Return to Table of Contents | Previous Chapter | Next Chapter

I have thus far operated under the presumption that there is no religion or "god" to speak of, and that the world itself has no particularly "divine" component. The world and life did not need any religion to exist at all. If we are to comprehend religion and spiritual authority properly, the world as material phenomenon - however we understand "matter" or ideas that arose from it - has nothing to do with any religious origin or any imaginable entity or force making it so. The creation of the material world is incidental to a religious understanding of "creation of the world as we know it". The religious view of the world - and this is true of religion generally - sees the world's creation not as a natural historical event, but as the establishment of religion's presence in the world. This establishment is not of a particular religion or institution, but of religion as a potential of the world itself. That is, religion of any sort concerns itself with the same subject, rather than religion being an ersatz creation fo men that conforms to the specification of any technology. Religion properly is one of the few "creations" of mankind that is not reducible to technology. All of our methods of science, all of the mechanisms of the body, and all of the ways understanding are communicated, are things which enter social life as technology, rather than as the raw labor-power or material composition of bodies as-is. We infer that labor and the basic conditions of existence are operative, and technology is a layer on top of that. The ways religion is communicated - a church, a priesthood, dogmas, tenets, praxis, and so on - are all technological, and are well within the domain of science. The subject religion pertains to is not accessible to crude knowledge, and usually sets itself as something apart from science altogether out of necessity. A religion can claim to possess insight into science and usually must to complete its understanding, but religion never holds a monopoly on science as a concept. Where science is purely something entities that can practice it do, religion to be religion is something more than a contrivance of life. Religion itself does not have the sole claim to this. There is much in the world that is transcendant and outside of the conventional material world, which science has no immediate claim to know anything about. Once the subject matter of religion enters social circulation - whenever we form a holy text or say anything about the "gods" or "heaven" - the words and ideas they pertain to are things anyone can analyze with whatever method they deem suitable, science included. To speak of religion as identical with all "super-science" or things outside of conventional knowledge is to speak of nothing of importance. What religion does, and why it persists, has a proper purview. The universe or the "greater world" is not identical with "religion" or "gods". Any dogma asserting such a thing about religion has clear implications which do not stand up to any scrutiny. Religion is, like anything else, accountable to a world outside of it, and it possesses no special claim to knowledge above anything else. It is the area of knowledge which religion concerns which grant to it a status to us that is unique and necessary. Only when religion is spoken of properly will this political understanding develop into something that is useful for navigating a world of human beings and the events we truly value. Mere political theory or economic management leaves the reader with a dreary and miserable picture of humanity, whose end is predictable. We did not invent religion as a dodge or a cope because of pre-existing knowledge of political theory or economics. Religion conceptually pre-dates any political treatise or philosophical treatment of science at all, and would have been necessary for humans to independently build any such theory or understanding. It is rather the other way around - political treatises and economics rooted in naturalism and science arose as a cope to handle a world where the primarily political agents were spiritual animals first and foremost. Religion is not the sole vehicle for spirituality, but religion answers a question that allows it to prevail in the domain of spiritual authority. So long as there is nothing else which can speak of reality at that level, religion is the most obvious vehicle for education, socialization, familiarization with higher values, and an ability for social agents to make comparisons or hold any dialogue about the world or religious tenets. A world truly devoid of religion would be very different from the world humans have fashioned, and very likely it would not be a better world, despite the ruin religion has entailed. But, if religion did not exist, it would be very necessary at a stage of technological development and communication of ideas to invent such a thing.

After all of our investigation into mechanisms that guide management - economics - and mechanisms which guide the political struggle, we are left with a unsatisfying and dreary image of the world. This is the preferred image of the technological interest, and the technological interest came to the forefront of human society during the 20th century, having rapidly risen from its first assertion of high state office during the late 18th century. It is this which, after describing a view of history which can fix some judgement errors that were violently imposed on us, I hope to write of in the fifth book of this series. If my thinking on history can be sustained, it would be a path to circumvent the monopoly on technology and intelligence by working through knowledge, rather than through occult chicanery and the usual failure of Germanic hermeticism. The hermit, as mentioned in the prior chapter, is the true fount of anything we would call "humanism" as a spiritual conception. As a race, the facts of human history damn them for eternity, and this judgement is now certain to the eyes of mankind. Many of mankind believed this all along, either because they had seen enough to not need final confirmation, or because they were among the men and women who embraced all of the rot and wished to advance it, as has been a proclivity of a faction of humanity that insists no one is allowed to tell it no.

The world presents to the human subject as facts, which hold no moral significance of themselves, and potentials that are understood in meaning, which always take on moral properties of their own however faint. We may make associations in meaning whose moral value is spurious or irrelevant to our inquiry, but the intellect of humanity is never a blind animal, and cannot be if it is to be intelligence in any appreciable sense. Only when intelligence is construed as a technology that is alien to labor altogether, and then mystified and made sacred by the conceits of aristocracy and the crasser conceits of property, is intelligence made blind. For the worker and anyone who sees something in technology, technology is always a tool - perhaps a very elaborate tool, but technology does not contain any necessary spiritual connotation in of itself. It is the consequences of technology which assign to it moral value - and so we might say "guns don't kill people", but the purpose of a firearm is very clearly to attack other life-forms and this intent indicated to the gunsmith what would make the tool effective for that purpose. The cult of technology is something very different from the technological interest's stake and reliance on technology, just as the cult of war is not really the property of warriors and the cults of labor are almost axiomatically opposed to anything any laboring person would want. For the lowest class, cult-like behavior can only glorify their own weakness and crapulence, and so there is little confusion about the perniciousness of cults. The member of the lowest class can either avoid the rot and have the only true stake in proper atheism, they embrace their fate in the religious orders and cults that were designed to kill them, or they begin their own religious establishment against a world where many such establishments already exist. The lowest class alone can shirk the consequences of these cults for good, but in doing so, they would surrender everything but the mere fact of their existence, which is worth nothing. The lowest class can in the end be the only fount for religious values of anything, that do not reduce to either tautologies or absurdism. Everyone else - for example the commoners - are limited in their ability to form independent cults, unless they are to abandon their standing. If they do, their stake in the world is immediately imperiled, and they certainly know what they did to those who were cast out. The aristocratic mind declares that all but itself is retarded, while everyone else can see - but has been conditioned to fear saying or acting on - the truth that it is aristocracy's faith that is the true retarded ideology. For the aristocracy's true values, all religion is a game where they can present as gods to each other and the world, and it can only be that for them. Their true faith and technology is ultimately gathered by parasitic feeding on anything around them, or by lowering themselves to something they have deemed retarded - working. It is this above all that drives the aristocrat to project their shameful behavior onto others, and most of all to their opposites in the lowest class. How to do that has been at the heart of religion among humans, regardless of basic sense telling us that any encouragement of aristocracy's behavior must be terminated at all costs if we are to salvage anything from this world.

From the view of the hermit below the world, living amongst the scum of the world and not particularly minding that fact, there is a problem with this moral investigation. Absent a reference point, moral values flitter in and out of existence, and their relevance to any greater question is little to none. A greater question would devolve to any non-trivial moral decision, including the imperatives that can be reconstructed by facts of what it would mean to contest the political. We could make trite moral claims that we hold to be self-evident, like "it feels good to be good", or "I like cake and therefore I will obtain cake". The conditions we have described as economic and political mechanisms are apparent to us in ways that suggest they were operative before any human being was operative. Humans changed the rules by the faculties available to them, but the mechanisms remain consistent if we are speaking of matters that we cannot ignore as we please. None of those conditions were invented by humans, but arose from a contest for temporal authority. Temporal authority for its own sake is a barren prize unworthy of any sacrifice. Those who invoke "human nature" of the crassest sort to justify their shitty behavior are engaged in no contest for temporal authority at all. They have surrendered to a particular spiritual authority, abasing themselves to it, and willfully give up their temporal claims in exchange for nothing of genuine value. This they do for various reasons, but the predominant reason is faggotry as I have invoked the concept - that those who revel in self-abasement are driven by something which superficially is in line with the technological interest, but is really nothing more than a degenerated form of moral impulses. It is only in that way that temporal and spiritual authority can be genuinely united as a force humans follow - and this unity subsumes all that exists instead of the limited purview of either, because it must. That faggotry is something I will occasionally remark on through the remainder of these chapters regarding religious authority and how it is abased in that way. I do not include mere opportunism, or misplaced zealotry, or good intentions, or fickle weakness - fickle weakness that is often a target to throw off anyone who would critique the true and rotten faggotry. The very word "faggotry" and its association with relatively benign homosexuality is one of the first tricks of language to permit the depravity for those who are sanctioned and protected, while shaming people whose "crime" was looking funny and suspicious, so that the orgies and events of the big club may continue without anyone telling them no.

In short, it is not difficult for a reasonable person, in any time, to see that the political situation they were born into is ridiculous. If someone appeals to the past for guidance - a very reasonable understanding - then their understanding of history will allow them to reverse-engineer a simple truth that there was a time before any of this madness. Two questions are posed - how this began and where this farce can be said to start, and how this will end, if it does. However much this situation may arise in novel ways, it is ridiculous, and all status quos - all temporal authority - has a beginning and end. This may not be a temporal start and finish on a historical line or in a historical place as we might imagine, but it is impossible to speak of this situation without causality where one cause leads, ultimately, to the final effect that the status quo ends. There is not in political thought any view outside of this beginning and end as relevant to the temporal question, which weighs heavily on what we regard as the here and now that no prayer, no spiritual connection, and no desire of our own has any power to affect. Only indirectly - where spiritual authority meets tempotal authority - can we speak of temporal authority as much more than a dreary procession of events which are manipulated by some science, which has the effect of negating the political into an abstraction, commanded in total by the "man in the middle" - the imagined master.

To dismiss the problem as mere faggotry is insufficient, for this faggotry - whatever name it goes by - is a thing which can be weaponized by much better forces who are not fags. They can be, in their own conduct, upright people in their direct actions. It is possible, by accident or by tacit approval, to nod and wink while the foul business happens. The game changes into something far removed from the visible symbol of faggotry, or the symbols of ritual sacrifice which are evoked by evil. Faggotry itself is a limited set of offenses against the sense, a word I have deployed for a particular type of reprehensible behavior in humans. Nowhere in the animal kingdom does faggotry exist in this sense, whatever sexual depravity or other depravity we could find among animals. Faggotry is a very deliberate edifice constructed to make a cult appear strange and, to borrow the term, "queer", but it belies something much more elaborate. Faggotry is but a superficial illusion cast over the various symbols of ritual sacrifice, malice, crass interests, and so on that are themselves disconnected symbols that we can connect by analysis into something meaningful. The symbols of evil acts are in of themselves limited to their purview. Ritual sacrifice is carried out for a very thorough program, but all of the acts involved are, once their mystique is removed, a sad and trite example of a failed race that should have been extirpated yesterday. The promotion of such symbols is presented as "the point" by those who seek to weaponize them for their true, moral meaning. That meaning itself is granted its symbolic representations that allow us to evoke more accurately for our purposes. That symbol, translated from many languages with a meaning that is unmistakable but multifacted and understood with new extensions as the time and place allow this inquiry, is "evil".

We can, and often do, use this line of thinking to link many symbols with an overarching moral concept that we hold to be relevant to our interests. "Utility" as a moral and philosophical concept, or the economic sense of utility which has a limited purview, is another such example. Much of the prior book concerned indirectly this utility, but without a clear moral footing, utility devolves into a series of just-so stories that wouldn't present a worthwhile framework, aside from tautologies that either a child could appreciate or a child could recognize as bullshit to be avoided. We might try to find "good" in this way, and "good" sought this way would be the purpose of the inquiry. If "good" could be answered in this way, then all other decisions would be subordinate to it and an affirmative solution to all questions in the world would be found through that dogma. The problem with this is that all inquiries of this nature will devolve to a central concept, and in doing so, the meaning of the symbol is lost. We of course have a large body of meanings and sense of what good is, or what we think good is. The difficulty with finding "the good" in this way is that, for all of our inquiries and assertions, the world has not presented any final objective for us or any inherent goal that could be derived from nature, or from a consequence of our existence that politics entails. Much of our understanding of "the good" is an entirely spiritual matter when "the good" is investigated in this way in its own right. "The good" is not merely defined by "not evil" or "not bad", as if the good must constantly be in retreat against the evil of the world, and can only be defined as the ontological opposite of a proactive and self-evident evil. If we localize good to a symbolic thing or idol, the world itself and conclusions we have drawn from considerable experience make clear that such a treatment of good is farcical and easily subverted, without some understanding of what good would entail with deeper meaning. We are inclined to follow examples of the good, based on that ancient educational paradigm "monkey see, monkey do", which as mentioned before has done much of the work for our moral education for lack of better alternatives after all of this time. We are more likely to follow exemplars of good behavior than we are to follow a sterile dogma that claims, against our sense, that it is good, because the example does not require a thorough theory or law or proof beyond a sense that the example we follow works. We are always aware when following good behavior that we are following the behavior and deeds rather than the idea. Not all moral values are equal because they pertain to very different things in this world. Evil, for instance, does not care so much about whether we are educated to agree with it, and if it does, it requires a particular form of education that works through it for a motive that isn't about learning or building anything.

The symbols of evil require immediate attention, in ways that other morally significant symbols do not. "Bad" does not evoke the same visceral disgust. If something is bad, it is safe to ignore and reject it from life. Evil does not allow you to ignore it. If its symbols and the performace of evil are more prescient, the symbols of evil are more likely to be reified and acquire meanings outside of our judgement. That is, evil is far more likely to take on its existence without regard to us, where mere "bad" cannot coalesce into something universal and self-sustaining. This is not the case with the good. The good in the world does not "think for itself" in a way which makes the world pleasant. The world could be primarily good or scorn evil in the way the world can, but the good does not allow for easy friendship or alliances in a way anyone can take for granted. We then revisit what we have learned about human political and economic behavior. None of that can be interpreted as good or facilitating the good unless we have a perverse mind about what is good. The seeds of evil, and opportunities for evil to prevail in its own right rather than the designs of particular men, are present throughout this view of natural history. The natural world need not be evil in a way where evil is the primary face it shows us; but if we viewed history as a human domain and it revolved around human behaviors, the history of humanity is dominated by evil, and good has always been on the back heel in the struggle of history. This, we learn, is not a matter of personal opinion or dithering on what "evil" is. We learn of evil as a force unto itself, whereas the good in human deeds is the exception. The world itself and forces in the world need not be evil, and in many ways promote the good where humanity has refused. A crass superstition is that evil is reducible by philosophy in the same way the good is made into a parody to destroy it, command it like a commodity, and use it as a tool to exploit and oppress. Evil, too, defies this reduction, however often humans use this reduction to promote their preferred version of evil as a weapon to control like any other tool. The exploitation of moral sentiment for crass purposes is not in of itself "evil". We motivate ourselves, despite the truth that humans are comically sad creatures if we step back and see their history for what it is. It is a joke that jabbering, semi-sentient apes, and the best humans are stil only that, think they are able to tell us what morality of any sort is. Moral thought to be truly moral will pertain to a world and things outside of us, and those things take on qualities independent of our fickle and malleable will.

It is not the sole monopoly of religion to judge morality, as if we would be amoral creatures without it. Simply to exist beyond a crude level of curiosity and impulse requires humans to hold some moral sense, and in doing so, the same general thought regarding morality will arise. It becomes necessary for humans in particular to comprehend evil. This is not because humans were the first to "know" evil or good, but because humans were able to communicate the idea to each other and weaponize it with language, education, and a terrible form of socialization particular to the human race. This coincides with humanity's approach to a general theory of technology, which humanity would have to hold to be morally valuable for all of the benefits such an approach would have. Religion arises as an institution because the technological interest in human life has grown to something large enough that a self-initiated religion cannot hope to compare against something which transmits its knowledge through institutions, over many generations, and establishes itself as a force independent of any one person. For religion to work, it has to possess moral imperatives like humans do, even if religions as institutions are not moral creatures at all in the way living, thinking animals are.

To have the best possible knowledge of evil - to refine it - is not a trivial undertaking that follows from mere political logic or the facts of the world itself. Without a thorough treatment of the topic, we sense evil readily and have volumnious record of its deeds, and we could independently arrive at the same understanding without a religion telling us what evil is. In doing so, we would create for ourselves a new branch of religion, and we would also recognize that in this world, there are many before us who conducted this same inquiry and found religion. Religion concerns many things and does not rely exclusively on one primordial root, but for religion to exist, it must answer the question of evil. Without this, religion is not a viable prospect or anything that can explain much. A religion may contain evil to a limited purview and most of its concerns have nothing to do with evil, or depreciate evil as a concept with everyday currency. Usually, though, evil rests at the very heart of religions, as evil is the chief moral sentiment we understand as something more than a fickle want that is manipulated. Evil is not weak, and evil is not itself a thing manipulated by the whims of the world, to say nothing of the actions of human agentur. Evil is not itself strength or the sole definition of strength. It is, after its mystique is shattered, a rather pitiful thing, if it weren't so effective for what evil does. Evil quickly moves beyond the purview of humanity, whose members have spent considerable thought and effort honing the evil for their uses. The hunt and the herding actions are acts of evil - a malevolence which serves multiple purposes and certainly was of no benefit to the hunted. Rarely are these evil acts purified forms of the evil, but the evil in men that decided to torture another life that had done nothing to it, and had no great material value that we would die without, is a necessary component of the art. Evil is not a necessary component of the science involved. The science, technology, and property involved is not imbued with any existential evil simply by crimes of Being. Those things become evil only in the possession of something which connects to the evil and appreciates the value of evil in of itself, as a quality of things and events which has its own modus operandi.

There is that technology made by humanity that exists not as a tool even for a terrible purpose, but technology which was made out of a deep-seated conviction that it would serve the the evil, and did precisely as its maker intended. For this technology to be evil in of itself requires it to be imbued with the qualities of life, and here "life" takes on a spiritual meaning familiar to us - a meaning given to us because the evil prevails in humanity, regardless of what life actually is or does. Every technology that is inherently evil is a technology rooted in the functions of life, and insists that the rest of the world will be viewed as living for its purposes - that all things that exist can never die, but that it asserts through its mechanisms that all that it does not select to live must exist in agony. This requires the technology to be in some ways imbued with the quality of genius, and this is something different from mere intelligence. This to to say, evil technology is either living on its own power, or a thing which an evil user has made into an extension of itself in a way that cannot be escaped by any who would use the machine or something resulting from that machine. Whether we ascribe to that technology qualities it does not possess is not relevant - it is only the genuine existence of a thing which is morally worthwhile, and that includes its history. If a house were built by an evil man to house said evil man, his evil wife, and his evil spawn, and this house was a nest of evil, the house is certainly haunted by that evil long after its inhabitants have passed away, and that is not a mere fleeting conceit of the mind. It is the history of the house that is inextricably linked to that house. To make a general rule of houses being evil requires someone to first adopt a general theory of technology, and knowingly make a particular thing which on its own terms relates to all the world. A house, whatever evil it inherits, has no bearing on the general class of houses because a particular man built it, even if this man were the Prometheus who gave to humanity all knowledge of house-building. The house as a concept can be reverse-engineered like many pieces of technology, and we would be hard pressed to speak of the evil of an animal existing in a particular place, however insane the eugenic creed is on this matter. If we were to speak of pornography and the trade in flesh that haunts every piece of such filth, and the reasons why pornography is disseminated, we can not merely speak of pornography as an evil technology. We would ask why such filth is disseminated, rather than thinking too long about a hypothetical "good pornography" that does not carry the same deleterious effects. The same can be said of intoxicating things like alcohol, which by their nature are brewed with an intent of dumbing down a hated populace, and telling them their drunken stupor was their own idea or a demonstration of dubious merit. We would in all cases be able to place all technology's moral worth in a context where these things have real consequence, rather than merely saying they are evil or assigning some moral quality to them. We could judge that alcohol or drugs are, whatever the viciousness that went into them, a lesser evil than the trade in flesh, or an evil that can be contained. For example, someone might find it in them to brew their own beer, and cut out the middlemen whose imperatives are to keep addicts buying the shit. They would still be guilty of encouraging the drunkenness and evil thereof, and it would be on them to find justifications for why they must drink themselves to tolerate this life, or an acceptance of the same vice that dissemninates drugs with thorough demoralizing intent. Those in the drug trade would just as well choose another vice, because the evil is less in the drugs themselves or some chemical process, but in the shittiness of everyone in that culture. They would be just as shitty in a world where drugs didn't exist. Pornography has no such claim. Even if we lived in a world of asexual creatures, all sexual things by their nature entail the functions and wants of life in that particular way, and they are particular to the category of sex. A society of asexual entities, who never developed this maladaptive reproductive technology, could only see sex as we see it - an act involving males and females with consequences familiar to us. The effect of any drug, in of itself, would mean very little to us, unless we adhere to a curious view of physical or chemical reality where deep-seated moral convictions are reified and made into a substance, and this is precisely why the theory of utility was a favorite of the opium-dealing British Empire - to make moral a substance they fully intended to be deleterious, but which in of itself did nothing without the vices of human beings and the society they created. Any sexual matter, though, pertains to both a reproductive act and a long history of humanity's value of that act for all of the reasons that would make it relevant. It would be relevant even if sexual reproduction were no longer the general manner of reproduction, and the sex act was rightly viewed as a ghastly behavior beneath the dignity of any of us. There would be those who insist on bringing back the rituals and rites, because of the immediate tie to ritual sacrifice. Drugs have no such claim, and without the particular mystification and reification of chemicals particular to our time and place, the dissemination of drugs and the culture around substances would seem bizarre. In a better world, we would not have granted to these substances any mystical properties, and would not see drugs as any form of escape or particularly noteworthy. We would see instead that the body that the drugs destroy is not a mere idea, and it would be a very bad idea to throw it away for the sake of some fucking substance.

