Return to Table of Contents | Previous Chapter | Next Chapter

If slavery is an end unto itself, it is circumvented by some simple realities. Some of those have been elaborated on in the prior chapters, but in short - there was a motive to slavery. If the motive is the thrill of owning slaves and seeing them suffer, and extracting suffering is the point, then it becomes clear that slavery or freedom as conditions are quite irrelevant to that aim. So too would the claim that "the object of power is power, the object of torture is torture". That circular reasoning might work as a koan from a position of power, but outside of the torture chamber - even if the torture chamber is the whole society and escape is made difficult - it has little meaning or direction. We did not need any novel technology to teach us that, because humanity has always done this in one way or another. Such a threat has always been made and acted on, and new technology did not change this in any fundamental way, where before there was a period of innocence. Humanity was judged guilty a long time ago by its own members, and the creation of such a world is exactly what would be predicted if natural law took its course. Nature in the genuine sense - for nature has no "law" as such - also suggests that such a world would have little going for it. If such a world is taken at face value, then the only course of action is to absolve oneself of it as much as possible, and when we all pass from this world, we can wash our hands clean of it, knowing that it wasn't going to be any different because a few humans insisted it should be this way, instead of literally anything else. If we have already committed to that course, then the conduct of life would be self-evident - that we would have no reason to care about their grand promises or world-historical missions except fear. That world never existed at face value, nor does it describe what actually happens. Slaveries of any sort rely on the institution's expedience for certain aims for the holder of the institution, rather than any inherent moral appeal for or against the institution. Slaveries occur at the level of nations, rather than over preferred ecology. The freedmen of an alien nation will remember that people of their nation, even a nation that was constructed out of nothing because none existed except their common history as slaves, will continue to be enslaved and brutalized. Members of a nation which enslaved their own, or subjected their own to ritual humiliations wantonly and for the most spurious purposes, deserve the fate coming to them. The nations that cohabitate will inevitably be placed in some ordering by the ruling powers and set against each other, even when they have far more in common and live under the same sun so to speak. Without the environment of nations, slavery would be unintelligible to our moral sense as anything particularly unusual. We are, by default, in possession of nothing, including our very bodies. In primitive society, no institution of slavery can be persistent in this way, for there is no law and at most only an insinuation for one tribe or another that it can do this for a time. In such societies, slavery is viewed quite differently - as a fate of the conquered, a mercy that might be extended to them, or a condition that is little different from the obligations of men to other men in that setting. The transition from slavery to freedom changes very little in a philosophical sense, if one is in Babylon or Egypt where slavery was perceived as the natural order, and any talk of it being different ran against the dominant civic cults. It is that slavery which eugenics harkens to, but like all such things, it creates parodic forms one after another to rewrite how such a slavery would have operated. To believe in that, the spurious freedom of wage laborers subjected to medical interventions and onerous civic obligations which change and which cannot even be acknowledged as what they are, must be seen as genuine freedom. The true distinction in such a society was between the favored slaves and the suffering class, and the humiliation entailed, rather than any abstract notion of freedom or liberty. The property-holders and technical workers of that time would have been more favored slaves, who perhaps held slaves of their own in an imagined hierarchy. Without any political, legal, or social concept of "freedom" except the bonds of family - another form of slavery in all but name - and the prevailing cults all exalting spiritual slavery, the slave institution was so prevalent that it could continue without deeds or law as such. It would persist on a spiritual appeal, and this is what the ancient religions always were - exultant screaming for more slavery, more blood, and more sacrifice, as befits this disgusting race.

For all of that, people in such a society can see, as many do today, that this way of life leaves little to be desired. The rituals were there for a purpose. For the priests and aristocracy which were as free as anyone could be in such a society, the purpose was security of the status quo, whatever the cost. It was a thoroughly political decision on their part, rather than a moral one or something which great sentimental value. The priests throw away life casually and without regard, but are still far beyond the eugenists in moral probity, for their true conditions were that their resources were always scarce, enemies were found in the neighboring city or temple, and there were real limits on how many souls could be ensnared, reproduced, and sacrificed to their gods. This would sober even the most monstrous of societies, and there is not a race, tribe, nation, polity, or institution among humanity which can claim they are particularly unusual regarding this. Their deeds and practices may differ, the names of their gods and the tenets that result from their existence are rarely identical. This has usually resulted in pre-modern peoples concluding, whatever their exultant screaming may create and whatever tortures they visit upon the damned, that their power is never so great or worth sacrificing their sense of smell or common sense. It is this sobering influence alone that does the yeoman's work of guiding humanity towards anything other than the rot. The nation appears as a potential alternative throughout history to this, and it is the nation which made democratic thought possible as a political format. If democratic thought could exist, it would have had to understand the nation and its origins, and many efforts to do this were written. For as many efforts as there have been to comprehend the nation and history, there have been just as many attempting to constrain the nation, deny its existence, or jump in front of it as quickly as possible. There are even more that deny anything beyond the nation or the state can exist, that is not a recapitulation of past forms and degenerated versions of the forms at that. If you told the ancient despots that destroying democracy was an imperative, they would scratch their head and wonder what the fuck you were talking about. Democracy was not a threat to the ancient despots because their rule was premised on their civic cult, more than the institutions of a class with-held from other valid members. There was nothing for a democratic force in society to capture, and so far as democratic concepts existed, it was the recruitment pool for new slaves - every man and woman a slave in spirit in such a world - and new militia-soldiers, who have been historically the basis of democratic political force. The militia usually double as farmers and slave-holders, and warrior aristocracies are limited in their numbers and the mechanisms to supply their existence. In an era before professional armies or the formations and tactics of classical empires, large and permanent warrior aristocracies had little excuse to justify their presence. The free men - that is to say, men without the humiliation and mark of shame of legal slavery, but unfree with regards to the ruling power - of such societies were the warriors, and the producers of such societies were in one way or another slaves treated in the most abject fashion. Among the free men, generals could rise through that most ancient function of generals - schmoozing and kissing the ass of the ruling authorities. Generals throughout history are promoted almost entirely based on their loyalty to the regime, with competence and administrative talent being a potentially nice asset, but worthless if the general got ideas that he would be the king instead of some other asshole. Since many who became kings became kings in this fashion, they were quite aware of how this operated and to not let anyone else do what they did in the same fashion.

