Return to Table of Contents | Previous Chapter | Next Chapter

The beginning of the city-state makes no secret of the intent. There are no bones made about what Babylon was - a city ruled by cults and mysteries where all men were born as slaves, and this was seen as natural and right. It is this which the city and its ideologues invariably return to. The modern versions of this supplant the world before and outside of the city with a mocking parody of such, not even bothering to file off the remnants of Babylon and Satan-worship as befits their proclivity. For the Babylonians, the idea that it was different never seems to appear, nor would it be desirable for any interest that would have existed. No nation can be said to exist. The predominant familial grouping was the clan and support network. The clan and extended family have always been a target of the state. "Abolish the family" goes back a lot earlier than modernity, and it is always a charge of aristocracy, regardless of the angle it uses to sell this pernicious idea. The nation is presented as another iteration of this in the ruling ideas - that the nation was never real, until it was invented by ideologues to lure more souls into the city of old. Yet, for this story to work, it has to be presumed that the nation as a concept is thoroughly modern and imposed on history, even though this concept exists in classical Antiquity and is not a unique invention to republican city-states. Something real was channeled to make the claim that it was an invention and a myth, just as there was reality to the tribe as a social arrangement. Political history is funny with its inversions. The tribe in history was never a strong political unit, yet appeals to a crass tribalism are made precisely because the tribe was depoliticized by design. Politics as regular order would have been far too taxing and damaging to a confederation of tribes, whose alliances changed with the winds as associations would and whose members understood the arrangement as one between familiars rather than an executive entity. The nation constitutionally could only exist in political society, or in relation to an alien political society that asserts its existence. It is not a political institution or an institution of any sort. It is defined by regular interactions just as tribal assignments would be. In this way, the nation is a more proper understanding of the political than the city, which was always defined by a civic cult and the edifices it constructs to impress upon the subjects its immortality.

A great deal of ink has been spilled on how to delineate stages of social, political, biological, and human development, to say "this is when we speak of civilization", "this is when we speak of barbarism", "this is when we speak of the nation-state displacing the medieval ecumenical management of glorified warlords which displaced the ancient empire which displaced the city-state". Numerous interpretations of this seek to classify history and place it into a story to speak of a clean developmental path. No such path exists, for what society, the political, the body, and humans beings are was never built to conform to pedagogy. Still, novel forms arise out of prior conditions, and so there is a time where this first appears as a specimen for study. Nowhere is this more contentious for so baseless a claim as it is with the nation, because the nation represented everything ideologues and beneficiaries of the city could not abide. Nations are depending on who you ask imbued in nature itself as a real thing rather than an idea, are another word for racial or ethnic categories - this is a favorite of fags everywhere -, or were ephermeal creations of the late 18th century to sell the idea of the bourgeois and literally didn't occur to people until some bourgeois tricked them into subverting the rational, natural order. It is none of these things, all of which are rooted in ideological conceits with some degree of honesty tolerated.

Based on my background and the writings of this and the past book, I am inclined to view any social phenomenon as a system to be analyzed, rather than a "thing" which must conform to a narrative about it. The nation attains its definition when mass politics becomes a viable party in the most nascent form. This has happened in many times and places in human history. The narrative of history is that this uprising is always defeated and is an aberration of "God's plan", retold in various ways. The beginning of the nation does not possess political leadership or placement at the center of the state, but with the pool of available men for conscription and an increased frequency of interaction that tie into a political core. It is the political core directing and marshaling the army, but not the nation, that creates as any physical object does a number of equal and opposite reactions for every action. For this model to be sensical, recall the foundations of the city are its civic cult rather than the orderly procession of civic institutions doing anything at all. Many times the labor to sustain the city is delegated to ill-treated slaves or the great wheel of anonymous inertia, all of which the favored grades of labor and the thieves that call themselves the rightful and virtuous take for granted. The nation is not of the oppressed, who have no nation or polity to call theirs and no expectation that they should. The nation instead originates among the favored grades of the working class who see their position in the emerging institutions is not the greatness they are promised in their drinking songs and lurid rituals. Unlike the associations and mass cults that are the political basis for the favored grades of labor, the nation is a fact based on a number of conditions that would be apparent to working people and a scientific view of their environment, even if it were a crude one. Those include, but are not limited to:

- Nations are comprised of human beings whose relations are persistent and in most cases indirect, which are deemed relevant for political standing, regardless of the dictum of the state or political institutions. Those relations are something more than coexistence or potential, but are realized often enough to be a constant presence. This is to say, the members of a nation have something to do with each other, and there is no ambiguity about who is in the domain that can enter a nation in this way. Should the members of a nation cease to meet this condition and break from the society, the nation ceases to carry any meaning or purpose beyond a historical fact. For us, this historical fact is then immediately thrown into question, due to the human propensity for lying and historical revision.

