Return to Table of Contents | Previous Chapter | Next Chapter

Primitive law is nothing more than the word of someone delegated this authority to regulate temporal matters. It is a particular aspect of the virtue of those who lead, whatever their place in society may be. Nothing about the person or life creates any "natural law" by assertion of existence. The authority is always particular to the social organization that it exists in. To be outside of the society in such conditions is to be outside of the law entirely. Law to be law is not merely an assertion of will or a force, but suggests some authority allowing the holder of virtue to speak with words what would otherwise be a matter of force or the impulses of life. Law is still recognized as a different thing altogether from the latter two, and must be so. In this way, primitive society learns how to negotiate, bargain, or conduct diplomacy.

This instrument is confined to a purview that is appropriate for the law, and so jurisdiction is established for whatever type of law may be invoked. It is never so vague that its mandate covers all that exists. It is very clearly distinguished from imperium, which concerns life and death which ultimately are adjudicated not by laws but by force and will, and it is distinguished from ordinary activity which is beneath the notice of any "law". In its domain, law is only vague enough to disallow insinuations of particulars, so that the magistrate - whatever form it takes - is not hobbled by details or sophistry. We know for instance what murder is, what killing is, what rape is, and we are aware of the society these acts take place in. It is not a great culture war to define these things in a way that allows standards of comparison. Even if one society has a different concept of what rape "looks like", or has no concept of rape at all, the concept is intelligible enough and why someone would care about it is not difficult to communicate. I do not care to indulge in a contrived argument about what rape is, since that has been a favorite past time of the eugenic creed which I do not need to relitigate here, but any reasonable adult in modern society can understand the meaning of rape and how abuse of terminology is an open invitation for lawfare, where women who have clearly been assaulted most foully are told they're crazy and have no recourse, and women who are clearly manipulative are given the cover of institutions to facilitate their shaming of a male they consider beneath them. Such games are common to the sexual game and humiliations it entails, and any reasonable judge would consider that game if he or she were to judge well known facts and were an honest broker. The honesty of the judge, or the obligations of lawyers and the whole institution, is another matter altogether, but in principle, we do not actually need to engage in a strenuous debate about what things are. Very likely, all of this terminology would be well understood by lawyers and judges, who process every case through some pre-trial process. In the most primitive law, even without a code of laws as such, there are already judgements made about what really happened long before the case is presented. If done correctly, the trial and case would be a formality leaving little ambiguity. Almost always, the actual ruling of courts - in primitive times and now - is conducted by handshake deals and arbitrary whim within boundaries that have, for better or worse, been accepted as normal. Neither the letter or the spirit of the law is the fundamental concern, despite claims of justice. The law as an instrument has at a basic level nothing whatsoever to do with justice, or fairness, or anything good. It can, when weaponized, be nothing more than a rubber stamp for imperial policy or whatever a warlord's tribunal decides your fate will be after his afternoon binge of drinking and fucking. Even here, though, the law is only valuable because it does hold some moral weight that makes it different from force or assertion. Law entails some court and public appearance, or at least a public record of some sort, for law to be operative. If we speak of private handshake deals between two agents without a court or some official invested with legal authority, those deals and anything said in them do not have any legal force. So too does the army's existence not create law by force. It is always an institution governed by a law code particular to warriors, even in the primitive conditions of warfare where the war chief's word decides the fate of the conquered. There is, at the conclusion of battle or war, words exchanged which have the force of law in some way. Treaties of peace are particular types of law and this has been established for as long as peace treaties have existed.

Simultaneously, the law is granted an authority nothing else possesses temporally, and the law is seen as a wicked instrument with little to show for it. But, it exists for reasons that make sense to those who issue it, even in its most primitive forms. The value of this instrument is whatever its moral weight would be to someone observing it in action, at a basic level. Absent anything else, law of some sort would exist among creatures like us who communicate with symbolic language long enough for a concept of law to arise, even if the law were created by oneself to regulate their own behavior and were upheld as the public facade of some person - a statement of principles that are held to be based on something other than power of life and death or some suggestion that the words are smarter or feel better. It is not difficult for humans to delegate law of the most primitive sort to an authority deemed worthy of making judgements that are of profound importance to a society, and to see those decisions as final in a way that ordinary decisions are not. Once the chief lays down the law, by whatever mechanisms are appropriate, that is that, and anyone disputing the ruling invites peril to themselves. Such decisions are not left to personal opinion which is disputed and never settled.

All of the law pertains to living things whose existence may be jeopardized, and so, when imperium arises, it will naturally see itself as the proper fount of law - and the law cannot raise a serious objection to this when the matter concerns law at the highest level. All subordinate law codes, like those governing commerce, administration, family life, and so on, exist at the mercy of the highest law, and do not truly exist on their own power. For law to be consistent, it is not contested. Here we see the link between empire and states. I remind the reader that imperium does not require a state as such. Many empires can rule in anarchy and remain empires through and through, even preferring lawlessness as a cover to occult the existence of their empire and its actions. In the United States, the true empire, centered in Britain, is not granted any legal recognition or title, and its existence is vociferously denied despite common knowledge of the empire's existence and force. The law exists not as an imperial rubber stamp, but a thing to be openly scoffed at, where money and imperial influence openly stomp on the concepts law would entail at all levels. The empire does not merely condone lawlessness or encourage it. It revels in the abrogation of law, in the true faggotry of imperial Satanist Aleister Crowley. Every law abrogated is filled immediately not with empire, but with the eugenic creed in purified form. It is this which leads to the profoundly retarded quote from Karl Rove where he believes empires make their own reality. Such a statement is not sensical unless reality itself is adjudicated not by law or anything substantive, but by the thrill of torture. Torture is never a substitute for law and revels specifically in abrogating the very concept of such. So too is lawfare intended to derail and make judgement impossible not law. That is institutionalized bribery and a threat. Almost as soon as law relies on imperium, its downfall as a serious exercise begins. But, empire just like human beings benefits from law in the final analysis, for the same reasons humans would find such a thing useful.

If empires extend their tendrils without law, they only do so with force which must be substantial and thus costly, or they do so with some virtue or will they command. The claim of the Satanist and anarchist is that this virtue is a fount they acquired by heredity or because "they earned it", but the truth of virtue is that it is always extracted from something in the world, including another person. There is no other origin for this primordial will or virtue in that sense. This too entails both costs and consequences. If the willful actor creates unintended consequences, it is on that actor, and there is no recourse or backsies. What is done may never be undone, if their will is to mean anything in the world, or to other people who are themselves part of the world for this concept of virtue to operate meaningfully. The law provides to imperium and imperium alone a tool that costs them far less than brute force, and carries an authority that no expression of mere will or insinuation could ever possess. What law can do is correct errors and issue rulings to set events in the world right, and this is not a matter of justice as a moral value but what the law does to regulate temporal affairs. That is, the law can say "what happened is wrong, and this ruling is what will pass", and the value of the law is to settle the dispute as the law and the judge deem worthwhile, rather than accepting that what has passed has passed. By force or will, "what is done is done", and this is the way the world works. The law does not change reality. The law does provide a mechanism for a society to suggest that what is done can be undone with a prescribed remedy, and the illegal act may be ameliorated. In all cases, the aim of the law is not to constantly correct these errors, but to set in code a standard so that no one in the society would violate the law. Most do not need to be ruled by fear to be told "do not murder", because there is a law, prescribed punishments, a whole history of the law of a society regarding murder, and examples of what the law brought down on those who do murder. It would not be necessary then to teach people moral or religious values telling them "murder is bad" or for humans to learn the hard way the consequences of killing. The law does not itself have moral authority or force to say what should happen, but laws make clear what morality or force would not communicate easily. Force has no preferred language or protocol - it punches transgressors in the face. Moral education and religion is, for a variety of reasons, a non-trivial undertaking that cannot be guaranteed by any institution. If we truly understand religion and the moral condition of the human race, humanity faces a problem peculiar to it; that its societies, in spite of knowing better and in spite of laws and consequences, have granted peculiar moral sanction to glorify killing, which is why the rites of ritual sacrifice and invoked all the way up to now and we are told "this is normal", because the human race is a race of perverts who simply refuse to do something the decent of us consider right. Even when 90% of humans would never murder and find such a thing reprehensible and against anything they would want to do, the moral thought that prevailed in spiritual authority was written by those who conducted the ritual sacrifice, torture, and used killing and cruelty to make right by the assertion of their various foul gods. Moral education then will always face the problem of transgressors who can easily violate good will and the decency of humanity, and while upright and good people can - and must - fight against it, none of the moral righteoudness of anyone, or moral turpitude, carries legal force or the force of merit in combat. Moral sentiments are not identical with the willpower of human beings, for the primordial will is not itself a moral agent whatsoever, and cannot be so. Moral values are properly the domain of labor rather than the primordial will which is amoral and fickle in all things. If there were any authority comparable to law which is not defined as law and does not adhere to the standards of law, but fulfills the purposes that the law does, then that would be the law. For example, if "violence is the supreme authority", that is created a legal standard where judgement is made about violence. The judgements about violence being the supreme legal authority are something different from the actual exercise of violence and war. Those who say "violence is the supreme authority" really only posture and threaten force, and they rule not by outright violence, but by the threat of that violence, which is understood by all. "Violence is the supreme authority" is not a dictum of the strong or the warriors, but the more cowardly and faggotty of the proprietors, who believe that this approach will abrogate some existing law or some standard of decency that they wish to transgress for crass gain. The strong and martial virtue understand the value of a law code that rules not by threats, but by a sense that the law meets some standard of truth, fairness, or some value that suggests the law has some neutral basis that overrides the bias of any particular person. This, too, is mostly a projection of truth or the standard chosen. It is only necessary that the law appear to uphold values of truth, justice, or moral right, rather than actually do so. But, this projection is made with the expectation that the law is open to public scrutiny, whether the court seals or occults its records or not. For a law court to exist, there is no doubt that there is a court, even if the court is a Star Chamber or super secret tribunal that is only spoken of with the greatest fear and reverence for that fear. We should make clear that our expectations of the public trust, fairness, and decency are not necessary for the law, but there is some expectation that the law is a neutral and singular actor. There are not competing law codes in a "marketplace of law", as if they were ideologies one could buy at the supermarket for the right price and to meet some sentiment. There is only "the law", which subordinate categories of law must abide in order for law as a concept to remain consistent.

The benefits of legitimacy are that such a construct provides a neutral, intellectual, institutional vehicle for uniting people who by nature have nothing to do with each other, and this law also can be used to divide people into legal classes with distinct status, and make clear divisions which already exist as a result of things outside of the law. Nothing about the law mandates legal, moral, or political equality, or any sense that people will all be treated the same or that the law is at all fair. It is expected the law is neutral, for there is only one law. The law and the state are separate propositions. The state as an institution can make the law whatever it wishes it to be, and what the state does is not coterminous with "law". States can do things that are outside of the law, can violate brazenly their legal codes and cite "national security" or some other pretext, and states keep secrets. The state as an institution is something entirely different from the law, and the law exists not as an organ of the state or the army that allows that law to exist. For the law to be the law, it exists as a force unto itself, and the state and any other interest can make of the law what they will. The law is not identical with the laws of institutions or management of information generally. It is a particular proposition that is, in this society, linked with the imperial question about life and death to have force. The law, then, must concern killing, murder, accidental death, birth, and define life plainly for its purposes. This would be the life of political agents or subjects, rather than life and death in the real or material sense, but there would be an expectation that legal life and actual life have some relation if the law is to withstand any public view of it. The rulings and policies of institutions or the state need not care about life or death, and may allow extrajudicial killings or "illegal life" to occur willfully, without regard to anything the law code prescribes about life and death. It is through life and death that the law has meaning beyond some words lawyers say about what the society is to allow or not allow, and all of the laws in some way or another trace back to this imperial question about life and death, expounding on it and allowing the law to judge particular aspects of that life or death. For example, theft of property becomes not merely a matter of the proprietor's force or will to defend that property against interlopers, but something the law can weigh in on and make a judgement that would be binding if the law is regarded as an authority on this matter. The law and court have officers that will enforce that judgement and make it binding, but aside from the force of the court, the court's neutrality and authority suggest to the subjects that the ruling will not go away, in a way that no amount of proprietary force or the will of anyone's assertion can ever accomplish. This is only possible if life and death are implied to be on the line. It would work that way in primitive law before imperium just as much as it would work when imperium is explicitly understood as the basis of law. The connection to life and death may be distant - no one seriously believes intellectual property over some writing is a matter of existential danger - but it is implied by some chain of events for the law to be relevant. If legal language is twisted enough, intellectual property which was for most of human history freely exchanged becomes existential danger, while human life can be through some convoluted argument trivialized and abstracted away, up to the point where life and death "just sort of happens" without the law heeding it as significant beyond a routine matter of marking that the life-form's existence is terminated. In any case, life and death are on the line for the law to be worth following. It is not the place of the law to regulate moral behavior or cultural signifiers, and it is not the place of the law to tell us what nature is. Science is not a legal matter and never can be, and the attempts to make it so are the source of so much pernicious lawfare in humanity. Science is a matter between intelligence and the world, and so the state, imperium, and the political altogether has no authority to tell us what science can tell us. The role of the law regarding science is for the law to accept or reject some scientific approach as valid for the purpose of determining facts for the court, and that is all the law and science would have to do with each other. The court, lawyers, and all present can choose to reject any particular scientific view in favor of political truth based on a priori knowledge of what politics has been, and this is both reasonable and expected. There is no value in relitigating what anything is, up to what "is" is. If the law is to be worth anything, it is beholden to something that sobers the delusions of power that humans hold, and it is not the law itself - not the words it writes or the institutions it creates - which are self-justifying. The law is always an instrument for its purpose, and it is a limited purpose.

