Return to Table of Contents | Previous Chapter | Next Chapter

So far, the suffering class - and this is not one for one with the lowest class or residuum, but usually this has been their assignment in society and by nations and institutions alike - has been seen as an abstraction, in the mind of the political or the religious mind, for whom suffering is a prop or a tool. When suffering or pleasure become little more than philosophical substances, they are devoid of their proper meaning, however much someone may write to describe a history that can be confirmed easily enough. The reactive, ingrained response of those who are favored and do not want the cycle to ever stop is that there is no suffering class, and that all suffering is a state of mind that marks one as a deserving victim of the sacrifice. The human race, even at its best, has never known any other way with any seriousness. When they attempt to do so, their idea is to symbolize a fictitious character crucified and left to rot on the cross, making a big deal out of mercy that would have met the most basic sense of life, if humans weren't such a monstrous and disgusting race. All of this has been carried out for a simple reality that it was too much to even allow basic decencies at the level of political society. Ordinary human beings, who have never been too invested in this endless and pointless struggle for struggle's sake, have done so far as they can the work of any decency which made nations and human societies at all tolerable. Under the eugenic creed, such decencies, fleeting as they are, have been made obsolete and punishable with humiliation. The ritual sacrifice and eugenics know no other way and do not want such a way to ever be knowable, without being associated with retarded.

As a political or religious abstraction, the suffering class remains an unmentionable in plain sight. In the nation and in the consequences of civic religion, the suffering class is very real and its existence unquestionable by any entity capable of reason. We have thus far dealt with the agents which would move history as they see fit. The city is founded by the most favored, the nation the consequence which becomes the battlefield of the contending classes. Neither speak of the common reality which allowed both of them to exist at all - that there was a class of persons who were despised by all, and the project we call "humanity" was dedicated to ensuring that this suffering and the religious cycle it entailed never could end. This it did not because "human nature" or "genetics" or any pithy excuse these fags, and they are fags, have summoned over the centuries. Humanity did this entirely of its own volition, starting from an origin where they were all scum and had nothing to show for all of their vanity. Up to now, humanity has accomplished precisely nothing except regurgitations of the same cycle. The world and the members of nations, who know that this has been the case, attempt in some way to reconcile with this reality because they must. The institutions humanity built think the exact opposite - only the institutions and their cults hold value, and the root of their value is that some were designated to suffer early in life. If that cycle ceased, the institutions could no longer function as they have for human purposes. This is what they are, and what they have drilled into their young for generation after generation, for no particularly good purpose and without regard for sustaining anything worth keeping.

The arena where this plays out is the nation, rather than "the world" or any particular locale, and this struggle is never a purely material one. To the world and to the objects in it, none of this suffering is useful or serves any great purpose. It would be far easier to accomplish the productive aims without so much suffering. But, if that happened, humans would have to give up the ritual sacrifice and the thrill of imposing it - they would give up humanity, give up the institutions, and give up everything countless generations have dedicated their lives to, many of them with full knowledge of the thrill they sought by imposing it on the world, guilty until proven innocent.

The establishment of cities and nations was the establishment of the institution of slavery. This institution did not form ex nihilo, but was inherent in what humans did and what they were as a result of their genesis and their repeated habits of ritual sacrifice. Freedom in a genuine sense meant only one thing - that this condition of ritual sacrifice, known well to humanity, was abated, so that we may live and do what we would have done in a better world, among a better race. We were born and created without any concept that slavery, or any institution, was relevant or unquestionable by its statement of being. The result was not "freedom" as an idea bereft of meaning or noted only by the absence of slavery, but a condition where the law was personal virtue and the draw of the person to other people. It would always be known that the world simply did not care one way or another about the games humans played, and humans themselves could take that mentality on board and elect to remove themselves from society as much as possible. They could form, independent of the grand institutions, relations apart from them entirely, where servitude and liberty took on meanings particular to that niche. In all cases, the political and the nation concerned all such possible formations in the world, without regard to the relations humans built among each other. It was never a political necessity that the relations in total must be as miserable as they are. Everything humans did that was politically substantive began with the people and their faculties, before they could become general rules that were notable in political society. The insistence of an institution of slavery is that it is the first universal institution, despite being obviously a claim to persons who are local, and enforcable only at the local level. Only by internalizing a superstititon about the self and the so-called gods could this slavery be truly imbued at the most basic level of nature. That happened long before the city and the nation that resulted from it, and the city appeared at the first instance that such a beast could successfully ensnare enough souls into it. Within primitive society, slavery and ritual humiliations are known and easily comprehensible. The distinction of primitive society was that slaves were a burden to keep and free men would fight for something more than an insinuation or a threat, which has been the chief currency of the human race up to today. The free men fight most of all for conditions that are conducing to remaining free - to resisting the draw of institutions whose malice was declared from the outset, whose lies dripped with overt contempt by design so that the subjects would be demoralized. The nation does not exist as an ideological counter to this. Nations can embrace all of the moral rot of institutions and worse, reinforcing each other through the vices of members which are not accountable to any law or institution or merit. The nation's existence makes clear that, after all of the ideas and promises, politics remains a highly personal matter. The formation of machines can only be extensions of human persons, and today's technocratic regimes are very elaborate extensions of a smaller elite's personal wills, pooled together in a conspiracy against the public as befits the habits of this race in our time and conditions.

The inflation of personal virtue begins in miniature in the family, the band of nomads, the parties and orgies of chiefs and early cities. This was tempered by the sobering influence of reality - that whatever their statements towards another person, the world was vast and its boundaries uncertain. It is conveniently forgotten - and history is rewritten to suggest the permanence of today's ruling ideas - that until the 17th century, the extent of landmasses around the globe was not fully charted by any nation, and record of a map of the world that resembles what we know it to be today could only circulate so far. Until modernity, a fallen nation or city today can rise tomorrow. Rebirth and redemption were common, but it was always understood as another procession in the world - of genuine history - rather than the political history that was fit for consumption and education. It is that promise which did much of the work to motivate humanity - that whatever its past sins, even the dullest of humans could see that there was a future with less of that, and preferably none of that. The ritual sacrifice would have been seen correctly as the behavior of Satanic apes, spoken of as if it were an uncomfortable and creppy uncle the family kept at a distance.

A common tactic is to ascribe the virtues that members of nations would possess here and now to the past, and that they could only have existed in the "before time" - in a history rewritten by aristocracy to present history as a never-ending string of successes and stamping the face of the subordinated classes forever. For this to work, all people in the past must be infantilized except for those who were "ahead of their time", and those in the past were in perpetual ignorance, while those in the present are at the highest stage of enlightenment. The future can only be pale imitations of the present, until it arrives, and a generation later, some retarded faggotry like "creative destruction" is invoked to rewrite history once again. The venal and disgusting of the race install themselves and steal in this way the virtues of the recent and distant past, and assert that it couldn't have been any different. A child could see through this, but a Satanic race relies on repeating the lie flagrantly and repeatedly. The reality of "primitive communism" is that the hoarding of wealth did not grant to people of that time anything they really wanted. The sources of famine were not ignorance of production, but the malice of human beings which prevailed and conducted this rewriting even in the most primitive conditions. The venal in primitive conditions have no reason whatsoever to see any productive improvement in human society, for they understand even now that deprivation is their key to success. What they lacked was a machine for humans to do much at all beyond their typical internecine struggle - a state. It was the rise of the nation that marked the beginning of thought of "the masses" in any sense we would appreciate the concept, rather than the rise of the city or a human spirit which naturally told us who the valid and righteous were. Every concept of democratization, beyond the low cunning the favored grades of labor have always defaulted to, arises because there is a concept of a nation rather than a tribal affinity or the idea of a human spirit. Any democratization which overcame the conditions of the nation would look to that history - and so, rewriting the history of the nation, destroying it, and turning it into yet another march of the ruling creed's victory over the world, was the first task of modernity, for the concept of national democracy was understood as the great danger to all contending factions and classes. A national democracy would see that hitherto existing humiliations were wholly unnecessary, counterproductive, and could only persist by pitting nation against nation, race against race, man against man, and heightening all internecine tensions within humanity for the most spurious causes. That game of insinuation is older than Antiquity, and that was the only thing aristocracy was ever good at. The orders of warriors and barons of commerce fall in line because they never wanted anything to be different in this regard. Everything they were and did was dependent on labor's subordinate position and historical impotence. Their path to securing victory was always through the command of labor and its eternal enemy, the lowest class, and ensuring both hated each other far more than the institutions that could contend political life. To the higher three orders, the struggle between labor and the lowest class is a joke for amusement, and they laugh at you for enabling any part of it. To us, it has been life and death. It is labor alone which has no excuse, but history has judged - labor and the virtuous among them are guilty.

The cooperation that would ameliorate this has been conflated with "communism" or "socialism", and in any way either concept was intelligible, they always referred to this struggle, however imperfectly they did. Communism - the highest stage of the bourgeois or city-dweller's thought regarding politics and the ideal city - saw that the degradation of the masses was a problem, rather than a benefit or asset in its own right, for very selfish but perfectly understandable reasons, and its motives up to now are not difficult to discern. Socialism asked a simpler question in its early and naive form, but the question which was the correct one. This is that the habit of war and internecine struggle within humanity was wholly unnecessary, stupid, and brought nothing but misery with clear beneficiaries, and this ultimately pertained to the social question rather than the political question. The social question was at heart not a question of legalizing this or that class or promoting good institutions, but the very real toil and humiliation that had always prevailed in the human project. The humiliation could only extend so far, and to members of a nation and any bystander to this conflict, it was a condition that could easily be eliminated from this world at a cost to no one. Most of humanity has remained bystanders, or their attachment to the nation is limited to their mutual self-interest and a sense that destroying the commons would only hasten the demise of each of them individually and in any close association they would have had like a family or a club. Those who are in a position to move history are, after all of their institutional pageantry, much the same. They are not at a basic level anything functionally different, nor possess any super-knowledge beyond the superstititons their religion might impart to them. Superstititon can just as well be held by labor and the lowest class, and often it was the lowest class who were desperate enough to seek a religious revelation that broke from history - that regarded the evil that was clear and present in their vision, but that the favored were always quick to tolerate and excuse.