If kings did not promote through the martial line - and victory in battle is one of the great legitimizers - they promoted through the priestly functions, or they promoted through the functions of the court and what would become in time lawyers and orators. Law in martial societies was almost synonymous with war, with armies of lawyers and paralegals marching to the forum to do battle with the opposing counsel, the magistrate playing referee to the poor sods caught up in this farcical justice. Woe to he who is summoned to court on any charge, no matter what bothersome things like facts say. All who attend are aware of the truth of the law - guilty until proven innocent - but a pretense is quickly established to say it is the other way around, only for men of standing to transgress what the law says or means. The presumption of innocence is curiously never applied to those who are far removed from anything that looks like guilt. The sole justice here is expedience - that if courts openly extolled this injustice and the display of it, no one would think such a court is worth regarding, and scofflaws would not merely become necessary, but a moral duty of anyone who wanted existence among humanity to be tolerable. As with politics, law is only sobered by a real world outside of its jurisdiction. This has done, fortunately for us, enough for lawyers to not disturb too much that which did not need to be distubed. Nations by default have no concept of the law or legalism. The law of nations is the law of personal virtue, merit, accusation, standing, and the rights of the contending parties alone. If there is a court, it should be imagined as some sort of arena, for good or ill. The standing of the law as an institution may be something the nation values, so long as the institution is at all functional. But, in revolutionary times, all of the actions that brought a faction into power may be flagrantly illegal, but it was first of all the will of the people, and secondly - and more importantly - that flagrantly illegal act is why the men currently debating in session are where they are, and why other men are not there. With religion, rulers have their more effective vehicle, and it has been this that was chosen as their primary vehicle, rather than a secondary, mollifying one. For religion, the will of the people is nothing more than the will of the gods those people follow. The first line of action was to identify the rulers directly with those gods, and ideally claim that the rulers are living divinities with no reservation. This smoke and mirrors worked many centuries with varying degrees of success, but the greater work was in secret societies, cults, gangs, mafias, and donatives to the favored class if they took their part in ritual sacrifice and blooding. It is in this way that slaveries attain an enforcement arm that was cheap, and could wield carrots and sticks at the cheapest price possible. There's no way to compete with the price of a priest's invocation to create as much blue sky as he wishes to sell on a particular day, if there are people willing to sell themselves into slavery for that piece of blue sky. In latter years, the aristocracy steps back from being literal gods, to being mortal vessels of the gods and descended long ago from the dogs, as the aristocracy of Rome and Greek cities loved to do. This works in various forms for about 1,000 years, but faces challenges from the first mass religions, and eventually concepts of monotheism, organized religion, and theology in the form of those institutions which stand independent of any particular ruler. For another 1,500 years give or take, the rule of the one god, whichever god it may be, or the rule of some philosophy with divine features, performs similar functions, but their character has changed considerably, and would continue to change as organized religion adapted to its situation and rivals. Priests no longer became kings in most cases, but were behind the king, or at the king's side, or tutored the kings in their youth. In the past 200 years, older rituals gave way to the technological and scientific approach - that theology was approachable by reason in one way or another. Today's technocrat is in all respects the priest of today. They promote almost entirely through the institution of the university which was understood from the outset to be a religious institution, handing out degrees and entry into an august body of learned scholars who did likewise. Unlike the priests of before who claimed a particular god or religion they followed, the technocrat is a student of religion generally, or understands the ideology or dogma appropriate to what they wanted out of religion generally. The technocrat, unlike past priesthoods, is not obligated to any particular ideology or set of tenets, except those that the associations of the institution and the mafia in charge of promotions mandate. The technocrat can do this through a number of vehicles too numerous to list here, so that discipline in their ranks may be enforced. Still, there is no particular inclination towards any particular loyalty, and technocrats could easily break from the religion to some new fad. The religious authority of the technocrat derives not from above, but from the worldly power of their institution, which abides the political rules of any other institution. And so, there are technocrats who extol the ancient order and want to replicate it, technocrats who do everything in their power to break from it out of a sense that this has all been ruinous to everyone including themselves, technocrats content to believe in anything as long as they are paid, and technocrats who saw nothing wrong with the religious order they displaced and keep or make an ersatz replica of their native religion - in our society, this is usually Christianity, in part because the institution of the university in our countries was a Christian institution, even when admitting non-Christians. Ersatz creations of Islam would be dubious by the standards of the religion, and members of that faith are under strict orders to maintain orthopraxy. This prevented for a long time the same degeneration of religion that was built in to Christianity as an institution. Of other religions, each has their version of adaptation to modernity, or could only wither away or become parodies of themselves. The religious struggles certainly did not go away, since the actions of the Nazis were motivated by religious enmity that a fervent Nazi can't wait to explain to potential recruits for their cause, and were further motivated by the religious proclivities of the core Nazis who were especially motivated to destroy the old Christianity. The eugenic creed is a zealous religion unlike any other, claiming sacrosanctity and compelling submission in a way that is unlike religions that came before it. It claims that it descends from the greatest antiquity, as befits its claims of eugenic virtue. A full accounting of their tenets is beyond the present scope. What is relevant here is that God, or what people think God is supposed to be, is far from dead, and those who proclaimed its death display their faggotry in most cases, or an ignorance that shows they have little affinity for what religion suggested at all.

The essential act of humiliation in labor is replicated for each of the higher orders in turn, all steered by a religious exaltation for doing so. The first humiliation is the insult to intelligence, begun as early as possible in childhood and overseen by the family, which was allowed to be a family because they acceeded to this is the rites and rituals governing fertility. Any family that went against this was violating a sacred oath of this race, and so they would be shunned and excommunicated from the human family as much as possible. The segregation of the lowest class was the first class distinction, and the only one that was necessary for the cycle of class society and its cult to continue. It is the only class distinction which transcends all societies and history, and it is the class distinction that is jealously defended. Every other distinction of class is ultimately irrelevant to the ordering of society. Capitalist, technocrat, bureaucrat, warrior, priest, scam artist, and every other profession and institution we imagine can jockey for position, but all persist not from the products of labor, but from the torture that spurred labor to perform for this end. If humans formed a different type of society, humanity in any recognizable form would end, and the terrible retribution to be visited would make clear just what the world and heaven thought of this filthy race. Yet, all of the torturing and distinction of humans - all of the supposed merit they acquire - is worth precisely nothing as a useful article, except as a means for more torture. The value humans contest has been nothing more than a right to torture others, as if any other right paled in comparison. This is the fate of a filthy race called humanity, in spite of knowing where this would lead very early in its civilized history. What is the chief aim of torture? It is to make the tortured retarded, whatever their qualities may be. It is not enough to grind someone to an arbitrary level of stupidity and keep them there. Retarded only ends with IQ 0 - autism. Once the cycle begins, it never ends, even with death. The memory of a retard can only be mentioned as retarded in all circumstances, absolute and eternal and above god. This is the chief religion of the human race, and the only one that has ever really been believed in with meaning. Humans follow their chosen deities because they believe that those deities entail intelligence and all others are, in some way or another, retarded and unworthy of their worship. Here we may ask why the abasement and denigration "worship" entails would be glorified, but a filthy and failed race knows nothing else. It never occurs to them to worship something useful or good, because that would be anathema to the purview they chose for their project. The gods of the human race are invariably as wicked as the humans themselves in their core behaviors.