The drug culture - whose adherents, I remind the reader, would choose any vector for their shittiness - relies strongly on social disconnection and command of information in conditions of antagonism in close quarters that are specific to an era. They are still general rules so far as humans are concerned - we live in a world where most people live in cities or settlements of some sort, and those who do not have to exist in a world where settlements are the norm and a persistent danger as they exist in our general time. What some alien is doing on Rigel VII, if such a creature exists, is not part of that general rule, but we could envision a different condition of societies where the peculiarities of the drug trade do not work in the way they work in civilization. Without the enclosure that civilization entailed, the drug culture appears very different from our incarnation. It exists, and the shittiness of humans is an evil that is not tied to any particular substance. The ugliness of prostitution and pornography, which is an extension of the ugliness of sex as a concept, is persistent even when the rituals regarding it change with the conditions where they can operate. It is one of the few vices which are persistently harkened back to, whereas the vice of drugs or intoxication is particular to each empire and particular to empires which can exploit subjects to toil in the poppy fields or wherever drugs may be produced, distributed, and utilized for social control. It is no surprise that the trade in drugs is almost always monopolized and partnered with the dominant empire, and drug dealers are quick to get in line with the prevailing imperial structure, which is why drug dealers are dealt with as a national security risk more than a moral vice. The sex trade's tie to aristocracy is a whole other beast. Aristocracy views drugs or any "base" substance or technology purely as a means of general shittiness, and whatever substance is available will be utilized, even if the drug of choice is not comparable to another. Aristocracy views sexual politics and a monopoly on sexual life as one of its highest imperatives, and jealously guards that monopoly as if their life depended on it. It is for this reason that the sexual act is granted much of the evil we know in it, beyond the evil inherent in such a method of reproduction. On its own terms, the sex act would be an act for reproduction or an act done with someone we like, or in some way that suits us, harming no one more than the evils such an act would entail by the nature of what the participants are doing. In any society where sexual behavior developed, and this stretches back to ritual-like behavior of animals, the act takes on very different meaning from a utility the very naive would see. In societies where aristocracies assert this monopoly, it becomes a beast unto itself, and exists at the apex of vice. It facilitates the evil in the lowest of humanity, who are sexual creatures just like any other. A castrated human is still tied to the sex act, because of how the sexual reproductive strategy built complex life in any way we have recognized it. The wants and considerations of a sexual creature are not immediately removed when the reject is castrated, and certainly aren't removed by merely assigning them the moral standing of retarded and telling them they can't possibly feel pain.

These questions all pertain to particular vectors of the evil, and we can elaborate on the distinct evils of the world. Every one of them refer to a singular transcendant idea, and this is not a technological thing at all. It is the claim of evil that all other moral sentiments are "mere technology" or "mere things", and that only the evil is the Absolute. Yet, the evils of the world are far less than the sum total of all that exists. If the world were primarily evil in that sense, none of us would be here to speak of it being any different, and it would be an entity that no words I invoke here could come close to describing it. If all were truly evil as is its claim, then there would be no moral sense at all, and it would not even be possible to speak of "general evil" or any "general theory". In all cases, the calculation of the evil content, if such a thing can be quantified or judged in any way, is contingent on our treatment of the evil generally, rather than a local event. Any potential evil, no matter how seemingly benign, abides this, and this is unique to the moral value we call "evil". Many things can be "bad", each in their own way, but the "bads" are not in of themselves comparable with each other. The good, or goods as pieces of technology, are both transcendant and local, however mysterious "the good" is for us, and however far removed from our existence "the good" may be. It is entirely possible, and has been the default of naive sense, to see only "good" and "bad". The evil is not like this. The evil is always a thing which is above temporality, and can never be treated as a "base" thing like the bad or goods. Among the first claims of the evil is that it is above all other goods and above itself, and however evil is construed, this is persistent to speak of an evil worthy of the name. Anything less wouldn't even qualify as "bad". It would exist somewhere between an unfortunate fact or tragedy at the high end, to a median of faggotry, and sink as low as a depraved soul can. Such things may be desirable tools of the evil, but the evil to be the evil can only operate generally. This operation exists and can be detected without any "general theory of evil" or a general theory of technology, but if we are to speak of it, it has to be a general rule which can be imparted onto temporal things.

What is evil cannot be reduced to a univeral or primordial root technology, even though this is the visage evil in humanity has adopted more than any other. The reasons why are simple - the evil of the world preceded humanity and had built in its own way long before any of us had a say in the matter. All of the knowledge humanity has accumulated of the evil, and it is not a small amount, has only known the aspects of evil that are amenable to humanity and aristocracy in particular. There is no root of evil but evil itself. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. This self-reference has been seen every time the primordial light is invoked as an excuse for the thrill of torture, and humanity for various causes chose this as its destiny, largely at the demand of a vocal minority who found exploitation on the basis of the evil far more effective than the alternatives. And yet, evil has in humanity's time been refined by its partisans, and it is this which many humans adopt. They adopt the great evils of aristocracy which become political and ruling secrets or impositions. They adopt the minor evils of labor which always delighted in kicking down for the cheap thrill of doing so and the rot of it all. They adopt evils in their private space as hermits, knowing them to be evil but seeing the evil as yet another curiosity, for in the hermit's life, evil is only a consequence for the hermit and its immediate surroundings. Evil would have been contemplated by the hermits as a way to escape their sorry existence against superior opponents, until they themselves became the superiors and thrust their enemies into the same position of defeat that the hermit was placed in by predatory society. The evil is adopted less because it is the point for property, and more because evil has advantages over other, less well developed moral sentiments. Finally - and this is what sealed humanity's fate - evil as a technology made the aims of the technocrat to subsume all that exists a viable proposition with the quickest road possible, regardless of any long term consequences.

You will find in the study of religion that there are no rituals pertaining to the good. There are rituals pertaining to the banishment of evil, to probity and defense against the evil through prevention. There are rituals to bring fortune and worldly favor, which always entail some sacrifice for the divination to work. Never will the gods or forces of religion give goodness to adherents. If the goodness of anything religion speaks of is acknowledged, they never intersect with rituals performed by humans, and the goodness of the divine is not something that humans can summon for themselves, push the gods into providing. Humans certainly cannot themselves match any of the moral sentiments that a god would ostensibly express. The gods need not be evil gods at all, but if there is any story of the gods' goodness, it only exists at a metaphor or parable to explain goodness that exists in the world already. The gods cannot create new goodness in the temporal realm ex nihilo. If good fortune or something good arises, the religion or the workings of temporal followers of the divine have nothing to do with that, and so for the purposes of religion, the good created ex nihilo could only have been predestined to happen, and as a result, it was always there. It only would have revealed itself to the human followers at the time and place the divine chose to intersect with the temporal plane of existence. A human attempting to replicate this act is folly for a variety of reasons. The first is clear - unless you are a god, you'll only make an ass of yourself, and if a god were anything like us, it would be bound by the same limitations. Ergo, it wouldn't be a god worthy of the name, and religion would have nothing to do with such an entity or the foolish humans who believe their existence pertains to such a thing. The point is not that the divine or the religion or its followers intend the evil or want to monopolize goodness under the aegis of the divine. Very often, religions freely acknowledge that the good of the world had nothing to do with an entity that was at all comparable to us making it so, in a way that conforms to the moral purpose we would envision for labor. The divine's role in the good is not a working in any serious religion, and the divine's goodness is entirely divorced from anything the human followers invoke from the higher plane. Usually the goodness of the temporal world is understood as something inherent to those temporal things we would judge. What the gods judge for themselves is not the business of religion, for the temporal followers have no standing whatsoever in that court. If there is a lengthier discourse on the good of the divine, it is not a religious matter, but an inquiry into the world, metaphysics, or a sense that has nothing to do with any ritual religion invokes, or the subject matter of religion. A religion might incorporate these inquiries into it, but the inquiries are always a thing apart from the matter at hand which made religion the vehicle for a particular inquiry. If we wanted a book club to discuss what a god really is or does, that is not a religious inquiry. It may be an inquiry where the believer looks to the dogmas of religion to verify spiritual facts, but the inquiry is at its core a matter unrelated to religion. The religious authorities can in turn admit these independent inquiries, repeat them for themselves, but they have little to do with religion itself as a proper practice. A scientific analogy would be to place a child's rediscovery of common knowledge on the same level as the application of that knowledge by labor, where knowing what is what and what is to be done is a serious business or treated as such. Whether the adult's labor is actually worth anything - let's say the adult is making entertainment products and a 10 year old makes visual, audio, and programming assets for a self-made game - is not the matter of importance. The same analogy would not hold for the laborer discussing science against the university professor, as if the laborer were automatically unworthy of knowing anything about science. If anything, the laborer is more invested in reality, because laborers live through their repeated application of science, while the university professor can live an opulent life by writing pure bullshit. It is the moral consequence tied to a real world that is relevant here. By no means would the university professor be out because he doesn't do "real work". The work of a professor, even dubious work, is still tied to real consequences in some way, and the professor's legitimacy is contingent on other humans finding his work useful for them. Nowhere in the judgement of the workman and the professor is their "civic worth" the legitimator of inquiry, where the workman must listen to the professor or the professor must humble himself before the Real Ultimate Working Class Person. The child in this case is only relevant if this project matches the purpose of the adults, whether the child is aware of the consequences of this project or not. Perhaps the child is aware and deliberate, and the child and the project are judged on their genuine merits rather than character judgements or assumptions. A young child is not immune in any way to moral judgement of right and wrong. Children in the "terrible twos" must learn the hard way moral sense in a world of amoral and vicious apes, even when said apes are really trying to provide a home that best facilitates this. It would help if the adults understood the child instead of asserting the most maladaptive dogmas possible. This choice, though, is one that education, pedagogy, religion, and the evil can take away, claiming guardianship of the children - of the whole flock, of the society, of the city, of the world. No one seriously expects to judge a three year old boy as a hardened criminal, but this is a core dogma of the eugenic creed and similar markers of the most rank faggotry.

There is not in religion a single ritual that does not in some way pertain to the evil, and one of the evils is sacrifice and the ritual which birthed the human race, which is emulated in ways large and small - from gory ceremonies intended to channel temporal power from the "gods" to the rites and rituals around marriage, the harvest, the hunt, and the toil of the farmer who was habituated to live effectively as an animal in slavery for most of history. The goods in an economic sense, which are very much valuable, are tainted with evil because ritual and ceremony require it - because for them to become a religious matter, they channel an evil that is inherent to religion as a construct and a force. Religion does not channel this evil simply because it is nefarious, but because for religion to be a force rather than a collection of writings and ideas, religion is concerned with the evil that can be seen in all things. If someone wants "true good" or something that is not tainted by evil, the remedy is not a religious one, and it is not the proper purview of religion to speak much about the true good or what we would want. No religion can be a "total system", without corrupting its subject matter with the evil that is really at the heart of religion and the beings which would practice it. Religion can do this for a largely defensive purpose, and it can do so in defense of knowledge, wisdom, and things we regard as truly good. When it does so, the role of religion most of all is the study of evil in the world and in the mind, and evil generally.

An animistic system for filing information, which might be interpreted as "religious", has nothing to do with religion proper. Where the animist is a religious person, the distinctly religious functions, or those that would best translate to such, are understood to be a different thing. It is far easier to see a dialogue of animistic spirits as a metaphor for how to interpret the weather, or operationalize some task. For primitive humans, and for much of history, this sort of spiritual or animistic metaphor is a quick way to explain knowledge, which allows both of the communicating parties - human beings - to fill in necessary details from their own experience, rather than laboriously make all connections for them. It is always understood to be a metaphor - that there aren't actually "thunder spirits" making lightning in the sky, and this is a way to explain a phenomenon without any technical language or formal knowledge base that would place this understanding in some context institutions would appreciate. It is not difficult to see why institutions cannot rely on this. Humans in their base existence are not institutional persons or creatures conforming to institutions, but institutions in of themselves have no protocol or independent ability to discern meaning. Such independent thought is a danger to any institution's form, and a danger to the law if the law must be strict in its interpretation of facts - as it should be for law to be law. We have long seen how dithering on meaning can be used to deliberately subvert basic functions of law that we would regard as useful or good. Even worse is when such dithering and distortion of reality itself is enshrined in law and institutions, making them not merely unworkable, but an active menace to be avoided at all costs.

Religion has had to fill in much of humanity's knowledge, and take on roles that were never truly the purview of religious thought and the function of religious institutions. At first, this occurs out of necessity. The holy book was often your book, your one book, in a society where mass production of literature was not a habit or a thing considered useful for its own sake. We often forget that humans are not creatures of law in that sense, but living and breathing things attached to a world where relitigation of facts would be a danger to themselves and to the associations they make. Often humans learn and pass through education because to not do so is worse than death. The ritual sacrifice and humiliations which pre-date religion proper make that abundantly clear.

All of the moral values religion deals with revolve around the problem of evil, even when the subject matters appears far removed. This it would do because it has to. What is the purpose of technology, knowledge, or facts if they do not pertain to something whose presence is very clearly a large problem in the lives of anyone? More than any mere self-interest, the existence of the evil itself presents a great difficulty for any value we would want in life. Even if we would rather ignore the question of evil, evil will not wait for us, because evil did not exist to wait on us, or for us, or because we invented it based on our personal opinions. Evil is not the sole pre-human or pre-knowledge moral force which took on a life of its own. So too is the life of us, the legacy we leave behind, something more than mere property or technology, or a genetic lineage that has become the obsession of both. We ask if we ourselves are evil - which we are, invariably - and how evil we are, and how much evil we have facilitated. Whether we regard it as evil - especially if we have made an act of evil into the good and asserted it for spurious reasons - is irrelevant to the existence of evil, and the ability of religion or sense to judge it. To merely exist requires eventually answering the problem of evil, and it becomes something more than an intellectual exercise or a problem that is solved with some game-winning fact or cheat. Evil, like many things, is adaptable. Religion itself and the totems it erects are a fount of evil, whether the religion seeks that or not. We could not abolish religion as a concept without losing a guide to something that suggested why we are here, beyond a curious want of the body which had little meaning in of itself. The religions we adopt encounter an evil that are not the possession of the religion, no matter what the priests of this religion may claim about their monopoly on knowledge. If they cannot meet this challenge, they do not survive, and the survival of the faith is something different from the survival of the body, mind, or the weaker aspects of the soul as spiritual thought might detect such a thing. The religion may view its own survival as paramount, but it is entirely possible for religion to acknowledge that there is a time where one faith changes into another, or for a religion to morph like a living creature. Religions cannot be treated as casually as any other type of life, as if religions were reducible to life-forms with a predictable cycle. This logic has already failed to describe societies, despite the prevalence of biopolitical rationales in modern pseudoscience. But, a religion and its institutions are not things fixed in nature and history, unchangeable and immaculate from creation. That has always been a pernicious story which denies that there can be a religion in the first place - which denies that the problem of evil can even be acknowleged, when said evil is glorifying a torture beyond the norm. There is something very different to speak of the ritual sacrifice in words, and to see and live through such a ritual. In exerts a force which is unmistakable and unique, and among the features of human ritual sacrifice is an eager invitation to join something which is obviously foul, pointless, cruel, and only exists to advance itself.

It becomes clear that evil in of itself as a fixed thing or a root cause is less relevant than what evil does in greater manifestations. This is to say, there is no evil that we would note that does not carry religious connotations. Evil invokes religion to manifest as something greater than a blind and fickle impulse, and it does so successfully to be a force truly worth reckoning. Somewhere, the evil has a root in the same world as we live in, and has to. But, evil is the core moral sentiment which adapts to its situation, takes on novel qualities, and creates by its will something new in the world. It is the claim of humanity's religious evil that it holds a monopoly on the new, and on history altogether. This is a peculiar claim of humans, who as we continuously mention, remain jabbering apes only scratching at the potential of evil we know to lurk in this world. Yet, it is something which grants to certain humans a sense of superior knowledge above other life. The fuller implications of this, I develop in the next chapter. For now, it is sufficient to view religion and the evil at its root as adaptive machines, if we are to view then in this mechanistic and technological language. They are uniquely adaptive in a way that life itself is not, and that mere intelligence cannot fathom. There can be moral sentiments other than evil which are adaptive. The good - the true good - is a mysterious creature, but it is not rare and, in all likelihood, the good is stronger than the evil which relies on particular conditions for its existence. Most of the universe remains dead and irrelevant to the game of evil, for there is nothing to do evil to and evil has no resource that allows it to exist as anything other than the same fickle impulse that can be detected with little interest or difficulty. The good would also be irrelevant out there, with nothing to do much good to; but nonetheless, the world continues much as it has, without human agency coming anywhere near it. There are those who claim the good is transcendent and above the world, but this is fallacious. Evil can claim the transcendent in its adaptations, and does so not just in the minds of us but in a true sense so far as it can.

There are those fools who claim that life itself is evil, or that volition is evil, or that intelligence and mind are evil, and that evil is smart and therefore meritorious. Evil and good, and many moral sentiments, have little to do - but never nothing at all, or else politics is a spectator sport we could happily ignore - with our political and economic game in a direct sense, or any of the tools we use in life. The evil and anything truly worth fighting for or valuing is better than that. The evil in any worthwhile form is far greater than the Satan, the spirit of Man, or anything humans could conjure; and yet, the evil need not center around us, for the greater evil of the universe likely hold the human race in contempt, as it should. Humans make efforts to channel the evil within the temporal domain, because this is expedient for political games with other humans. The world and mere things in it do not care about any of this gloating, especially the performative faggotry which ideology and its cousins have normalized in our time. Life, potential, and everything in the temporal contest has no particular inclination to evil by its nature, or any "crime of Being". Among the most disastrous lies of a foul religion is to grant to humans any special status in the universe, let alone special status to these jackasses who did so much to ruin our lives for the sake of a fruity cult. A decent indicator of the evil that is within humanity's ability to fight is to look at those jackasses with the contempt they deserve. The greater evil and greater good alike hold such faggotry in contempt, and so should we. We won't be godly by doing this, but we will certainly do better in this life than we would if we complied with its most crass extensions into the mortal realm and our daily lives.

