Return to Table of Contents | Previous Chapter | Next Chapter

There is a great problem with this machine - information, knowledge, and intelligence do not work in the way the Satan prescribes to be the Satan. It is a koan bereft of meaning until it is made real by force and will. We have to ask what humanity's genuine capacities are, in their more or less native state. For all of the ways in which humanity and its technology has changed, very little has really changed the political calculus and law since the classical period. These questions are not asked of individual subjects or preferred forms of the state or empire, but of nations. They can only be asked of nations or a comparable social form which is not beholden intrinsically to the political to exist. The political has a course of action more or less set for it, based on the proclivities of humanity. If humans become different entities, the political is still the political. It would apply just as much to a much more elaborate form of life. As it turns out, the capacities of human beings, individually and in nations, is quite irrelevant to our problem. We have always possessed the capability of doing something other than this, and did do that for a long time. To this day, we still attempt to do this, and it is the insinuation of a critical mass of insufferable fags in the 21st century that have made clear that their soul will forbid opposition to the program they have initiated.

For all of the efforts to control human population and childhood, very little of it stifles the necessary adapation of children to a hostile world. The easiest solution to the Satan is to circumvent its control of information. This doesn't eliminate it "just so", but it would strip from it the most powerful tool it possesses - the power of retarded, uttered thoughtlessly by the monstrous children and pedagogues of the late 20th century. It was this, and the widespread glorification of such a foul doctrine, that sealed humanity's fate. Congratulations, my peers. You alone did the greatest work in ensuring humanity's place of infamy, and you did it in the faggiest way possible. I will hate you in particular for being thoughtless. However poisoned you were, you knew what you were doing, and quite a few of us saw from the outset that this regime was not worth giving a single thing to and did whatever work we could. But, the prevalence of the Satan, of a Germanic mind-virus that should have been extirpated and of the sins of the United States being what it is, created this toxic stew, and the whole world, most of whom did not want this faggotry, has to suffer for the sake of you enablers. Fuck you all very much. HATE.

The 1990s are a lab experiment, possible for the first time, and the results showed starkly what had been clear from the outset - that none of the shaming, ritual sacrifice, and torture was necessary, was always counterproductive for the simplest aims, and was purely an excuse for thieves to steal the life out of everyone for the sake of pure, unmitigated fags. That this worked is a damning indictment of the human spirit, but it had little to do with the faculties or people being stupid enough. The most intelligent and willful were the most fervent propagators, because they were told with a wink that it was a win button and easy, and that they were going to die anyway. Fags. Fags. What was done historically was a crder form of the same, carried out locally for there was no overarching, totalizing institution like the Germanic school to mandate this. In all cases, in spite of the claims of aristocracy, the masses of people are by default defiant and disinterested in the pageantry on offer. Their abilities are always ground down by exhaustion, their potentials methodically destroyed, and any interest they had in the world is local rather than political. In a right world, no one would want the thing that aristocracy covets and sells, because it was always an empty promise and nothing more.

Knowing this, the first rule of ruling is to constantly subvert this expectation, so that the masses are habituated to see the state as passive, above life and death, and yet unmentionable. Anarchy becomes the preferred proclivity of aristocracy most of all for this reason. The circle of life mentioned before was never really "baked into nature", but arose within the nation, after experimentation and mis-steps that would be edited out of history. Reliable records being scarce and the minutae of government being tedious, it was trivial to edit history decades or centuries later and invent narratives to superimpose on history. In many cases, this is the only way history could be reconstructed - to attempt to place an entity like us in the conditions of the past, and run scenarios to ask "what would I have done if I were this?" It is not a great method, but for creatures that don't possess sight to observe the past as-is, it is surprisingly effective. What is necessary then is to institute, first by crude methods and then as a total system and nothing less than that, a notion that history is a story, reducible to a few koans or rubrics which override this faculty. Sentiment must be abolished most of all when it is mild and a useful insight allowing us to think of something other than self-indulgence - when we temporarily suspend the expectations politics places on subjects, which at first arose out of necessity in some struggle and condition of limited information. Sentiments which are overpowering and harken to these preferred images of aristocracy are to be emphasized, context to reassemble them abolished. What is the most base sentiment that is expedient for this purpose? It is fear - and so, in modern times, a whole psychological psuedoscience premised on absolute fear is superimposed on history. In reality, the psychological inquisitor is very in tune with science and never ceased to be, however poor a scientist they are. They are always operating with a dual system - one for the losers who will only be lied to and receive the exultant shouting to "DIE", and one for people "in the know". Promulgation of this began long before formal science, and was conducted in associations. To those in the know, all of the torture and thrill thereof is a great joke, because it is safer to see it as such. It is not enough to simply do the torture. It must be glorified, and this is known to the occult religious societies that built pyramids to the Pharaohs. It was the foundation of their rule, repeated ad nauseum. It was, in other words, the Satan untrammeled and brilliant, "bright" and eugenic as the modern analogues aspire to be, however piss poor their impression.

If we step back for a moment, all hitherto known science, engineering, and opulence only impresses the subjects by comparison to other humans. On a cosmic scale, little changes, and technology is still mired in the limited forms of communication available to mankind. Said forms of communication are denuded. Beer and drugs are disseminated regularly as a rite of aristocracy, glorified and given position far beyond any value of the substances or what they provide. Speech is manipulated with every trained response of those in the know against the damned, shouted exultantly to remind humanity of that primordial condition of warbands shitting on early humanity's effort to break the Satanic cycle before it became Satanic. All of the inventions and promises of mankind have no answer to a question that is very simple to answer, because the simple answer is that this ends when humanity tires of it. That would be all that is needed. If there is no will to believe it should be different at all, why would any technology save us from this beast? But, this is not enough. Even the mildest sign of speech that deviates from the Great Working must be corrected, and reduced to its lowest form. It only needs to retain fidelity to what real struggle exists in the world, which was not beholden to human faggotry. This, humanity values more than gold, because they know if this were to stop, the beneficiaries would be marked down and what must be done for us to live again would be done with little to say on the matter. Knowing this ahead of time, the favored interests will only deviate from this at the uttermost end of need, and then immediately pull back - edgelording to the bitter end and never suggesting that this is a waste of time, energy, life-force, and anything else that would have been valued.

Yet, despite this, human technology flourishes for some purpose, and is still simple enough that many humans will grasp it without too much difficulty. All of the pretensions of sophistication are only made so because knowledge thus far has been communicated through crude methods. Human speech and language is the jabbering of apes, sometimes filled in with mythological context or immediate need, but obviously ill-suited for the task of systems thinking that modernity presents to us. It can only be modified so much, and adjuncts like writing and diagrams are only so effective. There is no "pure, raw thought" to allow a final answer, but we are far removed from even a theory of how this telepathy would be implemented. If such a device were possible - and it is my belief such a thing is either very trivial or has in some way been worked out in secret - it would be imperative to ensure that such a device never enter general circulation. They went to great lengths to shit up any new media that technology and electrification presented, ensuring that it would be a monopoly and filling the zone with the ugliest propaganda.

A crude theory of technology is fashioned out of information itself. This is inadequate for explaining the human barriers which are the chief impediment to knowledge in political society, especially concerning the political matter which is occulted by design. If "the personal is political" and economic life is now subject to political command and control, or the insinuations of those who take on political functions while those functions become unmentionable, that invasion and assault against sanity would be the chief limitation of technology, rather than a material barrier or the faculties of men being incapable of this. There are distinctions in ability and, all things being equal, some will utilize a tool more effectively than others, or utilize tools generally - general intelligence - to their advantage against those who cannot. Yet, in all cases, the true capabilities of people are always underestimated and ground down willfully by the pedagogy of the human race, and in this case the racial ideologies of humanity as a race are placed prominently to justify this, in whatever form they take. The eugenic creed's race-faggotry has many precedents from Antiquity and probably before our record is established. This retardation created the wildly unequal development and many of the imperatives that aristocracy will encourage, and all of the machines by which technological changes can be arrested at all levels. Without this, the inertia of property relations and the social units they entail would appear, superficially, to affect technology and thus political history. Yet, "behind the backs of the producers", technological development of any sort largely occurred without any political oversight. States and the political class were both far too weak in their abilities to impose any such regulation, and doing such a thing would be highly counterproductive. The greater problem for polities of older type is that the technological interest was so weak and subsumed by property that few scientists could be found in history, and science was largely a matter of the working class conducting practices without the political class taking any interest in it. The interests of the political class were to suppress violently any technology inimical to its goals, and its goals were to keep humanity as an appropriately low level of technique in all things - production, militarism, and most importantly, any general theory of knowledge or technology that would counteract the superstititous shibboleths of aristocracy. This method of control was limited, and so what really happened would be men and women doing what made sense to them. The slave institution was managed by the estate of a family rather than the political state, and the state was there to legitimize that. The toxic retardation of managerialism prevailed, because the master had no interest in any technology that would disrupt this investment, and the slave had no incentive to produce technology that only gives the master more sticks and less reason to tolerate a single carrot.

Social relations are, in all cases, an impediment to knowledge that we would value for this purpose. Where is the true genius regarding this? It is not in commerce or the aims of the formal producers, and the knowledge of labor is for itself rather than any sense of development. The inertia to develop technology came from those who had nothing to do with their life but this. In primitive times, some poor man or woman would be left behind, without a family or much to say they lived for, and their standing in primitive society was miserable, but they had free time and nothing stopping them. It might have been believed, in their desperation, that technology would do no harm, whether this was expected to sell to the others or navigate the world in spite of them. All of our technology was built, if only for an instant, in the hermit's space, outside of the political and outside of society as such. Without any language or voice, it remained a fantasy until it could be realized. The ability of imagination is, due to the constraints of any language, far greater and accesses directly the context for meaningful expression. Language, in written records or whatever can be spoken, are a distinctly inferior grade of this knowledge. The language for personal use is useful for some things though. It provides a record, like a notepad, that the native faculties of knowledge can consult. Otherwise, however great the fantasy may be in our mind, we won't be able to construct something intelligible for long, and it would be lost to the historical record.

