this is desirable, but to say that it probably would happen given any honest assessment of what humanity has been. It is merely a matter of time.

Earlier I made reference to the likely condition of mating populations in the animal kingdom - that it is very likely mating populations form colonies where this mating would take place, rather than mating occuring "at random", as if the space of the world were irrelevant and the atomized points were ignorant of sex and what men and women even were. Here is where the imperial pseudoscience given to the rubes, where evolution "just-so" happens, gives way to an imperial thinking about reproduction. The rubes' version insists that imperial control is a fait accompli and happened without any knowledge. Darwin's original version of the theory gave credit to reality and the conditions of life as they were, and suggested only that in a mating population that has been established, competition within the niche eliminated transitional forms. We can argue whether Darwin was right or why he was right - every experiment to "prove" this relied on just-so stories, or was reduced to the observation that evolutionary change happened by some competition that was rigged with the result expected beforehand. The details of why certain fruit flies succeeded and others failed was, for the experiment, reduced to a just-so story about "competition", and did not ask why the flies were competing, or the controlled environment where this experiment took place. In political society, or what counts as such in the kingdom of nature, there are no experiments and no games. There are people, for whom this task of reproduction is a going concern of their lives. Humans and animals both have their behaviors which make sense to them. Flies, plants, and birds have theirs. In every case, migration to the mating spot is something life does almost by nature, and the migratory patterns of human beings are driven often by a basic want that isn't really rational. There is, for example, no rational reason why humans should seek urban life for the pleasures and opportunities cities entail, or a rational reason why humans yearn to return to the country and periodically return to nature, where the demands of political society are removed enough that humans are not constantly on edge with a knife at their throat. We can rationalize all of the reasons why those movements of human beings happen, but nowhere can we suppose there is a default, inborn behavior that defines what human are, and more importantly ought to be. Again, the is-ought problem brought up earlier in this book is important to remember when decoding imperial bullshit.

If we regard mating as one interest of life, we then consider the interests of life when an empire and civilization are established. Human beings in such a society need money or something which can purchase sustenance, or land which grows crops which the farmer and the family consume to live. We consider all of the goods which an imperial subject may purchase - wine, glasswork, pottery, slaves, iron, swords, and a panoply of commodities which are already so varied that one person is unlikely to ever encounter them all, even a merchant. We then consider the needs of the state, and of the army. We consider the needs of every city in the empire, every estate. We consider that the men and women inhabiting this empire are not and never were atomized subjects, but members of nations, families, and members of societies and institutions that are valued. All of those things, the resources drawn from the land and outlying seas and oceans, the mountains and lakes, are geographic features marked, and the structure mankind built on the land each take on their own life. An empire is comprised not of a homogenized mass as is the habit of Germanized education and its aims, where the only distinctions allowed are those which serve aristocracy or which are incidental and subordinated to the despotic core of their race. Such habits are common to education, rather than an inborn quality of Germans or the German nation, which like any nation-state and potential empire, had its numerous niches, where the history of a country that was composed of warring states until 1870 was still evident during the Nazi period. It is a foul pedagogy that reverses the common understanding of empires - that they are compromised of many moving parts in their stable territories, and any political map relies on this knowledge of the land, rather than koans about what the land is "supposed" to be.