Evil takes this role because of its functions, rather than a merit of evil itself over other moral sentiments. What "evil" is will shift with the possible agents and things in the world that enact it, but it begins with this self-reference that is granted a moral primacy above any other sense. Evil begets evil, as the ancient anonymous koan goes. Evil needs no ulterior motive or cost-benefit analysis. If evil is afoot, it is because evil itself is the goal - but evil is never a static or flat substance. It is, like all meaningful sentiments worth contesting, something that develops. Religion is a way in which the evil can be both refined and applied to the political and social question.

We can out of the evil itself fashion a crude religion just from assessing it and beginning a record of it. Before making general laws about what religion is or must be, it is useful to remember that we are both living creatures and creatures possessing a faculty of knowledge. If we were to view religion without our biases, it would still be a religion with temporal presence. Religion is not a purely spiritual thing detached from the world. It is where spiritual authority can inveigh on temporal matters regarding the evil, and only the evil. If we see religion in of itself as a path to any other moral objective, we have tainted that objective, and we will constantly remain disappointed. This is not because of a structural flaw of religion or because religion inherently guarantees that its believers must be malicious. Eliminating religion is of no use, because the problem of evil remains. Knowledge of the evil is quite irrelevant to the workings of evil itself, which did not need our knowledge, consent, or will to do what it does. Morality guides the will and intelligence. Only the most brazen fool believes it works the other way around; but, religion will have to answer this question of knowledge itself, and how we can know what we know when it comes to this matter. Spiritual authority can always inveigh on temporal authority without any religion or qualifiers - it is clearly the superior, not just because of our conceits about knowledge, but because to the world, temporal authority is a sad story of foolish entities who think there is a struggle to win by mere declaration of facts. The question of temporal authority is particular to us, and then only so far as the titles, deeds, claims, and religion of the polity can enforce them. Spiritual authority is what temporal authority beseeches for their operations to be something more than a curious and fleeting affair regarding a world, where we exist and live in the world for a time but none of it really matters. That spiritual authority is not limited to religion, but it certainly has nothing to do with our will or our conceits about what the world ought to be. What the will of human beings can do is operate in a very limited purview not with a foolish goal of changing the world by some foul working. The will of human beings navigates history in the proper sense, rather than the politicized version of history. This is to say, willpower is how we can navigate all of the potentials that proper history would entail, so we are not locked into "historical progress". One of the potentials is found in religion, for evil very clearly has many potentials and is never the inexorable beast that is its preferred presentation. So too does a religion established need to consider its own potentials, and the rulers of a religion will keep at least in secret a genuine view of history rooted in the same knowledge process any of us would possess, whatever the distinction in abilities of humanity. If it were just an institution or set of laws, it would not withstand any pressure and would fail at its purpose.

What begins as a force in the world takes on the qualities of knowledge that we have dealt with extensively. Even when the evil thing or force is not a knowing or thinking entity, it is our habit to attribute to those things a process not unlike our own knowledge process. This knowledge, or the processes which allow knowledge, usurp the meaning of "life", such that knowing and living are conflated. This is not a necessary quality of knowledge or consciousness, but for the evil, living and knowing and inextricably linked, even when dealing with things which are unknowing or unliving. It is not necessary for evil itself to be "wholly rooted in life" - we can imagine evil in a dead world, and have to without making cosmological leaps about life or knowledge. Evil did not need to create life and knowledge by any axiomatic definition of any of the three. The evil is peculiar among moral sentiments in that, by placing its imperatives above other moral sentiments, and operating without bounds or conditions, is behaves like knowledge and life on its own terms. It is rife with ulterior motives and schemes, and yet none of those schemes bring the evil any more victory than it has already attained. It is suspicious of do-gooders or anything that is not like it, yet among its most prevalent tools is indulgence of vice and feedback cycles. Religions follow this thinking, though never mindlessly if they are religions worthy of the name. Religions are understood to operate in some way like our own knowledge process in its whole circuit - from raw data, to information, to the deliberation of religious leaders and believers, to the meanings the adherents find within the religion and its relation to the rest of the world, and from the symbols and icons that religion promotes. Those symbols include the holy books or words or evocations of the religion, which signify it as a religion. In all cases, evil or the potential thereof is recognized in any religious object with agency pertaining to religious matters. If it's not about the evil, religion has little to say about it rather than assessing a fact for whatever purpose religion may have. If no meaning of evil can be gleaned from an inquisition regarding a particular object, that object is deemed irrelevant and must be so. This, religion does not because of a pigheaded conceit or malevolence, but because anything that has no evil potential has no significance to the question. Religion may take on subordinate functions of rote education, social cohesion, the formation of associations, recreation because of its temporal importance to us, or various functions that remain in force up to today. It would be quite difficult for the congregation, or the ummah, or the building of religious significance, to not take on functions that are removed from the religious matter. By proximity to them, those too are seen through the evil at the heart of religion's purpose, and in turn, they are affected, and the surroundings and trappings of a religious community feed back into the religion's core. A religion is what it consumes, just as a life-form would be. But, what religion consumes is not flesh or an economic imperative, and it is not beholden to political imperatives. What a religion does with its believers and that which falls under its domain, says much about what the religion really is and the type of evil it deals with, and the answers to the question of evil it will provide. A religion may preach such-and-such tenets, or treasure some meritorious deed or moral act, or make pretensions of being something good or other than what it is. The believers of a religion are the clearest indicator of that religion's intent, and it is the believers that will be our likely contact point with a religion. For most of humanity's existence, communication with another human in close proximity would be the vehicle for religion's dissemination of itself and its knowledge. It is still to this day valued because of the authenticity of a flesh and blood human whose existence cannot be doubted with any seriousness when it is right there and both parties can affect the other in the minute way we know well, but do not describe laboriously in language in most situations. That authenticity is often betrayed, and deliberate betrayal of trust is a running theme with human religions, befitting the foul habits of the race preceding religion and honed by religion.

All that we call religion is modeled after knowledge, however we construe knowledge. A theory of knowledge itself is a pillar of every religion, even the crudest one where the theory of knowledge is made in the declaration of the religion itself. But, like our own existence, knowledge itself does not possess a monopoly on this development once it starts. The knowledge process of religion assimilates things just as any temporal entity that knows does, and religion itself is a temporal entity of a different sort. The religion is never a body or corporate in the sense that a purely temporal creature is. And so, religion concerns itself with both death and a world outside of life entirely. Religion does not provide the only vehicle for asking questions about death and the afterlife, but due to the subject matter of evil, death and the world outside of mortality suggest the viability of evil and viability of defense against it. Life itself does not possess any of this authority, but death and the unliving possess an honesty that is unmistakable. More to the point, a world dominated by the general fear entails death as one of those things to fear, or at least something that would be unpleasant for most who live. If religion did not inquire into death and weaponize it for its purposes, it would shirk the most important aspect of life's existence - what the point of life is. Life for life's sake is a death cult and an evil koan much like evil begetting evil, and such a trope is invoked precisely because it is a gateway to a degenerated form of the evil, or a parallel where life itself ceases to be "life" in any sense we would regard as an existence apart from a force of the world. Life for the sake of life is a slave religion to turn the living into beasts of burden, neither living, dead, nor afforded anything in between or the dignity of the unliving. Such an entity would be beholden to another knowing entity, regardless of the slave's own knowledge or protests regarding this. We have seen ample examples of it. We will see further why this works at the level of religion.

Other than its inclination towards the problem of evil, religion does not require any particular moral sentiments, and can easily denounce moral sentiments altogether. Religion allows the evil, or any moral idea, to be respected as something more than merely a moral claim, and it does not do so through technology, property, or something unknowable. Religion can be callous towards life's purpose and the evil of the world, simply regarding it as a fact that it must acknowledge before moving onward. What religion's seeming amoral basis outside of the evil will tell us is that moral comparisons are now possible against some baseline. If that is possible, then it is possible to conceive of another baseline being chosen, so long as it reconciles with the core baseline of the problem of evil. That is, religion can have a complex view of morality just as we do, if not moreso due to the accumulation of knowledge in its halls. Religion cannot make something moral out or nothing simply by diktat. That is always a working which requires a material sacrifice and leads to unpleasantness at the least. Religion is also limited in the approaches to morality it can establish and expound upon. Without answering the problem of evil, other moral comparisons are suspect as anything more than incidental facts. Regardless of religion's sentiment towards evil itself or its public stance, the evil is necessary as a way to stop arbitrary comparisons from creating a vicious infinite regress. Nothing in nature prevents this, and reason only prevents this because reason is a faculty of humans and thus limited by us. If we are to answer the problems infinite regress creates for our theories of knowledge, we require a moral sense telling us that such buffoonery is not just wrong, but malicious and evil in of itself. Those who wish to glorify evil revel in lying for the sake of lying, and will lie with full knowledge that the target does not believe the lie. Belief or truth ceases to be the point. But, if such a manner of speaking is granted religious sacrosanctity, the results are dire. It would only be resolved when there is some definite moral ground after which the lying will not be tolerated. If this baseline is itself arbitrary and succumbs to the whims of malevolence, then the baseline will be shifted by cajoling until it fits. This game of brinkmanship only ends with the same subject matter as religion, and it is this which intellectually grants to religion its power. That is, that profuse bullshit is a manifestation of evil, and persists only in that vein and in that direction. Bullshit will never lead to any other moral goal, no matter how noble and decent the evil may seem for a cause. No law of nature compels any tolerance of human deception at all. If we accepted the inverse - no bullshitting and lying ever - we would be caught in another loop. For one, human propensity to lie is built into us, such that humanity abandoning this ancient rite would howl in outrage if it truly had to end. For another, all of the rationales preventing bullshit rely on intelligence, which itself is highly vulnerable to bullshit without some moral guide. It is not enough for bullshit to be bad or uninteresting. It would be trivial to flood communication with so much bullshit that no dialogue can exist, not just between a bilateral social relation, but in a wide space where the bullshit is designed to cut off all potential communication, enclosing knowledge. Bullshit is not congruent with evil itself evil or even necessarily bad in any sense. There are reasons to bullshit, keep secrets, deceive hostile parties, that have nothing to do with evil. It is rather that, to attain the truth in a way that hostile parties must regard, the only moral force that can compel this is evil. Appeals to goodness rely on faith that the other party does good entirely of their own volition, and that it does good not merely for self-interest or any crude interest. We instead rely on a faith that humans want goodness in the world, or that humans are averse to more evil than they need. This is a fallacious assumption to make, but if we rely on goodness and shun the evil as a concept, we would be at the mercy of malevolent forces which scoff at the idea of the good, or that embrace evil as their cause. Evil presents to the lying human race a stark reality that they can never deny - that the consequences of their lies are far more terrible than their motives and psychological inquisition will tell them intellectually. The focus on evil in religion is a result of our communication and knowledge being at heart an institutional and technological approach, rather than an emotional or moral one or property. The words we say do not automatically hold any merit, nor can the moral intent of words be read without fail or carried as we intended. We only have language as a technology to facilitate this understanding. The same is true of law generally, and the technological interest's stake in religious thought. Without this habit of communication which humans normalized long ago, we would have a harder time establishing religion beyond an internal system or a secret between a few people who find this inquiry interesting for them. Nothing in the world demands that religion holds any more authority than the value we place in it - that is, the religion is not simply by existing an unanswerable and unalterable force. Nor is the evil a thing that can be permanent or made good or invisible. The evil with regards to communication - and thus to the ritual sacrifice and retarded - is something we will see for ourselves, and act on for something more than emotional disgust or irrational fear. Evil in a highly developed sense has nothing at all stopping it from perpetuating, and if intellect is given over to a faith in evil's victory over the world, the intellect will embrace evil, rather than a lesser conceit.

We are by nature free to choose evil because evil is expedient. Nothing about ourselves or the world mandates that good is victorious or even a desirable goal. How humans who engage in ritual sacrifice can see themselves as good in anyway is beyond my thinking, but the cult of ritual sacrifice wears finery to indicate that they certainly believe the sacrifice and torture is holy. The world itself is what truly judges evil in the end, as it judges all things, regardless of what we feel or think about them. But, by itself, humans can live with evil, embrace it, and see its consequences as nothing so terrible at all. After all, if they were already habituated to that first taste of blood, when they were eager participants in the ritual sacrifice and knew what side of the war they were on, why would such creatures view "evil" as anything to be avoided? The world's consequences only matter so much.

This is what religion can utilize - both the thrill of torture itself made into a holy ritual, and a disgust felt in the bones because human beings can sense, and learn from experience, that such a way of life will likely lead to the doom of them all. Even if no human beings had a sentiment to avoid evil, the world itself makes consequences for evil, and evil enshrined in a religion is a much more potent force in the world. It is even more comprehensible to us when we see evil religions, of which there are many, as free-standing entities in the world, where evil is no longer a choice of any of us or a thing like any other moral sentiment. The primordial evil for humanity was ritual sacrifice and their internecine malice, and from that we - from our limited view - understand other types of evil that are unlike ours, and that human beings can invent novel evils, or discover evils that don't relate to humanity at all. One pernicious habit of fickle evil is to assume it is centered around oneself or a peculiarly human experience, but evil did not need humanity. Humanity needed evil, and the faggiest of all mankind cannot stand that fact which will always be true, in all times and all places. They had to be first, following that ancient kernel of wisdom, "if you ain't first, you're last". Evil to be evil does not need to share its claims with any other sentiment we might observe in the universe. Religion, if it so chooses, can purify itself and orient its actions and the actions of its believers to the true purpose of religion. This evil it might do purely to defend against another evil, for evil does not have any intrinsic reason to view other evils as "friends". Evil does not recognize personal friendship nor political friendship, unless such friendship is tainted with a desire for cooperation towards a greater evil, or shares in a particular brand of evil that recognizes a rival it could defeat by uniting their causes. Evil does not have a monopoly on the concept of power in this world. When it does contest power, it can only do so in prescribed ways available to it, and evil must harken back to its history to persist in the world. The evil disdains anything new, unless the new can be nothing more than a recapitulation of evil and re-absorbed into its genetic lineage. Truly, no moral sentiment has any affinity towards "the new", emergence, or novelty, except for what the new might do to reinforce the old. Where another sentiment in humans would see the new as a challenge, the evil is very particular in its aims and has made clear that anything new is only a new resource to exploit, corrupt, and modify to its world-historical mission.

For our purposes, evil is manifested most of all not in primordial forces or nature itself, but human beings. This is less a rule of nature, and more the reality of the human condition. This is to say, the greatest threat in the world, and the most likely force we concern ourselves with, is other humans. We have yet to reach levels of malice where humans commandeer the name of evil, adorn it with decals and call it a glorious religion or empire, where humans claim that they alone possess the spirit to change the world. But, from the moment humans communicate with each other and develop language and more complex system of tool use, the human presents a clearer manifestation of the evil than any other source we are likely to encounter. We don't think of the evil of an earthquake or some bad juju or vibe in the space around us in the same way we think of humans with their mask off, who have long embraced the evil for various purposes and care not for the consequences. Nothing in the human experience or intelligence suggests that any appeal to reason would lead a human to goodness or to avoid evil. The most intelligent of humanity have almost axiomatically been the most devoutly evil, the most devoted to imperious claims, the most obsessed with controlling the intellectual life of their inferiors, the most likely to support any system of slavery even as slaves seeking favor within the slave system, and the most likely to desire invasion of personal and private life. This is in line with the technological interest and its insistence on subsuming the whole world within "technology". The choice to make technology a monopoly is an artifact of property and aristocracy's claims, which the commons adopted as their own idea only after all other concepts of what technology could be were annihilated. This is what we live in today, at a critical period where technology can for the first time override long-standing assumptions we made about thought and what the world was.

This has been weaponized by aristocracy and property to claim that technology itself, and the desires of the commons, are in of themselves "the evil", and that aristocracy and property are the defenders who rule either by merit, or because of a presumed goodness that is unknowable. The latter is the greater folly. The aims of the proprietors are varied. For most of the investigation in this part of the present book, in which the role of religion is described, the proprietors are for now relegated to the back seat. Aristocracy and technology are the chief contributors to religion, and are the interests in life that have the most to do with the establishment of religion, education, and such world-historical missions. It has been a technology coveted by and monopolized by aristocracy, the guru, and the most lurid desires of the human race. The commoners, when they are elevated into the aristocracy and see property as something to bypass or cajole to serve them better, are more likely to make an alliance with the status quo which begets itself.

In primitive form, the evil religion concerns itself is more "neutral" in appearance. Knowledge of the evil has nothing to do with enacting it. We can know much about evil and learn of religion thoroughly, and refuse to adopt the evil as our own. Only a damned fool believes the evil in of itself is "the point", and many such fools have run their mouths for long enough. But, the potential of evil becomes a thing weaponized for the political struggle and temporal authority. Evil is still unable to make a permanent claim to temporal authority. Its existence is fleeting, even with all of the developments of evil leading to eugenics and the modern day. It is a mistake to conflate eugenics with evil or evil with eugenics. The eugenist is thoroughly evil and revels in the thrill of torture, but the eugenist's understanding of evil varies, and some of the damned fools believe that it can't be evil. The "eu" prefix denoting good is in the name, and this is one of its insidious tricks. The true, dedicated evil remains a monopoly of aristocracy, despite the efforts of all of the other orders of society to grab a piece of that evil for themselves, or understand the evil. The aristocracy as a rule never shirks its world-historical mission and commitments. If they do, they will quickly cease to be aristocracy in the sense we have known it, and become mere pretenders who lord over nothing, quickly displaced by their fellows. It is in the secrets of aristocracy, which are at their heart religious convictions, that we find the forms of evil that are suitable to contest temporal authority. The mere evil sentiments or thoughts or deeds that we know well are only comprehensible in the religious framework that is traditionally the domain of aristocracy. The fuller development of aristocracy's religion, and its manipulations of the other orders, is the objective I have for this section of this book. It is with religion's development that aristocracy becomes something more than a temporary calling with a mission to educate and cull for temporal purposes, and becomes its own going concern. Its first claim will be that morality and ethics are the property of aristocracy, and they get to decide what is good and what is not.

Before religion can be unleashed upon the world for its further development, religion begins with a model of the adherent, or a model upheld by an institution which is intended to be actualized through an adherent or some agent suitable for the task. While I will describe these models as "stages", the only necessary stage is the initial presumption that there is no "religion" as such - only a problem of evil that must be solved with incomplete information. For humans, religion began as much of our existence did - as a creature of knowledge. But, when human beings encounter a religion already established, their first encounter with the religion will likely not be one they internalized for themselves, and they will "convert" to a religion with their own assumptions and objectives which can be at odds with any religious goal. Further development of religion always requires returning to the basic presumption that there isn't any religion, and the tenets, assumptions, and effects of religion are accepted as a historical phenomenon in the world rather than a declaration of any fundamental truth. The remaining stages of religion can only operate on a world outside of religion, which religion purports to describe.

