Return to Table of Contents | Previous Chapter | Next Chapter

So far this writing has concerned itself with the concept of the political and the view of the state from the top down - from those who have handed down law and imposed empire because they were in a position to assert it from on high. When speaking of the basis for any of this, it is easy for ideologues and the law to forget that politics concerns first and foremost its agents, without any conceit that the political ought to be anything other than what its earliest conception would need it to be. There was no law handed down from Heaven or a god that just so happened and everyone accepted it because nature or something. Natural law would make clear that it is the agency of political agents - which, absent any compelling reason to believe otherwise, would be any human capable of asserting their person as anything recognizable - that is the true motor, and this engine is not one that can be engineered by any institutional tweak or cajoling to make it into something it is not. The law is what it is, and the properties an empire extracts are domains they could only obtain through struggle. Only the philosophical state can make proclamations that it is something else, but it finds the tools most expedient for rule wholly inadequate for generating the power that rule requires. It is this effort that is the more secretive of the aristocratic political knowledge, only told to those who are useful for a purpose, and they are only told as much as the rulers need their courtiers and enablers to know, or told outright lies to cajole them in the usual trickery that is the human political condition. By knowledge alone and the preceding conditions that political writers conjure, only a pure abstraction of a skeleton can form. The state proper is not a substantial thing, but as an abstract construct, the theory and law of the political tells little about the state as an abstraction resembling anything we encounter. We have instead dealt with the gruesome primordial soul of states, empires, and law, rather than what these things become if they are given any definition. By the impulses that are seeded in the political and the state, politics is so hideous that every right-thinking person should reject that any such construct should have any power over their lives, beyond the barest minimum necessary to attain what politics is always premised on - security against the general fear. Those partisans who would weaponize the general fear, of which there are many, do not need the state as such, and knowledge of the primordial skeleton as mechanisms is not really needed in full detail or a full model. The aristocrats have, out of necessity, worked with imperfect knowledge and still manage to make us all miserable. Their only condition is that they can continue to cajole and mystify indefinitely, engineering a situation where no person can tell them no ever again. The easiest way to do that is to weaponize all of the prior concepts of the political and then match the state and polity proper, and the people who live in state society, to match those ideals. This is to say, the easiest way and the path of least resistance for aristocracy is to destroy the thing they feed from and think nothing of it. The dominant concepts of the political invariably hold all who live in the society in the utmost contempt, putting the "despise" in "despotism" and calling it the best thing humanity could ever do.

The human subject is a thing with a two-fold nature. It is one part material phenomenon, and in particular a physical event or confluence of such events, which is described with the language of science, and in particular, the science of physics. We could dispute scientifically how much of humanity's material component is "physical", but in the main we do not doubt that the study of fields in space begins with physics. It begins with physics rather than metaphysics, because metaphysics is a thing that can never be proven with science in a direct way, where metaphysics provides factual evidence of a metaphysical thing floating freely in space. We could ascribe to these material things qualities which are not inherent to any physical system but are still represented by some physical avatar. For example, life and biology have no necessary "physics" as a base component to be meaningfully life. All of the evidence we draw from the world's space - the domain in which we contest the political - is physical phenomena, from which we infer the existence of material things which are not physical. That is, if we speak of life-forms, we speak of physically existing life-forms in the same space we regard as relevant for us. We should be very careful in delineating these divisions of the material world when they become politically contentious. If we were strictly interested in science because we found scientific truth intrinsically interesting, and did not attach to it any political significance, we could ask different questions for this purpose about what we are, and the world we live in - material or the world of spirits and ideas. If we are to politicize science, or use science to answer a question about the political, it is common sense that the space that is contested is physical space, rather than some other type of material continuum or concept of the world we are contesting. We have seen how distortion of sense of space, up to distortions which deny that mathematics can hold because we are too stupid to think correctly or distortions that make any standard of comparison temporarily impossible, are used deliberately based on calculations rooted in a commonly observed reality that we live in physical space, whether we wish to pretend it is something else or not. We should not make a philosophical error when describing the common sense reality that we live in physical space, to assert that philosophical space conforms to physics and physics "determines reality" like a spiritual hobgoblin. The error of physicalism^[1] does not need to be relitigated here. The political expedience of this error is why the error is made deliberately, and is never an accident. It is a consequence of an education which breaks any sense and gives students no grounding for "the science" they learn, intended beforehand to mark inferiors as inferiors. If anyone contradicts "the science" they are violently corrected, or broken utterly with the most foul techniques for non-compliance, or simply tortured to meet a quota of the institutions for more torture and sacrifice. The greatest tortures are given to the compliant who are thrown away, who open themselves for any abasement and humiliation.

The second part, and the part that is important for the remainder of this chapter, is the spiritual phenomenon of "human". I speak not of "Idea" but of spirit of a more unrefined type. The most obvious spiritual authority follows closely the material reality we live in - we trust, at first on naive faith, that what we sense is the reality we live in, or very close to that reality, and that what we live in is a world of events where things move. I need not relitigate philosophically how this has been abused, for that is better left for the next chapter. Right away, we have seen how spiritual authority is used to abase and demean the material world deliberately and for no real purpose, even though we know that such a course of action produces nothing good and can't do anything we would actually want. Man in a political world is not a physical animal, but a spiritual animal, and it is this spiritual sense of humanity that is almost always the relevant agent when we speak of "human beings". This is something very different from their "person" or legal identity, which is the reverse of the bastardization of the material world that is weaponized and turned against the subject.

This spiritual existence does not form a "person" let alone a political subject simply by existing. The internal committee of the person is not just the body and events happening to it, but the developing political awareness of this entity, which at first has no idea it is a "thing" let alone a person with any concept of the political. This concept is acquired long after conception and growth, even though it is operative well before conception. The political conception does not define the person alone. We would have persons and institutions without politics, and before someone really integrates with political society, they certainly would be able to assert that "I" or "me" exist and that they know who "you", "they", or particular persons are. Until they are politically valid, all of this knowledge is little more than the jabbering of an animal, and treated with appropriate contempt. When someone becomes "I", they are aware that "I" am incomplete spiritually as "I". Self-sufficiency is not a guarantee of any person in society, from the lowest to the most celebrated leader. Self-sufficiency is not a requirement for entry into the demos or valid society. That is an expectation of institutions and the law, but we easily understand that spiritually, we are attached to every other meaningful thing in the world, whether it is within society or outside of society yet close to us in space. The sense of social information discounts a great many things when speaking of any society, and discounts even more things to define political society. Spiritually, we always know this to be an inaccurate assessment, and every human is aware that their information and knowledge are incomplete at any given time. The treatment of the self given in the first book of this series is very helpful to revisit here, in case it is forgotten. There, it was a philosophical thought experiment for the present-day reader, unmoored from this analysis of society - imagining ourselves as a hypothetical child or any person contemplating deeper this question in what is presumably the present day. In political society though, this matter is never hypothetical. We are only aware of what we need to be aware of, and not what we would like to be aware of, however much intelligence can guide our judgement and thus affect the outcome, which includes our future state of awareness and the fate of ourselves. This is not just the fate of a legal person in the eyes of the law or the fate of the physical body, as if the spiritual could be described with the most crass and vulgar pseudo-materialist story. We know the spirit of any person is much more than initial impressions or anything that information suggests it "ought" to be. Every law humans make is cognizant of this in some way or another, and so the lawgivers even in the most primitive court take this into account. The judge may take this into account because they believe in something like fairness as a necessity or because they understand the spiritual existence of those under the law is very relevant to the people who carry out any part of that process. This doesn't change that the law's judgement and conduct itself is devoid of any spiritual component, even if the law code involves rituals and oaths to this or that deity or Heaven or some spiritual regulatory force that is presumed to have legal standing for whatever reason. Swearing on the Bible or the appropriate holy book or the civic religion of the state does not have any direct informational power over temporal affairs in a way that makes the law obey the gods. Such a ritual is very very important, bordering on necessary, because everyone involved has awareness of spirituality's importance, and this is not just a matter of a religious institution invested with this connection to the gods. The ritual is comprehensible regardless of whether one believes Christianity as a religion and all of its institutions have any spiritual authority. For one, a lot of people in a country where swearing on Bibles is a thing are Christians for whom the institution is important, and the Christians are very insistent on making sure everyone else believes God is watching the world, pious or heathen. On this, the Christians are not merely implying this as the default of a religion, but it is very explicit in Christian doctrine and practice. All of this is not a result of pure superstitions of geists - "spooks" in a translation of the insufferable Kraut Max Stirner^[2]. The existence of any spiritual authority, whether we follow it or not, has an effect on the whole society. The greater the number of followers, the greater the power of the alleged gods that inveigh on the affairs of mortals. The very existence of "us" as human beings is an article of faith. We could very well imagine ourselves vivisected and managed as component spiritual parts, plucked at will by someone who is adept at tricks of the soul to declare what parts of us are admissible and which are not - a necessary prelude and consequence to deciding to cancel the whole entity root, branch, and stem, which feeds off itself once it has been isolated with sufficient understanding. All of that understanding is derived from some spiritual authority, rather than just-so facts that "everyone obviously accepts". It is a thing developed by human beings who possess no privileged knowledge that was given to them. Whatever the advantages of someone who is older or who followed a lineage of pedagogy of these secrets, it was always acquired by some process that would have to be reproduced in the mind of the human being, then stored in some knowledge base which is itself malleable and must swear to keep the pedagogical secrets under penalty of very, very gruesome torture - the sort that makes death and suicide of the worst kind seem like a pleasant fate.

It is not the value of life and death which makes the person our preferred understanding of the agent, but the law and the law alone. That is, we see ourselves as "selves" because to do otherwise is legally very problematic, and opens in the law numerous irregularities. For one, sanity would be defined by an entity's continguous existence and integrations of faculties into something whole, so it can be regarded as a singular thing in the world. Life as a force did not need to orient around any particular center, and in many cases, life-forms are cooperative colonies of organs and the smallest entities rather than a singular body, whole and indivisible. A human being can imagine himself without one leg or without some feature, and there isn't a universal template in the world for the animal called Man. There is a class of creatures called Men or humans, and their female counterpart. By no means was the existence of this sexual divide ordained by fundamental nature, since we know at one point sexual dimorphism had to appear in life-forms. Aside from the obvious difficulties of reproduction, males and females could live without each other and were not natural, universal counterparts. We could easily imagine a non-sexual method of reproduction, and when we think about what sexual reproduction really is, it is not in a spiritual sense a special act at all. If we were to artificially construct new humans, this would not in of itself abolish the spiritual question of genesis and what we would be beholden to. Such constructs would have a creator, and the base components arise from somewhere. In sexual reproduction, the conception of a child is no different from an engineer slating the construction of new humans in a factory, and the base materials are extracted from the body of the mother, the seed of the father, and the resources fed to the pregnant mother which she may acquire for herself, even if burdened with the parasite in her womb. The mother very likely has someone supporting her during this, as humans usually have friends. If a father truly believes that he is nothing but an inseminator and takes pride in this self-abasement, he is disgusting and really has to ask himself what the point of his part in the sexual enterprise even was. The sentiments and personal ambitions of human beings in the sex act are ultimately trivial compared to the outcome of the union - that a new child is born, and will enter society whether anyone wants the child or not, and even if the parents throw that child to the elements, the child will attempt to integrate into the world just as any life-form world. If we substitute this process with another, the same questions of personal want, the child's necessity, and the society all agents encounter, remains the same. If we really wanted this question to be different, we would be asking a question about what these constructs or life-forms do in a way that is markedly different from humans. That is, we would live under a law and political settlement that did not deal with "selves" or individuals or the sense of existence that humans have known up to now. There is no other example in nature that we can point to that allows for mimicry to save us. Such a new existence would have to acknowledge the potential of something new, and then that new life would have to be nurtured in a world where humanity and human law, and all of its vices, prevail. The offspring, if it were the design of any human, inherits from its genesis the turpitude of the human race and all we have seen of it. We do not see any non-human sources creating this new thing anywhere on Earth fully formed, and if we are looking to the heavens for such a revelation, that revelation will probably work through humans in some way. This only will happen at the uttermost end of need, and if it does happen, the world will exact a terrible retribution for humanity's intransigence and unwillingness to allow the new to exist peacefuly.