We then consider that the human features of the empire are not static, but things in flux, often struggling for position within the empire. Very few are willing to go against imperium openly if they value their life, if conditions are normal. Where civil wars exist, the objective is almost never overthrowing the empire or even "regime change". The causes of civil wars never reduce to a preferred narrative of their instigators, and this describes the effort of intelligence agencies to foment such wars, or gangs and counter-gangs, in weaker countries. The reality is well known to those foreign policy hands which are tasked with instigating those civil wars and managing their outcome, in addition to giving to the intel ghouls and the nominal president some idea of what is happening in Arabia, China, India, or the country of interest. They are, when doing this, considering the foreign country much like their own, and do not indulge in the aristocratic contempt for the ruled or the crass conceits of the enablers of imperial rot. They do not indulge in the smaller-minded thinking of proprietors who don't get what this is, and certainly not the mania and fad-following of the middle class. To manage these affairs effectively is not a unique province of aristocracy's virtue and talents, because aristocracy has no virtue and really has no special knowledge allowing them to monopolize foreign policy. It is instead the work of men and women who have to begrudgingly accept a fact about empire that the ideologues revile. If politics is already hard, empire is harder than that, and usually, empire is an expensive proposition for most of its subjects. For the rulers of that empire, empires are a freeroll where they live entirely off the toil of many lands, nations, subjects, and industries within that empire, and live off the trade that empires can maintain and the duties, tarriffs, and protection costs of travel that empires levy. This applies to internal trade and external trade equally, for the empire very pointedly does not care about any "national interest" or a sense that the empire is intrinsically a territorial thing and that the empire has the same special connection to land that a nation or labor would. Empires are not the creatures of the laboring class, from which the connection of land to labor and thus genuine political life would be valued. Empires can move their capital from one hill-fort to another, and can in principle pack up everything of value and move the empire in total to another part of the world, and nothing would fundamentally change. But, doing this incurs definite costs. It is not a trivial thing to dismantle everything in every major American city and transport it intact to Russia. In the past 50 years of neoliberal bastardry, we have seen the wealth and monetary value of the United States drained at record pace, but only rarely are industries and technology dismantled here and moved overseas. Rather, American society and life are denuded and stripped bare of any quality compatible with life, and this stripping away is directed towards those selected to die, while those selected to live brag about what they've done, since they are not interested in "America" and have a free pass to move anywhere in the new world order - on the lifeboat, away from us wretches, and laughing as they have poisoned us, laughing as our brains are boiled alive and the thrill of torture has been maximized. The financial draining of wealth ultimately goes nowhere in particular. There is no other country that has been the beneficiary of America's downfall, just as the destruction and cannibalization of the Soviet Union was a benefit to no one except forces far more disgusting and depraved than any robber baron. Yet, the effects of this denuding are localized, not just afflict the United States with a general malaise, but to direct the carnage to particular sectors of American society - to select, as Eugenics demanded above all, who lives and who dies. Failed race. Satanic race. Outside of the United States, this plunder is directed to similar goals, and the policy of the great powers is similar. This is to dismantle the national interests in favor of global, imperial interests, always in favor of eugenics and those selected to live, and against those selected to die. In the United States, the program of destruction and selection of favored classes has move further ahead, and the eugenic creed is institutionally at its peak in the United States. This does not match the level of eugenist penetration of the whole society, for most of the Americans are despised by eugenics, judged to be an inferior race to be tortured maximally as the god of eugenics declares. Yet, we have seen a country like Britain, where eugenics is both dominant institutionally and throughout the base of society, and it would appear to eugenics like Britain is a success story. Yet, in the past decade, the level of eugenist poisoning was so thorough that stupidity that is ghastly even to the standards of us Americans is now normal in British society.^[8] A will to resist eugenism, even a hopeless will adopted out of dire necessity, tells us more about a society than anything eugenism and imperial conceits tell us. For most who live under empires, the empire is nothing but a burden choking the life out of them, and this has been the case even during their "golden periods" or periods of republican empires. Republican empires, as mentioned, tend towards more avarice than regular or despotic empires, and do so because they are republican in their structure and incentives. And yet, the empire continues largely because it can, because it has been the only structure humans build that effectively commands a large space with varied niches.