At no point should religion be considered "the beginning of history" or "the beginning of thought", in some sense which made religion itself primary. The true "primordial state" is that the evil of the world does what it will, and while this creates a religion of sorts, that religion only proceeds based on natural laws, which allow it to do very little. The human being and its knowledge is too a part of nature, and so all that religion establishes is similarly the result of "natural laws". Merely by beginning an inquiry about the evil of the world, the possibility that the evil could be something different, or that the situation could be different in a way that defeats the evil, is also raised. The evil is not identical with the very concept of force or truth, and so it is entirely possible for an intact human being to exist without any "religion" as such. If no religion existed at all, then it would not even be "atheism". Atheism suggests the possibility of theology already preceded it, for it is by the very meaning of the word a negation of some pre-existing religion that was encountered. To have a position on religion itself is a religious treatment, before anyone can invoke science or natural law to claim that religion doesn't exist. The true atheism or true godlessness can either be one of two things. One is that religion and the evil it entails has been wholly rejected, and the evil itself is a fickle thing which can be ignored or defeated without any great working or spiritual will to fight. The other is not a lack of religion, but a very religious view of the world which recognizes correctly that the gods and rituals of the human race, and any such thing anywhere in existence, are themselves abomination. The names of the gods, rites, and all of the knowledge religion entails would remain known, their history and meaning described in a great tome of the evil, but a thorough rejection of the evil would be possible because sufficient knowledge has arisen to fight the evils of the world in a much more thoroughgoing way than religion alone allows. There are few - possibly no one alive today - who could reach a state of true atheism or true godlessness, and such a state may not be as desirable as we would think. The true godlessness vanquishes evil not because of a naive faith in the power of reason or some goodness, but because the evil has grown into something that necessitates the religious subject commit to a path which would, at long last, mitigate if not defeat in total the evil that had formed. Just as humans required religion to better understand the evil, the evil required religion and the believer to attain the rareified forms we encounter today. I do not consider an open-ended jihad - a true jihad - as the goal or something I am agitating for. It is rather that the eugenic creed represents a highly developed evil that is overt, though not the ultimate evil within humanity's capabilities based on a cursory knowledge of humanity's occult history. Failure to recognize the evil as evil will surely lead to our defeat, for the eugenist developed not merely the evil but a praxis that asserts an ultraviolent and opportunistic entity as the default "meme" of eugenist evil. The recent potential for true godlessness, rather than naive godlessness, only exists because of the evil that eugenism represents, and that evil is a novel thing which sought for the first time to truly make opposition to it inadmissible as a thought. I do not trade in stupid games of moral relativism where the eugenist denies that there is evil, or that its actions can be construed as anything "good". Good people or doctrines without moral intent do not habitually lie or make grandiose threats every single day and in every thought and deed they promote. Those that fight evil do so not because they are righteous or possess a greater spirit from within, but because they must or they will surely be tortured. Fear, as always, is the primary motivator, but fear is only an asset of the evil and existed independent of the evil. Pride and insinuations will do nothing against the evil, and such things are tools of the evil and have no business in fighting it. Fear makes a lot of sense, given its role in everything we do, and that is prior to most of our moral values due to a simple truth of biology - that the flesh is reactive to the world before the life-form can assert anything.

The primary stage of religion, and the true position of every religion, is that there are no "gods" and the question remains an open one. No matter how established a religion may be, it will only arrive at its "final destination" in conditions it establishes long after the recognition of any spiritual authority at its core. Religion begins not with evil itself but with the problem of evil, and this applies to anything that would interact with the evil, whether there is anyone or anything to recognize it as such. Before there is human religion, there is the primordial "religion" of nature itself - which is to say, all of the rites inherited from the animal kingdom, and all that happened prior to anyone asking if any of this was evil, rather than merely an event of the world which may be bad or unpleasant. It is not difficult to see that there are evil forces at work long before any of us were around to suggest it, and what we did with that was always up to us. Humanity knew of the evil, and knew exactly what they did, and they could infer the existence of the good and many other aims they might have held. The development of evil from religion is a refinement of something which already happened before humanity or any other mind was there to make it so.

In practice, the core of all religions is atheistic. They regard "god this, god that" for the rubes, but within the priesthood, this is understood as a metaphor, a weapon, or an outright lie. The priesthood understand that the facade of a god or some higher power is a symbol or object of such importance that no religion will admit too openly that it is at heart a technological matter and a type of scientific endeavor. The science at first concerns an evil, but quickly considers all of the things evil may affect, and how evil may adapt and take on new guises if it imbues anything else in the world, or the world in total. The gods are, for the priests, believers, and anyone who comes into contact with the religion, as real as they need to be for whatever purpose is needed. Unlike laws or standards of comparison, the gods can metamorph from time and place to meet the demands of the religion. All that is required is that no one is allowed to call bullshit on the enterprise, and that anyone dealing with the religion can reconcile these contradictions, or see past them. The contradiction is always deliberate and malicious, and this itself is a tool, a weapon, and a symbol of religious evil. Religion is always aware that it is doing this, and there is not a moment of hesitation in knowing which lies to utter and how the lying is useful for religion. Part of religion is to teach those initiated into the cult how to use the power of Lie to advance their cause, whatever that may be. But, religion does not exist purely as a series of lies about deities. A religion can admit to laymen or even unbelievers that the gods are metaphorical, and can communicate this meaning to the irreligious or to those who follow a different religion. There is a truth in that the stories of the gods will have to be based on something meaningful, and also that once the religion begins, the gods are realized through the actions of the believers and of things the religion co-opts.

All human religions possess at their core a rational kernel. Even if that kernel is merely a statement that "anything can be anything", that is a rationally comprehensible statement and makes an affirmative statement that would be used to further analyze the world. That rational kernel cannot be just anything for the practice to be religion. It answers the evil that preceded it, if it is to be a religion or philosophy which can survive in a world where evil is known to exist. The rational kernel of religion begins a process in human beings which sets them further apart from animals or ordinary things. It is here where knowledge as a process asserts itself not merely as a phenomenon in the world, but as something operating on its own power - not because it simply can, but because it navigates a world of predation and, more importantly, the evil which would undermine it. The believer can themselves choose to embrace an evil as their friend, or the believer may sense that evil itself is problematic. Few religions could survive if the evil were not herded like an animal, in such a way that the evildoer retains a separate world for the believer, who is the first to be "in the know", even before religious brethern or the superiors in the religious organization who dictate pedagogy. This is to say, if the core of religion is this rational kernel, then before there is a mass religion or a nation or ummah, there is the believer and knowing agent who can comprise it. This is also true of any institution of religion, or any superstititon a religion can claim. People can believe - or be made to believe - in a great many things. In all cases, there is a reason why they believe or act on that belief, that can be explained without being an initiate into the religion or "knowing the unknowable god". Among those reasons are the evil itself, whether someone believes in any religion or another religion is forcing itself upon the world.

Evil dominates the atheist view, so far as they are thinking about the religious matter as an "atheist", because the atheist is by default out of the know. Yet, the atheist is also one of the two involved here who is able to know anything at all. The middling stages only follow the investigation that the kernel of knowledge allowed. The other who knows is the hermit whose thinking is devoutly religious but disdainful of the false world that the evil created atop a world that was never the property of anything. For every other stage of religious development, the agency of any knowledge is limited, for reasons that will be described in their respective sections. Where the hermit is distant from the temporal matter except when it concerns the hermit's life, the atheist makes a presumptive claim that it is one with the world, because in some sense, it like everyone who can contemplate the question is a part of the world. Without any empathy or any particular reason to find association in this regard, the atheist is given over to a faggotry scarcely imaginable, until it was refined and exported as an ideology by the eugenic creed - the "New Atheists" who are suspiciously dogmatic compared to the norm for religion. By its nature, atheism is self-centered in a way that nothing else is, because the problem of evil is at first encountered by the individual and its presumptions about the world. This is mitigated by communication and trust, but trust in a world of evil and deception is not given easily, and it is repeat and flagrant violation of any trust, and then the destruction of anything that could be trustworthy in human communication, that religion can accomplish like few other things can. A program of habitual lying based purely on physical and mathematical principles about its efficacy will either be seen for what it is, or relies on a constant pressing that leads towards only one outcome - total regression, or the ideology of retarded mentioned in the last chapter. The atheist relies first and foremost on its knowledge - knowledge in the fullest sense - to discern the evil, before the atheist resorts to the higher stages of religious thought and behavior. It is those higher stages that an atheistic mind will have to work with to develop further critique along those lines.

The atheist cannot discount this religious view upon contact with religion, even if an atheist would prefer to believe none of this nonsense is real. They can bowl over it as irrelevant so long as the evil has yet to manifest anything sufficient to violate sense and truth. The atheist, like any knowing entity, has to approach the world and fill its sense with information it deems necessary for its purposes. Survival and economic wants are among those purposes, given the propensity of life to continue living and resist death or termination. It does not take long for the evil to be a threat not just to survival in the basic sense, but a threat to anything that someone would want to do other than evil.

The evil spurs the development of intelligence as a moral sentiment which has to be appreciated, whatever our judgement of its utility. The problem of evil is not reduced to its unpleasantness or a personal threat. But, it is easy for naive atheism - especially a naive atheism that is enforced by a taboo, whether it is internalized or imposed violently by a hostile religion permeating the whole society and bombarding the senses with reinforcement of conditioning - to lapse into the utilitarian fallacy, where what is painful or unpleasant is evil, and what is pleasant and feels right is "good", and all further moral thought may be terminated. The utilitarian philosophy gives the shortest possible route to finding "the good" and "the evil" for its purposes, but eliminates any potential to see either for what they are, and eliminates entirely any possibility of the new. This is clearly undesirable, and so the atheist either rejects the utilitarian credo out of hand, or makes endless excuses to justify their opportunism or ignorance. "Ignorance is strength" suggests the strength of utility for simple economic or political calculations, where all that is not immediately useful is "retarded" and inadmissible, and any explanation that does not "bellyfeel" good to the utilitarian is ipso fact retarded, which is the greatest evil they can conceive due to the historical and present strength of the retarded curse.

This is one opening for naive atheists to be cajoled and befuddled by "contradiction" - which is to say, habitual lying. Intelligence, which is already on shaky grounds when confronted with the physical world and technology due to the known incompetence of any intelligence, is further led into its doom by its inability to grapple with the evil directly. Intelligence can only understand the evil beyond a cursory fact by studying religion, and in doing so, a splitting of the mind begins. When concerned with things that are "not politics", which is really saying "not religious", the atheist's intelligence is remarkably clear about the world based on the axioms they have accepted, and can by critique demonstrate the fallacy of axioms that other religious thought cannot. When concerned with the evil, which is construed as "politics" or "religion" - the two great no-nos of polite conversations - the atheist must split its thinking and know it is referring to the religious and political world where evil and habitual lying are the rule, and the enterprise is not concerned with truth but spiritual authority and attempts to control it. Because the evil does not have a monopoly on spiritual authority - and many religions will make clear that the religion does not create any "total system", but instead presents a framework to describe the very important matters that are the proper purview of religion - this makes the atheist's problem even more dire. Of all of the contenders for spiritual authority, religion and the evil take on qualities unlike any other, for the evil is the most likely way for intelligence to be commandeered, corrupted, turned against itself, with the intended effect of making real the curse of retarded or other curses a religion may invoke as it develops further.

Mere knowledge of the evil, or any wisdom that appeals to reason or intellect or sense, does nothing for us. And yet, it is only the atheistic view - that there really are no curses - that allows for the evils religion can conjure to be combated. This is particular of an atheistic religious view, rather than saying "religion is fake and gay and only exists if you believe in it". Clearly we cannot deny that other believers invoke curses with very real effects on the world. Nothing about the world prevents someone, ourselves included, from making the rituals and power of religion real. If religion is channeling something other than evil, it does so through evil means. Nowhere can religion make any appeal to the true and genuine good as a conquering force, and such an appeal is one of the most profound evils as we will describe in the next chapter. To use this faculty to combat the evil is no mere exercise of a faculty that was inherent to any of us. The only counter to developed evil is another development which was informed by the existence of evil. It is also for this reason that a "religion of pure evil" couldn't work, without learning how to mask itself and learn, begrudgingly, of the good or moral sense outside of the evil the adherents of such a religion crave. It is possible for a religion to revel in evil as much as it can, but only the truest Abomination, accessible only through workings which glorify knowledge and intelligence towards its aims, can accomplish this - and the Abomination is not for any knowledge of mortals, or for the world. The Abomination always aims to remake the world in its image, for those who channel it and glorify it. The naive atheist can only pretend Abomination doesn't exist, scurry away from Abomination like a craven, or abase itself to Abomination. Yet, to stand and die before Abomination if it cannot be fought is worse than any of those fates, and this makes the naive atheist smug and sense that no matter what, the naive atheist can't lose compared to that. This requires Abomination's presence in the world to be at its apogee, which it is in our sad time and place. Nowhere in these chapters or anything in my book can I prescribe a course of action which will defeat Abomination any better than our investigation of its existence and its history, and Abomination is something altogether different from evil at any stage of its development. Yet, Abomination's existence is one of the surest ways we can confirm that there is such a thing as evil, for evil is among its appendages and makes itself known. If not for Abomination, than evil appears more as a curiosity, even a potential friend. Those who encounter Abomination may survive it for a time, but many have been irrevocably damaged by it. Your humble author is among them, and he cannot say his encounter with Abomination was anything too horrible compared to what I've seen. Those who encounter Abomination and learn of what it is, by comparing their notes with others or by thorough investigation of the world and religion, will never speak so casually about evil. Those who embrace evil and enthusiastically encourage this either have not seen Abomination and adopt the purest naive faggotry when it arises, or they are those who have aligned themselves with Abomination like the hardcore eugenists and care not about the consequences, for they need no other god. Against that, there is no further negotiation or dialogue, regardless of their lies or mystifications. Abomination is a force like the evil, but where the evil is very knowable, Abomination is a thing only knowable by inference, much as the good is only knowable by inferring that it exists. We should make clear that the good and Abomination are not diametric opposites in that sense. Nothing about the good has much to do with Abomination and goodness has been known to wither against Abomination. Abomination, for all of its worldly might and unfathomability, can be seen shrinking from the strangest of forces in the world or in the volition of men. This shrinking is not brought about by an intellectual rejection or by some cosmic struggle, and it is not brought about by any willpower as imagined by aristocracy - an aristocracy which treasures Abomination to one degree or another as one of its elite secrets. Abomination is only kept at bay because there is a moral force other than it. Where other moral sentiments become complex things, Abomination is uniquely primordial, and it is this which the primordial light and its illusion channels, rather than mere evil. It is even known that one moral sentiment which can abate Abomination is the evil itself, but this is a short-lived remedy. There is the evil which is not associated with Abomination but recognizes it as a rival for attention, and there is the pernicious evil that is Abomination's appendages, which tempt human beings or anything into embracing the evil that is expedient and presented to the sensory clusters of the naive. It is for this reason that the German idealists and ideologues chose to reduce spirit and consciousness to something phenomenal for the slaves, while granting to their conceit of mastery - their fake and gay conceit since they were paid to lose - status of the false light, an evil which claims to fight Abomination and serve it in the same sentence.

It is this problem which intelligence and the faculties of the temporal world encounter. At first, the quest for spiritual authority is a naive discovery, where the evil and Abomination are clearly unnecessary impositions. If Abomination and evil were truly vanquished - and nothing about the world suggests that this is impossible or necessary for anything in the universe to operate - then the quest for spiritual authority would continue. Religion's purview would be limited to a historical curiosity or a hypothetical. Religion is one way for intelligence to make inquiries into the unknown with something more than unguided supposition. We do not find flashes of insight by happenstance, or by an invisible hand. We are aware, on some level, of an evil lurking from afar, that is something more than merely another temporal threat or a "spook" of our fevered thinking. We are aware, in other words, that our lack of knowledge in general will always be a threat, no matter how much knowledge we accumulate or whatever faculties of reason, intelligence, or knowledge we possess, now or in any potential future. The general fear if political life is never reducible to a "struggle for life". If that is all life is, then we should just rope ourselves and let the fags rule it all, for nothing would be lost. But, on some level, letting such evil - nay, Abomination - prevail is offensive to every fiber or our sense of decency, and frankly unnecessary. It would be bettter to die spitting in the face of such filth, to let it know that there was no reason for anyone to kowtow to it besides a fear that was channneled primarily by insinuating that it could be made so, rather than something physically real that required us to respect or regard it in any way. More importantly, nothing about the world, religion, the evil, or even Abomination itself, suggests that any such "struggle for life" is paramount or sacrosanct. That faggotry is peculiar to humans, and it is not the true Abomination, however much it likes the visage of Abomination as a skin-mask. It would be sad, if it weren't able to summon a preponderance of violence to make us go along with it. We would, in a better world, see the absurdity of allowing any part of this to ever start let alone go on, and not accede to its demands for ritual sacrifice and the thrill of torture. The Abomination, and its presence is very real and present among the truest believers of the eugenic creed who've always known their true program, deserves more credit than the faggotry of the enablers.

The exoteric theology of a religion is not theology proper, for it is often divorced from the meaning that initiates or those familiar with a religion would know by comparing religious thought with other religious thought. But, all of the later stages are things which can be critiqued or developed by reason and the faculties of intelligence, just as anything else can be. The exoteric facade of a religion is highly atheistic, and in many cases cynical about the role of religion as just another institution. Very few members of a religion get into anything more than the superstitions and taboos. The mass religion of the people - "folk religion" - has less to do with a full-fledged religion, and is instead a mass of beliefs which are shared and coalesce into mass religion, which is the topic of Chapter 17. Organized, institutional religions which form a coherent model of the evil make pretensions of reaching the masses, including those who are not a part of the folk religion, for the lowest class is rejected from folk religion much as they are effectively cast out of organized religion. The folk religions take from organized religions and from each other an understanding of the evil, and do with it as they wish, and they like organized religions concern themselves with the question of evil and build models of the world much the same.

There is, for any knowing entity, a limit of what their knowledge can possibly process, store, retrieve, or act on, before the system becomes too unwieldly for the faculties, or lacks any answer because of a critical design flaw. When considering the complexity of full and complete knowledge, where all potential meanings can be apprehended by the knowing entity, this limit arrives early, but the limitation of faculties for full knowledge does not present to that entity any critical failure in of itself. When a short-hand is developed for internal use, or as a koan to remember, it is always understood that this is a short-hand or rule of thumb, used by the faculties of a lesser intellect to simplify something that is complex. There is nothing wrong with this, so long as the details are remembered at some point and such errors do not produce errors or stupidities. Religion at first follows the same laws. Stories are given as metaphors which invite the reader to learn more, and compare that to something else to place the stories elements in a useful context. It is with the rise of superstition and in particular the taboo that grant to religion its first appearance of something more than a particular application of knowledge to the problem of evil. Because superstition arrived early for humanity, and most of our introduction to religion is not through its exoteric claims but its superstitions, rites, and taboos, humans rarely enter the weeds of theology beyond the level of laypersons. I do not claim to be any great scholar of religion, but I have seen enough of the religious mindset to describe it as I have seen enough of it. All I am writing here is a very surface-level understanding of the body of superstititon, theology, sociality, or occultism. It is necessary for us to speak of religion and spiritual authority's role in the contest for temporal authority. In the contest for temporal authority, the superstitions, idols, taboos, and rites of a religion are the visible markers of its invasion into temporal affairs, and it is here where religion takes on much of the evil for this purpose, whatever its purposes for doing so are.

