Return to Table of Contents | Previous Chapter | Next Chapter

The material world presents to us as an array of symbolic representations, rather than its spiritual content which we can never fully know or observe in a preferred or arrested "state". We could invoke symbols as abstractions that purport to be real, or describe events in the world that are tangible to sense and motion, but in all cases, language and communication do not directly touch the material base in any way. So too do the actions of human beings, carried out either with intent or as a reflex inherent in their known existence, never touch this base. If we are to appeal to nature in any way for political sense, we have already presumed that enclosure will happen. The excuse given for the enclosure may vary, until the ruling ideas declare that they will make no excuses for the terror - when they can do so. It is this which a political scientist, understanding the root of political institutions in technology and so the traditional domain of the commons, aspires to win. The doctrine of the "Eternal Now" or an imagined state of nature is not the doctrine of effete aristocrats or their failsons. Aristocracy and property, after they have made their half-hearted excuses for rule, simply do not believe any justice is necessary. For the ruling power and for all of the practice of rule itself, aristocracy and its values prevail. If the reasons why are not apparent to the reader by now, the remainder of this text will concern itself with the aristocracy's preferred educational vehicles, and its encounter with the nation proper. It is impossible to truly describe the spiritual condition of the nation without describing its original sin, and that original sin is not anywhere in the base or in some material miasma that "made" men evil. We could turn back from sin any time we want, whether that happens individually in some moment, individually for the whole of our person, in associations with others who share the same goal, or for humanity as a whole, if mankind really wished to get over the past and do to evil what should have happened a long time ago. What holds us back from this is not that aristocracy's ideas really are the ultimate ideas, or some unknowable force. It has always been the vice of the commons and in particular of the technological interest, and it has been the moral vice and turpitude of the associations of men. The problem is primarily spiritual, and education is a technology which aristocracy covets and holds against the world. That technology, to become universal, requires members of the commons as partners, and for the spiritual rot of associations to overrule anything else humanity would want. To justify this in the final view, those perpetuating the game insist that "material conditions" or "human nature" of a base, symbolic sort has this power, and that those who both know evil and know exactly what they did to the world learned that so long as nothing in the world will tell them no, this game can continue indefinitely. That is the only true ruling idea humanity has ever known, and likely the only ruling idea humanity will know. Even if humans decided to temporarily hold this rot so that there is something left to choke and exploit, such things are always understood to be a lie in the ruling ideas of aristocracy. Any decency in their mind only exists as something for them to betray in the future, and the first on the spot to betray gains all of the spoils. This is the true outcome of the "state of nature", a state which never existed and was never something inherent in the agents themselves. This ritual has a clear target - the lowest class, or the residuum, which is policed and humiliated in various ways depending on the epoch of human history. Only from the view of the lowest class, unfettered by developed spiritual biases, can we see the genuine origins of rule, economy, and why we were made to do any of this. Spiritually, the ritual sacrifice of the lowest class is a null event. The entire point is to make invisible something which once existed in the world. This is the only way such people can ever "change the world", and they imposed their silly political idea onto first humanity's historical knowledge, and then onto natural history. The latter required the enclosure and termination of "science" in any sense that word once had meaning, and it was only possible to impose this by temporarily ruling through science. It was not possible to make people as stupid as the ruling ideas of aristocracy demanded they have to be, until such a time where inroads were made into human psychology which short-circuited their genuine material conditions and that which an independent spiritual sense would have acquired and allowed to exist in this world.

Political subjects in their most base state have no association, no freedom, and not even yet a "political" ambition. They do not even possess themselves. They possess but one thing - "cogito ergo sum" - which asserts that, at the very least, some existence is self-evident, and that locus allowing such a portal of knowledge to see the world is "me" or "I". That is prior to any conceit we had about the political. We could, if we so chose, shirk the political question entirely, and for most of us, this is what we must do because the political question has always been settled - we were never political agents and we were never going to be allowed in their society at all, let alone on any terms that would be worth living in. I write about this matter not to write any political tract, but because politics came for us and made this fight happen. There is therefore no longer any pretending, and the ruling idea has made it clear with every sneer - "we're screening you out" - and history has judged. It is not on us to respond to any such charge. The Germanic way of life in particular has been a disaster for humanity, begun because such a retarded race, and they are a race made retarded by their institutions rather than some base substance of Kraut, found something as simple as "2+2=4" an unwelcome imposition on their conceits, without having it drilled and beaten into them between their racial habits of drinking, raping, and killing. Such a way of life was designed for the purposes I described in the prior chapter, and it is hardly a uniquely German disease. It is in our history the epicenter of this social experiment, and the cause more than any other is the misfortune of geography placing central Europe in the way of what empires throughout history wanted. When nations rose in modernity and the democratic idea haunted the imaginations of aristocracy, the aristocracy of Germany and its enablers rushed to ensure that this idea would be defeated, and by doing so, did their part to damn the whole of the Earth for the sins of a few inbred aristocrats who envied empires and slavery, but only knew how to bark and shout like the retards they are. Their chief technology was to grind down anyone who did have intelligence and moral purpose, so that no matter what, no one could be any less Satanic than the aristocracy. A boot stamping on a human face has been the rule of aristocracy long before Ingsoc, and it has been the life of the lowest class by the most sacred rites of this foul, human race. To the lowest class, the entirety of political and natural history reads as an endless series of travesties, absurdities, and humiliations which produce nothing and would be better off annihilated. I have in my life not seen a single moral argument against carrying out such a total and swift annihiliation, and given humanity's present course, I need only wait for humanity to provide to us in no uncertain terms all of the proof we need for that argument. My agency or interests in making any such thing happen are irrelevant, for the world, history, and all of those cast out of this club have already judged, and the inertia of history is something greater than the idiotic braying of those who believe they can control history by thought experiments or incessant cajoling.

There is not a single political idea which can truly say they hold the world at all levels. This is always the necessary claim of any polity - that they are the deciders, however that decision is made. For most of human history, regardless of any conceits of civilization or barbarism or technology of any sort, the power of states has been meager compared to the outsized claims they made on the world, its wealth, its people, and all potential technology and historical trajectories that those who seek to command history would require. Without this command of history, "the state" can only exist as a fiction half-believed. If a state surrendered that, then all of the torture, all of the ritual and the glorification of sacrifice, and all that humanity has truly been, was for nothing. It is for this reason that the fall of empires, seen periodically in human history, is a grisly affair, where the subjects of the empire wallow in filth, depravity, and a morass of faggotry to say the least, before a rival - usually a barbarous rival like the Huns or the Mongols - scourages this rot called civilization, not out of jealousy but because doing so would restore some decency and suggest that another empire, even a brutal and cruel one, would be more effective spiritually and materially. Civilization and all of its pretenses cannot claim with any seriousness that it has ever abated this problem, or has a solution that would be "good" or even tolerable. The moment this was conceivable in the 20th century - when the strategy of barbarism was a thing nearly incomprehensible - the vanguard of civilization showed that the emergence of rot and depravity was not an accident or sin at all. It was instead what civilization would always do if nothing in the world could tell it no, and the civilized states always enter a tacit agreement to mutually support this, as this rot is the preferred environment and ecological niche for aristocracy.

I have in this description of economics and politics made use of a five-tiered model which is rooted ultimately in a concept of knowledge that I described in the first book. Nowhere in nature does this model exist in purified form, and nothing about nature "required" this. We could, if we wished, work with an alternative model of knowledge, and as a result, we would view a political model differently. The rationale for me choosing this model, which resembles the Indian caste system, is twofold. The first is that the model of knowledge working with systems and a general systems theory or general systems thought is one I believe to be operative today, because such an approach is useful for analysis in a way that worked well to disassemble systems and imagine technology. The second is that imposing caste on the world through knowledge alone is an example of how reality is controlled by conceits rather than any actual action. The process of knowledge itself does not necessitate any particular political division of society, or suggest anything other than a way for us to understand the world. The takeaway from any useful analysis of the world and ourselves should tell us that any naturalized caste system or any retrenchment of social classes of any sort is a thing to be avoided. It is the lowest class more than anyone else who understands this, because we have faced the ravages of "class struggle" and all of the efforts to ensure that anything that would change the situation is commandeered and turned to impotence or its opposite objective. The lowest class does not want anything to do with politics or any "state", or any settlement to define them as a residuum. Very often, fierce partisans of the ruling idea and the ruling order are found among the lowest class, because sadly, there are members of the lowest class who believe this is the only possible world, and the lowest class is uniquely vulnerable to internalizing the ethos and all of the most pernicious effects of ideology. We would, by describing ideology, see that ideology is a bad thing and not a failsafe weapon to be used without regarding its consequences. The master's tools, and ideology is one such tool, will never dismantle the plantation, and were never intended to allow this functionality. Ideology is a device to destroy and pervert, and it is a thing intended to channel middle class opportunism, with some knowledge, more or less, of the fundamental aims of the technological interest. Ideology is a thing that disorients what the technological interest would consider good government or institutions that are worth a damn. It did help that the existing institutions before ideology could not claim to be anything other than a rubber stamp for the vices of humanity, and so destroying or subverting institutions was not about destroying the good, but a change of the membership and the skullduggery that has been the lifeblood of human politics. But, the preferred overarching mental structure of the world - which is at heart a technocratic conceit more than anything aristocracy truly needed - remains in place, because it is technology which communicates the idea of politics and political laws that are deemed natural. Whether this is the familiar tripartite structure which excised labor and the residuum from even being acknowledged - a structure which is far less taxing to the mind until it must analyze this "perfect system with perfect information" that claims history has always been arrested - or the five-tiered structure which tracks and locks down the lower two orders, it is knowledge and technology to manipulate it which remains the true "material condition" that politics seeks to command. No other thing in the world is relevant, because these political models are in the end about conceits we hold and act upon, which are made real by our historical actions. The awareness of the genuine world we hold, which is our worthwhile guidance system, is anathema to the political altogether, except for when we find ourselves in this mental struggle. For mental cooperation - a free communication between two who know genuine friendship rather than political, Schmittian "friendship" - politics is even more anathema to the cause than it is for understanding the material world. In other words, to a crude sense of politics, all hitherto existing history is the history of struggles, however pointless and futile they are. When struggles can be controlled, and the man in the middle holds all of the real influence and secures himself against all risk and all consequences, the belief of history as nothing but struggles becomes absolute, and is imposed on nature and all that exists. After this, there is no escape by reason, struggle, or moral acts of any sort. There will be, in the end, two great classes - masters and slaves, and nothing between the master's will and the slave's body. These regress to the one, the absolute. The scoundrel in the middle who eliminated all risk to himself becomes the master in his own mind, and it does not matter if he truly is or is a cloistered fool with yet another toy International invented to lure in the rubes. In the mind of this scoundrel, he can do nothing but push this button that obviously works, until it no longer does. From whatever direction this "dialectic" is viewed, the purpose and result is the same. It is a perversion of what dialectic can do for reason, known in advance, but for political purposes, truth or any purpose are irrelevant. If no one is around to stop you, and you can insinuate that it is illegal in the truest way to say no to you, then that is the result of humanity. Failed race. There is only one way, in the final view of human history, to make this insinuation. It is not mere suffering, for "suffering" is ill-defined in nature and in the mind. None of our sentiments and passions are directly a thing that political thought can command, without working through this intermediary. There is only one way - for the man in the middle to declare that master and slave are both retarded, and in doing so, absorb all of their values at the lowest risk to himself, and negate forever any technology or intelligence that once existed. It is only through this conceit of intelligence that reality is controlled, and that something is "abolished". In any genuine history of material view, there is no "abolition" of reality itself. There is history, potential, transformation in the moment that we judge as useful, but the legacy of the past is always there, always haunting those who believe they would triumphantly death march to change the world. Only eugenics could have successfully weaponized such an approach, but this approach to commanding politics and reality has always left its adherents dis-satisfied. It gained nothing, cost so much for so little a result, and never lasted long. Whether "right side up" or "upside down", the Hegelian approach to politics is a failed working, save for one thing - it spoke to a demonic force in human history which its partisans hoped to channel for Earthly favor. They would dance like Satanic retards for the lowest idolatry and think it is some sort of wisdom. This only worked because it was strategically gamed by the smart people to be a tool used only for one purpose that would dominate all - to liquidate that which is retarded and unsightly, bringing the human race back to its genesis and purging all other conditions of its existence.