Other forms are possible, but in practice, the imperial logic comes to dominate them. That is what both capitalism and Marx's version of communism - "actually existing socialism" - were at heart. They would both be imperial systems. The eugenic creed and eugenism is another, which was thoroughly imperial and made no apologies, showing no remorse and no real excuses for the terror. It is not axiomatically necessary for Empire to invade all potential spaces and suggest an ecology that serves its masters. If you did suggest something else, though, it would imply a type of cooperative arrangement where the power of life and death is not the governing principle. This would carry with it many implications. Law codes, as we will see in the next chapter, are premised on imperium for their legitimacy, and very early in their existence, law codes as just codes contend with the same question - the justice of questions of life and death, and how people can live and die within the boundaries of the law and the court. Religions, being what they are, concern themselves with the problem of evil, and thus life and death become not merely property or law, but a spiritual interest, as they should be. What would change in a truly "post-imperial" world would require the question of life and death to no longer be the chief concern of us - for the knife at our throats to be removed, and the benefits of that knife at the throat removed from those who benefit from it. This would mean an end to enclosure at its true source, rather than looking at phantoms to blame for the problem and believing that struggle will win the day and mark a glorious victory of the people. It would mean that the lowest class finally has its day, and this would be the necessary start for any new political settlement.

There is one saving grace for all of the people, the lowest class included, and this saving grace saves empires from their own crapulence, so it is to some extent regarded by all if empires are to be a going concern. The simple reality is that life, death, and the power inherent in those concepts, do not work in the way imperium suggests, if we are to build anything productive, useful, or good for the actual human beings that live in that empire. Empires are creatures of contradiction, and never will this struggle of contradictions resolve. Such a struggle only leads to misery, and no struggle will even produce an idea or a substantive thing suggesting something different. We may envision that it will be a struggle if someone sets out to produce the post-imperial world, but given what we know from our vantage point in the early 21st century, many of the solutions are actually very trivial ones. We can choose to stop attacking the lowest class, who have for all of the shouting done nothing so egregious, and most of humanity can readily accept that if the commandment for more blood for the blood god and ritual sacrifice were abated. What power does a beggar possess that warrants the type of howling and screeching the eugenic creed followers and their enablers engage in when triggered like the fucking Satanic animals they are? The reality of empires, and the holders of imperium recognize this limitation even when concepts of law, justice, and moral duty are absent, is that something pragmatic rules over ideology or institutional shibboleths. It always has, and it always will, when the imperial bottom line is the cause. Therefore, we recognize that life and death, and anything regarding them, are ultimately not the ne plus ultra of threats that a miserablist wants them to be. If we die, we die. If we live, we may think to ourselves that after all of this trouble, there wasn't really any purpose to live for. What we morally value has nothing to do with life or death, but what exists between them, and what exists in the world that neither lives nor dies. What we are doing here really does not regard the problem of mortality, because we know that whatever happens, we will die someday, and that death may be grisly or we may have the grace of dying alone and old, as it should be. None of us chose to born, and it is not axiomatically true that we all naturally love life. If anything, the misery of childhood and adolescence makes clear that life is not a natural right or something taken for granted. The miseries made visible to us merely for existing make life for its own sake a highly questionable proposition, and many children and adolescents find it in themselves to suicide, or lose all interest or hope and become flotsam that may hope it is different some day, in a different world, where we didn't have to do this. The latter is far more common than the former. If we think about suicide, as we will in the next chapter in greater detail, commiting suicide due to the excesses of imperium and the idiots who actually do believe life for its own sake is morally valid, is really pointless. One thing that has motivated this author to continue living is pure spite for the cult of life and the cult of positive thinking - a cult originating in Nazi faggotry and horseshit, that was recognized as such when it formed and when its fellow travelers and descendants were shat upon humanity. When I call that cult what it is, I am accused of being a doomer or claiming that the victory of the enemy is inevitable, and this is the fanaticism of a very narrow and retarded understanding of the political and of empire. That politics has never been of interest to me, and this ultimately is not about my emotional self-interest or some want of my body. For my own body and the wants it possesses, my needs have always been very simple, and aside from the repeated attacks on that body and the humiliations that were visited upon me and made an example to everyone else, the other great offense against me was seeing this horror inflicted not as a special punishment for me, but as a routine that was intended for social engineering. When I say "the thrill of torture must be maximized", the display of that torture and humiliation - of me, or the other victims of the day, of which there are many - is calculated, and this habit is older than eugenism and is one of the oldest things humanity has known. I feel it is both a moral duty of any decent person and something personally fulfilling to live in spite of this beast, and I am not the only person living off spite, nor do all spite enjoyers live the life I do or do as they do for anything like my motivation. I can tell the difference between principled spite and fickle spite. But, more than that, there is a sense in the bones of so many people that none of this works, because it doesn't work and has never worked. The conceits about life and death do not factually or morally stand up to any scrutiny, and any fair intellectual discourse - the discourse that is denied in public life, and so has remained hidden and smothered if it develops too far - would uphold my position and deny any primacy of the cult of life or the cult of eugenics which glorifies the thrill of torture and death.