The true association of beings - and this is true of any being we can construct - is not a "social" matter in the sense sociology would have to prescribe if it is to be a science. Sociology can recognize its methods as any science would, and remain a valid description of this entity "society" we have described in writing. The society described in science or observed as natural phenonema is not the same as the associations we make. This is not solely for political associations, but any assoications we regard as morally real or relevant. If social information enters this association as something valued, we are aware on some level that the society's existence is implied by information alone. There is no intrinsic tie whatsoever with any social agent. There is, however, an intrinsic tie with political agents. This information does not correspond precisely with social information, and can include things and abstractions that have no place in society. It can include political information that is entirely fictitious - lies, flimflam, bullshit, ritual, faggotry, call it what you will - and it can include disinformation, malicious information with hostile intent, or information that is valued purely because of sentiments that are rooted in some understanding of the political or spiritual. We enter an association consciously with some god, even if we acknowledge that others believe in a god we believe is a bunch of malarkey, simply because of the influence of gods and religion on political thought. There is no "natural religion" that can be found with science to prove anything about a particular religion or religion conceptually. There is a spiritual reality that religion pertains to, and religion is not a purely spiritual matter which must remain forever apart from the material world we readily understand. If religion were merely a convenient fiction, it would be utterly irrelevant, and we wouldn't spend any great effort mentioning it or inventing replacements for religion. At a basic level, spiritual thought makes no reference to any "religion" necessarily. We do not need God or to invent any deity, and we do not need to ascribe to Heaven any regulatory power that might be seen in such a thing. We don't need to presume that there are animistic spirits at all, or that "spirit" is even a valid category of anything in the universe. The model of thinking I described and have worked with does not necessarily have to exist at all in the way it was defined back in our first book. If that is so, than everything I have written has little to say - but then, nothing else humanity has written or done has any greater claim, and I believe this not just in my bones but from all evidence I have observed in my life. Yet, regardless of what we would like to believe, there is a world. We presumed it was knowable, and if we conclude that we really know nothing, there is nothing more to say on matter at all. That was never truly a positivist claim, but a claim of the reactionaries who made any independent verification that science and moral truth entailed inadmissible. It is truly sad that such an infantile sop is believed by the most intelligent and capable men and women of modern society, but we have been made to abide that, or at least hear their incessant screeching so the same assholes can continue stealing everyone's stuff. The need of such a doctrine with obvious intent to steal everyone's stuff, the ulterior motive being clear and communicated by the familiar hoodwink, and the motive behind the motive that all of this really regresses to the same horseshit some deformed apes screeched about for hundreds of thousands of years, makes clear that such thinking serves no purpose for us, and always had to resort to threats and lies to maintain its rituals. However we can know things, "spirit" is a useful construct for my purposes to describe a world that was never arrested into any preferred forms, even if the nature of such a thing is different from how I have worked with the concept. Those forms did not require "the state" or the political to exist. Prior to the polity, there is a state of the person which is verified independently with little effort. We are able to assert based on a few axioms that we, the readers of this book, are human beings with limbs, faculties, and so on that are common among humans, and we have other humans as reference points for this. The human being need not be a form or an ideal to be something whose factual existence is undoubted. What is doubted is the extent of this creature, and the associations it makes with anything else in the world.

These associations are the basis of democratic societies and their collective form - the tribe, the nation, or an association that may be called "the people" as something meaningful, rather than "the people" as an abstraction or a concept of the public. Nothing about these associations is inherently "public", or for that matter "private". The dichotomy exists as both a philosophical and legal category, and this category is particular to those interests rather than the imperial interest or ulterior base motives, whether those are of the human beings themselves or the material constitution they concern themselves with. The associations are secret to those entities that are not touched by them in any significant way. Distance, whether it is an incidental consequence or something deliberately imposed by shunning and shame, is the only thing that secures the secret in the final analysis. All efforts at obfuscating this rely on something material that is irrelevant or poisonous to the spiritual conception of this association; that is, bullshit is never invented by will or spiritual or moral force alone. Bullshit must be powered by some energy source to be effective bullshit, and this is why it is "bullshit" instead of just lies or trickery. Shit is in the end a substance with definite qualities rather than merely an idea, and to create the volume of lying necessary for the secrecy political society desires, it is not enough to merely create clever lies or appeal to sentiments in raw form. High volumes of lying, sufficient for creating the beast that these associations always entail, requires nothing less than bullshit, and usually entails far more than mere bullshit.^[3] The lying itself is not really important, as if the lies actually work to convince anyone of anything. Usually, the association's secrets are not terribly hidden at all, or are things that outsiders are invited to figure out for themselves, if they so dare. But, the secret society is the most basic association. No association is ever "plainly spoken", following the retarded exhortation of one Eric Arthur Blair.^[4] If nothing else, ambiguity exists in sense that no law or institution can adjudciate for us, if we are aliens to the law and the law is held above the ruled as a weapon to terrorize them. If the law were not presented as an alien, it would look very different to us, and the codes of law we live under would not be what we have known. The secrecy need not be intentional or particularly clever, but it is never an accident. From that, the secret societies, gangs, mafias, nations, tribes - whatever term may describe associations - are never "just what they are". A mafia is never just "The Italians", "The Jews", or the particular family or outfit. This matter is too large to describe here, and because a mafia requires material bullshit, it is not apropos for the spiritual conception of such organizations. Spiritually, the mafias and gangs do not think to themselves "we are gangsters, we are pirates, rah rah rah", as if they were there to accept a world-historical mission given to them and are faithful true believers in an alien ideology. The story mafiosi tell themselves - and the smart mafias know the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club - is that they are men of honor and nothing they do is so wrong that they must assign the sort of shame posturing eugenics assigned to them for the wrong pretexts. That the eugenists make allies of said mafias who agree to this role is neither here nor there, but the eugenists are unique in that they themselves do not form a mafia or believe in any association - only the centrality of the eugenic ideology as the last ideology of humanity.

We may prefer to envision the "mafias" that are the political associations as something other than secret societies. No one thinks your social club of more or less ordinary people you play cards with because you wanted to play cards with someone is a mafia, but it is a secret to those who aren't part of your card playing group. Anyone who knows history knows that who you had dinner with and who you played cards with was a big deal to signify what societies you were a part of. You could imagine a "demos" of people united by nothing but happening to be in the same place; but to be a political "demos", those people have to talk to each other. When people talk to each other, their tendencies as individual human beings are asserted over any inherent "collective consciousness", even though a mass of people are united by proximity and would be in some association with each other as a result. Those individual tendencies are never a given, as if the unitary subject were a natural phenomenon, but the locus of events that comprise our human minds and consciousness are such that we don't have to think too much about who the individuals in the people are, and who is talking to whom. When humans talk to each other, they would form groups. This formation of factions within a given population is not a given of nature. It is a tendency within every democratic society - that where there is a political demos, there is faction, and this faction is not immediately about who is in the dominant group. The concept of political rule is not yet established, but the political power is evident by a cursory look around oneself. Absent any obvious center of political power from another source, it is not difficult to see that two people possess more power than one, and this power is not a mere arithmetic assertion that one more person is one more unit of labor-power to allocate. What two humans accomplish in tandem can produce entirely different qualities than either human could accomplish apart. I point the reader again to the pin factory of Adam Smith, which as I mentioned before does not work unless the workers are arranged in cooperative labor. Here we see the formation of the assembly line from the labor that would construct everything that this factory entails. Before there is a manager to direct the factory or any tool or technology used by it, there are people who arrive with only the technology of their bodies. We might imagine a hypothetical scenario where humans have been planted nude and inexperienced on Earth by some god, ejected from the Garden of Eden to toil on this mortal coil where they will surely wither and die. The mere act of forming the labor of the pin factory involves conspiracy and faction, even if this was entirely something the workers agreed upon as part of some shared enterprise. Of course, without law, there is no "conspiracy" as such. When Oceania has no law, the long-held understanding of humanity that politics is conspiracy is no longer a thing that can be acknowledged; and yet, the world of the past 100 years has known far more conspiracy than any preceding century. If nothing else, there are more humans engaging in conspiracy, but the modern conspiracy is no small topic and thus outside of the present purview.

It is important to make clear that men of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public. If no "public" as such exists, such a thing is implied by recognizing that there is a world of entities much like yourself who don't have any particular association locked in by an institution. In any society, "the public" is a very loose association, rather than any social agent without boundaries, or all social agents in a designated parcel of land that was appropriated by another. The formation of faction is not inherent to the existence of a "public" from the top down. Faction is the default association of human beings. They recognize that they are only a group within a larger society, and that society may be imagined as an association so long as they are referring to members of a particular polity, rather than a vague conception of society as a collective organism or egregore of thought-forms. While there is no such thing as "society" in that sense, there are certainly assocations and factions. If those factions regard other factions as anything other than "those people over there", towards whom they have no particular relation, those are always relations which can be understood and made definite. That understanding does not require an institution or law asserting that those relations exist, but they are never given or automatic, and certainly not "inherent" in a philosophical sense. Associations, down to the individual entity, are only related to each other in ways which are meaningful to our sense of knowledge, rather than a preferred diagram of society imposed by institutions.

This gives rise to a common false dichotomy - the distinction of "power from below" and "power from above", and one or the other being an absolute basis to which the other is beholden, or a dialectic that is made mushy and indescribable on purpose. The reality of association is that they are basis for political society, rather than the individual agents which are members of associations for there to be a "political society". Speaking of who is "above" presumes there was a hierarchy that is not independently verifiable and fixed in the life-form. There is of course natural inferiority and superiority - some men are different in ability from others, men are not women, and so on. Nothing about that suggested any necessary political outcome or treatment simply from that assessment of ability. In every case, the assessment of any ability is made by human beings who are in associations, rather than by institutional laws or the ideas those people believe should apply. Within the association, there is a recognition of differences in ability. Associations do not presume their members are equal in rank, merit, qualities, status, civic worth, or any other metric. There is not by default any "sameness" as a result of association, nor is there "sameness" on account of some identity in any way that has to lead to a political consequences. Struggles within a race, or within the association of males or females, occur regardless of their shared quality of being of a particular race, or because of their sex. This does not even require that there be some essential quality of the members that "makes" them fight each other. An association of humans built to be clones of each other in quality and form, who are regulated specifically to produce sameness, would still face the potential for intercine conflict, and that intercine conflict exists not for any necessary reason if it does. The purpose of association is not to say "we are all the same thing" or "we should all be friends because of this shared membership". Cooperation in an association is entirely premised on this producing some value that is worth keeping, and the association lasts only as long as that value is produced. It does not rely strictly on self-interest or even a concern that there is a "self" whose status is politically relevant. It is entirely possible for states and polities to govern whole nations collectively, and the affairs of the members of a client nation remain an internal affair - or, a family is left to their own devices. This does not have to be an innate quality of men that "has" to be asserted, or that states always choose to fight. Patriarchal society granted to fathers their standing not on the basis of right or because the law code said it was "supposed" to be this way, but because this expectation was specifically delegated to fathers. It was an obligation of fathers to maintain their family in condition so that the association of patriarchs and men generally remained intact, and fathers who refused to uphold those values were attacked not on the principle of ideology or some ulterior motive, but because the purpose of patriarchy was understood to all in the society - fathers, their wives, their children, their elders, and the state in which they lived. Patriarchal concepts of the family long preceded the philosophical state, so much that most human nations expect the patriarchal family in one form or another. Men were the property-holders. In a pastoral society, the drovers whose herd was the wealth that prevailed in such a society did so because their success at cattle herding and maintenance conferred upon them status, which resulted in them gaining standing. This may be reflected by the esteem and virtue the men command over other men, or by virtuous men acquiring more wives or the more desirable of the women. I do not wish to get bogged down in the peculiarities of the family and mating as a reward mechanism and marker of social standing, since that is a morass of humanity's woes, but this is a generally understood motivator in patriarchal societies - that men strive to gain standing, wealth, property, and high office because these things are seen as desirable qualities of a father, and the women see in men security - a security that is there because the patriarchy made sure that a protection racket could be imposed as one condition to create such an arrangement. Nothing about human nature required this arrangement or game regarding mating, and in so many ways, the expectation that merit is rewarded is subverted in marital affairs. It was a condition imposed because men who possessed wealth and the means to impose it did so, and they did so not because it was fun for them but because doing so served the interest of the valid men well enough. In practice, patriarchal society did not declare war on the women, as if it existed purely due to the vice of men lusting for women as freely reproducible possessions. The bourgeois, commoner lust and avarice is not the lust of labor or the lowest class, or any other class, and the peculiar cults of the commoners found in the modern bourgeoisie are not "default" by any nature, but because of very peculiar traits of humans which selected for avarice among the commoners and rewarded the betrayals, backstabbing, and morass of filth that is human marriage.