If the court concerns the politically living, it establishes a few conditions of who can be tried. Merely being alive does not suggest the court will regard your person. Culpability includes the quality of the mind or intellect being tried. For one, the facts of the situation may make it clear that someone technically violated the law, but clearly lacked any intent to do so. If a policeman were to plant a weapon or drugs during the arrest and "just happened" to find a weapon, the letter of the law allows the police and the court to claim that they upheld justice by discovering the weapon the police planted on some person out of the blue. This happens very often with the death squad justice of neoliberalism and similar such regimes. Very clearly the intent of the mind was not to possess a weapon or drugs, and this would be understood by any reasonable law code and the judgement of an independent mind where there was no law. But, the important quality of culpability for us is insanity and intelligence - is someone sane, and is someone mentally capable of what they are accused of doing. This is a quality of what someone is rather than anything they have done in particular, and perhaps there are facts to raise as evidence. It is impossible to have a functioning law code without this concept, called mens rea in Roman law and all law codes derived from it. The ultimate origin of this principle is not civilization that only a few possessed, but concept of ritual sacrifice and the fate of retarded which is foundational to the human race. It would not do to suggest that a retard is worthy of even appearing at trial. What was needed for the eugenic creed was to make this absolute, and then make this the sole crime that reminds - insane or sane, valid or retarded. For this to be weaponized by them, a monopoly of this judgement must be claimed by experts who are above the law and above all other reckoning. This claim is ultimately an imperial claim and is consciously so, but above that is the will. In other words, "the thrill of torture must be maximized", or at least put on display for the public to know what the true fount of the law is as far as they are concerned. Law did not invent this, but it always regarded this. To the law, a confession is only valid if it was obtained through torture or sufficient fear to assert that someone was broken and made to speak the truth. No faith would be placed in the honesty of anyone, for it is well known that humans are natural born liars. A free confession of the truth would still be scrutinized and cross-examined. Torture, though, is granted to the law a special quality that allows it to assert reality like nothing else. How is someone tortured? They are made retarded, or at least retarded enough for the purposes of demonstrating the inferiority of mind that breaks them temporarily. Once this is accomplished, the ruling of the court is a foregone conclusion.

We must make clear that at no point in the law does "innocent until proven guilty" hold. The law of the world is clearly guilty until proven innocent. Everyone involved in this process has through preliminary activity a sufficient cause to even bring a case to court. A ficition of presumed innocence is permitted not out of goodwill, but because defendants in court have not yet been tortured sufficiently to be broken. Free men are never treated with the same disdain as a retard, and a retard may never be granted real dignity once. To do so is a betrayal of the human race's most sacred rites. If that happened, it says something about the court itself, the imperium, and the whole history of this sordid race. This is implied in the very structure of the court and the empire, in the state, and in every concept of the political humanity has ever known. There is, after railing against the wanton cruelty of such a ritual, a reason why this happens. It would be clear to humanity what would happen if the ritual sacrifice for the harvest and the rising of the sun ever ended, and they know it. We know it. We have seen enough. History already judged the human race as guilty, and history even gave humanity the benefit of the doubt and allowed them some semblance of innocence, despite the world and history knowing beforehand that humans are guilty as a race and guilty individually. The guilt is collective and cannot be escaped - and in a proper treatment of law, collective punishment is acceptable and correct. It is a fiction of legal courts to presume that only individuals are tried, and many of the customs of Roman law are customs that are fictions believed so that law does not lead to unfortunate consequences. For the most part, Roman law and many law codes of the world exist specifically to grant to the favored classes protection and impunity towards the lower orders. The law is a neutral actor to all, but the neutral status quo is an extant situation which is well known to all participants, and the law is guilty as charged on that count with no remorse. The only way to establish such impunity is to declare someone insane for opposing the ruling ideas - opposing law itself. One does not become an outlaw simply by the whim of the lawgiver. It implies someone is no longer part of the shared intelligence that is a human society, and can never be so again. It may fall short of "Once retarded, ALWAYS retarded", but it comes close, and it becomes expedient to claim, whether it is spurious or legitimate, that anyone who opposes the ruling court, the ruling institutions, is ipso fact retarded. Their insanity is a lesser charge which amounts to the same thing, since what is insanity except a failure of intelligence to make meaningful connections? No reasonable person would believe that arbitrary affinity for culture war signifiers makes someone sane or insane. The eugenic creed uses insinuations to create the impression that culture war is a war for intelligence above all, and insanity charges are always part of a run-down to the ultimate end state of the condemned and the ritual sacrifice - retarded.

Such a damnation is the true reason why "innocent until proven guilty" is accepted as a condition of a trial taking place. If the court pronounces full and absolute guilt before the trial begins, then the trial is nothing more than an assertion of crimes of Being, and the ultimate crime is retarded and nothing else. If that is so, it not only obviates the need for any court, trial, or even the concept of law. Any such function would be covered by primordial will and imperium. It would make clear that if anyone can simply be declared guilty by the law without qualifiers, anyone can be guilty of anything. There are restraints necessary for law to be worthwhile as law. The crime is specified, the judgement made, the sentence passed. At no point is the presumption of innocence an excuse for sniveling Satanics to spite the law with the letter or spirit of the law, to celebrate their favored status. The Satanic may see it as that, and will assert that he or she deserves this benefit for justice as their god and themselves see the concept. None of us down here have any belief that we will have any presumption of innocence. From birth, we are accused of any number of crimes, just to make clear that untrammeled force and the thrill of torture have become the dominant spiritual authority of the human race under the eugenic creed. Very likely, for the insinuations to become a legal case, there is some substantive proof of that guilt, or some purpose why court proceedings began. The purpose may be purely an exercise of lawfare, but for the law to have any meaning, the presumption of innocence and the processes of the law remain a useful fiction. The judge openly celebrating hypocrisy is an affirmative declaration that the thrill of torture is the law. Many show trials in the United States after 2000 exemplify this, since that is the way the rulers of this country have chosen. We may scoff at this obvious abuse of law, but so long as a judge can pass the sentence and the procedures are followed, all of it is as legal as it needs to be. For most cases, the court need only process the crimes that were obviously instigated by forcing the whole society into endless interventions and the eternal no-win scenario, and letting "nature" take care of it, so it appears that "natural law" prevails. This will become much worse with Project 2025.^[1]

There is nothing ensuring "good law" or the law regulating itself. From its creation, law is dependent on and vampiric towards the rest of society for its existence to continue. It may argue that this vampirism is cheaper than the alternative, or that the good of the law is better than what will happen without it. Law cannot rest its existence on any economic logic suggesting it "has" to exist at all. It is always some interest which would suggest that a society of laws which allow stable markets to exist - for the conditions of free trade to be at all workable - would be better for that interest. Whether that interest cares about the society as a whole or the public good is another matter. That is ultimately a matter of the interests who rule, and that matter is not merely a political matter or state business, even if the state puts its stamp of approval on anything. Simply put, the law, the state, or any institution, is only as good as those who hold the institution want it to be. Those who do not hold the institution in any way have no say in the matter, and if they wish to contest the institutions, that is treason and treason is very clearly among the laws that meet severe punishment. To be insane is to be denied the dignity of being charged with treason, even though according to the eugenic creed, crimes of Being are inherently treasonous simply because they find someone unsightly. All of the value legitimacy brings is premised not on legitimacy itself, but on what legitimacy grants to another interest. Those interests then contest the law like any other institution is contested, and the law is aware that contest happens. It would seem fair to uphold the neutrality of the law or acknowledge the interests that contest society - to proclaim outright the classes that exist. But, that would be too decent, and the holder of the law decides what the law will be for their purposes, not what the law "should" be for its function. What keeps the law itself honest comes from a moral sense in people that would value honesty for reasons other than fear of the law or fear of imperium, or fear of the primordial will which we have already understood to be an evil will. The good that allows honesty is not an unknowable essence of some willpower of men, but something that exists in the world that is outside of the law and outside of society, until society can appropriate this concept of the good. It is not enough that there are men with power who want honesty. They would have to work towards that honesty, in a society with many perverse incentives to undermine that honesty and with no direct reward for such a thing.

Wherever law exists, it is an institution. There is a court, there are edicts and policies, there are officers, and there are roles of the accused and the accuser. Whatever form they take, they are always an institution. Law is not the primary institution, but its neutrality makes it a focal point for understanding other institutions. That is, if institutions were independent of the law, they would in some way become a law unto themselves in their own domain. The authority of the law proper is such that this delegation of authority to institutions with no proper legal authority can be revoked at any time, but there would be no getting around law's existence for the institutions. It is this which binds institutions to imperium indirectly, rather than institutions answering directly to imperium or a primordial will asserting that institutions should exist as anything at all. Institutions may choose to answer to imperium directly and base their policies and acceptance of law on that, or they may choose another source to justify their laws and adherence to alien laws. What none of them can do is suggest that there is no such thing as law or that the concept is inadmissible. If this is done, an ersatz law of dubious quality is inserted in its place. Once established, law does not go away because we wish it were different. The chain of causal events from Roman law to today is known to any legal scholar and this knowledge is expected. The long history of law, and the antecedents for Roman law which are known, is part of how this concept has value in society and can be seen as neutral. The society of the early 21st century is an inheritor of the long history of law, the transfer of legal authority from one polity to another, the chain of succession allowing any of this to be accepted. One does not declare a "year zero" to abrogate all hitherto existing law without consequences. It is possible to declare a revolution that alters the law code drastically and creates a new normal, but the precedent of history always lurks ominously. It reminds humanity, whatever it accomplishes, that once upon a time, it did this thing. The abuses the law enacted and enthusiastically encouraged against the people of the world have all been documented, and no apology can revoke what was done. We may claim that we as human beings moved on and recognize that the past was bad, but there is not merely a feeling in our bones or a vague aspersion, but a historical record. The lawyers are perfectly aware that they do evil every day as is the nature of their profession, and whether they care about that is irrelevant. They may protest and say they are innocent before proven guilty, but we have always known and they know that the law of the world is guilty until proven innocent, however offensive that is to legal sense. Again, history has judged, and humanity has been given far too many presumptions of innocence that it never deserved in the first place, having known well what they were when the first ritual sacrifice began. Insanity may be a defense in legal codes - and it is a defense that would never be used unless the entire trial is to be turned into a farce - but in the law of the world, being insane or retarded does not exonerate anyone. The law of the world damns every single member of the human race for what the race has done collectively, even if many of the humans found ritual sacrifice revolting. If they protested, the ritual sacrifice would be shown to their faces by its partisans, to drive home the point that this torture does not go away. Law can and should forbid this, but it conspicuously has not, and law has always covered for this ritual sacrifice. The reasons why are obvious - if the ritual sacrifice that birthed the human race were called what it was, and the proper judgement were made, humanity would lose all legitimate claims to anything. Guilt would be stamped at conception on every human that ever lived or will live, and no technology or magical fix changes this. It is easy enough for someone who isn't being sacrificed to say that what is happening isn't happening, and every time they do so, they dig a deeper hole for the whole human race by their action. There are those who truly do try to ameliorate this ritual, because they see where this leads, but no good deed undoes the legacy of what humanity did and what it is. Even if the ritual were abated for a time, all this means for the partisans of ritual sacrifice is that the herd and the individual cattle are being fattened, so that the next sacrifice will deliver an improved quality of blood, toil, and torture. The human race is guilty. That judgement has already been passed, and humanity in the 21st century has already shown it cares not. The difference now is that there will be no more pretending about what humanity is and what it does, and it is no longer possible to suggest that there was a silver lining or redemption. That illusion was permissible in the past because most of humanity had little to do with each other, and did not share in any "human" project that was united by any law or institutional authority. It might have been possible to believe that global institutions were vehicles to truly change this condition, or at least alter it enough so that the torture were minimized, and some productive or good quality of humanity would be promoted for its own sake or because doing so would make this world a better place, and the lives of all humanity or even just those not damned of the lowest class would improve. The lowest class, as a rule, was always written off, and the idea of our conditions improving one iota brings shrieks of absolute horror to the partisans of torture who know what such a fate would mean.