- Those relations are contingent on some mechanism by which they are communicated intelligibly between the members. They share a language or languages which are commonly understood, and translation between languages and protocols is expected. Manipulation of language, begun early in education, is crucial for controlling and coralling a nation, or forming a false "nation" premised on fear and terror. But, humans being tool using animals, their language is their own and there is an interest of people in national conditions to learn of this language. The pressures of a national environment or the beginning of such an environment are such that language takes on qualities it did not possess in primitive or civil society.

- The members of a nation are deemed valid to exist in the national public. This is to say, the disabled and invalid need not apply, and are studiously rejected from nations even in the best of cases. In the former case, redemption is possible, where it is not possible for the city and its civic religion, but all participation of the disabled is limited and can be made unseemly. In the latter case, the nation can be weaponized, by its members or by institutions which commandeer it, and turned into yet another menace. The requirement of validity is due to the first two conditions for the purposes of the nation, more than the human history regarding this which we accept as a historical and immutable fact of this filthy race.

- Nations only exist when alternative social forms precede them, exist among them, and are potentials in the world the nation inhabits. This is to say, nations do not have any of the concerns of states that require them to be going concerns of corporate firms. Nations rise, fall, members are exchanged between them and acclimate to a new environment. There is a general understanding that such a thing as civilization exists for nations to be intelligible as nations. Before civilization, the relations of society, however much they meet the first three criteria and many the markings of a nation like shared language or economic integration, never amount to a "national" understand. The nation exists primarily as something distinguished from the city and civic religion, and it is immediately antagonistic towards it.

- Civic cults are a reference point that allow the nation to develop rapidly the conditions of technology and communication allowing a nation to exist and grow. In this way, they present a substitute for what a civic cult provides. This is what spurred nations to be understood by their members as nations, and members of a nation do not need to be told they are members of a nation beyond their introduction to society, whenever it happens. The civic cult may be one that is alien to them. People at any stage of development may make contact with civilization and its strange customs, reverse-engineer them, and repurpose the technology of cities for their purposes and projects. Existing in a world where civilization is a clear and present danger would require this to occur to any body of people who could assemble as a nation, or else they would be divided and conquered, as has happened many times in history. If a lack of inquisition into this situation did not motivate the action, the rise of empires knocking down tribe after tribe prompts the formation of confederations. This is never an easy or automatic event, and entails costs that the tribes in question may not be willing to bear or not be able to raise even if they were all immediately aware of the enemy.

I note here that the superficial markers of a nation - "culture", "national religion", "mythology" - have little to do with the genuine existence of a nation. They are in the first and third cases artifacts of the city primarily, and a marking of the nation-state that formed out of the interests of the bourgeoisie. Men of means took command of political power with the wealth they had accumulated in the preceding few centuries, and saw the conditions of their society made the nation an uncomfortable fact for all members of society. The nation as a cause for itself - the same requirement of a corporate state - has little going for it, and the members of a nation do not need any "national unity" or feeling that they are a member of a team-building exercise. None of us asked for our parents or the sad situation we were born into, and the same is true of cities and nations and any arena where political and temporal life proceeds.