If the humiliation and insult to intelligence worked for labor, it would work for favored interests in the nation to mark a general distinction between "mental" labor - which is to say, spiritually and religiously relevant labor - from menial or dumb labor. The humiliations and sacrifices are at first individual sacrifices, or sacrifices made to a totem or idol. There is collectivity under idolatry in the sacrifice, but the sacrifice is always in the end an individual matter. This allows for the favored grades of labor nothing more than "trade-union consciousness" regarding the essential act. For institutions premised on sacrifice, this level of engagement is far too lax and local. A general theory of how to humiliate and denigrate becomes one of the prevalent technologies among humanity. It begins with the local examples - the family, and the place of labor, or the holdings of slave masters. More than any product of the flesh or nerve, even the torture, is the idea of holding slaves and the potential of treating men in this way, and the value assigned to it. Every slave in a proper slavery is attached to a deed or title to that slave, and this makes the slave into an asset and potential - the first form of capital known to humanity as "capital". Humans being what they are, they are far more attuned to the machinery that is a human being than mechanical devices or general theories of mechanics. This machinery is not reducible to its parts - the nerves, behaviors, and substance of human beings. It is instead a machinery of persons, who are acclimated to a superstitious and politicized society. The values such machines operate with are not simple or substantial things, but the superstitious values assigned by a society where superstition is prevalent. This crude systems thinking was a precursor for humans, because they're such retarded jabbering Satanic apes that the world as-is was difficult for their intellects to approach. They always approached it through their biases, bigotries, superstitions, and presumptions. To be fair to humanity, they didn't have much choice in what they were, or the history that preceded them, individually and collectively. It would have made far more sense for human beings to view the world through their human biases and through superstition, then it would have been to methodically break down the world into information, data, and work out laboriously every process in the world, then reassemble it in formal language and institutional knowledge - to effectively automate the human being. Because humans formed in this world as complicated creatures - not too complicated, but certainly not things which are trivially constituted or explicable by a retarded koan about what humans are supposed to be - a rational disassembly of human beings, their behavior, and their history, would become unwieldly, without the intermediate steps that modernity created. Without any ready-made system of writing, literature, education, libraries, and nearly any authoritative guide to rational knowledge, it should be a wonder and pleasant surprise that humans retained as much of their wits as they did, and we should not shame humanity's forebears too much. The unfortunate reality of the human race is that its most venal and disgusting members would, almost invariably, win a struggle for life, because they insinuated against any good reason that it should happen, and they found enough filth like them and enabled the vices of humanity. Doing this was never as easy as wishing it so, where it became automatic. Many times over, humans would aspire to be something other than this, in whatever space they could, and many times over, institutional rot and depravity brought them back down. These aspirations would have to begin from individuals, rather than collective processes acting in concert, due to what rational construction and knowledge are. If there were a collective thought process among humanity, it would arrive at very different conclusions, but no such thought process is evident to us. The collectives of human beings would have had to be something much different from an institution or society to be attributed the kind of knowledge-constructing thinking that we exhibit individually. Such a thing was never attained for humans, in large part because if such a thing existed, it would violate everything the human race constitutionally stood for in its sacrifices, and it would violate institutions which saw it as their business to mediate reality and knowledge. This chapter is dedicated to why that condition existed, and how the orders starting from the technological interest could segregate first from direct interactions with labor, and then render labor something utterly alien to the political for good, enshrining what has ruled humanity for many centuries in form and purpose. At the end of this book, one topic to explore is this possibility - if the self and institutional conceits about it could have been overcome much earlier, for certainly efforts to do this have been attempted.

If it is unmoored from the nation - the arena where spiritual warfare can be realized in our world - the Satan is a theological curiosity, but has little explanatory power. Superficially, the cult of the self, the cult of power for power's sake, and the cult of regression to the primordial, is the cult of a civic religion at best, and usually it is little more than faggotry. The gods of men are in the main miniature Satans, but it is only when religions become mass religions that "the Satan" becomes very relevant to temporal affairs. What is the Satan in the context of the nation? It is a theory of how spiritual authority is contested between godheads and national gods, in which one Satan displaces another - always an exhortation of the self. Upon victory, the Satan wages the revolution to secure the dictatorship, and sheds its revolutionary nom de guerre in favor of its exoteric facade of the godhead. It is this which began the trend of monotheistic religions and their consolidation of theological thought, originating in temples of Satan-worship. This was a singular invention in human history, to which all like it were beholden. There are many rifles like it, but this one was mine, and unlike the mass-produced rifle of the infantryman, the weapon of the Satan is in the hands of the One and the One alone. All other Satans with a similar proclivity would either pay tribute to the original gangster, or they would face that eternal struggle of Man against Man - the state of nature - where nation is pit against nation for the benefit of the one and only Satan. It should be made apparent that to the classical world, "there is no God but Allah" was not yet a thing, and this statement of faith in the One in Islam arose in its time and place for particular reasons. The godhead of the Satan arises amidst many others, who compete for souls and sell snake oil and pieces of blue sky to the human denizens of this gay Earth.

The Satan is not the invention of malice, as a fool is told. There was malice in primitive mankind, before there was a "Satan" as a worked out theory. The Satan suggested one way in which spiritual authority could be contested, which turned out to be the one that prevailed up to today - that a cult of the self, and the cult of the mind and a conceit about life, could in theory rule forever, cycling through political elites and disposing of their members as they will, with no regard for what anyone wanted except the cult and the projection of ruling as the emptiest and faggiest sentiment. It is this sentiment that the eugenic creed exhorts, demanding the abolition of all others. The latter exhortation - "there is no God but Allah" - can be interpreted as the adherent needs it to be. Put one way, it is a prior formulation of that koan "Ignorance is Strength". Put another, it is rejection of the entire contest, to be settled by the holy war and jihad in the proper sense.