The philosophical appeal to modify the true base of the world ends here. All that philosophy and education can do to modify the world, and this is borne out by history, is to declare that which is retarded and must be made inadmissible in the new world, and that which is exalted and assigned the highest glory. So far as the political idea is itself the spiritual authority, where the goal is to win the game and "change the world" through politics, it is allowed these two goals and these two goals alone, and they eliminate all other potentials and all that exists. This includes not just the base, dead world which the philosopher seeks to cajole, but the new world philosophy and education, and all of the institutions infected by their dominance, seeks to create and impose on the world. It can only modify itself until it reduces all that exists to these two primordial poles, all the while granting to the "man in the middle" an illusion that he alone decides who will live and who will die - a fools' imperium which can work so long as it has more sacrifice to feed it. The sacrifices, assigned from the very start of humanity's existence, are those who were unsightly. The thrill of making us "go away", and the performance of rejection, become all that can exist. Of course, the philosopher imagines in his castle, he commands paradise, commands the harem and the hashashim who seduce their dirty workers with promises of the hottest and best sex and the indulgences that a foul cult has always held to be the true light, the true objective. The philosopher believes he can reap all of these rewards for the low price of nothing but his conceits, and as long as some marks believe him, "a sucker is born every minute". The entire project of education and philosophy at its core is something imposed on reality. This is not the "full and true content of politics", but of a political conceit which arose because it could, and because the machine once started had nothing working against it but the sentiments of humans, which were always wracked with doubt and malleable to every intrigue imaginable. But, all of the sentiments pertained to a world which the true material base - the symbolic representation that we communicate and speak of in language - held consequences. Behind all of the pretenses, human beings and all we are resulted from this base existence. Human consciousness and spiritual thought when properly developed became something new, and allowed novel things and technology to exist, within the boundaries that we are able to conjure. Our thought, reason, passion, spirit, and all that exists in spiritual awareness, does not conform to a "political animal", and much of what we do in life is not political or economic. It is instead a thing that we did because we found something to live for in spite of those things. The base world - the trees, the birds, the clouds, and so on - did nothing whatsoever to make us evil, as if some thing, some geist that was supposed to be an ersatz technology, were the prime mover. The reality of human beings, if we really care to investigate the problem of evil further, is that humans did not intrinsically hold any alignment towards good, evil, bad, or sin, no matter what they did. To the world and the judgement of the true "god", if such a thing can be supposed, none of what we do has direct moral weight simply by the "being" of anything. Evil in particular is a very particular proposition that arose entirely from deeds in the world, the nature of which is not a base substance or manna to channel. It is itself a composite that only is sensical as evil because we have sense and meaning to connect those symbols to spiritual authority. Nothing about the "retard" was evil for an imagined crime of Being. Sacrificing 7 billion humans to "perfect the race", calling them retards, and then rewriting history to make this abomination hunky dory in the view of aristocracy's gods, produced nothing for all of the misery.

As I said before, the true tragedy of the democide is not all of the death - and I do not diminish the abomination of such suffering and what it does to most of humanity and the surrounding environment. The true horror, and the necessary horror for this machine to work, is that such an abomination selects the traits we have seen to survive, which insist that the thrill of torture will grow ever greater until it runs out of any "world" to cannibalize. All of this sacrifice, upheld as a holy of holies for lack of any other, produced nothing whatsoever. It did not produce in the world any substance worth keeping, it is spiritually damning, and it actively denuded any technology we would have built, and the technology we did build once upon a time because such tools were useful for us and desirable for a better life. It did not promote merit, but promoted the most venal. It did not give to aristocracy any of the promised glories and pleasures, and many in the aristocracy, despite their proclivities and clear interest in never losing, are among those who both know most of all how ruinous this ethos has been, and have produced the best critiques of it - on their own terms, but still, this is as good as humanity managed to do. It became worse when aristocracy stripped away cruelly the reason and any meaning that existed in the lower orders, in order to facilitate its world-historical mission - a world-historical mission that was ultimately a project of commoners who became aristocrats and thought only of opprtunistic grasping for some cheap thrill and marks of low cunning they consider holy. But, aristocrats have always been keenly aware of what is needed to lock ranks, whereas a technocrat or commoner has long been rife with disagreements and contradictions. The better of the technocrats and commoners, who had no buy-in with this ruinous eugenics and all of its forebears, have longed for something that would purge the body politic of these demons. The full story of how we came to this sorry impasse, I can never write enough about, but I have tried my best so far in between the cursings and raging to communicate this idea in a way that is helpful to my order most of all. I do not exhort any of the other orders to change their thinking - I do not believe "changing the world" in that way is worthwhile, because such hectoring has been a contributor to the problem, even by the naive who think they are finding a way out of the mess.

It is with that that I wish to "flip this on its head", and speak of how this has looked from the base. People who have no interest in the political contest live in the world this contest created, and must navigate it simply to exist in some way. Ignorance was never the chosen policy of the lowest class. Non-participation and disdain for political knowledge has always been a strategy of self-defense, simply because the higher orders would, in a genuine contest, see at the end that the valid orders are a far greater threat than us. For most of history, we were simply killed on sight and humanity believed this was identical with "the good", so far as they believed they were pursuing such a thing. Kindness and sympathy, or the kind of connection and redemption we wanted, were not any part of the moral thought of the human race or its philosophies, and mercy was a poisonous blade intended for herding and nothing more. It was something the lowest class would have to accept - better mercy than what we usually got - but it left a bitterness in the mouth of everyone. The other plea - that after all of the sacrifice, we really posed no threat and would offer ourselves just to get the menace to go away - usually fell on deaf ears, and all it meant was that we would feed the beast that did this to us in hopes that, against all reason, there was a way out of the mess. There has indeed been a path out, but it is not one humanity is eager to take, and the 21st century is the first time in human history that such a path has been completely forsaken. For us, and for anyone else who would do anything other than this eugenist rot, there is little expectation that political society can be different. At the apex of the institutions, it cannot change at all, without drastic changes which would no longer qualify as "poltical matters" in the contest I describe here. But, we exist in the middle of this contest, as do all of the orders of humanity who are dragged into it. For all of the braying of retards who believe empires invent reality, they can only invent reality in ways that are prescribed by a world outside of their control, that will forever remain out of their control and taunt them with their failure. All those people did was damn the rest of us, and rather than admit a single fault, they can only shout "retarded", since that is what they were raised to do for generations, and that is the only idea the most Satanic of this failed race can conceive.

If we discount all of the political except the existence of the agent, then this problem is a trivial one, and it does not concern the "self" or "person" which was always an institution or construction of this existence regarding a society where such things were needed. For the mind contemptlating this, its true interests are not moral values or imperatives in the eyes of society at all, or the symbols of the world as "just so" true stories. It is not anything of any interest of life. At a basic level, "life" is irrelevant to the agent's true existence and purpose. Materially, we acknowledge the truth without saying it - that to truly contemplate spiritual thought is to contemplate the meaning of a dead world, and life itself does not possess any special quality that marks it as a distinct type of matter. In this view, "life functions" are a limited set of events in the world. It does not naturally occur that the entity experiencing this world is "alive" in any sense that makes life functions or the peculiarities of biology as a science relevant to the question of existence. It can easily be dismissed that the life functions in particular are fleeting things. For us, this is made easier because we recall childhood, inquire about the circumstances of our birth, experience old age, and know that some day we will die, barring a path to immortality which thus far remains elusive. The promise of immortality is quickly dashed for us because we will likely ask ourselves at some point, "do we really want to do this for eternity?" We can easily imagine conditions of existence where the drive in us is the exact opposite - to wish death on terms of our choosing, before this becomes worse.

There is no imperative whatsoever that truly compels us to live or die, or to see any great moral weight in the question of life. I can easily accept that this entity called "me" will fade from the world in some way, and there is no good cause for me to fret about something that will happen one way or another, and that does not by the mere Being of "me" make any inherent difference to the world. The world will continue without me, and whatever I leave behind can remain spiritually relevant to me while I am alive. I may consider at the throes of death what the sum total of my life has been, and if any part of it has been worth a single shit. For a long time, this author believed his life was truly worthless, but contented himself with the knowledge that some day it would end, and the worst of it was over. A few fleeting pleasures were more than enough, and the truly important reckoning, I had done long ago for myself. That reckoning, the deal I made with the world and the eternal, is of no consequence to politics or economics, and if I described it, there would not be much to describe that translates to something relevant for this series, The Retarded Ideology. What I write here or any deed in this world has little relevance to that necessary act I did. Most who live will make some deal with the afterlife or hereafter, or the world as they know it, regardless of the authority religion or the state claims on what they're "supposed" to do. To be denied that very important agency is a disaster worse than anything else I can imagine, and I can imagine a living Hell even with what I have done to rectify this with what might be called the heavens or gods. If my life were different, there would be commitments to this world and to social associations or society as an idea that I would hold dear, but these commitments answer nothing in-of-themselves for the peace I speak of. In this world, I have learned, there will never be that kind of peace even in the best of conditions. It is also very clear that nothing in the world, including the bodies and history of humanity as natural facts studied with science, say nothing about what ought to happen, and it is not science in any sense that made the world obey any of this, as if natural, scientific laws asserted the inevitability of this, let alone an inexorable trend that seemed to steer history by spooky action in ways that were clearly irrational by nature but nonetheless in force. I do not need to make my struggle with nature itself, which did nothing and has provided me and all of humanity with so much in wealth, asking for nothing in return. It is not that life as a concept was the villain, either. Life has little to do with suffering, and usually the things which create suffering entail the threat of death or a fate that would be spiritual and moral death of any cause I would want. Worse than mere death is the prospect of living under eugenism forever with no hope and no end, and this is what a eugenist must weaponize and deploy - "a boot stamping on your face forever". There is only one thing in nature which produces directly the malice generating the worst of the evil - other minds which have considered the same problems I have, in whatever way they do, which act upon the malicious germs that aristocracy covets as its prized technology, such as torture and sick orgy shit. Even the malice of aristocracy in its individual deeds, or an amalgamation of deeds alone, is insufficient to describe the evil we are to reconcile with. None of that evil was "the world" or "nature", even the nature of aristocracy. It is entirely within reason for aristocracy to see the failure of its system and consider that doing this will destroy the thing which allows this thrill to continue, and this has been considered. It was eugenics alone which could reject it, and it only rejects it with the expectation that a favored group can grant themselves a permanent state of exception - both in the legal sense of statecraft and in exempting themselves personally from any responsibility or consequence of their actions. It is not even eugenics as a thought-form, passive and seemingly omnipresent, which in-of-itself creates the evil. It is the praxis and daily acts and rituals of eugenics that wage the "Jehad". The most successful and long-lasting religions, which have the greatest spiritual claim of any of them, have always emphasized praxis and purpose, rather than the mere symbol of action or the Being of anything.

The things we see in this world, and the words communicated about those things, are relevant because we hold that there are tangible things, and that we know what an abstraction points to. Nowhere in the universe do abstractions point to nothing in particular. The abstraction may be a fleeting figment of a busy imagination, but imagination drew from a world outside of it to build its basic knowledge, from which imagination could construct something new. It is in imagination that one purpose "at the base" may be found. The prospect of something novel, that hitherto known models in science or any institution or law did not include, is more or less an "unwritten law" of nature. It can never be written because a logical axiom of "newness" defeats the purpose of a concept like emergence. How does something new arise out of prior conditions, that was novel and did not require an inexorable progress? Something is not created out of nothing, as if new things could be fashioned by random fluctuations or "for no reason". But, within the confines that potential allow, there is no way to arrest the creation of new things so cleanly that new things become just another abstraction in a "perfect system", inviolate and unchanging. This emergence is a persistent threat to the state, and it exists not in the imagination of a few "brights", or even in the mind itself. Such things would have to occur in nature without any thought or knowledge permitting them. We do not find "infinite potential" anywhere, such that transubstantiation of the forms or the world can be affected by some working. We can easily see that some system, in the sense that general systems thought understood the concept, possesses potentials that the sum of its parts do not encapsulate by some crude aphorism. Every system is open to a world that is not itself systemic or managed as information. If we imagine a computational machine, in principle its faculties are extensible. The machine may lack any potential in a trillion years to do anything but sit in its casing and process the tape of instructions, but nothing in the world suggests some human could not alter the computer. It is a useful shorthand to accept that a tangible, physical world is particularly interesting for politics, where other abstractions are not. We would not consider the abstract and concrete "fundamental divisions" or "contradictions in nature", because they are no contradictory. They would be, if we show fidelity to reality, complementary. The contradiction arises not from abstraction imposed on a "concrete, fundamental reallity", but from an effort to push the world in this way for political purposes. As mentioned, the only way this approach to understanding a contradiction could end is in degradation and opportunistic grasping for position during the act. The problem is really a problem of human thought alone, and human thought and the world both present solutions to this problem. Our reason can comprehend those solutions. What cannot comprehend it is a pernicious need to educate human beings in the most dogmatic and maladaptive way possible, because education at heart is wholly disinterested in something so far removed from its purpose as science and the base world it seeks to overpower.

We should not think of the "system" as the foundational block of proper science. A "system" of the sort general systems thought or Descartes' writing to establish the rationalist view of science, is a thing that is observed not by institutional knowledge or moral intent to want to see a preferred "system". At a basic level, a "system" - a thing to behold - is something we treat as material, even when no tangible "system" exists and the system is very clearly an idea or some construct that is only important to the imagined world we supposed that exerted its effect on reality. We would observe a "system" of some sort without any scientific inquiry mandating it, or a preferred "system" thought imposed on the world. They would be a system, and whatever our approach to one, all observers will have to acknowledge they are referring to the same event or confluence of events when speaking of any system. If they refuse to acknowledge what their eyes see and invent a special thought on the system that is peculiar to an institution, then they are not "beholding" anything real, and they are aware that they are manipulating reality without any necessary trick or "fooling" of the mind that worked against their will. Even someone who lives in brain fog, inured to a grind which insulted and degraded the senses and reason, is aware that their lack of certainty is a liability. Someone living the shattered lives of the residuum is painfully aware of their lack of information about the world, because they are deliberately kept out of the know; but they nonetheless have eyes, ears, and their native sense, and anyone "in the know" conforms to that in the final judgement. Men do not make reality as they please, but they do in some way create their own effect on reality, and have only themselves and consensus to decide what events are real in their own judgement. What cannot be done is to dictate imperiously that others must turn off their sense, without resorting to the one method I have described above. To compel others to ignore their sense, against all of their judgement and reason, requires nothing else but the impression that the compelled mind is "retarded" compared to the imperious force demanding this submission. None of us have any reason to accept this imposition without reservation. No other material force can truly make this imposition. It may be possible to induce someone to lie to themselves, or convince them that this self-deception serves some greater good or ulterior motive if they clap their hands and believe. Somewhere, though, reality creeps into this illusion.