It is important to note that this opposition is not an "anti-imperial" or "counter-imperial" claim, on the basis that empire and imperium feel bad. States and human beings do indeed have this right and power over life and death. I chose to allow the slaughtering of the steer whose parts I ate today, and do not get to shirk that I ate that poor animal, having known the torture it endured during the process. It is not a power that a reasonable person would dismiss so casually, which makes the snideness and faggotry of eugenists and especially their enablers that much more toxic - a quality which the creed glorifies for the pure offensiveness of such faggotry. What I write here is a description of what empire is, so that this can be useful for future definition of what the political really entails. As mentioned, there is only one way imperium is overcome - by living in a society which recognizes the futility of making of this power more than it had to be. We didn't ever need to live with a knife at anyone's throat or any ritual sacrifice. Let us say we conclude, for whatever reason, that there are people who must be ejected from society, either for being unsightly or some crime which makes them a legitimate danger to a reasonable person. What is to be done with them? I can tell you that prisoners are treated better than people whose crime was a crime of Being, of being screened out at school age. I have the reciepts for that, as does any American of this time and place. Anyone relitigating that is an insufferable fag and should be beaten for insolence. But, in a better world, neither would be pit against each other, and the very public display of this distinction is itself a glorification of the eugenic creed and its Satanic ethos, and the Satanists who most cheerfully endorse it and glorify every iota of torture they can extract from the process. In a better world, we'd probably just accept that humans cannot coexist beyond certain boundaries, and the undesirables of society would be told this without any pretense that humans were ever going to be any different.