We should not fault Mr. Satan for giving the filthy graspers of the human race what their soul wanted, nor blame the messenger who elaborated on this theory of spiritual revolution and succession. In all of the credible interpretations of "the Satan", the Satan is ultimately a servant of the world, rather than a friend to anyone. This job the Satan does because that is what it is - the drive and ambition to dominate another soul, distilled and present within a nation among the world of humanity. Outside of that context, "the Satan" means less and speaks to things that are far more esoteric, and lack the relevance they would have within the nation. In the civic cult, the Satan can only exist whole and without fetters. If there is a Satan, it must prevail and its glory is untrammeled by anything you might have believed about it. What other gods may exist are either a very esoteric thing or pablum given to rubes to shut them up, while the only "real god" is the Satan so far as the masses are told. In a nation, or in any city where a sense of smell for shit is retained, the Satan must struggle, insinuate, and work over the flesh of men and women ad nauseum until it wins. Eugenics cannot fail - it can only be failed. So too is the Satan never a thing to be doubted or allowing doubt.

I mention this here as a continuation of the earlier chapter, and thought to place it there, but the developments since then make this placement of the Satan much more apparent in our everyday lives. If anyone believes the Satan is an ally, they are a damned fool and the lowest sort of fags among this sad race. If anyone thinks the Satan actually works as advertised and the theory is something allowing them to rule forever, they are lower still. This obviously turns on itself if you aren't given over to its conceit and the belief that information is like magic.

An indelible mark of its presence is that once its cycle permeates a nation, it appears as if it were "just so", and through this, those who are aligned with the One and only the One seem in on the biggest club of all - the universal club, the last club. In this way, the nation is turned against itself, for itself, and given the only unification remaining to it - under the Satan. The nation as it was can be engineered as a new thing, and it is only through the Satan that the Ultimate is accessible to those who would engage in social engineering. All other efforts will remain inferior. Because humanity never attains the oneness of the Satan, this can never happen, and it inevitably seeks a eugenic and historical solution to this failure due to what it is and how it can operate. Anything novel would disrupt the great working, and would be an aberration of history. If there is a future, it must be rewritten as a regurgitation of the present. Only in modern time, when the civic cult could enclose the whole world, has humanity seen the effect of its willful transgression and faggotry.

We recall that the association is the true fount of politics, for whatever it would do. The Satan is both anathema to assocation, and it is a gift - who would say no to a technology offering such power and impunity? Yet, the Satan can only serve the One, and the wills of the mortals around it matter not to such an entity. The One can only rule by one means - intelligence and control of all judgements. It must control all law, and weaponize it fully. This has been the arc of the human race up to now, and nothing is likely to change this impulse within it. It is this which makes the human race a race rather than "mankind" or a sense of a nation of humanity which more to share in cooperation.

In retrospect, the Satan's idea is that it was always going to be like this, "just so" and immune to analysis of any sort. But, throughout history, the Satan wears many guises, and everyone works out a system for their purposes. It is particularly a thing of fads and technocratic conceits, which in early society are poorly developed and recognized by politics as a threat to the ruling order. In some way, the ruling order carries out a more primitive program of the same, but shuns any destabilizing technology and despises science in the genuine sense. It is here where The Retarded Ideology becomes recognizable as an ideology with its praxis, rather than an assumption or an insinuation that is "just so" or self-evident.

Insinuations are the devil's best friend, known since primitive times. Nothing is plain spoken, and if we were to speak plainly about humanity, it would be a litany of horrors and the brain would subconsciously shriek after haering enough. There is a time for euphemism for the sake of our sanity, and this is an opening for the connivers to "jump in front" and flood society with agentur. This is presented as the power of information and the Working of the builders. It is in reality a physical imposition to be relevant. Otherwise, we will, as we usually have, pay little attention to the rulers, except to see what bullshit they intend for us with the next crisis. Government by crisis is a terrible ruling idea even by the low standards of this filthy human race, so obvious that a child would reject it and defy it. It is only possible at a stage of pitched culture war, in which the ritual sacrifice is palpable and the only thing admissible as real. In those conditons, The Retarded Ideology is the only thing that rules, and no one and no thing can resist it. It becomes itself the One, and any delusions of grandeur that such a thing can be controlled. Who believes they rule in the guise of the One are the "men in the middle" who believe that by some clever scheme, the One - appearing in their preferred anarchy - will grant them fortune. This interpretation of the ruling power is given many names and distinguishes itself from the Satan as such. One name with currency that may be familiar to students of religion is Yaldabaoth. Another is Eris. A fake "chaos" is superimposed on the basis of knowledge, granting to this stupidity the primordial light. The inverse of gnosticism feeds into the delusion, and it is no surprise that their tendency so to speak was made by a 1st century ascetic incel who thought way too much about rejection. Some things never die and creep through civilization like herpes.

It is here where the circle of life establishes itself. This anarchy is the only condition in which the aristocratic mode of politics can operate, and it has by insinuation asserted what it wanted in the first place. By doing so, what anyone else wanted, for any reason, is the plaything of this anarchy and this anarchy alone. All we have written about comes to that - that anarchy prevails and estabishes the state, then claims it is outside and above it throughout the state's existence. When this fails, a fetishized version of "the state" can be presented to one interest or another, or a collaboration of classes united by some foul faggotry. In practice, no showy display changes the fundamental ruling idea. Anarchy rules and it rules without any pretense when push comes to shove in all cases. Whatever the state says on a given day is more of a suggestion, unless you are subject to the whims of the ruling anarchy. What the philosophical anarchist wants is nothing more than a violent and enthusiastic recapitulation of all of the worst consequences of this anarchy, made natural and unknowable except by their occulted, aristocratic wisdom as a public idea. We are not as stupid as their theories of politics require us to be, but our ability or merit does not matter. Only the insinuation of anarchy and whatever force may be brought to the struggle for life is relevant to the outcome, and this is the way empires have wanted it. In practice, states are much too weak to govern in any way other than this. Even the most basic cooperation required for state societies to function like their pretenses suggest is too onerous for humans who are raised in such a society. If that cooperation were sustained, it would become clear that the ruling system is wholly inadequate and unacceptable. Historically, due to the weakness of states, a local political format would take over on an ad hoc basis, and the domain becomes a fiefdom to be doled out as property. For most people, though, the state and ruling idea figures very little in their lives, except when it makes yet another demand for sacrifice - and it is this which constitutes the highest political act in anarchy, and it can be no other. It seems unfair to pin this on poor aberrant Yaldaboath when it was that devious cunt Sophia giggling the whole way through that sad story. But, as long as there are assholes willing to push this along, that has been the ruling order of this sad spectable. Now the task would be to propagate this idea beyond the flares of war, state violence, and imperium that have been the ruling power rather than any pretense of the philosophical state. This, surely, would realize the more desirable visions of a philosophical state, if only the technology were there... right?