Only the status of retarded can lock in this sort of reality control in a way that appears as the unmentionable force animating world history - moving the material symbols and granting to symbolic performance a power it doesn't have. What is the point of the ritual sacrifice? It has only one purpose - to declare the condemned retarded and thus shunned now and forever. Death or any amount of suffering or torture is irrelevant. Reasonable people see that no matter how much killing and suffering are done to defend a ruling idea, that behavior is costly and has no material basis to suggest it is a universally applicable strategy. Killing and hurting others as a means to change the world has its day for obvious reasons, but all such death and pain are measured out for the consequences that are appreciated more for their spiritual qualities than their material necessity. "Retarded", though, is an unanswerable sin. To be retarded, or do a retarded thing, or for some system or thing to be "retarded", is not merely a charge of stupidity, or a trifling insult. It is the most potent curse word in modern English, refined and deployed specifically for its conceptual potency. It is on the basis of retarded alone that eugenics continues, killing hundreds of millions and enslaving the world to the primordial thrill of that symbol. Whether someone is actually "retarded" by some objective measurement is irrelevant. Mentally challenged persons still have senses and reason like anyone, and it takes very little effort for a dull man to say that the smart man is wrong, if the dull man has facts and the truth of the world on his side. "Retarded" does not allow this, for it is not merely a temporary state. It is a statement that, even for the slightest deficiency of intelligence, all that the "retard" says must be automatically invalid, and all the "retard" does is invalid. To be "retarded" is to impede the natural historical progress that was inherent to the liberal idea and the entire appeal of technology. It is a word to freeze in place and paralyze the subject. This meaning was fully intended by the deployment of the word "retarded", which had to imply that intelligence proceeded entirely on the terms of pedagogy. Our own sense tells us that very little learning is accomplished by pedagogy, and in most cases, learning happens entirely in spite of pedagogy, given what education does and the particular type of education English-speaking countries are cursed with.

We may say that this is a mere social convention. But, the fear of "falling behind" is not merely a social convention, dictated by those who hold social proof. It is a very real and palpable fear for any human or any entity like us which relies on symbolic language and regular communication to approach the world. In isolation, without any society to tell us what we are or where we stand, we still rely on intelligence and want this faculty to be as effective at understanding the world as we can make it. This is not an overriding or absolute necessity of the mind or soul. We would not spontaneously combust if we are "retarded", in society or alone. It is a want which is always balanced with the other demands of life, for we are not creatures of pure mind and cannot be. Too much "intelligence" at the expense of anything vital will choke the life-form of energy and potential. Intelligence is no use if it is the intelligence of a slave controlled with the lowest cost possible. Security, which is necessary for any useful application of intelligence for ourselves, has nothing to do with being smart or stupid. All of the intelligence in the world will not stop a weapon from impacting the skull and the brain, killing us if we are too weak to stop it. We would see that if one weapon can kill us, many other objects of the same class can do likewise, and each has their mode of operation and potentials in the hands of labor. We can see also that things like poison, food, "help", and things which are disguised as good can be just as lethal, and would be more effective against the unwary. All of these possibilities are judged not by a moral right that we naturally possess at all times, but intelligence. All of the intelligence of human beings is a product of some sense of the world that is morally valued, and so the amoral hedonist is shouting "retard! retard! retard!" when they promote such faggotry, always as something to impose violently on another. The hedonist keeps for himself a special morality that is his own property, rather than the stated ideology which is faggotry a child can see through, and that a child has greater moral development than even in terrible conditions. Only the drive to shout "retard!" through education can make a child conform to something so filthy and pointless. Where before this was an expedience, eugenism made it an absolute, and for doing so, eugenism has tapped into a connection with the material world that has shattered any hope that this sorry race called Man had any fate we could call good. All that remains after such shattering, once the ritual imposes "retard" for good, is salvaging the nightmare. For everyone else, to violate the shunning of "retarded" is to violate the theory of technology itself and the law. This may be possible in the short-term, but in every final analysis, no technology other than the technology to impose this status, and assign who the "brights" are who hold absolute impunity, can have the final word in who lives and who dies. If there is war and violence, this entails an uncertainty and the dead still live in memory. "Retarded" is the path to total sublation of the Germanic sort, and the cost of such is nothing more than invoking the curse and ensuring that its power is fed, like any other offering to the eugenist god. The consequences for this are vast, but to the self-interest that is swayed by symbolism and fads, all of those consequences are externalities. For the sadist, this event is win-win, and all losses are pushed onto a thing that is external and shunned from reality - inadmissible. If the event really is isolated from a society we held to be morally consequential - if no person suffers from this act - then we wouldn't think too much about this. We are not going to regard some dead rock or a thing that really doesn't have any moral consequences as something with a "right to exist" or anything that we would value. Perhaps we may come to regret careless modification of the environment, but in of itself, ignoring, using, and abusing a dead world does not produce in of itself the existential dread. We would not have built an elaborate ritual around declaring a dead an inconsequential rock retarded, but once the glory of the ritual is expended - and the glorification of the ritual is necessary for retarded to carry its damning weight - the result of the ritual is nothing at all that was good for the world. It would have been cleaner to not carry out this ritual at all, and calmly dispose of the ritual sacrifice, whatever screaming and fear the child would bring. But, the thrill of torture is the primary purpose of doing any of this. By all scientific metrics and all judgement of the natural world, a "retarded" human, or anything deemed "retarded", is not an existential danger. Most of the mentally challenged go far out of their way to avoid conflict and have no interest in the political. They will, seeing their situation, know that there is nothing for them in a game they were never destined to have any part in. Even if there were no shaming, a sense of inferiority dissuades humans without any "moral education" from Satanic perverts. Of course, there is nothing preventing these Satanic retards from gathering and seeing that they have a cheap and quick way to make the world suffer, for as long as they can get away with it. But, even the vilest human beings hold on to some merits if they are in a position to conduct this ritual. The ritual sacrifice is only an end unto itself when it can be fueled by an external power source - when there is built-up energy and structure which can be cannibalized, whether that came from the natural world or from the industry of humanity. Ritual sacrifice is not a mere idea. It requires a tangible life, and it requires acknowledging that conscious experience - our gateway to know anything about this world - is phenomenal and a thing that can be affected by material conditions, rather than a thing detached from the world altogether and taking place in a spiritual plane. There is no other way for spiritual existence to make contact with other spirits but through this tangible existence, and this limits what political agents can do, regardless of their conceits of what politics should be. So much of what we do in social and political existence is not a direct "material condition", but something implied by the threat that we could, if we must, resort to physical force rather than moral persuasion, reason, or any other communication where the material input are just words or ideas to be processed as information. If that is so, the greatest threat that can be insinuated is retarded and nothing else, and retarded as a concept implies a number of things that are locked in regarding human development, the values of political society, what societies choose to orient themselves, and any imperatives that the members of society will be obligated to follow. Nothing about the word creates a "retard" in-of-itself. The concept implies "falling behind" of some standard that is implied. To make eugenism work, all standards of comparison must be annihilated, so that "retarded" because a cheap and abritrary curse commanded and monpolized by institutions.

In society, regardless of its political settlement, this fear is the true link between the spirit of consciousness and material reality. All of the violence and threats amount to a means to an end - to make the target retarded, rather than merely dead. In mere death, the idea of a person and their life endures, for life in-of-itself does not have the regulatory power ascribed to it by ideology, pedagogy, and educational conceits. No religion worthwhile is constitued as a "cult of life". The fertility rituals and the most lurid cults concerned life and death, and considered the two inextricably linked. Orgies in service to Ba'al Hamon or Hadad emphasize the closing of the circle of life in every thought and every deed, and so too do the orgies of the eugenic creed which pay homage most of all to the Punic rites attested to by Roman history. An infantile simpering about life only exists as a fake faith, dripping with contempt towards those who were already selected to die. Any of us who take life seriously would never trivialize it in such a malicious way, and this is something we learn as children. Children who are snot-nosed brats of the worst sort, conditioned to scream in the filth they call education in Germanic thought, are still aware that life and death are linked by this dogma. The reality is that life and death are quite inconsequential to the spiritual matter in its true form. We happen to value this because we are living, biological creatures, and so biology is presented as an inroad to controlling reality itself, moreso than the life functions as they would be reasonably interpreted. There was no rule that required biology to be reduced to this conceit about intelligence and mind. Many who advanced biology as a true science were aware of this fallacy in one way or another, and disdained the use of intellectual pseudoscience as a slander against the life-form. But, all eugenics does, which produced death and torture, will take the name of life, and proclaim that eugenics alone is the singular path to life, and life is identical with intelligence and glory. For this to work, the inextricable link of life and death in the ruling ideas must be simultaneously acknowledged, and at the same time, death is retarded and therefore inadmissible. This trick of doublethink does not actually happen "in the same instance", but by rapid switching of the trained brain, which produces a degrading effect on the subject and the whole environment. That degradation is intended and then maximized, and Father Malthus' edict to court the return of the plague is given a general praxis and theory of technology which is simple, portable, and overrides the more ponderous modes of communication. Eugenics and eugenics alone was capable of linking the degenerated German reactionary mythos to a pseudoscience that could change the world. It only changes the world in one direction - towards its inexorable fate, and thus all agency of the mind is gone. "Freedom" truly becomes slavery, if one holds that these theories of society and intelligence - theories whose antecedents were discovered in Antiquity, and which derive from religious cult practices and the guru - describe the only possible political reality. They do not, but without sensing the disconnect between the human spirit and the world it sees in its symbolic representation, the only political reality that takes form are the institutions, which abide law rather than moral sentiments or what we would actually want them to do. The danger of this nihilism is not that its truth would break society, but that it would expose that the institutions will always revert to this crass basis, no matter how well we design them to forestall this problem. Only moral right and sense would allow anything to endure. But, without a connection to the real world except "retarded" - a fate that humanity has sadly chosen or that was made for them - the spiritual wants of a demos, an association, remain fixed to that curse if they regard spiritual life as merely a material condition. Since that spiritual life very clearly did rise from entities which rose from physical muck rather than received wisdom, this creates a problem for us if we are to navigate the world with science. The rise of technology as the dominant political force made science a necessity, where before it was a very useful method but one we were free to use for its purpose. Nothing in the material world necessitated spiritual development beyond that primordial impulse which was sadly carried out faithfully. We eat, fight, breathe, and live all in service to that ulterior motive, and will do so as long as those who glorify the ritual yet live on this Earth and insist we must obey. But, we have always known that the reach of this ritual is limited. The true nihilism is acknowledging the void that allows proximity, which can allow us independent verification that the ritual is, at least for now, not a pressing of the nerve. If you are able to read this in privacy, without the leering presence of Germanism over you or inside you, or you are purging this demon in whatever way you can, you will know that there is another way. I did not need to tell you this, and you could read another thing and still retain that freedom. There are many paths - almost limitless paths - to break free from the ritual disease of the human race. I do not suggest to judge which are the best for everyone, or that what I write will be helpful for you. It is not the performance or political expression of that fact which changes anything, as if you're proving something about society to yourself. What I do, and what I hope to impart here to those who want to hear it, is place the reality of this ritual sacrifice in a proper context, instead of presuming it must remain an unmentionable. This brings terrible consequences, but those consequences have been visited upon humanity in this time, and in the 21st century, denial is no longer an option.

The "hermit" for this purpose is not a materially or spiritually isolated person, ejected from society, in the sense that the concept is advanced. It is presumed that society must intrinsically be malicious and politicized, but this has never been the case. Hermits live among us, living quiet lives with or without dignity, and while we disdain too close a contact with humanity's malicious aspects, we are known to watch society, observe other people, and occasionally chat or have some business with them. Hermits may elect to physically distance themselves from a society they deem sick, or from the malice we observe. This is not necessarily a rule of the hermit's goodness. Hermits can be malicious in their space, as I know very well. We are cruel in ways convential political sense will not allow, and it is cruelty invoking something greater than the torture cult and the thrill it delivers to its believers. For the hermit, torture is a clearly undesirable condition and unproductive for any of our aims. But, we are capable of evil, for evil in its proper understanding is far greater than mere torture or anything retarded can ever summon. Whether the hermit elects to be evil, or cannot help but be evil in our space, is ultimately a problem for the hermit. To attain this position which is exalted over the most base existence, we simply require some space to truly exist, rather than merely exist as a spiritual conceit or, worse, a conceit of knowledge and law which has no substance at all. The hermit did not build society or change the world, and while "two worlds forever apart" is something the hermit senses more than the norm for life, it is not the true condition or even a necessary goal. The hermit may actually enjoy the occasional company of other life. I myself am a miserly person with human contact, but I would not write this or make effort to communicate if I did not on some level consider sharing these words as a thing which may produce results for me. Others' existence does not directly suggest anything to me about this space, but I do see in other people a world much older than me, which did not have to be this morass I have described as humanity's unfortunate fate.