The cooperation that socialism in any variant invoked and exhorted subjects to do was something we already possessed - if we were to simply choose it as preferable to the alternative. The first understanding of political society where this was possible was the nation. A civic religion will always degrade to what it was intended to do - exploit. There could be as many alternatives as humans could imagine, for humans are very clever and inventive when they need to be. It is our unfortunate curse that humans chose to spend their energy primarily on the exact opposite - finding new and creative ways to make each other miserable and make us do things we do not want nor need to do, for the most spurious reasons. The alternative of cooperation was only possible because enough knowledge of human malice had been reverse-engineered to see why it worked, and why it was destined to produce the same result no matter how many victories it claimed. It is that cooperation which ideology attacked most stridently, rather than the thought-forms or institutions that socialism entailed, or the concept of social transformation. The predatory ethos of humanity has always been adaptive and proactive, rather than stuck on past paradigms. It is one of the few areas where humans have consistently advanced their technology with dedication and purpose, because that is all humans really want to do. If humanity were to cooperate out of a sense of good will, there is a value attached to good will that has nothing to do with sentiments or promises. Temporal authority can choose to encourage good will, but the political thought of humanity is predominantly based on fear alone. The best humanity has done is permit examples of what to do, and speak plainly of examples of what not to do. Once again, the only educational paradigm that has yet to be destroyed is that primitive necessity, "monkey see, monkey do". If there are no examples - if every example of honesty is seen humilated from cradle to grave, and dishonesty and venality rewarded by every mechanism available, and it becomes illegal to speak of mechanical behavior at all - then this cooperation could only be directed by ideology, and ideology is anathema to that cooperation without ulterior motives and purposes that speak to the ugliness of the human spirit. Any cooperative society, or any society that out of necessity required cooperation, has had to work against the history of the human race demonstrating the opposite - that human malice chosen by members of its institutions overrode any sense that there could be anything else. It is the history of humanity rather than any constitutional necessity, or any strategic advantage, to creating such an appalling condition for labor and the lowest class. If it were really desired, those who have spent this effort to torture us would do what they loathe to do - return the land and wealth they extracted, and never speak to us again, so we could live as we wanted to. That understanding preceded the nation, and is so simple a caveman could do it. The nation presented a potential that cooperation could prevail as the political norm, and from that, humanity might have developed a social form worth preserving. It would be in the nation that the examples of cooperative society would have to be destroyed, and this destruction of cooperation would be done in the name of the nation. No other strategy would have prevented the rise of nations forever. The reasons why do not require a "spirit of nations" that is good or necessary, but the ways in which a nation can mobilize labor and the flesh of bodies that are there for the aristocratic orders and its followers to exploit and immiserate.

Two ways for a society to value its labor are available. One is to envision a substance that incentivizes labor to do something it does not want to do. Whether that it currency, a promise of something that is like money and exchangeable, or the cost to dictate orders to another and enforce compliance, all of these reduce to the same thing - that labor is induced to do something it has no reason or purpose to do. The other is to work through the existing biases, vices, virtues, and abilities of the people who are to labor. This exchange of value is always in-kind. People present not with a mass of energy, but as all potential labors, which are not freely exchangeable with each other. Skilled labor, in this view, is not reducible to quantities of unskilled labor as if the formation of that talent were automatic and taken for granted. The most basic labor itself is contingent on conditions allowing it to exist at all. Money or any token like it can only operate once that condition is met, and it can only work as a psychological incentive. The religious superstititons attached to money, whatever they are, cannot change what people are, nor does it suggest anything about what people can be, except for that which the superstition of such exchanges will allow them to be. If men are expected to offer themselves like catamites, their flesh sold as stock once and for all, it is no surprise that the life of a catamite is what is intended, and there is no way to make that life into something different from that. Superficially claiming that it is a temporary contract does not change the stipulations such a contract places on the man. The lawyers can invent dodges about contracts but those who live with the consequences do not see it as a temporary condition when it keeps happening, and the contract insists there is no way out, and only this sort of contract is possible. This exchange of labor is never confined to a selected order within society, which for us is the laboring masses of the nation - valid, able-bodied, and able-minded persons. For exchange of labor to be envisioned at the level of the nation, all who are in and around the nation would be equally liable. The unemployable wretches are a presence that disciplines labor, and the orders of bourgeois, technocrat, proprietor, barons and warriors, and the aristocratic religious cults and fads that are put in front of everyone, all compete in the same domain, and all of the tasks are labors of one sort or another that will be accounted for in any general theory of labor and technology. Labor is always aware that they are never alone. No nation can exist as something unmoored from a world where other nations exist, and aliens exist among the members of nations.

We could envision the pool of labor as something other than a nation, for it exists without that understanding that is particularly to a world humanity built. In every such contraption, the same agents that brought about nations for us remain active, regardless of any design or statement about what that pool of labor is. Whether the nation has any standing to determine its own existence does not change that the connection of people is there. The civic cult did not pedagogically teach humans to be at all human - and once again the Promethan and Luciferian fable is invoked to rewrite history and deny that invention happens except at the decree of aristocracy. As we know, aristocracy loathes inventing anything except new instruments of torture and humiliation, and why would they want anything else? It is possible to imagine an association of human beings that overcame the conditions and bigotries of nations, but that did not happen for humans beyond fleeting relations. As a rule, exploitative orders seek the simplest possible solution for themselves. Complicated rigamaroles are a joke played on the slaves, which give to the favored classes untold jollies and amusement. Without exploitation of any sort, human beings would only work so far as their self-interest would want such a thing, and this is the worst possible case for aristocracy and the hitherto existing orders. The exploitation exists within labor itself, from which the exploiter social classes would have arisen. Labor exploits itself and other laborers as a rule in human society. If it were different - if labor were cooperative - its conduct throughout history and its mannerisms would have been very different. This has indeed happened enough, because some cooperation is necessary for anything to be done. It has not been the predominant rule.

I make a note here that value is not the point of contention, as if humans were too stupid to know what was worth what for what it is and what it does. All economic value is rooted in the utility of labor itself for the purpose of acquiring money or whatever token of exchange prevails in a given society. If the unit of exchange were favors and nod-wink insinuations, then that value would take the place of currency, even if private property and finance were abolished. What does not change is that something useful, for the holder of this unit, is expected of labor. That is a requirement for labor to be valued in this way. A cooperative society, where exploitation was shunned and seen as anathema to the project, would still assign to labor value. Labor is valued from the moment it becomes labor in any sense that distinguishes it from the ingrained behavior of reflex - when it becomes generally alienable. The contention was not value, but what value in the form of money represented - the superstitious value assigned to it for centuries, which took on a life of its own. The money or the ostensible exchange value as a substance was never the particular point, as if attaining the high score in a competitive game had any intrinsic moral worth whatsoever. After the contest has been effectively settled - when the participants are aware of the outcome, and on some level humanity has always known what their internecine struggle leads to and did not need a teacher to tell them what reality was - exploitation and the infliction of suffering are irrelevant to the value that is contested as if they were necessary to speak of value. In any view of the pool of labor as a system, the driver's whip and the very position of the slave driver is an expense of doing business - an inefficiency and waste of energy, like the heat of electronic devices. For the exploiter, the dream has been to train labor to love slavery, if it is alllowed to live. For those selected to die, the torture and humiliation is thrown in their face, that display of humiliation an exultant celebration of the race's true spirit. If exploitation served an ulterior motive, the purpose of the exultant celebration of humiliation - of maximizing the thrill of torture - is to drive up the death rate of the residue as much as possible, so that it may be cleaned from the system that the exploiter imagines. A nation defined by such Sodomite behavior has little going for it as a nation. It would be a nation which negates the conditions where a "nation" could exist, and such a thing is invariably a degeneration to social forms that are reliable for the purpose. In our time, that cult is the prevailing civic religion - eugenics - and aristocratic republicanism. The city, or a machine that fulfills the purpose of civic institutions and imposes them on all the land it can claim, has been the traditional tool for imposing this exploitation. The barbarian empire, to survive as an empire, must follow the example of city-states, or operate with inferior models of exploitation that are far from perfect. Barbarism as a strategy has been less interested in economic exploitation and classes, and more invested in the holdings of property and spoils of war. The most capable of the barbarians understand that to compete with civilization, they would form courts and instruments of law much like cities. The call that barbarism is some curious form of liberation is a fag's belief. The wiser of the barbarians never believe any such story - they will tell you their purpose has been to survive, because even if they emulated civilization, they would not excel the qualities of civilizations already established. Barbarism as a strategy since the formation of empires and city-states has always been a defensive strategy, precisely because the barbarians cannot capture the mechanisms of a city for their own purposes and expect to freely reproduce them. In the game of empires, strength is measured not by insinuations or performative displays, but tangible results - that the value that empires exploit corresponds to something useful, however imperfectly it does. If exploitation itself is the lifeblood of an empire - if the empire's rise is inextriably tied to insinuating that opium addiction is natural, that perverse sexual acts are morally righteous and supreme due to their psychological appeal and the invocation of ancient dark rituals - then what the members of a nation would find useful for their purposes is no longer relevant. What we wanted, and what most people wanted, were things that allowed security, rather than some queer idea we are told ad nauseum we are supposed to respect, where that idea does not reciprocate anything for us or allow for us anything worthwhile but toil for toil's sake. If the empire sees the waste product of human torture and suffering as desirable, then that becomes its going concern above the sense that anything labor produces corresponds to mechanical force or any virtue that entails a world outside of suffering.

The environment of the nation is a product of civilization and the malcontents that surround it. Before the arrival of European colonists, the natives of America had no "nations" as such. There were tribes, confederations, political thought and leadership, and the concept of a nation was simple enough to adopt when such a thing was necessary and could be compared to the colonial outposts. Within their society, the nation was less relevant than the tribe, the clan, and associations of rulers to ruled. Exploitation and slavery existed in most of the native societies much as it did in the old world. It did not take long for the natives to see their predicament and what the white man's presence portended. No history as a nation that can be united in purpose could be called upon readily, for there were no nations at all, let alone the nations that arose from confederations in long conflicts with other confederations. There were empires - the Aztec, the Maya, the Inca - but all were ruled by priests, kings, and aristocracies that were in function much the same as they were in the Old World. The rule of the Aztec was so revolting that anyone delivering the tribes and clans of the region from them would be welcome, and trivial flattery crushed the Aztec system of ritual sacrifice. It would soon be replaced with the oppression of Christianity and the Spaniards, and these oppressive regimes rooted in ritual sacrifice are not morally equivalent. To the people involved, some horrible fate had been replaced with another, but at no point does "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" pass without any note whatsoever. There would be among the bosses some contest for exploitation. Whomever wins, the people always lose - a boot stamping their face forever.

What is really contested in the struggle is the right of exploitation, rather than a question of whether it should exist. If exploitation were to be abolished, no political logic allows that to be won by struggle alone. There would have to be something that could exist as more than struggle, and the rationale for abandoning exploitation would not be sentiment or the endgame of the political, but because exploitation is no longer interesting to the contending parties. Exploitation entails consequences, like any engineering project. Recall from the prior book my description of the war machine as a tool of social engineering primarily, rather than the political struggle it purports to be. War, at a basic level, is not really a political matter. Armies are a useful basis for disciplining humans precisely because they aren't in of themselves political organs, rather than because they possess inherent political knowledge. The most politically minded officers have always mocked the sods sent to die, knowing that this, like any association, advances their career and standing. Only out of necessity do armies fight a struggle of defense, since their is no aggressor without a defender. For the defender, war is not something to be voted on or subject to the intrigues and insinuations common to politics. This of course presumes that an army is invested in defending anything, which is not always the case. The armies of a king defend the king and the king's proclivities, and studiously avoid any pretense that the king defends the little people. If they did, then they would have to come clean about the social engineering project they always desired, and no one would have any good reason to sign up for that. So far as war has any ulterior political motive, it is the contest for a right of exploitation, rather than the right of property which was always a personal prize to dole out sparingly. As much as it is possible, property and exploitation for its own sake are tied together, so much that the two are fused together for aristocratic purpose - and so, the deed of property that ostensibly is to blame is worthless without the fear which at its heart has little to do with a particular claim. The right to exploit is never limited to a given domain or deed. It is rather a right to exploit as the aristocracy's "right to exist"^[1], that becomes the most treasured value. Think for a moment of what is more valuable - giving a man a fish, or teaching a man to fish. The primary difficulty has been educational - to convince a critical mass of people that torture for its own sake is the point, and that thinking it was any other way is retarded and no longer permitted in any moment. This is nowhere near as natural as its proponents claim, since this way of life turns on itself, and the interested parties that share in this right to exploit do not seek it as a collective or an institution. They are men and women who, whatever their conduct, have lives which cannot exist as a pressing of this nerve, even if their wildest fantasies became true. If, however, they distilled themselves to this most essential function, and eliminated all else - if they judged that kindness, merit, friendship, or anything but the torture was a waste product - then they would attain immortality by assertion alone, so long as nothing in this world could truly forbid them. The right of exploitation is never limited to a purpose or purview, where a line is drawn and necessity is invoked as the excuse for social distinction. It is always absolute and without reference to any meaning or comparison with history. Anything else would make clear that the program which aristocracy has always followed in its conduct is too ruinous to continue, and all who are not members of this club would see that their future relies on total elimination of the menace among them. Within the club, the members would fear each other and fear for their own entry, for they know that insinuation turns on its instigators when ritual sacrifices are lacking. What happens when life refuses to hand itself over any more? What if every ritual, every sacrifice, every thrill, is nothing but a bitter and hollow victory? That has been the attitude of the oppressed peoples throughout history - that, after all the lies, no promise of eternal life is worth anything coming from that source. The history of humanity written from its proper authority will read as nothing but a list of atrocities against their own race and against the world, committed for nothing but a cheap thrill. There is little else, and when the right of exploitation is granted this sacrosanct status, what was the point of anything else? It would only require that the world's defenses against this falter when a critical mass of knowledge and technology can assemble to change the world, if such a thing is possible.