What has anarchy meant in practice? It meant one thing and one thing alone - slavery. That is the only liberty the anarchist knows. Technology would, in due time, make clear something that was inherent in civilization - that if civilization met any of its aspirations beyond the morass of filth in the human spirit, it only could do so through the opposite pole of that which liberty detests - despotism. Either way, the political format being temporarily settled and any theory about it not being relevant to the procession of events, the interests of slavery become the prevalent interests. It is in this condition that history can now be viewed as the struggle of institutions, rather than a struggle of nations that arose as a result of those institutions, or a struggle of human beings with or without associations being recognized. The institutions may then erect atop this ruin a tale of what society is, its values, and the official aspirations that can be dropped whenever the real state makes clear it does not give a whit about those stories. The institutions at first are tied to interests of import to the civic cult.

I should insert here that "the army" is not persistently one of those institutions, for armies in this time usually are conscripts or recruited in warbands for a particular campaign. Sustained standing armies are expensive and promote discord. Where standing armies exist, they do not always conform to the professional army that came to prevail in the imperial epoch of Antiquity, nor is the attitude towards the army universal among civilizations and states. The army of the state is not bound by any law mandating it conform to an ideological conceit about war, and the most effective empires have always retooled their armies when faced with a situation where a higher level of technique was required of them. The standing organization of men that comprise the state consists less of the fighting men than its functionaries, its enablers, its alliances with mafias, and all that allow this beast to stalk the earth. Only when it can be supported does the army become its own going concern, and it finds itself in conflict with every other interest of the state, rather than fused with it. There are those with a stake in selling the idea that a war industry is natural, but armies are notoriously lacking in their supplies, even when so much is put into logistics for this army to be fed. For most of history, the army is supplied primarily with food and articles that were common in war and peace. The development of technocratic armies alien to productivity was a deliberate choice which is beyond the present scope of this writing. The army is never the man in the middle, and is usually the last to know what they're fighting for politically. They of course know they're really fighting for the war cult and the particular aims of war itself, and for their lives and position in that organization. The political aims of war are usually resolved after enough sacrifices to Moloch were fed by war when peacetime sacrifices weren't enough for his baleful presence.

There are crass koans to tell us what politics "really is", but it is not reducible to anything but politics itself, and the entities which conduct it willingly and knowingly. Even this is insufficient, since political thought like everything arose from prior conditions, where there was "politics" without deliberation, read as politics after the fact by those who were presently contesting the world. The definition of politics does not in of itself contain what is contested, because the world to be contested is not fixed in any state, and so new things arise in this contest. For humans, up to the present day, the contest has been for the souls of men - for the right of exploitation - for control of reproduction and life in every way political agents can command it - and, most presciently for modernity, it sought the command of institutions and machinery, for human beings' native faculties were far less capable without that faculty of tool use and reverse engineering which is unlike that of any other animal. Not one of these things operate singularly or above the others. The contest between nations was understood by them as a condition of survival, rather than carried out for ulterior motives or purpose. Nations are not states and did not have any raison d'etre to be nations - but, they are not reducible to tribes or cultural affiliations or signifiers. This contest between nations and within nations did not consume all that exists as a preferred narrative, for the interest of human beings did not intrinsically concern a nation or society in the abstract, nor did they concern any ready-made institution that was natural, for institutions are queer things apart from nature proper. It was the nation that prevailed in modernity as the social format because civilization's pretenses were faulty, and the nation was the inevitable consequence of that failure. It was at that critical juncture that humanity's failure was ensured by its proclivities, and because new ideas were not politically admissible. Politics remained a sport for those who would connive for the most spurious purposes, and after the fact, justifications are made for this intolerable condition of life.

Intelligence is placed at the crown not by necessity, but by choice. When intelligence takes on this singular quality to rule over all others, it is a peculiar sort of intelligence, and it overrides all institutions and all other conditions. It imagines itself as the man in the middle - all knowing, and the greatest blithering fool to ever rule over the world. When it can operate with untrammeled spiritual authority, and the world outside of conceits of intelligence has been rendered inadmissible - retarded - any reconstruction independent of the ruling institutions can be attacked. This power is far from absolute, but in the mind of the cajoler, all they need to do is make it illegal to say it can be any other way, and then enforce behavior at more and more minute levels by insinuation and the rule of fear. The general fear is a condition which informed politics, but out of necessity, political thought and what is to be contested became something more than fear. For all of the invocation of terror and the thrill of torture that this filthy race entails, humans do not fear nearly as much as they could. If they did, they would be paralyzed. They would reduce immediately and effortless to IQ 0. The Retarded Ideology would be complete. Such a weapon would never be surrendered, and this makes itself "the One" because humans are a retarded race, rather than anything in nature mandating any such thing. The moment humans cease to be retarded, it ceases to operate. It is thus necessary to zealously police history, and this overrides all other imperatives in the mind of the cajoler. Only the world itself prevented humans from maximizing this, for there was nothing in the human spirit to suggest it was ever going to abandon this weapon if favor of something better. All such efforts would, in time, turn inward and remain a thing living under the general fear. Curiously, for all of the terror, the terror is wielded by sniveling fags, and they are fags, for the sake of faggotry and nothing more. The overt state, or anything that would be worth keeping in the public, is there to clean up the messes of aristocracy - a glorified janitorial service. This is what the "best and brightest" made for us, and they can make no other. Failed race.