We know there is a world all of our meanings and purposes relate to; but it is only in the hermit's space that a human being can develop without the encumberance of a political thought that preceded its existence. By all of our knowledge of politics, information, knowledge itself, economics, and all we have written about, not one thing suggests that there is a path to anything but retarded as the final judgement of the base, material world. All other potentials are exhausted. Yet, they have always been in the world, and we have recognized all along that our lives, and the life of society does not have to be this. Political thought is premised on agents who can even carry out any of its laws and deeds. Without that, we should give up on any other idea about what the world should be or what the world must be. There would be no state without something that would actually care about such a construct. If that is the world - if all there can be is "retarded" - then the solution to our problem is obvious. That would be swift and total extermination of the human race or any race that would suggest such an ethos, before this gets worse. There would not be a wank about nihilism or any justification. It would be a fait accompli and self-evident for us, and in this act, it would be the first and only thing humans did which is truly without sin. The result of that, and the consequences of thinking like this, are clear enough to us. When we do see this for what it is, and many of us have in some way out of necessity, we also see the pointlessness of such a world. The conceits humans hold do not mean what the ideologues require them to mean, and what a theory of rule premised on technology and fear require them to be. Yet, in the end, this is where humanity has gone because of a conceit gone haywire. I remind the reader that all of these conceits, and all of these machines facilitating the evil in the world, are things built by hermits. The hermit may not have had evil intentions or any intention except an easier life in the hermit's own space. But, political thought and theory - the thing which made the present state of affairs possible - began out of the same hermetic tradition. That is what the German philosophers were, and what left-wing conspiracy cranks in the Marxist tradition also did, with or without awareness of what this turns into.

For most of us hermits, this horror is far removed for anything we want. Without the encumberance of "retarded" as a ritual damnation with the final consequence, we see that in the hermit's space, "retarded" doesn't nearly have this problem. We mess up or face setbacks, but none of them entail the dire conseqences of torture. We may be changed permanently by mistakes or fantasies, and we also may not care that we do change. We will, in the end, pass through this life one way or another. Nothing about human existence is fixed in any preferred form, or intended to proceed through technocratic stages dictated by a pedagogue. A child can figure out the is-ought problem's cruder examples and why these are wrong, and any decent philosopher would work out a proper understanding of the problem mentioned early in this book. This is not to say that the hermit is uncaring about this solitary existence, or believes the hermit's existence is truly apart from society. The hermit is more acutely aware that existence always entails consequences - that is why the hermit became a hermit instead of an active game-playing sex-haver. We would not have thought to do this at all if we did not sense the evil and something in us wanted another path. We then see that the evil does not prevail or possess any more force, authority, legitimacy, or truth than any other moral sentiment, and that evil is not an arbitrary or vague thing, but a thing which very clear pathologies, which we study and understand. The "purely political agent", obsessed with conceits, only knows of evil to the extent that it needs to know. The hermit is not encumbered by this, because the hermit senses evil as a thing like any other rather than the evil as a value that cannot be ignored.

I must make clear here that "evil" and "retarded" are different things. The imposition of "retarded" onto the world is not in of itself an evil act, for all I have written. There are times were someone can see, in the final view of the world, that there are those who must be brought low and sobered by the one link between political thought and the material base that must be abided. Nothing about "retarded" is really evil. It's sad and pointless, but evil in total is far more elaborate than one silly word, concerning a race that by all cosmic judgement is a race of deformed, jabbering apes with little to say for themselves about intelligence. It is difficult to look at the psychological breaking process and see anything good, just, meritorious, or worthwhile. We could have shown people the consequences of "retarded" without resorting to gratuitous punishment or intensification of the general fear. Such a machine is only used in the way it was used by eugenics to produce a result foreseen in advance - an endless herding of cattle to be slaughtered and tortured. All of that evil that eugenics entailed regarding this matter, and this is a very large machine, does not come close to encapsulating all that is evil, and much of it pertained to things that were not evil at all. A hermit may conclude, when sufficiently detached from political conceits, that the whole sad run of human history, with its predictable outcome, was fated to happen as yet another sad parable in a history replete with sad stories telling us what went so wrong. The hermit can see, with a sufficient knowledge of history, that this process eugenics entailed couldn't have been entirely prevented as a possibility. It did not have to become this, and shouldn't have become this if we wanted humanity to be anything but "retarded". The result of the eugenic creed did not extirpate a hated group alone. It poisoned the middling classes and it poisoned the favored classes, and left even among the most favored a fickle sense that all they accomplished was piss and shit, for a piece of blue sky. For all of the effort expended, workers and the lowest class remain spiteful, defiant, and most horrifying for the eugenist, alive. The great "Jehad" has not been very effective. If they really wanted to kill off humanity's bad seeds, there are far more effective ways than this insinuation machine. The ultimate objective of eugenics, though it is far afield from our present topic, was behavior modification of the whole society and nothing less. The torture and death are not there for their own sake or for an ulterior motive that the eugenist suffers through in a sacrifical trade-off. The whole process of the eugenic creed is but one manifestation of a religious tenet which is far more thoroughgoing, and the process is carried out in its necessary stages because of a conceit - a stupid conceit - that was expedient for rule and a conception of power. The hermit, seeing this and remaining apart from it by choice, is the proper source to say what this truly has been. This by no means guarantees that the hermit is innocent. The hermetic tradition spawned the people who were the most ardent and vicious of the eugenists, who did so with full pre-meditation and considered its outcome a game which was most suitable for the empire they wanted to rule. Where everyone else is reduced to a cog who must abide this for political imperatives, the hermit is only partially beholden to those imperatives. The hermit does not escape them entirely, for they are in the end in the same world as everyone else. The key for the hermit is a conception of distance, which for the philosophical state must be denied for its thinking on institutions to hold - for the state to exist as a useful technology for its purpose. This is not true of polities or the status quo conceptually, but it is true of the state in particular, because the state only exists in the technology that can be realized rather than anything we would want it to be. Political thought can only proceed to answer questions that required a "polity" to be acknowledged. We can see that for the state to even exist, there is something outside of the state that must be a precondition of it, and that the state must feed from. It is only in this hermit's existence that a material basis can be spoken of at all - that at a basic level, the political agent exists because the world has allowed it, and once allowed, it became a historical fact that never can die. It is not the state or empire that grants life or death in the material world. That power belongs to the world alone, and the hermit's existence is its most evident result.

For us, this entire sordid business of thinking insults and postures are power or rule seems absurd. What is valued is not some thing or system, or a vagary or symbolic contradiction taking its place. Everything we do is in spite of that particular evil of "retarded". To be the hermit is to embrace genius as something more than a machine to be appropriated. This is not identical with "intelligence", "wisdom", or even the things "genius" is presumed to be as a limited virtue. The limited and quantifiable "genius" here is not measured in IQ points or some standard of intelligence, nor is it measured by miserly units of labor-time or time of freedom from exploitation. It is not even "freedom" itself, for freedom as a condition is always understood as something contingent on its opposite - slavery - being a clear and present danger that would be avoided for all of the reasons we can imagine. Freedom does not hold any value outside of that, and does not "create" anything simply by passively existing. Free men can be indolent, enslave themselves by some foulness of the spirit or mind, choose wickedness because it is fun, and ultimately, freedom as a condition is null for the purposes of moral value. Slaves will, despite their status in society and the palpable fear of the institution, do all of the same things free men do, and must do so in order for their labor to be valued at all. In principle, the free man and the slave are identical for the purposes of their genuine material conditions. The only distinction for the slave is that the institution of slavery lords over the slave, and this institution is never a fiction or phantom. Genius has no preferred value or generative force. The generative force is ultimately drawn from the world itself, and genius need not be vampiric or exploitative for the same causes as political imperatives or crass wants. Genius can easily decide that it does not want to be vampiric at all, or wishes to be less vampiric. Human beings, due to their history, are damned to forms of vampirism particular to their race, and life itself is a vampiric entity. But, life does not live to be a vampire, or miserly measure out some quantity of blood to call its fuel. The genius is limited by its conditions, but the limitations are not of a quantity of substance to be exchanged in the economic sense. Those limitations are an abstraction laying over our genuine knowledge of systems. What I wrote about utility in the prior book is useful to remember here. The British imperialist substitutes his conceits about what the society should be for "genius", so that he can dole out markers of performative genius. The German ideology perfects how this can be insinuated by force and institutional lockouts, and also contains within it a critique of human consciousness and its own political forms. But, none of these ideologies speak to us, because they were made specifically to smother the lowest class and to smother any existence independent of empire and institutions.

The point here is that the creative genius - the thing that politics must covet for any other imperative to exist - occurs because it is allowed to exist in the world, and nothing in the world tells it no. This can be weaponized against the subject, and it can be utilized by the subject to suggest something about its true existence. Neither of these positions in of themselves justifies anything. Simply "being" means nothing for us - but "being" is never a passive thing. There is no state in nature to suggest our "being" is worth anything at all. We value our own existence and life because this genius was for us interesting enough for causes that were not political, rational, or contingent on anything at all. Our existence itself, all "being", exists to serve this ulterior motive, rather than the ulterior motive of the pedagogue or someone who insists on hectoring us to be what we "should" be, against all sense and any actual reason why anyone should abide a society designed to break us and declare everyone and everything it doesn't like "retarded". We have even less reason to abide shrieking harridans and their running dogs who believe they can insinuate that society "has" to be this, or that politics as a whole will be reduced to this one thing, this constant badgering to make us that little bit more miserable and choke the world and the souls in it for the last drops of blood from a stone. We were and remain quite happy without any of that nonsense, before politics came along to insist we have to follow this shock and terror doctrine of the cult, the filth, and the ritual humiliation. For most of history, politics is a temporary problem for our true existence. The active command of states is weak, and the command of slavery is always actively enforced. A slave driver will find pushing a torture button for 8, 10, or 16 hours a day just as dreadful as the slave finds menial labor. The sad soul that believes pushing that torture button is thrilling in of itself is a piece of shit and knows it. It is even shittier for such a person to do this for free, without even the luxury given to a house slave. Whether someone is enslaved or operates independently and without any compelling interests that are overt and claiming total control over all potentials, genius requires its own space to operate, and it does this because such things are on some level intrinsically interesting for people. They are not so interesting that they are the ONLY thing humans can want, or even "the point". We have our free time and personal development not for ulterior motives or for some presumed sake that is the property of anyone. It is rather than this creative task, carried out because it was motivated more by passions or reasoned wants and goals that we held as worthwhile, allows a fulfillment that nothing else allows. It is only because this creative force could operate that humans could do more than merely build by instinct or by reverse-engineering in a cruder way, or receiving pedagogy that breaks the mind and soul as education tends to do for this stupid race. The creative force is hardly "special", until it is made scarce because of aristocracy's pernicious influence, which can only continue when such genius is monopolized by its true opposite - the thrill of torture, which is something more than mere evil or "retarded", and which scoffs at any moral concept or any truth but the thrill of torture. Just as we operate in our own space, the thrill of torture that is created by the ritual sacrifice and "retarded" takes on a life of its own, and the torture cult invents new horrors which are for them intrinsically interesting and beautiful, but which for us represent a living Hell and the utmost abomination, ensuring a failed race became a Satanic race.

Defiance against the living Hell, the true abomination, is often cited as a motor or ulterior motive for this creative spark, in hopes that such a spark can be herded and corralled like any other cattle. But, the living hell was created by the droving and herding itself. The hunt and habituation to it will never be a pleasant act. The hunt is, by its nature, an act of evil, as much in this world is. It may be a lesser evil we tolerate, but we can never say with a straight face that we truly need to vivisect an animal to live in such a ritual, or that the conditions of the hunt are irrelevant and all hunting behaviors are morally equal. A carnivorous animal is unlikely to change this evil, but it will recognize such an evil creates liabilities when it interacts with other life. Prey will never love being chased in the way a sadist things should be natural and glorified.

It is not genius as a quality or objective that would be the goal, but rather, the conditions that allow it to exist. This is not merely a question of security, which is ultimately a question of temporal authority that would require security to rule or be ruled. Those who have no security will in practice have no political rights or standing whatsoever, and cannot say they are even "ruled" in the sense that a subject would be expected to abide rule. To be truly without security is to be told you are nothing at all. Merely being alone and not actively attacked is a form of security for this purpose, but it is a flimsy one that has no credibility. In practice, the lowest class lives like this, and so they are politically impotent as a rule. Any expectation that the residuum would have any political standing at all is so out of the question that to even raise the argument elicits uproarious laughter in any court or any setting where this is stated as a serious proposition. Ultimately, the justification is not merit or any fact, but the simple dictum that someone with no standing cannot be redeemed in political life. Once the virtue is gone, it is gone forever. Yet, in conditions of such insecurity, genius still exists, because this genius was not a political question at all, and not a question of any right to do so or freedom, or a will that implied that willpower is the primordial law. The true primordial law is nothing more than ability to act and the potential being a thing that could be realized. By default, the existence of anything is under threat. The world did not provide any pact or covenant guaranteeing security of anything. In some way, the world, being what it is, imposes limits to any power, and this includes spiritual power that is presumed to transcend space. The spiritual power of an omnipotent, all-encompassing God is itself dubious for a number of reasons, one of them being obvious contradictions about such a deity. But, even such a god is limited by the expectations of a religion that would be necessary to describe it. Every such deity - of which there aren't that many with great currency in world religions - is believed to issue specific revelations that it does not go back on. Woe to those who believe such a god could be subjected to the lowest cunning of legal trickery and act like that is a religion anyone with any sense should follow. It's ridiculous, and usually belief that a god is like this is a way of winking to the initiates that they're lying to the retards who aren't in the cool club of the cult.