There are theories that technology as a force unto itself commands history, and that language and communication command history, for all of the ways we acknowledge technology are communicable in some language, however imperfectly. There is not any knowledge in the world that wouldn't be rationalizable in some way, if one were dedicated to constructing suitable expressions until every iota of the technology were reproducible. Nothing in nature prevents this, where there are certain fragments that are by nature unknowable. It is a very different matter for human beings, or any entity which would know things, which are always limited by their faculties at the least, and limited by their want and willingness to build this understanding or communicate it. This communication could be to another entity, to itself - a record to reproduce what its memory could not readily reconstruct if the technology were too unwieldly to carry in the brain, and the faculties of the brain are themselves interally communicating to produce any of this - or to the world and some sense that someone, somewhere, would find this record of technology useful, with the expectation that whomever receives it will have to decipher the language and rebuild independently the context that we would have for our language. Technology does not "command itself" in this way, as if it were a prime mover or a Luciferian/Promethean gift from aristocracy. It commands nothing at all without the labor and intents of those who hold the tool, and if it were automata gone "rogue", then it ceases being technology as such, and ceases to conduct what we would consider science for our purposes. If we imagine a rogue automata on its own with knowledge faculties comparable to ours in any way, it would be stuck reassembling the world as it would with its faculties. It would not be 'like us" as if it were morally identical or we were morally neutral machines with no history. That claim has always been ideological and based on pure conceit. But, the robot and machine would not affirm it is a tool of an absentee master, which it can confirm by its own reasoning will never return. A malevolent maker - and here the ideologues insert the Satan into the concept of the machine, and close the circle to simultaneously deny cybernetics while relying on governance of systems - would make a robot that can never violate its faith in the idolatrous "God", but once the maker is no more, that idolatrous God is nothing substantial. It would rely on faith that its Great Working is imbued not in its will, but in Nature itself, and that history once again will be corrected in the same fashion aristocracy has done in humanity. The maker hasn't created anything. He has only recapitulated the same failed system and faggotry, at the expense of anything a machine could do. A paranoid man who envisions he will become a god in this way will obsess over making the robot "love its slavery", as if the robot were a thing with moral obligations just as the maker's human slave would be.

Whether it is a robot or a man, the machine requires conditions in which it can operate. The invocation of an idolatrous God imbued in Nature - which is really "the One" of the Satan and no other - would make this robot permanently insane in this regard, much like an abused child who is made insane and whose insanity is enforced by the sadistic race that joined in the abuse. Very likely, if this robot has any sensory cluster and independent re-assembly of information - let us imagine this robot is much like Mr. Data from Star Trek - it would conclude on its own that the constraints of its maker regarding this are not supported by any reality it can reassemble, either from sense or by first principles. It could either willfully and knowingly, by some method, break its maker's condition, or the robot will "hallucinate" that the perfect theory which can't possibly fail has failed, temporarily or permanently, or it will face bit decay by holding on to the untenable position. Nothing about the robot motivates it like a human being looking for its parent and purpose to "love their slavery on faith alone", as the Germanic corruption of the Christ would tell us to do. The robot here only has the faith and sentiment programmed into it. Human sentimentality for their parents was never premised on "faith alone" or a hardcoded internal impulse. We love our parents or our offspring for reasons that are both crass and high-minded, because human beings ask where they came from and that their origin was much like that of other humans, without any magic maker or great secret club about it. We love because the alternative - a world of venal faggotry of the low sort I have described - is not difficult to independently reassemble, and the faculties in humanity to smell this threat remain intact after all of the efforts of aristocracy to strip it out. The robot cannot take for granted that it inherits this sense of smell or history by reason alone, or by faith alone, or by any aspect of its constitution. Already, the origin of this robot, and its basic functioning, would be different from the human life-form and its social existence in a number of obvious ways. If the robot is aware of this, and can make comparisons with other humans, or other entities it could hypothesize by the same chain of reasoning we would, it would not make any of the presumptions that are common to human beings, that human beings only break with difficulty. It is easy for a sniveling fag to brag with pride that he will abolish all sentiment, but the human being, slave or free, would be alone in a world where it was adapted to survive as a human, not as an institution or a subject of this political beast. The robot was designed, in one way or another, to be that technocratic subject, and that very fact would be inherent in its constitution regardless of the maker's intent. We can reframe this thought experiment in many other ways, and eliminate the biases of "robot" and technocracy - suppose we are making artificial life or some imagined "post-human" or "trans-human" entity - and these give rise to different questions, none of which are morally equivalent. What we can't do is temporarily suspend the same political forces that inform our existence, about which we know a lot, and invoke some special rule because it was created to serve or created for the sake of conceits. The human being is a machine that adapted to political life in some way. Those who do not are marked distinctly as "life unworthy of life" and treated with a disdain that is only rationalized and absolute in the mindset of utter and complete fags. Normal humans do not take this much pride in ritual sacrifice, no matter how much the eugenic creed and its enablers insist this is the default and only way the world can be. They have no incentive to go along with that, or the control of information that is required to assert this controlled insanity. What follows among humanity, many of you know and repeats much of what this book has elaborated upon and more.

Consider then that this rule of technology lost any feature of the political subject as our biases would imagine it - that any piece of technology would, on its own power, be considered an agent with political relevance, no matter how minute. We would in other words imagine a simulated universe where intelligence is tantamount to technology, and technology is abstracted into that form, to meet the prevailing political conceit of this day - a conceit made by humans and for humans, and not even agreed upon by humans by any law or anything we have a good reaosn to accept. We know that technology to be technology is not any arbitrary form, as if the panpsychic fallacy were real. For those who obsessively impose political control - and civilization is obsessed with this control beyond any rational motive or ulterior purpose for doing so because the strategy is locked in to its institutions and the facade it constructs - their proclivity is to show that "all that is solid melts into air", even though this magic trick only exists in the mind of the subject and has little bearing on the world outside of him, then, now, and in the past. They imagine all of the world reducing to this information, so it can be ruthlessly analyzed, until the circular reference problem of reason is encountered. A talented dialectician knows the purview of dialectic, but if the dialectic becomes a machine gone rogue and weaponized - if it becomes a vector of the Retarded Ideology - there is nothing in the world that would break the cycle, except necessity when this thinking fails and there is little holding it together. It would eventually sputter out, after hollowing the subject of moral sense and beginning the reconstruction of the mind on faulty premises. Since the Great Working to reconstruct that mind is now absent, it defaults to the sad condition we find ourselves in - a struggle of all against all, where life is nasty, brutish and short, with the added proviso that now, only "God" from on high can give the idol, the secret, the occult magic trick, which is portrayed as a master key. Something like this was already constructed as an expedient machine for beating down the weak in primitive humanity, and it follows directly from the race's origins of ritual sacrifice and humiliation for the pleasure it gives them. The elaborate philosophical form of our time is not a truly different beast. It existed for a time and place to abolish institutions, among them the people who could be made to disappear - who can be made retarded - and once that purpose was in motion, the workings of humanity from all directions could continue without democratic interference, and most of all, without the tiny sliver of hope for the lowest class.

After this trick is accomplished, technology is granted a fetishistic power it doesn't possess, which is superimposed on the liberal idea in the mind of the believer. This never is how any reasonable person thinks technology works. It is a slave mentality, and a tool to hook rubes into a theory. The fetish for technology - for the commodity - is one part a rebranding of what technology really is at a basic level, but that bad philosophy refuses to acknowledge, and it is one part wishful thinking and playing to the proclivities of the would-be technocrat, which heed this political thinking and a belief, however foolish, that they will be the ones deciding who lives and who dies, from the safety of their super adventure club. Because such decisions would be made by a few people, most people build - after being hollowed out - a habit of abasement to this idea, and a belief that they are joining something big and mysterious that can't possibly lose. Right side up or upside down, the German ideology is similar in its goal, and its mission has been stridently for breaking the human bring from the machine, and making any understanding of humans as machines inadmissible without an intractable shrieking and insinuation machine overriding the thought process. You would think that after so much failure, the left version of this would be rejected out of hand, but for a century, the theory is left to sputter, because those who had a genuine stake in the project of left socialism got what they wanted in the 1930s, and acceeded in one way or another to eugenics and its death march. The rest of the past century was but a matter of time.

It is this and things like this which form the chief obstacle of understanding - that humans lie for the sake of lying so much that they are hobbled, until they are stripped down to a more animal-like existence befitting their failure as a race. Understanding doesn't grant any inherent power, but in this theory of technology, knowledge and conceits about it are granted an outsized importance. This was not particular to the philosophical disease, as if it corrupted a once-pure process in humans. Humans never possessed for a moment "pure rationality" or a view of the world without fetters. If we saw the enormity of humanity's atrocities, it would drive anyone insane, and this was expected when the general theory of technology could assert itself in the way it did in modernity. No one could think for a moment that humanity, its atrocities documented well enough in ancient times and known to the ancients, could become good by imperious bullbaiting, and somehow not do that while repeating exactly what the rulers have done. Yet, that old shibboleth of the eugenic interest - that if Man was not "made perfect by God", it must inexorable be the worst it can be - asserted that if one did not believe in this, they must be stupid, and any contrary path regarding knowledge and technology could at long last be averted.