A national religion is something of particular importance, since unlike many things that are upheld as superficial, national religions are very real and inherent to at least two of the world's ancient religions. The extent to which a national religion forms the nation as a political agent is one I cannot describe in too short a space, for the building of a national religion or ummah makes clear that the formation of nations is not a given of nature or a quality of a race. The nation takes on biological traits in the genuine sense - it lives as its own thing, and its members' living behavior is emphasized. Yet, nothing about the nation is an organism, let alone a life-form with an identifiable center. The national religion is an indicator of why this works and how the nation of believers is maintained. Both of the religions in question formed specifically by questioning the central role of civic religion from the state and the idolatry civic religion entailed. Judaism was particular to the Jews and rejected conversion, while Islam spread its nation by the sword. Christianity is starkly contrasted by its lack of an ummah and its emphasis on institutions - that it is a religion of the city, whose adherents formed in the cities of the Roman world and in cities that appeared to aliens as a fifth column and an urban menace. The priesthood specifically does not want a "nation of believers", except as a thing to weaponize. The Christian view is at heart an imperial one - Christ conquers by something more than the sword. He conquers by disease, treachery, intrigue, promises, and a naive goodwill it counted on exploiting. The Christ is very clearly a figure of civic religion, and it is a figure who rose alongside national religions and cults and had an elaborate plot to contend with all other forms, and with novel forms that were yet to be discovered. The study of national religions and their pale shadows would be required for a full treatment of the nation, but such an account is beyond my ability to write in this time, and beyond the scope of the work I have set out to write. Here, it is necessary to speak of the nation as it has existed on the surface, and how such a creature could be defined. Religion is not required, and national religions have always tested the faith and will of their adherents. It has been a running trope, given what humans are, that the ummah of a national religion has a poor reputation, for any religion worthwhile has always understood that the law of the world is guilty until proven innocent.

A nation is not a state of mind or an idea of any sort. It is a reality that can be accepted and mutually understood to be any sort of nation. Making up a nation out of insinuations is an impossibility, and this is one of the checks that exist against civic institutions going apeshit. Until it survives on its own power, it is no nation at all. A nation may be formed out of a people who understand themselves as possessing a particular mindset, but this understanding in of itself does not make a nation. The Arabs do not become a nation in the modern sense simply by an idea, but nationalism around the history and regular interactions of Arabs is very conceivable, even in the more primitive clan form. There is not a "racial Arab", and most nations do not correspond to any concept of scientific race at all. Racial and ethnic nations have a hilariously poor record compared to nations whose existence was premised on history. A common religion that contrasts with civilization - religions which tend to be universal in their scope or enforce strict rules among their membership - has been the most reliable driver of nationhood. It is this idea which modern Europe can summon. Almost immediately, modern nationalism clashses with a church that was founded without regard of nation, but without a shared Christian history and the concept of a religion nation of the congregation, modern nationalism would not be recognizable. Nor does a nation have any inherent moral worth or a "right to exist". Nations are not granted the institutional shibboleth that make them a going concern. They end the moment they are no longer able to defend themselves or the members have no reason to continue as such. They cannot be chopped up arbitrarily even by the accord of their members. Nations to be such are recognized as living on their own power, and if that cannot be marshalled collectively then that it is a liability. Unity of a nation, for many reasons, is never a moral obligation that can be mandated from above. Either the nation has a cause that is worth living for - and destroying the world is no such cause - or it rests in piss.

Economic life is the most persistent unifying mechanism of nations, even in primitive conditions where tribes take on characteristics of the nation. At heart, "economics" is something removed from the genuine production that registers as economic activity, for economics concerns money which was a product of the civic cult. It is not the establishment of a bank that makes a nation, but what the bank extracts for its own perfectly understandable reasons. To the banker, nations are playthings and this makes sense for them. Banker and worker alike have a sense that the ruthless exploitation of the civic cult kills the goose that lays eggs, but if a nation is not a thing laying eggs worth keeping, then killing the goose is a common fate of nations. The call for ruthless exploitation is at heart a call of civic religion and ideology, rather than any sound or stable practice. The nation presents to finance a great difficulty, for no one in this project has any reason to respect or regard the tokens that are granted fetishistic worth. Nations are not stable or steady states, unlike the city which is designed to forestall this instability enough for the civic institutions to continue much as they have before. No one who thinks about what money really is would be convinced that civic life generates money by some alchemy of the idea, or that money is illusory in its function. When the bank writes off a debt or fabricates money, it does so judiciously for its purposes, which are at odds with everyone else, worker and capitalist alike. Had finance purely been a matter of civic worth, the republic lives and dies by voting itself free money, which is what the temple banks do. They are always too big to fail, backed by some ancient god. Saturn did the duty for the Roman treasury, and did so not because of arbitrary whims, but because of what Saturn was and what it represented in the mythology. A nation has no such luxury.