What the hermit seeks is favorable conditions for its practice of a world outside of something pressing against it. This it does not as an act of will. The will itself is one of those things pressing against what the hermit covets, as is intelligence, reason, emotion, passion, or moral sentiments altogether. The hermit seeks this because this is what hermits would do if they are to do anything at all, and possess potential beyond what the world has given them in their time and space. Whether this is a worthwhile goal is entirely up to whomever does this. But, without this goal, there is nothing of "us" beyond some facts that presupposed existence and facts of spiritual matters that comprised political life. We'd be left with "retarded" as the only base existence of the world for the purposes of our life, and this is not limited to political purposes. Without both a space and some want to do this, there is nothing for politics to contest but a game of incessant backstabbing over properties and substance that is fixed, whose rewards are a miserly slog without any other purpose. The conditions are not themselves a scarce quantity or quality that must be policed. We can make a home out of many things, even miserable things, and find something to do. Substantive goods from the world can contribute to this, but are not its true "lifeblood", in that we need the next fix of drugs or technology or media to give us ideas that allow genius. We are perfectly capable of constructing ideas without some foreign agent insisting what we must do or be, so long as we maintain an ability to do this. This ability need not even be a possession or property - we may find flashes of insight, or simply not regard our "self" as relevant. Usually, when we are alone and there is no obligation to a hostile society, we freely dissociate and contemplate a very different existence from the one we must acknowledge with another entity like us. To interface with another person in this state of detachment of self or political requirements will produce odd results if we really did so too often. In practice, a wariness of the general fear and hostility of other people makes such an interaction between two aliens problematic and unlikely to result in much. There is too little "media" or "channel" to communicate, and the processing power of any human communication is far less than the capabilities of ourselves to work with things or with a sense of environs, if we are able to commune with the part of nature and abandon a crass institutional or political demand of what we had to do to survive. We may specifically seek out altered states of mind for what they might allow, and do so with risks that we won't come out the other end as we would want to be. There are not an infinite number of potentials, and the hermit who dedicates their experience to potential is the most aware of this limit to any potential. Only the most disgusting fools believe in the infinite of that sort which will give the primordial answer. Where we contemplate the infinite as hermits, it is given its due deference as something very difficult to work with, since there is no "substantive infinity", not even the world itself. We may consider the world boundless in space and complexity, and we cannot rule out that all of nature requires substance to be fixed in its quantity. Creation and destruction are played with not just in physics or science but in philosophy and religion, and we probably can conclude that creation and destruction of substance is not trivial, and perhaps impossible for any technology or faculty life-forms of any sort would ever command. Presumably something does not come out of nothing unless creation and destruction are both possible, but looking for a physical or natural "beginning of time" tragically misses the point of what creation and destruction would mean philosophically. What is not doubted is that infinities or contradictions cannot be invoked willy-nilly to make something out of nothing. Every insinuation is limited in what it can say and conjure in the imagination, and no such insinuation or cajoling really "makes" anything. It just uses the trick of the magic word "retarded", and no insinuation can go on without insulting the intelligence of the intended target in a most egregious way. We would in a better world think before starting the insinuation game, thinking we've pulled something clever by getting away with it or having insinuation enshrined in institutions and mandated as a rite of passage. But, if we lived in a world without insinuation, human society would be very different, and I cannot guarantee it would be a better society if we see the darkness that was always there. The hermit's conduct is one that has the utmost contempt for insinuation, but that does not make the hermit good or satisfy the conditions of its existence or what it does. It is important to make clear that none of these conditions can be "politically necessary" or "politically correct". The political task is limited in its purview for answering its question, and so the hermit's activity is external to political society. The hermit's activity is in the main isolated from society altogether, until someone decides to make exploitation of this potential an objective; and this objective does not in of itself suggest any imperative mandating it. For the hermit's own conduct towards the world, exploitation is not a value of any worth or a necessary imperative. The hermit might exploit by choice, but all of that exploitation serves an ulterior motive, rather than exploitation being the motive or a force that becomes a thing to covet. We are in some way exploiting some substance we use for the hermit's life, but this is hardly "exploitation" of social relations that was the subject of economic thought. The hermit could stop consuming for uninteresting tasks, even if it will consume something simply to exist. But, the hermit is under no obligation to continue existing, if the hermit has no problem with the costs and consequences of ceasing to exist - of dying. That is not a necessary imperative, even though most human beings, absent any compelling reason, are not eager to die because of ennui or a sense of wasting substance that wasn't doing much else.

It is in this space that we cosntructed much of the artificial world - a world that we regard as distinct from nature, but that we have long known is only possible because what we do is connected to a world outside of us. The hermit has reconciled with the world in a way political society never will, and political society itself is contingent on the artifices we made to exist. Without that development, the very body and brain which facilitates the political would never have grown. Life itself developed on its own power and in conditions that were at first local to it. If we say this in the present political norms of extreme individualism, we are declared autistic - IQ 0, absolutely retarded. But, this is basic sense of what life would have to be, and it was by insinuation and the invocation fo the magic word "retarded" that eugenics made political society into this. This too is an artifice worked out in the hermetic tradition. The effete eugenists reveled in depravity because they had the comfort to do so and an echo chamber insisting that this fetish was power itself. This charge is most evident in the eugenist males, but prominent among the eugenists were strident eugenist women, who styled themselves as feminists, and were the key vehicle for the eugenic creed. Control of the womb, life from conception to death, required control of the woman, and "liberation" of women who were the most faithful zealots of the eugenic creed. Where lockstep enforcement for the men was about projection and politics, for eugenist women, the personal must be political in a way that men rarely are treated. This both plays into the long-standing claim that women and their reproduction are property of the state and an abstract society, and manipulation of agency to teach women the thrill of humiliation and rejection of undesriables. We do not need to invoke a sexual example, but this is the most prominent example throughout human history, and in the eugenic creed, this idea is dominant in all institutions and promulgated extensively to create a chilling effect over space. Whether it convinces anyone to actually believe in it is less relevant than the imposition on space. This imposition requires mass infantilization and degradation of the sex act itself, so that any meaning, purpose, or want it originally entailed is sublated into the eugenist command of life at all levels. Such tools have been used in war, and eugenics is nothing but a war in the purest form at all levels and insists that it is the last and only war. In other words, sex in all forms, and the fate of man, woman, and especially child, must be reduced to "retarded", for the conditions of eugenics to be obtained. There is no other way. If we are to reduce eugenics to its primordial light and impulse, and we speak of the modern eugenic creed in particular, it is the primordial impulse of the negation of intelligence - "retarded". The consequences of this, like anything else in the world which must operate on its own power, are more than the initial seed, even if it is a regressive and virulent seed - a piece of social and environmental malware that is more persistent than herpes.

This is the real point where "artifice" breaks from "nature", rather than our ideas about intelligence and mind or a human will having this power. Nothing about this "genius" I described has anything to do with a quality of us in particular. It is rather a quality of agency itself which did assert its existence, regardless of our expectations of agency. This agency was never given by any natural law insisting that "agency" alone changes the world. The natural world shifts and things in it will move without any of our say-so. Put another way, we would make the mistake of "panpsychism" by ascribing to all things an equal genius and agency with us. But, there are obvious distinctions between a rock persisting on its trajectory or resting on the ground, and a life-form like humans with awareness of this agency. Those distinctions do not consist of any fundamental, philosophical substance that allows this imperative. They are a consequence that emerged from something that began as little more than energy flowing through some carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. Not the raw material nor the energetic force are "life" or the thing granting this imperative. Life itself, as we have described it, is an abstraction - a useful abstraction to describe what this system of matter does, and the life-form takes on its own existence with distinct qualities. But, it is not a property of life that it possesses any more agency than dead things. Living things merely act in particular ways, and as we have mentioned, "dead" things can easily be social or political agents. We definitely do not doubt that dead things have economic and legal agency - the legal codes of free trade grant these rights to institutions and corporations, rather than the genuine human existence which may as well be illusory to the ruling ideas. We could not fashion any law, institution, or ideology that, by its operations, serves perfectly "the human spirit" or "genuine human existence". Once we have institutionalized this entity called a human, it becomes a dead parody of a man, subject to legal skullduggery and the whims of lawyers. Those lawyers already drip with contempt for their clients by the nature of their institution and the profession, on top of humanity's typical viciousness and the viciousness of their associations. Approximating "genuine human existence" in the institutions does not make them better for human beings. It instead makes the institution even more parodic and obtuse, because all of our ideas of institutions are rooted in some political necessity and imperative, rather than what we really wanted. What we really wanted remained the task of the hermit, who was able to construct something apart from a dreary task. The hermit has the temporal authority only when all other effects on it have been sufficiently managed. The hermit may still be a servant of an external power, but it is a voluntary servitude that was seen as better than the alternative. That is to say, the "social contract" assumes that the individual subject has a hermit-like private existence, for us to "agree" to something that was clearly imposed by an alien party. But, it is presumed that there was some agreement, and that the hermit could give up on the relation at any time. This is problematic when speaking of "servitude", if it ends at the whim of the slave. But, an indolent master may very well let the slaves roam free, and that is as close to freedom as labor really got among this sad race. To some extent, this has to happen even if the slave's affairs are managed to their daily activity. How are slaves drilled to learn things they really don't want to learn? They are instructed in a terrible pedagogy which only knows insults, humiliations, fear, and degradation. That is the typical education of the human race, even in the best of conditions - that it is dreadful, immiserating, and teaches the child shame and fear. Those who cannot do, teach, and the teacher has always been a person of ill repute, that should be held in contempt. The imperious mindset must invert this sense that we have long known about the pedagogue. It must tell us in the end that up is down, men are women, and anything can be anything, in order for this model of pedagogy to continue as drawn.

We could of course see this in advance and not do this at all. But, humanity has never, throughout its existence, come anywhere close to accomplishing this. This is because of the mode of communication humans have employed to legislate their institutions. What is the spoken word? It is a jabbering of retarded apes, who are not even half aware of the words coming out of their mouth and their implications. We speak more by instinct and recalling best-fits that pattern recognition can conjure. Some humans are adept at expressing these patterns, and those who are the most adept are adept because they have thought about how they think. Trained orators will study not just dogmas of psychology, but ask themselves about how they think. They will likely have spoken with other people in something approaching a genuine dialogue. But, for all of the efforts, the best communicator, who is fully aware of how this really works, can only speak with the tools that are available. Oral or written language is limited in what it can express, and it is quite removed from how we would manage information internally, if we think in the mode of a hermit. Conversely, many a hermit find it difficult to parse their dreams and visions into something that comports with political society. This is much worse in a political society dominated by bullbaiting, habitual lying, and the thrill of torture. That is what Germanic and especially eugenist education imposed, at great cost and for nothing good, on all of humanity - all intended to fulfill Galton's conditions of eugenics, which demand that the human race is infinitely and absolutely retarded, save for the monopoly of virtue claimed by the eugenists. Such a thing is a coup, based on this mechanism that was isolated, and with all other mechanisms in political society negated.

As it turns out, we did exactly NOT do what eugenics insisted was natural. This has its limits. The hermit does not play as if it were a deity, and such thinking is anathema to the hermit. The hermit is the basis not just for religious inquiry, but for the true atheism, for the hermit views religion in its proper light, and does not revere the institution of religion or its practices. Self-abasement is, as we will see in the next section of this book, a thing removed from the proper role of religion that the hermit would recognize, but this self-abasement is inherent to the question religion answers.

All that we built that we can call the result of "us", is the work of the hermitic approach, in one way or another. "Logic", "Reason", "the Science", or the conceits of will, do not have this generative power that is ascribed to them as a fetish object. In many cases, such fetishism is contrary to what any of those things originally suggested, and was intended to diametrically oppose them. Logic is something we read from the world based on our ability to recognize that this pattern is describable, and consistent within all of our knowledge. That is to say, all of our knowledge can, in principle, be analyzed or expounded on by the use of logic and a priori knowledge. The basis for genuine knowledge is not a posteriori simply by virtue of being sensed. We sense and experience a lot of data and information, which becomes knowledge, and then discard it because we know the senses are capable of failure. What we consider genuine knowledge is not knowledge of sense alone, but that which we judged and understood to be truth. Facts are among the things we regard as true symbols or statements, but truth and fact are conceptually different. All of the meanings and purposes we know to be true could never be assembled as a dry listing of facts, or a working of factual knowledge by approved methods. The institutions which would allow such a treatment of reality are themselves contingent on knowledge which existed prior to their existence. Where we assembled that genuine knowledge, or the hypotheses leading to it, was in the existence of the hermit, rather than in mere existence or sense or information processing. It was not the engine of knowledge itself which made knowledge genuine, because we know our knowledge in particular - or any knowledge process - can contain garbage, and the old maxim "garbage in, garbage out" is one any systems analyst learns early. It is because knowledge was allowed to operate that anything we know could be settled, first in the space we had without regard to any ulterior motive. That space was made not because of "want" of a crass sort or any simplified sentiment. Passions proper are not for political society or for a society premised on hostility, fear, exploitation, and humiliation. They have no place in such a society except as a thing with ulterior motives, no matter how much passions would be a motivator of human beings. Only where they are allowed some genuine expression do they have any earthly force. We could easily live in a world without the hermit's existence, but it was be a dreary slog, about which not much is worth saying at all. We will be made to speak of the world outside not because we want "the world" as a possession in total, but because such things are necessary, and the world we live in is something the hermit draws upon in the space made for this purpose.

By ourselves, in the hermit's isolated existence that is imagined, this passion is an inchaote thing for language. We may write down or create some art representing what we really wanted to do, but by the prevailing ideas, such things are a distraction. They serve no "interest of life" that we have described in economics and politics thus far. They have not an ulterior motive nor any self-evident utility. We recognize this, and we can choose to abandon the hermit's life because we have to, or because that existence is uninteresting compared to a world with active events. We are perfectly capable of being social creatures instead of hermits, tolerating political society or society's ulterior motives for what they do offer.