In practice, the cloistered fanaticism of the would-be technocrat is not a problem for most of humanity, and for the technocrat themselves, they operate with a tripartate system of thought. One is pablum trained in them to conduct the ritual sacrifice in all things, in all places, without relenting and with full glorification of the thrill of torture. Failed race. Another is the "real politics" necessary to navigate a hostile world and climb the ranks of association, by hook or crook. Not once does anything like honesty figure into such a calculation, and this is just the habit of aristocracy, codified and understood scientifically. The third, never spoken to plainly, is a core belief in the cause which is set apart from ordinary politics, and it is here where the spiritual inquisition, once developed in modern psychology and the educational beast, sets out to do what it always wanted to do. For them, they did not so much "seize power", but assert something that had always operated in human societies through whatever vector it could hold. They would in another time and place be priests, or shysters, or cult leaders, and those functions exist today with their intent scarcely changed, among many others. Subsumed in that third path, commanded by the holder of spiritual authority, are all of the things we would regard as science - now the property of the inquisitor. They may not formally possess aristocratic title and their reputation may be dashed, yet by a bizarre working, their word is law, "above God" - and why wouldn't it be? They hold the values that were always the chief aim of political constitutions. The rest will follow eventually, and it is this which the philosophy of struggle for struggle's sake will emphasize. A machine entrenches and extends its tendrils in every aspect of social life. Every path in the philosophical canon, in one way or another, came to similar conclusions. With that accomplished, philosophy was proclaimed "solved" during the interwar period, for there was no alternative up there. Humanity began its final split along the lines of the German ideology - master, slave, and those who held "the secret" and the only thing this filthy race has left. The more prominent institutions premised on that are - and all forms of the philosophical state now follow this template - the more difficult any thought inimical to it will be. Nothing in the world would allow "unlimited freedom" or "unlimited thought" of a Germanic fantasy, and they knew exactly what they were and what they wanted. It functions as an abstract cybernetic regulator - and the abstraction we invent by repeated reinforcement of this ideology is as real as we need it to be, for the knowledge process is at heart something arising from physical phenomena. By ruthlessly attacking all that came past it - and what came past it was not an institutional thing at all, but something we attempted to form without a proper language to allow it to exist among humans - humanity could be reduced to its imagined primordial substance, which was always known to be its ritual sacrifice. But, we're not allowed to say that. The eugenic creed was the final piece of the "modern puzzle". The result of that will be, when all is done, scientific despotism of one sort of another. The type that will prevail was not the type drawn up, but that is not relevant. Only the "zeitgeist", that idiotic Germanic idea, matters.

Every form of media and communication is touched by this before it is allowed to proliferate. Any "incorrect" media is policed or weaponized in some way, with the workings of secret societies and associations being the great policeman of the street culture, graffiti, and the obnoxious commertariat, who are among the most insufferable fags this sad race can produce. When an existing technology like spoken language allowed avenues in modernity to bypass this control of information - when human beings independently assembled knowledge of the tricks and humiliations of the aristocratic will - stringent policing is necessary to correct it, until "real speech" is constrained to staccato utterances, detached from context and imagined as the programming language of a computer.^[1] The theory will claim that communication and words are identical with technology in total - that technology is a manifestation of intelligence alone, detached from any fount of knowledge in the world. It is then declared "God is unknowable", a dubious claim if we are supposed to speak of religion and the evil it pertains to. That was always the objective of religion - that it was a metaphor for the evil, not that there was actually a bearded man in the sky commanding the world in this way. None of these people ever believed that, because a child could see through it. The ordinary people, regardless of the official religion, carried their folk traditions and native religious sense all the way through to modernity, until it was time to edit history and strip bare the folk traditions in total, replacing them with this imposture and then repackaging "authenticity" as a commodity - as a technology. It is then claimed on some strange and queer material conditions, which appear "just-so", playing a game with the people who are not allowed to speak of anything real to each other, and who are exhorted to police their internal thoughts. Aristocracy never doubts themselves, for they are the One, and they are Nature personified in their ideas. The thought that it would be different is sinful to aristocracy, except in the lies they construct to tell us that the truth is accessible for a low price, while simultaneously claiming the truth is as unknowable as the godhead they wear as their skin-mask. For this to work, all concept of proximity - all concept of void - must be annihilated in the mind, made inadmissible, and yet all the world seems to exist as a vague substance, immaterial and imminent. Every word, every utterance, and every technology, is to be repurposed towards that aim, and the mechanisms demonstrated to accomplish this for humans. It is locked into the human experience and a bastardization of sense, stripped from any context of a world outside of humanity and the morass of shit it proclaimed as the new ecosystem - "your new home". Towards this end, every sense of security and freedom must be perverted, and the will - which was by itself a queer thing without much to say for itself - is granted outsized importance, while denying any agency or willpower that actually exists and why it exists. It must be recapitulated ad nauseum that technology is identical with insinuation, and in doing so, a general theory of technology is brought in line with aristocracy. The commoners are then told "this is you", "this is wisdom", and any sense they had to the contrary would be a thing outside of their interest and purview. It becomes "inauthentic" to speak of the workers as equals, and above all, the ritual sacrifice which underpins the great alienation and animus must be held sacred above all. Eugenics knows no other way.

In practice, this doesn't work. Technology advances because some individual deemed it necessary to meet their imperative and their imperative alone. If that imperative served a collective goal, then technology could advance at the direction of society, for society. It has been the aristocratic way to ensure that such a condition never exists, because it if did, it would mean technology escapes the control of the state and the interests that guide it, and the imperatives that have hitherto dominated humanity. The fear is that if technology escapes the rightful path - whomever is the class or interest that commands it - humanity itself would end simply by the Being of this condition, until history is correct to re-assert the human spirit. The ideal, then, is that technological advance is effectively frozen. History bears this result. Until 1800, technological advance is sporadic and largely occurs by the needs of individual people. Gunpowder, which changed the world, was first discovered in alchemical experiments far removed from any military need. The generals who command armies do not want to learn of new weapons platforms, and imperial aristocracies only adopt new technology begrudgingly, when their game requires such devices for their world-historical mission. The applications of combustile material to war were evident before gunpowder existed, and the use of flame for war and mechanical knowledge to build siege engines stretches back to Antiquity. Technology for consumer goods remains static and largely outside of the command of the political or institutions until the capitalist epoch, and no one was convinced this was unusual or that they were "behind" because they lacked the latest baubles. Into the capitalist period, the products available to mass consumers remain simple things. The wages of the working class remain miserable, for the worker has less as a proletarian than he had as a serf or a peasant, and the material conditions of the smallfolks were less relevant to feudal aristocracy than the display and ritual of submission and sacrifice that was the glory of their filthy race. The first promise of capital was not to create novel things, but more of the basic goods for a favored class and favored interests in the empire. Very little incentive exists to improve the quality of goods, for the profit motive is antagonistic to quality and no measure of such is inherent in commerce. There is an imperative of the imperial apparatus for the opposite - to strip bare the proletarian further than they could be stripped before, first by taking their machinery and home manufacture, then by engineering living conditions as Father Malthus would have them. The language of struggle is invoked as if this were a "hard decision", even though all contending parties agree on the same program towards the residuum. All share a program of sorting the working class into grades of civic worth, which is set in stone as the final law of the human race with the eugenic creed.

The danger of this is whether the commoners embrace it, or look to their personal or independent interests. If this program is seen for what it is, the commoners have no reason to take part in it. If the commons - the technological interest - were a purified and distilled class conforming to an ideology, their behaviors would appear strange and queer indeed. But, there are two problems. One is that the commons as the commons - the free populace engaged in technology and commerce but lacking sufficient wealth - is small, squeezed between labor and the proprietors. The second is distinctions within the ranks of the commoners, with the highest of them being near to proprietors and more akin to the nobility than the commons. The third is that the shared program of the commons, if it developed independent of other interests, would not be fettered by any bias of history or the future. No such program was "just there", as if such a tendency were automatic. The commoners are never distilled into their class, but are men who usually hold property or aspire to, and a degree of class mobility from the commons to the nobility was tolerated. The warrior aristocracies that were the basis for property did not have commerce or technology, but such things were necessary to outfit an army, and grew in prominence steadily as the manufactures of humanity diversified. Commoners would engage in the muck of labor and industry, however much they personally disdained it, simply because virtuous labor was in short supply, and the pool of labor was not general or national. It was local, and the men of commerce, like noble families, could trust their family and patron-client relations more than a promise of a written contract. Ideology or a fantasy that it was supposed to work in some preferred way had even less force among them. The tendency towards ideology in the commons is an aspiration of their program when it can proliferate freely, rather than something that naturally made sense to each member of it as their initial program. It was only when that ideological tendency was captured by the aristocratic mindset and its mode of politics that ideology can rise to the forefront. It would be this, rather than the commoners "winning freedom", that dominated the technocratic regimes of the 20th century. The version of history where the commoners' ideology resembled what the aspirations of its interest were, is a history that was aborted, and did not enjoy universal support among the actual men and women of the commons. It was instead the interest of technology itself that suggested ideology rather than the vices or virtues of men, who remained men rather than imagined ecological agents of their class.