A cursory look at the genuine concerns of associations and their membership make the "top or bottom" discourse a facile one, which only exists to mystify what politics really is. It exists because of an obsession of certain middle class graspers to see the world as nothing but domination and submission, reveling in kink, fetish, prostitution, and the commodification of flesh. In other words, it is the master-slave dialectic of people who don't understand the true root of slavery and what slave masters, handlers, and all involved in the peculiar institution know. It is a fools' conceit of what political power is, appropriate to the degeneracy of aristocracy and the imposition of untrammeled authority to destroy knowledge or anything that we would consider moral or good. The aims of faction in democracy are about being "in" or "out" of a group, and with the relations associations hold with other associations. Membership in one association is not mutually exclusive with another. One cannot serve two masters, but association at a basic level has nothing to do with masters or slaves. It is rather a question of being in the association or not in it, recognized by the association. This status is always doubted by reason, for there is no law or certainty guaranteeing the stability of any association. But, associations persist on their own terms, rather than as institutions which are valued thought-forms or systems in particular. The association of the mafia has only a few institutions particular to it, and its existence is dependent on other institutions for the mafia to operate as an organized crime syndicate. That is, a mafia exists in parallel with the institutions of law, empire, and the state, even if those exist in primitive form. If the mafia is the law and empire itself, every mafia has a sense - even without any institutional rule, written or unwritten - of its public face and its secrets. Also true of mafias is that their modus operandi of business and the spiritual orientation of its leaders, its membership - the gods of the mafia that they might hold - are different matters altogether. After all of the pretenses about business are done away with, mafias are beholden to a society that appeared before them, rather than one a mafia created out of nothing. If the mafia must form a state proper, the state the mafia builds is almost always something apart from the mafia. The formal structure of the state, its philosophical edifice, its stated laws, and the symbols of Empire it may adopt, are understood to be a tool of the mafia which should look "clean", or at clean as states can appear. By no means does the mafia default to building the state as a cynical ploy, where the state is from the outset a parodic form and nothing else. The value of law and order is no less apparent to a criminal mafia than it is to those who despise mafias and fear them. For one, mafias fear other mafias, and they like any member of polities exist under the general fear. Betrayal within a mafia is a condition they expect, and so the arm of the state is one policing mechanism. The internal law of mafias themselves, issued by the Don or whomever holds this authority, is another. While the mafia tends not to state its internal, unwritten law in documents where it can be contested, the mafia's coded statements and insinuations are things whose true meaning and interpretation leaves little to the imagination. We don't ponder too much over what it means to sleep with the fishes or why the severed boar's head was dropped at our front door. It may be fascinating to consider just what public relations strategy a crime syndicate may adopt with technical precision and the tools familiar to us today, and this knowledge is intrinsically interesting for everyone in society. The point here is that organized crime and the state have always been partners, and are necessarily so. The holders of the state are never coterminous with the public facade of the state, its philosophical pretenses, or its law. They are not coterminous with Empire, which must state its claims openly and relies on the lower orders to conduct its espionage and occult work. What is the state and the political elite? It is nothing but a mafia, and never could be anything else. We might claim that this mafia is founded on justice, right, science, independent inquiry, kindness, humanity, decency, or some goodness that is different. Most associations do not brag about being grotesquely evil. The mafias of the world require a favorable reputation as much as any political association would if they are to survive in the world. But, they are always mafias. The state conceptually is, for all of its trappings and history, a criminal enterprise by its nature. The law of such a mafia's state apparatus is, no matter how thorough and storied its tradition, a thing created by associations. It does not arise from the heaven, handed down by God to tell everyone now and forever what they will be. If Heaven or nature do inveigh on this creature, the omens are never stated in ready-made institutions encoded in the life forms or some "thing" that is analyzed by a vulgar science claiming to have the master key to fundamental nature. The criminal enterprise may be more or less criminal than other enterprises. It is not for their own laws to judge, but for history in the genuine sense and the judgement of men. If the law is unfit for this purpose - if scoffing at the law makes the formal state completely non-viable and this is carried out in the highest institutions - there is no law of nature compelling submission. Any submission must be both a high spiritual matter and something enforced by praxis in the material world.

The basis for associations is not material, or a material ulterior motives. It is spiritual and moral - that is, whatever the material conditions are or whatever technology or institutions exist, associations exist because on some level their members want this to exist, or believe that alternatives are worse than the status quo. If the material conditions were truly onerous and cursed humanity to this fate, then the only course of action, obvious to all, would be mass suicide, which the material world has no answer to. A child can see this fate, and so naively believes that there has to be something else, some secret, if their mind seeks such things. The nature of that secret depends on what the human in society really wants and seeks, and it is biased by the approach to knowledge, science, and institutions of that society. For us in the 21st century, "the secret" is always some technology, some code, some knowledge or password that will allow entry into the real club, the place where humanity gets to go on. Outside of the big club, there is only death, humiliation, torture, and things of no value. In all cases, the dominant associations of a society want to make it clear that life outside of the association is that fate. Whatever horror we might imagine outside of the association, the association has an implicit interest in assuring you that something out there is worse than the worst horror imaginable. If there is anything outside of society, the association sees it immediately as something alien to exploit, and cannot do otherwise. Nothing about association, on its own, suggests there is cooperation on any basis other than association. If so, the problem of the demos is just transposed onto an amalgam of two or more associations or a union of disparate entities. The association is not morally or intellectually obligated to do this, in a way that makes such claims an axiomatic rule of nature, fused with nature. It is trivial to see that whatever an association or institution states or imposes, there is clearly a world outside of association and society, prior to society. The "big club" that supposedly contains the secret doesn't actually have a piece of knowledge or a win button that will make the world meaningful and true and perfect. If there is such a secret, it is not the property of men at all, and no god or higher power in this world has provided such a thing ready-made for us as a commodity at the supermarket of ideology.

If viewed this way, the public appears as a morass of mafias. They are not the scattered social agents that technocratic public relations insists to be the state of nature, and they do not form any clear hierarchy or structure due to the nature of association. Dual loyalties, secrecy, intrigues, moral turpitude or moral valor that is something more than a token of merit on display, are among the factors suggesting that none of these associations really mean more than what they are and what they do. They have some defintion and quality that we judge, and the secrecy of associations is never too clever a ruse that we don't know when we're being hoodwinked. The entire purpose of "hoodwinking" is to make clear to the outcast just what this was, and goad them into doing a single thing to change it, so that fool can be outed and ritually sacrificed in accord with the habit of the god of that association. Otherwise, it would be seen as a crass and stupid behavior worthy of beatings or killing for the insolence of the display, and all of the damage such a filthy cult has caused the world for nothing more than a cheap thrill.

Political institutions do not become political by assertion of some information or fact insisting that they are so. The law, empire, and philosophical pretenses of states are not strictly speaking political functions at all. There is in all three various expectations of political neutrality. In the law, fear of politicization is a constant, regardless of the type of government. A communist state disdains politicization of the law as much as a liberal republic, and the despots of history have always presented themselves as forces above politics out of necessity. So too does the philosophical republic always present itself as an entity devoid of faction and thus of any "political" content. For the state's highest institutions, the political question is settled and irrelevant for the business of rule and power that the state represents. The political contest - the contest for temporal power - is waged by associations, and not one of these associations can claim to be the State, united and purified in the form of their person, their body. It would be as if God Almighty were made into an idolatrous parody for the highest institutions of the state to be political institutions in that sense. The state has to appear as a neutral actor in the world, for the same reasons as the law but never made an explicit condition of the state as it would be with the law. The state's highest institutions appear much like the empire's true form - a beast with so many heads, tentacles, and intrigues that ascribing to it any moral purpose or intent is missing the point of the project. This is both intended and desired for the state to be "the state", the thing that arrests political activity so that regular order proceeds. But, this state is highly dissatisfying for the members of society, and this is no mere sentimental attachment to themselves or a fickle morality. Absent moral purpose, the state is such an absurd beast that the value of such a thing must be questioned. A more pressing problem is that without people and their labors, there is no "State" as such. All of the hitherto existing concepts of the political have dealt with the idea of the political, unmoored from even a spiritual basis let alone a material basis. The ideas of "the state" are, without anything animating them, not even fictions that are temporarily useful. A useful fiction still holds relevance to the world. The impartiality that is implied by the state is itself a moral value that members of society can choose to uphold. That is, that despite a lack of any real reason why they must, human beings decide that the state should be fair, and could easily be fair enough that the state can function as something resembling the constructs we have made about it. This moral sentiment is non-binding and does not have any of the authority the law can presume it does have. The neutral, impartial law can, without qualifying it with any scare quotes, assert that imperium is held by one man or one party, and this is entirely correct and in line with what many in the society accept. There is nothing about the political which demands that faction and strife persist indefinitely, or that factions are fixed in place and ruled by "class collaboration" or the motley assortment of interests and ghouls which assemble around the high institutions and all political institutions. It is not even necessary that one faction or another "wins" the political struggle, which is known from the outset to be an intractable struggle. One faction may prevail and hold hegemony over the society it rules. Then by extension, the state's policy towards other states is to reproduce this hegemony in international or geopolitical relations, so that one polity rules others not directly or through associations, but by asserting the status of those under hegemony. This usually entails the collection of tributes and the donation of gifts and favors to client states, or meetings and rituals where those within a hegemonic league gladhand, slap each others' asses for fun and amusement, and the sortition process produces some settlement that becomes the diplomatic status quo between polities. There is not intrinsically any distinction between "internal affairs" and "foreign affairs", except one - that the state asserts its sole monopoly when dealing with the former. In internal affairs, the state appears to "wither away" in ancient times. The promise that the state will "wither away" in communism is a facile promise, since for aristocracy and the true ruling power, the state is no impediment whatsoever for internal affairs. For aristocracy and the ruling interest, the state, whatever form it takes, has been their thing, to do with as they please. Internally, the state will be made, by clever exemptions carved out, into an instrument of aristocracy and the interests that align with it. The idea that the state's size is any concern of aristocracy is a joke, told to the more feeble-minded proprietors and producers to convince them, under threat of torture, to continue marching along and continuing to not think about what is being done to them as they Do Their Part.^[5]