There are two approaches to the wealth of nations. One is to root its wealth in the land those nations inhabit. The other is to root it in labor, exploitation of it, and the generative force of labor-power itself. Both of these ultimately return to the environment in which the nation resides, just as any life-form exists in an environment. In both cases, the wealth of nations is generated actively, and only after the fact is its existence a passive thing measured in some unit of account. A greater account of economic history is not the purpose of the present writing. What is important here is that the relations of production have much to do with members of a nation entering into any association. Sentimentality offers very little, due to humans being what they are. For another race that wasn't so monstrous, it might have been different, but that is not what humans are or can be from early in their existence.

The token of money is not a symbol of anything but the institutions that disburse it. The toil that the money represents as part of the religious cult surrounding money is worth less than nothing. If we could have those things more cheaply and better things, we would circumvent the toil this involves - if only humans were interested in that. Both the toil - with all of the consequences that result from it - and the products that the toil produces are part of the national wealth. The reality is that if no one did cooperate with this, none of the exploitation would be possible. The error was in presuming humans wanted anything so useful, because the human being is personally invested in religious cults rather than productivity for some vague motive. Humans cooperate with a regime of toil and immiseration because they do not know anything else, and never did. If they did, the arrangement of finance would be wholly unacceptable and circumvented everywhere it invades private life, until such a time that an accounting of something other than blood pacts were the standard for measuring this worth. But, the toil is a reality regardless of whether we built a better accounting scheme and did everything possible to circumvent institutional rot promoting such. That evil really has its root in what the nation itself valued - that humans are a monstrous race that always felt better kicking down, and they are too retarded and evil to be anything else. They are just smart enough to practice this low cunning, and the low cunning is a product valued more than most of the goods anyone could produce. If the human has foresight, and most do, they will see without too much searching that their hitherto existing ethical order will never allow freedom from that pact sealed long ago. There is simply not a cause for the world where we didn't do this - as humans.

The national awareness arises in this way because the obvious failure of institutions creates a lot of needless misery, and this misery is individually and for our native sociality very counterproductive. Long before the nation or the city can be conceived, humans already chose in the main what side of the war they were on. Those who did not choose this side would on average fail to reproduce, without the world's retribution visited upon the city to lay low the conceits of a failed race. When the argument for goodness is nothing more than the predictable calamity that resulted, the argument for goodness is always on the back heel. The evil prevails overtly because it is very good at this public relations campaign, whereas good appears unseemly and weak because it has no answers. The good only tells us that tomorrow will bring some new misery, some new faggotry. The transgressors of decency hold all of the cards in civic institutions, and nations have no defense against such transgression simply by being nations. What the nation does is allow this system to be intelligible - if a human being were to choose to work against its tendencies. This, humans have done on occasion because they must, and for no other reason. The damned of the Earth have no investment in the city nor the nation, and so for us, the nation is just another mass of predators. Yet, the damned of the Earth live among the nations, having no nation to call their own. Such a thing is an impossibility and not a desirable state of affairs, for it could not exist as it would have organically arisen.

Moral persuasion to bring people into what we call today "the market" was as a rule imposed violently. No one was convinced by any good reason to place themselves into ruinous debt. To lock souls into debt required a number of foul insinuations, backed by violent force. This violent force did not arise as a gift from heaven, as the ruling ideas must proclaim after the fact. It arose from conscripting agents from the public. This conscription was the real origin of the civic cult, rather than any appeal to want or lust that the city provided. From the outset, the orgies and rituals of the city are queer and unappealing to most of us. Those with a proclivity to love that acquire it by something foul in the hearts of humans, and too great a familiarity with that culture leads to a contempt from having lived that livestyle. Economic activity did not organically allow conscription that was a "natural law", as if humans were too stupid to figure out that they could make more money - more tokens of human suffering - by dividing labor. Labor was generally alienable from the moment we could communicate any system honing labor and technology generally, and this happened very early simply by virtue of possessing a language where the possibility was raised. The idea that humans were locked into many labors beyond the most basic of the body is the false reality. Outside of those low-level behaviors, little is truly natural about human behavior. Those low-level behaviors can be utilized in novel ways, and were never in of themselves the object. These low-level behaviors themselves can be abstracted and fit into a model of how this body and intelligence operate. Conscription begins with the city and the first of the enclosures. It proceeds at first with the assertion of the favored grades of labor over the disfavored, and the favored grades of labor are the proper origin of the tripartite formation that is familiar to us. All began out of the associations and societies, secret or not so secret, for whom conscription was nothing more than joining the interest they began for themselves. It is very easy for the favored to "be conscripted" into something that was their own idea, even as they bitch and moan about having to work. As much as possible, conscription must turn to people who did not want any part of this faggotry, and it is faggotry. Those who manage conscription and the draft board would ideally exempt themselves from anything except selecting who lives an who dies.^[1] The conscript is motivated by nothing but fear, and this is the only motivator which is appropriate for the human race in its existing social forms. Patriotism does not motivate anything like this, since the acts the civic elders conscript for are things which damage the nation and the people who the organization ostensibly serves.