Should this theory of politics and society end, so too would humanity as "human" end in due course. There would be no guide, and little to suggest the future could be predicted in accord with the retarded ideology that prevailed among this sad race. But, when all is said and done, what is really contested isn't the "idea". The ideas of humanity will remain plodding and inadequate for a world that did not conform to their jabbering communication called "speech". So retarded is this race that a tool they possessed for centuries - the written word - was willfully denuded, in favor of bullbaiting and faggotry. So retarded is this race that even a moment of contemplation, which was possible for primitive man, had to be jealously attacked by an impulse that can't even explain what they wanted beyond a cheap thrill. All "great secrets" and insinuations that there is some light at the end of this have failed. It is not as if classical Antiquity could not foresee this, and there weren't men and women who thought then that it could be different. In practice, the viciousness of humanity did not weigh too much on their souls, because humanity really couldn't do much in those times, and what they could do was already naked. They were a slave race in a slave society, in the position befitting such a foul race. What would they do with liberty, except more of the same? What tempered expectations was that there really wasn't a technological fad to suggest it was the answer or a way out. The only way out was death or exclusion from society, and humans being limited in number and their machinery, the latter was a course of action many could expect, to whatever extent they could. The best course of action would have been for human society to part after seeing that it was a failed race and there was nothing to do with it except mitigate the damage. But, this small courtesy for the sake of the world was too much for its intellectual elites and their supplicants. There would be little to live for and little reason to care about that. Life would become a transient thing, and in many ways, this was familiar because it was the life of most of mankind. Being transient would lead humans to think before so willfully trashing life and the world it lived in. By making life "eternal" and ubiquitous, it was intended - with the result planned beforehand - to increase the suffering of human livestock, and nothing else. That was never really the goal of anyone, ruler or ruled. Life did not have any purpose, and did not need any. The true question was whether life would make a bad situation they inherited worse, or whether the other thing - disregarding the cult of life and the "circle of life" altogether as something worth defending - could be done. It is that which was the objective of those who sought anything like liberty in a genuine sense - breaking the Satanic cycle, the cycle of humiliation. Sniveling fags, and they are fags, claim that Christianity was reducible to simpering koan about how sacrifice was mean, a strawman for the eugenic creed and Germanic philosophical filth to attack because they were too cowardly - or perhaps the wise men are more retarded than this author can know - to speak of anything real, and love their faggotry. That was never the purpose of Christianity, and Christianity - and not a single religion among mankind - was anyone's savior. Any familiarity with Christian theology makes clear that such an interpretation was beneath even the surface level theology given to the rubes, in the dark of the priests' machinations. Only faggotry like the eugenic creed could rewrite history, to close forever what everyone really was asking - the question of whether any of this sacrifice and the thrill thereof produced anything we should care about, and whether it should treated as shit and piss as it should have been. Shit and piss are necessarily wastes of the body, but we don't need to obsess that much over it. Shit is very unpleasant in its raw form, and the industrial uses of these waste products have been worked out by science rather than philosophy. Shit is manure for crops, piss has uses in dye, for chemical properties, and so on. A retarded ideology cannot even allow this much industry to persist, for the products of industry would feed something that questions the very thing that makes this political form possible. It can only do one thing - truly destroy the world, and anything worth keeping in it, for the most idiotic cause it can. I ask the reader again - if you're going to destroy the world for your cause, as you must if you are serious, is this the cause for you, or for anyone or anything? We've known the result of this farce the whole time, and it does not require a great intelligence or moral probity. It could only arise because intelligence became a cult and a thing commanded for aristocracy, and this is aristocracy's game alone. Property is their patsy - their eternal excuse for what they always wanted to do. For them, the idea that it should be different is ludicrous, because they always have in some way or another forestalled all consequences. If they faced them, they still won while they were winning, and once they taste that blood, they will never, ever go back. Never.

It is therefore the conceits of humans that are contested in aristocratic politics, or what calls itself such. The reality is that politics mostly concerns the droppings and wastage aristocracy created for us. Absent a will counteracting the One - counteracting the Satan, which is the only thing "the One" will be for humans - there is nothing really "political" about what they're calling politics. Yet, politics always concerns the real situation, rather than a preferred narrative or story. What remains then is the outcome of struggle for struggle's sake, which by its own logic will never end and never can end. The struggle is removed from much at all that was politically useful or expedient, except a psychological tool to influence the political agent - to influence human beings and interdict the most basic thought process inimical to aristocracy. The state "withered away" - because for aristocracy and those granted its favor, the state was effectively nullified from the outset, and their complaint was not that they were oppressed by its machinery, but that they whined about "oppression" from the lower orders whose great crime of Being was looking funny to them. That's really what they care about, and it is a fag's concern of little interest to me. In practice, the concerns of politics are not the stories the aristocracy tells of its purpose or what should be valued, but the pressing business created by all of the externalities of the aristocratic mode of social existence. And so, it defaults to a contest of merit with dubious reward, where the pitiful intelligence members of this human race can possess is jealously guarded, spurious wisdom is glorified, and simple industrial knowledge must be attacked and denuded to keep the game going, lest people be able to live apart from such a beast as they would in a better world, among better people. The nation is then established after all of this fact, and wherever it or its members break free from the cycle, agentur must be there to correct history as they see it. It is the control of nations and their fate that became the focus in modernity, because aristocracy could not make enough arguments against this status quo. Temporarily it became expedient to allow national determination during a critical period of technological development, and this is the so-called "modern encounter", and so for a time, the nation had to be abided while its genuine existence was steadily destroyed. The city-state of old could not be allowed to function as a unit for anything but sacrifice, "returning to the light" as it were and stripped of what potential such a setting might have had among people who weren't as foul as humans.

The only thing that can be contested is who rules over a dumpster fire, affirmed by the spiritual authority of the world's religions, all of which are monstrous in one way or another, so long as politics remains as aristocracy wishes. When it ceases to be as aristocracy wishes, there is no guide to unite it. There are only squabbling interests, which are one part rooted in a material world that is claimed, and one part a claim of ideas which are made more real than anything substantive. The latter happens not because it is inherent to the world or thought, but because we inherited this bad decisions of those forebears who insinuated politics would be that, and have to abide that history to answer the question meaningfully. We could abide it by saying those people were assholes, will always be assholes, and their memory will be upheld for all time, rather than merely damned in an effort to pray the gay away. That memory will be put in a human zoo where it belongs, and we could move on. For life under aristocracy, it is the opposite. The honest are put on display and roundly humiliated - a boot stamping on their face forever - as the venal are promoted. Such is the final fate of the republic, and the philosophical state. We may talk past the truth forever, but the ugly reality is that humans have no fidelity to the truth. The truth would damn them all and leave little left to do. The political matter, if aristocracy were settled, would not be much except the effort needed to banish this social engineering project, and there would be little expectation that politics would involve any unification as such. It would enter a very different mode, about which I can write little, since it has not existed beyond a fantasy of such things.