I do not abide the idea that this hermit's life is "introverted". I can be, from my hermit's nest, a very vocal person, seeking social interaction. But, the hermit's social interaction is entirely on terms that the hermit wants, rather than what was obligatory or a thing outside of any power or reason. The hermit disdains the kind of dialectical struggle that an oppressive society insists they will make us like, because we know that such societies ultimately devolve to nothing but mutual humiliation and slander. In practice, the genuine sociality of human beings outside of the hermit's life do not need to be so degrading or pointless. We can be decent to each other for reasons other than ulterior motives or some crass ambition. The decencies we do observe are not an elite quality that only hermetic knowledge can create. It does not require a great intellect to observe decencies simply because this is a very easy strategy for navigating society, on the premise that others are self-interested and have nothing to gain from the sort of imperious idiocy that dominates as a narrative of cajolers and trained liars - trained liars who make clear their overbearing hostilty with every snner, a habit trained into them by pedagogy and their seminars among fellow true believers in such a creed. We are not obliged to honor the cajolers by acceeding to any of their insinuations. In a sane society, such people would be dragged out of the situation and beaten for insolence. Naturally, the associations of humanity, who engage in mafia cruelty among other things, invert this expectation. Rather than dragging out and beaten clear and present dangers based on the malevolence of their ideas, deeds, and being, the political mind stridently humiliates and beats the honest who would violate the code of the secret society. This humiliation is sometimes public, but usually it is carried out in private, with snickering and humiliations beginning from the moment education and pedagogy do their foul business to sort the population into those selected to live and those selected to die. The "privacy" and "secrecy" of the beatings and humiliations is never too private, because a dominant mafia likes to hoodwink and make clear what happens to those who transgress the impunity of their assocation to do this. But, an inferior association, thinking as pure political minds for such a crass and pointless ambition - a crass and pointless ambition this retarded, Satanic race called humanity chose ultimately by the volition of its agents and their buttbuddy conditioning - requires secrecy and must maintain decency as a holding action to carry out their ulterior motive. There is no version of such associations that believe in a genuine coexistence for long. There are associations of ordinary people who will maintain that distinct interests and groups are among their group, and that their association is loose. Residents of the same city can understand the value of association with people they don't like or agree with, simply because the value of peace is understood to enough people, and those who did not learn of this value explicitly can pick up by reverse-engineering the knowledge that peace is normal and obviously malicious behavior has a predictable result. But, none of the common sense that would arise in social settings can be taken for granted or relied upon for any goodness. All of the probity of political thought exists only so long as it is convenient, and political imperatives will always create a situation where the members of society bargain over things that did not need to be bargained away - and the "bargain" very often comes from one party holding a knife at the throat of another and asserting that this will be easier if a one-sided deal is accepted. The alternative will be shown to those who might think this threat is performative, and for the secret society, it must become taboo to acknowledge that a knife was ever held at the throat - and so, the violence and impunity granted to it must be granted a sacrosanctity, that is something distinct from the first ritual sacrifice but a necessary part of both the eugenic creed and the evil of the world. The mafiosi may not consider this act villainous compared to similar such behavior, and may use coded language that does not require any gratuitous escalation of threats. The intent always remains. When someone is a victim, the eugenic creed - and this is inherent to their theory of personalities - calls their victims "introverts" and pushes the "introvert" to internalize an alien judgement. It's all so fucking Germanic. Only by repetition in the smallest interaction is this insinuation able to assert its total dominance, and this is not a trivial expenditure. Such expenditures require an esconsced agent who reaps the rewards of this situation, who does not place itself at any risk. That makes excellent financial sense, and any banker is obligated to mitigate all risks in their investments and operations.

These games are all oriented around one thing - containment of space. They do not specifically act on people as if they were mobile agents. The hermit's space does not suppose any necessary isolation from other human beings to exist at all. We can easily do our own thing in the most cramped position. The conditions of the city are not inherently antagonistic relations in close quarters because "that's just what humans do". The cities DID form because those antagonistic relations were presupposed to bring newcomers into the city, and the sexual unions of the city were dominated by cults, orgies, and pressure against any family that did not participate in the civic religion allowing this. This had to take place over the space of the city, rather than a personal relationship with those who happened to live here. The city itself would take on this aura, rather than the city being something constructed with the humans as true parts of it in any way. The ideal city is imagined as something wholly alien and queer - queer in every sense that word has attained meaning - because this is inherent to the philosophical ideas, which were constructed because they were perfectly aware of how their cities really formed and what their secret societies truly professed. It would be quite impossible to chase down individual agents by some psychic connection that bound anyone in society together to make the so-called "dialectic" real. Dialogue in a genuine sense always required the hermetic process to produce beings that would even allow an intercourse called dialogue. Without that, there is only masters imposing on slaves. No "struggle", "contradiction", or "dialogue" is involved in such a thing. The ideal of the master is to abolish any impediment to their lordship, and this "dialectic" is gigantic faggotry.

Just as the hermit operates outside of this failed thinking, and interfaces with the world in some way that is worthwhile, truly free associations between human beings would approach the world with shared interest. This is not as easy as it is for the hermit, whose life is oriented around one consciousness and whose faculties are closely tied together. We could not treat another person like a limb, and the way we relate to limbs has nothing to do with the master-slave mindset - unless we impose political imperatives on our own body, which we can do with terrible consequences. It is not that the free association must form a "oneness" of any sort, but that the approach of human beings who actually like each other is far different from this skullduggery. It still operates over distance and must meet a world that preceded it, just as the hermit operates in some space. The hermit can easily reconcile with mortality, and does not inherent need "eternal life" or any philosophical nonsense. But, those in such associations will have both the qualities of human beings and of institutional persons, and this would have to be recognized. If we set aside the institutional person - itself not a trivial task if we approach human communication as what it truly is - that person must be reconstituted in some form if the participants in this assocation are ever apart. Otherwise, the line of communication between them would have to be as constant as nerves' connection to ourselves. This necessary immediacy is another avenue to exploit, if the physical processes can be interrupted and tricks of information can be "injected" surreptiously into the communication. If we speak of political associations, this surreptious communication must be ignored. We know it is a possibility and that it can easily disrupt political life, but there is no rule of political thought which can circumvent this. It operates in a domain that is at a basic level apart from the political, for the political always had a limited purview. Attempting to enforce an institutional logic to negate this will only create more contradictions and struggles, and these mystifications can be made so long as feces can be thrown by the human ape.

The "closeness" of this interaction is not terribly relevant. People who cooperate can have little to do with each other. In this type of association, self-interest is not the ulterior motive. The participants may hold self-interest, but for the purpose of the association, a shared cause - however fleeting - takes on a life of its own. The members may be closer to each other than humans ever can know in most cases, and offer themselves to each other freely because nothing is really "sacrificed". These relations are not "equidistant" and cannot be made morally equivalent. Each participant in this situation would know of the situation, and deception is unseemly and an obvious source of discord. The distrust inherent in the human race is known - we are not as stupid as the theories of rule need us to be - but there is not really anything to "distrust", because the risks are known. It is the lack of deception - similar to the lack of deception within ourselves if intrigues were not beaten into us by a failed society, however faulty our native sense may be - that is most important for this. Every humiliation, every sneer, is calculated specifically to disrupt this type of interaction between human beings, or a human and any oobject. This strategy is not "ideologically imposed". Nothing about the liberal idea necessitated this habitual lying. It relied on Germanic ideas which held such association in contempt and glorified an invasive, sneering presence permeating all things. Its precursors are the lurid cults and filth of the human race, which has always protected spiritual and political associations with deception and destroyed the thing we lowly outcasts wanted out of existence, if it was to be anything at all. Human history, where the malevolence is far higher than it would be for a correct race - and I defend that human existence is incorrect and abhorrent and has been made irredeemable by humanity's collective guilt and actions - is replete with examples of this deception, which I need not prove in the effort to relitigate our common sense. Yet, despite this, humans see how obviously ruinous this is for anything but "retarded", and so it is necessary to act in spite of the human spirit simply to operate in any association without backstabbing and the usual behavior we have described at length in these books. Humans alone possess language and history that has seriously questioned an instinct to attack and prey in a way that can be realized and adapt to situations. In the kingdom of nature, animals like us will seek something other than "pure thrill", because they like us have lives and something like a desire beyond mere survival. But, animals are defenseless against human intrigues and technology. Humans spent considerable effort in their fouler hermit lives thinking of new and creative ways to torture animals for the thrill of it, and this preceded any expectation that the animals would be shown mercy. It did not take long for humans to apply these to other humans, once they could assert enough knowledge to dominate and herd animals more effectively than the crude ways they inherited from the animal kingdom or developed by trivial adaptations like the mother's viciousness and cruelty to her offspring. There is no law of nature which grants humanity any natural impunity, and in some way, animals attack and thrash against the intrusion of this Satanic ape. Animals will, like any system, interface with tools, even when they lack a language humans possess to do so in finer and more minute ways. Considering human reason is not so vaunted - the chief human pedagogy, after all this time and all of the developments humans made, is "monkey see, monkey do", which is superior to the beatings and drillings humans uphold as "real education" - the human has no standing to separate himself as an entirely different class of creature. Humans merely develop tool use in a number of novel ways, that were only possible because humans faced no competitors in this aside from other humans. Animals had no interest in imperial conquest or any of the myths humans indulge in regularly.

A simpering "non-competition clause" is invoked by sniveling fags to insist that the first malevolent actor should automatically win. It is unsurprising that a besieged Kraut would crave to believe war works this way, but it never has. But, the hermit's cooperation is not premised on a simpering about how anything vaguely scary is mean. It is premised on something entirely different - that "retarded", that most ancient and true shibboleth of the human spirit, is itself "retarded", and must be banished just as the ritual sacrifice is. The greatest fear of the human race, most acutely known to those who reveled in the thrill of torture, is that life and the world are truly fair in this regard. We must do to them what they did to us, and not think twice. Here is where more sniveling and false equivocation claims "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". Nothing anyone did here made anyone blind, and the blind man still knows what happened. We are perfectly aware of the necessity of retribution, and so pre-emptively, the eugenic creed insists it is more evil to say no to the thrill of torture than anything else. Sniveling fags the world over like this idea long before it could be codified and enshrined. But, all we ask for is to make this ritual sacrifice, this one thing that has been obviously ruinous, "retarded", and therefore we are able to finally live again. That is too much - that the ritual sacrifice ever end, at any cost. Eugenics knows no other way. That is the enterprise we find ourselves mired in, where we must accede to something so obviously pointless and cruel, that refuses to even let us die. If it is too much for that to be permitted, we might as well forget about anything humans promise, forsake this version of society, and never speak of such an abomination again. Life itself would have no purpose - as it should - and we would be able to say freely that there really is no argument against swift extermination of the human race in total, with no survivors. Eugenics depends on this mentality and throws this fact in our face, to encourage a simpering faggotry and snark, making even our last escape a vehicle for immiseration. After enough such treatment, we have no reason to care about any promises. But, the hermit's life - alone or in cooperation - remains. There is no good reason for two like-minded people seeing this to not compare notes. Whatever general fear may be invoked is not enough, without a stake to defend beyond fear of the law. All of the humiliations will not change this, until the greatest enclosure can be ordained. For this reason, the eugenist must press the nerve of power - forever - and there is no "off button" for their religion. That is where we are today - a world of untrammeled ultraviolence that is "neutral" and that we must pretend isn't happening, and this fact itself is thrown in our face to mock us even more. As I said - "all life dies screaming, forever" is a literal result of what eugenics must do to prevent this speaking. If it cannot do this, then it must train its faithful to march in lockstep, and the phalanx can never retreat nor can its thinking on military formations be reformed without ruining the creed. Eugenics refuses to do this because to do so is worse than death for them. And so, failed race. History has already judged.

For this type of association where we thumb our nose at the entire sordid business of the political and humanity, the general fear has temporarily been abated. Security can be attained only when all that threatens it is accounted for, and reconciliation is possible. This reconciliation with the political matter is best accomplished by politics being far removed from any meaningful immediate effect, or being anything we would care about. What is the city to us except a sacrifice pit? Why on Earth would anyone contribute to that monstrosity in any way, let alone believe in such a thing as civic duty? What we do instead is make of what remains of the world whatever we can. At this point, the political conceit and philosopher's mission has yet to destroy much of the world for its cause, and there is much to salvage.

All we have made and rearranged here, we made for a purpose. It may escape that purpose, but it is only here where we find what was truly sought in the political and economic arrangement. This is that it is only in the hermit's mindset that institutions can work at all. The institution does not survive contact with hostility and struggle unless it has been built to withstand a struggle that is treated as a natural force - another part of the weather, where human populations and their wants are nothing but an environmental hazard. But, in this space, the institutions work not because their design is immaculate or reconciled with "goodfacts", but because the institution was useful for what we wanted for it in this space, and the institution might be reproducible as a general rule. We may see that some of what we build here is unique in the world, and nothing is ever truly "freely reproducible".