As an institution and a type of technology, law is overwhelmingly concerned with the technological interest - in most of human history, the commoners and the commons. Aristocrats keep for themselves their own concept of justice, right, and what should rule this world. Their stake in the law has been the topic of much of this writing, to excoriate the bastards who eagerly produced this hellish world I describe. If the aristocrat has successfully co-opted the state and institutions, as they have been able to do for most of human history, they know the law is something they freely scoff at, and throw this fact in our faces every day of their fetid existence. The reality for the aristocrat is that the law is not "theirs" or a thing they even pretend to want. The law and property and the concept of rights that property entails are both unwelcome conditions for aristocracy. Aristocracy's ideal is to subsume all property, rights, technology, knowledge, law, spiritual authority, and ultimately the very bodies and all symbols that exist in society, into their preferred abstractions and narratives, and construct for itself a world apart. The inverse of two worlds forever apart was seized upon by aristocracy from the outset. For us in the lowest class, two worlds forever apart is a condition we have come to accept as the best possible case - if they will never allow us in their society and their society is nothing but enclosure, then our only course of action is to claw back whatever part of the world we can so that life is possible, and there is anything at all to salvage from this travesty. For aristocracy, the world apart for them is advertised and presented as Heaven on Earth, paradise, and the great Secret of Secrets that only their vaunted wisdom and power can attain. It is well known aristocracy has always considered itself a distinct race from the human race, while at the same proclaiming that they are the human spirit and all of us are in some way bound to this beast. The latter claim is made not because the aristocracy want you to believe that you and them are the same, but because law, technology, and the need to subsume the commoners who hold money, technology, and a share of society's wealth, required aristocracy to promote the fiction of political and legal equality. In practice, aristocracy carves for itself special privileges which have no basis in any law or property and serve no purpose other than to remind the rest of us "life is unfair", even though nature and the world didn't give to these people any privilege or power to do this as a just-so story. Every time such sayings are uttered, and every time the legal privileges of aristocracy are invoked, it is invariably a gross transgression of any decency and a thing serving no purpose, even if the state of exception is one that a reasonable person would consider justified for some purpose that the law or institutions cannot cover. The Roman dictator for example was a constitutional office that granted to one man this exception to cut through the morass of law and policy and property to do something that answered an emergency. This is what a dictator would have to do to respond to emergencies that existing law cannot, and usually these emergencies involved internal disputes over property which were a frequent problem with the republic. By making the state of exception permanent and removing the virtues expected of a dictator to actually dictate let alone dictate for some purpose, the eugenic creed created a permanent exception of the most foul sort, always used for the eugenic creed and nothing else. The state of exception as it exists under the eugenic creed cannot be used for any purpose but eugenics and more eugenics. If it were used for any other purpose, it would spark controversy; and by doing so, for any purpose other than eugenics, the state is paralyzed, and "natural law" asserts that only eugenics is possible. This is the desired end state of the law and the polity for aristocracy, and all that resists it is everyone and everything else in the society seeing how utterly pointless such a society is, and how valueless and decrepit it has made everything around us. The idea that the aristocracy "needs" law, or has done anything to utilize law as its preferred instrument, does not understand where aristocracy derives its power and how it has ruled up to today. The most that can be said is that aristocracy has preferred law so long as law carves out very conspicuous exceptions that effectively make the law a joke when aristocracy makes its will clear, and the law serves a function of social control against the interest who is very much in tune with law and what it provides.

The proprietors do not need any "law" to justify their property claims. The basis for their property claims is prior to law, and a thing that is diametrically opposed to law as an institution. When law regards property, law is conceding its domain to something that is very alien to law. What the proprietor sees in law is a menace to avoid at all costs, but a machine which existed outside of it and a condition it must abide. Among the few values the aristocracy sees in law is that it constrains their subordinate proprietors and cows them. Aristocracy does not directly serve as lawyers and jurists, for there are too few aristocrats to adjudicate cases, and if the aristocrat is seen working at all, this toil is anathema to what the aristocrat wanted. The task of routine legal work falls onto the commoners, who are the interest in the great circle aristocracy defined that has the most to do with law and the machinery law entails. These commoners are naturally among the most favored of the commoners, and they are commoners who understand most of all what society really is and their function within it; and so, the lawyers do not identify themselves as "common stock" with the other producers, even if by social convention and law they are commoners in every relevant sense and have no aristocratic privilege or blood, nor title to any property that is not subject to the law. In practice, every commoner with the means to be a lawyer or professional holds some property and so what is written about the proprietors would apply to them as well. The best description of the difference between a "full proprietor" and "producer proprietor" is the distinction between the sword nobility and robe nobility of France's ancien regime. This divide is rebranded in numerous ways - the haute bourgeois against the petty bourgeois, the robber barons or oligarchs against "good capitalists" and the lower orders of industrial capital, high ranking technocrat administrators with degrees and uniforms against middle and lower management. The reproduction of this archetype goes back to ancient times and it is reproduced in miniature in places that are beneath the notice of formal class analysis. It is the treatment of the law and their relation to it which is the common element - or, their stance towards the institutions. The favored class, whatever it is in that time, favors the status quo of institutions which serve their interest. That status quo itself changes, and it is not locked in that the proprietors of a given designation will march in lockstep. The sword nobility generally favored the feudal order of old Europe and detested lawyers and scientists taking unearned legitimacy, and using that unearned legitimacy to make themselves rich by outright theft of Church and noble property. There were those of the sword nobility who broke ranks with this interest, as feudal regimes are populated by men who are like rats, but there was enough shared self-interest from the old order to find the new order repugnant to every sense they held. For the divide between big capitalists - the pre-eminent firms of the producers - and the small capitalists, it must be first understood that both of these groups were by law and custom commoners and nothing they held constituted a noble title of any worth to 19th century Europe or Britain. Because Britain has an existing aristocracy and nobility, the division between those who hold a peerage and those who did not is something we can trace in proper history. It is very easy to mash up history in narratives, and it is not my purpose here to re-litigate each of those histories. We can find reproduction of this struggle in places high and low, and in the smallest area. Under siege, the subjects can fight over a lump of horseflesh. The house slaves will compete for standing over the smallest things, so long as they are not field slaves. Each reproduction is not morally identical, for it occurs in a very different niche with very different expectation of those who inhabit it. The sword nobility would be aghast at the idea that they share anything in common with the aristocracy of capital that displaced them; and yet, the behavior of the robber barons who became technocratic oligarchs, who understood their future was with institutional control of science and intelligence agencies, is in every way a function of the state and the order, and their behavior became like the most repressive acts of the conservative order the sword nobility represented - all of the censorship, brutalization, and untrammeled state power now carried out in the dubious name of "liberty" and the liberal ideas of the Enlightenment, which the robber barons understood and genuinely believed were still valid. A robber baron who fancied himself like the kings of old was a damned fool who squandered his position needlessly, and perhaps such men were kept around as the court jesters of the aristocracy of capital. The smart men who won out knew their favored allies weren't fellow capitalists, but technical workers, university experts, diplomatic policy hands, and as always, the priests and functions of aristocracy which always lurk to manipulate the halls of power, in all times and places humans have been able to do so. Proprietors only know solidarity when it suits them, and that solidarity is a thing outside of the law and against the law. No law, whether it is the law of men or a law of nature derived from science, compels any class unity of the proprietors, and so far as the capitalists were proprietors, there was no class unity on the basis of wealth as property. There was only an implied unity on the basis of capital, and capital properly understood is the domain not of the proprietors but of technology and the producers. It is this concept of capital, and its likenesses throughout human history, that best illustrates why law is relevant.

For the proprietors, the law which does bind them to their property and to each other is personal honor and merit. This carried over to the commoners who were in capitalist society property-holders, and it carries over to the technocratic settlement of the 20th century in an altered form. Nothing prevents a technocrat of today from being a man or woman for whom personal honor is important. Eugenics relied both on appeals to this personal honor as something that could be passed by heredity, and part of the proprietor's core convictions and function has been to pass that honor and property to their descendants. Eugenics simultaneously subverted all concepts of honor, so they would be subordinated to the eugenic creed above all, and revelled in every transgression against honor and marking only the truest believers in the eugenic creed as men and women allowed to retain a shred of honor. Eugenics could not do this simply by asserting that it can and therefore it would. It did not possess a technology which possessed an unknowable sorcery to extract this honor and make a program of insinuations, taboos, and humiliations a fait accompli. The mechanisms that made this possible today are the reason I am writing these books, and so as we continue, this is another thing I invite the reader to consider in all that I have written and will continue to write. They are not reducible to any core other than the conceits of aristocracy in total, and even if they are reduced to this, turning the primordial will to destroy honor into a machine capable of doing that in reality is not a trivial process or one whose steps can be bypassed or abstracted away.

The concept of rights, legal or otherwise, are entirely a matter of personal honor, and so they make sense to the proprietors' sense of law and what would come to pass. Legal rights - and this includes the right to a speedy trial or any due process - are property that is a personal matter, and that property is not a fiction to be abrogated or legislated. Those with rights will fight for them and die for them, even if their rights are no more than an assertion with no legal standing. Right at a basic level is might and the property might can win. The law only recognizes those rights as things that existed prior to the establishment, or that the establishment of the law was the same as the establishment of property-holders and their interest. Nowhere does the law itself uphold any right whatsoever, as if rights were given by a piece of paper or technocratic jargon asserting they exist as a convenient fiction. Law can always take away those rights, and law as an institution and those who hold the law have a built-in incentive to abrogate all rights. For law, it is the procedure and its worthwhile meaning that is valued, rather than any right that anyone in the society asserts to make the law valid. Since the men who write laws almost always hold some form of property, in their person or as part of a collective, law tends to recognize readily that property and those rights it deems suitable for its task. Law also recognizes that those who have rights, whether this was a condition of the society that the makers of the state wished to defend or a condition they accepted as the status quo, do not give up those rights easily, and certainly don't give up those rights because some interpretation of law - and a facile interpretation of law that violates reality as the eugenic creed asserts violently and against all interest - used wordplay to say you are now something else. If it becomes law to take away that which was already believed to be the status quo, the law recognizes it will back this edict by force and has declared all who disagree to be outlaws - often without any trial, but instead by some technocratic ruling over crimes of Being at the Supreme Court. Those rights, legal, political, social, or whatever they may be, are valued not because a law says on the paper that they're a thing, but because they were valued for reasons outside of the law entirely. What the law says of them is only relevant so far as the law itself is valued and has force. If the law must assert violently against rights that human beings have already made clear are a reason why they tolerate this society at all, and does so with the most spurious pretexts and for the most foul cause as eugenics always has been, the law already has decided that it desires a fight for its own sake, and so its armies of lawyers are not interested in truth or appearing neutral. They want lawfare, and oh boy, they got it. This, of course, does not give to "rights" any superior moral status or any legal worth of their own. The law scoffs at this, and the law being what it is, someone does not simply squeal about their rights to make the law bend. That is not how the long history of law and the legacy of its brutality was able to hold any of the value it does. The law itself has implied rights for it is an institution made by people and holds its own property. It is against law for the judge to make the law's rights a personal matter, for himself or for the court collectively, because by convention, law scoffs at all such rights, and has pre-emptively asserted that it wields a power that regulates the whole world. The law gets to decide on its terms what rights are relevant for legal proceedings, and the law has always held in reserve the option of abrogating all such things and declaring everything you know to be a lie. The law, if it wanted to, can say up is down, men are women, and Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. This is not the result of intrigues or corruption of any sort. It is a power of the law that the lawgivers and the class whom law most concerns can defend for their own purposes, and it is a power of the law alone. Even if intrigues decided the law, the law is accountable only to itself by its own logic. The law only has itself to blame, and if lawyers make such fickle excuses, they undermine the law more than they would with the most brazen stamping on a human face they have ever undertaken. The law makes no excuses for the terror.