Every value associated with labor in coin or a unit of exchange is premised on the reproduction of that coin - of the institutions and cults which grant to that coin any value other than an arbitrary token of little importance. The money in of itself possesses no substance simply by being money, as if this token, or anything that serves as many, has any claim to exist, or that a particular currency or unit of exchange has the value it claims. If the money tokens no longer exist, and the torture itself was valued in-kind for what it was - if the origin of the cult were laid bare for all to see and made no excuses for the terror - this would only remove the intermediary of a financial institution, and the difficulties money and finance present for the rulers. So too is the world itself twisted to conform to whatever this technology needs it to be. The costs of impressing upon the world that it can be commanded by tokens of value that only exist for men are staggering, but they are undertaken because the alternatives are also expensive. Brute force, conceding to the world's limitations placed on Man, an endless shell game of deception and barely concealed lies told one after another before the subjects can adapt to the first lie, are all far more expensive than money. Money, once issued, is what it is - a token issued by some institution, or something which was agreed colelctively by members of an institution to be an objective to seek. In all cases, the particular entries on a balance sheet are only relevant so long as the underlying mechanical conditions of the world line up to this unit. Nothing about money is tied to a world of deeds or merits we would judge as useful in a productive sense. It is only valuable in that way because producers - laborers and the class of commoners that goes by many names throughout history - are induced to require this token to survive. The money did not possess a power to command the mind simply by being asserted as valuable. It only holds this power because the institutions which issue it and value it are perfectly aware of how money is created, how debts are enforced, and the industrial process labor must do for that money to mean anything more than an accounting of superstitious faith. There is no form of currency that avoids this. If gold mined from the earth were directly currency, and all one had to do to issue it was pull it from the Earth, it would abide the same laws as any other money. If money were replaced with credits and given an pseudo-moral veneer, all it would create is the bizarre contortion the eugenic creed calls "ethics", which is nothing of the sort unless the core moral claim is that the thrill of torture is superior to all others. If the money's existence were formally denied altogether, but the right of exploitation was still operative, then there would be some mechanism that functions much like money in recording that right and its exercise in human society. An insinuation, an impression, a projection, can give a piece of blue sky value, and many a cult like Scientology sold that piece of blue sky at an exorbitant price. Scientology can do this because it is attached to promises of social promotion and an approach to technology that attracts a type of person who has been amenable to such programs. Its origins in Satanism have found eager recruits regardless of the front used for the purpose, and Satanists recognize each other by an instinct that is valued among their kind. Hubbard was not the first and certainly won't be the last of the new breed of Satanists.

Labor itself as a unit to manage is worthless by any chain of reasoning. If the value of labor is purely a consumer choice or a moral imposition on individuals, then all that is really asked is how to enclose an environment so that those individuals have to comply. When compliance is no longer an option, the only road is death, and this was intended beforehand by Malthus and the eugenists who followed him. Compliance was never really an option, and moral persuasion did little to regulate labor among the laborers themselves. It was the vices of workers that were glorified and praised - vices which existed in the labor associations before finance and money were present. The favored grades of labor would always sneak off to partake in the clubs that govern social promotion, laughing at people who believed in the solidarity routine. The desperate really had no choice in this. The only value of money to those who are locked out of social promotion or belonging, whether they remain members of a nation in good standing or were cast into the residuum and thus out of society forever, is that it is backed by a lot of violence insisting that subjects must fear and revere this token as if it were life itself. The identification of currency with life, vitality, and purpose will be revisited later, for it pertains more to the ruling ideas and their ultimate fate than anything labor valued. What laborers and the lowest class both regard as the value of their labor is that they have been obligated to do so, and can only hope that their wages and conditions are enough for some part of themselves to remain after their daily toil. The idea that these tokens have any meaning more than that is some sort of joke. In practice, if the lower orders do acquire money, it is known immediately that they must become targets, so that "history is corrected" and the legitimate function of money is restored. Money is suffering, and nothing else. The lower orders can only use money to placate the gods, and in this way, money appears almost fantastical. Any material thing of utility that the lower orders possess is constantly threatened, and what secures it is not any promise of legal tender and certainly not a contract that is rigged to ensure the worker cannot win - at least, not legally. In this way, the favored grades of labor can be pulled aside and told that if they remain in the know, and engage in this ritual, they will be allowed to keep more of the things they truly value. The ritual is the oldest ritual there is - sacrifice of the unwanted, which for an individual, is a very easy choice compared to the alternative of becoming a victim and the ritual continuing just the same without them. The favored grades of labor could stop this, but why would they ever? They have learned generation after generation what side they were on, and schooling only locked in and made eternal and self-perpetuating something the favored associations of labor always believed in their heart and soul - it is what they are.

We may consider that, whatever the superstition attached to money, something useful for the needs of life is tied to it, beyond the insinuation that money commands the soul through fear. Human beings are at odds with their environment and the resources available to them. The world did not provide products ready-made for us by any design to meet our wishes. It did provide pre-existing conditions where the world's resources grew, so that in primitive conditions, someone need only learn what grows where, which plants are edible, to gather sustenance. The world did not provide industry to produce from the land vast resources. It did not produce for us agriculture, or the conditions of labor that allowed agriculture to be a viable strategy. In industry or agriculture, the value of labor is the product, and the coin was a tool of rulers to extract a portion of that, rather than directly requisitioning product as had been done in the past. In all cases, the product itself was the purpose of facilitating industry, rather than a pursuit of coin. The holder of coin is not inclined to mindless productivity by any incentive or imperative. It is the opposite. Those who hold money understand that its scarcity and conditiosn of deprivation are what make this token valuable. If there is enough money for everyone, it would end money as a useful tool, and it would become apparent that this intermediary - which was always onerous to the industrial interests of society - would be eliminated. The industrialist would be secured, translating their capital into some holding that does not keep them in hock to an institution outside and above them. Labor would have no reason to believe the bank is their friend, or that one capitalist lord is favorable over another. The banker and financier, for their part, is never married to money as such. They have always been aware that money is a means to an end, and could if pressed translate their financial holdings, and the assets represented into them, into a new unit, or become managers of human resources and the soul. The true necessity of this value is not "human nature" or any political appeal, but a reality all must abide - that human resources and their abilities are always limited in some way. When the limits of human ability are far in excess of the need for security and prosperity - when it would be onerous for human beings to be whipped to produce more when so much is with-held in distribution explicitly for the purpose of keeping labor and the people fearful - ability and disability cease to be useful tools for natural law. It would be clear that the purging of invalids for "necessity" is not just unnecessary but ruinous to labor. Whatever the conflict between the valid and invalid, hatred of the weak does little for labor's security. It is the promise of social promotion through ritual sacrifice - one of the few vehicle of class mobility permitted in today's society - that keeps the hatred burning stronger than ever. Had humanity not been this, its attitude towards the unfortunate wretches would be different. The unfortunate wretches have almost entirely wished to be left alone, having no obligation to society or the nation that has always scorned them. If they have any desire for social belonging, it is always with the goal of being left alone. Being "one of them" only means feeding something which has every incentive and imperative to make life worse for their kind. Certainly members of the lowest class can buy into the dogma just as much as labor does, but they inevitably learn that no matter what promises are made to them, the lowest class is still retarded at the end of the day. Only by creating a world where humanity's ugliness is maximized can select members of the lowest class become the perfect vectors for that ideology, and no other ideology can be admissible.

If the value of labor were the products that weren't readily provided by the world, we would always have seen value of social class, rank, and tokens representing it, as liabilities impeding that goal, rather than assets which serve any purpose. Social rank is always constructed by human beings, regardless of the distinct abilities presented to us. Every social rank is intentionally divorced from any substantial distinction in ability, except the ability and willingness of people to engage in the rites of sacrifice that are the foundation of humans, by their will and intent as humans. If we were to answer the question of how to build the best technology and secure existence for as many people as possible, we are asking a different question than one of labor's value. The value of labor is simple enough - it is as valuable as its abilities, whether that labor is willing to do anything it doesn't want to do, and regardless of any deception among humans. In society, the value would move to the value of security, law, rights, property, land, and those things which are politically necessary, even though by nature none of them hold any industrial or productive value. Only land has any value in nature, and the land was not created for us and we were not created for the land. The land, like nature, is dead, with life being aberrant in the natural order. If humans are to build a cargo cult for the land, it is a cult for human gratification. The land and the world will pay no heed to that stupidity - nay, that faggotry.

This view of labor's value is amenable to technology rather than moral purpose or the merit of property. To a proprietor, labor is worthless and scorned. Only the deed in record is worth anything, and once labor is exhausted, it is gone forever. To labor, what they wanted was divorced from property, except for the property labor could hold and call their own. In either case, their value of labor is individual, or limited to associations of their choosing. No "general theory of labor" is interesting to them. Outside of their interests, they would judge all labor as irrelevant, except for the threat it poses to what they wanted. There is no argument to make that property or labor should place in labor any value whatsoever. Neither saw the products of labor as alienable to what they did by nature. The objective of both has been to keep what they produce, and make use of products for their functions in life. Resources exist to be consumed in that view, and they do not possess any value by Being. Any storage or stockpile would be viewed as something for future use or potential, even if that is beyond their lifetime or a thing that may never happen. Property's aim is above all security of its claims, and so the proprietor seeks to make claims permanent and unassailable. Labor's aim is to never be pressed upon again in the way they have been, and this means liberty in the genuine sense, among those liberties the liberty to exist at all. These two are diametrically opposed, and yet, property and labor have a strange affinity for each other, because their aims and thinking are alike in so many ways. The favored grades of labor find liberty not as a class, but in becoming exploiters, and that is how the exploiter classes came about and replenish their stock. The proprietors find security in alliances, but all of their exploitation relies on religious appeals - an alliance with aristocracy - and technology, and thus alliance with the commoners. Property hates these alliances, but chooses them because they know nothing else, and when property "goes its own way", they appear like incels coping and look ridiculous, as they should. Most of labor, though, is left out of this game completely. Their sole affinity outside of nations and national consciousness could be with the unemployable wretches - and thus one of the first rules of commanding a nation is to forbid any interaction between those two orders except those which promote the rot of both. Both property and labor are characterized by their lack of unity.