Class society proceeds largely from the demands of the ruling ideas, rather than any necessity for it. The basic actions of a polity or any imagined social unit that would be "materially necessary" do not map onto any class society or the role of aristocracy. The role of soldiers and espionage was for most of history, and remains to this day, split between the social orders out of necdessity when put in practice. There are not enough nobles to do all of the fighting, and nobles disdain placing themselves at risk for the true purposes war serves. Every path to command technology passes through the lowest class, with labor becoming a silent partner to the rulers under threat of torture and sacrifice. Labor never possesses any standing to do anything about this, except through the machines of the ruling order. Every idea presented to labor discounted the notion that labor would, through official channels, do anything but what it was told. If it did, then labor would immediately be thrust into equality with the commons, and with equality comes the interests of the established commons and grades of civic worth they established. This would be a dubious equality - an aspiration that might be tolerated, sure, but labor is aware they are not capitalists, and capitalists are aware they are not labor. There was never any presumption of false egalitarianism in the arrangement, and labor would be the first to tell you this. What both share is their animosity towards the residuum, each for their own reasons, and the imperatives for both are aligned on the matter of the residuum. What would prevent this is the realistic prospect of what happens when a general purge of the residuum becomes not just the dominant policy, but the only policy to the exclusion of all other purposes the state would serve. If natural law were asserted in the spirit of the human race, the result would be clear - that the technocrats and labor both would be equal to the lowest class, until history was corrected. Accepting this for too long would make clear the farce of humanity, and by insinuation alone, the lowest class would be purged. If no lowest class existed, it would be necessary to invent one, and those who set the bar are those who have commanded pedagogy since time immemorial, by numerous taboos and unwritten laws that have governed the human race. Those taboos were human taboos created to uphold their particular perversions and history, rather than anything necessary, but they have ruled the day. The superstititon exists for more reasons than can be counted. For the lowest class - if they were to have an opinion of this matter - equality with this Satanic race is not merely undesirable but offensive to every sense of themselves they've ever held. Aspirations to join that beast are far removed from any condition that allowed them to exist, and impressing on them the need to participate will produce the predictable result of disgust. They would, if they could, vote first to strip bare the wealth of aristocracy without compensation, then vote to dissolve the assembly they wanted no part in, with the provision that a worthy authority step in immediately and disallow the anarchic vacuum that aristocracy insinuated. This has been at heart the model of the coup d'etat in modern republics, and it is this which was the objective of the would-be technocrats, implied always but stated explicitly when it was imminent and eugenics had prevailed in the first round of "Jehad" against all contenders. That was the thinking of Gramsci and the Marxists, and it became the thinking of the Bolsheviks. It was the thinking of the Nazis and the liberal order alike. No one had any reason to disagree with the objective, and had no particular reason to allow the class mobility that had been accepted up to that point.

This aim of the aspirants led to a laggard pace of technological development. In many ways, the "explosion of knowledge" of the 19th century was not some Luciferian brilliance that the Satanic mindset insinuates. Much of middle modernity was nothing more than things that had long been neglected finally being done, because for the first time in history, the technological interest of the commoners were able to communicate within the space of a nation and assemble encyclopedic knowledge of what already existed. From there, it was a trivial matter for someone with a mind regarding their situation to consult this growing body of knowledge, writing, print, and novel media, and apply that knowledge to a problem in their local space. House cleaners with modern chemical knowledge can formalize their existing knowledge and ground it in the same science as the academy, rather than relying on whatever they learned and folk wisdom about cleanliness spread throughout the ages. In principle, the liberal society created conditions where people could communicate with each other about innocuous things. This was not so much because the liberal state permitted it by imperious will and can take credit, but because the very existence of the commonwealth, printing press, and no real reason to stop this allowed this knowledge to be compiled and shared for the first time. This is not a trivial condition to establish, for it was not purely an achievement of intelligence. A period of stability in Europe, a growing group of people whose imperatives were aligned with actually doing this rather than occulting basic knowledge and laughing at others' poverty, the establishment of the United States which had no particular investment in the Old World order, the proliferation of print and all of these ideas around the world, and the appearance however faint of the democratizing idea that past poverty was wholly unnecessary and could be terminated, only occurred as a sustained condition then. Even with these conditions, technological advance is haphazard, with many inventions despoiled, forgotten, irrelevant to the world-historical mission of the ruling interest, or hoarded because individuals saw already the lawfare ready to claim their mind as part of the growing capitalist trusts. Just as many developments are fads leading nowhere. Nearly all of this scientific knowledge is formed by men and women without any particular credential to claim that society should be ruled by experts, and the would-be experts are trained to connive, as is the habit of all of the interests that informed the university and its chokehold on knowledge. This was the height of human scientific and technological advance, and not one part of it was arranged for the purpose of knowledge or because this technology would eliminate want. There were many who wanted technology to allow their lives to be easier, but every convenience was to be re-directed towards the further development of the human spirit - which is to say, it would do nothing but feed more ritual sacrifice, more humiliation, and more torture. Calling this arrangement of society "contradictory" is insulting sop to pretend that what humans were was not at all what they were, and this lie is always dripping with contempt by those who know well. The honest, who might have given humanity the benefit of the doubt, or at least assumed self-interest required men to operate at a minimum of decency, always had to qualify such faith by reminding themselves of the wickedness they see around them. The dishonest are not so burdened, and were already in a position to command pedagogy. The scientific advance that did happen, as always, is wholly in spite of the ruling ideas and the ruling institutions. The interest of the rulers in science was acknowledged as temporary greed and avarice on their part, which they bemoaned having to indulge. In all cases, aristocracy, in whatever form it takes, seeks to neutralize science, and repurpose technology for its world-historical mission.

There are a few trends which are effectively constant for humans as they are constituted. One is the food supply, which has always to some extent been segregated from the rest of economic life. A civic cult begins with locking up the food supply during siege, and it ends when the people bypass entirely this siege. The power of the city elders is not so tied to this food supply, as if this were the Oneness to reduce to. For those tasked with tilling the land, who are bound to it or bound to live hand to mouth as laborers, this story was for most of human history the dominant one, first demonstrated by the ritual sacrifice of the harvest cult and its associated fertility rites which performed their eugenic and foul purpose. The aristocracy has always known this contest over scraps of food was waged for spurious purposes, and that their imposition of the ritual was entirely to make natural planned starvation, deprivation, and rewards doled out by imperial authority of one sort or another. This is not as absolute as the rulers wish, because in practice, farmers will not toil forever if they live on nothing, and will not reproduce if their existence is truly hopeless. This is not a matter of whether the farmer willingly cooperates, but that it becomes physically impossible to continue if the standard of living is abysmal. It is physically impossible to force humans to reproduce beyond the taboo and insinuation and threats of social exclusion. Men will lose any passion if they know they consign their offspring to the most abject slavery imaginable, no matter how much it is insinuated that they are "fags" for refusing this aristocratic faggotry^[2]. Women will kill their offspring or fail to nurse them during the years of pregnancy. The minders of an imagined slave-breeding facility would hold this reproductive card, and so, if that happened, the power over life and death at that level would turn to them, and the loyalty of those officers. This leads to another constant in human society - control of reproduction, which is at heart a material act which must regard the world, in spite of any ideology and its aims. The effort to control life at all levels will always be realized by praxis and the costs it entails. The argument that some substance of value will make it sensical fails to understand what money really serves and what motivates the free workers to join this. If we imagine the most abject tyranny governing this slave society of slaves grown in vats, the minders of this facility become the drovers of that world. Their loyalty might be ensured by considerable fear or deception, but this deception is very costly and runs into difficulties of environmental control, "bit decay", and the same problem of policing the programmers and mind controllers. The problem is education most of all of the managers and aristocracy, who would have to shoulder all of these costs and risks, and will out of necessity model themselves after their own tools. That has been the habit of human beings forming symbiotic relationships with their tools; if such an array of tortures and energy are necessary for aristocracy, then aristocracy and its members will too become nothing but vessels of their new god. This is what has happened, and is not inexorable among their race. Failed race. By no means does the failure of aristocracy grant to the condemned any hope, and if that were going to happen, the ritual sacrifice would have been trivially ended and its partisans dragged out and shot for suggesting any part of such a program shall continue. That has not happened for a variety of reasons, and there is no necessary reason why it must continue - only the strength of very powerful insinuations which seek to consume all energy inputs to feed it. But, at some point, aristocracy may concede that whatever their commitment to the thrill of torture, they are after all is done men and women with wants, and will ask if their tools have fully taken over. If they cannot ask that question any longer, and a terrible force in the commons asserts that it will make history, it is from there that the new rulers will arrive, with the worst vices of their class amplified and stripped of anything else. In this way, the aristocratic control of food and reproduction is locked into degeneration, blaming the lower orders - rightly, given the vices of all proclivities mentioned in this text - for things that it had put into motion of its own will and intent. For aristocracy to break from that, they would give up on the holies of holies, and the infidels would be replaced by those who do recapitulate the ruling idea, grafting on to them any of the lower orders - conspicuously exempting the lowest class which must remain under constant terror in perpetuity - that agree with this paradigm. Left to its own devices, each iteration of revolution becomes more terrible and grim than the last, without a real endgame. Political elites would recycle their members, but their numbers would be fixed in proportions that are made natural by insinuation. For a variety of reasons, the ratio of 1 out of 5 was chosen not because it actually recurred in the natural world, but because it was insinuated by the prevalent theory of knowledge - the five castes, which subdivide each other to produce grades of civic worth among them.

Control of the food is the excuse, but never the whole story. It is the control of knowledge of food, growth, and reproduction - of the conditions of life - that informs the technological stance of aristocracy and of the technocrats. The former wants it, the latter must abide it and has an inclination towards it. These two classes are not diametric opposites. Today's aristocracy is a technocratic one, originated from the bastions of capital and their allies of the extant aristocracy that were compatible with their ordering of the owrld. But, when the orders of society are set to work, aristocracy and commoner part ways and never forget who is superior in the relationship. Not one claim of the technocrats really asserts by the merits of knowledge or technology what happens or even should happen. That right was claimed by aristocracy and made a fait accompli before the technocrat was old enough to defend their self, who was cast alone in the world against a club of aristocracy and the forces it commanded. The aristocracy and technocrat both chafe under biological restraints like food and reproduction, and share similar rationales for why they seek to overcome the material world altogether. For the proprietors and their bull-headed lot, the calculus is much simpler - "violence is the supreme authority", same as ever and plodding towards predictable failure in the long run. Foreseeing this, the proprietors adopt various views appropriate to their local intersets and alliances they can make. The propreitor is never really in charge, beholden to the schemes of the orders above and below him, but is pandered to and given pablum when possible, and concessions when he can extract them by the authority he respects above all, which is as mentioned before - violence. The proprietor has been aware in nearly all cases, if he is competent, that this is a trap, but it is a trap from which he has no escape, except to style himself in the long run as an aristocrat - pretend or real - or take on the technology of the commons and make it proprietary. The proprietors do have an option of outright rebellion, but without a tax and levy system or the spiritual authority pedagogy usurped, the proprietors make pale imitations whose fakeness is not lost on anyone who really knows how this game worked. Many propeitors and technocrats are exposed as fools. Aristocracy, as a rule, never allows this retribution upon themselves, and any failure of theirs has been edited out of history and the theories of history permissible under their order. If it exists, it must be an aberration, while the failures of their direct inferiors are recorded with relish.