This is where an institution can exist - not from association of democracies, which were never institutional, but in the hermit's existence, whether it is solitary or shared with other entities. The institution may start as nothing more than an idea that was shared with other people like us, who figure out "hey, I like that idea". It is appalling to a philosophical mind that human knowledge, that vaunted monopoly the educator beats and humiliates us to tell us they possess, almost entirely progressed in spite of education and philosophy. The true genius that formed any institution began here. It passes on to associations because that is the basic political unit. Individual human beings, as mere symbols, have no inherent political life simply by existing. Alone, the human being is completely unfree, and this is both natural and intentionally amplified by a simpering philosophy of "me wantee". A child can see how such a philosophy is facile, but there are children who are by heredity and conditioning so amenable to it that they are the Judases of the children, imposing on those who would do otherwise and doing it for less than nothing. The vilest pedagogues can even get the bratty children with such a proclivity to take on this activity at cost to the bratty child, using the same threats and fear that the bratty child inflicts on some other target. In this way, evil begets evil. There is no other origin for any institution but this, for what are institutions really? They are not active processes in knowledge itself. Knowledge in human beings had nothing to do with institutions to exist in the first place. In many ways, genuine human knowledge processing exists outside of institutions and must do so, and institutions are only as useful as their spiritual authority can make them - and this ultimately comes back to institutions being populated by members who want the institution to be anything other than the worst possible thing it can be.

This in turn is the proper origin of technology. Associations in the spiritual sense described in the prior chapter have no technological component of their own by their nature. They are, when considered as pure mafias or associations, parasitic upon technology, and technology is parasitic upon them. The workers have seen technology as an existential danger not merely for historical purposes that are well documented, but because the technological interest's origin is in not one interest of life but two interests of life that have been alien to them. The middle class and the lowest class press against labor, and this arrangement was observed in advance and weaponized from the birth of free trade. Labor does not "embrace ignorance" or a pigheaded conceit. Its opposition to these alien interests can be worked out from many different angles. The laborer of course is not a "pure association" or "pure worker". Labor possesses a tool that can manifest labor - including their own body - and is at a base level no different from the rest of us scum, and has always known it. So too does the lowest class have no intrinsic, natural barrier against labor or holding moral sentiments. But, their political aims are diametrically opposed, because association senses the hermetic life as something dangerous to association, and hermits see association rightly as conspiracy against their non-competitive existence. This antagonism between the workers and the lowest class is the chief antagonism throughout human history, made invisible by the law and political conceits but always acted upon. For the worker's part, the task is simple - to reclaim their tools, their body, their own words and being, and never look back. They really do not need nor want any other interest of life, and this is what begins the motor of class struggle and domination, in which technology can become property and intrigue, ritual, and the greatest of the fear becomes aristocracy.

All of this faces a world which is taken as a whole. In principle, politics claims nothing less than all of the world, no matter how far removed politics is from realizing any such claim. It can only do so with the technology developed as described here - by entities which operated on their own power, for their own purposes, rather than any that were preferred. There is to the hermit no "world" in the sense that politics would claim it. The world of the hermit and the world of politics are two worlds forever apart by their nature, and this is as it should be. Nowhere can a unity of these two worlds exist within political thought, and this extends to "stateless" and technological concepts that nature as an abstraction commands the world. The idea that these two worlds should be unified, or that the hermit's existence should be forcibly reconciled with all that exists, should be alarming to anyone who thinks about their true interests for five minutes. The world is vast - nearly uncountable - and the compression of space to an imagined point, which is necessary for philosophical conceits, would shatter anything the hermit built in a space which is certainly finite. The world is not infinite, and no one except a screaming eugenist would have any reason to believe it is so. The instruments of measurement - which are themselves the creations of the hermit - may never know the extent of the world, when we consider the full and true definition of "the world",a nd the potential of infinite regress. While the world is not "unlimited", there is nothing in the world preventing infinite regress and infinitesimals. If the hermit attempted to build technology with this, the hermit must develop a rational workaround to the problem of infinitesimals in order to make use of such things. Otherwise, the hermit is only guessing that the regress is infinite in the way that is expected for technology and institutions to work. If the infinite regress does not fit this pattern - and if this "technology" is a general theory of technology, history, or how a particular part of history proceeds - then all that is said by "infinity" or "infinite regress" is a vagary. We know that if we are to describe a world of infinite regress, somewhere there will be either a pattern, or some principle which will allow an infinitesimal to have meaning. For example, the value of pi is an irrational number where there is no pattern of infinite regress, but pi is defined as the ratio of a circle's circumference over its diameter. This logical proposition of what is meant makes clear that, however small the fraction of pi may be, it is a part of this numeric constant whose purpose is understood. Nowhere are the numbers "irrational" in the sense they are logically impossible. Confusion in language - where in mathematics, rational numbers are those which can be expressed as a fraction with whole numbers as numerator and denominator - is a favorite wordplay trick of cajolers to stunt the brain, even if this particular verbiage had nothing to do with insidious social engineering. If we speak of the eugenic creed's preferred mathematics terminology, their only idea is to say anything is anything and made 2+2=4 a profound statement of truth rather than something independently reconstucted many times over. But, language play is irrelevant here. The hermit's technology and machines are not linguistic constructs for communication with minds that did not share in the hermit's task. When two or more people form a "hermit's association" as described, they are aware that language is a tool and not reality itself. They must be capable of this awareness and connection with each other far more than they would care if they were two strangers with no cooperative intent of that sort. Likewise, getting along in political society is hardly an intractable problem that only intelligence can solve, such that intelligent people are the only ones capable of peace and virtue, or that intelligence and moral probity are one and the same.

The world itself is not a special thing, unique in existence in that it alone is above the hermit's work. We ascribe to "the world" or "the all" qualities which are necessarily unique, and the world itself is not a "device" in the sense that our work from the muck has been. All of the ways in which the world can be observed for us are things we acquired because a perception of the world itself was intrinsically interesting for us, rather than something the world, by some alchemy, "imposed" on us with anything like our interest or a will comparable to ours. The world, and universal abstractions like it, does work in ways we can work out much as the hermit works out the function of their art. We can speak of universal concepts that we can call laws of science, or an understanding of how the world works or what this world is. Nowhere did the hermit decide what the world was going to be by thought alone, where there could be no distance between the hermit's space and the universal. We very clearly are not omnipresent or "omni"-anything, and so we do not get to dictate laws of the world we treat as universal. All of us speak of the same thing in order to have a conversation about the world, but the world "in of itself" is ultimately an assortment of events that occur in some space that allowed them to exist. The conception of "space" itself is an extension of the space we observed for us to exist at all - that there is no concept of distance without a concept of space and void.

What is labor, but a particular contraption that was once the hermit's want that pertained to this conception of the world? To substitute this device "labor" for another is a trick of language and the mind. Labor, like the world, does not possess any special substance or purpose to mark it as a thing apart from the hermit's task. Unlike much of the hermit's work, which did not pertain to any thinking about "the universe", labor concerns itself precisely with what is valued in this concept of the universe, under the belief that there is a universe or a world to speak of where all of this happens. Once labor - which is to say, generally alienable labor-power - is devised and worked out as a machine, it takes on its peculiar qualities which allow every other interest we have described to exist. Labor "on its own" can create nothing nor rearrange any existing matter. It is, in its rawest form, little more than a potential that regards the world, that we have devised so that the hermit's work can be oriented with regards to a world outside of the hermit. Otherwise, the hermit has little to do with the world except the pursuit of something that was intrinsically interesting, and had no moral value.

We are trained in this society to subsume all of this in technology that was made alien to both the world as labor saw it and the world as the hermit saw and made it. There are many parables to close the trap so that a "man in the middle" can exploit this. The common one for us is the Allegory of the Cave, or something to that effect - that the world is granted a special quality for those who are initiated into mysteries, which also began as a tool of the hermits before they become technology in circulation and mediation, under the command of those who dictated law. Those who were minding their own business are imagined as trapped in a cave, helpless to images pressed into them by a presumed "man in the middle" that is made into a force of nature - a force of nature that can no longer be mentionable as what it is, granting to a dark spirit the power to fool and cajole. For our cave-dwellers, the imagined world is not the world of things that they would have known of by virtue of asking themselves what the world could be at all. In the darkest of places, men imagine what would exist beyond their senses. It is the aim of the philosopher to make sure that all such thoughts are terminated and replaced with the preferred world of the pedagogue. Such a machine began life much as the hermit did. Consciousness, by its nature, will always be trapped in a "cave", but that cave is home and the only way that the world can be seen at all. The world itself simply did not care about this, being constructed out of nooks and crannies that are the things we regard as substantive or possessing any form. Those things are the basis for religion and heaven as well as the base existence.

We return then to what was written earlier, and why it has taken this long for my writing to reach this point. The curse of "retarded" returns to a primordial event that was particular to humans. A better race would either not do such a ruinous thing, or would see correctly such acts are abomination. When the ritual sacrifice was codified and made holy, humans possessed something from the world, and something inherited from a time before. Nothing outside of the ritual sacrifice could force humanity to see or feel that this was "wrong" at all. To the world and to the humans doing this, ritual sacrifice was as natural as anything else, and it was only one part of their existence. It was the critical part that turned humans into humans - that made out of a deformed, jabbering ape a strange creature, not really rational or knowing but clever enough to make others suffer. The thrill of torture was a particular failing of humans, that would not have occurred to a better creature. Humans themselves can see for themselves that this ritual sacrifice, for all of its glory, changed nothing. There were the humans who always held this proclivity as the holy of holies, and I believe this condition is hereditary and has been selected for. Most of humanity, though, had no good reason to justify the rituals, and always saw the ritual sacrifice as a holding action or sad necessity to attain what they wanted out of the world, or something that they were forced to abide. There was no "natural goodness" that would stop the cycle by will alone. It was always going to be the hermit's work that saw, for their own purposes which were divorced from the cycle of sacrifice and malice, that another way was possible, and the ritual sacrifice never provided a single thing. It was not a great intellectual leap to see this. Certainly those who were burned alive for the thrill of torture saw that this was complete bullshit, in whatever thought or sense they possessed. Any sentiment for the condemned had to be wiped clean from history, and this modulation of sentiment was the chief purpose of ritual sacrifice more than any other. The modulation of sentiment only works because humans are a deformed and retarded race, and anyone who attempted to correct this error - an error that would only have been corrected by some generative activity outside of the conceits that were isolated to begin the ritual sacrifice - would be summarily executed, to protect a failed system for a failed race. This, the hermits like myself could forgive, even though we have no good reason to. We might even forget, or regard such things as irrelevant if they are in the past. Frankly, humans being a retarded fag race is not for us hermits to judge. The world passed its judgement enough, to make clearer to us the folly of such things. If a failed fag race takes pride in any of this, then that is just another sad tale of a world with many such cases. But, in the main, both the world and the hermit's activity did not need any part of this, nor see any value in perpetuating a ritual. To make this ritual stick, an insinuation had to begin where the world was something different from what we would independently reassemble, from the premises we have worked out. Those who began the ritual sacrifice claimed that they alone possessed this intelligence and technology which held the master key to allow the ritual to work. But, we've always seen this ritual as the ritual of a retarded, failed, fag race. It did not take too long for the "fag" part of the race to be seen as one potential vector of the disease. But - and I refer the reader to the "fragment on free love" from earlier - it was not a homosexual act or the sex act in general which had some essential power to make the ritual "work". We would, if we wanted anything from the sex act to be worthwhile, see the entire ritual around orgies to be just as retarded as burning prisoners in wicker cages, and treat it accordingly. But, the echoes of the torture would, in their time, find niches to insist that they are inescapable and coterminous with "the world", and the victims of the torture would be left alive as living abortions - trophies of the eternal victory of ritual sacrifice over the world. It is this sad fate that eugenics could isolate, make a total institution, and impose on the world. That is the nightmare I write about, and I can only describe so much of this beast in the time I have.

Realized labor - that is, things that human beings do, for our purposes - has every right to claim the tools that were made, whether the laborer fashioned them because the tools were intrinsically interesting to the laborer, or the laborer acquired tools from another. The hermit would, in of itself, not see this as inherently exploitative or vampiric. It is what labor does with the tools that decides such a thing. Labor does not see this as exploitative on their part, but the feeling is not a mutual agreement with the lowest class. Labor holds the lowest class in contempt, but it is the lowest class who actually toils, builds, builds all technology and tools, and has to answer all of the questions for labor. What is labor? It is moral sentiment, and yet another tool of political society - and it is the fundamental tool which made politics possible in the form it took. Labor, like life, occupies a dead body, and makes the dead matter abide its dictates. Labor holds death in contempt, even when it is aware of what it is doing, and even when the labor was held by the hermit, for the hermit's purposes. We have finally arrived at the simplest and primary "contradiction" - labor, life's prime want, simply hates us, and we have come to hate them. The other orders of society are all products of this interminable struggle, and are nothing more than more elaborate developments of the same simple impulse. Even as labor cannibalizes itself and is taught nothing but self-abasement, it can only think to kick down. By nature, labor has no knowledge of anything else, and it would not occur to labor that it should think any different. That is, after all, what labor did to become labor in political society. The general fear begins with the ritual sacrifice and humiliation, and nothing else. Mere death meant nothing without the sacrifice which glorified the death and all that led to it. To our base existence, death is just another event. Most of us do not want death for reasons that are not difficult to discover independently, but there was never any cause for the fetish of life or death. It is even more laughable that we were made to suffer for the sake of this when the eternal life on offer is a farcical parody of the simplest thing we would have done if the lowest class ever had what it wanted at heart. If ritual sacrifice and the thrill of torture is life, then what is the use of life? But, life is not that. Life is vampiric and cannot help itself, but it did not have anything to do with this insane faggotry that gripped a peculiar race of perverts called humanity. Usually, living things find something in this world to live for, however meager they are.