Who has the most interest in this view of labor as valuable is the technological interest, for whom a general theory of technology is always necessary for any of their systems to operate. The management of slaves - of human resources - has been the task of the commons. In the mind of the commons, "slavery is the price of civilization", even though none of the values of slavery correspond to anything useful. The saying perpetuates itself, and it is a creature of the commons most of all. Without the peculiar institution, or another fulfilling its function, the commons would be lost. They would, at first glance, appear to be the favored grades of labor, their possession of some wealth marking them as distinct and persons with potential to rise. But, it has always been known that the value of labor is a game and a trick played on them. Without exploitation, aristocracy would not survive. Property for its part has little need of labor or products. Proprietors has been perfectly content to rule over a dumpster fire, so long as they can say they won and no one will tell them no. If they wanted something different, they would introduce an inefficiency in their function and not meet the demands of their position in the aristocratic "circle of life". The commoners are different in that obsession and compulsion regarding the world dominates their view of it. Both abolition and promotion of slavery prevail among them, and both tendencies are pawned off to the other orders so that this game can continue to be played. At their heart, the commoners are managers and bureaucrats, and do not have anything else in them. It is this which distorts the value of labor more than the corrupting influence of money or a few substances of dubious purpose. If money, drugs, the flesh trade, and the vices of humanity didn't exist, the commons would find reason to create them as vectors for their ambitions, and this is something they did without aristocracy. The only silver lining is that the commons alone would consider abolition of their class, if they chose it, and they are among those who could see - against their immediate imperatives but within the mindset that technology entailed - that their own existence brings peril as they are. So far as there have been general theories of technology reduced to substance, they were most appealing to the commons - their virtues, and their vices - and are useful because they refer to that which is contested, rather than indirect analogues like property or the bodies or some moral virtue.

The retrenchment of these five social classes occurred most of all in the nation, rather than in an imagined ecology or city. The commons begins as a nascent, new class rather than the mover of history. The number of "pure commoners" is small, because much of humanity works in labor for a living, as slaves or as freeborn, and the wealth of nations is pooled in a smaller group of proprietors and aristocrats. The inequality of classes is most of all an inequality of their right of exploitation, rather than wealth per se. The social order of humanity begins with slavery because that was the choice of those who founded cities and empires, rather than any necessity or material condition mandating it. From the outset, the commons and the technology they represented was feared as a threat to the ruling order, which it was. Most of all, the threat of technology entering the domain of laborers, and the laborers making common cause with each other and with the wretched of the Earth, would have been the end of humanity as a project. Every time it appeared that technology would escape a purview aristocracy assigned for it, the insinuations would begin, wars would be instigated, and the favored groups of both parties studiously avoid each other. For centuries, treasure would be spent on war between empires with no purpose or conclusion, despite promises of eternal peace between them. The wars were fought primarily for the right of exploitation, for the extraction of tribute, the esteem of empires, and promotion for officers who followed those imperatives, rather than anything necessary for survival. Whether the wars were with rival empires who could arrange a diplomatic game, or with tributaries who were easier to pay off than subdue with force, the wars were never effective for engineering an enemy society. They were instead exultant celebrations of the right of exploitation, without any particular ulterior motive. The financial motives were little more than an excuse to kill poor people and perform the regulatory functions of society by drafting more men for sacrifice. When successful, civilization was reduced to serfdom, where the cyclical war was openly nothing more than a celebration of aristocratic faggotry, thrown repeatedly in the face of every serf, with the town-dwellers as participants with their own stake in the vice of humanity. The strategy is similar in every part of the civilized world, and faced recurring challenge from barbarian nations. In medieval times, the barbarian nations no longer represented rival empires on the rise, but entities which could occupy and capture existing empires as tributaries, or whom faced encroachment from the technology of settled states, until such a time that barbarism was perpetually on the back heel, facing the final transformation of their way of life. That transformation continued throughout modernity to the present day and the crises of the 21st century that go on as I write this. For those who defended their lives, the war was real enough. For those who watched in comfort as the little people were sent to die, it was a hilarious joke, and this has always been the credo of aggressors - that war is cheap, easy to win, and most of all, disciplines labor and reminds them what is truly valuable.

After the fact, the causes of war are ascribed to the fickleness of its people, always excusing aristocracy who had everything to gain from the war and nothing to lose. This is the coda to a long process aristocracy has always insinuated, which meets the imperatives of all interests involve except the lowest class. Of the lowest class, there are enablers, the nature of which we will describe shortly. For now, the overarching mission of the labor project is as follows: the middling orders of property and technology or commerce owe their position to exploitation in one way or another. These two groups are antagonists to each other, their interests diametrically opposed, and over time they view the other as distinct species within a nation. A faction of both of these groups, in combination with select members of the exploited classes, foment conspiracy to create an aristocracy to rule the others, because this objective was the chief political aim from the perspective of each interest. This can be an aristocracy of landed property and the territorial claims of warlords and armies, or an aristocracy of capital and technology as exists today. Their enablers among the ranks of labor form the labor aristocracy - union leaders, skilled technicians, hatchetmen, whose members are drawn from associations that have been the necessary core of every institution and every meaningful political action undertaken in human society. In practice, the favored grades of labor are denied promotion once the institution is established. Their reward for enabling this is favored treatment in whatever system of labor management is devised. They become the favored house slaves, or are granted temporary liberty in exchange for their role in furthering sacrifice and toil. The lowest class is axiomatically excluded from even the pretense that promotion is possible, always edited out of history or existence. Their reward for compliance is driven entirely by fear or crass opportunism within their own ranks. To motives of the first three orders are locked in place institutionally once established. Formally, no class mobility of any sort is tolerated between them. Where class mobility exists, it happens "behind the backs of the producers", with aristocracy deciding in secret all promotions and all potential for anyone to claw back anything from the institutions which enclose the world. Among the three primary orders, no solidarity exists, except for conspiracies among them to form a new aristocracy. Their interests being what they are and humans being what they are, a new aristocracy adopts the political thought of the previous aristocracy, rebranding its tenets and its civic cult as needed to meet whatever new demands are placed upon them. The outgoing aristocracy, due to their luxury and alert attention to society-wide trends and no shortage of information about anything that disrupts their preferred order of society, has almost always allowed these revolutions to occur at the time and place of their choosing, or members of their ranks are the chief conspirators allowing the property-holders and commoners to align, issuing directives through go-betweens to facilitate the revolution. This tacit approval of aristocracy in all social reforms is implied as necessary by repeat insinuation that it can be imposed, such that any unapproved changes, even mild reforms, to the institutions are portrayed as unseemly, un-natural, or stupid. The human race being what it is, it was constitutionally committed to this approach for its own reasons, rather than any necessary purpose or ulterior motive to arranging revolution and reform in this way. A solution to the regular disruptions of economic life would be simple, but the prevailing interests in human society and the nations that form are opposed to those solutions, for those solutions would end any knowledge of history and future that they possess. They would lose any reason for their project to exist, and if their project was condemned, the lower orders who are cast out, having no reason to tolerate one more moment of this, will begin methodically tearing down the society and institutions guilty of perpetuating this, because such an outcome would be necessary for their security. Knowing this, aristocracy and its handlers prepare for an interminable siege and terror campaign, making no excuses for the terror, until "historical progress" is restored, and humanity continues on its trajectory in all foreseeable futures. The struggle may persist indefinitely, but it is always a struggle controlled from fortified positions which are suspiciously sacred. If the sacredness of those positions is ever challenged, a terrible retribution ensues. If that sacredness is violated permanently, the failing aristocratic mindset will, for the same reasons the condemend would methodically tear down the institutions of rule, begin tearing down the world and all things in it, spiting those who would make a world without them and their pernicious influence. This would, if those who have lost everything prevail, create a situation where all technology to predict the future and command human labor would fail. The victors in such a struggle would be left with an unsatisfying conclusion - that after all of the struggle, humans never really knew anything else, and all appeals to the sentiments and hopes they possessed that required them to fight for this would not provide any more answers than those that created the situation. The most that would be possible is that the ritual sacrifice that birthed humanity would be less prominent, and exploitation would shift to machines which carry out the useful industry of nations and society. The contest for those machines would then become the chief battlefield, displacing the struggle of and within nations for position. The struggle against aristocracy becomes a struggle against humanity itself. Had humanity saw its own failure, and many have but not nearly enough followed through to the necessary conclusion, it would conclude that "human right" or human virtues are forever lacking, but with no other authority or guidance available to them, those who would prevail are at an impasse when suggesting what the future could be, other than "not this". No technology or appeal to humanity possessing a different substance can change this struggle in any significant way. If the world itself created the consequences, then slowly, humans would transform, only at the plodding pace the world allows human societies to change organically. This transformation could never wipe clean the slate of human transgressions, and the resulting retribution would be terrible to all. The contending classes would being ruined, and while this is no loss to the damned who were ruined already, there is not a significant improvement in their lives simply by virtue of this fact. A different way of life would have to be possible, and such a life is highly alien and contrary to the impulses life would possess. It is certainly possible, because humanity as "humans" would not have existed if they did not set themselves apart from the animal world and from the savage rites and malice. We see within humanity ample desire for a world other than the one its institutions have left us with. If it is possible, then the struggle of contending interests over labor, the right of exploitation, and for the institutions would be a hopeless and intractable one. It is not presently possible to speak of this being different, but I hope at the end of this book to suggest some things we would not do if we wanted to allow this existence to be tolerable, absent a more through view of history, the polities which actually exist today, and the ruling idea that has risen to the apex of humanity. At present, the struggle for position within nations for the right of exploitation consumes large quantities of human labor and energy, and all that does not feed into this struggle is trivialized and left to its own devices. There is ample effort that humans expend on things other than this struggle, from which the remaining growth and vitality of humanity is possible, but none of it changes in any way the prevalent rites and rituals.