The interests that motivate associations are not any of the political conceits that we have discussed so far. They are not purely material interests, nor are they obsessed with a crass question of who or what will hold the performance of authority. Anyone can say that they are in charge just by saying the word, but no one has any reason to believe that or follow that. All of those functions belong to the functions we have described thus far, and all of those functions have been at heart creatures of the aristocracy. All hitherto known human aristocracies have been drawn either from the proprietors, who are properly speaking the warriors and fighters in order to enforce any property claim, or they are drawn from the producers who pretend that they are "just commoners like you" and maintain a false egalitarianism appropriate to their concepts of law. This is to say, the aristocracy drawn from the producers and technology is an aristocracy of low cunning, and this will be reinforced most of all during the rise of the capitalists. What the aristocracy does to appear as something other than this is drawn vampirically from the world and from the labor of associations. Because it is in the interest of aristocracy to hold this virtue as a monopoly of their own, no social promotion out of the lower two classes - castes - is a realistic possibility, on the terms aristocracy sets. This is not a rule of property, law, technology, or Reason. It is not a rule that the second and third orders accept, and more often than not, the class traitors are found not from aristocratic false friends, but by those of the proprietors and commons who see clearly that they are about to be screwed in the present arrangement. For them, class treason is not a matter of ideals or sentiments, but a dire necessity of survival. It is the aim of aristocracy to make such acts appear facile, sentimental, "retarded", insane, "utopian", and therefore, inadmissible to the political. To do this, the true association of mankind must be cut out completely, and never regarded too frankly as the genuine source of any institution. It is not possible to create any institution in humanity without humans, who did not have any of these political institutions like the state or the law made for them by nature. What existed in nature that could be called a "state" was nothing more than the technology of the body, crude tools that an animal could hone, and a sense that the world could be described as technology not unlike that which the primitive human or proto-human already exercised. This primitive technology did not necessitate any political settlement based on the qualities of that technology at all. Technology, and any communication through any media, carries not destiny, but potentials, which are always employed by labor. Labor values technology not because it "ought" to, but because labor has an ability to ascertain the utilities of anything it commands. Labor commands not for ulterior motives but for moral aims particular to it. The ulterior motives do not include labor itself as a going concern. Labor, from individuals or associations, is under no obligation to view its own existence as anything other than a fleeting and temporary event in the world. The laborer could easily see him or herself metamorph into another thing, and this is no loss to labor. The child transforms into an adult, who becomes elderly. These transformations should not be considered fixed stages where the adult or elder abolishes the prior state of themselves in total, at some revolutionary initiation. But, it can be verified by science that the human body effectively reconstitutes itself in total as part of its life process every seven years, and the aging process is by now well understood. It is the most pseudoscientific conceit which denies the processing of aging as it truly happens, and even if "the science" refuses to acknowledge truth, our own experience tells us enough about life, and we can relate this experience to each other. What is moral is that there is a reason for labor to exist. It is never just a given, and this is not a matter of doubt or a mind that is prepared for a guru to feed it pedagogy.

If the interests are not directly material, what would they really be? They are the result of agents who respond to a world as if it were meaningful. This meaning consists of references to a material world, but it primarily concerns human beings whose existence was not at first dictated by anything political. Out of the human being and its primitive constitution and technology, humans acquire qualities that are familiar to us. We acquire culture, relate to family and friends, and acknowledge music. All that we consider art, music, and that which moves the passions or any sentiment in us, originate in labor. They do not exist because the state made any of them, or the high political conceits of aristocracy made anything. Aristocracy in total has been entirely parasitic. Its "high culture" can only make parodies of that which the folk traditions of humanity have long understood. It is for this reason that "the best and brightest" took many centuries to discover the clitoris, and believed in all seriousness that they have made a revolutionary discovery when some man finally figured it out. Such ignorance and celebration of it is standard for aristocracy. This is because meaningful knowledge, which science would need to concern itself with, is anathema to the entire view of society and culture that aristocracy and education insist are normal. Had educators been interested in developing any sense of ourselves, they would have seen that humans are never blank slates in that sense, and none of the smart philosophers ever claimed that. That is a peculiar disease of the eugenic creed and the most filthy and retarded ideologues of their movement.

It is in actions and doing that any political interest forms.^[6] Action as an empty symbol or the projection of action does not mean anything or carry any weight to an association, any more than the mere existence of a material facade. The baser material things are interpreted from symbols, and we out of convention have arrested simple motions as if they were fixed things. To describe a world of motion is to describe a spiritual world that animates "dead" matter, if motion is to interpreted as a political matter. This does not apply to motion philosophically or the motion we observe through science, experiment, and knowledge. The view of "strict causality" owes more to political and institutional thought than anything that actually happens in our experience. Absent a theory or model to be imposed on reality, viewing causal events in this strict manner is only useful if we understand that we are describing a particular type of motion - one that is relevant to answering questions that are important to us, rather than an understanding of "fundamental reality" which is inviolable. When we casually describe motion - for example, "Achilles and the tortoise are running in a race" - our context and meaning tell us implicitly many things and potentials about these actors. This is something we visited in the first book and briefly in the second book in describing Zeno's paradox. The problem of an infinitesimal in rational, algorithmic thought is a problem trivially solved by reason, if we are using language to describe the problem Zeno describes. It is an important thought experiment for someone to conduct, in order to understand the nature of problems posed rationally and not lapse into rational errors. Human beings lack anything like perfect rationality, but have an astute sense for reality and a faculty of abstraction, pattern recognition, imagination, and conducting these thought experiments with evidence. A problem a bad computer or artificial intelligence will bang their head against is one that someone with a little reason and sense can solve quite easily, and then demonstrate by reason and mathematics with the same tools that were available to someone in Zeno's day, as many writers of the time did. In political thought, though, merits and consequences are singular. Even if there are many agents comprised of an uncountable number of spirits with their own aims and a world full of many more such spirits, politics is not describable as a morass of spirits without a final meaning. If we tried to describe something useful with purely spiritual metaphors about motion, we would never be able to proceed. We would lock into a loop which is intractable. The intractability has nothing to do with the limitation of reason in this case. There are limits to "pure reason", but reason can understand history as a thing in a world that did not abide our conceits about it. The intractability of the problem is that political associations, down to the individual person associating with the parts of their body, must make decisions regarding temporal authority. No dithering is possible to stall the world at that level. If the mind is frozen, it will behave like a computer in an infinite loop, or a body shambling around aimlessly. In practice, the understanding of the human mind and political subject is never "fully arrested" or making a "final answer" in a way that obligates them to uphold the past dogmatically. It is entirely possible for a political actor to admit he was wrong, or that history was not what he thought it was, adjust his understanding to comport with what is needed, and remain intact and sane. It is possible to admit that, even if he was right and correct, that political society demanded something different and stupid that he will abide or be made to abide, and life will go on. This question is not automatically an existential risk for the man or the association, as if all political actors possessed perfect information about all meanings. But, any political actor is judged not against a standard the actor wishes, but by other political actors. Temporal authority is not judged by personal opinion, or even public opinion or the opinion of trained influencers and liars. Political actors are beholden to a world outside of them in a way that obligates associations to behave in ways that are moral for this political purpose, rather than what morality would be if we weren't political animals. At no point is the political matter amoral. Hedonism or nihilism are themselves affirmative positions about what should happen, or they lead to a wimpy response which is useless to everyone and will be ignored. There is not, in the material world or any law of nature, any "politically correct" moral position nature asserts at all, but they are not the creation of men as they please or are deluded into believing it should be. This political morality does not correspond to any of our expectations about what morality would be for our fulfillment. It does not correspond to any interest whatsoever. The institutions, the state or polity as a whole, the members, or some spiritual thing is not fulfilled by this political moral sense. The moral sense of political life is usually grim or dismal, but not without its merits or qualifications. It is not a disgusting calculus to grasp and cajole for position without regard for anything else. Such a thinking is the position of the most venal commoners and incredulous proprietors who join in the worse commoner fads. Usually, though, politics is hard, unpleasant, and forces those who contest it to make choices that please none of the people none of the time, and do far worse to the world if they are not mitigated by something outside of politics.

When describing political deeds and things, much of the meaning we would find in the world outside of politics is stripped away. The associations of political society concern themselves with a peculiar business of temporal authority. Before there are laws as such, this authority is held by men with tools, and from those, a cruder but more influential law is made regading the polity. The unwritten law, the taboos and insinuations and games and secret societies that prevail in human society, is not necessarily informed by parallel existence with a written code of law and its institution, or a thing that operates like the law as a singular proposition at all. This unwritten law remains to the present day the true governing power of a nation, despite all efforts to insist that nations are ruled by technology, conceits, or that there is no "nation" to rule, or that nations are not what we have known them to be for many centuries and are instead these parodic forms described by ideology and pigheaded assholes. The nation itself does not have any particular claim to temporal authority, but it is a common unit of human organization which forms a political association with a lot of members. It is very easy to envision a nation of some sort as the "big club" one would enter to be in or out, rather than a super special club of some people you play cards with or a prestigious university telling you ad nauseum that this is where all of the smart and cool people are and where all of the good sex and orgies are if you want to win the reproductive sweepstakes, and enter higher society where the "real world" happens, with the world of base humanity stripped bare of meaning and purpose and outside of all law or moral sentiment.

The meaning of the world is not so stripped away that it is reduced to the barren image of the political that aristocracy presents to us down here. Every interest that is politically relevant originated from the world and the potential of labor, and these two things were never morally identical. We distinguish labor proper from the base of the world not by some limited virtue, but because labor is always conducted for some purpose if it is to be labor. It does not need to be a good purpose or a political purpose, but it is a purpose and this distinguishes it from involuntary breathing. No one reasonably expects a man to cease breathing because a cajoler insists that suicide or death is a moral obligation to society in the abstract. It would not be hard to see that such a demand or interest asserted by an authority is purely a way of saying "we want you dead", and the particular way in which someone dies is less relevant to the condemned than the statement "die!", however it is stated. Those who issue highly specific orders about how someone is to die and what they "should" value may have their conceits, but the condemned are under no obligation to share any of their oppressors' moral sentiments, and no law in this world will ever make someone agree with that. The very nature of such a demand and imposition on the subject is something much different from the economic relation of slavery. It is much worse, and yet, such a horrific edict is considered not merely normal but meritorious in every era of human history, without exception. When applied to the lowest class and the ritual sacrifice, such demands are given a sacrosanct status slavery never held - for political society. To the condemned, this is just another round of humanity's faggotry on full display, and yet another depredation against the lowest class and all decency in the world, carried out in the name of the human race and its highest aspirations. To hear of humanity's goodness or eternal life after seeing enough of that ritual strains credulity. But, it is not the ritual itself that is the truly terrifying thing, but the enablers who acquiesce to it so readily, because it did not occur to most of humanity that this was really "wrong" or a thing that could be any different. It is funny that when it comes to continuing the ritual sacrifice and the humiliation of the lowest class, all concepts of justice are completely inverted. See, in their view, it is the condemned who should be ashamed for being in that position, and "making" the participants in ritual sacrifice do what they really wanted to do and what was always the lifeblood of their Satanic race, even before it was a truly Satanic race. The absurdity of this inversion of fault is deliberate, and produces within the law many of the carveouts granting exemptions to favored interests, which become under the law favored classes. Before there are social classes as such - and social class struggle in its proper light is something I have placed in the penultimate section of this book after the introductory concepts and "germ" of social classes were described earlier - there are only interests. The social classes are understood as interests with institutions - technology - established and having won some legal status for their institution. The institutions are motivated not by any law or material requirement or a priori result of their existence. They are motivated from start to finish, cradle to grave, by interests rooted in this concept of association, however it arises. The association might set itself as something far removed form the base of human societies and grant to themselves distinctions, which it then enforces by extraction, exploitation, and the torture necessary to lock any such social class distinction firmly in place. Spiritually, there is no commitment to "classes" as such, nor to any preferred identity or institution as the cause in-of-itself. Every interest which would constitute a social class is an interest for-itself; or rather, the interest is not rooted in any material necessity, but beacuse the moral aims of an interest did not need any further elaboration, once they have been settled as the course of action for an association.