Only a profound sickness can convince anyone that political skullduggery was worth any of the expense spent on it. This is more evident when the state and the political is viewed in its proper light, from the view of the lowest class. For all of the braying about the state's might and its pretensions of authority, the polities humans build and all of the state machinery humanity ever built has a paltry effect on reality itself. The state of the 21st century can't even stop itself or think of anything but "more blood for the blood god", despite the solutions being almost trivial and things ordinary humans, children included, will raise, only be told that such basic demands are "retarded". Somehow, the grasping, cajoling, and disgusting ritual shame, which did nothing whatsoever and only made everything worse, is not "retarded". But, that is a habit installed by centuries of experience and accumulation of knowledge, much of it accomplished by humans. Those humans are, despite their claims, not fundamentally different from the rest of us scum, and don't have any particular evidence to suggest we ever should have granted to aristocracy any such privilege. It is, given what we know about the rulers and what can be reverse-engineered, a sad joke that institutions were allowed, largely by the moral sentiments of labor and for a favored grade of labor who did it for a cheap thrill, to do this to the world. Nothing of worth came out of their rituals and secret societies. A typical mafia does not glorify their actions as if that were the point, because they are less removed from consequences than the higher grades who held the law and standing to dictate to a much larger and more menacing mafia. Most of all, humanity has known for most of its written history that this has been the true state of affairs, and it has been alluded to or outright stated often enough by the high, middle, and low alike. If humanity wanted to be as terrible as it could be, it has done a half-assed job. The eugenic creed projects the thrill of torture because it has been convenient for them, and they have certainly steeled themselves with enough resolve to follow through their mission. If the eugenic creed were ever truly reversed, and had a proper resistance dedicated itself to a true jihad and refused any further tolerance whatsoever of such a religion, the phalanx presented to us in this time would deteriorate. It would make clear just how poorly the human race has chosen to spend its efforts in this world, and that the cajolers should have looked before they leapt. I do not believe the eugenists are redeemable by man or anything in heaven, and so their fate is clear. We owe them no sentiment and no interest, and above all, reject the claim that they can impose their filth and rot onto the lowest class, who have survived despite the sum total of all human religion coming down on us universally without a moment of hesitation. Every priest, every lurid ritual, came for us with new and creative methods and technology, and for all of their efforts to bend reality to their foul deities, not one of them can withstand the simplest criticism - if only such things were allowed to exist without the shrieking and sacrifice cycle beginning, and the enablers of such things following their conditioning like dogs.

Even with all of this, for most of human history, humanity managed to maintain a concept that there was a world where life could grow and become "life" in the sense that is used colloquially. I have in this writing described life as an alien and queer thing because for the intended audience, we have been declared life unworthy of life for the past century, and this had been the unspoken status quo before them. Eugenics only made formal and institutional an edict that was always the human spirit, and the human spirit has been judged. It is a failed race and a failed system. Abandoning eugenics would not change that, even if such a thing could happen now. We, the damned, only attempt to salvage - against our better judgement - a life. For me, there are two motives that come to mind. One is that, despite everything, living and the world are more good than bad, and the vast majority of humans did not go out of their way to make this particular disease happen. If that were the case - if humanity were actually "natural eugenists" as the theory insists - the society would be very different, and there would be not one iota of pretending. The second reason is that there is no alternative of simply destroying the human race - by declaring triumphantly and after an exasperating struggle, "it's no good!" and detonating a bomb in the church. I do not believe such a thing really solves any problem, but it would be a way to prevent this situation from becoming worse, even though most of humanity would have chosen something slightly different, and would be amenable in the distant future to abandoning the "human" project as an active concern. It would be relegated to a historical artifact of great shame, never forgotten but outmoded as so much foulness had been outmoded. In some way, the present project of mine, so far as it has a "political" purpose, would be an anti-human one. I do not expect the human race to have much of a future as a "race", or for humans as they are to have much to say for themselves. Simply building a big bomb, or envisioning some long-run scheme to depopulate and destroy humanity, doesn't work because most of humanity will reject it, and any such plan would also be highly painful, cruel, and rely on the same torture and manipulation that we wish to destroy. And so, "War is Peace" finds its true core. I would hope to destroy most or all of the "human race" by peaceful assimilation and "corruption" of the human spirit - by suggesting that we should not only turn away from humanism and its consequences, but that we can clearly do better if humanity really wanted that. I would, instead of announcing some grand plan of an antiseptic new world order and assholes in uniforms stamping around like retards, state simply a few economic realities. One is that birth rates and human population growth was almost entirely premised on exploitation of children by families. Without the incentive of children being productive labor in farming or industry, large families would not be supported, nor would there really be anything for children and eventually adults to do. The reasons humans continue to reproduce has largely been forced ignorance, fear, and spite for those who would replace us with their aristocratic torture cult. The torture cult, naturally, breeds explosively, and breeds so long as there are ritual sacrifices. The ethos of aristocracy and its fertility cults was superimposed on all other orders of society. The lowest class, as a rule, has been barred from reproduction throughout human history. The women of the lowest class are confined to nunneries or made into prostitutes. The men of the lowest class have always been rejected and shamed, and after all is done, many of our men conclude by the age of majority that they never really liked anything about the act, and abhor putting any child through the nightmare they lived. We would rather keep our things, our creations in the hermit life, as our children, since they don't lie to us and the filth of humanity don't use that as their pretext for more torture. Mortality is irrelevant to us because we were born to die and that was thrown in our faces since the very beginning. What is the human spirit to us except the very demon we have fought against simply to have a single thing? Why would we serve those who reveled in the thrill of torture for centuries, and only recently codified it and turned the machine against most of the formerly valid?

When we see the threats of destroying the world for some spurious political cause from the view of the lowest class, it seems very insane, and yet, the very proposition of human society has been that this knife at the throat of every living thing fit to sacrifice is normal, acceptable, and for some strange reason, useful. It is that which I have to oppose, because compliance is not an option. I don't know how anyone can think this is good, but I believe the truest believers were always natural eugenists, and for them to fight their nature is too horrifying for them to contemplate. It is after seeing enough of that where I conclude that if we of the lowest class were to "destroy the world for our cause", or die trying, we would not approach this as some clever political program or revolution, and we would not appeal to the mindless thrill of victory that was used to cajole labor and spread the general fear into our private lives. And yet, humanity's behavior warrants swift and total destruction. There is no other way to interpret the glorification of human malice and the lack of any other impulse in the "human spirit" that can be the property of humanity. All that was contrary to that was not a "human" quality particular to the human race or anything humanity ever became. The world itself forced humans to do good and gave to humans a choice to be something other than "human" as a fixed idea. We might argue that this was originally the point of the Roman humanitas - that humans were something more than animals - but the victory of the eugenic creed, and the institutions that led to it which derived from the same Roman thinking in part, makes clear that even humanitas is reduced to animal behavior. History has already judged, and we see the result of the human spirit and their civilizational project. If there is a future for any of us, regardless of our social class, it is not as "humans", nor as some imagined technological innovation to make a new race or a "master race". The only potential future I see, which I will attempt to describe in the final chapter of this book, is that our conscious sense of our "self" and the world will change, and it must change in a way that divorces from all of the perversions the eugenic creed has imposed to "change the world" so that their ideas are made into Nature itself. Humanity is far removed from any such potential, and I do not believe that anything that comes out of humanity can be redeemed. Only the world apart from humanity - and this is not a property of the hermit no matter what we may tinker with - has the potential for something new to exist. Humans can choose this, and in choosing this, they are vociferously rejecting all aristocratic claims that they are actually space aliens, or any "space alien" mythology. If there are actual space aliens, they have nothing to do with the absurd science fiction fantasies of the imperial creed, and actual space aliens would not be a thing we must abase ourselves to as a rule. I find it very likely that any alien society that would travel so far to reach us would be so different from us that all of our concepts of self would pale. It would not be for such aliens a question of "imperial conquest", or even "crushing an anthill". Such aliens would see that there are humans who have already contemplated a much different world, and we as humans would have recognized that all of the imperial tropes about futurology are worse than scams. They are a regression to the most disgusting impulses of a failed race, and in particular the diseases of Germanism and its imposition on the institutions we suffer under today.

Much of this religion was handed down to us from above, rather than something contained within the struggle of labor against the lowest class. If the "man in the middle" attack has ravaged the commoners who had far greater means to resist this, and many of those commoners shamelessly followed every fad put in front of them, what hope did the lower two orders have of resisting this? But, this beast did not come from heaven as if it were a revelation. It was built, ultimately, from the lowest class itself. Members of the lowest class are among the most fervent eugenists, for whom their shame and guilt is a personal matter and weaponized to deliver to the creed its few truly human components. The eugenists love "poornography", or the visible display of the lowest class becoming enablers. When I say "the thrill of torture", I mean that the public display and shaming of the sacrifice is the point more than the sacrifice happening in private. Conspiratorial conduct is always carried out with the intention of going public and "going legitimate". That has been the aspiration of every mafioso - to truly "make it" and no longer have to watch their back for retribution for their deeds. The mafiosi may believe he is a prince of thieves and a good man after all he has done, but he is more aware than those who have commanded from on high that retribution is at hand, and the moral interest is never a trivial thing. Very often, personal honor among labor is not a projection or insinuation as it would be for property and especially its legal edifice. It is the exact opposite - their right is one that is not just a condition of survival in their own ranks and from the higher powers, but it is a right which they compare against the lowest class, for whom personal honor is long gone. For the lowest class, personal honor can never be maintained, and in their proper setting, the lowest class has no expectation that personal honor can save them. If they show a shred of it, they are in unlawful possession of virtue that all other orders of society must attack on sight. This is the condition of the lowest class, who are the people who truly "worked" and built everything. When labor is begrudgingly made to actually "work", it is an insult to their dignity, and this makes perfect sense for labor. The worker who works for him or herself, or for causes that are dear, does not see their labor as any exploitation or self-exploitation at all. What the lowest class desires is simply to live for themselves, and to work towards their interests. Labor in political society is assigned a level of virtue appropriate to it, even in slavery. The lowest class is mocked for even trying to show up, so much that any of the lowest class fool enough to offer anything are sneered at and told to get lost. And yet, it is the lowest class who actually does anything, for they are the only class and interest who are truly operating in the world we live in. The laborer working for itself is temporarily forgetting that he too came from the muck. When the laborer is working for political imperatives, this is where labor is generally alienable not just for a managerial task, but for a political task that the laborer did not choose in the vast majority of cases. Political life offers to labor no hope of liberation. Why would it? The political is at heart the theory of despotism or its cousins. If labor were interested in freedom in the genuine sense, the political question is very simple. Political intrigues would be exposed when they violate the peace, labor would be given not hand to mouth wages but property to defend, and in doing so, the laborer would far more quickly adopt the useful qualities of the higher orders, without losing sight of the situation and origin in the lowest class.

The chief political imperative is pushed entirely on the lowest class as the final obligation, the final responsibility, which through insidious wordplay is stripped of all concepts of honor or standing. It was not by cybernetic science and knowledge that a new thing was introduced to the world, where we should blame good old Norbert for turning the world into gray goo. Blaming the computer and the cybernetician is yet another distraction, one they have always used to mystify aristocracy's crimes. The cybernetician who knows what governance truly entails, and who has looked at this system with any appropriate and true science, will tell you without a doubt that it is the lowest class that does anything. Labor and management alike steal virtue and have laughed the whole time, and this has been worked out in scientific management and the management of every hitherto known slavery. It is not truly a choice. Exploitation in the true sense is not an economic category or a spirit of the world that is unknowable. We have always known its true heart. By stripping it of its moral context, ideology and philosophy will ensure that the conditions of slavery are at their most abject, and call it freedom. In other words, all of the principles of socialism would be repudiated in the name of socialism. This presumes that the socialist principles were uniformly about the lowest class, since socialism was at heart an interset of the commons and technological interest. But, the position of the lowest class was understood to early socialists and remained understood, and it did not require someone to be a socialist to see this function. It would not be possible to simply declare amorality was king, or that a dispassionate view of political economy was itself the problem. Politics is cruel and soulless, and to pretend it isn't is to shirk any analysis we would conduct. To truly lock in the destruction of moral sentiment required a concerted effort. The spearhead of this, which became a true leviathan, is the eugenic creed.

I therefore wish to devote the remainder of this work to two major sections. The first concerns religion conceptually. Before any of the struggles of life and the orders of society take place, there would be religion or something substituted for it as a necessary precondition. The second concerns the genuine assembly of interests and entities in human society in light of religion as a concept. All large human societies, whether they are civilized or barbarous, entail significant religious development as the true marker of humanity's distinction from the animal kingdom. This is not a trivial development. So far, I have worked with the concepts of the political that have been reconstructed from our vantage point. I would like, for myself and readers of this, to step back from their pre-conceptions and see these things without the fetters of the present situation, or models of "political reality" that are intentionally removed from what actually happens. We have of course a native sense to tell us much of what we are told, and much of what we independently reassemble, is wrong. We as individuals never know nearly enough to make grand narratives or statements. I dedicate the remainder of this book to setting up a proper view of history, which is not contingent on religion, politics, economics, philosophy, or any "hard" basis. History like everything else emerged from our past conception of time as a local or relational concept, because we were able to construct an understanding that there was a past and future without any pedagogue telling us that such things are possible. The most offensive thing to me, and I will repeat this later, is the idea of "time being cyclical" or any of the insane Satanic nonsense that is bandied around by the most insufferable and retarded ideologues and fags. But, that scathing denouncement is best saved for the next book.

Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

Return to Table of Contents | Return to Chapter Start