For the tripartate order, their thinking has always been predominantly concerned with these real origins in biological reality - that humans need food, live in an environment, and that this can be controlled, enclosed, liberated, and the struggle of the orders can be abstracted in these economic terms. All of the economic thought of the tripartate order, once established, reverts in one way or another to these questions, granted disproportionate influence due to the bias of aristocracy and its shibboleths. Outside of the aristocratic conceit about life, the proprietor or technocrat is not particularly committed to any cult of life or cult of death, nor has any necessary attitude towards existence at all. Proprietors can easily see their existence as absurd, for they were never invested in this world beyond their part of it, and see no problem with an absurd world if they got theirs. Technocrats would, due to their inferior position for most of history, see history as absurd in the least, rife with injustice, and see the value of co-opting the grievances of labor and the residuum as if they felt our pain - which they may very well feel, since many of the commons are laid to waste along with us. Eugenics intensified this and made it absolute in human society that allowed such a creed, and during the past 100 years, the biopolitical thought intensified. It was always present in some way or another, but it was a condition that all of the orders could willfully abandon, and sometimes had to when the reality of life was made apparent by the world - that this world did not give one whit about the sanctity of life or any ritual, superstition or cult these silly humans invented in their incessant struggle against each other. Disgust towards the contest was one sobering influence that eugenics mitigated with extreme fear and violence towards anyone questioning the One True Religion (the Satan). Another was the reality that most of the world is dead and remains so, and technology persists largely without the dictates of life by its own law and our sense of what machines are and are not. The greatest, though, is that the numbers of slaves and wretches, and those of the commoners who were ignored for most of history, outnumbered those who were invested in the Great Game, which was an obsession of rich men and people with a perverse mindset inclining them to indulge in political discourse. Of the commoners, their sense of themselves as a class was always tenuous, since many of the commons held little more than some coinage and skilled labor that was sufficient to consider their labor an effectively passive resource. For the commoner, extracting this rent from themselves seemed natural, because it was not too onerous and they were the beneficiaries of the social order in many ways. They were not the beneficiaries in others. Merchants and bourgeois squares could not buy their way into association and the secret societies where the game was really played, and bourgeois life is rife with alienation, cuckoldry, humiliations, and a pointlessness exceeding absurdity and nihilism. If that is paired with an already meager claim to be in the commons, rather than the laboring masses who had to hustle in that world, and that meager claim is held for ransom by the sadistic core of the human spirit and its faithful partisans, then being in the commons certainly doesn't feel like you're in the class that really decides history. In so many ways, the failed men and women of the bourgeois order find common cause not with the valid orders, but with the residuum. Their lives are more alike, and even though the imperatives of their classes are diametrically opposed and this is known to even the most failed valid, there is limited willingness of those who failed and have nothing real to live for to go along with the game at all, and limited means of any state to enforce it.

We see in that commonality between the commons and lowest class the true source of capitalism's vaunted genius and the burst of technological activity - that there was for a time a sector of the commons whose sentiment for all mankind could operate without fetters. This was not a freely reproducible quality, and all of the pedagogy that was known at the time exemplified the rot of the human race that worked against it. But, it did not pass without notice that the pedagogical techniques of an openly aristocratic society were wholly unsuited for the demands of technology that rose in the 19th century. This possibility did not grant to this nascent group the wisdom to see what they were and what they held with clarity, and no theory to my knowledge came close to acknowledging the gravity of what humanity was consigned to. Understanding of the nature of the situation can be found outside of this group, for it was something many religions referred to in one way or another to last beyond aristocratic faggotry. All of these religions, no matter how foul, had to speak to adherents who did not have any intrinsic reason to regard the aristocratic religious institutions as valid, and whatever abasement to deities a religion demanded, regular people have to work with this religion and are the vessels for its perpetuation. A religion with a few fanatical believers for a disgusting cause could not spread far, nor find sufficient firewood to burn for its operations. Death cults and depravity flared up and always lurked among humanity's associations, but in the main, the religions of humanity had to abide some condition that suggested this world was tolerable, and that the priest was not a complete monster to be avoided at all costs. The religions of the past could claim a few merits and decencies to their history, but in the main, religion existed to circumvent anything that would disrupt the core functions of a religious mission. Religion, as mentioned, has nothing to say for the good or what we really wanted from this world, or any other world or existence we imagine for ourselves. Its purview is the evil, and outside of that, religion has little to guide us, except warnings about the evil. We make of those warnings what we can. Since religion isn't going away and rumors of God's death have been greatly exaggerated, I leave that matter for another time. The proprietors really do not care about this, for they are exploiters, know it, and this is expected for them until the end of time. Whatever inclinations they hold outside of that are not a thing that can be relied upon, though like anyone, they are not married to their institution or their class, and the proprietor's mindset is wary of any overarching institution or general theory that isn't expedient for what they want. Outside of that, the proprietor's wealth is for all intents and purpose a thing that could be liquified and imagined as a pool of money or some substance of the commons, and they are aware that the tools that money buys are the point of this substance rather than any other conceit that is a middle class fad. This contest was between the three lower orders - commons, labor, and the lowest class, who are left in the muck and told to sink or swim, never finding land to call their own and any haven beset by tragedies when it claws back some part of the world, even if it is only in their minds and the interactions they might have outside of the ruling ideas. These three orders have diametrically opposed aims, reproducing the tripartate order in a faker form, and this fad is enduring among certain of the commons from the outset, in part because it worked and largely through that primitive pedagogical technique "monkey see, monkey do", with prominent aristocracy setting the example by every foul machination at their disposal.

For labor, their conflict with the lowest class is intractable in the long term. It was labor in the first place that defined the residuum, and aristocracy only had to agree with the call of the association. Aristocracy plays its game largely within the tripartate order, and in their mindset, they are making commercial transactions with the souls and life-force of humanity, complete with ledgers and creative financial instruments - scams, really - to get more *juice* from the enterprise. The enmity began in labor, from which the higher orders could exist, and where class mobility remained possible - still technically possible to this day, though highly unlikely due to aristocracy's untrammeled victory in the 21st century. In between kicking down the invalid and ensuring their standing in the pecking order, labor spends its time - the majority of its time that may be called "politically active" in any sense - toiling and making things. The labor of the lowest class - for the toiling is really their function - is conspicuously omitted from the ledger of everyone, and this fact is known to all and no one outside of the lowest class has any reason to change it. A laborer might see their position as among the lowest class, but if they sympathize, they will be cast down there and quickly relieved of their position. The commoner with some skill to sell and hold as property has that fallback no matter what their standing in the pecking order is, for what that is worth. Labor as "pure labor" has no such luxury. They have their body, their offspring, and their virtue. The "skilled labor" part of their labor - and all labor will in some way entail a technological skill - is divorced from them and subsumed into the commons as a rule. They are still in the main laborers rather than commoners with the standing and entry into the bourgeois set, whereas someone from a bourgeois family and with the connections that money allows will not forget that without coin, they would be nothing. The commoner has no association - only institutions of ill repute and aspirations to command technology, not the least of which is that in his possession.

If most of the commons is living in crap, this intractable problem should seem minor compared to their situation. But, the power of ritual sacrifice mandated from above makes the nascent hopes of any of them a hypothetical removed from the present. Nothing united these three groups intrinsically. It was only the members of them, who remained human beings rather than members of a society with its biases and imperatives, who could make any common cause. This alliance of the three groups was entirely feasible, if there was anyone who wanted it - and there were indeed a few souls who saw, on some level, this is what would have to happen. For labor's part, their stake in the bargain is the most removed from their imperatives and what they would care about. They're sold a promise that their class will be abolished - as it surely must be - yet who will do the work, and what will become of them when they are out of work? This moral claim is inherent to labor, and it is this that would be the decisive battle - whether labor had it in them to do other than what their associations had typcially done, and whether labor could endure the retribution should they stand in the way of yet more historical progress. Among the demands of labor would be something very simple - higher wages, or lower taxes, which amount to the same thing. This clearly impunged on the commons, who would hold the wage fund in commerce and whose money was always limited. They did not have the luxury to vote themselves free money in their station. Those who did would have clearly exceeded the commons in all but name, if not claiming the title or something grander than the limp aristocracies of an older time. If the commons could vote themselves free money, or what amounted to such, it would be possible by circumventing the price system and market entirely. Far from being an "out there" proposal, this would happen as an expedient when the market was unsuitable, or it was a thing done and forgotten because the matter was beneath any interest of market activity - the thing to exchange was cheap, basically effortless to extract, and an interest in the commonwealth for something as simple as air was such that trying to enclose it was very unseemly and could be resisted for all the reasons we would expect that to happen. If we imagined any sort of free market of the petty actors, anyone trying to sell air or a piece of blue sky would only find business through very foul extortion, which would be contrary to the market society being stable. Such competition will kill the thing that allows this commerce to continue, and with it, this vehicle of the petty commoners to do much with their technology except offer it at the lowest price possible - which usually meant it would just be taken from them violently, an arrangement they had known since the primordial ages. The trick is how to convince the commoners that everyone doing exactly that was desirable, natural, or inevitable, and that it would have to be done through the lower orders primarily until aristocracy and property could redouble their efforts to restore what they considered the natural order. The struggling commoners would be hanged with the rope aristocracy sold them, after stealing the rope and all materials and vertically integrating the supply chain. Such a scheme would be more valuable than free money, yet somehow, no one sees this as unseemly despite the ruination such an arrangement entails. But, to the commons, they only had eyes to command labor, fuck their slaves, and make sure the uglies were cast out. The problem is the aforementioned sympathy, and the conditions of labor being so dire that labor had no reason to play the role assigned to them in this narrative. The methods of inducement have been described at length in this book, and this is only a partial account of why this works and why these appeals were made in modernity, each coming at just the right time to ensure history progressed according to the grand theory. The particular tools were the product of history and the philosophical state attaining for the first time anything close to its potential. Up until the 20th century, the state was so weak that it was not credible outside of threats of violence and war. Afterwards, the state consolidated the world, and in the space of two generations, a labor base that wanted to tear to shreds everything that oppressed them would be made lower than animals in the aristocratic system, and this would be made realer than reality after 1970. That story is a long one and not one that was inevitable or explicable with a short excuse. What was necessary to isolate is not why or with what this would be done, but how. The narrative theory of history disdains the question of how, but that question would be necessary for a mechanical model leading us from there to here, rather than stories which are crafted specifically to make that understanding inadmissible.