Two worlds, forever apart. That is something not only intrinsic to this question of what is to be done, but something Empire is very familiar with. It is only with proper development of empire and enclosure that this dictum that there can be two distinct worlds side-by-side, and perhaps coinciding with each other in parts, is enforceable and something valued. We might imagine another way in which this division could exist. It certainly exists in animals. But, as humans speaking of the political, the conditions of antagonism in close quarters define civilization, and this takes place in a lesser form in a barbarous society. The distinction is stark not merely because we have symbolic language and ideas and tools to comprehend and enforce the distinction, but because knowledge of the distinction feeds into itself and, absent any compelling reason human society should be otherwise, the distinction is intensified. This applies to the lowest level of the political agents themselves, who for us are also social agents. We are distinguished from each other and alienated from each other not just because general labor is alienable, but because this alienation existed in the primitive conditions of proto-humans and would be intensified by the niches humans created, whether those were intended or truly were an accident carelessly created. The damned of the Earth certainly aren't interested in hearing "oops, wrong planet" yet again. Even if there were some effort at cooperation or reconciliation, what co-existence could exist after that? Then imagine that these contradictions were heightened to the extent they have been under eugenism, with the full backing of technocratic institutions and thorough knowledge about how to maximize this alienation. Labor being alienable becomes an existential problem for labor, but hardly the fatal problem that it is for the lowest class. The laborer set against himself really only has himself to blame for the failing, even if the society is rigged to ensure he fails. The thinking of imperium that labor came to accept and defaulted to support ensured that, and as the world says, guilty until proven innocent. This will be the fate of any empire which makes its dictates identical with the philosophical state, whether it chooses a republican facade or glorifies its despotism. Either way, the result would be the same, and the despotism of such a regime would see fit to carry on all of the abuses of a republic but none of its virtues or purposes, until the good will and naivete that allowed a republic to function is exhausted and the carcass is left to rot. On such a basis, no public can persist, and the empire as any workable proposition is given over to the rancor of unlimited "contradiction" and an endless drive of graspers to kick down to get ahead. That was the fate of the Nazis and it will be the fate of all of their inheritors. Yet, for all of the problems this creates, the empire will tend towards this endgame, absent any compelling reason its space should be any different. The spatial distinction at the higher level of empires makes clear that this thinking is folly for anything real, but the logic of this is replicated in the technology that a grasping middle class will always think to find. Aristocracy and the favored proprietors are happy to encourage this rot, and stoke the flames of "contradiction" deliberately so that more carnage may be created, for no particular purpose. We should, in understanding empire, see the difference between a functioning empire and this dogshit that we live today, which has made the imperial dogma a philosophical creed while openly running the whole world into the ground for the most spurious purposes. The logic of the imperial dogma allows this to perpetuate, against the interests of the empire and anything that would be worth keeping in this world. The true origins and motives of the agents are not "imperial" at all, and readily "anti-imperial" agitators and shills have just as eagerly embraced the ethos of kicking down and grasping that dominates this sad, failed empire of a failed race.

If we are to look at this contraption from on high, and dispense with the usual thinking about grand clockworks since there is no "clockwork" as such in the sprawling space of empires, we would not notice the underbelly or even the fundamental claim of empires of life and death. From a high enough position, the fear of life and death is far removed from the daily management and purposes the empire holds.

At the top of an empire, an aristocracy believes itself to be the true governing power, because their conceits always insist that they get their way. In reality, a limited set of the aristocrats are the "first men in Rome", of which one insists on being first among equals. To govern effectively, they recruit from the other orders to do nearly all of the work and drudgery empire entails. The job of the aristocrat is to take all credit for the victories of subordintes and sell people on the idea that they won't just love slavery, but that slavery makes you cool, hip, and part of the in-group. In this way, the aristocrat makes clear that behind his pretensions of grandeur and the promises of luxury offered to the favored classes, all empires and all aristocracies are glorified mafias and nothing more. The peculiarities of mafia politics are not very relevant here, since for empire they are successfully abstracted into "the mob" and a few notable kingpins, agentur, influencers, and designated leaders who can be propped up and knocked down. Where no mob leaders or organized crime exist, it would be necessary for aristocracy to invent them, as the function it serves to police the residuum is too valuable to ever release, and this is labor's small stake in the political - less about material benefit, and more about kicking down those beneath them and not being kicked down themselves, if they can avoid that fate. All of these mafias operate as nations, and while that nation may be coterminous or confined to a city and the interests of City Hall, they have the same qualities as any other nation, even if they are a makeshift alliance of people who would otherwise have nothing to do with each other, from various races and creeds and speaking different languages. The structured technology of note are the cities and their establishments, and land-holding estates, small farms, and the industrial interests that existed. Three institutions sit above all, and each represent a distinct sector. The first is the army, which I have identified with the interests of property and merit, and which exists for a very clear reason outlined in the prior chapter. This rationale is no different for an empire, but the composition, logistics, and expectations for armies will change. The second is the law, and law is particular to Empire. The philosophical state and the city do not strictly speaking need any consistent law code to be constituted. "Oceania has no law" does not preclude the state's existence and its effective force. The third is religion, which in one form or another is always present, even if it wears the clothes of ideology or "The Science", or if it actually views proper and legitimate science as a spiritual authority and a path to what religion and God portend to. These institutions properly belong to the second, third, and fourth interests of life respectively. Where, then, does aristocracy exist? It exists by hijacking religious and spiritual authority for itself mostly, but aristocracy has always known that the institutions are means to an end. The true basis for aristocracy is the ummah of its high elites. More than any other class, aristocracy understands the necessity of lockstep movement for the interest when it comes to interlopers. Only after all struggles in the society are mediated by aristocracy, and become tools for control and confined struggles - enclosed struggles - do the aristocrats contemplate war with each other, in all circumstances. No hatred of the aristocrats for each other will never be allowed to lead to a permanent rupture of the interest. This is felt across nations and states, for aristocrats of all great powers recognize each other and share among each other a diplomatic code and a tacit understanding that whatever war may exist, "good people" will never be the victim of bad things, as the sickening Galtonite faggotry about Christianity goes.