A diagnosis of this machine makes clear that all of the institutions - religion, property, technology, finance - are results of something that originated in the most basic associations of a nation. This is to say, human history has been primarily the result of secret societies and conspiracy, which begin in the family and in the workplace. Little of humanity's labor is politically relevant. Of that which is, it is the tax which is extracted from labor and the flesh and energy extracted from bodies in bondage, rather than labor being life's prime want or being particularly effective or efficient. Gross irregularities and disturbances are tolerated for no good purpose. Among those irregularities are the reality of human wants - that human beings were not economic creatures or subordinated to such, and so humans ask for vacation time, time apart from political society and the struggle that is imposed on them. Had humans followed their true wants, there probably would not be much of a political society or large institutions looming over them. Large centralization of technology in the hands of an overt aristocracy would have been seen as a menace, and eliminating the loci of such technology would not be difficult, if the will was there. The philosophy of struggle serves those who conspired to make their positions un-assailable. The resistance to this has largely relied on stubbornness against the prevalent spirit of humanity, because it must. It is necessary to rewrite history so that this stubborn resistance is portrayed as problematic, or a thing to be steered towards useless and performative ends. The prize and objective is reserved for those granted entry to the big club, to play the game as it was supposed to be played in their view. Only in working life, where reality must ensue, will the rules of the game be different. After the necessary work is done, the game resumes, and it appears as if the temporary break from the game was an aberration of history, made invisible by the story told by the favored who prevailed. The game played in the workplace is not concerned with what would be expedient or useful, but what reconciles reality with the imperatives of political life. In this way, those who toil can only work towards their own doom, and those who benefit become the sole purpose of the enterprise. If that is so, why would the workplace be a site of anything different, unless the most dire necessity prompted it? It is this that the eugenists seized upon to secure their final victory - that only at the uttermost end of necessity does the world override the human spirit. Those who are assigned the role of suffering and toil are to be pressed incessantly, while those selected to live and grow can do no wrong and are never pressed against for a moment. Whether this is known or not is irrelevant. Knowledge will not change the pressing of the nerve. This strategy is the same as it was in ancient slaveries, adopted from that lineage. Flagrant transgressions against the condemned are glorified, any merit independent of the institutions shamed and ridiculed, while the most petty distinctions of the favor are granted merit higher than that which would be judged if working life entailed more consequences than a continuation of the imperatives established by employers.

What would undo this from the present vantage point? There is no solution, and there is no intent to make one. Those who would have long ago seen that the favored will never surrender such a weapon, for the reasons outlined above. With that in mind, the favored then extend a farcical mercy to the toilers - that if they behave and comply, they will be temporarily spared and granted the most feeble crumbs. So far as it is possible, the game played by the favored grades of labor is that every "reward" or carrot is devoid of any substance, while every punishment or "stick" is the cheapest stick available. Bullets are not to be wasted, as the directive will read. Enfeebling the lower classes is the default. Drunkenness, licentiousness, and depravity is proclaimed to be the default state, except for those who have been "saved by the Christ" - granted sacrosanctity by the institutions and told that their pomposity is a self-perptuating goodness. The rites of Dionysus are ascribed to the lowest class by some bizarre logic, even though most of us cannot afford the drugs let alone would be permitted to attend their stupid parties. The toxins of choice for the lowest class are measured out by the same logic as the driver's whip, for we are told to numb ourselves so that the intolerable is glorious. If any numbing technique to endure the humiliations is too effective, it must be taken away.^[2] Of course, by the time the humiliations reach their apex, the intended target is disabled, stripped out of productive work altogether, and is turned loose against others of their kind, always preyed upon by the favored grades of labor. In this way, the blooding of the human race continues, and it is glorious to do this and retarded to do otherwise.

A measuring out of punishments and rewards is meticulous for the slave driver, the jailer, the slave, and the wretched who the slaves are told they are superior to. So much as possible, the best disciplinary force for the slave is to see "freedom" humiliated and associated with the beggar, who has no protector and no sanction. This is the only miserliness or restraint permitted in the human race - a measuring out of miseries and pathetic rewards. To those who are favored enough to live independent of managerial humiliations, it is all a joke, one that grants to the commoners untold jollies. Not once would they ever question this with any seriousness. For this to stick, the higher rites of the race - human sacrifice, exultant celebrations of war and ultraviolence, persistent drilling of such through propaganda and reinforcement of these psychological triggers - must prevail and be granted sacrosanctity. Those rites are the indicators of how humans will live and work every day, and are exultant celebrations of their spirit. Once tasted, once members are admitted to the rites and cleansed of sin as they saw it, they will never go back, and this they take to their grave and to the afterlife. Failed race. Once established, the cycle continues indefinitely as an article of their faith, surviving changes in regimes and any adaptation necessary for the core cycle to continue. No novel technology fundamentally changes this, for the core technology is self-justifying and already perfected. Any technology that would bring about an end to the cycle is assigned the value of an unfathomable evil. Technologies which could be utilized in any way to make simple changes that would obviate the need of such a cycle must be monopolized, until they can be destroyed or contained - ignorance is their strength in that regard.

This is the common heritage of mankind. Technology is the driver which would dictate its course, and this is what modernity set in place. But, technology in the world belongs to no one, and once established, it escapes the purview its maker commanded. Only with effort is it regulated into a thing which serves labor once again. Among the technology is the knowledge available regarding these tactics, which cannot be undone. Too many people see too much, and see no reason to continue playing the same game. Even in conditions of ignorance, the effects of this program of routine humiliation take their toll, until the condemned see that humanity is a monstrous force, and any compliance is no longer acceptable. Any good will which the human race mocks and denigrates with every fiber of its filthy existence, will no longer provide a single thing. The condemned, seeing their fate, begin lashing out and destroying the institutions with whatever is available to them, without regard to whether they will succeed or not. If there is no hope and there is no end, the taste of blood goes both way. Even the dim hope of retribution against a Satanic race would be worth more than any compliance or reward offered. If rewards are to be substantial, it would violate a core tenet of the civic religion, and therefore such things must never be acknowledged. Where they have occurred, they are only permitted in settlements which are revised when history can be rewritten, to say that the recently reduced ration has actually increased. This insult is common among a Satanic race, and the English are particularly Satanic compared to the human norm, so it is no surprise that the eugenist Eric Arthur Blair would pin his own filthy behavior onto others. This tactic never actually fools anyone. It is an exultant celebration of the middle class. The Outer Party members in that world would have been chomping at the bit for more humiliations of the proles, which the Party leaders are happy to oblige. Successfully conditioned, the Outer Party is ahead of everyone at pushing forward the mission. Winston himself exemplifies this behavior, desiring to rape and disseminate disease among the oppressed - just as Eric Arthur Blair did in his real life during his career as a colonial officer. The lowest classes are then told these exultant celebrations that are part of the ruling idea are powerful weapons - exploiting the one educational paradigm that is reasonably effective, and so "monkey see, monkey do" - and taught that these are values to aspire to, reproducing the same idea down to the lowest sector of social existence. Any world outside of this is to be ruthlessly expunged from history and existence, set apart from the political reality. Evil begets evil, especially when it is transmorgified into a bizarre species of goodness in the ruling idas.

There is no reason this cycle should cease. The reasons why do not require a foreign influence that is always just out of reach. The foreman or petty-manager is merely reproducing what elders have done generation after generation. So too do members of the lowest class work out systems where this is reproduced among each other. It is through the lowest class that all of this is truly possible. Associations of labor will always, in the final analysis, not break from the rites that allowed them to be where they are. Even at the uttermost end of need, no one would live the life of the condemned, even if they are being destroyed and consigned to that fate. They will cling desperately to what they once had. This is entirely expected and I would not fault them for doing so. This life that I have lived from an early age is not one that should be re-lived. None of these humiliations made me any better, and all of my efforts to rail against them were for naught. I did not know that a Satanic race absolutely refuses to reform even the simplest thing, because to do so would imperil what they truly value. "Once retarded, always retarded." Whatever they might have wanted, no one is going to resist the machine moving at its full potential. Throwing oneself on the gears of that machine is not just futile - it's encouraging the ritual sacrifice at the height of its working, as the student radicals exhorted the fools to do in the 1960s while they quietly assumed positions of petty authority and reaped the rewards of others' self-abasement. Like any machine, the machine of ritual sacrifice can be disrupted, its gears and bearings wrecked. If any of us were to do that - to even suggest such a thing was admissible - the shrieking begins, until history is corrected and the interests which have any voice assert their program. Fortunately, those who did resist the retrenchment of the eugenic creed did not pay the student radicals any attention. Their efforts were to stymie conscription, refuse any work to contribute to a society which encouraged this, and to prepare for the siege which continues to this day. Only after history was rewritten were the student radicals, scorned by all parties as intruigers and interlopers, described as the movers of history. The oppressed nations and classes in America described the student radicals as foxes to the conservative wolf, very clearly seeing the students as amenable to the liberal order of the time. The downtrodden who were being robbed of everything by monopoly had no movement, and were told that by some alchemy, they were the problem. Where were the radicals when eugenics purged our families in the open? Why did the student radicals always jump to the defense of eugenics and abortion despite open and rank exercise of their atrocities? Why did our statements of anything that actually happened elicit nothing but laughter and derision? The human spirit had spoken. They make no excuses for the terror. Why should we? Spitting on a filthy race and its institutions has been one of the few moments we can speak of where the course of history, in some small arena, was different. Hate, my friends, hate.

While this is happening, the daily grind of working life is reinforced. None of this is particularly productive. Vast waste continues, such that the only efficiency that can be imagined is the elimination of human labor. With every labor that is eliminated, new labor is invented, with the aim being to lock those consigned to work into contracts where they are overworked. It is more valuable to work one man 100 hours as week than to work four men for 25 a week, in that view. That has been the chief aim of efficiency - to consign as many bodies as possible to the ranks of the wretches, and to work to death those who are valid. All imperatives of labor suggested to them that they should do this, despite the obvious economic failure of this strategy, and the obvious consequences of overwork. It is a higher imperative to ensure the wretches stay as wretches, then to even consider your own position relative to the more favored interests who, as a rule, do not lower themselves to the indignity of work. A manager sitting in an office is not "working" in any sense we should appreciate. They spend their "busy day" playing politics and intrigues in their club, or wasting away their work day looking at cat videos on the internet. The barons of capital work even less than this. Bezos bragged that he need only make a few decisions a day as CEO, exemplifying that his sleep hygeine is great, as workers are ground down and deprived of a night's rest.^[3] Bezos will never face the further humiliations of managerial denigration, and the lower managers will not face the humiliations of workers. Glorification of this divison has been the entire point of the workplace. Any product that this ruinous process creates is dubious in value, when it could have been produced more cheaply and with far less torture. What the worker wanted was security. Actually doing the physical and mechanical labor, whether it is menial or mental labor, would be simple enough - if only there were much to be done at all. Any time labor would obviate the need of labor and toil beyond that which served moral purposes that were reasonable and useful for some end user, it is necessary to insinuate that doing this is retarded and would undermine the true aspirations of the human race.

The language of war is deployed for the most trivial laborious acts. What is slavery, except a continuation of the war that procured slaves? This war is not only the war against foreign powers, but the war within, where the ritual sacrifice claims the nation in total as a pool of slave flesh. That war has been the chief objective of armies, with the wars against foreign powers a barely acknowledged necessity, until a foreign power succeeds in conquest - and wishes to carry out the final solution. In the rare case that conquest finalizes the elimination of one nation or entity, that entity is only truly defeated when its name is restored and turned into a parody of its original. The Romans had no concept of waging something as retarded and faggy as "culture war", or an idea that they were making subjects "culturally Roman". To be Roman was almost entirely about things the Romans deemed practical for their purposes - following Roman law, paying taxes to a Roman governor, and their technological basis conforming to a design Roman administrators and engineers found useful. This also meant that when the Roman method of exploitation faltered, its client territories would go their own way, having largely been left alone, with the few exceptions being those who were specifically resilient against Roman exploitation. Culture war as a program has a terrible historical track record. Inevitably, the conquered independently restore a genuine understanding of history sufficient for their purposes, and the culture war never seriously convinces anyone of the truth of the conqueror's wisdom and justice. If the conquered annihilates all members of the conquered, as was the custom in primitive times - slavery always entailed the effective death of the prior society - what was done cannot be undone. The conquerors will have tasted that blood, and cannot go back on it with any seriousness. A game of lying to the outsiders and kaffir about what you are doesn't change that others can, independently, learn of your history. Invariably, a conquering empire finds its alliance with technology and a monopoly on it, so they can continue this shell game indefinitely. The same logic applies to exploitation generally - that each new generation of workers is an alien to be defeated in war. This is extended to the lowest unit of managerial allocation, and to the family unit which procreates. Children are set against their brothers and sisters, against their parents, and the parents are exhorted to present to their offspring as their conquerors, up to and including the most lurid rites of a Satanic race. After the fact, those most amenable to this abuse tell a story that they are protectors, and that the conquered should be grateful for the right of exploitation.