If we were not conscripted into the regime of money and made to accept these tokens meant anything, our thinking on economic life and what we do to produce anything would be different. In practice, money and finance are poor tools for managing resource flows. Inherent to money are a number of unfortunate consequences. Counterfeiting, publishing bad checks, unsustainable interest and rent extraction, and the requirement of a fetishistic value for this money all conspire to devalue the token from the moment it is issued, in one way or another. The productive unit is always the body and life-form, or a thing that has been purposed by the living. If we lived in an society where life did not predominate - where the dead and the undead and a spiritual authority worth following were in charge and life was an incidental aberration - money and the knife held at everyone's throat to accept it would not serve its function to the extent it has, and it has always served this function poorly. Conscripting that life-form operates first by the conspiracy of the favored for whom conscription is a joke or little more than hauling more human firewood to feed the furnace. Someone, and it is usually not a small number of people, benefit from this institution. Conscription does not happen at the level of the city. It happens by conscripting a nation, and if no nation is evident, they share the condition that they are all subject to conscription. Conscription is not confined to a single nation as a system. The polity may bring many nations into its dominion, all of them conscripted separately, with the allies conscripted separately from the legion core. It is the favored interest that guides conscription that makes clear that a nation of some sort is operative, and this is something different from a tribe or clan or a locale of social organization and meeting of life-forms or souls. Had conscription never proceeded along these lines - if the conscripts were there because of truly dire necessity rather than a ritual sacrifice and a joke played on them - it would become apparent that the mythology and fear of conscription is counter-productive towards that goal. It is because humanity has transgressed all decencies for so long that it has created a situation where its subjects would rather die than submit to the leadership of a chief who only intends to revert to business as usual once the emergency is over. If the cycle of humanity's civic religion ever ended, it would be the end of humanity altogether, and that danger is worse than death for the city and its cults, and makes clear that the favored grades of labor were most guilty and would be hunted down in the retribution. If the cause for war has to be insinuated and never spoken too plainly, why would anyone join such a foolish effort? Better to let the thugs kill each other. That would be the default attitude. It is precisely because someone began conscription first that others follow suit, and nothing in the world stops this step from being taken. The world only creates inevitable consequences, which clearly the favored grades of humanity do not care about.

The nation did not arise as an intended construct to facilitate this. It arose as a consequence of this conscription - that creating the conditions that drew people into this association created an understanding of the situation that was different from any tribal affinity or a shared culture or language. Unlike the city, which was always the property of its founders and ruling council and a thing to be claimed like any tool, the nation was never a tool for that purpose. Only the mythology of a nation, and manipulation of this common understanding, could be a tool, and it is a tool the managers of society do not want. If the nation were a scheme to draw men into association, it would have arisen earlier and taken on its modern definition from the foundation of the city. It would be an appendage of the city, and this is what an ideologue or a fascist intends a nation to be - to be nothing but the faggotry that prompted its creation. Cities rise and fall and face the ravages of wear and tear like any machine. Nations are not machines in that way. They take on the qualities of genuine life to be nations rather than convenient fictions, and are treated as such.