All of these things are mediated by space as a real constraint, rather than a nuisance to be abstracted away. The invention of modern communication and command/control technology does not change this. If you understand the example of communication theory I begin the second book in earnest with, this example is lifted specifically from technocratic need to ensure their communication technology works, and this is not cheap or effective by assertion. It may be stated that this applies to every space we imagine, but politically, the philosophical city-state or a unitary city-state in practice operates as a whole unit, rather than the sum of its parts. The parts cannot be set against each other. For the empire, space creates the expectation that the parts are set against each other, simply to communicate. Empires are not built on the basis of any constitution, but on fear. This of course is the true foundation of any state, but for Empire conceptually, the fear is made explicit and stated as the principle that unites the thing at all, rather than an aspersion of some danger that the chief or warlord will guard against or unite you with for the war cause. Such a construct is certain to have local interests and the eternal question of centralization against autonomy. That question is a facile one if you really think about the claims empires make and the interests of the parties alone. The obsession with centralization or federalism is entirely a middle class, technocratic conceit, because the technocrat lives and dies by institutions which are always local events. Those at the apex of empire tend to be centralists, and if they allow federalism, it demands a federalism whose agents coordinate in secret, so that rule is effectively occulted. The local technocrats are more obsessed with their provincial interests than the local proprietors, because the local technocrat or commoner does not have any "in" with the central authority. The proprietor, by virtue of his property and the armed force he would possess to back his claim to it, is less concerned with this question. Now, you may say, the state's legal monopoly on force makes the proprietor's saber-rattling useless. But, for the state and for the empire, what is the basis of its army? Its basis is in property-holding men who are summoned to fight for the state upon request. If the soldiers do not believe the state is legitimate - and telling your soldiers to eat shit and die will very quickly convince the ruled who can say no to say no and make this difficult - then that legal monopoly isn't even words on a piece of paper. That piece of paper, after all, usually legitimized itself because there were armed men who had an interest in writing laws that specifically prevented the central authority from doing outrageous and stupid things for the sake of "me wantee". Going against such edicts is not merely a question of the proprietors making a hissy fit. If the empire is ruled by someone who is clearly unable to lead men and does stupid things like that, by what right would the empire's subordinate march in lockstep? That thinking works for aristocracy and its fetishes, and it works on the commoners amenable to joining that phalanx. But, the local interests exist in a way that is undeniable. If the emperor starves out the locality, by incompetence or malice, that proprietor not only is unlikely to want to provide his arms to the state, but in a real material sense cannot do so, or cannot afford to do so if he is to live. This, if you recall, is exactly what happened to the Roman citizen-soldier - he would be sent to fight wars to enrich the latifundia, and come home to find his land has been sold, and there was nothing he could do about it. The citizen-soldier is no position to march on Rome in anger and he knows writing a letter to the editor is a waste of ink. This happened not merely because the citizen-soldier was really impotent to stop this, but because the faith in the republic's fear, its authority and rightness to make this request, was not a thing transgressed lightly. The smarter emperor would understand that this situation is not a good one, but most emperors are not smart or interested in doing anything we would consider good. They only need to be effective enough to hold their empire in one piece, and the Roman Senate could do that rather easily.