This of course is contrary to any worthwhile family. It is contrary to any labor that would be useful for anything but more conquest, more sacrifice, more toil and humiliation. Yet, that is what humanity is. If it were otherwise, this entire setup would be rejected, and the most basic security of labor to produce something useful would be the starting condition. If it were established, then the labor, which would be genuinely free for the first time, would see that the only outcome is for the war machine to be deployed in reverse, with a great retribution unlike any this sorry race would ever know. There would not be any going back - this would be the final blooding, the final sacrifice, and we would not care in the slightest for those who eagerly conducted the rituals before. But, this would not invoke any of the language of sacrifice or the rituals hitherto known. For us, the final campaign would be nothing more than a grim outcome, necessitated because a failed and demonic race knew no better and simply refused to let us live. It is entirely conceivable that the favored could abandon their campaign against us at any time, agreeing that coexistence is impossible and undesirable for both of us. We could give up the past for good, but in doing so, we are giving up the long history of sacrifice for an uncertain future. For the damned, there is nothing for us back there. For the favored, they have everything to lose. For the damned, the future is never going to be a recreation of "historical progress". The resulting world would not be paradise or any goal that would be valued by conventional imperatives. It will not be richer, more luxurious. Very likely, knowing what humans truly are and judging them accordingly would be a prerequisite for anything like this happening. Very likely, the victorious damned would see that the greatest danger for revanchism would be their own existence and their numbers, and so the world that came out of the final struggle would be a grim and lonely one with little going for it. It would be done because all other possibilities were exhausted utterly, and humanity proved itself to be what it always was - refused to allow anything other than its dominant tenets to prevail. This, I believe, is locked in by now, and always was. Humans simply did not have anything else in them, and at the cusp of victory, some terrible force will always induce them to pull back, or doubt what should have been done from the moment aristocracy reared its filthy read. No such doubt exists among aristocracy and the eugenists. Every abortion, every sacrifice to Ba'al or Moloch or the Christ, is glorified and put on display to remind the damned just what their race always was. The same does not work in reverse, as if our positions were morally equivalent. Aristocracy is not our ontological opposite. It is an alien among us, and it has ingrained in us a story of what thou art by insinuation and repetition. The true victory would be to extirpate something which should have been aborted and exposed at birth, without any glorification of such. It would be another sad story, and afterwards, the story of humanity would remain a grim listing of atrocities. Human malice would continue, but it would take on a different character. Where before the cruelty was life's prime want, the world where the damned prevail would be one where humans simply have little to do with each other, beyond that which was necessary. We would part from society as we have known it, and a very different construct would arise to ameliorate the excesses of humanity. That construct would abide laws of motion that have to follow from the world that allowed the prior political settlement to exist, and it cannot change what humans were or their potential for revanchism. It would be a world where such a thing was undesirable enough, where a different world really is possible - but it would not be a world that conforms to any paradise or any expectation that we or any I among us would be happy or contented. It would only happen if the world brought humanity to its fate, and there were survivors heeding that lesson. There were many times before where this lesson could have been learned, but the primordial ritual and those who harkened back to it would assert their eugenic spirit and begin the process of wiping out that effort of human beings to break the cycle that has prevailed. There was nothing in humanity that could compare, and no artifice humans could construct that would disprove the aristocratic theory. There is only the world's judgement, and the world did not take our side or share our sentiments. It could just as well have concluded that humans truly are depraved, and continue to lay waste to the human race until the end of time. But, there is one problem with this view - humans have very easily seen that the aristocratic order has always been a disaster. Aristocracy itself has had to admit out of necessity, as a holding action, that this is the case, but never is it permitted to follow that to the correct solution. To do so is haram and violates something deep in the human spirit. The aristocracy's dodge for this is that, privately, they always believe themselves to be an altogether different race, and so it is aristocracy that trades the most in race-faggotry and coded messages, because those in the know believe they're actually going to become gods.

A fantasy and delusion of the human race is imposed on the world and the nation. The nation did not exist in service to this. It exists as a consequence of that, and so it is bound to the fate of the human spirit. For all of this malice and the want of humans for vileness, their institutions - their vehicles for realizing any of these visions - have been lacking. And so, a substitute is offered which appears to please everyone, but in reality serves aristocracy - what if there was no state, no government, and no ideas at all? This is the philosophy of anarchism, but central to anarchism is that the idea of history and what happened becomes inadmissible and unmentionable. The revolt of the damned would be very aware of history and what its members will do to bring about the end of these conditions, and will be aware of the result of such a thing. We do not believe that by carrying out any such program, in whatever way we believe is suitable for our aims, that this will create anything that is glorious or rich. Yet, for all of our efforts, the world has presented one outlet - that we do as much as possible to live apart from the rot aristocracy created for us, and the rot that was instilled into us by their seed and their insinuation. This seems impossible, until the genuine weakness of polities is exposed. The weakness of states in realizing any of their aims makes it seem laughable that such entities were regarded as the source of any problem, rather than the malice of those who hold those states, those institutions. Where humans have amounted to much at all, it is from their ability to mobilize nations, rather than any powerful idea or technology or spirit. Because humans forbade a cooperation on any other basis, the nation has been by default the most effective form of mobilization available to them. Human institutions leave much to be desired, the best of them acknowledging frankly they live parasitically upon nations, and work through the wants and souls of individiuals and their assumptions about a false collectivity. When institutions attempt to capture the nation outright, hypocritically claiming that the Great Leader speaks for the nation and will abolish hitherto existing humanity, as fascist fags do, the result is catastrophe, intended beforehand because immiseration has been the purpose of fascism more than any others - has been the purpose of states and the aspiration of those who contend office. Had humans been different, nations could be superceded and internationalism would be normal and expected. At the historical moment where it appeared such a thing were possible - when the limitations of communication, distance, and alienness of nations to one another were less onerous, and the odiousness of aristocracy escalated beyond anything it had been prior to modernity - all of the vices and technology humanity had developed were unleashed towards aristocracy's overriding world-historical mission. That is the terrible calamity we live in, that surrounds us, and continues to rewrite history such that any past where its logic was not Absolute cannot be intelligible, leading only to blank stares. We are portrayed as crazy for wanting simple things, and not finding fetishistic joy in aristocracy's preferred values. In the name of the nation, nations and their members are set against each other.

Where do "fags doom nations", as the posters from Westboro Baptist Church proclaim? First of all, we would assign the most relevant agency to people who are very aware of why they do what they do, who are not fags in any sense of the word. Second, this offensive of sexual politics and depravity is primarily a creature of human resources, and only applied to those who are to be humiliated and enslaved. The favored grades of labor, the bourgeois order, the proprietors, and the aristocratic institutions, are all granted conspicuous immunity to the charges of "homophobia" or invented crimes. They are granted impunity to act and immunity to any allegations of crimes of Being. For the subordinated, crimes of Being become the only crimes, until deeds are arranged in a no-win scenario where subjects can only be conditioned in the way prison experiments require them to be. Should the subjects refuse to conform to what they "ought" to be, unlimited violence is deployed until they do, or they die. Someone may endure and find respite apart from society, but they will never escape it, and to express that a different world is possible is haram. There, faggotry of an ideological sort is injected through the institutions. It is imposed by human resources policies and artificial demands regulating speech. This very often has little to do with the fags themselves, or homosexuals generally. The most strident forces imposing this are those who are amenable to a pure eugenic creed, generally from those groups and classes that were already favored and granted this impunity to terrorize the condemned. It is not acknowledge by HR, but well understood by those who follow history, that the militance of institutional faggotry is intended as a backlash against those who agitated against the bigotries of humanity that were unfounded. The hunt for the homosexual was entirely a product of eugenics, the first foray in "teaching the controversy" over a matter that was not controversial to the expectations of most people in society. Nobody cared enough to make this a policy, and saw men destroyed by spurious allegations, or men destroyed for perversions that were in of themselves harmless. We are not stupid, and we know the malice of faggotry and ritual sexual abuse, which is haram to acknowledge lest one be accused of non-compliance and refusal to enable the maximal eugenic creed. Sexual rites and proclivities would be liberally applied to every arena, always emphasizing the vices of humanity and glorifying them, and shaming anyone who wanted something other than orgies and rot. Almost immediately, women were "liberated" if they offered themselves wholly to the eugenic creed. A portion of the female sex were always amenable to this, having been selected for and promoted in the prior generations, but too many of them saw that they would only be treated worse than ever after "liberation" of this dubious sort. Men were to become agentur and their most psychopathic behaviors glorified, while honesty and kindness were now consider crimes of Being and treated as unseemly. This was extended in a grand display to fathers who showed any interest in their children, other than the interests the eugenic creed insisted were normal. A fuller analysis of this social engineering regarding the family is something for my writing on the technocratic polity, where this social engineering of family units for good or ill was conceivable for the first time, and the book on eugenics where the most malevolent traits of family life were to become the sole remaining mores of the human race.