Associations can have as many interests as they can find meanings in the world. The interests are always spiritual claims rather than material ones if they are to enter the political matter. In this respect, politics always comes "from the top down", even if the "top" is nothing more than a human body in the nude which has constituted its brain and body sufficiently to comport itself as a political agent, alone against a world which is helpless to resist it. There is never a spiritual origin of politics "from the base", as if the morass of competing and struggling spirits with all of their contradictions "just so" created politics. From the base, the interests of associations and their members, or anything in the world which would be construed as possessing this intent, has no political relevance. The interests at the base of society are there not for any preferred political outcome, but because those interests were necessary for life or some function of the agent who saw that interest. In the most primitive conditions, sentiments and moral thought familiar to us do not operate. The moral intent of bacteria in a petri dish follows principles we could regard as natural and material, but it is not the material things-in-themselves "asserting history" because of some substance or form that can be picked apart in a lab. Only after the fact do we as humans read a "political intent" in this petri dish. To the bacteria, it doesn't occur to them that they have a "spiritual stake" in the outcome of their existence at all. This is not the case with higher developments of life, where a central nervous system and feedback from animal to nature require the animal to navigate the world with some deliberation. This deliberation is not rational and does not conform to our concepts of the political. A wolf in the wild has no concept of ideology or anything like it, and does not pontificate or exaggerate his political settlement as something to exist for its own sake. The formation of the wolf pack and the habits of the wolf are things which make sense to the wolf, and are not things in the command of human hunters or those who would domesticate the wolf or the fox. That formation of the pack provides security, hunting opportunities, an instinctive comfort, knowledge of social hierarchy within the pack and in relation to a world full of predators and prey, and most of all, protection for young pups who would perpetuate the wolf society. The pups did not need a pedagogue to tell them by reason that this formation worked or that they should violate their moral sense "for the cause" because of a peculiar technology. No symbolic language exists for this in the wolf kingdom. But, the wolves can see and demonstrate this hierarchy.^[7] The members of an association and individual entities have some agency regarding this, even when it is formally denied. But, their understanding of politics is an understanding of authority, not some generative spirit that "feels good" and does not regard the world in which they live, or facts pertaining to that world. Implied in the most naive political agency is that some concept of empire, law, and the ruling ideas is held in the thought of the political agent. This would exist even if the agent had no language to express the concept, inheriting only the technology available to it to navigate the world in accord with its abilities. At the base level of political society, the question is not directly a political one. The political is a thing which, by its nature, has to capture or at least regard the existence of interests which are not about any political or ulterior motive, and are not necessitated by any natural law. Without those interests, there is nothing for politics to contest, and the result of performative politics is one we will see many times over in this writing, and one I have already described.

What then are the interests of importance? They are contingent on readily reproducible knowledge and technology for the agent in question, so far as the agent can "know" anything. The aforementioned mindless bacteria have no "interests" as such, but they have behaviors that can be understood by an observer as conforming to some intent, which has a result in what happens in the final temporal act that is observed. We speak casually of unthinking or inanimate objects possessing "wants" much like our own, even though this is clearly a figure of speech rather than an expectation that the tool or object is actually thinking about anything at all. For human beings, we have an interest in food and shelter which is not at this level a "base, material want" which can be freely ignored. We do not seek food simply because it is fuel for the body that we "mindlessly" consume. We can choose what we eat, assign moral values to various foods or habits of consuming, and build ethics around this crucial act of food consumption. Not only can we choose this freely within the boundaries the body will allow; the judgement of nature itself, if we ask seriously what "we" are and how we arrive at decisions, makes clear that the judgement of the body and brain has to operate on information it is aware of and appreciates as conscious, rational thought. That is, our thought has that much agency to control the world, because that is what the world itself decreed. Absent a compelling force in the world to say otherwise, our thought is not policed by any necessary political or material fact or anything that would require thought to conform to an alien expectation. "Material conditions" offer no explanation as to why we are as we are. When we speak of the limitations that impede the freedom of humans to consume in their environment, we speak of temporal authority - of something which ultimately is construed as a political matter. If we ascribe to nature a quality that controls our habits unduly, we are granted to "nature" a temporal authority based on spooky information, or we are aware of nature and our limitations in that regard. We can struggle against the limitations of the body and mind, but we cannot through struggle "transcend" limitations altogether. We only recognize that the political or social agent's faculties are extensible, in the ways knowledge can allow such a thing. This varies not just among political agents of different "types" or "classes", but within any association, class, or grouping we may imagine. The interests of life are not hardcoded. It is entirely possible and expected for life to starve, or willfully end its life, and life typically proceeds through a trajectory that has long been documented. Humans communicate this knowledge to each other and can communicate this knowledge without any regard of their associations. So, men are not condemned to eternal ignorance of women, where men will only be lied to and never told where to find the clitoris. The level of ignorance encouraged in human society is a choice of humans to lie to each other, even about basic things, when saying the truth about basic things would spare everyone a lot of difficulty. Whether humans want to hear the truth, or persist in ignorance or fear because of infidelity, is a personal problem of no inherent political value. We can choose to remain ignorant, and in many political questions, "ignorance is strength" in a very real way. We only possess so many faculties for life and the political question, and the political question should not consume an exorbitant percentage of our life expenditures. We would, in a better world, pay the tax to the authorities all the way down the line to get them to go away, and the authorities would recognize that people who aren't starved and humiliated, who have some project to work towards for a reason other than crass motives, would be far more productive than this shit we have been consigned to. But, humans don't believe in that. That would be too decent, and decency faces the tax of political knowledge, which has no intrinsic reason to do anything other than destroy any decency the moment it shows itself on this Earth. Nothing about the world itself was cursed or predestined this. The world has, in its way, gone out of its way to protect humans from the proclivity to backstab and chase cheap thrills. Only by engineering a society so that associations of men are herded towards their worst vices can humans br programmed to fail, from cradle to grave, the marshmallow test, so that the Milgram torture experiment can be proven true.^[8] Otherwise, whether humans care to throw each other a fricking bone here is entirely within their power and their judgement about whether the truth will do good among a race and a society that revels in various lies and the culture of lying for its own sake.

For all of the moral aims that enter political consideration, not one of them concern the good, the bad, or the evil, in any direct way whatsoever. It is not for the base spiritual existence of humanity to contain, in purified form, any of those things. We may hold judgements of merit, or hold that particular things are good or bad in of themselves. The question of evil is an altogether different animal. We may sense the evil and note its presence before any reason tells of what it is, but we do not truly know evil in a way that allows it to be weaponized by some working of science or appeal to nature. Evil is the particular moral inclination that is most relevant for any other moral judgement, but there is not a single thing in politics that necessitated or desired "evil" in this world. The world, for all of the horrible things I have said about this existence, is in the main "good", or at least, the world did not possess any malevolence to mandate that politics or humanity be as they are. All of the malevolence of mankind, no matter what technology it has developed to facilitate such a thing, did not mandate that we must, now and forever, do this evil for its own sake, as if there were a substance of evil in nature that could be isolated in a lab. There is no political or ethical calculus that can decide by pure reason or any appeal to nature that there is such a thing as "evil" that can calculated. For the good and the bad, these things are calculated by merits more than passions or the moral qualities humanity values as the product of their labor. We did not engage in labor with the ulterior motive of obtaining a gold star or the esteem of others, as if that were life's prime want. The proprietors always intend such an ideology as a morality for the slaves - "personal responsibility" with a knife at the throat of the slave, where the supposed master is absolved of all consequences even when the master is clearly at fault and holds all relevant levers to decide the fate of property and political society. The bad is simple enough. The world and experience of life is replete with examples of what is to be avoided, and the evil is only one such thing - a thing that is developed properly by a more developed spiritual authority, which sets itself apart from temporal authority very conspicuously. The evil may be a malevolence that received wisdom warns us of long in advance, or the received wisdom itself can be the evil - the "man in the middle" which seeks to regulate associations and orient them towards the foulest pedagogy. The good, for all that has been written about it, remains elusive, and will always remain elusive. It is not merely a question of reason of managed information facing this limitation. After all of the moral sense humanity has developed, and all foreseeable moral sense and meaning that any knowing entity could acquire, no entity, no matter if they were of a far better race than mankind, will know the good in any capacity. Not religion, not philosophy, not the world itself, will tell knowledge about the good. This is the greatest of Biblical lies - that the serpent can, by delivering some convenient technology for a bargain price, give freely to mankind knowledge of the good. It was not knowledge of the evil that the serpent offered. The evil was obvious enough, even in the supposed Garden of Eden. If humanity did not know of evil at all, then God's admonishment to not eat the fruit would not be comprehensible even as a command followed mindlessly by an animal. Temptation itself presupposed evil before the fruit would pass into any human hands, and this was known. In whatever way primitive mankind knew evil, they acted on it, and they always knew that. They knew the bad from their existing experience. They knew in some sense the world did not have to be this, but the only admissible idea in such a world is "not bad" or "not evil", or some other moral quality that is not relevant to the parable. It is "knowledge of the good" alone that is the sin - the promise that there is some ultimate purpose, and the revelation at the true Fall of Man that it was all a lie, and there is nothing but a brick wall behind the theater curtain.^[9] This is, in the end, what humanity chose, instead of literally anything else or a real answer to this shitfest. But, regardless of how stupid it is to pose this false dilemma - "why do bad things happen to 'good' people" - the question of the fad, the promise of an easy path to the good, remains the constant promise, and the central lie if a religion is to contain a general theory of the technology that religion represents. After all is said and done, all of the knowledge and all of the trials this "god" puts humanity through mean nothing. It has decided your fate and assigned to his subjects their roles in the world, if any. Beyond that, there is no "good knowledge" to acquire. There is an implied existence of the good, because we know that if the world were itself the evil or it was all unmitigated "bad", there would not be one iota of reality suggesting there would be anything else. If we abolish the conceit of the self, then if the universe were a pure moral sentiment screaming "bad", all life dies screaming forever. A child can see this.

Politics does not consider the morality we would value as our interests as its own values. The contest for temporal authority is beholden only to the concepts of the political that we have built, by observing common relationships. The concepts of the political, empire, and law were built with one part foresight that such things were possible, and one part hindsight that these things had existed in some way in the experience of most people. The precursors of what we have described as the aristocratic educational ideal were inherent in the very process of knowledge itself, which - however they were understood - were a crude model the educator followed to suggest what temporal authority was and who - or what - ruled. This understanding would have been made without any moral value whatsoever assigned to the aristocratic institutions, and as always, aristocracy scoffs at any moral sentiment. Moral sentiments are for the slaves and the workers. Aristocracy abolishes all sentiment long before eugenics, and it promoted in its place a saccharine and stupid cloying that is insulting to the most retarded child that may exist - that is intentionally so. Of course, aristocrats themselves are still, despite their protests, human beings with all of the faults and merits of humans, and they understand that this model they have foisted upon the world doesn't really work or accomplish anything. It just creates more toil, and that has been the point, however aristocracy presented politics.