The men whose interests are in locales of the empire - and they may take an interest in multiple locales that are distant from each other - are only able to travel if there are roads, and passage is safe. They require some way to pay for this expenditure, and the tax that empires obligate them to pay. There is a post office to send mail, communication networks. Here you see the logistical side of empires that is often of little interest to philosophers, but is very interesting to administrators. The Romans were known for administering this beast in a novel way, and for a time, this approach worked despite perverse incentives. Any empire with a mind towards administration has to consider not just the parcels of land and the people on them as claims, but how they are linked together in a world where space, distance, and peril within and without the empire is a constant. When the emperor attains peace within such a beast, it is not automatic or a thing won cheaply. But, imperial propaganda will never let you think that for a moment if it's smart. It is good policy for empires to give the appearance that the empire is why the trains run on time, and if the empire went away, the only course of action would be to panic and fear for your life, for the world would surely end if the empire ended. Whether the empire is effective at doing this - since the imperial government is not competing with anyone that would keep it honest, and realistically the things an imperial government would administer are things that would not be privatized without a morass of opportunism and barbarism - does not matter for the propaganda. Empires don't have to lie about the reality of their situation, and it would be appreciated if there is honesty about some nagging inconvenience in the empire like the roads being broken. "Fix the Damn Roads" is the sort of political slogan that works great for an imperial functionary in an imperial system.^[9] It's the sort of thing that an empire should do, but that is usually left for the last minute. Aside from the happiness of the subjects, which is neither here nor there, the roads serve a much more important function - to transport supplies and legions to and fro over land, and secure paths from bandits. The communication networks of today are no different functionally that anything else that permits travel. Networks must be secured, and do not operate on magic. There are dangers inherent in such a network if it is unattended, for once established, the network in principle can be accessed by anyone. The barbarians could use the roads of Rome, and enemy states or interests can use information warfare. Communication networks are unlike roads due to the nature of communication and ideas and what those ideas mean. Digitalization and computerization are themselves particular engineering problems which create their openings and weaknesses. As I have mentioned often, the computer is very much a manager's tool, and so command and control is inherent to the device. But, this command and control is not a magic authority of some Harry Potter aristocrats. Any half-wit can write a computer program and make use of such a system. The fear of today's empire is not that their mainframe will be hijacked, but that ordinary people would use communication and computerization to assist them putting two and two together and compare notes. That is haram because of the pigheaded and retarded political conceits at work today, which are nowhere near a match for the technology available that would clearly be better than this shit we have been consigned to live under.

The law and its basis presents a challenge to empires today, and always has been an achilles heel of the empire. In some sense, empires are governed by consent. This is not the consent of a republican society, but a consent based on the material interests and the ability of those who hold them to do anything in an empire. If we took the concept of a public interest over a large land like the United States seriously - not speaking even of a republic, but merely a public trust - none of the elitist thinking would withstand scrutiny. It would become clear that the law code is hopelessly incapable of matching what states and institutions became in the 20th century, and this weakness was deliberately ignored because the fear of lawfare is greater than any value an actually useful institution of law would allow. As mentioned, the foul "philosophy" of Popper is a creature of legalese. It was asserted because an institutional chokehold had been established, and inherent to the program was flagrant lying of thoroughness hitherto unknown. All it required was enough maniacs willing to allow this assertion until it broke the resolve of anyone who would tell these perverts no, or at least made it impossible to take the core institutions seriously.

I leave out the peculiar institution of education and slavery for now. Those I wish to cover in a later chapter. For now, a view of the law and what guided its creation as something distinct from property assertions would be helpful, for law to be law speaks of something more than a contrivance that was a thinly veiled excuse for men with uniforms and the uh-oh badge.

Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

Return to Table of Contents | Return to Chapter Start