The first limitation, economic management of intelligence itself, is a trivial limitation, given the known extensibility of faculties within certain boundaries, and intelligence having enough sense to avoid problems it knows it cannot realistically solve. Mere lack of knowledge or intelligence does not impress upon the mind an evil by itself. Some knowledge is better off unknown, especially if that knowledge pertains to lies and more lies, or worse yet, bullshit. The more pressing limitation is survival of the entity which knows, if it values such a thing. This is not itself a moral claim in any sense - no moral claim can suggest that life has any obligation to survive, and those who insist on such a claim usually intend it for slaves who they want to torture and exterminate for non-compliance. But, life tends to wish to live for self-evident purposes, and this drive to survive only has the moral value of survival. If survival guides life to the evil, the evil will only grant to life the rewards of evil. Those rewards are often dubious, but one of the games of religion, especially in total societies like this one, is to make everyone soil themselves with a mark of evil or shame as a condition of survival. This is a necessity of the Satan in particular, which is a matter for the next chapter. Survival and life itself contains no necessary evil simply by being, no matter the claims of the eugenic creed and its forebears. We could stop the "necessary evil" of existence tomorrow if we really wanted to. But, this would run against an evil long established which has no cause to ever end its stranglehold on this world, or the parts it has managed to lock down thus far. It also runs against a propensity that was internalized long ago in life. Its history, and the superstitions and taboos it inherited from its ancestors, has been a history repleted with shame and humiliation long before any human living today was born. It is, after all, a Satanic race and a failed race for a reason. None of those things, though, create the true pressing need of compromise simply to exist. Compromise with something like Abomination is not an option, not a necessity, and not even something Abomination has any interest in allowing. Abomination would take the more sniveling fags of the eugenic creed, crush them utterly, and march on without any concern, as it should be. So should our sentiments to the enablers be a contempt of the same impression to them - and this is what the eugenist believes to be evil, anything that tells it "no". To simply be honest, forthright, and do things to uphold decency in this world, is what the sniveling fag deems Abomination, when all we did was go about our lives treating their religion with the contempt it deserves. We did not start this "Jehad" or impose anything so harsh at all. Considering the eugenist is the exploiter and their sniveling largely concerns not extracting enough toil and suffering from the exploited, and that everyone isn't bending over to present their asshole for deeper ramming, it's a wonder these people haven't been shown a contempt that would have saved humanity and this world a lot of unnecessary suffering and filth. Of course, the enablers, or even the eugenists themselves, are only much inferior emanations of Abomination, and many of them aren't even worthy of the title of "evil" that would be appreciable. Evil deserves more credit than eugenist faggotry. By eliminating the mere faggotry, we can better view the evil of the eugenic creed and the religion which its adherents follow.

Evil, of any sort, creates a more immediate limitation to intelligence, and intelligence has no immediate answer to it. We could imagine a survival instinct creating in life the same shortcoming of intelligence, but at some breaking point, the life-form will relent to whatever must happen, because it is only survival and competition at stake. Evil cannot be abided for long without acceding to its particular demands or joining it. The reason being is that evil, if it is sufficiently developed, never stops with the act in motion. It does not have a temporal claim where it will agree to leave you be and never bother you again. Evil as a base impulse may be fleeting, but evil as a way of life - evil as something refined by religion or its precursors - makes sure you will never forget what won the day and, its gods willing, will win every day forevermore. Evil does this not out of a belief that conquest is glorious or serves some purpose. Its motives are as varied as excuses for the essential study of evil that allowed such a thing to manifest as something more than an impulse. Whatever its motives or the greater game of those who command evil, the consequences of acceeding to it without a fight guarantee that evil will demand yet more. This may come immediately, or it will come at another time, as evil accumulates new resources to strengthen its position. Evil does this not as a mere act of accumulating property, as is often presumed by a crass mind. Accumulation of wealth, property, and purely temporal concerns are more relevant for the economic task than even the political purpose, let alone anything worth fighting for. Evil very often has little concern for property of conceits of wealth, except as a tool for its greater imperatives or "greater evil" - or "greater good" as it may brand itself. There are other moral impulses which may create a similar pressing. The sheer badness of something may be so offensive that it temporarily blinds sense and reason and provokes a rash response. For example, faggotry delights in empty transgression and cheap shock value, and it does so in service to an impulse which can't even qualify as free-standing evil. Evil implies a level of deliberation and permanence that is something unliving, and superior to life itself conceptually. Again, evil is not the only force which can do this. But, religion is the study of evil, rather than other moral sentiments. If we want to talk about the might of good or feeling awesome or the power of music, those are different topics, which did not have the historical impact that the study of evil did. Evil's higher manifestations begin as superstitions, only somewhat understood without careful study and an appropriate view of history.

The superstition is the manifestation of that which, at least for a moment, terminates thought by invocation of its power. Absent this, the failures of intelligence and reason would be seen for what they are, and over time they might be corrected. But, the superstition exists for a reason, and in of itself, it explains certain things in a way that can be used as an accessible linguistic token. The superstition can be analyzed and broken into its constituent parts, if we choose to. To cover this, the superstition, even a mild one, is occulted in some way, or knowledge of it is forbidden to those who are not initiated. For example, a thorough explanation of Christian rituals is not offered to heathens, even though such material is available for exoteric purposes. What the Christians preach among friends and their true rites, they don't make publicly available, and shroud in considerable fear. Even if the truth is known, the superstitious power of the institution, the rituals, the symbols, and the evil and fear summoned to defend it, will be enough to contain dissent against Christian atrocities. History is replete with Christian mental cheating and posturing, and they have a unique claim to this mockery. We can find examples in every religion and things like religion, because the developed religions defend their superstitions.

Superstititons at first feed on the fear and worship of followers, or a mythos that grows around the superstition, its icons, and all of the other superstititons. They are things you might think about, and once established, they become comprehensible tokens which can be communicated, the meanings picked apart, and through them, communication of something which may be very complex - for example, a deity that governs war and the rites and rituals and superstititons that comprise the warrior's code - is simplified in a way that laborious reason or mere words would not convey. The superstititons often become the most familiar tokens in a language, around which much of life would revolve in a society where religion of one sort or another prevails. It would be difficult to form a language entirely out of superstititons or mythical allusions.^[1] Over time, the words of common language take on meanings that were not intended, because of familiarity with superstititons.

The prevalence of this superstititous treatment of knowledge is particular to religious thought and its particular attitude towards spiritual authority, but it quickly diversifies. It shares similarities to how humans derive many meanings which lack expression or which are normally beneath the notice of language or our typical routines. While the quirks of human knowledge and language are played with for various purposes, superstititon holds an appeal because of its immediate necessity, and the prevalence of religion in shaping language and how we think. The jabbering of the human ape acquires its meaning in large part due to superstititons. We are, in invoking superstititons, dealing with things which were beyond the rather limited faculties of simpler knowledge, yet are things which are appreciated by that knowledge because we know that they could either guide us to some truth that is relevant to spiritual authority, or they could block unwanted thoughts. Without this faculty of superstition, human speech would over time become stilted, overly formal but stripped of many meanings and contexts we once took for granted. It would become easy to use language which appears technical or intelligent, without saying much of importance. It would also become difficult to discern bullshit if a "lack of superstititon" were normal, or worse, this "fools' atheism" became a superstition itself.

The superstition is most familiar to the concepts of property. Property itself, and the entire eugenic interest, rests on a superstitious faith that the past makes its claim on the present. No natural law asserts that it would have to be so in the way "historical progress" of the crass thinking asserts. We cannot deny that the past happened, and that claims can be made on events we can judge to have happened, and this is meaningful. What is not automatic is that the past has any claim on present temporal authority. If "he who controls the present controls the past" is accepted, its followup is "he who controls the past controls the future". But, this thinking works the other way around. Those who control the past by property claims have always asserted that the present is nothing more than the past with some variables changed. For most of humanity's existence, the future resembles the past on most days. For most of humanity, "history" pertained not to world-historical political events, but to their daily life, which changed remarkably little for all of the contests for temporal or spiritual authority. The farmers tilled the land until machines displaced them, workers did their time in industry, and the high professions like the law invoke customs from ancient Rome to this day. It did not particularly matter to members of any class which world-historical mission was afoot at any given time, as if those narratives were the true content of history, rather than all of the things we actually cared about. This did not mean, as a crass eugenist would claim, that "history is bunk". It is rather that political history and the full meaning of history are very different propositions, and this is forgotten only at great peril, or by a superstitious belief about history which goes beyond the Ingsoc slogan. Upside down or right side up, a fully politicized and opportunistic view of history which conveniently omits large amounts of the truth and creates many convenient fictions is rife with opportunities for superstition to affect thought, and is itself a product of superstitious beliefs about reality, time, physics, matter, ideas, and a whole panoply of assumptions that would be necessary to believe such narratives are in fact the true history, and what normal people regard as reality is incidental or, worse, retarded.

We would not value such methods unless the superstition had its roots in something evil which necessarily circumvents sense, in a way mere ignorance or incompetence couldn't. It is not a "learned stupidity". The superstititon is a double-edged sword if one thinks of it purely as a way to make people dumber. The superstition is a useful guide because intelligence itself is not a simple machine, but the act of creatures who morally value the deployment of intellect, and who always have limited intelletual faculties. The danger is in forgetting that superstitions are superstititions, rather than reified things, let alone the only things that are "realer than real" or the only things which are granted world-historical importance. By themselves, the superstition is potentially harmless, or only harmful if the potential of something other than a dogmatic superstition is circumvented by an overarching superstititon, which requires a total system of superstitions to support the grandiose claims. The superstititons are likely to avert courses of action that are dangerous, a path to evil or worse, just plain wrong, or futile, or any number of undesirable outcomes that would be a waste of our knowledge and intelligence.

We will revisit this particular matter when describing what eugenics did with superstition and the taboo, which were explicit instruction of Francis Galton and the hardline eugenist original gangsters. For now, the taboo should be seen as the "mass" or "laborious" counterpart to the proprietary superstition.

It becomes clear, first as a superstition before sufficient confirmation by our more reliable senses, that we are not alone in this religious matter. The purest form of "naive atheism" only concerns a purely personal religion. We should take this time to draw the very stark distinction between the development of temporal authority and the development of religion. Temporal matters ultimately return to the base components of the world, which include human beings and their faculties. Sociality only among the political agents of some sort is implied by superstition more than any necessary political fact, simply because we are ourselves comprised necessarily of many moving parts to be "us". There is no "oneness" of the person or the human being that can be taken for granted, but political agents are always singular propositions rather than vague clusters without temporal location. Where would the the oneness arise, then? It arises here, in religion and its precursors. We build a superstition that there is an entity called "me", confirm that superstition sufficiently that the sensory experiences in the cluster of consciousness particular to us point to the existence of "me". That superstition only becomes more prescient because of our awareness of the evil and the threat it poses. Animals do not have the introspection of "me" or "I" with the same meaning. They are certainly aware of existence and act accordingly, and have self-interests appropriate to them, in addition to sociality, empathy, and sense of the world. What is missing is the further development of this concept of evil through communication of the superstition. Humans, both through formalizing language and systems of knowledge in ways that were not possible for animals, and because of the clear and present danger other humans pose to humans, develop a much firmer sense of self. "Me", and "I", become very necessary superstitions even when evidence suggests that "you do not exist". We would, even without the superstition of "me", recognize that there is an entity corresponding to ourselves that has all of the qualities of "me", but simply doesn't care about "me" as a going concern or particular mind if "I" suffer, trudge through the muck of life expecting it to be little better for all of the trouble of existing. In so many ways, we abandon "me" not as an act of self-sacrifice or social obligation, or only in relation to another human or another thing. "I" cease to be active for the most part during sleep, and this author attempts to forget "I" in the sense of his legal and social identity which is shit, let alone all of the shit that has been heaped upon him. I don't like that person I was assigned to be very much. The superstition of "me" or "I" is already not a superstition limited to myself. If I know I'm a thing, and other humans know that "me" is a thing for them, they will probably figure out, whether I know it or not, that the other "me"s are not in full possession of the truth about themselves or the world. As an infant or toddler, who only begins their investigation into the strange creature that is "me", an adult observing me would know much about me that would not be possible for someone so young, who has limited experience or standards of comparison with other humans to place myself in any context. The adult does not possess total knowledge in the sense imperious assholes claim, but they will know aspects of humans generally and can apply that to me. The adults, or other human peers, are not neutral towards "me". Already at this young age, we've probably sensed the evil afoot among mankind and the environment, and would have found the evil in wilder conditions as well. All of these begin as superstitions, including the superstition of "society" as a vague abstraction, which is colloquially referred to often enough to conflate the aspersion of "society" with the actually meaningful concept of society for the purposes we have worked with in this book. Many of the superstitions can be confirmed by reason which places the superstititon into a framework making its component parts comprehensible outside of the superstition, and the superstitions themselves can grow into new things, or diversify into multiple new superstitions without any formal knowledge or working to make it so.

What this means is that, for the purposes of religion and the particular purview it answers, the individual is only realized in the world by many superstitions suggest that there are any "people", "societies", or even a world where they are active. We would have a hard time supposing that all existence is superstition unless we have really huffed too much ideology, but we have examples of people who truly believe that the universe is a simulation in some communist gangster computer god's machinery. This is a distinction of religion and its task, rather than anything spiritual authority proper says about the world. But, religion would be a condition that questions spiritual authority, and may make its own claims to spiritual authority, which we will arrive at shortly. The manipulation of superstition relies in part on this divide between the world and the problem of evil which heightens at first a self-centeredness difficult to fathom. I would speak of this manipulation generally at a later time, rather than the specific manipulations of the eugenic creed which weaponized it with a great theology and foul science and pseudoscience.

The taboo operates as a spirit of the general fear itself, and so it has more to do with temporal authority than superstitions which cover a broad category of thoughts. Taboos are limited in number and particular to a global sense that permeates any society or domain where they are active. Aliens transgressing the taboo of another culture is still a faux pas, if not seen as a hostile and callous act. It operates at a level that mystifies sociality altogether, and yet, societies would not exist without them in any recognizable form. Where the superstitions may morph and be dissected, taboos are very clear "thou shalt not" commandments with harsh punishments for transgression, both from other humans enforcing the taboo and from a sense that such acts offend heaven, the world, and any god that may be watching. A taboo is no mere vow of secrecy or secret law, e.g. "the first rule of Fight Club is you do not talk about Fight Club". It is not an insinuation that a taboo can be manufactured by some working. Taboos to be in effect are made real by history. Any working to manufacture a taboo can only operate through a working which operates through laws of knowledge, mediation, and psychology, before they become historical facts which possess the force to be actual taboos, rather than assertions of some influencer assholes.

The true taboo does not work as an unwritten law or an agent of the general fear that is transgressed lightly. There was a reason that taboos existed - very important reasons so that things that are monstrously evil are not contemplated by any right-thinking person, that most reasonable people would agree has a point. It is unwelcome to acknowledge openly a taboo unless in trusted company, and the taboos of political power carry not just the threat of doing something shameful. Political taboos can be spurious and devoid of any of the moral reasons someone would follow taboos, but political taboos are upheld by the ruling interests and power of a society. Those who protest too much will not just be killed. Enforcement of the taboo threatens grotesque evils, tortures, and perhaps summoning an appendage of Abomination. This can be done with the support of a surprising small number of agentur, so long as it is made clear to the general public - and the invocation of "the public" is another superstition which takes on qualities of the taboo to acknowledge as what it truly is - that intervening against the enforcement of political taboos will taint the good Samaritan with something even worse than those who violated the taboo. Superstitions may be local to a person's wants, but taboos are superstitions giving authority over temporal affairs, and constitute a precursor to political thought regarding the general fear and the state. Why does the general fear exist, from a religious perspective? It exists because there are entities who very much want that fear, and who have successfully initiated taboos to tell us that the general fear is too big to fail. This was not a necessary precondition - there was a general fear without any taboo - but the taboo itself becomes part of the general fear, and can be utilized as a weapon by those who can hold such a thing and decide what is and is not taboo. There would have been taboos that arise more or less "organically", or exist because, upon closer inspection by those who care to do so, the taboo is something that would stay in force until the condition that made it sensical is no longer operative. For example, consanguinity is an ancient taboo known in every human society, and aristocracy is among the few who deliberately violate the taboo out of a belief that their pure blood and received wisdom is worthy of inbreeding. Without any formal scientific framework for biology, heredity, or the effects of inbreeding on human health, the taboo serves as a useful rule for avoiding a situation which is generally unpleasant. We can see here how eugenics and the German ideology weaponized this to transgress taboos and repurpose them for the state and a vicious institution. What was a taboo to protect the well being of society and the members of that society, became a crime of Being which is declared a high sin, utilized to break down the family and subject who is declared a sinner. No one thinks that the results of inbreeding are good in-of-themselves, but many who are the product of inbreeding, rape, and various malevolent sources did no sin, and were not bad people; nor were their parents necessarily malevolent or deliberate in the way the eugenic creed asserted. This was necessary not because the eugenist or German believed this would make everyone better, but to get on an insufferable high horse while the eugenists promoted depravity and un-health among the lower orders. As they get on this high horse, the rape, depravity, and inbreeding of aristocracy is sacrosanct, and this is repeated with many sexual sins and "crimes of Being", where the Being of aristocracy allows them to be "above God", in typical Nietzschean faggotry. By doing so, any purpose the taboo held is negated and repurposed into a pure weapon of social engineering, and war reverts to its core economic purpose above any purpose it served. The taboo ultimately exists as a tool in the religious mind, for all religious icons, tenets, and concepts are viewed as a type of tool for the priest and those who hope to use them for some working. In of itself, the taboo means nothing. It arose because it denoted something that was an evil to be avoided for the whole world, rather than oneself. The "cult of the self", the pissants squealing "me wantee", are a necessary religious component for someone who would want to engineer society, even if they claim that their engineering is completely secular. There is no other way to reliably affect the world with something other than the superstition and taboo, and this way was one that made sense earliest to us. Even with all of the developments that we might envision as enlightened alternatives, superstition and taboo remain the basis of human thought as something distinct from instincts or information processing. Humanity itself arises first from superstition, but to be human implies something much more thoroughgoing, where superstition is set aside for something more formal - something more appropriate to civilization and law.

Knowledge at the most basic level is something we accept as a given, without really knowing what "knowledge" is supposed to be. Our first sense is that we know something, or at least, that there is something to know regardless of our ability to know anything at all. If there is truly nothing to know, then - as we began our very first book's inquiry - we wouldn't be here to read any of this. A profoundly retarded religious thinking - one that most religions will tell you is erroneous for reasons that common, non-religious sense confirms repeatedly - is that knowledge begins with us and our ideas, and the material world is wholly illusory. We see in religion and the superstition the origin of such thinking. The common charlatan's explanation is thus: "You" only know that "you exist". You are told to center yourself as the primary assumption, because by the superstition of the self, that is all you really "know". This is to say, it operates on fear and the evil, and it beckons someone to believe that evil is a path to knowledge, and conversely that to know is to engage in evil. This is to say, knowledge would have to be claimed by religion, rather than knowledge existing prior to it. We see here the origin of how religion can pervert the most basic sense of reality through the evil. It is not the sole vehicle for doing so, but all other vehicles will have to contend with religion as the predominant way humans have understood this effect. Who would have such an aim? It is aristocracy, whose first claim is a superstition that identifies themselves with the gods. This is something they project and demand the subjects "believe", which is to say, the subjects must act as if the absurd is real under threat of curses, torture, and death. In private, the aristocracy knows this is a joke, and does not "half-believe" it, or indulge in any nonsense like doublethink to justify their actions to themselves. Aristocracy alone holds the "key" that allows them and them alone to not have to kowtow to the insane demands placed on social inferiors. Once established, the only thing which matches the aristocratic religion is a religion counteracting it. That religion must make claims of the sort that politics makes. The temporal contest becomes a spiritual contest, which is the game aristocracy wants to play. Aristocracy is committed to this game because, in the material world that we actually live in, aristocracy does less than nothing. It does not lead by any merit, does not appreciate technology and considers science and genuine reality anathema to their program. Above all, aristocracy hates their mirror image - the lowest class. They despise most of all the lowest class who have nothing allowing them to play this game and no good reason to ever agree to such stupidity outside of fear. Even if the lowest class did comply, the thrill of torturing them is understood as the powerful weapon. The ritual sacrifice and torture of the lowest class which birthed the human race is more ancient than aristocracy itself, and aristocracy can only channel that evil as best as it can. Being the fools they are, they have chosen that, and have in our time engineered a situation where no one can tell them no ever again. This is never something to take for granted, and aristocracy never has in their private thought. Until recently, Heideggerean faggotry exhorting you to believe that something is "just there" was not an admissible thing. It would evoke outrage that something so stupid and pointless could not only be proclaimed, but that intellectuals would march in lockstep to support such an anvilicious and retarded ideology at the apex of spiritual authority. Aristocracies of the past tended towards caution and restraint because such prudence served them well when the machinery and men at their disposal were nowhere near the capabilities their grandiose theology suggested they would be. If superstitions were seen for what they were - a very laborious task given what supports the effective superstitions - the religious development cycle would either be terminated, or theology would consist of a ruthless critique of the superstitions. This ruthless critique would then extend to all that exists, which has been up to now treated as superstition in the minds of humans, whose connection with the true reality has always been dubious when consider the propensity of humans to lie and lie for the sake of lying. The connection to reality in a material, physical sense is undeniable, but it is scarcely reflected in the shit that dribbles out of the mouths of humanity. The ruthless critique would sputter out after feasting on the superstititons of the world - and because humanity that is naive to the truth behind superstition as a concept would not know any better, the feasting would cannibalize physical systems and the very real structures that are built. In other words, "all that is solid melts into air", for no particularly good reason. If one understands capital correctly, nothing of the sort was implied by free trade conceptually, because free trade was never premised on the totalizing claims that German ideology insinuated as its superstition. But, by appeal to low cunning and avarice for "true power", it would be easy to cajole at least the rubes, who lacked the privileged education or good sense that allowed a favored group in the know to see past the philosophy of aimless struggle and railing against the heavens.