At a basic level, all that would be necessary for a nation to be acted upon is to acknowledge that it does exist, and demonstrate by reverse engineering that such a condition is frequently reproduced. Reproducing it like a machine would not suffice. Its origin was among human beings who already had a sense of spiritual authority, right, and wrong, rather than a contrivance to justify a shibboleth. Nations have no remedy for the contest for spiritual authority, and do not by their establishment assert reality. They are a condition all authority abides - that authority only is impressive for entities that would comprehend such a thing. Without a compelling reason, the remnants of civic society and humanity's after-effect is the nation. Nations are, to a eugenist, pure residue to be expunged and replaced with the eugenist's ideal city, which is a city of maximal torture and the thrill of imposing it. The eugenist could only weaponize the nation that was regarded to exist, to bring about its abolition and with it the abolition of any possibility to speak of what rules. It is only for that reason that the nation elicits such outrage - that, without any particular cause, nothing prevents its members from speaking to each other, and if the nation is so intolerable, its members disavow it and start anew. Nothing about the nation is imposed on history or has any permanence. They are products of their time and place and could not be anything else.

Nowhere does the nation exist in a preferred ecosystem. Its environment is shared with the rest of the world. In ecology, the nation cannot exist at all, and this is why ecology became the ruling idea over any economic imperative or "system" that was imagined. This applies to the members of the nation as well. From the outset, their bodies are contested by every other agent in the environment. That contest was what spurred the understanding of a "nation" in the sense we have described. If there were a sociality based on affinity or an instinctive want for fellows, that has nothing to do with a nation and the understanding it entailed. Any such affinity is a very different creature, and it is not an affinity given by anything in nature or by any machine that is freely reproducible. The conditions of a nation are that its members are always individuals. The nation questions primitive institutions, including the very body and biological rationale which allowed agents to be members of a nation. Those individuals only know something of each other to assess that there is a nation which is definable, and the definition of the nation is never seriously contested once detected. Insinuating what is and isn't a nation is quite irrelevant, just as insinuating what is and isn't a social class is stupid and infantile. This is something different from defining a "race", for within humanity, clean divisions of race never fit into any consistent schema - are there three, five, seventeen, or just the one human race? Humanity was at its foundation not a proposition of any "race" at all, but in our time, the thought leaders eliminated successfully all understanding of humanity as anything other than a race, and therefore guaranteed its fate. The nation has no such ambiguity. The city and the institution is only as strong as its pretenses and its ability to impose its edifice on the world. The warlord is only noticed if it manifests something more than the shouting and braying of the Satanic ape. The nation is present at all times, and it is never sectioned off from the world as an immaculate form. Because it is present, the chief aim of ideology and intrigues is to make the concept inadmissible, so that what is in plain sight must be ignored. It can never be described as anything it is or anything it does.

It is the nation that effectively presents to us as "society" in common sense. All of the sociality beyond the local required a response of all to the conditions of political society, and those who are not members of a nation are viewed by the biases and bigotry of nations and their members. "Everyone believes in something", or has some membership, even if that membership is a nation of one person. The city, after its pretenses are dispensed with, is nothing more than a beast in the midst of nations and the people. The warlords yet another tragedy of humanity - and all of the tragedy of war is a human force and nothing else, for nothing in nature necessitated anything so ruinous and retarded as the war cult. The nation does not have a monopoly on social life, as if there were no society without nations and to move on is to abandon society altogether. What the nation presents is the first prospect of mass politics as a realized condition, rather than something that is an adjunct of the civic cults which had to mobilize citizens to serve the beast. Once seen, nations are answerable only to their members, rather than any civic shibboleth of going concern of the corporate state. It becomes the task of institutions to defeat at all costs this nascent nation, before its members do away with the the institutions and never allow such things to hold this spiritual authority that starves us and pens us into cages for the most worthless of causes.

The cohabitation of nations of those who have no nation is the way in which aristocracy insinuates the destruction of nation - by claiming that "purity demands samefaggotry" and other such Hitlerite tropes, which are by now familiar to us. There is much to say on this pernicious habit but that is for a later book in this series, since "the conditions of eugenics" are intended to do precisely this - to do nothing more than destroy the most basic democratic formation, by attacking nations while asserting that nothing can exist outside of the nation, which is transformed into a skin-mask for the aristocracy alone. The creation of the aristocratic "gods" executes the same sort of function, and competed with the eugenist cult on various grouds. A new republic necessitates the death of the king, as the eugenists built a republic - a terrible republic, the most farcical form of such a thing, but in all respects a republic with all of the virtues and vices of such a beast.