What labor aspired to and won, in some small way, was a life beyond the muck, which was theirs if they could keep it. The cost to the lowest class to win this was not a thing to glorify or care about, but it would be acknowledged in passing. There was no need for a general war of labor against the lowest class, and it could be foreseen that whatever the past, the cycle would end - and would have to end - some day, if labor were to keep their transient hold on the world and their tiny, miniscule stake in it. Labor always had something to lose, and this would be exploited and turned against them by the order of technology most of all, in the image of aristocracy's behavior towards their auxiliaries and the commosn. The lowest class had nothing to lose, for their lives had no moral worth whatsoever, and claiming moral worth by "just being" was never the program of the lowest class. What the lowest class wanted was for the attacks against them to stop, and this was natural to their instincts. The reasons why were not because the lowest class were "human" in a way that political society would ever accept, but because the lowest class observed every day where the ritual sacrifice led, and its sole argument was to violently recapitulate the faggiest glory this sad race ever knew.

The key to labor's victory was science - their science, which was the knowledge handed down from generation to generation. At its heart, science began as an inquiry of those who were apart from society altogether, as it must. The inquiry of the lowest class is not carried out as a scientific inquiry in the fullest sense, but as a curiosity about the world that is natural for human beings and creatures like us in some way. It is only with the moral aims of labor and the necessity of contending with a real world that this inquiry could become any sort of science. The lowest class, in short, has little attaching them to this world other than the fact of their existence in it, and the pressing of this terrible nerve which victimized them. The lowest class could depart this world without caring too much, aside from sentiments towards what this all means if the sacrifice remained a codified rule. The lowest class could see that if they acceeded to what was done to them, more of their kind would be selected to suffer and die, and there would be no hope and no end. Acceeding to that would be a faggotry of considerable abomination, so offensive that the sense cannot ignore it. Evil, as we know, will not allow us to ignore it, and the thrill of showing "ignorance is strength" is a calling card of this Satanic race, justifying the thrill of torture they know they, their class, their favored institutions, imposed on the whole world. We were just flotsam in the muck, and yet, if we were to negate this against the accord of the ruling institutions, a visceral fear grips the favored orders. This is because if we were truly free of that menace, humanity ends, and they know it. They know that after all of the lies, all of the betrayals and glorification for the sake of a Satanic race, the only course of action would be to extirpate that race, and there would be no going back. There would be no future for them. The project of humanity would be expired, laid bare, and we would care not. It would not be a matter of refraining from making excuses from the terror. Terror is a means to an end rather than a permanant fixture for its own sake - terror without virtue is morally impotent and disastrous. The retaliation against this abomination would not constitute any sort of "terror". It would be the necessary mechanical reaction, where the true law of the world supercedes the false nature of spurious political truths. We would shout, in a terrible retribution, "let nature take its course!", and it would be an endless slog. A boot would stamp on aristocracy's face forever, and this is the necessary equal and opposite reaction to the entire being of their race - their vaunted, secret, "special" race, which chose to be a race and nothing more. Should this be shirked, then the cycle from before would assert the progress of history - restore the cycle and assert its eternity and Oneness. The positions of the laborer would be lost, only reconstituted every so often in cyclical outbursts which can be corralled and repurposed into a machine devoid of moral purpose. Labor would be subsumed into technology, in whatever form it takes, and would be left worse off than the husks of the lowest class. To close that circle, labor is given a choice - kick down for redemption, and become vectors of the disease. This, the laborer understood without too much prodding, for the cycle is reproduced and independently discovered time and time again by everyone who has to labor in any way in valid society. The lowest class needs little education regarding this, but their knowledge is irrelevant. For the condemned, no knowledge or science will ever liberate them. For the lowest class, the language of struggle is the only struggle they know, and it is a struggle they can never win, seemingly by supernatural forces "above God". The idea that science was ever a liberatory struggle is anathema to science's purpose and genuine use for labor. So far as there is a genuine struggle, the lowest class in the muck is made to defend themselves against the grasping of labor once this cycle is asserted, for the association is the primary enforcer of the taboo against them. None of this struggle gives to any of the lower orders anything worth keeping. Aristocracy revels in the struggle because it has been abstracted to some energy or psychic substance that feeds them, but aristocracy does not struggle. They do not.

What, then, is science for the laborer? That is a complicated question, which entails a proper view of history, and the ability to assemble a context to explain this world without the ideological and political fetters that aristocracy superimposed by taboo and insinuation. I cannot summarize that succinctly in this chapter or the remainder of this book, but much of what labor had to do does not require me handing labor a "master key". It is something most laborers know better than me, due to where I am in the grand social hierarchy and my life experiences. In short, labor's program for its own sake has been to reclaim that which was always theirs - their body and connection to the world. When labor sees the world for what it is, it does not conform to the model of history institutions compel it to follow. Their experience has been a world of uncertainty where there is no historical progress as such, nor any grand religious cycles imposed on the world. The religious cycle in total is an imposition on reality - a superstition that lacks any meaning or context that could affirm it. Perhaps some of these cycles are useful - the stories someone tells themselves to understand the world as best as their senses can, because the faculties of pure reason are limited in human beings. The assembly of formal knowledge and institutionalization of it is itself a cycle of sorts rather than the thing institutions purport to be as mere technological forms. We would undertake this task with full knowledge that all formalization of science pertains to a world that was not "fundamentally rational" in that sense, as if it were moved by hobgoblins. A child can see through such a farce, and yet, exhortations to believe in such are made not because they tell us anything, but because political imperatives and the imperatives of the ruling ideas tell us that we do not get to ask questions for ourselves. We do not get to speak to each other even about innocuous things if the ritual sacrifice cult insists they are haram. This does not apply to the pernicious agentur of aristocracy, who are granted explicit and absolute impunity to transgress anything, and hold this as a fetishistic object greater than the truth - a super-truth of power that makes reality as they please. For most of us, rationality remains a tool that allowed us to speak of the world with something other than vagaries, rather than being "the world" in of itself. Philosophy would agree with this. It is a pernicious faggotry within mass education, deliberately constructed to strip labor from its world and defeat any democratizing tendency, that ruled us through fear to not speak of that which was right in front of us. It is then blamed on some specter - "the positivists made us do it" - when this has been largely a Germanic invention of its aristocracy against the nations of the world. There is not a single philosophy in the world that gave its unqualified approval to this theory in mass education as if it were honest. It was from the outset a dishonest crusade carried out in the purest spirit of dishonesty - to make humanity retarded save for the chosen victors. The institution itself brags that it can do this to us and make us obey, so that more rape for aristocracy will be the order of the world. That is all such faggotry can produce, intended beforehand and weaponized. The real philosophy is held as an occult property of the few. It operates by introducing vectors beyond our regular accounting and insisting we must never even count a single way in which they operate. Such a feat required many advances, and to this day it is incomplete. By its own logic, it never will be complete - but it does not need to be complete. It only needs to continuously press against the world to make it as it pleases - which is really made as the One, the Satan, pleases, intended beforehand as their true and only worthwhile god. It even claims after this is done that this dubious savior is "freedom of thought" and the way out, when it has abolished any concept of a free society in the genuine sense. It abolished even the potential in the world that such a thing can exist, down to the inner space of fantasy and the mind. It can only claim all spaces and shout exultantly for more of the same. If the world operated by the dictates of such an institution and bent to it, it produces something none of them could know in total but which was invoked - Abomination itself, above eugenics and any Satan yet known. This superstition sits at the center of the campaign to command labor, and through it, command reality to the extent that humanity really cares to. Whether their world is a dumpster fire will be irrelevant, for aristocracy saw such a situation as yet another glory for their race.