We need not wait for this future, for in so many ways, it has proceeded in spite of the human spirit. Necessity requires the state and political to contest something substantive if it is to be temporal authority, and after all excuses to deny and stonewall and mystify are expended, the same problem that created politics in the first place is there. Every time it happens, aristocratic politics must rewrite history to edit out anything that actually happened, and rely on its legalist mandarins to tell us that what happened was a legal fiction, and the ruling idea is a truth "above God". Yet, it keeps happening, and to some extent, the reality is acknowledged tacitly. Even the simplest truth must be coded and occulted, because humans cannot help but lie as is the habit of their race. Only the dead have been honest, and they speak no more words, which leaves their record behind for those who have a lot of intent and purpose to lie regarding those who cannot lie or evade this incorrigible habit from the afterlife. The truth of the world remains that it is almost entirely lifeless, and life remains a parasite as it must be for life to be life as we know it. No other definition of living beings has demonstrated that it can withstand scrutiny. That truth will always haunt aristocracy - that all of its conceits were not just for naught, but we knew all along and the relatively innocent children keep telling them this, only to be violently corrected for the most spurious purpose, rather than anything that would educate anyone about the real things to fear in this world. Instead, "the truth" of aristocracy's death and torture party thrown in our faces is greater than anything we would independently judge. By now, that is the final word on the human race, and I have no interest in hearing otherwise. I suspect the reader of this would think likewise, for they would have to in our sad time and place.

It has been torturous to arrive at simple things, yet very elaborate stories and ruses are constructed for nothing more than the biggest lie ever told. Nazism is just an iteration of this for its purview, and not even a particularly effective lie compared to the old favorites. All of this rigamarole has been invoked specifically because it would obstruct and retard anything we would have done that was mundane and innocuous. Any surplus of labor or product that would have been a hermit's thing was claimed for a disgusting cult and the faggotry of the primordial warband that thought only of drugs and raping something. Keeping the machinery of this beast alive has been a slog against a problem made intractable because the taboo has run its course. Humanity, in short, can never work in any way like a naive soul is trained to believe. The moment it does, the human spirit is subverted, aborted, and the surplus will be expended to violently correct this error, or it will be frittered away and evaporate, never being acknowledged even as a curiosity. In this way, the faggotry of eugenics proclaims that such honest is itself "faggotry", and that any effort to do other than eugenics is queer and unseemly, by insinuation alone. All of this has been done over baubles which, even on human scales, are not worth any of this. Yet, intelligence has been the trap behind all of it. Intelligence always seeks the shortest possible route to solve a problem to be intelligence. Reason and thought may differ, but intelligence will always be a machine oriented towards this purpose. We would in another time have tempered intelligence with sense experience of a world, and our reason and knowledge of that world that preceded us. But, when a cult claiming intelligence as its sole property has decreed that history is bunk, that will be cannibalized, and there will be no going back.

If that is what we are to contest - a dumpster fire of little importance - it begs the question why even a goldfish would be sacrificed to it. The aristocracy can do this because that which would be valued in another world is threatened with a knife at its throat at all times. Anything that would be curious or substantive must live under the terror. We hold a sentimental attachment to those values because that is, in another world, what we would be and what we would do with existence. So many times, easy solutions are dismantled, and onerous demands are recapitulated by the same sort who enable all aristocratic faggotry and rot. The ugliness of their insinuations becomes a refrain that is recognizable when its cycle begins. This author saw it more than many in this world, but I am hardly alone or the most tortured soul on this gay Earth.

I do not call for sentiment for its own sake, the world for its own sake, or any appeal to a baser, personal nature. I call instead to see the eugenic creed for what it is. For their sentiments - the sentiment attached to glorifying torture and the smugness of their filthy race - a grand exception is carved out. Somehow, we are made to respect that which deserves nothing but the utmost damnation. Again, I speak of hate. If we cannot hate that, what love can there be in this world? The love of things in this world, I believe, is natural enough for many of us, and it is something we could share even to the least fortunate, out of a sense that not doing so would make this worse for nothing good. What happens to the eugenists, I care not. They're not going to change, and the reasons why are where I will have to begin the next book in this series when writing on history. Frankly, I find it crass to concern myself with the thoughts and feelings of others, as if it were my business to make them feel much at all. I care about the world, and that includes other people, but indulging the people who are the guilty party by far for this monstrosity offers nothing to no one, and this indulgence is demanded with the exorbitant violence of the state on top of the insinuations of those who will never face any consequences nor care if those consequences happen. Expecting justice regarding such people is beyond ridiculous, and from there we see that "justice" is a silly thing to ask for among humans. Humans remain, for all of their accomplishments, more beast than the rational agent they project in their institutions, and the facade of rationality belies a lower animal than the animal that began the ritual sacrifice cycle. This is something many philosophers acknowledge, because it is too basic for any serious investigation that any student would have thought of this themselves long before beginning that path. Becoming above such beastial origins by appeal to the most crass forms of knowledge is tragically missing the point and makes the problem worse.

This then is the true objective of the political - to retain sanity among an insane and demonic race, against all of its inclinations that were taught to it pedagogically, and became features in the natural world with a force of their own. Nothing in "base nature" mandated this. In other words, the hold over the native faculties of knowledge, sense, and intelligence is suspect from the moment aristocracy's insinuations begin, and it is necessary for all to fight that or face the consequences. That the fight is waged against spurious charges that we are corraled to face head on, like cattle trapped for the slaughter, does not make it any less necessary or change the calculus. That is the terrible predicament of the human race at this late a time. We don't get to pray away aristocracy's sentiment or its tools, as if they were aberrations of history. They are very much part of history now, for they were like us drawn from the same world, which had no lean one way or the other. All the world did was observe this, and suggest by its workings that the ritual sacrifice cult produced its predictable result. In that way, it has allied with something we might regard as good, for if the world conformed to the eugenic creed's dictates, such a sense truly would be impossible, and none of us would ask this question. "Hope" is an illusion. We did not need the story of "hope" to fight this. Hating eugenics and the false idols that promote it is obligatory, and a hope of victory was a fool's hope if it were carried out in the goading manner prescribed to us in their pedagogy.