A dual reality is both a spiritual and temporal fiction. There is a reality for temporal, political matters, which are really matters we made up by granted "super-real" status by superstition. There is then the actual reality that existed prior to the political and kept going without any concern for the contest, which is immediately claimed by the technological interest by simply declaring it so. The two are not to meet except in ways prescribed by the former, which only begrudgingly accepts that which is outside of its purview. There is further a split of religious and spiritual matters - the two being conflated for the purposes of religion's theology - and the world of rudimentary sense, with the same relationship. All of these concepts of the world may imagine themselves as the "man in the middle", but it is always spiritual authority that in the end holds the most relevant interests of knowledge. It is spiritual authority which can say much at all about the world and assert any serious claim. Temporal authority is fleeting, as is the life of any one person, or any association of people no matter how long they might remain as a free association. Yet, spiritual authority holds no substance - only conceits about substance that we might apprehend. Temporal and personal authority are locked in an intractable struggle for the substance of the world. I speak of personal authority of the institutional person, rather than the human being whose interests are altogether different. But, those human beings certainly have reason to value their person for more than superstitious reasons, or because religion has exhorted them to believe that their person conforms to an alien plan - "God's plan", as they call it.

The dual reality formed by superstition cannot be ignored. The true reality is not for us to decide and never was. All that humans do with knowledge of any sort is build models. We can aspire to truth about the material world because we value that, but this approach is inadequate for dealing with superstitious things that were conjured only after vast development. A materialist approach to superstititons under the assumption that those superstititons were "just there" or were naively constructed systems yet "immaculate and natural", either regresses into vicious infinite regress, or doesn't say much about the things the superstitions imply. It is very easy for a dishonest actor, using some knowledge of physical objects or a false model superimposed as a "dual reality", to rapidly switch between truth, fiction, bullshit, and whatever is suitable for opportunistic reasons. Science is no safeguard against superstititon, because science must presume as we would in the primary stage of religion that superstititons aren't as real as a brick wall or a bullet. It does not confront superstitions head-on and win, without turning science and reason into a greater superstititon. Science does allow spiritual authority and something which can understand the superstition, and science can judge the merits or virtues of superstitions and choose how much "sin" the scientist will accept for whatever goals a scientist may have. For theology, "science" as a method has to be temporarily abated. The domain of religious thought and superstitions is explicable within itself, on its own terms, provided religion has a suitable answer to the phenomenon of knowledge as we can accept it from a naive assumption that knowledge can exist at all. Religion at this stage has to adopt the same presumptions we do - that there is a world prior to its existence that it must know. It can only know this through the superstititons it acquired and the raw material of the world. It is of course possible for religion to freely admit that the world's history is truly eternal, or its origin is unknowable to its superstitions only. The cope of many philosophers is that any history prior to Man or the religion's claims about creation is irrelevant and may as well be null, for it is considered a thing outside of causality. Only the "prime mover" of creation can be regarded as a starting point, however that prime mover is construed. Religion has to suppose there is an explanation for creation. It does not intrinsically imply that the creation has an end like temporal things, or that creation has any teleology, or that anything in the world has any teleology beyond that which someone might read into it. For religion to speak of causality and teleology, it only does so through superstitions, or it relents to the world outside of it for answers. Nothing prevents religion from recognizing that its purview is limited, and the religion can choose to embrace a science that is neutral to any of its tenets. Its treatment of any scientific method or the findings of science will be modified by the superstititons available to religion. This is necessary because religion has to be built on those superstitions before it can build a proper theology and theory of knowledge particular to it. And so, "raw science" or knowledge outside of the religion is only seen as an inconsequential fact or a just-so story, which the religion need not inveigh on. If the religion claims to possess further knowledge that this neutral science does not, it does so because its superstititons are presumed within the religion to be a path to the truth that science suggests.

There is a science that can be freed of as many superstitions as possible. Included in superstitions may be a commitment to the belief that there is a truth or reality that exists outside of anyone. That claim is itself a superstition with no special claim to authority. It is a claim I have made, based on a lifetime of asking this question. The reality outside of ourselves and our conceits will do what it will regardless of any knowledge I possess about it, and I hold that the same is true of knowledge generally, since I don't hold that my knowledge has any privilege over anything else in the world. That, again, is a superstition. Many superstitions, especially when political knowledge is on the line, say the exact opposite; that is, that human knowledge is a very different sort from the knowledge of beings it has deemed lesser, and that this process could play out within humanity to demarcate who has authority to know anything at all. For occult and political purposes, human knowledge is proprietary and unique to us. It may be reproduced, whether by replicating it by mechanical rote or laboriously reproducing it from the premises as we once did. The former can be accomplished once language has established words which are known to hold meaning, but the transcription of those words need not require any understanding, let alone the same understanding the writer wished those words to convey. Any words I write or say are no longer mine once they are committed to paper or some document, or when they are heard by another. Those words can be replicated. Today, the replication of words is as simple as entering a command to copy a file or a segment thereof, or writing a program to replicate and disseminate a file to anyone who requests it. This technology of the computer is not a trivial thing, and it wasn't always the case that written words were easily reproduced, or that there was such a thing as a "written word" except as a potential. For one, written language implies standardization which is only possible because large numbers of people learned to read, and it is unlikely a written language would be independently reproduced without some instruction from pedagogy about what a written word is. The construct is too complicated to be easily assimilated, and while someone might work out a writing or reading faculty independently and then learn that there are pre-existing machines that do this, it would be quite a different thing if someone lacked any written material to analyze independent of pedagogy. While I hold my knowledge is not privileged to know any truths that are particular to me and unknowable to others, knowledge and intelligence are in my thinking local events. I cannot confirm with absolute certainty that knowledge works this way just by asserting it as an axiom, but I could suggest the errors of a belief that knowledge exists in a divine being which moves the world, based on what I can independently observe about the world. The belief in such hobgoblins requires many more hobgoblins to "move the world by thought alone". This belief in spiritual hobgoblins is not a requirement of religion or theology. It is actually quite the opposite - such a crass bastardization of mind is a peculiarity of certain religions, fads, or outright lies. In many religions, such faggotry, and it is faggotry, is openly disdained, heretical, or just plain wrong, for the same reasons many of us can arrive at independent of religion. Religion must make a positive assertion that it is wrong, or heretical, or "faggotry" in verbiage appropriate to that religion.

Here we see the seeds of "religon vs. science", which is an infantile debate if anyone thinks about it for five minutes. What is religion's "beef" with science? Religion is often the tool of aristocracy due to its origins and intrinsic self-centeredness. We remember that the aristocratic priest is, properly speaking, an avowed atheist in his true beliefs, and makes little secret of that. All of this malarkey about a bearded man in the sky throwing thunderbolts is a thin disguise for the aristocrat himself. This debate does not really posit that there is a "non-scientific" religion which asserts purely by feelings, insinuations, and aspersions of the anvilicious sort that are common in American society of the early 21st century. Every religion has taken an interest in both genuine science and its own theories of science, and views them through a theory of knowledge that is necessary for religion at this stage of development. All of the superstititons and taboos of religion will be scrutinized, and the apologists of a religion must reconcile their superstititons with this scientific view. Everyone does, and no one is exempt, for the purview of genuine science regards religion and its believers as a very worldly thing. If religion is to mean anything, the teachings of religion are not arbitrary beliefs or opinions. Someone believes in religion, and its treatment of the evil, because they hold that this inquiry is very relevant to the world we live in. The "gods" or tenets of religion may pertain to a world apart from the everyday, but Heaven in some way intervenes in temporal affairs. A religion need not invoke heaven or a world in the stars or anything mystical to make its case. Religions can speak of the evil that is mundane and very worldly, and have to if they like to survive as a serious religion. Religions opine on matters that are very particular to humans, which should be strange if you ask why a god is particularly interested in the marital relations of men and women. But, the tenets of religion usually correspond to things that most people will see as perfectly reasonable, even if they rely on superstititons about an evil that is only somewhat understood. A technocratic, totalized machine called "evil" does not exist in ready-made form that is fixed in nature. The evil can create just like many things in this world can, and it is a classic lie of malevolent religions to claim that only "good can create" - because "the good" in their view is a malevolent force aligned with them, rather than any goodness we have any reason to respect besides that which is better left for the next chapter of this book. What cannot be created is something ex nihilo. If we really think about the idea of a true, physical, material "prime mover", what could that be except a profound evil? Why would a creator make good predominant in a religious context? If the creator was a "good god", it would not conform to what we've long known gods to be, but have been threatened by taboo to not mention. This is that any creator would not have anything to do with religion, and it is curious that religion would inveigh at all on something entirely outside of its purview. Religion does this not because of an avarice or working to do so, but because it must instantiate the world in some sense that conforms to its purview. This certainly hasn't stopped the most crass religious minds from inserting a creator as a eugenic justification for "me wantee" and the faggotry typical of such people. If such a creator were paramount, why would it require worship of mortals or compel such a thing? What would worship of such a creator even mean? If we look at any worthwhile theology, the "god" in question is not that at all.^[2] If anyone actually believes such a god exists, it's more preposterous than Santa Claus. Either the godhead didn't create a thing, or the creator is something that would not be described with any religious metaphor at all. Matter and science has no insight into creation, any more than it arrives at any final, arrested truth as symbolic facts for consumption. It would have to invoke something far outside of conventional knowledge as a creation outside of time or causality in the sense we know. It would be trans-historical. This is what stories of a divine creator might allude to; that creation, if there was such an event as "creation", requires one to view temporal matters as something distinct from spiritual matters. The creator begins history in the religious understanding, rather than matter that would be treated as a scientific fact. What the religion teaches of history is an open question, for neither religion, science, or our sense are necessarily tied to any preferred notion of causality or time. That is a subject I leave for the next book in this series, though I don't consider my view of history a theological one.

When working with relational or abstract concepts, we find a disconcerting truth - things we take for granted, like time as a procession in temporal authority, are superstitions rather than any fact we can rely on. It is a superstition we have a lot of reason to believe. The procession of events is remarkably regular in our thinking and observation... except, as we may discover, when the procession is not so regular as we would want it to be. The problem of a prime mover - volition appearing "out of nowhere" - is felt throughout science, and remains an unspoken assumption of naturalism. Eugenics loathes this not because of any principled opposition to superstition - "hah!" I have to say given the kookery of the eugenic creed - but because an opportunistic grasping figured out that claiming Nature requires claiming time itself. Therefore, we receive all of the stupid "time travel" stories which are so stupid that children learn to groan by now after seeing enough of the trope. Eugenics relies specifically on placing effect before cause, and "naturalizing" it by making spurious claims about time itself. The heart of the eugenic creed is not about "real time" or relativism or bastardization of quantum mechanics, but the philosophical placement of effect before cause; this is to say, the superstitions and taboos of eugenics are treated as extreme absolutes, "realer than real", and protected by a very wicked and contradictory theology intended to degrade and destroy the believers. Eugenics was not the first to weaponize contradiction to destroy the mind, and such a thing is certainly an evil working in the way it has been applied. We may chase our tail trying to prove superstitions, and arrive at theories and proofs that are quite convincing. But, all of the knowledge in the world doesn't really know the core of superstitions. This is not because "we know nothing", but because the thing to be known was never so fixed as a cruder theological thinking would assume. Theology itself predicted this a long time ago, and in doing so, the godhead or whatever serves this regulatory role to establish a theology accumulates in its archives considerable knowledge about its own superstitions, and elaborates on them with both evidence from sense, science, and the body of superstitions available to it.

We should cease viewing science as an institution or a thing. Proper science was never that. It was an act of labor in the first case, carried out by laborers, their associations, and the purposes we had which required truth as a dire necessity. It is labor where science truly belongs. Technology, capital, and other analogues for it like institutions, are thieves of science, and not even particularly smart thieves. There is never any honor among thieves, but the technocrat takes aggressive dishonor to a new level in modernity. Such a thing befits its tendency when we view it in greater detail, as we already have and will continue to do. Theology is very much a creature of institutions, technology, states, and most importantly, the law. Laws of science are granted the status of "laws" because we place some religious faith that the process can challenge superstition, rather than being merely something that looks good or possesses "truthiness". There are very good reasons for relying on the language of law when describing nature. This grants to our knowledge of material science some spiritual authority that withstands the dishonest, the cajoler, and the ideologue. Who truly moderates this is not the aristocracy or some meritocratic board from "above". Who, you ask, could be given the august task of keeping labor honest about science, if not the law which we know is rife with potential for abuse? It comes back, verified by sense and confirmed ad nauseum, to the hermit and the lowest class - the people who have nothing but their bodies. The hermit is not by nature a scientist, but has the most sobering influence that requires fidelity to the real truth - suffering, not the least of the suffering being the insolence of the other castes imposing on that which did not need to be imposed on. What the lowest class does with this is not guaranteed to be right, but it is the only sobering influence on any excess. This will become a general rule, and it is common to many theologies which can claim to suggest a counterbalance to the evil in the souls of humanity. This is that all paths to truth, power, authority, command of the world, command of the soul, of the mind, or the body, and of things at their most basic level, entail the lowest class in some way, however much everyone else loathes to admit it, and whtaever the thrill of rejection and shame from denying this. Not one of those aims are mandated, and the truth is probably the least appealing of all of them to humans, humans being what they are.

It is with theology that religion becomes recognizable as what we see as its exoteric facing. Superstitions become dogmas, tenets, and more assertive claims. At no point can theology claim an absolute spiritual authority, regardless of its pretensions. Religion always pertains to the evil, and the claim that "all is evil" or "all is the godhead" is a very spurious claim that will be attacked on the terms of the religion itself. Religions are never made as the priest chooses them to be, however much they claim to do so. They are made by people and events that began in the world somehow, even if those events are far removed from conventional knowledge and abstract things before a religion proper can form. The theologian has some sort of reason to justify all of this, but does not grant to reason any sacrosanct status in of itself. That veneration has always been a type of hubris or, especially in our time, a type of faggotry. The reason exists because there is a world that reason can discern, which was always prior to reason. That much is true. We might imagine some way in which matter was created "out of the ether", but knowledge itself cannot arise from a void, and this is inherent to any concept of knowledge which we could hold. There must be something to know for knowledge to exist. The claim that knowledge creates itself is profoundly Satanic and necessarily makes many claims about the nature of reality, the function of such a religion, and the dominance of evil, that religion itself never had to make, and that most religions avoid because those implications are clear if anyone actually believes the dogma is relevant. It is only from this theology that ritual becomes something more than an adjustable habit. Superstitions and taboos proceed largely on their own power, but ritual invokes something much more deliberate, with knowledge of institutions making everything about the ritual and ritual sacrifice truly possible. In primitive form, the ceremonial thrill of torture that humanity enshrined was a theology when someone saw the value of religion's evil as a weapon to change the world in this and only this way. It was never an accident, and ignorance of the world is no excuse. Guilty until proven innocent.

All of the study of evil that religion entails is a labor like any other. So far as a religion has true substance and definition, it is shown not in its superstititons or overt theology, or even its occulted theology and mysteries. It is always the believers that are the surest sign of the religion, and the things they create as temporal entities that become agents of the faith. This would include the abstract things which are reified or "made real" by superstition until they become forces seen as cosubstantial with the material. It is our bias and preference that grants to physical matter any superstitious quality of "true reality", because we are physical entities and abide the conditions of physical objects in our faculties. We would encounter physics in some form regardless of our presumptions about what physics is, because evidence of this quality of us is easily reproducible and reconstructed simply to navigate the world. For religion to deny physical reality, it would have to invent a story about why the material world is an illusion, and this itself divorces physics from philosophical matter - and it is true that "matter" in the general sense does not entail any necessary physics, or even metaphysics. In the first book, I described metaphysics as the basis of systems thought - which is to say, our thinking of systems which would be necessary to approach things scientifically for our purposes is at heart reliant on metaphysics, rather than any self-evident fact in the world that has to exist. Only the world's existence itself would have to be accepted as self-evident. What conducts science? It is entities like ourselves which possess a faculty of knowledge, rather than science freely occuring in the universe as a fundamental law imposed on it. The world itself does not need any "science" for anything to happen, or for anything to exist. The religious view cannot really appreciate this, without inserting a prime mover or maker that is very much a mind. Why would religion need to do this? It does this because without intent, the evil which it investigates would be a very different creature and difficult to fathom. If evil is an incidental thing in the world, it cannot be granted the creative power that it has assumed. It would make the investigation into evil a curious thing, and unsuitable as a doctrine with staying power. Even if our sense and science would tell us that evil as we know it is a peculiar thing that humans largely created by their volition and wish to make it so - if the evil "free in nature" were a more primitive thing that lacked any of the qualities we have ascribed to the evil and weaponized - the religious mind has to make evil into something more, or accept that its purview is limited and the priest doesn't really know what he claims to know. Yet, the evil does exist because there are many entities - humans, the machines they build, and that in nature which can be harnessed and purposed for the evil - that we have to account for if we are to navigate a hostile world. To shirk this is to give up temporal matters in any serious contest. It is here where the unflattering image of political concepts that I have described thus far gives way to what politics really is, and how we must view politics moving forward for the rest of this work. This I wish to emphasize enough that I will boldface the entire next paragraph to make that clear.

A human is a spiritual animal. Its politics, to be truly worth contesting rather than a game to pick up and drop so casually, must pertain to a sense that there is something more to the world that a series of facts that just happen to describe the world we live in. Before there is any true politics, there is spiritual authority and its treatment of moral right. Otherwise, there is nothing in the world to contest, and nothing to fear. Purely political animals are, as a rule, devoid of both fear, purpose, and any motive beyond a low cunning which turns inward on itself. What does such a creature as the "political animal" do if it is unfettered by spiritual authority, or claims that it is coequal and cosubstantial with it? It turns inward and contemplates the evil as an authority with its own right and force. To establish its person and political agency, it would be unable to do otherwise in a world where the evil is recognized as a greater fear than mere survival or existence. If survival and existence alone are objectives, those objectives are met simply enough that most animals live without any great rigamarole. The distinction in humans is their command of language which allows a formal inquiry. The animal is not a "natural beast" in that sense. Any animal has its wants and in some sense a spiritual orientation. It is the further investigation and development of the evil, and the evil alone, which distinguishes human politics from the politics of entities which do not conduct this investigation. Intelligence, tool use, and formal systems of knowledge in of themselves do not constitute any necessary political distinction beyond what those tools would allow. Animals, or any entity with information processing capabilities that uses that information to navigate the world autonomously, would possess all of those things and act accordingly. It is the particularly human study of evil, and its development among humanity, which marks human politics with all of its qualities. Whether something outside of human society and contact conducts a similar investigation is only seen as relevant because of the self-centeredness inherent in this investigation and in the religion and superstititon humans made around their rituals, their genesis, and their origin. Humans can make of this origin of their peculiar politics what they will, and will eventually encounter a world that was not human or made for them at all, which it must assimilate somehow within a framework that fits the evil, rather than any other sense humanity might have. What humans do with their lives after temporal authority is stable is irrelevant to politics, and not directly paid out to spiritual authority or the authority of the person in any necessary balance. Those who shirk the question of evil shrik humanity and its politics and invariably run from the problem. Those who demand the condemned are incapable of moral thought do nothing but shout for the death and ritual sacrifice of those they damn as beneath moral dignity.