What politics considers moral are imperatives - commands to follow the dictates of the political. It is this that truly explains political economy as something rooted in politics. The economic management task is an afterthought, and how economic affairs are governed will vary from time and place and in accord with the faculties of the manager, whatever that manager may be. Nothing about the material world and nothing about the interests of associations mandates any political imperative. If the political is subordinated to the wants of human beings, it is not human beings who command the state or its machinery at any time. It is the other way around. The moment the economic agent is beholden to politics, political imperatives take over any judgement the rational economic agent would have held if his reason - his pure, ethical reason - were the governor of life and the world. The idea that socialism would be attained by making economic life a political matter is absurd if you think about what politics is for five minutes, and I here have spent far longer than five minutes expounding on all that has led to this part of my writing, and all that prepared me to write this and made it abundantly clear to the world regardless of me. It is more apropos to the next book to write about socialism, but right now I will say that the early socialists were not in the main political writers. They wrote about politics and politics would have been a condition of allowing socialism to happen, but socialism's most basic principles were a thing outside of politics altogether, as they should be. It is political imperatives, the merit of property, and the intrigues of law, that dominate all of Marx's writing on the matter - and Marx is not wrong in seeing that this was the status quo that anyone would have to work in. The goal of socialism or anything like it - or anything that purported to do a single iota of good on the economic or social question - was something politics would have to allow or abide, because the want of it from the people is not at a fundamental, natural level, beholden to any imperative. This would presume that a concerted interest in human society wanted socialism or the management of industry by an agreed-upon plan. None of that required any particular political settlement. It is entirely possible, and this was stated by the liberals, for a liberal socialism to exist and meaningfully be a socialist society, with all of the aims that were entailed. Socialism was opposed to the individualist political imperative, rather than self-interest in all things.^[10] It did not require any "abasement to the collective", and did not inherently see a conflict between the individual and the association. This is because, whether anyone at the time knew it, the associations humans make, that constitute its meaningful political acts - what it does - are the true political unit. The individual person is an institutional figment of the imagination, so far as politics is concerned. What is truly individual is that only individual, integrated humans feel any sentiment, or possess an independent moral compass. Associations of a political nature have no moral compass but their imperatives, and these imperatives came to be conflated with indiviudal feelings and conceits. The conceits of men who gathered together in conspiratorial groups were conceits formed because of the imperatives of their aims to command temporal authority - to take over the world. This is the only true enterprise of the political. The state has no path to good, or even to the evil or wicked. It really has no moral aim except to feed its imperatives. We could imagine a polity that is not dominated by this monomaniacal pursuit of imperatives unmoored from anything that would inform the judgement of men, which in the first case was something far removed from any "world-historical mission" assigned to anyone or any association by an alien. Assoications are self-interested and also interested in a sense of what the group of men were assembled to do in the first place. That is, the associations of men which form the basis of political society did not have a necessarily political origin at all. For many of these men, joining the Freemasons was not about joining a conspiracy to take over the world and micromanage it so that a few grand wizards and imperial mandarins can torture infinitely. Taking over the world is a part of the fun of the club, and no one who rises beyond the lowest ranks, or even lives in a society where Masonry is prevalent, is unaware that this club is an arm of imperial ambitions. This aim does not in of itself bother the members. Their aims in joining is first of all to have friends in a hostile world, for some mafia will need to fulfill this option. The net result for most people is little to show, but you might find people to play cards with, and that was and remains a big deal. The second aim is that joining such clubs was a vehicle for social advance, and it has been historically the only vehicle from which labor could enter political life in the first place. No other vehicle, with ambitions to be something more than "just" an association if it wished to survive, would allow labor to form any institution that we would call the state or part of the ruling edifice. The people outside of labor proper may envision a vehicle, but if they are outside of labor and association, they are outside of the basis of all hitherto known political society. It is association that holds true moral intents, and once those moral intents are held, any individual hoping to compete with those associations is doomed to follow the same imperatives any such association does. If someone does not wish to compete with the associations, they are not contesting the political question or temporal authority, and those who are contesting the political question will always hold that sword at those who do not, if they can and wish to. Those who are unwilling to use such a sword, with all of the implications of such hostility, surrender before anything else their position regarding temporal authority. The rest of us just live in the world of those who are willing to contest temporal authority.

It is this divorce between the spiritual nature of humanity and the material that is politically important. The simple reason for this is that politics is entirely a spiritual concern. The material existence around us is just a condition which spiritual actors like us acknowledge for what relevance it has to that spiritual existence. The whole of the material world, which is vast and full of mysteries, is reduced to political imperatives. One of them, for living agents, is that they require sustenance. This moral want is not "inborn" in a sense that makes it a law of nature. It is a want that exists because on some level, life endures on its own power and on the power it extracted from a material world. The composition of that material world is in of itself irrelevant to life's vampiric act. That vampiric act of living has inevitable consequences on the world from which life feeds, which is represented in the surrounding environment. We are aware that the surrounding environment is a concern for our survival, and this concern is not just a rational one. If we knew nothing, we are still beholden to that. But, we can choose how we live and all of the potentials of life, and we can choose to face an unliving existence on our terms, rather than the terms set for us. Who sets those terms for us? Associations and other agents. We would not have a general fear if there were not some association linking disparate groups of people, even if that association were tenuous. I do not know anyone in China, but the state of affairs in China is very relevant to the world, and likewise, what I do in America weighs heavily on the members of Chinese society. We are aware that this connection is far more tenuous than globalization suggests it "ought" to be, and that there is no good reason why either of us have to fight. The political leadership of both countries studiously avoid any "national interets" interfering with their big, global club. This is possible because aristocracies make a habit of knowing their fellow aristocracies, rather than any material necessity suggesting aristocracies have to collude, out of some belief that this is a natural interest. It is something informed by political leaders' understanding that their greatest enemy has always been the subjects they rule over, with foreign rivals only a thought in dire circumstances. The foreigners will have competing regional interests, live in different lands and have some interest in protecting that land from foreign exploitation. But, this attachment to land is not an essential spiritual or philosophical quality. It is a circumstance we as humans find ourselves in, and it is a circumstance that does not apply equally to a society or a race. We see in the competing interests of society varying attitudes towards the land they live in, and a great many see globalization as a boon to their interests and wants. There is no cogent argument for "philosophical nationalism", as we will see in later chapters. For now it is more relevant to note that the terms we live under are in some way our own choosing, but every other agent does things that affect the same world, and that world includes our bodies - the housing for this spiritual creature called "conscious knowledge". We can argue about how connected we are to material reality or each other. For the political matter, though, acts and behaviors are the symbols of political importance. They are still symbolic acts or rituals, empty of purpose in-of-themselves, but political writing cannot grapple adequately with meaning in that sense. We have limited time to maintain a full political awareness about things that are not in our direct path. Political awareness is, when we remember the general fear and its vastness, far too burdensome to be a constant awareness of those who are placed under the duress of struggle sessions and siege. Even in a much more placid status quo, constant political awareness is taxing, and usually counterproductive. Even political fanatics take part in this political contest not out of love or sentiment for it, but because the question is necessary for them, and it is only necessary so far as this question leads to a solution to the general fear. The idea that someone would love the fear - "love their slavery" - is contrary to political sense, which has long understood that such a condition provides nothing that either politics or the want for goods in society would desire. All it would be is a pressing of a nerve, which has less to do with the spiritual matter and more to do with a particular technique to disrupt the material existence underneath us - a highly ineffective technique compared to that which we know is effective for manipulating the material world. The pressing of the nerve appeals to an impulse within spiritual authority and the animal rather than any actual use of doing so, and that's all that it needs to be - if the conditions of the brain and body, and that which feeds anything spiritual, are denuded enough and this pressing is a rebrand of the drover's stock and trade, familiar to hunters for century after century.

At a basic level, political imperatives are only relevant for this. What, then, would the imperative of profit in capitalism be? It is not a mindless avarice, or something capitalists half-consciously adopted out of a belief that "the system can't be wrong". The capitalist arrangement produces very clear winners and losers, who are aware of what they really want out of society and how they would have to operate. It is entirely possible for capitalists to negate on their own the entire setup, and this is what has happened in the 21st century. But, if a capitalist wishes to change "the system", it does so not by any individual working or geist. It always does so through associations and the political imperatives available to it. Those imperatives do not match up to any economic imperative in a direct sense. But, political imperatives - and everything involving treasury money or notes payable as money has a political nature if the commonwealth is capable of creating this condition we call "capitalism" - are things which may be calculated and quantified in the abstract. What a capitalist manager is managing is not a material substance or a material phenomenon of nerves. That management has little to do with politics or any necessary economic logic. If we wished to regulate the body and mind cybernetically, we would approach this task without any of the political machinations and trickery that have dominated all of our concepts of alienable labor as a valued thing to contest. It would also be clear that the best way to regulate a cybernetic slave would not be to lie about its freedom and beat the slave with the reminder that the thrill of torture has been maximized. That has always been known to be a disastrous approach to anyone who considers effective slavery or mind control for five minutes. It is boggling that the venal graspers of humanity, being truly retarded, have not figured this out, since slave masters who work with this concept every day know how to work with the human body, when they must deign to care about the health of their livestock. But, at the heart of political economy is management of the moral intents of that body. Its suffering, its soul, its purpose, are the chains the master desires. For our own purposes, the moral intents of the body are not terribly relevant. The body at a basic level does not require that much to maintain its functions and exist in a condition of relative freedom. Freedom may not be free, but it is far cheaper than the alternative. History has borne out that result many times, independently verifiable to anyone who works with production or finance now or in the past. But, the political imperative was not about deploying money wisely as a tool to command men, or any other virtue. The political imperative is "how do I torture the peons", even if this is economically ruinous. It makes more political sense to beat the slaves down "just because", because this in a mathematical sense reinforces the status quo, the general fear, and grants to management a stronger hand when they must engage in the muck of the material world. In short, spiritual wants and concerns are far easier to mechanize than material impulses and nervous systems. For humanity's spiritual welfare, the hardware is the same as that which produces physical force, running alongside it. We might disdain any such spiritual condition of labor or the lowest class, but we never disdain spiritual authority among the monied commoners - the managers - or the warriors or the priests. To do that is to shirk the trinity. The producers, who really have no stake in the political except what they grasp and lose almost as soon as they acquire it, believe in their delusions that the masters will placate them and "have to". This is because their conceits about institutions, law, and demarchic political society tell them this, even when it is clear that this is not at all the status quo. Common producers and technocrats love the s'pos'das, but labor has always seen such things as a sick joke, to say nothing of the lowest class. The suffering, though, is something humans and managers in particular value. Suffering and torture have a unique disciplinary force because they are one obvious, pressing link between material existence and the desire of aristocracy, which is as vicious to the soul of even their favored subordinates and their peers as it is to the world they have denuded with their filthy existence. To aristocracy, the thrill of torture has always been the point, because that's how they got there most efficiently. Anything else is, in their world-system, ipso facto retarded and beneath their dignity. To everyone else, this is beyond pointless. It was not the sole political imperative that torture should win, and for most of human history, there had been strong countervailing forces against a society dominated by the thrill of torture. The Romans, sadistic as they were, knew there was a time the ultraviolence and state executions had to stop, and the proles and slaves had to get their rest, continuing the cycle good Saturn set for them. The capitalist understood explicitly that their virtue was not just action but restraint and the presentation of alternative options to "the thrill of torture must be maximized". A socialist, even in a deformed state, would see that all of the madness neoliberalism entailed was not just counterproductive but specifically designed to break anything socialists hoped to attain as a result of their enterprise, even if that result was just to hold onto power cynically against a hated public. It is only one system that suggested such an ethos maximizing the thrill of torture - eugenics and eugenics alone! Nothing about technology or the institutions necessitated that imperative. It was a highly unusual assortment of technologies and stances in humanity, and the "Jehadists" of eugenics knew that if this plan were ever stopped for the obvious ruin it created for no gain, the eugenists would all be rooted out and ruthlessly exterminated - and it was good.