This is an extreme and deliberate example of things that were done to discipline slave populations historically, with American slavery in the South being an example envied by the eugenic creed for the science that was developed by those who managed slaves. The philosopher's task has been to abstract this basis for their society to a slavery that conforms to their expectations of such a thing - that it was their idea and creation alone, guaranteed by their "hard work" of partying and drinking, and natural to the world. Humanity is indeed born in chains, but it is not born in those chains. There could be slavery without aristocracy, for the idea is simple enough for everyone, and did not require any special justification. Slavery was, and remains to this day, the predominant understanding of exploitation - that someone is owned lock, stock, and barrel, however that management is conducted. Placing someone under the collective slavery of a civic cult does not change that in any substantial way. The same methodology is at work. Not one iota of lenience is permitted when push comes to shove. If that happened, the entire enterprise would be questioned. It is always imagined by the favored classes that this works without fail, but without regular humiliations and denigrations, and reinforcement of the notion that any of this is at all "productive", it would not last long. In most cases, the way around this is to leave the slaves a pittance they call their "life", so that this is tolerable enough. The greatest reward that can be given would be for the master to go away, and limit their relationship. If that is the basis for human societies, why would society be seen as anything other than a menace? Yet, this is what humans have chosen, because they simply hate us too much to allow anything else. The true stick is the example made of those who are noncompliant - ritual sacrifice, carried out on slaves gratuitously to show what the real value of labor is. It is done with the routine humiliations of working life under scientific management, now aided with mass media and spectacles to transmit the exultant shouting to a global audience of gawkers and enablers. The idea that this humiliation should ever cease is by now anathema to everything humanity values. In the past, it was conceivable that this grotesque performance would devour itself, and it did exactly that. The sole advance has been to discover the minute mechanisms which forbid this level of reality intruding on the "splendid institution". If this is not the case, then why does the institution of school yet exist? Why have we been instructed to watch our abasement and an endless drumbeat of depredations, all with the caption "this is what you are" flashing, from cradle to grave? Not one image of the toilers is permitted that is not one of abasement, or of an empty pride and naive honesty with appropriate sappy music or a nihilistic, smug grin, the latter reserved for the smugness of the favored grades who have always been spared the worst of sacrifices. So long as humanity prevails, there will never be an image of the toilers that is not this. The efforts to pretend that it could be otherwise met with the reality of what humans chose to be - what its institutions chose to reproduce, until they could produce nothing else. Where it is different, it is not an image that conforms to expectations of what the world is or should be. To say it was different is insanity or, worse, retarded. If it is different, it is shown as a demonstration that the favored have an advantage over the disfavored, and this favor is always granted by the master in all cases. Any case where this is not so, the master will hastily erect an excuse to say it was permitted temporarily, until history can be corrected. Those who claw back something from this arrangement have no incentive to advertise or show their escape, because to do so will only initiate shrieking, as if a hostile alien were found among the human race. If the best the institutions can create is a fearful populace, where even the advanced sections of the nation are dull intellects who abhor any display of honesty or knowledge that is not institutionally approved, what good is humanity and its product? All of its genuine product is siphoned to feed those who promote this anyway, for whom the drumbeat of victory and exultant shouting has always been a greater reward than all others, if they can join such faggotry. The only time such a foul race shows much initiative or creativity is in finding new ways to intensify the cruelty, and so all product, if known, would be repurposed to feed that. This is why it is done above all - because a Satanic race knows nothing else, and so, saving it and granting it freedom is just making the problem worse. The problem was never so much slavery, but the malice that allowed it to continue. The institution transforms to meet the demands of the present technology, without imperiling the malice and humiliation at its heart. Had it been different, we would not talk about how much humiliation is appropriate. We would conclude that humans simply refuse to do anything else, and encouraging any of it is against any of our interests. Those who join the exultant shouting and faggotry can make do without us, since the chief aim of this has been to eliminate us anyway when their advantage is such that they believe they will sweep away the residue, as their filth god and religion insists they will when the inevitable victory comes.

The injection of lurid rituals and displays in public life is just the latest escalation after centuries of abasements and humiliations that this race has made its calling card. So effective has this strategy been that any honesty and desire for a better world and better humanity, in spite of all of its history, is met with immediate derision. Something as simple as not wasting energy on a wasteful distribution network, which only exists for the purpose of ensuring the "correct people" are deprived and killed off, is inadmissible. The condemned did nothing to warrant this, have no intention or ability to exact retribution, even though they should. If everyone behaved as "rational actors" in the eugenic ecology, nothing at all would be done, and everyone would immediately revolt against and exterminate this Satanic race, themselves included since their lives already have no value beyond killing off their own. This is the endgame eugenics foresaw and why they have no shame whatsoever in promoting this vision. They keep for themselves a different world where this does not apply, but they always maintain the stipulation that sin - opposition to eugenics - means ejection from paradise. The only paradise about it is that the depradations these Satanics inflict on the world are muted in their safe space, while they are exultantly performed among people who have the least investment in this faggotry. For everyone else, they are caught between the wretched of the Earth and the rulers, the latter forever out of reach and secured in their fortifications. With property and commerce already subsumed into aristocracy's vision as truly independent actors, this really leaves labor and the suffering class alone with each other, with the former always triumphant over the latter, yet always living a barren life punctuated by brief moments of excitement. The true lives of the favored grades of labor are far less than the story given to them of their nation's glory. They are riddled with disease. Poison, drugs, licentousness, disease, and malice are seeded among them by agentur, many drawn from their own supposed friends. All of those things are blamed on the existence of "bad genes", bad spiritual energy from the lowest class. For the lowest class, even this sanction to exist is denied. The lifespan of the lowest class is markedly lower than that of the favored grades of labor, with most of us expiring before the age of 50, routinely denied even the most basic medical treatment, while actively attacked and harassed if we live independent of this beast, and most of all, blacklisted from any employment. Industry remains laggard by any objective standard, only stimulated by dire necessity for war. Since war itself would be fought with a low level of technique in most cases, industry produces very little worthwhile, despite clearly being capable of obviating any "material condition" with less effort than the effort spent promoting this malice. The extractive income to produce energy and crops is poorly managed by design. If it were managed with any efficiency, the arguments of natural limits would be nullified - but this would require honesty about energy inflows and outflows, and guess which interests in our society were at the apex of creating eugenism and the technocratic polity. Nearly all of the extractive income of human society would be managed far better from the outset by a regime other than capital and finance, which has always been ruinous - so ruinous that agriculture was often the sole exception to the order of finance and coin, and finance only was permitted entry so far into the extractive sectors - usually because the order of landlords were grossly incompetent, malicious, and were in that time doing as the Malthusians do now to engineer famine as much as possible, rather than allow any rational distribution scheme to prevail and circumvent the landlord's fear. The fertility rites and sacrifice for the harvest are ancient versions of this - reminders of the human spirit and what this project was for, giving a nod and wink to the favored that the exultant thrill of sacrifice and torture will be something they join in this life and the next.

What is channeled here with the quote is not a true statement of what the new society was - for Thatcher certainly didn't believe society was dissolved when it came to her party and the interests she represented, and was as much a warrior for the institutions as the traditional proclivity of the Right valued. Eliminating the firm, the corporation, the state, the institution, from any admissible rendering of the world, has distilled the core of this suppression to its most essential unit - reproduction and the family. Now the eugenic creed can do what it had always wanted to do.

The family as an institution of preferred form is the mis-direct. It is access to reproduction in a material sense that is the objective sought. This is re-created in the workforce, and in political life. The priest is given the title "Father", the capitalist is the "Father of the Nation", the teacher takes on the role of Mother or Father, the former very conspicuously as the insidious design of the institution. From the moment a child is exposed to wider society, the family as an idealized institution gives way to the reality that children are exposed to a predatory society, and the family was largely a product of that predatory society - that is, prospective mothers and fathers were promoted on the basis of their support for predation. If they protested the ruling order, they were always judged to be unfit parents and screened out, parent and child both suffering at the hand of the ruling order. Eugenism institutionalized this and made permanent what had always been an inroad available to states, institutions, and in particular, firms which were to hold the lives of the people in bondage through the contract and coin. Slaveries were the first site where breaking the resolve of the slave could be practiced, unfettered by sentiment or expectations that anything else was possible. Eugenism and its institutions are in every way the highest form of the slave power yet known, and so follow this example religiously, except in the ways the peculiar institution impugned on their theories of reality control and sentiments about themselves. Every slavery has entailed an uncomfortable truth that the same methods could be deployed against masters, and if slavery was to be a viable institution, the moment this began, there was no surviving that, and no real redemption from it. The eugenist, who believed fervently that slavery was not merely natural but hereditary, and that they were granted sole impunity to the institution, could not abide that equalizing effect slavery as a concept had. It was this that had to be drilled out of the slavery eugenics desired - something that tempered every slave-holding polity in history in one way or another, for whom overt slavery was never something they denied or made excuses for. They, like many after them, make no excuses for the terror, and needed none.

So much as it is possible, the slave institution was to become a household fixture and necessity, and the slave a consumer product. Among the few assets that the commoner could call real estate were the slaves they held, and their management of the slaves was their chief function in the social order, much as landed estates were managed and commerce was to be managed by their wits. If slavery becomes a political matter - or the ties of slavery to the political situation became too overt - it would jeopardize the enterprise, because slavery has always led to political consequences due to the nature of the institution. As mentioned, anyone in a slave society is liable to become a slave. Social distinction, merit, deeds, laws, and the most vaunted asset held by aristocracy, granted no immunity to the institution. Aristocracy defined itself primarily by its clever ruses to exonerate themselves from any obligation to slavery, rather than any need or want of the institution for themselves. From aristocracy's point of view, the human race - which they judged to be inferior and separate from them - were already slaves, and the peculiar institution merely made official what their sentiments always told them. Every slavery, to be an effective slavery, is a political matter, judged by institutions and records of deeds of who owned whom. There is no version of slavery which is entirely a personal matter or consumer choice, nor can such a slavery survive for long. It has always persisted because slavery is a commons enjoyed by the slave-holding population against the slaves. Joining slave patrols is something the freeborn do out of their passion for doing so, because their fate is tied to ensuring that they never become slaves, and that the slave system does not end. The more immediate the need of slaves, the greater the exhortation to join the slave patrols. The favored grades of labor would either be among the slave patrols if they are freeborn, or dedicated drivers and facilitators if they are slaves. Were slavery a personal liberty, it would not withstand any intruder who decided your slaves were now theirs, and with no patrol to capture wayward slaves, the slave need only find some haven where they were free. This is precisely what Northern states offered - that slaves escaping to their territory would not be returned to their masters, and could resettle there. The Northerners held no slaves and did not share in that commons, and had their own interests against the Southern institution. We see here that slavery does not merely need legal sanction, but unquestioned legal sanction. Interested parties that would see an end to slavery for ulterior motives or moral abhorrence have nothing to stop them otherwise. In every slave system, the personal stake in slavery is emphasized as a bulwark to protect it - and this is a stake in property and wealth, rather than a sentimental thrill for owning slaves. For the eugenist, these incentives had to be reversed, while preserving the core of slavery and how slaves were broken. The exultant thrill of whipping a slave had to take precedence over any personal stake in property, and eugenists were to join the new slave patrols because enjoyment of torture was the point, rather than a defense of property and their institution against other institutions. In all forms of slavery, its tie to family reproduction is emphasized. For eugenists, family reproduction was itself to be managed like the behavior of slaves, starting with specimens bred like dogs among the faithful eugenists and slaves alike. This habit already existed in slaveries where breeding slaves was viable. It suffered one drawback from the eugenists' point of view - slaves in America were always black, and the eugenist loathed the very existence of any Africans so passionately that they would never be admitted as stock in their preferred society. If the eugenist told you that all white people, save a select few, were now niggers in a yet more abject state, that would not go over so well. But, as a secret society and insinuation with unlimited rights of transgression, where it is taboo to acknowledge what is happening, a few whites can be told those other whites are worse than niggers with a grin, and emphasize the exultant thrill of sacrifice on top of the thrill of slave-hodling.