Immediately, this basis for worthwhile human politics - serious inquiry into the question as if it were a going concern rather than a thought experiment ot contemptuous lie - is unsatisfactory. We already have reason to doubt that any of us, individually or in any union, are up to the task of living in a world where the evil predominates our thinking. Of course, humans are only political animals because of the necessity of being so, rather than a passion for the practice. The majority of humanity is not adept at politics, and alone or in any likely association, humans will lose that battle against any competent evil. We have already described the concept of associations, which took place in a world at first without any political rationale for the associations. Humans made free associations based on sentiment, shared short-to-long term interests, happenstance from being in the same place, a shared vision of what the world could be, but none of them spoke of any world-historical mission. That had always been a creature of institutions and particular types of institutions that would aspire to such a thing. That is, anyone who is serious about contesting the political will think of religion, or something comparable to religion which would view religion as an equal and could never dismiss the superstititons altogether. If anything else is to survive, it will have to confront the evil and its higher manifestations.

It is only here that we see the formation of truly distinct classes based on religious content prescribing them, rather than an insinuation that this was natural or just-so, or a material interest and praxis that made such a thing appear self-evident to a crass mind. If the motives were "material conditions", it becomes apparent with any worthwhile investigation into history and what we know of the world to see associations as the basis of politics and the greatest danger to any of us. If we followed our true long-term material interests and did not inherit superstititons about what we ought to be, we would turn away from the political matter and see it as a beast unworthy of any respect. This is, in practice, what humanity did for most of its existence. Most of humanity thought of little more than holding some piece of land to call home, a few associations that could be relied on in a terrible world that had nothing to do with politics, the evil, or most of the things we "ought" to consider material conditions in this contest. Most of humanity never was a part of the political process, and in many cases, humanity was only partially attached to the technological interest and the commons as "the commonwealth". Most of humanity lived in rural environments, and those in cities learned to keep their head down. Civic religion and virtue has been amazingly lacking, for all that has been written to invoke such a superstition. Most of humanity, looking at civilization, said "no thank you" and continued doing what they saw as worthwhile. Most looked at the strategy of barbarism as pointless for its own reasons. Most saw the aspersions of "savagery" as founded by no real example except those ideologues made. Why would reasonable people want the rot, if they have even a cursory sense of the evil and a sense of religion that was independent of the aristocratic theology? The idea that any of that was a path to the good is absurd, and the reasons why become more apparent when the aristocratic theology in particular is seen.

The associations of greatest political importance are never irreligious or neutral. They always will regard themselves as devout for the purposes they set out to establish, if they are going to be serious. There is the ultimate maxim - "if you are not willing to destroy the world for your cause, you are not serious." For most people, destroying the world is not only an impossibility, but undesirable and pointless. If we wanted to do our part to destroy the world, most of us could do nothing but die or let the rot continue. The aristocratic theology will insist on such a tenet and eschatology. The theology of anyone who should be listened to has no interest in destroying the world. For one, the world in its true form is probably indestructible, and certainly indescructible by any technology humans are likely to acquire. For all of the bloviating, the peak of destructive power of states would only kill a lot of people and make life miserable for a long time. The threat to destroy the world for your cause is only weaponized by aristocracy with that expectation in mind. When those outside of the ruling clique call the bet on the table - and the bet is not always a bluff, for aristocracies will resort to interminable war and destruction to meet their mission with something resembling efficiency for their class - this creates an obviously untenable situation. The rulers scream "die, die, die", and the rest of us have no reason to pretend the stakes are anything else. It is a contemptible lie to claim that this has not been the tenet of every hitherto known state and the aristocratic associations. The moment the monopoly on this death threat is transgressed, all of their grand theories of mechanical history providing them a heavenly win button are gone. The enterprise becomes a farce, and the threat of screaming "die, die, die" and acting on that threat doesn't produce the desired outcome. The damned have no reason to ever play that game, but aristocracy cannot play any other. It is here where the insinuation and taboo become a true art to make the demands of aristocracy - controlled, institutional insanity - seem normal and correct and "realer than real". This can only be accomplished through associations of people and mechanisms of the world. The spiritual mechanisms are still very much a part of the world. They may be held for spiritual authority, without regard for temporal authority here and now. Never are these two authorities fused as one, except in the aristocratic religion which will be described in the next chapter.

The associations in political thought are the core of politics. In religious thought, associations become a queer and alien thing, even to members of the association. Nothing can be trusted, for the evil is known to operate. A political association needs to be wary of evil for the same reason any individual would. But, so much of political thought is superstitious and religious, rather than a frank assessment of political life. To assess politics as what it is shows something far too depressing and futile to be allowed. It would lead to the most dreaded of all situations - the lowest class, who were shut out of the associations, having no good reason to not say what this is. This is not so much for a public audience, since "the public" has no intrinsic authority, but the lowest class has no reason whatsoever to not complain about this to each other, and if enough such people see a shared interest, nothing stops them from forming an association and taking by force from associations that have always relied on lying, posturing, fear, and threats acted on to take the world from those who always inherited it - who have the only true and natural birthright to anything, what little they can say belongs to them. That birthright required no religion or justification, and was not an assertion of will. It rather came from a simple truth - that there was nothing suggesting any of the class society we got was truly desirable, on its own terms. The philosophers have always known class struggle and warfare was a lie. The classes were real enough in of themselves, in that humans were divided by these functions, tendencies, and trends which could assert themselves without any deliberate plan in this sense. It would be trivial to see that the institutions of social class not only served no purpose, but could only persist through a program of deliberate and totalizing deception. This is to say, it would proceed in the end only through religion's study of evil, or another force which could replace it when such a thing was ready. What results in the religious view is an inversion, or the true closing of the "circle of life". In of itself, aristocracy is the most parasitic entity, does nothing that can be regarded as meritorious, yet insists by religious right that it is the true master race. The final act of aristocracy is to truly install themselves as a race - and to do this, hereditary qualities of the "unknowable and immaculate blood" are insinuated as the grandest of superstititon. Throughout human history - and this can be independently verified in our time to those who truly take an interest in history, occultism, and religion - aristocracies imagined themselves as a race altogether alien to base humanity, and this was always their core doctrine. It is a doctrine more essential to them than the principle and docrine of the Satan of the next chapter. The Satan is not strictly speaking the doctrine of pure aristocracy, but a doctrine of class collaboration, just as fascism would be. The true appeal is not one to biology or even hereditary of human offspring through mating, or inheritance through adoption. It is instead an appeal to the unknowable evil held as a secret of a privileged association, which can only choose - and must in the final judgement - embrace Abomination so far as Abomination can be taken in. For Abomination to be channeled, it requires offloading the guilt, shame, and obvious consequences to something. But, religion being what it is, it centers on those agents that can believe in it - people, and what is within them in the human being, body, and consciousness. Abomination's only recourse is to invert reality, and the self-centered aspects of religion are a perfect vehicle for this. It is the perfect vehicle for disconnecting entirely the adherent from the world, and in doing so, expunging it from the world - to declare a target, any target, retarded. This in itself has limits. But, the ultimate dream of Abomination is to point at anyone or anything, shout "DIE!", and make it so. Such a weapon would be the true unanswerable weapon for social engineering, and it then becomes the tenet of Abomination above all that such a weapon is the ne plus ultra of religious purposes, superior to all others and standing alone. This core of Abomination is prior to anything like "the Satan", and yet, it is never fully attained except in the moment and environment of cult rituals. For this ritual sacrifice to work, "another world must be possible" - but it is one and only one world, unmoored from "two worlds forever apart" that remained worlds where the faculties of human beings could survive. Abomination claims that it alone has the power to split from a world which it declares wicked, while at the same time declaring that the world was created to conform to its historical mission. It cannot abide anything but Abomination existing, and it must be so for its plans to be realized at all. But, Abomination never exists alone, free in the world, in purified form. Abomination exists in religious associations - in cults. It extends them to political associations in the temporal realm, and this is an expedient weapon for temporal authority and the state. Seen for what it is, Abomination is undesirable and pointless, or at most a curiosity of little interest to temporal authority or anything we would want to follow for any purpose.

I mention Abomination in association this early because, well before it is weaponized, fear of Abomination rather than mere evil is the more apparent threat. In the earlist associations that conform to our political and religious thinking on the matter, Abomination is the leading excuse for the ritual sacrifice. What is itself Abomination must assert that the condemned are killed for "justice". This has no rational basis and the superstition or taboo wears thin if any consequence of this were conceived. The consequences of ritual sacrifice and its glorification are simple enough for children to see it - hence the wide adoption of the rituals and their dissemination in education at every level. Fear and a grand superstition around Abomination and sacrifice became prevalent enough that it would be difficult to imagine humanity without these rituals. If we consider what the rituals truly were and where they came from, to question the ritual does not merely remove an unpleasant experience that never should have started. Humanity cannot deny that it inherits the guilt (guilty until proven innocent, but they are proven guilty beyond all doubt by now). It cannot deny that those who lived did so by the sacrifice and exploitation of those who were deemed not just sinners, but retarded which is the greatest and only sin that anyone really believed in. If the ritual sacrifice were carried out for any actual deed or the concept of a society of peace, it would quickly become apparent that ritual sacrifice and the thrill of torture it entails are contrary to any peace. This is intended because of the potency of such a sacrifice, given the fact that it did happen in such a way and kept happening, until it was insinuated that the ritual sacrifice was a right and glory for its partisans. It has no potency beyond the power of a very large superstition, and theology struggles to incorporate such rituals into anything stable or perpetual. Even on its own terms, the partisans of such a ritual are clearly aware of its consequences and that this will come back to them. But, the prevalence of such a ritual insists that it is illegal to ever say no once. To say no is the most retarded thing anyone can do, and it will invite a punishment worse than that meted out to those who are sacrificed as part of the gory routine of this failed race. It ends only when humanity really wants it to change - but such a change implies cost, while the ritual has by now been established and deemed "default". It operates on its own power, as any ritual will. But, unlike rituals which are either a personal matter or a matter of institutional authority that could be rationally appreciated for something they do, the ritual sacrifice appeals to the association in order to work. It exists specifically to undermine the formation of an independent mass religion. The ritual, for all of its might and how often it is promoted, has never had the desired effect of convincing the masses to love Abomination and glorify maximal slavery. But, it will always insinuate that it can project its vices onto the condemned, and that has a historically demonstrated authority that justifies itself. Within its own theology and superstition, it is a regressive circle. Such a regressive circle operates not at the level of individual minds or anything in the world. It operates through associations and political laws that are weaponized for this particular religion. All that is necessary is that its partisans find each other, find their shared interest, and exclude all others as admissible - to declare all who don't agree with their fruity and demonic cult retarded and thus fair game. It begins with sadistic parents and peers who decided they found something unsightly inconvenient, or with mothers who had to weigh the future of their offspring and see that one was not viable no matter what she could do. The partisans who saw the thrill of torture and its potency in assocations only required a religion and theology that selected for the worst traits, and then could engineer society to further their aims and their aims alone. This theology is not in of itself "the Satan", for Satan, I remind the reader, deserves far more credit and concerns a higher stage of development than the faggotry of the eugenic creed. Yet, the modern incarnation of eugenics is highly developed in its means of furthering the goal. On its own, the sentiments of the eugenic creed are so laughable that they would not have survived if they were exposed and dealt with appropriately. It took many centuries of study, collection of knowledge, and institutionalization of that knowledge, before even the theory to do this was possible. It took many generations and the efforts of many millions of men and women to develop and disseminate the technology to make the living Abomination possible. It is still far reomved from "perfecting the human race". Nothing of the eugenic creed, as elaborate as it is, will meet the high goals of Abomination its core constituents crave. Eugenics is, as I hope to write in the sixth book of this series, a failed system, and one that whose failure could be foreseen if humanity had sufficient decency to see what a horrible mistake they made. Yet, the nature of Abomination was understood enough to push this along, and work against those who would say no, until after billions and billions of "nays", a few "yeas" would be eked out by the victims until the cycle feeds itself. For the core constituents of the eugenic religion and its cousins, the full theology and development that allowed it was not necessary. They are habitual followers and enablers, trained to feel good and terminate any thought inimical to whatever creed aristocracy offers them like so much slop.

All of the evils tend to seek association and support, and so too would any moral aim anyone would hold. The evils are a particular aim which often insist that they are the only moral aims that are real, with all others being inferior. But, only Abomination in its fullest form holds the true "natural monopoly" in that way, and Abomination serves only itself. It does not serve Man and it does not serve the Satan. It does not serve any deity or idol or construct or abstraction. Abomination is the one constant that does not require religion to appreciate. The naive and the atheist can recognize Abomination and know it well enough to have a stance towards it. Abomination is both singular and diversified its portfolio with many shell companies, to simultaneously hide and glorify its aims. The evil does not uniformly follow this creed to be evil, for evil is not identical to Abomination. Abomination is "beyond good and evil", in the faggiest way it can be, yet it is far beyond mere faggotry, for faggotry however contemptible is a thing that could be ignored if its perniciousness were contained. "Retarded" can never be taken back, but faggotry however vile is a behavior that could be reformed, mitigated, or tolerated if it does not lead to a greater malevolence.^[3]

It is a simple fact that moral aims are not in the end "mere abstractions" unmoored from a world where morality would be consequential. They are not a substance in-of-themselves, immaculate and irreducible, in the way they might be invoked as a substance which can be compared mathematically. But, they are always aims pertaining to a world where substance is the only true "thing" - the only thing which we can regard as tangible for moral purposes. The raw substance itself is not the valued thing from a moral view, and the moral views are never personal opinions or empty sentiments. Sentimentality, however fickle it may be, is felt for something regarded to be real, or something which is made real by a moral agency of the sentimental agency. It is here where the moral values of economic thought that were written on in the previous book find their true basis. This is to say, the religious matter is very relevant to any sense of money or exchange of moral values that would be contested or managed by economics. If economics were about resource calculation problems as-is, the solutions would be trivial - but they would be solutions disconnected from anything that is actually an interest that requires a spiritual or moral trade-off. For personal values, outside of society, economic thought has nothing to do with politics, or at most, politics is an external variable which the rational agent navigates as an alien to be avoided or commanded at all costs. The aims of the political are not reducible to malevolence, Abomination, or any one thing. The aims of religion center on the problem of evil, but out of necessity religion inveighs on moral sentiments and things generally, in service of the problem it answers. In every case, the religious view looks at the moral aims as substances realized through its people, rather than the flesh or life-force of the entities being itself harvested. The flesh, beyond any moral value invested in it, has no meaning as substance for this purpose.

When the moral aims of associations are seen through a religious view, they take on the first qualities that really allow moral values to be compared and calculated. This is done because the evil, whatever it may be, is the baseline making other comparisons possible. Any religion claiming that there is no evil, or that evil is a matter of opinion, shirks any moral comparison, and has as a result declared all moral aims - all labor - to be worthless. There would quickly cease to be any purpose to the economic task, and then, the political task is automatic and decided against labor. This is what would happen in our time. Because it was impossible to speak of evil except through taboos made by and for the evil, and this was never something religion had to do but Abomination's imposition on us, the only thing for anyone else to do was to succumb to a pressing of the nerve - a moral screaming made real as the last substance of this type, and a gate to a world defined by the world-historical mission of aristocracy alone. Such a thing was desired by aristocracy for as long as religious thought was developed enough to pass to a large nation and over many generations. At the first moment such graspers found something that was a suitable technology - and this would have always required mobilizing the commons for this and only this task, excluding all others - it set about asserting a greater fear than any the human race ever knew. In doing so, associations were now a thing that could be mediated by a "higher power" which was held by particular persons and their imperious will. The spiritual and personal were now the political.

This was clearly undesirable to a lot of people, individually and in the associations they already possessed. There was an evil lurking in associations, and good reasons for an individual to fear associations rather than see them as anything natural or a thing worth serving for their own sake. Fear of the aristocratic evil was the chief motivator for most religious associations, even among aristocrats themselves. For the aristocrats themselves, they were invested in themselves and their real associations more than any faith in class discipline. The chief aim of class discipline is to regulate the contest so that no one goes directly to the lower orders. Such a thing would circumvent any exploitative politics and upset the rule of a class which contributed negative value to the others, whose existence has always been parasitic. But, a parasite recognizes the value of having something to feed from. The public visage of aristocracy is the wise and patient steward of the land. This, the aristocrat steals from its true owners flagrantly. It can be stolen by the ritual sacrifice, or by smaller humiliations and demeaning rituals, always targeted towards the lowest class who did nothing, and who are only a "lowest class" because of the assertion that such a thing was desirable for particular associations. To everyone else, the existence of the lowest class is an uncomfortable fact, and one they might have ameliorated in a better world, among a better race. Humans are not that, and will never be that, no matter how obviously better it would be to shun the abomination of aristocracy forever. Beyond that, the aristocrat may have a life of their own, and may not see the lowest class as a mortal evil to shame and ridicule in the gratitous manner that the purest abomination would. It is the aim of Abomination and its truest partisans to enforce class discipline in aristocracy itself. It is this which I continue to denounce in these books.

Associations, whatever their moral aims, will not transgress their own existence lightly. Paralyzing self-doubt is the death of association and moral integrity, and would make the association's spiritual authority a performance. It would reduce associations to faggotry, and so, spiritual associations - that which will have political potency in the most obvious way - will not transgress certain lines, if doing so is suicidal to their cause. The association can sacrifice its own members or even the association's mortal existence entirely. What it cannot do is undermine itself so spiritually through acts of repeat self-abasement and humiliation. Associations of spiritual animals are not points of light or moral machines. They are men and women who must approach their aims through a type of religious thinking, rather than machines or political animals doing what they will. Aristocracy's aim then is to make this ground impossible for labor and associations, or to subsume associations within the aristocratic way of business, so that the local mafia is a subsidiary of the greater elite mafia.