There is only one rightful owner of the commons - the world itself. The people and all of their claims to it, whether shared or demarcated as property, have no place whatsoever to claim the commons would not turn on them, or be used by another on them. The nation is the environment in which this can happen, or not happen, among human beings. To the world itself, the strange behavior of human beings is irrelevant. To us, it is very relevant, but it is not relevant due to an idea or conceit about what should rule the commons. Before there are claims of property, the world is shared between all, and nations cohabitate with each other and their members come and go to each other. The logic of the city and religion is not immediately accessible, but the nation is readily understandable as such, or something that can be explained without too great a difficulty. The contest for the commons is blamed on the nation, and collective punishment - guilty until proven innocent - is the rule of those who conspire to rule nations. The theft of the commons is complete when one outcome is insinuated and acted upon, and it always delivered with that dripping snideness of a disgusting race. Somehow, the guilty are never quite named, even as they act in plain sight. Forcing everyone to consent to this - both the theft and the taboo to mention the theft happened at all - is only possible when the nation both exists and is unmentionable as what it is or does. Of course, theft requires an owner, and the commons by default are no man's property.

Without naming each member and each institutional cog, a collective regarded as "society" cannot be rooted in anything real, or the collective spoken of is a nation of one sort or another. If there were another way - a sense of other thinking life like humans - it remains poorly developed as a worked-out methodology for understanding the world. We can speak of the prominent institutions - for example, "the United States", "the Soviet Union" - as if they were institutions, and we know there are peoples subsumed into those entities. There is not an American or Soviet "nation" by the design of the polities and the attitudes of their members. What cannot be done is to take for granted an "American mind" or "Soviet mind", no matter what propaganda may be issued to suggest that such a thing is default and normal in those lands, or would be imposed on the world in some bullshit world-historical struggle. Where there is a nation there are conspirators within it as a rule. The idea that a nation possessed any virtue which made it pure is anathema to what a nation is and does. It only came into existence in a world where evil preceded it. The city, strictly speaking, did not require religion or any historical origin. For the city, the founding of the city is day zero of year zero so far as its account of history is concerned. It may regard a story of history before the foundation of the city, but the city is built anew and rebuilt every day, rewriting genuine history as needed so that the foundation of the city is sound. The city has a religious origin among humanity because of the choices humanity made. No city hitherto known was founded on a true and developed atheism, for such an atheism is despite its simplicity a rarity among humanity. If the city were a creation to meet the needs of its inhabitants - if it did the thing it ostensibly accomplishes to make civilization worthwhile - permanently caging the inhabitants with exorbitantly expensive fear would be contrary to that goal. It would be nothing but a machine, and it could only be a machien rather than the fount of the state it pretends to be.

The first awareness of the nation's potential is among those who most jealously wish to enclose it, so that the nascent understanding does not impugn on the schemes of human beings and their assocations. To the members of this grouping of a nation, the full extent of a nation consists of information they do not natively possessed, as if national names were written in DNA for all to see. They are aware of a situation of general fear which, in conditions of greater antagonism that humans are capable of, they would like to avert as much as possible; and they are aware that there are other nations, organizations and associations of people, and a world of things that spur the members of a nation to be a nation. Had the nation formed without this pernicious influence, of if the influence were mitigated, the nation and its potential would be very different. The nation would give way to a much more elaborate understanding, which only rarely appears among humanity due to its craving for kicking down other humans. Where this understanding exists, it is smothered if every expressed in political society, for such a thing is wholly inadmissible to the cults humanity preached. Only the nation, which is permanently arrested and kept in the mal-formed state we observe among humans, suggests there is much at all to life. The city, the world, and a mass of superstitions are supplied readily, while every effort of the members of a nation to speak to each other and form a nation that departs from the civic cult and ritual sacrifice is terminated if it encounters the nations most amenable to the status quo. The favored groups then proclaim that their history and the stolen flesh and spirit and land they acquired is a grand distinction, purely by creating the conditions of enclosure and deprivation for everyone else. It is this need to continually kick down and demonstrate the nation's subjugation - mirroring the civic cult's preferred vision of the state as a struggle of all against all - that creates, for no really necessary purpose, the "tragedy of the commons", by pure insinuation that it is a thing until it is made real by betrayal, violence, and no small amount of faggotry.^[2]