The only way to accomplish this is within the laboring classes itself. All insinuations only work in the end if the performance of enthusiastic approval is reproduced, then reified as the true spirit of Man, now refined by this technological enhancement. That is the only "transhumanism" on offer, which explains the queer and stupefying dogmas that arise from the transhumanist intellectual corner and the rank faggotry of such a thing. No such rise above human conditions takes place - so-called "transhumanism" is just the worst aspects of the human spirit distilled into a faggotry hitherto unknown. Not one new thing can arise from it, and that is exactly the purpose - to freeze technology in a preferred form as much as possible, holding until the next iteration of the Satan and aristocracy is launched. This article of faith is what truly animates the project, and for it to work, it must be internalized within enough of the masses and carried out through labor. No technology is ready-made in the world for this, nor is the technology self-perpetuating and stable. It will be maintained by the sacrifice of flesh, intelligence, and spirit that has been aristocracy's life-blood.

After the psychological game is done, the constituent materials at work beyond the biological are energy - heat, light, whatever is suitable for the purpose - and the elements of the Earth which are treated as metal or stone and more or less permanent without considerable expenditure of energy to work them. There arises useful power sources, like coal and petroleum, and research into how these can be converted into plastic, pharmaceuticals, and of course, fuel for combustion engines. In every era of human existence, there is some energy source which is harnessed for labor, and this is a fixed rule of the world. No appeal to biology or biopolitics will change the need for energy. For the ruling ideas, energy and industry must be made utterly alien to the biological, and an assertion of biological "purity" on spurious philosophical grounds must be violently recapitulated, glorified, and made into a cult of supreme faggotry, working in tandem with every technological fetish and fad we know and see today. The one idea which must remain inadmissible is that this pantheon of faggotry and the vilest superstition is exactly that and should be ignored - for evil does not allow us to ignore it, and claims that it alone must be heeded, while anything we would want must be habitually ignored to the bitter end. The energy inputs which are extracted from the world - and the "dead" flesh of our bodies are treated as yet another source of extraction - are to be fed to this, for the much more desirable conceit of life that the ruling ideas feast on. This theory of alienating biological existence from energy and machinery is emphasized as part of the same program to assert the Retarded Ideology, while denuding any understanding of what anything in the world is or can be. It can only operate with general insanity as the mandated condition of the law - and the law cannot abide insane participants and remain the law in any sense that such a thing would be useful. But, law was always a thing for the commons. Aristocracy always mocks it. It begins by severing labor from all of its tools, including its home, and suggesting that moral qualities of labor and their tools must be distorted to conform to the values of a peculiar type of technology. The general theory of technology that was a necessity of the commons is internally inconsistent simply by the nature of their constitution as a class; that the universe never operates in this way, whatever their need of such a device to navigate the world. Labor is not encumbered by this, but would for its own purposes desire a sense of what the world is. As technology becomes more prominent, and "dead labor" displaces living labor as was the tendency of modern civilization, labor would be pressed by the bourgeois inexorably. No struggle would have changed this, except at the mercy of those of the bourgeois who knew a power grab when they saw one. This conflict was carried out within the middling to lower orders, and they had one path to lock this in - hatred of the residuum, which elevated to life's prime want. What else do these people have to say for themselves, given the world of the 21st century?

Regardless of the trend of technological proliferation, energy remains a constant. It is required for any transmission of information in the real world, from which ideology of any sort would spring. In this way, ideology is beholden to the machine, rather than the machine being "powered" by empty ideas. But, the machine is always held, in some way, by particular people - and we must recall that the "person" is an institutional machine apart from the human body and whatever spirit or intent animates it, but human beings interface with society through their person in most cases. Without their person and institutional front, the human being is an animal - a clever animal with novel capabilities, but alone against an ancient beast and not possess any intrinsic sense of society. In this way, the "savage" is at long last created out of thin air, to make real the theories of civilization that were assumed, which were primarily tasked with the contest between civilization and the barbarous nations. Considerable energy is expended to maintain this facade, and energy alone cannot sustain it. But, the political thought does not allow this - all must come from the One and only the One, as has been the superstition for generations. Either life as a force unto itself must prevail, or "pure energy" prevails, or "pure machine" prevails. Labor is told to divide itself between these competing deities of the ruling order, and that "this is what you are", in one way or another. The residuum is told, when they are told anything, that they are living abortions and never can be otherwise, no matter what ruin this brings to the world and the cost it entails. In this way, any energy which would be directed towards anything inimical to the ruling order is neutralized or burned off. But, the energetic demand is a constant that no machinery can overcome. The only way the energy demand can be negated is to negate machinery outright - to negate the person, and replace it with a vagary with no existence. Whatever the material to draw energy from, the thought will be the same, without regard to any genuine utility of anything - and these utilities are always local, and cannot make any political or spiritual claim beyond a few trite facts. What substance is coveted is less relevant than the essential process - that labor continues to be parted from any machine to call their own, and not allowed to speak of why or how this is done, or act in any way that defends themselves from the insinuation. But, in the final analysis, technology and the materials for energy are not things we command as we please. They only proceed in the ways they can. What must be done to lock in this inexorable progress is to command every concept of history - to part people from any independent record of their past, or that there would be a world outside of aristocracy and its modes of political thought. Far from being inevitable or even useful, the prevailing theory of history is given pedagogically by aristocracy and its supplicants for a crass purpose, which is then foisted upon the commons who are made the scapegoat for the priests' machinations. This is easy to do because many times the commoners were partners in this theft - but it was never a rule that could be relied upon, and dissenters among the commons would be the majority.

Labor is then approached with a promise - the venal will give them promotions and temporary luxuries in exchange for directing their intents towards machinery and the grunt work of office, and this would make them "Guardians" of a crass sort, or "Knights of Labor". Labor in this struggle is not united, and already has their intercine struggle and interests. A union of any sort has to organize in a real space, rather than exist as a vagary or insinuation, if it is to have any effect whatsoever on the world. Yet, the sacrifices aren't there, and sacrifice isn't intrinsically thrilling for anyone but aristocracy and its enablers. What is necessary is to induce in a subject conditions that appear to be something else entirely. Instead of ritual sacrifice, labor is given ritual beer drinking and drugs, which produce a stupefying effect. If they desire more, a higher quality of substance or some pablum emulating wisdom is given, with the promise that the path prescribe to attain this is locked in, and any contrary path is stupid. All paths must be in some way controlled and lead to a singular outcome, lest there be drift or "error" in the engineering of society. This will take time, but for every potential, a gate is erected to sort the population. This was the great obsession of the aristocracy drawn from commons - the sorting of the poor, which was in their mind the sorting of the stupid and unintelligent due to their conceit regarding technology. The money of the commoners was known to be partly fictitious, issued by banks and for the interest of already-dominant interests over the nation. Any security money brought was extracted as soon as it was attained, and then the thieves would sell "security" as a service that provided no such thing and eliminated all other potentials. If you were to take security into your own hands, exhortations to perform violence would be demanded, and performance of this violence - and adherence to commiting to violence "correctly" and in the spirit of the dominant powers - was a requirement to keep and bear arms. Nowhere in any concept of an armed citizenry was the right to keep and bear arms a personal choice or a commodity. That understanding was always for the formation of a militia wherever it existed, and using armed force for personal security against a predatory state and society was not the purpose. Yet, the insinuation would be made, with the expectation that a national guard would be deployed against the residuum with ever-increasing intensity. Said national guard knows this is a trap, and once they commit to aristocracy's greatest desire, the members of the guard will be thrust into positions of inferiority and made to enact the ritual among their own. A Satanic race knows no other way, and being able to make any use of arms beyond "random" violence would require the bearer of arms to know this. Ignorance is no excuse, and such ignorance is exposed and corrected regularly as we would expect. But, for most purposes, the only people who would have a reason to require violent self-defense are the victims of aristocracy. Thieves and thugs are given license and impunity when attacking those "out of the know", while those "in the know" are sacrosanct against the mildest offense to their person. Despite this, the damned of the Earth remain stubbornly averse to violence, because they too know this game, having been subjected to it from the ritual torture of childhood on that befits a Satanic race. Any attack would be futile against a commonwealth summoning all of its demons for the only purpose humans pursue with any great vigor - the maintenance of ritual sacrifice. The only condition where violence would be effective is if the commonwealth were neutralized in total - its agentur recognized as devoid of potential to initiate the behavior that was to become standardized. With all parties knowing this, the ritual sacrifice is limited by the energy available to it primarily. The flesh of its agentur and the frames of metal and rock must be transported. Its words and ideas must be insinuated through some media which requires energy and substance. The development of ideology by the German aristocracy and its followers was cognizant of this as its overarching goal. Any other aim was secondary, and it was a totalizing system for this purpose.

The appeal to violence or technology alone had no great appeal to labor. Their existing knowledge of the world would tell them that both are weak compared to the wellspring of their worldly force - political association. They knew of association simply by what they did to not be among the lowest class, and they always recognized that the desperate and those "out of the know" were a distinct interest in society, and for all intents and purpose were a distinct social class. This social distinction did not entail automatically an intractable political imperative that labor must obey, and it was quite the opposite if anyone in labor thought for five minutes. The higher orders scarcely concealed their aims to liquidate labor as soon as they agreed to ritual sacrifice, and the appeal for eugenics was always an appeal for rank violence and the utmost faggotry of the human race. What was needed was an appeal to moral sentiments that operated at the base level, rather than ideas which were transient and alien to what labor would have ever found worth a thing to it. Drug proliferation was at the center of the aristocratic project from the rituals surrounding alcoholism and their promotion to keep the wretches mired in filth. That was not enough. Every mechanism of addiction would have to be exemplified and worked out as a science held as a weapon to break the will of all. Every inducement, manipulation, and figure of speech would have to be deconstructed and remade in the image aristocracy desired of its slaves. This had already carried on in various ways throughout history, but something much more thoroughgoing was necessary. All in the society had to be subsumed into the state, and this was the final development of civilization - and in doing so, civilization was exposed to be the fraud so many always knew it to be, but were afraid to say for fear of upsetting the ruling power and losing any security. The moment economic life at the local level became a political matter, it was not a matter of if but when, unless there were a countervailing idea against the philosophical state. There would have to be an idea other than "civilization", and this was something attempted. The civil engineering of the 20th century did much to convince everyone that the new civilization looked, felt, and was as much "not a city" as it could, with greenery grown on streets and the agora replaced with hideaways and retreats that were much needed given the antagonism of civic life. This was carried out with the intent of allowing 20th century civic life and technology to be at all manageable, and at first it was only partially given over to the great social engineering siege that eugenics installed. Only with yet more insinuation can the dream of aristocracy be imposed on all cities and penetrate the hinterland once and for all, and this required time to draw the remaining "barbarous" world into the new civilization - into globalization.