Without the aims of pernicious forces mentioned up to now, religion would still fall ultimately on the lowest class, for we began in the muck. Whether the low shirk this or take on the role of prophet or madman railing against heaven or whatever they may be, religion's self-centeredness bring it back to its rightful origin. At the end of all of our political discourse, none of it matters without actual entities conducting this behavior. All of the economic, political, and religious thought described up to now was handed down to people, who did not have any association compelling them to be anything other than what they were going to be in a religious matter. The association as a religious interest could only begin in earnest when there were entities like us who did see religion and acted on it willfully, rather than blindly or by the cajoling of another. We then consider that the hunt and herding were in some way religious rites, and existed not just for practical or political functions that were self-evident. Much of the hunt and ritual around it, and expectations set for the men, served no necessary role for the political question. It would be trivial to depreciate the hunter ethos, replace it with an armed body of men united by a different rite or by a purely practical interest like security, and eliminate many of the woes humanity inherited. As it was, the hunt did not take on the grand world-historical role that later ideologues asserted it did, where the hunting warrior was glorified and inflated far beyond his individual contribution, or any function the hunt served in primitive society. For the men involved, they would have had some thought of their own, that did not need a thought leader to tell them what the hunt was and what they were. Primtiive society had no persistent pedagogy that could be violently imposed in that way, and such a thing would have been counterproductive for what the hunt or any other ritual would allow. If the ritual sacrifice were codified and glorified to the extent it has been, it would create an underclass that had no reason not to slit the throat of the "glorious hunter" the moment it was possible. Certainly such a thing did happen, and there was no Big Brother or Big Daddy to make the Bad Person go away. Such is life - play Satanic games, and you will win Satanic prizes, and the world sees no injustice and rightly carries on. Only the will of those who develop this religious and spiritual authority can assert that the world has any other concept that would make predation sacrosanct. It is not a given that this sacrosanctity was ever advantageous. In most cases, the targets of sacrifice and humiliation weren't going to fight a single thing, and if they tried, they would be destroyed before they get revenge. A few might manage to take a few of these Satanic apes down, living in a world that did not regard the cult of power. It would be better to die alone and forgotten than live among such creatures, and the inevitability of a boot in the face of the lowest class had little staying power. But, it was not hard to see that such a situation was not tenable, and created more burdens than any thrill torture presented. There was further no political imperative to gain by instituting the ritual sacrifice beyond its early stages, and almost always this sacrifice was used to dispose of children. The children are already dependent and wouldn't have any chance against sadistic adults, and the gross inequality of the torture just makes the thrill so much juicier for those who are given over to such a thing. Sadly, humanity and probably a lot of other animals have no compunction about what is fair, or what would even be functional. It was the detection of the thrill of torture, and the will of many perverts who worked out how to weaponize this and formalize knowledge of it, that gave it more staying power. The coda to make this work is to make any such technique "smart", and anything against it "retarded", so that no idea suggesting this actually is shitty and pointless can be said. It's an old game, and one that defeats itself unless it can find new exploitation. But, in the world, nothing stops such a meme or machine from begetting more of its own kind, and it can find some excuse or justification. The killing need not even be an act of "the evil" premeditated in the way a sadist would glorify. Many killings come from a valid simply finding an impetuous invalid annoying and, knowing the law and spirit of the human race, a dead invalid is the likely outcome for any number of spurious or real offenses.

At some point, the ugly truth comes out - that humans never left the muck, and all of the glory was of far less value than moonshine. Moonshine at least had some intoxicating quality that was desired. Such a leveling of humanity is so horrible if we look at the long history of atrocities after more atrocities commited for the human spirit and all it brought to this world. It is an inheritance of dubious quality. Yet, it is an inheritance we are stuck with, for lack of anything better. We have always known that anything truly valuable did not arise from any great ideology, an alien thought-form telling us what we are from cradle to grave. It has always existed ultimately because, after all is done, no one could stop someone in solitude from pursuing an aim other than a "root substance" that was treated superstitiously like spiritual and political authority, but was neither of those things.

All I have written of so far is handed down to consciousnesses and intellects that have to live in a world that did not regard anything about "politics" or what humans thought the world ought to be. The human beings who inherit this almost always were not people in a position to choose what humans were or their history. Those in the political class may be sad to learn that the reward for all of their effort, toil, sacrifice, suffering, and so on - a suffering that is very real and consequential - was an unworkable morass of outmoded superstitions, kept in place because opportunism could win the day over any enlightened interest for something like public good or any sort of good. It is down here that the evil was contemplated to allow any of this to begin. The lowest class has no moral inclination to prevent it from choosing evil. It is evil itself which asserts that it can, if it so chooses, persist and never stop. Evil then claims that it alone has this creative power, and calls itself "the good" or "the light" or some substance of virtue which is unique. But, we never stopped thinking about goodness in the genuine sense. We do this for two reasons. The first is that we must. If evil is the point, then there is nothing to live for, and not just in a sense that we will be bored or live in gay ennui. Such a world-system would be rejected, and could only rely on dragging others into it forcibly at the expense of its partisans. Exploitation and toil purely to sustain a broken social order would become the chief spiritual and political value, eventually contested by finance and whatever instrument can be used to represent this manna. The second is that, after all of the hullaballoo about ideology and posturing, all of the evil and Abomination most glorious and hideous does not have the power it claims, in ways that we hold to be self-evident. If the world were evil, or mostly evil and given only a ray of hope as the final insult and curse, matter and existence would be far worse. Many a child can know without having to be told how much worse the human race can be, because the threats are issued often enough, and enough examples are made of what happens when the issuers back up those threats with deeds. The great Fabian mystification is to tell you, while bombarding the senses with this atrocity, that what is happening isn't actually happening, and that this Ignorance is Strength. They are not alone in this mystification, but they are the chief purveyors of such a creed today, for their empire won the struggle of empires and promoted tirelessly a very foul creed, before it could be perfected with the innovations of recent decades.

From the perspective of spiritual authority and this religious, superstitious view of humanity, we see the human subject as the chief agent of history. Non-human, abstract, and technological wizardly is irrelevant to the procession of the human subject, if we see all of this technology as an extension of human subjects. None of it would have existed without humans who built it, mimicked things in nature and rearranged them, contemplated the new, and had reasons to do so, which oriented behavior that would be seen by an external behavior as just another part of nature. This agency is not a blind thing, a point of life, or some substance that defies it. What is the agency of human beings, then? It is a dynamic creature that is aware of its situation, and adapts to it as if that situation were spiritually and morally relevant. Even if the subject did not think in aristocratically preferred manners - if the subject were declared retarded, and aristocracy declares the vast majority of humanity too retarded to be allowed anything whatsoever - human beings follow things that are spiritually interesting for them, rather than interests as they "ought" to exist in the minds of political thinkers or various pseudoscientific approaches to psychology and institutional authority. It would be against that which allowed humans to perform the simplest labor, or even go about their lives in peaceful ignorance of the political, if there were no agency whatsoever, and this was at a basic level a simple fact of what humans do. With the growth of technological knowledge - communication and systems of formalizing knowledge being the chief technology of interest - this agency could be described with mechanical rules, without making imperious or idiotic claims about agency being reduced to some parody that suited the conceits of assholes. This is to say, there is a method to the madness of human beings. That method was never fixed in nature as the imperious mind and cajoler would want it. It is not fixed for animals in the way a bad philosopher would assert in a haughty and prideful act of retardation, and it is a retarded claim. Any entity which is presumed to have any agency as a life-form is going to have some motive for doing anything beyond "nature made me do it". The machine of agency is adaptive just like any other part of the body, within the confines that are physically possible. We are always aware that we are at root assemblages of flesh, bone, and all of the constituent parts of us, and there is no "super-substance" that is necessary to assert that there is a will that those constitutent parts generate. It was quite simple for life-functions - functions which were always vampiric upon the matter they inhabit - to orient around a few principles which fed off each other, without any superstition or necessary evil of the life-force. Life in of itself is not evil, or suffering, or anything that has any particular moral value. It is the consequences of life and what we really are that we hold to be valuable, and this is something basic sentiment and a sense of true right would demonstrate before the pedagogical excuses justify the foulest atrocities of this stupid failed race called humanity. We could make of this existence something very different, within the boundaries the body allows. We are in some way imprisoned by moral reality - we are moved not by a simple genius or curiosity, but by moral aims, to produce intelligence. But, intelligence in humans is aware of this problem, and can see without any great insight that the situation is untenable, as the ideologues and philosophers have insisted we have to accept - first with insinuations, then temptations, then promises of wisdom, then threats, and then just lie after lie when all of those things found enough collaborators and enablers to form a critical mass. All of the lies and force to back such a thing cannot change that the truth has a way of coming out, and continues to come out. Many of the truths are simple and self-evident, yet we are told we are retarded to acknowledge a single one of them, as the farce of pedagogy becomes more and more invasive and takes more and more of our existence and anything we would have wanted instead of it. It is in this that mankind figures out, if it wasn't obvious, that the greatest threat to their existence is humans. Even your own self has to included among those threats, but because we are very familiar with ourselves even in this age of absolute alienation, we can dismiss self-doubt and the sins of ourselves for the purposes I set out to write. I cannot offer any cure to a self-destructive cycle, but perhaps this writing may offer some insight into why those cycles have been encouraged by certain actors.

For any religion to be a going concern, the entity that conducts this behavior may be envisioned running an infinite loop of its processes at its core. This loop is not mandated by any hardware, and it is certainly terminated, expanded upon, and can be abandoned altogether if we are committed to the task. It is not a true "programming loop" etched in any code or practice of human consciousness. If we are to look at the human body and brain and its existence, the behavior of the human body is that of an assembly of organs. The regulation of each organ is not the result of any "program". The cyclical beating of the heart, breathing of the lungs, healing of the body, is governed by a much simpler governor - the mechanisms of the parts responding to their environment and conditions. Not one mechanism of the body was the result of an immaculate design declaring "let there be a beating heart". It is only with considerable training that someone can command their body enough to manipulate these functions; and yet, there is variability in those functions without any deliberation on our part, and those functions will change permanently over years and as a result of events outside of the body. The beating of the heart is a natural cycle which is expected, but it is not the result of any spiritual logic mandating that this is good or necessary. It is instead of a machine pumping blood, and this orientation of the body was - by some happenstance - an effective way for organisms to make use of this substance of blood in all of the ways life can. The blood itself contains many substances, which are tied to the regulation of many organs attached to blood flow. An organ reacting to injury or deformity will attempt to restore its functions, even if there were for some reason discord among the organs about their functions. Pitting one organ against each other, one aspect of the mind or soul against another, is the cajoler's greatest dream. They simultaneously assert a oneness of the body, immaculate and sacred, and treat the body in the most desultory manner possible. To subsume the organs into this "oneness", and to mimic that in the world, a "cycle of life" is promoted, which is really based on the whims of whomever advances this superstititon. It is always in some way a thing that returns to the subject of religion, with the expectation that anything disrupting the cycle is evil, and that the cycle itself is imbued with a type of evil. If the cycle is treated as the good in of itself, this leads to some obvious problems - or uses for the malevolent.

The most common basis for the "religious cycle" is a model of knowledge, since such things are included in the theological canon. The Trinity is one example - cited as a solution to "contradiction", but really a made up problem to justify bullshit. The "rule of five" I have described and used as my framework is another. The cycle ascribes to a moving thing with potential, volition, and temporality a fixed and controlled motion. This cycle is not one of any human design, but of "God's design" or "natural law" - which is to say, it cannot be invoked arbitrarily or by the will of someone who makes reality as they please. It is never a thing that is supported by reason, because reason has no claim that any "cycle of nature" or "circle of life" is operative. The evidence of this cycle existing "in nature" is always correlation, and it deliberately averts any question of the cause. A simple reason is found in mechanics - we do not ask about causes ad infinitum without having to insert a prime mover for our models to work. Yet, we also know by rationality that such a prime mover has nothing to do with any "naturally ordained cycle" or "will of Heaven", and once the prime mover did move anything, what happens next is outside of any control or preferred model. A superstititon is invoked so that the cycle loops around, and nothing really changes. Life is held still, and if life is superstitiously claimed to be all agency - if a cult of life or its counterpart cult of death is in force - then all events in the world are arrested. Here we see the reason why "time is cyclical" and other such faggotry is reposted ad nauseum despite its complete irrationality. It is a koan of empty power, invoking a cycle based purely on the interests of life at the expense of anything real. It is at heart an exploit, by which life is herded by an alien force to whatever fate the cycle has for it.

The cycle is imbued with an evil malevolence, but this construct is also helpful for beings of limited faculties like humans, or any other intelligence we could conceive. There is no "hypercomputation" that gets around this in any satisfactory way. It is in some way a necessary evil for us to speak of causality in a way that comports with our sense and instinct and things we morally value for very reasonable purposes. We are aware on some level that whatever cycle we invoke is a superstition that cannot be backed up, and the errors of doing this carelessly. There are built in escape hatches for the cycle. For one, knowledge and life can end without any regard of the cycle, and this abrupt reminder makes clear the folly of dogmatic faith in the cycle. But, if the cycle could be forcibly imposed - if it could override native sense - it would be the first way to truly "naturalize" a belief in a static life-force. That is what the state and its holders prefer as their stance - unchanging and insufferably smug, so long as it can feast on the world and its people to maintain it.

To deny that the cycle is invoked is itself a trick of those who would weaponize it. It is in some way unavoidable for humans, because it had been weaponized for the ritual sacrifice, and because it was too aligned with ancient experience. When it is acknowledged, the cycle is granted a supernatural force to dictate the flow of events, however irrational it is. This is not the same as an expectation that the future will resemble the past, which is a reasonable assumption given our knowledge. The cycle as invoked here is a koan that overrides what we would learn when we sense today does not look like yesterday. There is an understandable hesitation to accept that history changed without suitable confirmation. There is something useful in stable circuits of causality, so that feedback loops allowing regulation could be detected. The inverse of denying the cycle's existence is that "anything can be anything" and all reason and expectations are abandoned in favor of superficial "chaos". This is a common bullbait tactic of the eugenic creed - that history cannot break the cycle it asserted imperiously. The truth is that history and causality, down to the mechanisms of the body, do not abide this assumption, but we can understand the cycle's emergence from simpler principles. We can further understand why life behaves in a way that encourages a regular and reliable cycle, which becomes a religious model by instinct and then an enduring superstition. We would be acutely aware of the predictability of evil and all of its pathologies, because to leave an opening to evil invites unnecessary peril. If something good can escape the cycle, the evil too can violate the cycle for its own purposes. The greatest of lies is that the good abides cyclical behavior without question or thought - the lie of someone who sees the good as an animal to herd to its doom, the lie always spoken with dripping contempt and glorficiation of something hideous.

History appears as causal events from a necessary beginning and a presumed end, at some future time. This is the way we expect it to work, around some reference point where is regarded as the "center of time", the establishment of some event which holds political or spiritual importance. If the procession of history from genesis to eschatology lacked any significant markers, the next day seems to be a dreary awakening from the last. There is a slog of progress that appears to go somewhere, but without the great events - awakenings, crises, revolutions, turns of fate - the annals of history read as a dry and tedious affair, no matter what real shifts in activity occur. Out of necessity, the events of history are reassembled in some way by memory and record, so that history appears as if it held potential and meaning. This is the way history will be seen when it is something whose fate is not set or inconsequential.

History in the proper sense relies on breaking the superstitious cycle in full, so that the world may be seen as something resembling the truth of it. There is no necessary beginning or end as the superstition of historical progress implies. But, the cycle serves clearly regressive aims - sometimes necessary aims for humans, aims that humans understand to be irrational and contrary to the truth and to other aims, or sometimes they very purpose the cycle existed to reinforce. Invoking a beginning and end suggests that history is comprehensible as a real event rather than a cycle outside of which nothing is knowable. For those who wish to weaponize this, it is necessary to view beginning and end as mere conventions, so that end loops to beginning and the cycle is restored as a very large loop, thus arresting history as before. It is this which creates the koan of "historical progress" by some blind force of the world, where the future is a whole thing to be contested with nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. Such a view of history would make such a claim the only possible world, and that indeed is what the ideology of the past 100 years must recapitulate - first by insinuation, and then with ubiquitous violence in all things large and small. We see here a tenet of fascism, which ultimately serves the eugenic creed rather than whatever else a fascist thought they got out of the arrangement. But, this koan is not reliant on a greater ideology to do its work. Such notions were inherent in the religious view of history. Without that view, events would occur without any necessary rhyme or reason or teleological purpose. They follow from each other because material things tend to be stable systems in order to become "systems" or things we can consistently describe. Nothing in the universe mandated any stability by a "spooky force". It was inherent to a thing being a "thing" that its persistence was a feature of it. If we lived in a world of very unstable systems - and we do live in that world when we look at what our existence really is, for human lives are often uncertain and given no plan or purpose - we would adjust our view of history and the means we describe it for whatever motives we have. Regardless of pigheaded conceits about controlling reality because it feels good or some competition between men, rational actors require a sense of the past that allows any predictions and sense of what happened. However unstable systems may be, they are still noted to abide general laws as best as we can arrest them. It is a tendency of human beings to accumulate a body of knowledge for their own sake, and we value this not because we are inherently honest or because knowledge itself possesses spiritual authority, or science or the material world possess this authority. We do this because acceeding to "anything can be anything" is always an imposition of something evil or malevolent, and the deception is never about the good of the slave. If we think about what the master-slave relation really is, the master has no use of mass deception of grand narratives. The master's ideal is that the slave simply has nowhere to go, and the cost of compelling the slave is as low as possible for the best possible reward. How these costs are calculated is another question, but rampant dishonesty for its own sake is not an ideology of effective slaveries. It is an ideology of faggotry, and for certain of humanity, the faggotry is valued more than anything a slave would offer. This faggotry is then sold as a substance of dubious "freedom", inverting entirely the condition that we saw one time as necessary.

The "sale" of this dubious freedom, compelled at gunpoint, is not just an application of brute force. It works on psychology because of our familiarity with the religious cycle. The cycle in of itself does not necessitate such an evil. In some way, cyclical views of events are helpful for us because they provide local reference points, compressing a very complex thing into a singular idea - a superstition which becomes formally known, and then enters are body of knowledge, where it can be compared with genuine knowledge and provide insight into this world that would otherwise be inaccessible for humans. So too does a sense of historical progression present to humanity useful references to understand the world, and particularly humanity's place in it and the place of oneself. Yet, there is a malevolence in such a cycle because it is divorced from things we really wanted out of existence, and it is informed not because it was circumstantially useful, but because ignorance and insanity were evils to be averted, and evils that were weaponized. Our chief reason for viewing temporal authority this way is due to our prior knowledge of the evil, rather than any utility that makes this a necessary evil. For utility's sake, we can readily accept that this view of history and cycles is a useful tool for us and fit it into a metaphysical understanding and concept of transcendent reality. We know for example that it is a cycle, and can compare it to an understanding of events where the cycle is laid bare. We can for example ask questions about what "time" is, and "time" does not tell us anything that is intrinsically necessary for political thought or temporal existence. We can accept that time exists as a relational concept for us, and that it corresponds to something we call history where we acknowledge that events in memory and record correspond to something that happened and affect the present. We do not need to remind ourselves that history does not conform to any of our assumptions about it, and we do not need to relitigate this definition ad nauseum. We casually view history and cycles without assigning to our assumptions a power beyond the truth of what assumptions are - and while we can remember the koan that to assume makes an ass out of you and me, usually we survive assumptions without doing this too badly. This is to say, assumptions are not reified into idols and grand taboos that become unmentionables and unquestionable, where noncompliance with an asinine assumption - an assumption intentionally crafted to mislead and cajole - means torture and death. We would see past this easily - but the cycle operates on the mind and intelligence, which has no sacrosanct status. Consciousness and sense have no sacrosanct status, either.

How this will work is beyond this chapter, for it is a long story. I have described the abuse of this in other ways, and I cannot give an exhaustive description of all of the ways the cycle and historical progress can be abused by manipulation of sense, the environment, and enclosure. The theological arguments are less relevant than our more developed knowledge of the cycle and history. We do not usually relitigate metaphysics for good reason, and this itself is exploited. This is only truly possible is there can be no life or existence outside of society - society in the abstract, rather than society as anything we would have thought worth keeping. A linear view of history as an annals of events from genesis to eschatology much be subordinated to a religious cycle. The aristocratic "circle of life", which places at the top an aristocracy which contributes nothing of worth whatsoever, is one example. It is far from the only pernicious manipulation of the religious cycle and knowledge humanity executes, and such a manipulation does not inevitably work because of "basic knowledge" or "basic economics" as charlatans like to invoke once they've rotted brains or they can beat into submission with mass production of verbal shit. If shown in its most degenerated form and laid bare, it is a disgusting image of controlled insanity and shit that would be denounced as brainrot. Yet, by insinuation and the ugliness human societies and associations freely chose, the ugliest shit did not need too elaborate a ruse, for the mechanism did not work by any persuasion or reason. It scorned reason and only required a society that made any appeal to a world outside of total society impossible. The regression to the primordial insanity was explicitly sought as a weapon, and that is indeed what would happen.^[4]

Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

Return to Table of Contents | Return to Chapter Start