We look then at the attitude of the commoners generally - the cogs in the machine, the clerks, who have no great honor to defend, and who have no hope of defending that honor against those whose possessions make clear who will win that battle. In that situation, personal honor means nothing. If someone is a "pure producer" - a "pure capitalist" or "pure technical worker", of the ideal form - honor is not just irrelevant, but anathema to everything they do. A scurrilous lack of honor is often ascribed to the lowest class, or to the working class of labor proper and thus to democracy. That is, democracy is presumed to be filled with people who will slit your throat for pennies. This is not merely a projection of aristocratic vice and backstabbing onto the lower classes. It is not the internecine conflict of the proprietors, because as much as feudal miscreants are looking out for themselves, a conspicuous disdain for personal honor would be seen by every proprietor as a danger not only to themselves, but everything they could ever possibly be. There comes a point where even the feudal rat has to ask if they are the asshole, or if their mentality and proclivity - if property itself - is worth doing that to themselves and to the world. The commons, the technocrat, is the proper origin of this proclivity, which aristocracy adopts as its own since they see the utility of such scurrilous behavior. We already saw in the except from Republic how the aristocracy views the grubbiness of the common producers, whose interest in commerce and wealth celebrates this lack of reputation. In that assessment, our old friend Plato is entirely correct and would have seen this play out in his lifetime, and it is a tendency that he didn't have to pull out of his ass. Is this merely a proclivity which happened because it was expedient for the producers to not only disregard honor, but to seek the destruction of personal honor? There are many things happening here. First is the tendency of the technocrat that favors demarchy, or the rule of the public as a whole, that I wrote of earlier. That tendency arose because a general theory of technology was the commoner's path to success in the circle of life. There is also the noted tendency from the prior book in economic thought, where intelligence would seek the shortest route to success if it were optimized for rational problem solving. Such a strategy leaves no room for personal honor. Yet, if we are to view honor as a commodity to be managed like anything else in economics, the relevance of this personal honor is still known, and this honor is not merely a projection or a symbol. Such projection is not in the commoners' interests, and they know that such a facile excuse would not pass their own evaluation of the situation. The commoners - who are, even as low ranking producers with little stake, still very miniscule proprietors who would understand what property is and so would be acutely aware of personal honor - do not need a theory to tell them how to calculate honor and sell it off so shamelessly. If anything, the commoner, being acutely aware of his precarious position, would place more value on honor and integrity than his superiors and inferiors. It is for the middle class that the question of honor as an intellectual matter to be judged by reason would be very relevant, because his position is entirely premised on the honorability of what he does possess - his intelligence and technology. It is here where the law and the abuse of it makes clear the tendencies of the producer class, or the "middle" class.

Law being institutional is also technological. It is this which grants to law its hold over the producers most of all, and the primary reason why law codes have really existed - that it is a way of regulating the technological interest in human society. This regulation includes regulation of the producers of each other, and this is the primary purpose and the primary beneficary of the law as an institution. Lawyers certainly like having a job, and lawyers are drawn from the commons rather than the proprietors who do not need law or the aristocracy which scoffs at law. The requirement of both social standing and an expertise in technology and technical knowledge effectively bars the working class and lowest class from ever becoming lawyers or even coming anywhere near legal standing of their own, should the law fulfill its function for the middle class for whom it is created and whom it polices. Law is, on the surface, an internal affair of the middle class - of the producers or the commons as I have designated them.

Why does this institution exist in any way that it does, with an elaborate code and ritual particular to it? If law were decided by the proprietors, it would be a series of tribunals and Star Chambers with obviously rigged outcomes to protect the high ranks of the proprietors. In all of the law courts hitherto known, the law was laid down with clear exceptions and carve-outs for aristocracy and property, and to this day it upholds noble privileges and has been both disinterested at any sort of social leveling, and a malformed effort at imposing social leveling by the letter, spirit, and rulings of the law. The biases and vices of the producers and the middle class are inherent in the design of law, and this is usually because the lawyers and jurists at one time had to consider themselves part of the commons, with no special distinction for the purposes of the law. An aristocratic patrician claiming descent from the gods might have invoked his religious power, but this very pointedly did not grant any legal privileges beyond those the patricians specifically declared as their role in society. The aristocratic role in Roman society had nothing to do with the law code, aside from the rituals and curses that were valued by the superstitious Romans for reasons that were not themselves legally binding. No one believed that when Nerva was deified that he literally became a god whose existence could be described with technical, legal language, and no one believed that the magic substance of the patricians could be legally and technologically described. If that happened, it would subvert the magical charade aristocracy has always invoked.

The basis of the law as something recognizable - the thing that grants to it the appearance of neutrality - is that it technological at its core. The language of the law is precise. The interpretations of the law may only be played with in prescribed manners, and the law is interpreted by lawyers and the officers of the court, rather than an assertion that the gods or the proprietors can openly and brazenly declare that the law doesn't say what it says or mean anything that it has meant up to the present. This expectation becomes precedent, which is looked up, researched, and precedents which are recorded and ruled on are things that law codes do not change lightly. If a precedent is overturned at the highest level of law, this is seen as a matter caused by political machinations rather than the law working mechanically to "correct itself". If the spirit of the law is taken literally, then Big Brother could never have made a false statement in His entire existence, and any such irregularities would have to be corrected, or a suitable excuse must be given to claim that the law has now been revised to meet its "true spirit", and so mistakes of the past are retconned and declared irrelevant. If the mistakes of overturned precedent are brought up, there must be an explanation why the precedent's overturning means the original basis of the law is still valid, and was always valid during the time where the old precedent stood. The system must be right enough in that sense to correct itself, even though everyone knows the rulings changed because the political leadership from on high decided it should change. This political leadership is not inherently apart from the class to whom the law pertains, for the commoners who are lawyers have no intrinsic barrier to entering political life. This would be, even in ancient times, the expectation - that men of means could rise from common stock to become soldiers, generals, orators, jurists, and if they understood what the system was, they could gain status by playing ball. New men or novus homo were not a thing to be stamped out violently, so long as there weren't too many of them and the legacy leading families still held the most valuable cards. At some point, those legacy families were themselves new, and the oldest of the families would have had to marry their sons and daughters to new men or women who met standards that were not trivial. For a patriarchal society, women did not count towards the legacy families, but they would still have come from legacy families themselves, and finding "new women" was a favorite past-time of a Roman noble, as many women understood then as they knew now that sleeping your way up the ladder is a far better game than honesty and anything we would consider useful or productive or good. The commoners do not exhibit any more or less avarice, cruelty, or all of the other traits that another class would show. For the commoners, it is the law which is the basis of technology's relevance, and so it is the law that makes commerce, trade, industry, and the domain of the producers relevant politically. Without the law, all of the technology of the commoners is fair game for the other classes, and there is nothing to hold on to. They would be little better than the laborers that the commons proper has always scorned and ridiculed as simps or beasts of burden. Without law, the commoners don't have much claim to anything at all. Technology by the merit and moral worth of its existence is not worth anything at all. It must be possessed and utilized, and sadly, humans learned to alienate possession from utility as a management strategy. The commoners are not the originators of this idea - a commoner as much as anyone appreciates possession and making use of the technology commanded, for the producer is not in reality a "pure, abstract producer" or an "abstract capitalist". The commoner is never an abstraction at all, and that is something the commoner is more acutely aware of than anyone else - that the entire class division of aristocracy we have concerned ourselves with is their fiction, which the commoner had to abide regardless of any worth of self-evident value it suggested. In another world, or a non-human society better than this, the commons would not have been set against itself and against all other interests, and law would reflect that reality instead of the reality we live in. But, in the conditions where humanity set down its law codes, aristocracy and property held a knife at everyone's throats for centuries, and the commoners only had a nascent technological command, which they already understood was opposed to the great mass of laboring humanity and the great mass of alien nations and tribes that were outside of their society completely. The barren world of monopoly capitalism was not a uniquely deplorable condition. Such barrenness has been for the commons, to say nothing of the subordinated classes, the default state of the human race, and monopoly capitalism was merely more conscious of what it could enclose and the potential for a final and total enclosure. That enclosure is among the reasons I wrote these books, though I believe that enclosure itself is not the villain - merely one of the conditions of Galton's eugenics, which a eugenist would if they were ever honest or speaking to someone who is part of the club, would freely admit.

Nothing about the law mandates that the law would have a right to command all commerce, as it it were the property of lawyers alone. For most of history, this idea did not make sense to the law, which primarily concerned life and death. The commoners understood the law as the arena where their specialty gave them some say in the rulings, if not the majority say by virtue of being those who commanded commerce, which the state and the society needed in order to make real any greater aims of empire. Commerce and law are very different concerns, but if the commons were to have anything, it was through the law, because their proprietary claims would not withstand untrammeled competition from the largest proprietors, and everyone at the time knew it. Why would the law not just assert the will of the proprietors who were dominant? The simple reason is that the producers, however much the rulers believe they can be mind controlled, are never mind controlled by an assertion alone. Any effective mind control - any thoroughgoing education that pervades the whole society - would be large enough that the commoners would become the teachers and hold a stake in administering education. There were too few aristocrats and the interest of aristocracy is that education would remain a limited quality for their class. Every other class was to receive the most denuded education possible, beyond the wildest dream of the proprietors whose chief aim was to beat, cajole, humiliate, and denigrate that which they deemed beneath them and that alone. It is the aristocrat who can take this degradation to its highest level, and only under the eugenic creed - with technology and guilty commoner collaborators prominent in the eugenist alliance - did this actually happen. Regardless of the conceits of aristocracy or property, the truth is that commoners have both the means to disobey and a lot of reasons why they would defend the stake they do possess in society - their commerce, which is their technological possession and know-how which is elevated above ordinary labor. This technology may be as low as the artisan's skill and specialized toolset to managers commanding large firms of technology, and includes many of the educated professions which are "quasi-aristocratic", like the professors, the educators, the doctors, and many roles that commoners could fill of spiritual and social significance, since the aristocracy's spiritual monopoly didn't actually hold the allure or power it was presumed to hold. All of the aristocracy's vaunted signifiers were themselves technology, as were the proprietor's weapons and the thing that gives legitimacy to any property deed. And so, the commoners who become lawyers, but who don't count themselves as among the proprietor nobles in that function alone, have an ability to legitimize the upper two classes, and this is a choice of the commoners. They can, and in many situations have, refused this choice, or altered the choice to one that is more amenable to them, so far as they could. If that didn't happen, aristocracy would have truly held all cards and there would be no pretense it could have been any other way. That world has a predictable and miserable outcome. Even if the aristocracy did aspire to that and usually succeed at controlling the fate of the world, it always had to do so through placating the commoners, their coinage, and the financial instruments which regulated commerce. So too are merchants and bankers drawn from the commons in their proper interests and designation. A banker who takes on aristocratic functions and status often champions himself not as the best friend of his fellow aristocrats, but as a man of the people who will deliver free grain, free land, and free stuff, if only all power were invested in him. This is a useful way for aristocrats to carry out their internecine struggle with the support of large factions of the monied commoners "fighting for their man". No aristocrat would be truly big unless he had the luxury jet of amenities - a long list of clients receiving patronage and swearing fealty, which granted to the lord something that mere slaves could never provide.