The political imperatives are not uniformly malicious, but they are always unconcerned with human sentiment. This works both ways. Despite their Christ's admonition, the eugenists are always sentimental when it comes to what they find exciting, and rules are for thee and not for me in their mind. This is not just a thoughtless hypocrisy, but the eugenists isolating that anarchy and aristocracy were linked and excising all other concepts that would obligate aristocracy to any reality outside of what they wanted. What the aristocrats want is not fundamentally different from what the lower orders wanted - what they wanted to do in the first place. What did aristocracy do to be where they are, and why did they do it? For aristocracy, the imperatives were simple - to never be refused again, because if that happened, the game was up. But, they cannot do this as they please. The greatest fear aristocracy faces is never revolution from below, and a commonwealth - a republic - ensures that revolution is negated. The chief interest that precipitated revolution is that the king, the despot, ran out of money and went to the commons to levy more taxes. A republic negated that because the men who levy said taxes were the base for the new aristocracy and the President served them in principle. No elaborate charade of technology explains why a republic never faces revolution. What aristocracy always feared, and this is something I cannot stress enough, is a Caesar - a member of their own ranks making cause with interests outside of the "pure blood" of aristocracy and all of the rot it entails. Caesar cannot do this unilaterally or "against the system". As mentioned in a prior footnote, those who aspired to be Rome's leading man in that time would out of necessity adopt similar strategies as Caesar, and made alliances with those who aspired to be the king in all but name. Caesar also relies on both creditors and the support of many men in the lower ranks, not the least of whom are legionnaires who look to their man to provide spoils and rewards. So would anyone seeking to prevent Caesar or do what Caesar did play the same game. The imperatives of politics were the motor, rather than the imperatives of the creditors because money had a power to command will that had to be taken as a fait accompli. The creditors are not there to move financial substance around like flotsam, and they come from far and wide because Caesar makes promises to his clients and constituents as any politician would. A king or a despot is no stranger to this politics, and is more acutely aware of the genuine interests at work, without the fetters of a republican charade. The despot is also sobered by a lack of any public enthusiasm for the system of despotism. Despotism means that no merit or civic worth counts for promotion to the ultimate prize, and the despot faces the same problems of venality a republic does. The failure of a republic is purely in its aristocracy, and a republic that chokes the world and transforms into Ingsoc or some priesthood of torture is a failed system for a failed race. But, above all of these machinations, is something all politicians must abide - that at the end of the day, the project they run, whatever it is, must remain consistent with the wants of those who share in this association. Whether you think those wants are justified is irrelevant. Those wants are not petulant wants, but wants of security which are the necessary basis for associations and any political security. Without them, no institutions are possible. Security and liberty have always been linked, and it is the perverse incentives of the order of classes which insist that they must be opposed. In a sane society, where the associations could have what they wanted, this has been readily understood as the basis for any settlement, rather than any natural law giving a perfect system from the king to the people. From the outset, the problem of the political has been the general fear - other people - who began without any political pedagogy, but would independently have arrived at technology which conformed to all of the concepts of the political without any necessary "system" asserting it.

There is an expectation, somewhere, that this political settlement "works" not just for winning the struggle, but ruling in any way someone would consider tolerably "good". This has nothing to do with the philosophical or spiritual concept of good, but rather, that after the struggle, there is a thing to rule. This is, once again, a political imperative, and it is not one that all in society will agree to. Those who never had any power and no aspirations to hold it do not necessarily value power or rule at all. Life can choose to forsake political stability in favor of revenge, and there is no law of nature or any law that says you're "supposed" to do as aristocracy wishes you would. It could very well be that ridding the world of an intolerable menace appeals to enough people who can say no that they care not about any going concern. There are causes which are not intrinsically poltiical, but that animate men - or anything else in the world - to change the status quo. If politics serves itself and becomes nothing but a morass of struggles, it has a predictable end. We could just skip to the end that I saw as a child, and that others of this time saw in spades - that if we really think struggle is the purpose, we should all just rope ourselves now. If we do have a cause worth struggling for - and any struggle at this time means a cause worth destroying the world for, for those are the stakes eugenics imposed at the start of their "Jehad" - we would want, if we can, the struggle to be won at less cost rather than any cost. Literally destroying the world because some eugenist retards insist on their faggotry and nothing more is stupid and pointless, and it is a travesty that we have come to this. But, a sick impulse that has less to do with political sense and more to do with a spiritual disease in the human race did prevail, and so the stakes can be made into that even if a majority of humanity wanted something that wasn't shit and hurt no one, cost nothing, and served every political imperative not just adequately but in a way superior to the status quo. The point here is not that there is a victor to the struggle, for any struggle can be imagined to persist. The strongest do not win by merit any political struggle or war, no matter how much the math says merit should win. It is not a matter of technological wisdom or even good fortune granting to the destined the mandate of Heaven. An ugly truth of the world and politics is that, after all is said and done, no science or institution can deny that "shit happens", and the absurd truly does rule humanity, in its heart and in its highest offices. This condition the world imposes frustrates all efforts of science and moral want to control the situation. The regression to the primordial conditions invokes this very chaos, claiming that "the chaos" will rule instead of a very orderly and sickly procession, all worked out to create "fake chaos" and insist that forming connections is impossible. This sleight of hand would be impossible unless there was in political truth a genuine chaotic element, and the regressed and immiserated condition of pure aristocracy would still entail chaos. The chaos in such a situation would produce outsized results, because there is nothing real or worth living for in such a world, and the slightest whim or crisis provokes wild reactions. It is this which the eugenists seek to acquire - to make everything a crisis, even mundane things, and to invoke language of war and struggle over things that are very clearly not wars in the sense that involve anything but aristocratic management and skullduggery.

From here, there isn't a direct link to institutions from spirit alone. This is where the spirit of man, the labor that is our core political conviction, has to draw something from the world to sustain it. While spiritual aims may be utilized as an abstract technology, without anything substantive to point to, there isn't anything moral or worthwhile in it.

I insert here something about "free love" and sexual politics, since it has come up often enough in this writing and in the arguments the masses are given about what they're "supposed" to feel regarding their intimate moments and mating choices. Once upon a time, there were men and women who did not like the status quo of managed relationships, and sought instead sexual unions without the approval of anything but each other, for purposes of their own. In practice, this has always been haram. The ritual sacrifice and orgies of the human race are a sign of what humans really have been, and "free love" has often been weaponized to feed both. But, despite all of the efforts of associations to monopolize reproduction and mark who is "in" and "out", there are many people who do not care about this, and they do not have a material necessity or ulterior motive for wanting a relationship outside of that status quo. The motive is self-evident - living under ritual sacrifice and orgies is very unappealing, leads to obviously bad consequences, and is spiritually degrading like few other things in humanity can be. Anything that escapes that, even if it is a fleeting fantasy, remains a constant among humanity. It was necessary for eugenics to ensure now and forever that such things are not possible, or controlled by them. "Free love" or any designation resembling it was now tagged with some mark of shame or inferiority. This is how "gay" became a social identity. Such a social identity existed in some form in many human societies - it has long been known who the gay boys are, who are forbidden from entering "real manhood" and play some role in perpetuating the orgy and sacrifice regimes of humanity. The "free love" advocates are not this. The chief relationship they have known was the natural heterosexual union, except with the belief - however hopeless - that the man and woman actually liked each other enough to stick through this, because doing so was in their mutual interset and the interest of the child, with whom one or both parents would feel some affection and sense was their duty in life to bring into a world so that a worthwhile condition of life may continue. Nothing about the institutions humanity imposed by pedagogy and education allowed children to have anything. Education as a rule has always clamored for access to children, and finds the natural parents or any guardian that is not chosen by the institution to be an intolerable barrier, for reasons that are very irrational and insane but nonetheless valued and internally consistent for the purposes education has served. This education would have had to be provided by the parents if not by the institution, and this would also have entailed the child's development in an environment that was not toxic and designed to "screen it out". In short, it required humans to be "human" in the spiritual sense that was once half-believed, before eugenics reframed humanity as nothing but a race and a foul and failed race of their design, intended to fail from cradle to grave.

I have taken to use of the word "faggotry" often in this writing, and this topic of associations makes clear what I mean by "faggotry". I refer not to the mere display or performance of homosexuality, which I have no real hang-up about. It is instead this social identity and culture around it, and its very aggressive weaponization, that gives rise to that famous American slogan, "God Hates Fags". I cannot comment on the moral or ethical position of any deity, but the meaning to us on Earth is clear enough, thrown in our face in a grand psychological operation that has been a prominent initiative of the eugenic creed. The history of the Westboro Baptist Church and its members can speak for itself, as they very much have, and they have made their position on this matter clear enough to anyone in this time. The rabid dishonesty of fags - "vicious fag attack" - is itself an effect of the eugenic creed, scripted and intended as a praxis for this purpose. It is not hard for us to see that the WBC itself is following a praxis given to them in this comedy-drama that was the historical narraive, and so the fags, fag enablers, and the fag haters engage in a dance, whether any of these parties or those dragged into this question wanted such a thing. This problem of free love and free association is very much why the homosexual issue became so contentious. The homosexual act itself, or masturbation or sexual depravity, has no intrinsic meaning. It is in society and association that the orgies and sacrifices must play out. The first ritual sacrifice is the first knowing political act of the human race, carried out with all of the knowledge I have described here implied in the passage of such an event. The ritual sacrifice cannot be done without full deliberation and pre-meditation, and that the thrill of the act in of itself must be glorified. It is for this reason that the performance of sexual depravity would be emphasized, in ways that violate any of our ability to make mental connections. Most of us as children, even without exposure to "homosexualism", could see the militance and intent of the "LGBT" crusade and its eugenic purpose. That eugenic intent could not be hidden and it was dripping out of the mouths of these slavering fags and all who made this narrative the only permissible narrative.