The eugenist finds its analogues in slave systems' behavior against the less desirable slaves - those who were noncompliant or useless, who did not have any reason or ability to comply with anything they were whipped to do. After this display of sacrifice, the master offers his support to the "good ones" and tells everyone that outside of that one troublemaker, they were all good enough to continue going, and they should thank the master for this mercy. Sadism alone never provoked revolts, as if slaves expected anything different after enough such lessons. Pehraps a lax and indulgent master would refuse to do something horrible, especially when the body he kills is something he paid for, and he only has so much wealth to purchase these slaves. But, neither laxity nor harshness had much effect on the propensity to revolt, escape, or be lazy. Slaves could revolt when they were of a mind to do other than what this system said they would, and usually the moment no one is looking, the slave will do whatever it pleases, having no commitment to a civic cult that would discipline his or her behavior. If that includes escaping to anywhere but this shithole, then there is not a great argument to say it would be any different, any more than there would be an argument for the master to show kindness out of fear. The greater discipline on slaves - the only one that would substitute for the civic cult - is the display of ritual sacrifice and routine humiliations. To accomplish this, the master, the driver, and all involved in conditioning slaves, turn to the conditions of reproduction and the family. They create the impression of brothers among the slaves so far as it is useful, then engineer situations where brother "must" betray brother, and then induce this betrayal at a lower and lower cost. The story goes that torture only breaks someone to do it to another after many sessions. The reality is that a fag like Winston Smith was always eager to kick down someone to get ahead, and merely spent his sessions making excuses to find some other target to hate. Conditions of slavery are not conducive to love or any prolonged association among the slaves. From the outset, slavery is a system, much as a family has its hierarchy and brother competes with brother, often by age cohort since children are rarely the same age in the same household. Within an age cohort, whether at school or in some setting where children from multiple families meet, children are graded, a preparation for the contest for civic worth that will consume their adult life, if they are admitted entry. Those who were selected to die from the outset will be lied to about everything habitually. It is the same with the disfavored slaves, who will be made examples, and the slaves will be rewarded for kicking them down, and habituated to the thrill of doing so. It is this which the eugenist captures among the free - to train them to behave like a slightly elevated nigger in mentality, displacing the black man whom the eugenist wanted to outright exterminate and make a public example of their race's glory. This should tell you of the bizarre racism of the eugenic creed, where fervent racists are afraid to acknowledge what they are - because they know, based on history and experience, that they have been made into niggers at the least, and fags beyond that, and told "this is what you are", after tasting blood. Breaking the oath is a sin, you know. It would be possible to insinuate brotherhoods and societies among the slaves, a tactic used to suggest to a few slaves with some political mind that they could rise by compliance in that game, and if successful, they promote to house duties. The further advance of eugenism is to mandate these brotherhoods, and then denude their content and purpose to even less than they were from the outset of ancient rites and lurid cults. Among the races split off from the core "race", the same internal war and war against aliens for the most spurious purpose is encouraged. Unlike slaveries which acknowledged history, eugenist slavery abolished history, declarity triumphantly "history is bunk", among their other fag slogans.

To form a more perfect union, familial life's most basic mechanisms would have to be re-tooled. This would consume the bulk of social engineering effort for the past century - breaking humanity from a habit of rearing children that were their blood, or at least held the mother's blood with certainty, to raising children by and for the creed alone. Again, the conditions of slavery were the example eugenists looked to. But, these would not do. For one, children in bondage were often reared by slaves, and this came to the mother or another slave, and so they could perpetuate whatever pedagogy was worthwhile for them. The masters had little ability to intervene among an alien race, when their ruling idea and philosophy told them repeatedly the master and slave races were incompatible, and no black slave would believe after indoctrination that he or she was really white all along, or had a "white spirit", even if the master indulged this belief. If the outside society's prevailing views on race did not accomplish this, history, any self-examination, and any comparison with other people, would make clear that a black man or woman was what he or she was. Whether this was relevant to their own sense of themselves is another matter, but it would weigh on them that their past was one where they were stripped from their family, living among sadistic aliens who seemed unusually inclined to devil-worship while pretending they were holy. Indoctrination could not change that history, whatever the interests of this man or woman to be other than what their history suggested. They would constantly seek the approval of their alien peers and "friends". Perhaps this will be granted, but no such imposition is made on the aliens, who wink and nod to each other often enough to reinforce their own position. The other alternative is that this racial identity simply ceased to be relevant. Presuming the stability of the slave system were no longer a question - it is entirely possible for the slave system to rebrand as distinction of ability, and it "just so" happens that the American Negro is scientifically judged to be "racially retarded" and thus deserving of this station, with a number of whites degraded to a similar social rank - the question is now shifted to judgement of ability or intelligence. This is where the eugenist wants the subjects to be - constantly doubting themselves, unless they had the privilege of being "born in the know" and never having to question themselves for a moment. The recourse is to double down on this new shibboleth, always conforming to a game the eugenist established. Whether the judgement of intelligence remains racist is not particularly relevant. What is relevant is the insinuation that bigotries can be weaponized and abandoned solely at the will of the holder of institutions. This person would have to be able to judge any institution that would impose slave conditions, rather than just those that were imposed on him or her personally, or people like him or her. Slavery as an institution is never confined to a purview, where a select group is oppressed and another is sacred, however much that attempt may be made. There was only one endgame to American chattel slavery as an institution, if it were to continue - the outright enslavement of a significant portion of the native whites of the country. It would be this, more than anything else, that led to its abolition, rather than any ulterior motive. The Northern white worker did not want to be a slave, or wrecked by having to compete with slave labor. The free soil farmers did not want to compete with slave estates in a game they could never win, when the slave supply was monopolized. No one wanted to be in hock to banks which were the purveyors of slaves and facilitated the slave trade across the ocean. All of these conditions are placed on any slavery. Eugenics is no exception to this rule. If it were to impose its ordering on society, it would have to do so in competition with all other institutions and all other slaveries. The same is not true of "free labor" or wage labor, or the rule of capital generally. Capital as a force had no particular objection to the slave power, for slaves were industrial machinery and could be operated and refined just as any other machine could be. So far as American capital had any objection to the slave power, it was due to competing interests regarding the country's future, rather than the replacement of one slave institution with another. In so many ways, slavery never ended. It transformed to state-run prison slavery, outright extermination, wage labor under discriminatory laws - more overtly for the purpose of eugenics rather than "racial solidarity" or any similar faggotry - and ultimately the scientific management which became default in every technocratic society made the ownership of chattel obsolete and inefficient. The institutions of the 20th century were the first to obviate the problems slavery presented - its universality, the constant threat of revolt or worse, revolution, dependence on alien populations that could not be disciplined by civic cults - but had yet to restore in total the aspirations of all slave powers in the manner their ideologues desired.

The insidiousness and "false friendship" of the eugenist is a necessity for this reason, rather than the strategy being particularly effective or "fooling" anyone. By instinct the eugenist is reproducing as much as possible the mindset of a total and unrelenting slave society, upheld as the ideal of their race and soul. And so, I have no compunction declaring - failed race. Satanic race. They chose to be a race more than anyone else in this world, but have estabished sacrosanctity regarding the matter. Racial confinement is for the inferiors. In every way, the eugenist upholds every aspect of apartheid, and does so not out of ignorance or instinct. The same segregation is to be repeated at all levels and in all institutions, and among their own kind. It is an apartheid unmoored from any historical purpose, or any sense of a nation or history. It is a segregation premised most of all on a belief that this segregation is the point, rather than a thing in service to any ulterior motive. Slave societies of the past were always aware that the slave institution presented political difficulties, among them the prospect that their whole nation and society - leaders down to the lowest class - could be carted off as slaves and spoils of war, and the world would move on as if nothing were different. No appeal to nature could circumvent that. Only by replacing the exploitation with first the right of exploitation glorified to its maximal stage, and then the thrill and sentiment of slavery being the only sentiment permissible in Galton's world, would this fate be circumvented. The false friendship is carried out precisely because it is insulting. Every humiliation, every ritual of abasement, is carried out because the thrill of insulting someone takes precedence. So long as a society is secured against anyone who would refuse, it can carry on indefinitely. This will produce predictable consequences. It would denude all labor and all product that comes out of such a society, even that which is produced for limited distribution among the favored grades. It would only be possible if all other societies tacitly approved of this strategy, and all dissenters were ruthlessly stamped out. It would consume exorbitant energy in pursuing this aim. But, if the aim was precisely that - depopulation, denuding of products, and behavioral modification - then eugenism would see all of those consequences as assets.

In short, the familial relationship had to become a war from cradle to grave. This already had antecedents in the family of yore. The patriarchal family was premised on the father's provision to the state of his offspring for military service or producing more boys for military service, and the provision of labor and product which is paid in tax. This required the father to be a father of standing and property. Fathers who failed this were cast out and humiliated, and this fate, then like now, was what failed men got for their "right of exploitation". No right of exploitation can exist without a greater exploiter as a potential, and for the patriarch, no decency among patriarchs saved them. What was needed was to maximize the cruelty of familial life - the father's scorn and beatings, the mother's abuse and manipulations, the internecine struggle of siblings, the access to children by institutions, and the overall fear that is the condition of the human race now established - while eliminating its virtues as much as possible, punishing successes that did not conform to institutional demands, and most of all abolishing any basis for existence of the family outside of its institutional role. In short, the family had to no longer be the family in any sense we would judge such a thing an environment where life could grow or adapt, except at the will of the master institution over the slave race. In practice, the rearing of children was never monopolized in total by the family as an immaculate unit in the first place. Children who were to become successes would meet children of other families, while children who were shameful were to be hidden from public view in all things. Because the institutions needed men and women capable of some modicum of existence if they were to be free - or even if they were to be be useful slave assets - there was a necessary limit of abuses to meet the dire need of decency that institutions always abhorred and loathed, but abided so that the present danger of too much decency in the human race could be fought in earnest at some future date. Sadly, "some future date" arrived during the 20th century, and so looking to past examples can only tell us so much. What remains is the lingering instinct and the genuine decency of human beings, who were guided more by immediate self-interest and had no institution mandating a preferred social ordering. If there were institutions not given over to this malice, it could have been different, but that would require institutions to not be what humans made them into, and what their law and political thought guaranteed they would be once unmoored from any condition requiring them to abide decency.

A gradual transition of family life begins with the introduction of the civic cult of lurid rituals, is brought into line with law with the patriarchal family, and developed over the centuries until such a time that the civic cult - the philosophical state - could claim outright a prize it has always sought. If it controlled life at all levels, it controlled reality at all levels. This has been the sole obsession and the overarching ruling idea uniting all others. Its counterpart in the end could only be one thing. Appeals to nature, and appeals to some law of motion that politics "has" to abide, as if it were unknowable and Absolute simultaneously, were an opening salvo in the conditions of total war of society, for society, against the people of society. Society was not obliterated. The information that society entails, institutions, and all that society entails are more active now than ever. What was to be destroyed, at a prodigious pace, were the human beings and souls, and this pleased Moloch so much that he has graced Maggie the Milk-Snatcher with titles unfathomable to past politicians. She may have been merely a grocer's daughter in the mortal realm, but her deeds and bold statement of the eugenic creed have promoted her in Hell beyond the wildest dreams of many conquerors.

There is one problem with this technology - the nation. Nations do not respond to social engineering with the passivity of institutions and their cogs, nor with the passivity of substances and forms found in natural objects. They do not respond, as the theory claims, just like biological machines whose behavior is by now well studied. They exist precisely as a natural defense against this sort of encroachment. Their members need not like each other or share some affinity or sentiment to see the mutual danger posed by such a program. They don't need to share a project or ideology or religion of any sort. They need only see a simple principle that animated many nations and potential ruling and struggling ideas throughout history - that should this path continue, everyone is raped, and not merely fucked. We could go on being raped forever, waking up every day for our daily rape session with the worst assholes calling themselves daddy doms. This is highly unpleasant to say the least, and very expensive. But, for eugenics to prevail, it will be done often, just as similar aristocratic programs bragged they would do to us the whole way. Anyone who encouraged any part of this is a gigantic faggot at the last. Every technology, including the instruments of rule, are things studied by science. The tools of the master may not be repurposed or freely exchanged for ulterior motives. The motives in their construction make clear that nothing could be made of them by their design but the purposes we have seen. But, science and intellect can fashion tools departing from this tradition. It is here where the conditions of the ruling idea must discipline all slaveries and all nations.

Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

Return to Table of Contents | Return to Chapter Start