Law and the abuse thereof provide a vehicle for realizing a commonwealth - the view of all the world as a thing to be commanded by technology in the hands of intelligence, which itself is a particular type of technology. In principle, intelligence could be commanded by any other technology deemed virtuous, and so intelligence could be replaced in the law by virtue, money, capital, philosophical ethics, a technological conception of the primordial will and light as an agent or "body thetan", or some other technological thing that is the source of the fetish for technology. The commodity was Marx's choice for his deconstruction of capital because it described in his view the best available comparison with what capital really was and what resulted from the thing that was most visibly contested in markets. The belief in any such fetish is one that is sensical because the law would require some baseline thing to compare against to describe a whole system that is technological in nature. If that one thing is a body of knowledge that is lumped together as a singular reference point - the university, as it would turn out to be - then the oneness of that thing is still necessary to proceed. No body of law can be internally inconsistent or contradictory, and the law as mentioned is singular. It does not brook competing legal theories. This is not so for polities which exist alongside each other and can overlap in their spatial and technological domains, so long as someone squares the circle of serving two masters. While a social organization or institution can only have one executive that meaningfully executes, political formations by themselves can be rife with interests and contradictions which only coexist when people who hate each other intensely and have reasons to oppose each other collude for some purpose. This is not so with the law. Politics is conspiratorial, but there is no such thing as a "legal conspiracy" that the judge can safely wink and nod at without throwing the enterprise of law in jeopardy. Conspiracy is by definition an illegal act, and the presumed neutrality of law is subverted if there in a specific exemption to say "the rules don't matter when super special people insinuate anything is anything". This is a peculiar quality of the law. Religion revels in occultism, and armies face a chronic question of discipline and loyalty, especially when feuding generals and warlords look out for number one - themselves - when the going gets tough and there is no sense staying with a losing side. The law and the interest of the commons to utilize it cannot tolerate this for a moment. It is the commoners who are most wary of conspiracy. Hilariously, it is also the commoners who are most likely to foment conspiracies, but this is known to be an illegal act and so the commoners must be at least a little sneaky about these things. Mafias, for all of the mystique, are never nearly as sneaky as they would like to tell you. Our associate Vinnie from before has likely figured out that subtle hints are not very helpful, but he has to lie because of the odiousness of what he does, even if everyone knows it is a lie. This is not a problem for Vinnie and his organization, and in some way, Vinnie is even stronger if it is known he can operate with a free hand in spite of the stated law. The lowest class is probably the only class that actually values honesty for its own sake, being such fools and simps to believe a race of liars like humans will ever cease their second-favorite racial past-time. This is less because the lowest class possesses some virtue, and more because, in purified form, they're not very good at lying and have nothing to lie with. The lowest class only has the recourse of being effectively beneath the law and beneath notice, and in most eras of history, where he exists he is something others go out of their way to ignore; and so a fool's wisdom of doing nothing at all is the best occulting available to him, and this would in better times suit everyone well enough for life to continue more or less undisturbed. In any event, the lowest class sees correctly the rank hypocrisy in every facet of the law, and the man of the lowest class has the deepest grudge and enmity towards the commoners who are made out, in their part of the tripartite formation, to be the High, the aristocracy of low cunning that seems to think only of grasping for the next fad or ripoff.

These qualities give to the law its focus on the commoners. This does not mean the commoners make the law for themselves. Government by the people, of the people, for the people - which has always really meant the interest of the commons and the technological interest - is a rarity on this Earth, and it is a rarity which is presently being snuffed out. Even if it persists as a phantom, by the 21st century, eugenics and its advance has made such a thing unrecognizable as the thing Lincoln referred to, that he was willing to go to war to preserve for its own sake rather than as a cynical ploy to be liked or "get ahead". There is a reason why this idea did hold currency in the United States, and continued to do so even when it was clear the republic was functionally a farce since the 1930s. Even when the law is a thing held against the commons, it is first of all a vehicle to discipline the commons above all. The commoners fear the law and value the law uniquely among all interests of humanity, and this is not because of a crass fear or intimidation or sleight-of-hand. It is also not because the middle class are the only class with moral or ethical inclinations to do the right thing - anyone could do that, and more often than not, the commoners are disinterested in any sense of moral right or justice as our old friend Plato would see it. A reason for this reverence for law and its forms is because the commoners are quite aware of the alternatives on offer. Despotism is no friend of the commoner even in the best of cases, and very likely the alternative to political freedom - a freedom that was never wholly facile, even today - was slavery, and everyone knew what slavery meant and why it was such a shitty condition. It is even shittier for those who aspired to be something and had the means and knowledge to see that their condition did not have to be this shit given to them by the sovereign to the subject. The second is that, regardless of the alternatives being bad or good, the law was there and familiar, and spoke to the commoners in technological language their inclination towards the world already accepted. A naive commoner would believe, with or without common sense caveats, that the law exists for a purpose, because this is both cheaper and likely to lead to a better world than doing the thing that is highly arbitrary or dictated by some priestly conspiracy and superstition. The law is written in a way that is to nearly everyone sensical enough on the face of it. The dirty implications of the law, and the way it is routinely abused - I have mentioned in the past how every article in the US Bill of Rights has been in some way bastardized and turned into its diametric opposite, all within the precedent and expectation of law and thrown in the face of the subjects - only lead the commoner to believe that the law is nonsensical and that cleaning up and rationalizing a clearly untenable law code would be the correct course of action. On the surface, this seems reasonable enough. There is no reason such brazen violations of the Constitution and common legal understandings - for example, saying murder is, you know, bad - would be given any sacrosanctity if reasonable and intelligent people wrote the laws to be functional. All of the brazen abrogations of legal rights in the United States are deliberate and have been embraced by large sectors of the commons who believe that tyranny towards the dispossessed is more just and valuable to them than the promise of fairness or anything that is workable. The outlandish punishments provide to the commons both slave labor and the employment of social services which manage the slave stock and degrade those who did not get on the technocratic lifeboat. The commoners, now buying into all of the technocratic shibboleths and knowing nothing else that is serious, find it easy to scorn and hate their social inferiors, who the education system marked into their caste of civic worth since childhood. The teachers, who are drawn from common stock in most cases, revel in promoting their own values and the values of their interest over the interest of society, or even the interest of the commoners collectively. The society of the commoners was utterly betrayed, and the commoners have no one to blame in the end but themselves, as so many of them were either full-throated participants in this, or enablers who allowed it to happen for the most fickle reasons. They can only blame the proprietors' influence or the machinations of aristocratic thought leaders so much, when we consider what the aristocracy of the 21st century really is. The great genius of the aristocracy, and this is not purely a question of eugenics, is that they were able to weaponize the law and the tendencies of technology most effectively on the middle class, who were given the threat of penury or the status of retarded if they doth protest too much.

Anything outside of the law is, for the purposes of the law, an inadmissible fact until the law has approved the evidence. It is therefore impossible for the law to be changed "from without" in a fundamental way that challenges law. Any new law imposed by politics or some working in the world would be reconciled with the existing law. It is the law and the law alone which is the true "vampire squid" assimilating all knowledge, technology, and systems into it. The empire suggests its lifeblood, the primordial will its true intent and purpose, but the law once established is a beast unto itself with its own characteristics. When sufficiently advanced, the law's command of technology overrides the interests of property in the older sense and will, and it is technology alone and those who champion the interest that will dictate what law is, what it is does, and what it will assimilate. All of the spiritual, moral, or religious basis for labor and thus everything that constitutes the whole society, of which the entire political is a part and the law is a smaller part, are fed into the beast named "Law", and law would rightly be unable to do anything else. If the law has no judgement to make on a matter, it either has deliberately delegated something to an inferior law or it is admitting that it has no power over something within its domain. The latter is unforgivable - it will remain a constant gaping hole in the law's value and power to convince anyone that it would be followed. For the former, it is always an inferior law that the law delegates to, rather than the anonymous inertia of the world or the subjects. If anonymous inertia is the delegated authority, then a type of natural law is asserted necessarily so that law does not abrogate what it does. This natural law is the most inferior of all laws, and it is only demonstrated by science, whether that is formal science or common sense, which we will write on in a moment.

If law is to be changed from within, it only changes from something internal to it - "internal contradictions" to borrow a bad Germanic phrase that Marx inherits and applied to the material world and historical materialism. Nothing true in the world is "moved by contradictions", and proper law detests rightly contradiction for all of the reasons we should expect. Insinuating that such contradiction exists "in nature" is such a bastardization of sense that such insolence should and would be laughed out of any serious court and any deliberation that is worthwhile. Such language is the Marxist version of saying "shut up, retard" and should be interpreted as such, with all of the malice a Marxist has ever shown to the people invoked by this asinine saying of theirs. Marx did not invent this or the terrible practice of lawfare, as if he were a unique malevolence. It was something inherent to law itself, and the exploit has been known since Antiquity in writing. Humanity has always acted on this because the human loves placing prey in the eternal no-win scenario, which "contradiction" always creates.

There is one thing within law that is not contradictory, but that it has to abide - that social agents, regardless of whether they are political agents or subjects treated as flotsam, will act against the law if the law truly violates them, or the law creates this double-bind and no-win scenario as a trap. The world of the past 100 years is a world of endless traps in all areas of society, intended to cajole, berate, and destroy as quickly as possible those selected to die and revel in the thrill of torture. This has all been lawful and in the spirit of the law, for the intent of the law and for the holders of the law. Every lawyer knows better than me the cruelty and sadism inherent in the practice and sees not a thing wrong with it, and laughs at the idea that the damned of the Earth were ever going to be anything but animals to be put down. The law has many times made its own criminals, and if no criminals existed, there would be an impulse in law to make some, if only so the lawyers have something to do. This it has done, though it is not necessary, and if too many are sacrificed, it is not merely a matter of the docket creating an unsolvable case load. Too many people being disposed too quickly, without the technology to suppress them by force, leads to those people not only seeing the law as a menace to scoff at and avoid, but as something which must be opposed at all costs. In the past 100 years, this has been fully intended, so that those the law selected to die will be goaded to attack. It has been the Fabian strategy of the British Empire to "wait out" those selected to die until they "show what they really are" after a contrived society sets them up to fail the marshmallow test and prove the eugenic creed after designing the whole society to uphold the creed with maximal, overt violence, always taking a mile for every legal inch given. The law grants to eugenics this impunity in the spirit of the law, for the middle class - and I remind the reader that the core and most enthusastic and active membership of the eugenic creed is drawn from the middle class and technical workers, who see eugenics as something aligned with their race and their technology, which they glorify in the law codes they have preferred.

This in itself means nothing. Scofflaws can violate the law as much as they like, but the terror of the deed means nothing. Law laughs at impudent dogs who believe that they can change the law by thought alone. If the law worked that way, it would not mean anything, but law is very relevant to everyone who would contest it in the way that it has been contested. There is not a workable imperial strategy or any going concern today which would not inherit large parts of the law and our concepts of it, even if it is done without being conscious of it. That is the insidiousness of law in human society, and it is an insidiousness that is expected and in many ways beneficial for the niche humanity exists in. A sense that the law is everywhere and Big Brother is watching you is what makes the law the law. If the law was just a suggestion or some words that looked nice, it would be a laughingstock, but that is never what the law is. All of the words of the law have weight, even when the law decides doublethink is the rule of the day and "Oceania has no law". There are no accidents and half-measures. The past 100 years have made that painfully clear and followed to the letter everything Law entailed - and that has mostly meant the cruelty and malice of Law rather than the parts most of us would consider good. We live entirely at the mercy of Law. It is an unfortunately reality that Law became nothing but an arm of Eugenics, but the facade of law remains and the vestiges of its meaning and value persist in spite of eugenics clamoring to abolish all legal restraints to it. Too many interested parties, in spite of eugenics' placement at the apex of the law of the past 100 years, have no reason to go along with eugenics. Yet, the law being what it is, not one act of legal activism can undo the law and that which sits at its apex. The rulings in favor of eugenics are not just settled law, but were always in the spirit and precedent of the human race. This is what humans really are, and there was never an "other world" where eugenics was not baked into the human experience. It would not have been so for another race, a better race, but humans in particular chose this, and humans were always guilty. Eugenics could take advantage of a potential law always held. It was never a necessity or inevitability that law "had" to expand in the worst way possible and its useful value stripped away completely. An effective law code would still be an invasive one - the law has no concept that privacy has any value whatsoever or that every iota of existence wouldn't be legislated, if law is to be worth a damn. It was a choice of eugenics to destroy any personal agency that would have been delegated to, replacing it with the insidious word "personal responsibility" in a situation which primes the subject to be purely reactive flotsam. The law will never be defeated by struggle or moved by this struggle. It merely rearranges the law to something agentur deem more useful for them, and this is a trivial concern for what we fear from the law. Those who cajole history in this way are conscious of what they did to us, and they are guilty and remorseless.