For the nation, personal or private property or any personal claims is irrelevant to the question of the commons. The commons is understood to a nation as the domain that is not to be disturbed for the sake of the peace of mind of the nation. This is complicated because no nation ever purifies a domain simply by being a nation - and therefore there are nations among them who are seen as alien and are alien to the commons of one nation from the outset. It would be on the nations to agree to this commons; but, since all nations have the same condition of needing the peace that the commons entailed, there is mutual interest among nations to circumvent enclosure, whatever their disagreements were otherwise. Personal enmity or the history of grudges too is not part of the nation. It is a part of history and certainly a part of associations. If you told those people that their personal grudges and psychological hang-ups were worth destroying the world and the commons which allowed any sort of life beyond the nastiest and most brutish, they'd have to question your sanity. Yet, among humans, insanity ruled, starting from the first ritual sacrifice which was carried out for the most spurious faggotry and called itself a supreme weapon. All that was necessary was to tell a nation that to be valid and a proper member of the nation, one had to earn his or her mark by blooding themselves on the rejects. Without validity, there is no nation to speak of. That is always the central weakness every slavery and every oppressive regime relies on without fail.

The common domain of nations is known to civil society as the public, but the commons and the public are quite apart from each other. Public property is invariably state property, but the commons did not involve a state's decree or any institutional management to tell us what the commons was, where the state prescribed our knowledge of the commons and insisted we must be educated to "respect the commons" in accord with the aristocracy's conceit to claim it. The commons would be preserved only if the nation is something to keep intact, or if the nation is allowed to reform into new nations or freely associate with other nations with the same interest. This preservation is done because to do otherwise would be silly. Despite centuries of ritual and filth of this race insisting that despoiling the environment is natural, humans are loathe to disturb any part of the environment and especially that which is regarded as a commons of any sort. Families do not regularly divide their homes into private property and demand paperwork and consent forms for the simplest of interactions. If they did, they would be insane and unworkable, which is one reason such behavior is insinuated in public society. Humans are so unwilling to despoil the commons that they are often hesitant to do things that would have no appreciable effect other than preserving the commons, because doing anything would disrupt an arrangement where others may disagree with what you're doing with this shared domain. A contest for authority to have the proper standing to tend to the commons is an inroad for insinuations and intrigues which are very alien to the good intentions one might have. Even if their fallen and depraved state, with a society urging and enabling the rampant despoiling of any commons and society altogether, humans are loathe to disrupt that which wasn't broken, most of all at the behest of people who obviously wish to maximize the thrill of torture and nothing more. The nation of Satanics may think differently, but they are a nation out of necessity and face the same problem for themselves - who would be best suited to govern the deprivation of all non-Satanics, which given the cosmological view the Satanic operates in, leads to considerable infighting and deference to a great fear and the Oneness of a proper Satan and its representative in the mortal realm. It is impossible for the depravity to ever meet the demands of something as foul as ideology and the eugenic creed in particular. For those with any interest in the commons, spiritual authority is necessary. Temporal authority pertains to a matter which is hostile to the commons by its nature, and temporal authority has always recognized when it is sober that it cannot govern this world better than heaven or any worthwhile spiritual authority. This spiritual authority is not about which person has the property right to be the "rightful steward". It is something that members of a nation would want to do for their own sake, and out of a sense that the commons would be preserved for the future, since the members of a nation know they are not immortal, and even if they were, another entity like themselves may arise and face the same question of the commons. By making the competence and science that allows this spiritual authority a proprietary claim of a limited group, the final enclosure can commence, after centuries of searching for the answer. Like every other scheme to enclose the world - destroy the world for this cause - it will fail spectacularly. But, this time, they ensured that the human agents who would stop them are not allowed to say no, and this will make the sacrificial pyre of this century the greatest ritual sacrifice yet known - a fitting coda to such a failed and retarded race!

Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

Return to Table of Contents | Return to Chapter Start