The associations of the family are an entry point to "material reality" that operate on a psychological level that is completely irrational, and lays bare what humanity's spirit really has been. The idea that such a foul act as sexual reproduction can be "made good" by some logic or condition ignores the long history of lurid rituals surrounding an act. Materially, the sex act and its consequences do not warrant any such ritual. A race that wasn't so malevolent and deformed would see correctly the sex instinct is one that would be largely irrelevant, and insults and insinuations about any sexual habit would be a gross violation. It is, to a reasonable mind, not their business what anyone else does, and the orgies and filth of the "great game" is very clearly something aristocracy mandated to throw in everyone's faces who and what really rules. This only works with a strategy of conspiracy and deprivation, and the consequences are dire for life but ultimately irrelevant to spiritual purpose or authority. If a lockout of "those people" is enforced, mandated by every form of education and socialization humanity has known, they are sooner or later dead, and their line is extinguished. Their eugenic interest, and thus their property, are gone, and this is a consequence of some simple facts that do not require any spiritual concept of sex. Spiritually, a sexual union can be nothing more than a business, in which a spawn is conceived, with no expectation for the child other than "this is the thing we do". In practice, no man or woman will view the sex act as incidental. Women must bear the offspring and nurse it, unless they obtain some method of abortion or are willing to sacrifice the child to get rid of the problem. Men are guilty and they cannot claim with any seriousness that they can't figure out penis in vagina = baby if they are at all capable of accomplishing the sex act. If no one tells them this, then a man will have asked at some point about this question and surmised, based on the likely observation of pregnant women and seeing them give birth in the wild or in the tribe, that women were impregnated by men. Since this knowledge is not, despite eugenist education asserting a complete inversion of reality and habitual lying to the retard, a great secret, even the most abject exclusion from human society does not deprive someone of this knowledge. Without that, the man will ask himself why he is attracted to the female, which is the default and natural proclivity for many facts that need not be re-litigated. So too are the reasons for male homosexuality not a great secret to men. If one doubts this, there are many loose homosexuals who will not just tell you their life story if they believe it is safe to do so. This author has found gay or homosexual men are far too eager to divulge details that he really didn't need to hear, but out of some sentiment for humanity, I have heard them. At some point, men will observe this phenomenon of the homosexual, or at least ask himself what such a thing would mean if he were introduced to such a sin by some spirit of the world or a word of society normalizing it. And so, the man is never ignorant. To be a sex-haver is to be guilty of knowledge, even if that knowledge is imperfect, and the aristocratic game revels in lying to men, using them, tossing them aside, and all of the fuckery that pedagogy has insinuated for centuries. In a better race, none of this ignorance and giggling, and none of this ritual sacrifice, would be tolerated for a moment. Anyone who began such a ritual would be marked down, and when their guard is down, they would be dragged out, summarily executed, with documented facts regarding the incident which are not in doubt. In a society with proper surveillance - and modern technocratic society has been able to plant listening devices or reliable agentur to collect this knowledge - there would be no room for doubts or "innocent until proven guilty" regarding such an obvious game that was carved out so that aristocracy could continue stealing our lives and making sure the thrill of torture continues, and can be maximized towards its targets. This author does not grant to privacy any of the spiritual qualities Germanic insinuators and the really incompetent and bad pimps and whores have wanted. No such privacy has ever existed, and his own life is enough proof of that humiliation and how little these filthy agentur regard any "right to privacy", which is a right which never existed in any legal code. The right against illegal search and seizure was not a "right to privacy" in that Germanic corruption. It was instead a limitation against conduct of states which are known to abuse a warrant when it is granted, and so the restriction on illegal search and seizure is a procedural matter that would be necessary for a court of law to proceed under the legal code of the United States, and from common law that preceded it. No "right to privacy", to allow this conspiracy and insinuation game to give to the state the exact pretext it needs to abrogate due process, exists in law or in any moral treatment of why such a thing would exist or why it would be desired. In any event, the reality of technology and the known proclivities of humanity make clear that if the state does not collect this information, interested parties - which is to say, everyone who wants to live among a race known for its malice like humanity - will face an obligation to collect this information for their own security. It is part of the Germanic game to deny that reality exists at all unless it is mediated by some ideology and pedagogy, and this is specifically intended to destroy the democratic idea. We see in this particular matter of regulating sex life the origin of so much malice, and a lesson in human politics that is familiar to nearly every human who has seen this in action.

Free love, though, remained a disinteresting matter for the Germans. The Germans are not known for any particular obsession with sex, and were notorious for fucked up kink and permissiveness of homosexuality despite the martial culture. I do not care to dwell too long on the peculiarities and stereotypes of Germans, since this has not been a constant and fantastic German philosophical racism was really the obsession of the involuntarily celibate Kant and similar perverts, who are drawn to philosophy like flies to shit. It is the strident eugenics of Francis Galton which knew that sexual taboos in particular could be weaponized. The German philosophical disease, already known to disrupt a democratic society, was the perfect weapon for eugenics and its mission to control information. We will see that information and the technocratic polity was a pre-requisite for eugenics, and so that is the main reason I required these books are a prelude to write my true and bile-filled rant against the eugenic creed, in what is now the sixth book of this series. That, though, must be built up with more preliminary material, and the journey to this is interesting for me as a writer. Hopefully the reader gleans something useful from this description not just on the eugenics question, but for their understanding of this world generally and the affair we have been made to suffer for, with so little gained and so little accomplished for all of the energy wasted on this topic.

For those who sought free love, it is precisely this stifling control they sought to escape more than anything else. Free love did not entail any particular cultural signifier or ideology, or any particular purpose or politically necessary tenet for the libertine. It was necessary for eugenics to make it yet another "movement", "revolution", so that it may be politicized, weaponized, and deployed specifically to eliminate forever such a concept. It would then be replaced with lifestyles, fads, kinks, fetishes, and pornography in quantities hitherto unknown, sent through novel communication to subjects who were not accustomed to any such disorientation. Doing this required much more than simply insinuating that it could be done. The generations born after the proclamation of eugenics in the 1920s would have to be segregated from the past, and segregated from each other. Therefore, "history is bunk", and it is here where history breaks from what it was understood to be. It is also no accident that here is where copyrights and patents placed historical works in the private domain, and public domain work would be edited, curated, and policed in ways that were previously impossible. A part of this offensive was the sex act, and this was not particular to eugenics. For one, the long history of infanticide would become a political matter from the moment socialism became a prospect, for now children were to be examined by the state and by society in a way that was not an interest for human societies of the past. Even if this were less onerous than the very violent state intervention we live in, even suggesting socialism of any sort could become an imperative or something in the base of society and its spiritual interests entailed an association that drew children into a society that was highly unusual to them. Socialism, as I hope to explain, entailed a social transformation and a psychological and spiritual transformation, and it was not at heart a political proposal, and right away, the free love advocates - for good or ill - were associated with the socialists and the left generally. Sexual libertines and perverts were a favorite of the political conservatives and the rightist vanguard, in a way that I have deemed the most pernicious faggotry. It is that faggotry I am invoking in nearly every instance of the word "faggotry" in this writing. Faggotry, or the very pernicious lifestyle that would be fully weaponized by the 1990s, is not identical with free love, and had little to do with the past culture of homosexuals - a culture which had existed without needing to be engineered from state influencers, and usually a culture which was seeking to avoid entanglements with political life or the state for all of the reasons that would make sense. It is very strange to me, and I sensed this even as a teenager with scattered historical knowledge, that a strident and militant "gay movement" was fashioned in the 1990s that prioritizing "outing". "Outing" anyone forcibly would have been seen not as a liberating act, but an exposure that is like drawing a mob to some poor soul about to be stoned - and this is the prescribed penalty for homosexual tendencies in Christianity and Islam, carried out faithfully by the eugenic creed and deemed "progress", when the eugenist "Jehad" is ready to activate the ritual sacrifice machine, now with lasers added to the smoke and mirrors.

The truth of the "gay life" is that no such fixed orientation of culture of "gay" was really at stake or valued by the participants in free love. As mentioned, the predominant attitude of free love was heterosexual normalcy. Having seen the remnants of that world, I can tell you that even a hint of homosexual tendencies is rejected in free love circles. This is not a rejection based on eugenic cruelty or any particular malice, but because homosexual acts are very clearly unnatural, and were never intended to be natural or normalized. The claim of the homosexual was not that his condition was "born this way". That has always been an extremely eugenist claim. Historically, homosexual preferences arose because, as any adult male can tell you, women are a pain in the ass. The lack of any similar stigma towards female homosexuals is attested in every society of humanity, where such behavior is either ignored or actively celebrated as part of the rites and rituals of sacrifice. The "gay identity", in primitive society, has always been a greater passion of the eugenic interests and those who make it their business to regulate others' gonads and, most importantly, their reproduction of life, sexual or otherwise. For the men involved, they really have no investment in a "gay identity" or "gay culture", outside of that which was helpful for finding partners. Most of that "gay culture" was a known aristocratic vice, and so with homosexuality came pederasty, the sacrifice of boys and the open slaughter of the lowest class, who would be told by insinuation "this is what you are". I myself knew, having been among the lowest class, such boys who would be pushed along with an identity that was clearly assigned to them by a hostile society. So many of these boys and young males were truly confused. I was not one of them - I knew my proclivities, despite the efforts of humiliation, and frankly, everything about sex was disinteresting and loaded with enough shame and misery that it remained a thing best ignored. It was even more necessary to ignore such things in the Germanic school, which eagerly imposed a requirement to "out" all students and sort them by eugenic qualities, and so the ritual humiliations of the most savage society would be intensified and called progress. To truly explain this horror and how it is weaponized for ritual sacrifice is too long to speak of here, and I will only obliquely reference it as we proceed, as needed to explain the more important matters I write about. It is helpful for the reader to know this story, based on their own experience and what we have seen thus far, and make their own assessment of the situation. Sexual pathology is one of the chief disorienting tactics used to intensify the general fear, and this is something every empire and the most terrible and bloodthirsty nations of the human race has always turned to. I would ask the reader to see the sex act in total for what it is - a thing that would be uninteresting - rather than make of it some purpose or interest in society. It really doesn't matter how reproduction happens - at the end of the day, any penis and any ovary would do for the task, and the great fuss over eugenic selection is ultimately a silly game. After all is said and done, the eugenists have not created any "master race" or demonstrated that they did anything but ensure humanity was a failed race and a Satanic race - a goal intended by those who knew the true purpose of such a foul creed, and those whose opportunism saw that something more vicious than eugenics was possible, desirable, or necessary for their long-range projects.

Why I insert this short essay here is to explain how this mechanism works at the level of the association, and so it tugs directly at spiritual authority, rather than the quasi-material and pseudoscientific explanations sexual politics creates. It amazes me how supposedly intelligent and "in the know" people still say the stupidest shit and cannot really figure out how to stimulate a clitoris. It is not that difficult, and if not for the habitual lying and rejection, this patricular hang-up, or the failure of the penis which is a common malady in this sick society thanks to the bizarre imposition the eugenic creed made on men, would be a trivial problem. This is really at the heart of the "free love" problem - that if men and women, or two humans of whatever quality, spoke plainly towards each other and one or both had a genuine interest in something good coming from their interaction, we would be spared the worst consequences of ignorance and the sexual insinuations. We would see that, whatever pederasts and the eugenist vanguard claim about what humans "should" be, children do not want anything to do with sex, and there is no reason whatsoever to force orgies and the sexual came on children in an oppressive envirionment like school or university. That game has always been about a great terror and a great trap. We would, in a better world, see that what little is actually required to successfully complete the sex act is not the forbidden knowledge, and if we did that, then this entire culture around sexual politics and identity would be not just rejected, but so insulting that there would be - and there indeed was - vociferous pushback and a backlash. What eugenics aimed for was not to normalize homosexuality, but to have the necessary "trigger" for the backlash to be controlled and steered towards the establishment of full eugenism. This is why pornification and the most horrific lying were encouraged during the "Open Society" - with the full expectation of marking anyone who indulged in the prison sex and pornography, and preparing an unlimited purge, with the greatest moral grandstanding a filthy Christian hypocrite can bring about, even though it is well known priests and pastors indulge in every lurid fetish they desire, as has been their traditional right and expectation when humans want to be honest about what this has been. The strength of the lie was always premised on a belief that the "big happening" would select who lives and who dies after the rapture, and a filthy, failed race would - by proclaiming the greatest inversion of moral sense - truly become a Satanic race. That would establish, for the first time, Galton's conditions of eugenics, from which there is no escape - not even death, and it is this that the eugenist craves above all. Only when the thrill of torture is truly maximized will the eugenist version of humanity be born, and this is what is happening in our sad decade.

Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

Return to Table of Contents | Return to Chapter Start