If scoffing the law means nothing, then there remains one way - the law, by its reasoning, notices its own condition is changeable as any institution is, and its agents are instructed to do so "as if by nature". This seems like a way in which history can move by its processes, and by law, there can only be one strand of historical progress. History as a legal fact, especially concerning the institution itself, is a singular proposition, and potentials or anything else are of no relevance. Facts themselves are not relevant so much as the continuation of the knowledge process interpreted as an institutional form. That is, the law presents necessarily the whole of reality as managed information, even if it does not do so for a strictly economic purpose. It cannot do otherwise, and so, in the end, history under law could only have turned out one way, even if everyone saw how ruinous this path has been. This tendency in law was simply weaponized and allowed to carry out the final fate of the human race - and so it has, and that final state, that endgame of law, is the topic of the seventh planned book in this series, whenever I get to it. And so, to change the law within the law requires scouring not for gotchas or logical contradictions, but reconstructing from rationality why this construct as a whole cannot work on questions that can be rationally understood. This leaves it to one category of legal questions - those that pertain to life, death, and the values associated with them. This is to say, how we live and how we die cannot be trivialized or treated as incidental. To lapse once, no matter what arguments are made, tells us the limits of what the law can prescribe, before it must call upon its imperial backing or some primordial will which has through conniving made of the law what they please.

We can dismiss arugments about murder, rape, birth, abortion, eugenics, infanticide, and so-called "euthanasia" because the law has very clear lines for all such cases, or lines that can be interpreted by a reasonable judge that the observers of the law can understand. Vagaries and charlatan's tricks do not really change the purpose of the law or why any of it was seen as a process worth anything. There is one legal offense alone which answers this question for us - suicide. Every other offense, in one way or another, reckons with the question of suicide as the final line of defense for the only true sense of justice this failed, disgusting race has ever known. It is a line that the transgressors of any decency have always known and exploited, holding as their sacred monopoly, for the suicide rite is closely related to the true founding rite of the human race - ritual sacrifice. It has often been used as an excuse to claim that someone who was obviously sacrificed for the Satanic race and its god "did it to themselves", the credo of every Satanic bully who is trained to maximize the thrill of torture. Yet, suicide is no great mystery, and regardless of the mythology and insinuation game eugenics has always played, there are a great many suicides who have in their mind and by all sense and reason they have about the world every reason to end their own life, and they did not need to ask for approval.

Suicide is, of course, illegal, and the methods and rationales for carrying it out for real are well understood by now. There is no mystery to anyone who thinks for five minutes about the human condition of all of the situations where human beings voluntarily destroy themselves, and why people suicide in the way they do. There is never a legal rationale where suicide can be legalized. If the mere mention of suicide is justification for indefinite psychiatric confinement - and this is a very obviously extra-legal power that eugenics alone asserted - then that reinforces the de facto illegality of suicide, regardless of what superficial reforms are made. Historically, the punishment for suicide or attempted suicide was death. Failed suicides would be publicly exterminated in a ceremony where the thrill of torture was indeed maximized. The tortures of Ingsoc were in this case already dominant in England since the Poor Laws, and were a regular feature of 19th century England, supported by most of the country and glorified above all by the eugenic creed and its immediate antecedents. They are just one example of a Satanic race, a failed race, that would glorify such a thing. But, in all cases, suicide is both illegal and discouraged for all of the reasons someone would be able to independently reconstruct. The law affirms the legal remedy to block this obvious source of problems. If life is so miserable that people would kill themselves with full knowledge of the consequences - if it is so miserable that men and women will burn themselves alive to make abundantly clear to the society that it has crossed some line that warranted an extreme act of protest - it says something about that society that, law or no law, sobers the conception of justice in a way nothing else can. War can kill wantonly and entail sacrifice. I do not speak of soldiers who volunteer for a task that will surely kill them for the war cause, or self-sacrifice for an obvious ulterior motive. There may be in suicides a stated rationale that is an ulterior motive. The aforementioned men and women who burn themselves alive in their suicide usually state their ulterior motives for publicly suiciding in this way. But, the ulterior motive or the gain of a self-imposed ritual sacrifice is never "the point" of suicide. If it were, the suicide is worse than a meaningless act. It would beg the question why the suicide did not expend their remaining life-force in service to the cause, unless they were at the uttermost end of their rope; or it invites a technocratic treatment which obviates what the suicide hoped to accomplish by subsuming his or her act in the ulterior motive, which after death becomes the property of the law. Since most of the time it is the law itself which is the rationale for suicides - for humanity knows they are subjected to a terrible and cruel law that compels them to do terrible things in service to the law in particular - those who see suicide as yet another ritual sacrifice for the motives sacrifice is always done are doing their part to rewrite history, upholding the illegality of the suicide and that such acts are inadmissible. It is a strategy of wiping clean the history of the event, so it would be as if the suicide were an unperson, whose whole existence must be wiped clean from the historical record. Ritual sacrifice as a rule entails the same unpersoning, even when the ritual sacrifice remains alive and is displayed publicly as a trophy. Keeping living abortions as public trophies is a favorite of the eugenic creed - a display of the thrill of torture being maximized in living, human, form, for all the world to behold, the ultimate reminder of the god that ruled this failed, disgusting race. Yet, the suicide is not a witless victim to this process at all. Those who see such suicides, or even lesser transgressions against the principle that humanity can continue doing this, see the truth and do not need an interpreter to define reality for them. The truth of this is not merely in the world or in a moral cause outside of the law. On this matter, and on other matters where someone commits legal, social, and political self-destruction by a rational act on the basis of some rational purpose, it creates a need to either declare that such suicides are automatically insane - and thus retarded which is the worst sentence the law can ever pass on anyone - or the society must, at long last, ask a serious question about justice and why the law would have to abide such concepts of justice that it did not control or adopt for cynical purposes.

Suicide alone possesses this significance because it is a refutation of the imperial claim that was the basis for workable law codes. If law existed without the implication that life and death were on the line, then suicide as an act of protest would not be an argument. Very likely this would mean that the suicide's life truly was their own, or as much their own as it was ever going to be. The spiritual ownership of one's life is not a legal matter or a thing that states or empires decide, nor did the fickle primordial will have anything to say about who owns anything. That is a matter of religious and spiritual authority, and this is a matter of importance for the state proper, but for the law, it never had a rational claim to anyone's life. If we were to describe moral acts with pure reason and thus the language of mere ethics, and that there was no morality but ethics, we would come to the conclusion that there is not any good reason why anything at all should exist, or that humans ought to be anything or do anything in particular. There is no argument by law that we should obey any of this, or that we should accept any imperial edict. There is no argument that force compels the world in the way empire and law assume that it should. There is no argument that an unknowable will that just so happens to conform to aristocracy's preferred pedagogy and insistence that the world conform to it is worth anything at all, and the empire and law both in reasonable times can easily admit that the rule of aristocracy is completely unwarranted at the least. If empire and law were truly sober, they would see what most of humanity sees - that aristocracy's mere existence is the true crime of Being and an intolerable condition for all life that exists around it. It is no surprise then that the class that cares most about regulating suicide and invisibilizing it is the aristocracy, which has always scoffed at law and saw it as a way to capture the plebs rather than a tool they love for its own sake. For the imperial proprietors, suicide is a fate they can readily accept, and proprietors often maintain for themselves a code of honor that entails suicide and how one goes about it. It does not really matter to a proprietor what the slaves do with their lives, because the proprietor's instinctive self-interest kicks in and recognizes a simple reality - if aristocracy or the law move to tell even the lowest man that he must tolerate the intolerable and is not allowed to die on his own terms, the proprietor knows that his property is as precarious as the life of the lowest man in the final analysis. What is done to the lowest class can happen to any man who is not blessed by aristocracy. All of the property the proprietor holds will not change that all of it can be taken away with an aristocrat's damnation, where the ritual sacrifice machine begins. Now, the cowardly of the proprietors may think of suicide as a way to prevent giving the ritual sacrifice a body and soul to torture, and that this is all suicide is. But, most proprietors remain human enough to see how fickle and retarded that is, and a sense of personal honor will at some point compel him to ask if any of this was truly worth it. The proprietor is not sentimentally attached to property in the way aristocracy squeals "me wantee" and insists on its untrammeled right of torturing others. The propietor will never reduce himself voluntarily to the level of the lowest man, and even if he did, he would have had the legacy of the life he lived. The truth of the world is that ritual sacrifice, for all of its spiritual might and the image it evokes, does not change history. It does not vaporize or unperson anything real. History does not work that way. The proprietor or the damned man may have learned that humanity doesn't care about truth or justice and that his protests mean nothing in this world or another world he might desire. That is not the point, though. The point is a principle that all mankind can understand if they aren't complete and insufferable fags. It is not "do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself", though that rubric is useful for a lot of smaller situations. It is instead an understanding that all of this vaunted ritual and torture that is assigned such spiritual significance - for reasons that are very real and cannot be ignored - is not only worthless to everyone who isn't feeding off the thrill of torture and sacrifice for its own sake, but that this situation will always turn on itself. Many a proprietor have fallen from grace, and this threat is always held - a knife at their throat, where their property becomes a liability that can be taken away, unless the proprietor is willing to fight yet more war. That war is an intractable problem in the final analysis, unless the proprietor can seize the highest power of the state and command the institutions himself. This is something the proprietor is ill-equipped to do, and something that works against his proclivity and self-interest. These arguments would apply to the commons and the lawyers since they are themselves lesser proprietors in our society, but we will for a moment imagine the abstract capitalist, the abstract producer or manager, whose property and standing in society is entirely institutional and can be cancelled at the institution's whim.

For the producers, suicide is the great litmus test and psychological game which tests what their real convictions are. Death, torture, life, promises of opulence or reward, promises of eternal life, and promises of promotion or threats of demotion, do not test the commoner as suicide does. This applies not just for themselves, and in most cases, it doesn't apply to themselves at all. Most commoners, like most people, do not actually face a situation where suicide is warranted or a thing they would want to do if they really think about what they are doing. It is a test when they see suicides and contemplate what happened, to see if they really get what this has been or if they will tell themselves lies if it is expedient. It is a test when suicide happens close to them, and especially if they themselves are a cause on the mind of the suicide. It is a test to see if someone has really asked themselves what life is and what they are doing here, and at some point this ceases to be a religious or spiritual matter or anything else. Cold rationality will demand an answer when push comes to shove, and this cannot be shirked forever. Eventually, all who live face death, and consider the conditions in which they will die. It may seem like a "just suicide" for someone to overdose on opiates to end their life if they are going to be bedridden and useless and live in physical pain and emotional turmoil. This, though, is a fickle calculus and not terribly interesting. It does not take much for someone to think what would happen if the decision of death were no longer in their own hands, and their life, torture, or release from either were in the hands of another who did not share their interest in ameliorating this anguish. We cannot take for granted that others have the dignity and grace to show that kind of compassion, when we know what humans are and the extent of cruelty prevalent among the race. What is really at stake isn't about pain or pleasure, the utilitarian sham that has a predictable and sad outcome. Someone contemplating that question will likely cut the fictitious gordian knot a utilitarian scammer created by making clear that whatever physical or emotional suffering they endure is not as bad as agreeing with such filthy charlatans and their disgusting so-called moral philosophy, and they will conclude that their suffering means a lot less than the suffering of letting the utilitarians win, letting the eugenists win. In a moment, I will describe how the utilitarians and the eugenic creed predicted this in advance, and created one of their pillars of Eugenics - "euthanasia", or a ritual control of suicide which places this most important question of fate in the hands of the eugenic creed alone, where the suicide is glorified when it is done by and for the creed, entirely on the creed's terms for the maximization of thrill and public display. For now, though, our reasonable commoner has dismissed such people and declared them the sniveling fags they are, or some suitable term of hatred which is righteous by all sense and by the judgement of history and the world.