This sanity is really not a personal matter, but a political matter and a matter of standing in society and its values. For our private sense, sanity is another matter altogether, and the value we attach to it is self-evident. Our native sense did not develop to conform to aristocratic faggotry, as if we were born to serve it in the way their cult insinuated. We may be goaded to fight battles to prove our standing, but ultimately, this goading is carried out with the full knowledge that a favored class or group hold impunity, and will cast stones and revel in doing so. Towards the most baseless of accusations, holding that court in contempt of obligatory, whatever law may say regarding it. Yet, political sanity - awareness of the contest taking place - is valuable in its own right, even if the arena is ridiculous, and we're still stuck doing this. It is even more insulting htat we are stuck fighting this battle over trivial things like petty property, rather than substantive things that would meaningfully affect life and its trajectory. The only reason for me to write a "political work" of any sort is because politics came for me. I would much rather write about nicer things, or simply describe the polity as is. Because there has been significant confusion among the wretches of humanity about what this has been, I felt it necessary to write this, and make clear that within the permissible frameworks of the political, no solution will be tolerated. But, the theories of the past are very important to understand, with a contemptuous view appropriate for our time and position. It is not my place to tell you what those writers thought. What I hope, and what I hope others can do, is contribute to a genuine understanding of the past, and eliminate the hectoring insinuation game that has prevailed in what they call the discourse of the early 21st century.

Of the property claims, technology, labor, and bodies of human beings, after all of this contest, they have largely continued as the province of their interested parties, despite exhortations that they belong to aristocracy. What property can be held - with the knowledge that aristocracy can and will cancel those deeds and claims as it pleases - is clawed back and held against all of the people. What technology exists, despite the technocratic focus of modernity, persists in spite of the ruling ideas and institutions which claim they are so much smarter than the "dumbs" of history. Even if technology did advance in a genuine sense - and in many cases, technology has frozen in place, or has been regressed at great expense, contrary to the historical trend that technology lurched forward in spurts - all of that technology is worthless without any connection to a world where the tool would have done something useful, and that ultimately is a moral matter beyond some simpering utilitarian sham. What I hope to accomplish, so far as I have a goal, would be for us down here to reassemble and reverse-engineer much of the knowledge that this ruinous educational regime sets out to destroy. That is happening without my intervention because it must, and so I would tell the skeptical reader to look to better people. If I can be of any assistance regarding that, I can point to some of the references made in this writing to other writers, and encourage the reader to be able to place this into context for themselves, and to reassemble their own basis for learning. At its core, the school - that beast which did so much damage to this author - has been my enemy, and if I can do a small part to kick that beast, it would be helpful. Yet, the Germanic claim is that this is education and knowledge, and they have goaded so many of us to willfully reproduce the retarded ideology on our own accord. That has been the most depressing product of this Germanic education for me to observe.

Sanity is not won by asserting or saying things against the wind, as if an invisible friend will protect you. No one is giving you a medal for personal achievement or indulgence. Sanity is not valued for its own sake, but because, as with freedom and slavery, we've seen enough of the alternative. Certainly I have seen enough of insanity, and I can tell you it is banal and disgusting. Whatever your sanity or mine, the world continues without us, and unlike the Christ who never redeems without extracting its flesh, the world redeems very quickly. It is human beings who made this contest and insinuation possible. The world isn't screaming at us by some unknowable mechanism, as the insinuators claim. It is, as I say, primarily dead and disinterested in our coming and going. If the world can redeem us in its eyes, what remains would be to redeem ourselves, which is not as easy as it seems. We would have to be able to adapt to a world without the institutions, and just like the end of the old religious authority had consequences that a slavering fag recklessly destroys, leaving the institutions for good entails terrible consequences if we think about what is really at stake. This would lead to an immediate goal for us - that the institutions cannot be repaired, or replaced with the same sort of beasts. What would be needed is not a repetition of the cycle of new institutions, but a new approach to the institution altogether, and an approach to technology that was only possible - however faint the glimmer of it - in recent years. It is that, at another critical period of human history, that is violently suppressed by the mandarins of aristocracy and their filthy enablers.

Politics as we know it begins here. So far, all that describes the origin of the political fails to describe why this matter was important to us. It could have been something in the world that just happened, but was of little consequence beyond saying that it could be done. It is relevant to us because political contests eat away at the ability of anyone in the world to resist them, and this has been a choice of those who contest rather than anything mandated by nature. If it were not for this, the political question would be a fairly trivial one once all cards are laid on the table. No amount of insinuation changes that, after all is done, most of us know the result of a simple process, and the use of that old tactic of fear, uncertainty, and doubt does not change the outcome no matter how much it is insinuated - even when knowledge itself is monopolized by this hideous cartel that wants to tell us basic matter is made of magic and inherently contradictory, as the bad interpretations of Quantum Mechanics espouse as a story to the rubes. We care about the political because it has the potential to drive us insane, and that insanity becomes an immediate liability once the cycle begins. If not for that, then insanity does not carry the dire threat that we associate with it. We are, on a cosmic scale, an insane and evil race, and have enough sense to judge that. Total insanity is the judgement of the human race, and their repetition of this cycle is all the proof we need. Individual humans are made to comply, then told they must claw back some of that sanity from an institution of madmen which sets the standard of sanity for the empire. This wouldn't hold if human sanity left much to be desired. The ways in which information are communicated among humans are laggard, rife with abuses and habitual lying, without a sense of many of them that what they're doing has been a disaster to themselves and those around them. A begrudging sense that the world has something in spite of the human spirit has kept the machinery running for this long, only to feed the beast more fodder for its next cull and next orgy. If that is a sane race, then sanity really is statistical and in the hands of Galton's charlatans, and we might as well rope ourselves now. We know, and history in the genuine sense affirms, that sanity has nothing to do with the monopoly that took charge of the courts and seized everything in the world for the faggiest damn thing anyone can imagine. We didn't need to relitigate that or struggle for it. It is self-evident, but sanity is no defense against Abomination or the evil of the world - knowing means very little in the final analysis of history, except for our personal comfort and conceits of knowing anything. Doing something different would mean wanting it to be different from this, and there is no great secret of knowledge to attain this. It is instead the details which are difficult, largely because this beast was allowed to become far greater than it ever had to be, and we could have stopped it even as the eugenist "Jehad" began its invocations.

Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

Return to Table of Contents | Return to Chapter Start