The question for the commoner is a much more rational treatment of the proprietor's question - "is it worth it?" For the proprietor, self-interest, property, legacy, and the perpetuation of his property is a constant in all of his actions, and he cannot help but think this way. The proprietor may rationally know how precarious property really is, but to shirk property is to shirk what his life had been and what he was born to, even if he was born from nothing and clawed his way up the ladder of society. The proprietor may abandon property altogether - nothing marks him as damned or immoral for shirking the eugenic interest - but he does not do so lightly or because of a facile moral or ethical claim. For the pure producer, this question is not present. Whatever property he possesses, he knows to be the property of the law and society in some way. Whatever happens to his meager property, it is the perpetuation of the institutions themselves - of "the system" in the parlance of the prior century - that would interest him if the question is about that. If it is the system itself, its preservation may not be the interest, but an effort to change it somehow by the conduct of the producer, from within the confines of the law. The law will never change with the approval of judges and due process, being what it is. It will not negotiate with terrorists. But, the law and the whole society will see the travesty that brings about a suicide. This commoner will see that behind all of the excuses - behind not just the political rationales but all of our knowledge of history, society, the supposed motives, the supposed philosophy at work, all of the ideas and conceits knowledge holds - human beings remain what they are beneath all of the metaphysical clothing, even if all of our ideas and concepts of knowledge never truly touch us at that level. We may live in our minds with a facsimile or simulation of the world, but there is no denying that death and life are real consequences and not a trifling game. Whether someone cares or not is not particularly relevant. Humans can live without any sentiment or emotion, or not value life at all and allow the machine to keep grinding down its human livestock. But, this does not happen without consequences. If suicide is prohibited in all cases, it is not hard to see how this can be manipulated by those who have no compunction about conducting ritual sacrifice to eke more torture, and then use the legacy and question of suicide as a ruse to detract from what was obviously a torture-killing for the thrill of torture, as is the habit of their god. It is that which is at the heart of the truly worthwhile suicides - that a system of law which was built with carve-outs to allow mischief has been freely weaponized by those who laugh at the idea that it will ever be any different, and the rest of humanity has to live in their world. Nearly every suicide in one way or another is linked to the presence of the ritual sacrifice cult and its consequences, which humanity will never be able to question. It has been baked into every concept of the law, and within the law itself, the presence of that foul god is felt no matter how many exorcisms may be performed. Technology offers no solution to that, for there is no perfect or incorruptible system. The system itself was premised on the existence of such foulness preceding the law, for the law to be a relevant proposition. If the foulness did not exist, not only would the law be a very different creature, but there wouldn't be the most common trigger by far of suicides - that humanity lives in a world that really has been intolerable, by the deliberate malice of actors who absolutely do not want it to change. If suicide were merely a matter of expediting death from sickness when the outcome is already known, or suicide were about ending a life well lived while getting out was good, that is not a terribly interesting problem. Most human beings, knowing the facts and situation and having basic sense of how humans thought, would not consider it their business to tell people that they are morally and spiritually obligated to live "for the system" in those cases. The law can never give its stamp of approval to suicide in any case, but the law and society has been known to look the other way when the facts of the case tell that a suicide was for a trivial reason. It is the suicides linked to the ritual sacrifice which draw the great ire and ask the truly relevant question here, and it is here where eugenics attained one of its great pillars of Eugenics early and holds to this victory at all costs. Once eugenics systematized ritual sacrifice and gave it a technocratic standing, there would be no going back, with terrible consequences for all mankind.

It is this lapse in all of our machinations which the law must regard as a fact of the subjects it governs, and this is not answerable to any ulterior motive or some goal that is rationally obtained, nor is it an unknowable thing which must be declared insanity. Judges and everyone else in society can see that their actions have consequences in a real world, and even if this does not lead to a lapse in the law's function or the judge simply doesn't care, it will acknowledge that eventually, too many transgressions will lead people to not just abandon the law as an institution or clamor for political change. Most of humanity never even considered political change to be an objective, since not only was such a thing far removed from any potential they were likely to attain, but such a thing did not answer anything they really wanted out of life. For most of humanity, this political question remained something distant enough that it did not enter their consideration any more than it had to, and this was not a matter of ignorance but the real distance between the arms of the law and the subjects it governed. It made perfect sense for most of humanity to leave this question to the others, while they lived their life and kept on in spite of the bullshit. Many who rule have no intrinsic fanaticism about ruling or lust for the thrill of ruling. Ruling typically is a shitty job and the rewards are never what they're cracked up to be. Those who rule very much want to rule because they know the alternative, but the fear for them is not the dispossessed mob, but other rulers, of whom there are many who are very enthusiastic to play this game with other peoples' money and life-force. The dispossessed want above all security, and in some way, the law could provide that - very easily if it so chose. Nothing about the law obligated any particular economic logic or stance towards the class struggle. Even an ardent imperialist can understand that the dispossessed are not going to like their station and not like the people who lord over them, who exhort them to love this terrible condition. The empire cares most of all about continuing its existence, rather than a faith that the empire does best when its people are tortured maximally and made to sell their children into slavery, then their organs to some vampire in Germany or China, neither of which were ever necessary except for the enjoyment of domination the shitty and depraved rulers of this filthy empire and the failed race it sought to "perfect" created. The aristocracy even doesn't sink to the depravity of full eugenism - they simply are the interest marching in lockstep for their own glorification, and chose that torturing others in some way made them great in the same way pharaohs made themselves great by building pyramids and whipping the poor into slavery. It took the eugenic creed and its foul alliance and a deliberate malice hitherto unknown to suggest that this torture is the point, and that is what these books have all been about.

This line of thinking is something the eugenist, in some way or another, has digested and responded to in advance. It knew that to ensure the conditions of Eugenics, as Galton called them, the law would have to be weaponized and eugenics must be the only law. The thrill of torture must be legally sacrosanct and demonstrated as superior to all other law. This is explicit in Oliver Wendell Holmes' judgement in Buck v. Bell in 1927.^[2] Once the reasoning is sacrosanct, it closes the possibility of any "sentimentality" - that is, the obvious interest of any sense telling someone by independent judgement that this is ruinous and won't work the way eugenists believe it does - and thus the problem of suicide and its debilitating effect on law is abrogated. This is why Huxley crows that the slaves will learn to love their slavery, and that their new world order will persist indefinitely. This very question was on their mind, and it had been on the mind of sociologists, the favored of whom ask the asinine question of why people would choose to die in a "good society", as if this filthy human race was capable of any such thing even in its most enlightened condition. This is why the atrocities of the eugenic creed, already known, would now be publicized and glorified - to drive home the point that this will be a very public humiliation, so that it will be taboo to suggest that it could be any other way. The eugenists knew that any open debate must be controlled at all levels to produce a singular outcome, and it was eugenics alone which would be granted this monopoly. If we understand the basis of law, it would only be eugenics which could be granted such a monopoly. If you believe the political philosopher's view of history, this would have made eugenics inevitable and the only "real" course of history, and if you opposed it, you must be retarded. It is illegal to be anything but a eugenist under eugenics law, and that has fast become the terrible reality. To oppose eugenics is legal, social, and political death, and as the Party proclaimed, they do not allow martyrs to exist. This problem of suicide is what is referenced. Of course, the Ingsoc example is a contrived thought experiment. In such a world, it is doubtful most would regard the Party as anything other than a nuisance to be avoided at all costs, just another lawgiver gone apeshit who thought the law granted moral authority it never possessed. Eugenics sought to make morality itself illegal, unless it was the moral thrill the eugenist demands and clamors for. This is why it chose such an exuberant propaganda campaign, the most extensive in human history for the most foul cause this filthy race can conjure. At no point was eugenics historically inevitable, or destined to be ruled by some Satanic fags in England. Eugenics created a world of war, death, toil, and nothing to show for any of it. It deliberately chose to terminate a situation where nearly all in the world desired peace and coexistence, even if they didn't like each other. The costs of war were too great, and the beneficiaries of future wars would be obvious. Eugenics knew that if they did not seize everything and never give up an inch in the "Jehad", there was nothing for them. This is a quality peculiar to it - and it is done to abrogate the momentary lapse that suicide would entail for the law. All suicides must be made into pathetic spectacles, and this is why "death culture" and "suicide girls" are promoted as an idea - to trivialize what would be to reasonable people a sign that this society does not work on its own terms. It is not that one suicide means the law is undone or that the perfect society is shattered forever, and this is another eugenist trope. Suicides happen. What the eugenist cannot stand about suicide is that it is not for the law - especially a law co-opted by the eugenic creed - to decide who lives and who dies. It is not even really a moral decision for imperium. The holder of imperium did not need a moral high horse or any posturing to justify its executions or the granting of life, and the holder of imperium did not do this because it gave him enjoyment or because he was "just following procedure" prescribed by any law. By promoting the image of "selfish suicide", the dogma of the utilitarians is inserted into something which would defy their stupid ethical system entirely. Only in such a way can law prescribe "ethics" which go out of their way to defend atrocity but make the simplest self-defense or any interest other than eugenics even for the sake of the law inadmissible.

The law does not need to push its subjects to the brink of suicide to question itself in this way. Having foreseen this, many a judge and many who are in a position to say anything about the world would have some sense that the law would promote a society that is worth living in, or at least not create nightmares where none had to be created. This brings another weapon to the arsenal of any intriguer, which the eugenists deployed to terrible effect. This is the invocation of the image of suicide to deliberately push targets towards this. Here, the ritual sacrifice that is the human race's primordial act is placed as the responsibility of "suspected suicides" who will be detected for the slightest sign of disapproval. If someone is miserable because they live under the eugenic creed, it must be your fault for not having the correct emotional state, and even being suspect of suicidal tendencies, or any other tendency marking someone for sacrifice, is enough. The policing of minute behaviors becomes a whole body of law under the eugenic creed, and none of this law would serve the values law would serve. It exists first of all to exhaust the resolve of those who would resist the creed, and second because the chilling effect exacerbates the general fear with nothing but insinuations - obtaining the most torture for the lowest cost. All I have written about here was selected by the eugenic creed precisely because of their economic thought being placed in all institutions, above reason and any purpose it once served. On that subject there is much more to write as these books proceed. It did not have to be this way, because the economic thought is only sensical if the society is a "total society" - an institution from which there can be no escape - and if someone decided the purpose of the panopticon was torture and nothing else. Nothing about this construct served anything we would consider good. It is only primordial or "natural law" for humans, and a very particular proclivity among humans which we have long recognized. Humanity once upon a time had it in them to reject this, but it required humanity seeking something outside of their own persons and outside of each other, and it was unlikely to come from any base event in the world or any institution humans built. The point of using such a grisly example is to emphasize how we have seen law used around this particular matter - life, death, and suicidality as the "way out" - and how the culture could weaponize it with support of the law they command. At no point was this "inevitable", but the regime of lawfare must insist that this is the only way history could ever have played out, and that eugenics is destiny. If humanity had something other than ritual sacrifice at its core, eugenics must edit history to strip out anything else in the genesis of Man, so that the spirit of Man is "perfected" in accord with its teachings. A better race than humans likely would have seen such a course as so ruinous that it would not be entertained, and when the jackals could temporarily be silenced or put away to enter stalking mode, it was credible to believe humans would eventually get over their failed birth and the deformity of such a retarded ape. Had the disease of aristocracy been abated - for in some form or another, aristocracy always believed themselves to be the master race deestroying inferior humans - humanity would have been immesurably better, and nothing about history or law mandated that any of that had to happen. At many junctures in human history, it appeared that not only would aristocracy lose, but that civilization would be wiped out completely and that this would have been considered a good thing. It had also appeared that civilization would have learned that their greatest liability by far is this disgusting aristocracy no one wanted or needed, whose functions could have been relegated to ceremonial positions.

Had this been removed, it is very likely modern history turns out very different, and the only cost would have been to choke the life out of these fucking inbred Satanics who insinuated we have to worship them until they could choke us and make us obey - or else. "But," you say, "is that not ritual sacrifice, too?" And here is where the eugenist tool of false moral equivalence is deployed, and this is their most fickle yet effective tool. The root of why this works is the appeal of the law to standards of evidence, which are always toys when the prerogatives of aristocracy have to be questioned. By sophistry, the argument of clear aristocratic guilt is made inadmissible by the fear their legacy created, and that their education indoctrinated generation after generation to believe was as natural as clockwork. So fixated is aristocracy on its ritual of sacrifice that they do not believe that we would not see this as any sacrifice, with the working devoted to an ulterior motive. The only other death aristocracy can imagine is removing the unsightly vermin as a bureaucratic matter left to the lawyers and some ill-treated grunts of the army. They do not understand clean death or a killing of clear and dire self-defense against an implacable menace, which is what aristocracy conceptually can only be. This necessary matter would be averted if aristocracy ceased being aristocracy, an offer that has been made - sometimes by their own members in a rare fit of understanding that this doesn't work - many times in human history. Either aristocracy would be ameliorated to become less relevant to daily life, or aristocracy would be removed from social existence outside of cloistered environments, confined to reservations or human zoos where they belong. There is no half-measure regarding this. Either aristocracy goes, or we are consigned to this fate, and this has been a peculiar human perversion rather than any necessity of nature or necessity of any part of the political except aristocracy's insistence that it can make us suffer. The simplest way to accomplish this would be to give to labor and the lowest class the security they wanted from the beginning, since the other two orders of society really can't stop what was set in motion and their part in it. The crucial step, and this is what sealed humanity's fate in modernity, would be to do everything possible to set labor against the lowest class. At the outset of modernity, this rivalry existed in spirit but it was never a coherent ideology for anyone. Labor's contest was seen as an internecine conflict, and the beggars were seen as mostly harmless and irrelevant to that. It was understood not just to labor but to all orders that the fate of the lowest class was the fate of the human race. It took the precursor to the eugenist "Jehad" and a vast agitation and propaganda campaign to insist that the lowest class was in fact the true enemy, the interloper who was to be blamed for the sins of all others, and this brought humanity back to its sad choices since time immemorial, at a juncture where doing that was the single worst thing this filthy race could have ever done. I weep not for the consequences to humanity, even though the suffering wrought by this is enough to make the foulest heart weep if it is not given over to that filthy eugenic creed like a slavering dog. Even a miserable, hateful bastard like me must weep at the thought of what has happened and what is yet to come. The primary work then was moral education of labor en masse, and this was a matter outside of the law and so not of relevance to the preceding chapters, which have largely concerned this view of political mechanisms fomented at first by intriguers.

I close this chapter with a note on natural science and natural laws in the sense that scientific theories invoke. It is known to any honest scientist that science only builds models which are tested against a world that exists apart from any theory we make about it, and so the proper scientist is a skeptic, but a reasonable skeptic. The choice to define axioms in science as "laws" is not an accidental slip of language. It derives from efforts to make science itself subject to law in the sense described here. This would be necessary for institutional science to begin. Before this step was undertaken in the philosophical developments in Europe during the 17th century, "science" was an individual practice which varied from person to person. The concept "science" referred not to institutional knowledge which invoked laws, but to expertise that was in some sense technological. Nearly every definition of "science" or the closest available analogue, with the conspicuous exception of the German language, refers to practices which were at heart working class practices. English and British science is no exception and takes this concept of science to heart in everything the empire does. Every man and woman aspires to be a scientist, even if the peculiarly English definition of "science" invokes images particular to the English, which include an occult or magical element that was and is part of the imperial dogma. Still, the habit of popular science remains, always treated with the utmost contempt by aristocracy. Such science was understood to be the entry vehicle for democratic thought in the modern era, and it is this thought that ideology in every form it took sought to abolish forever.

We see how the language of law was the preferred vehicle to choke science to death, rather than the myths of property which were understood to be anathema to this, or the myths of aristocracy which produce incredible quantities of pseudoscience. Law alone has this tendency to monopolize all possible permutations of a topic and grant to an institution substantive power it so desperately craves. Without this, it would far less possible to utilize technology as a general rule, or develop a general theory of technology. It is also why eugenics chose science as its veneer rather than "Reason" or "Pure Intelligence" or the usual aristocratic talking points about pure blood. Those arguments were made in parallel, but it was science and particular thinking about it that that made eugenics a viable doctrine with praxis. The peculiarities of British science melded eugenics with the occult tradition of the Empire, a daemonic pall that permeated the entire project, and an infantile and faggotty selfishness that would make Ayn Rand seem like a socialist when you see these insufferable fags at work. Still, the perversion of English elites and the fag enablers belie that English society was in the main a scientific-thinking one. Ordinary men and women read regularly, and working class people indulged in scientific journals and made where they could genuine contributions to science, either for humanity or because that was a way to make a buck. The German institutional science, the term wissenschaft, was constructed specifically to destroy any democratic ethos entering science, and it is with the German ideology that yet another vector of pseudoscience, more in line with aristocratic beliefs about pure blood and fantastic racism, allowed eugenics to flourish. As I have written before, both of these foul practices merged into a toxic stew in the United States, deployed by the rulers against an American public that they hated, that was a multi-racial populace where racial animosity was stoked to levels beyond anything the Nazis could engineer even with the foulest habits of the German race. And yet, for all of the efforts, no one could really make a good argument for a "race-theory" of the demos, despite the long history of American white supremacy. There was and never would be an American "race" or even a nation beyond a sense that everyone was stuck here, regardless of race or class. The slave or ex-slave was not a complete social alien beyond saving, except in the mind of eugenists who were already clamoring for more blood. Whatever the racism of the slave-holders, they weren't dumb enough to believe the stories they used to control and terrorize the slaves, and the slaves and ex-slaves knew that the Satanic honky was not made of anything magical, no matter how much Masonic quackery was afoot. Besides, a Satanist influence among American negros was not that alien. They could be just as slimy and vicious as any honky, with far less to lose, and so they did, and this habit was rewarded in the harsh environment of the lower rungs of wage labor. It had already been honed in slavery, after all. It is the legal impunity granted to the mythos that allowed racial pseudoscience and an incredibly infantile narrative to continue, where the white man was told he was actually a victim. This story appeals to only the most incorrigible fags of the white race who will believe anything, because it was too obvious what the real balance of power was, and what interests ruled this country. Simply put, all of the efforts to make the racial pseudoscience real still don't work or even really resonate with people outside of traditional fag enablers. As an actual science, none of the tropes of the infamous scientific racists even pretended to survive independent verification, because more often than not they were purely stories told to said incorrigible fags of the white race. The actual racial distinction, if that was relevant, had long been known by actually useful metrics, if anyone cared, but those tests did not tell the stories of the most insufferable faggotry the eugenists - particularly Germanic eugenists who love the purest of faggotry - wanted to hear about inevitable victory and the obvious, anvilicious superiority of the master race. So too would the Master Mason be disappointed that the genetic code did not make their super-secret Annunaki blood immediately powerful like their stupid fag cult insists. Yet, the pseudoscience perseveres because it is granted legal impunity to insist it is a super-science. This did not arise from insinuation alone or some powerful political wisdom that we're too dumb to figure out. The games that are played are thrown in our face. The law and politics is itself subject to scientific analysis, and science regarding how to manipulate society is a project mystified and yet given more interest than nearly any other science. It is always depreciated as a "soft science", except to the vaunted few influencers who actually know what they are doing with this habitual lying. This is intended - to make everything about politics mushy and make standards of comparison impossible. It's all terribly Germanic, modeled after a demonic drilling mixed with the worst and foulest habits of the English and American bastardry. A fouler concoction ruling a country has never been known, and it has predictably cannibalized the country in 50 years from 1970 to 2020, and shows no signs of abating.

The political demands quickly expand to all other domains of science once eugenics reaches the apex. Immediately, any physical science that disagreed with a stridently eugenist cosmology was to be ruthlessly critiqued, and every science that glorified or enabled eugenics would be promoted and granted institutional sacrosanctity. Education was the chief vehicle for using untrammeled fear to impose this dogma, as it would for the past 100 years. If that is controlled, an overtly authoritarian state would not only be unnecessary, but counterproductive. Authoritarians need their authority to be followed for a reason, rather than for projecting the symbol of authority. It is through the rank abuse of science, which is entirely possible on the terms science is conducted, that this is possible, and only through science. In some way, science in the genuine sense must always be conducted, but it is of a reduced sort.

Science is, particularly for Marx, the driver of history in many ways. For me, this is far from the only driver, because it grants to science an authority to change the world that science does not possess. The reason for this is that science is ultimately rooted in labor and a moral intent that wants science for some purpose, and among those purposes is that for labor, science is intrinsically interesting. To have a reliable, independent basis for scientific conduct is helpful enough that, even if labor has no particular institution allowing it or law regulating it, labor would seek such a thing for its own interests, if they were not fettered by the fear that the higher orders place on them. Again, turning the internecine war within labor against the lowest class alone and glorifying the segregation of those selected to live from those selected to die began with the visceral hatred of the lowest class, then mandating that hatred, and then through eugenics accomplishing the core program of cannibalizing labor. Along with this, the producers would be cannibalized, and proprietors who did not meet the criteria for the eugenist new world order would be liquidated and promised that they could be spared from cannibalism if they followed their worst proclivities, which they would be trained to do to internalize their status as "mere, worthless proprietors", the eternal slaves of the eugenist massa. What is really at stake is not that science has power to change the world because science is itself a motor for its own purpose. Science changes the world because labor to be labor has some appreciation for its true conditions. If it did not - and the low cunning of a Mason is itself a science, for the Masons' origins are in the favored grades of labor rather than elites or the limited numbers of the middle class - then labor would be left to whims it did not have control or guidance for, and would be moved instead purely by cajolers, thus obviating labor. That is, science can move history because there was some need of labor, whatever its type, to do this. It was never a monopoly of the law, imperium, or a primordial assertion that it can. Labor to be labor pertained to a world where it was at all relevant, and this is a thing independent of these institutions and concepts that are at the apex of state institutions. For the state proper to be completed, this crucial step must be investigated further.

I wish to make clear to the reader that laws are not made by men as they please, and they are not made by force or property or any primordial will. The law is the property of the court and the judge alone, and it is the basis for institutions by this alone. Once they are established, they operate on their own power and for their power purposes. Judges are not asserted by any power from above or below. They are always approved by the jurists and precedents which have been established. The sole function of anything above or below the law is recognition of an institution, or the necessary act establishing that the court may sit in judgement of anything. Once invested, the court is restrained by nothing but itself, and the aims of its officers. What the law states in written codes has little to do with the law as an institution, which always maintains an unwritten law, precedents, and the interests of the judges, not the least of them being the validity of the legal institution itself. When legislatures of a republic pass "laws", they really pass policies which can be freely ignored by the court and the state, and this is inherent in what the legislature is. The judges and court invoke what amounts to a pinky swear that they will regard the political class. There is an expectation that the political class and the lawyers and judicial officers exchange members periodically. The bourgeois profession most often seen in a liberal republic's political class is the lawyer, who would be aware of the genuine situation and the need to maintain fictions of public trust. The court's true trust is only for itself and its institution. It does not in of itself make any claim that the law is the public interest and the public interest is the law. Such a claim is only possible in a fascist society or something tantamount to it, where Law is openly and proudly an instrument of imperium and no longer pretends that there is a public it is beholden to. The law is always set apart from the public and from any democratic oversight, or inquiry that the people make into it. It would be nice if the law regarded that the people it governs are humans who will, if needed, become scofflaws by dire necessity. In all matters of political relevance, the law always takes precedence over the public it governs. If violent force becomes the legal principle, it is not merely violence for violence's sake which can govern, but legal violence taken to its logical conclusion. The extreme violence of fascism and the German ideology is not an accident or abrogation of Law, but its sad outcome - if that is what the race that invokes law truly is, and it has become nothing but a race and all other conception of society became inadmissible. It is entirely within the capacities of Law, for its own interests, to reject such a claim for all of the reasons a child could see. Law is not itself regulated by anything but itself, and emphasizes this in its conduct. In practice, within the law there are watchmen, and the aristocratic power sees the law as their tool. If a class holds spiritual authority to decide what reality itself is, the selection of legal officers in secret becomes a foregone conclusion. The law would, in its own name, dissolve itself in favor of naked aristocratic terror. This is never as simple as an aristocratic terror declaring its victory a fait accompli. The law and its officers are a large interest unto themselves, and must be so. All of its operations are paid for with commerce, labor, wealth, and a faith that any such institution can operate for purposes other than the interest of classes alien to it. Even when it is the habit of humanity to declare that an interest of the extent of the law, or that law conforms to a theoretical model of what it is supposed to be, once it is established it is a thing seldom moved. The legal codes of humanity cite precedents as far back as ancient laws, and the superstitions invoked by the law are among the most ancient superstititons of mankind. The superstitions of civilization have no natural monopoly on this, for the rites of primitive superstition are granted standing in the grand superstition that is the legal monopoly. There remains, despite the insistence of many fools, no "natural law". Its establishment is peculiar to entities which can regard such an institution as holding any regulatory power on its own. The law once established takes on all of the qualities the whole society knows, for its officers and its machinery are always entities which exist outside of the law in their origin. In practice, the law reproduces the biases of the class that holds the institution, more than the ruling class itself. Rulers do not need law as such as their excuse for the terror, nor does anyone seriously respect an aristocracy's claim that they need no excuses for the terror. There are always excuses for the terror, and yet more excuses for revolutionary terror to pretend that what they do and say was not actually done and said. For the lowest class, they are born scofflaws regardless of their sentiment or thought regarding it, and receive the cruelest reminder of this in the name of the law. That is what it is and all it can be, even when Law is aware that it has created nothing but a ruin that no one should regard, and that cannot regulate anything or do a single thing law - including the unwritten law and its terorr - purports it will do.

Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

Return to Table of Contents | Return to Chapter Start