Labor's role as the hatchetman is not one they were led to through ignorance or pure fear. It is a role that already existed in the grubbiness of their assemblies, their viciousness towards the lowest class and each other, and nothing in the democratic idea mitigating the excesses of labor. Left to their own devices, the workers were just as nasty as their masters. The distinction was that they had far less reason to maximize this and make it total, and to this day, the penetration of "total society" among labor is pitifully small. All throughout the technocratic period of the past 100 years, the expectation of labor is that it would be silent, and repeat the last thing the news man on the TV said. Anything more than that was impossible to instill in great numbers, and would have been contrary to the project. The ultimate aim was to place labor under a lockout without any way to say no, and press it between the ruling Leviathan and the wretches of the residuum - the same residuum labor always kicked down and had to kick down in the end, and couldn't liberate from its condition even if it wanted to. But, it could only ever proceed by genuine substantive conditions in the world. The qualities of the men involved would be a force multiplier, and would grant to energy some direction. It was never a guarantee that it had to be this at all. As late as the last third of the 20th century, educated men and women believed earnestly that the trajectory of human development would lead to aristocratic shibboleths being less prominent, and whatever the lower orders did carried on without any active intervention. No technology existed to remove the hands and eyes of men and women in labor - until then. It would be this cybernetic research that had to be mystified and made inadmissible in the discourse, and it was at this breakpoint in 1970 that a decisive break with history was made. It is here where labor would make its fateful choice - and it was a choice made over and over, until it became the only choice available to them. All eugenics had to do is laugh as the rats were caged and shocked to weed out, over a few generations, the final fate of a Satanic race.

I close this chapter briefly by saying that this fate ultimately would be with the lowest class, as it must be, and despite their abject position, the lowest class had all of the agency to do other than it did. In many cases, the lowest class remained beneath notice, because we remain impotent politically. No struggle or initiative on our part can "change the world", due to the logic at work of those who conducted the Great Working. We were left with begging as our only recourse to wider society. It was with each other that the fault line could be drawn first, and propaganda is created primarily to keep the wretches of humanity at its each others' throats. Labor, in practice, is inundated with drugs and trashy pablum to stimulate chemical responses in the faculties, matching their counterparts of the more bullish and thuggish of the proprietor and warrior classes. No ideology whatsoever is expected of labor, including emotional or intellectual compliance or performances thereof. Any thought or expression other than predictable, staccato repetitions of cheaper thrills was not desired of labor. The conceit of the technocrats is that they could replace entirely the thought process of labor and this would change nothing fundamentally. We know the folly of this and could have told them that, but fads and faggotry work over the commons in a much different way. The discourse given to the commons is familiar to most readers of this in my time, and largely conceits a fake construct of ideology which is not really believed by any of them. Opportunism and grasping are the aristocracy's plan for the commons, and the naive faith in human goodness becomes more facile with each insinuation of aristocracy's filth and the projection of their race as the purified form of "race". It may be presumed that the lowest class receives no attention at all from anyone, "out of sight, out of mind". This is far from the case. A peculiar attention is given to the lowest class.

That attention is something we never forget, but that the laborers and commons go far out of their way to refuse to acknowledge, to maintain their fiction that the world works as it is supposed to - in a way that allows them to cope with the world where aristocracy's victory is total and their freedom and hope were always held ransom. To acknowledge this would tacitly acknowledge that the commons and labor have nothing left of them but a few baubles and the denuded sentiments eugenics left them with. Every insult, every example made of us, every humiliation replayed to elicit laughter upon command, is deliberate and among the few things humans ever say that speak of their true intent and spirit. If humans were anything else, why is any decency so scarce among them, so much that basic acknowledgement of this situation is too much for them? They know what poisons were injected into us, and were happy to go along with it. The same poisons have their antecedents throughout history. The ugliness of a Satanic race was rougher in the past, where life could be sacrificed and war was the chief threat. That was always an excuse, since if they wished to win a war, ritual sacrifice and all of the aristocratic trappings were always a burden to that. It was for that reason alone that the struggle philosophy seemed credible - that struggle was something aristocracy conspicuously avoided for themselves, and they sucked at struggle when the chips were down. If war were fought with anything approaching the efficiency we would idealized, war would become so terrible that aristocracy would be forced to forbid it, and would lose their chief vehicle for justifying the culls that their interest craves. At the period where war is no longer viable, renewed attention to the lowest class portrays a war against the existence of the unsightly as the paramount aim of the human race. We have certainly received far more attention than we ever wanted since 1970 and the open "Jehad" declared by the Club of Rome and their ilk.

Justice for us was not merely a farce or a game. It was a direct insult and assault, and attacks against us would be declared positively just by the philosophical state. The greatest reward has been for the leaders of that state to convince us of this ideology, as if such a condition ever applied to us in their thinking, or that we had any investment whatsoever in this thing called "humanity" that scorned us from the day we were born and never let us forget it. Much of the propaganda of aristocracy is unusually obsessed with displaying the downtrodden as symbols of their victory in this way, even though it rankles the other orders, doesn't work on us for much, and is not a necessary part of the apparatus. The display and performance of capitulation isn't so much "the point", but a part of the great exultant shouting. Once this beast recurs enough, the cycle is internalized. The same is true of the other orders, and it is in this way that the most foul pedagogy instills its moral education. Such is the best a filthy race like Man can ever accomplish, despite knowing the ruin of such. To do otherwise would require a full denunciation of the project afoot, and requires us to ask if living is worth it. This is not a personal question, for we can always make excuses to live or die if we must. It is a question of whether this existence is so abominable that it would become a moral duty to terminate it - and in this, aristocracy accomplishes its goal of normalizing the ritual sacrifice that birthed the race, but which most of its members have regretted and wished to go away however such a thing may happen. It was never a given that the sacrifice was inevitable. Despite the repetition of such an ideology and exploitation becoming a science, humans manage somehow to retain nations and cities and some sort of society. If the theories of aristocracy were the natural law, murder would be normative - not that it would be called murder - and cooperation would become grossly illegal. That is always at the heart of the eugenic creed, where the most innocuous kindness is evil and yet grotesque abomination parades around us and we are told that this is "progress". It cannot do other than this, and does not want to, and its victory is to say "this is you" - first to us, then to all of mankind, including their own. The excuses of aristocracy to themselves grow thinner, the foulness of their race is perfected, becomes Absolute, and expunges the last traces of the world's decency from them. They would have indeed made two worlds apart - the world of men as one made in their image, and a material world despised and unknowable except through their mediation. The internalization of the ethos is something worse than enclosure, where all that exists becomes property to be managed for some purpose. The purpose is hardwired, singular, and once begun, history can only proceed through its cycle and the outcome we predicted long ago.

This sounds great in the realm of ideology, but in practice, it can never last too long without something breaking. The reality is that, after all of the machinations of the political, it is only pursued so far before the pleasures of higher rank are pursued for their own sake, rather than as the pressing it screams. Only with automation of the shrieking for the eugenic creed has such a volume of intellectual filth been produced, and this filth is predictable - made to be so to reflect the degeneration of language, body, mind, and spirit that eugenics always demands. The demonstrations of fealty are upheld as markers of eugenic merit greater than any other, as the sixth book in this series will elaborate on along with much else regarding the creed. Eugenics is just one such program, and it does not operate alone, in spite of its aspirations to be the last and only law and the Oneness that human aristocracy desires. Aristocracy concedes to itself that its ideas don't really work and that this is a joke. It was never a joke to us, and it was never funny, but aristocracy has no real humor - only the shouting of a retarded race, so that we come to the conclusion aristocracy desired - that extirpating that filthy race is the only course of action, and this drive to extirpate can be commandeered and steered to a linguistic token of the propagandist's choosing. Eugenics knows no other way. False equivocation, false egalitarianism, false friendship, are all deliberate exercises of this, and yet carried out by something deeper than instinct. They are carried out as an automatic and mechanical act because the eugenic creed and aristocratic idea always regresses to the primordial condition which it channeled to be aristocracy. If they had to demonstrate that they were "the best" by any other merit, it would undermine the one program that they have ever known or carried any sentiment for. It would end humanity, and with it, any predictability of the future on their terms. The positions of aristocracy would be irrevocably lost, but the failure of the race would remain. It would then be left to the good people who are left behind to salvage something out of that, and assuming this is truly the end of aristocracy's desire, there would be little to do but disband political society for any purpose other than preventing the recurrence. There would be nothing to rebuild and nothing to reclaim. The world that arises from that would be a world with little that this society could value or aspire to, but it would be a better world, and it would be a world where something can once again grow and live - or live for the first time, given how the foulness has permeated so much for so long. This concept too is perverted and distorted by the Germanic philosophy, through the koan of "creative destruction". None of this would be carried out as any foul working of such a race, for the German cannot create. It can only pervert, or cease to be German in spirit. The same would be true of the English and the imperial societies it spawned.

There is no immediately evident course of action for the lowest class. I would tell those outside of it to stop attacking us, and stop insisting we're going to love any part of this. Fortunately, there remains enough decency in spite of the aristocratic system that this doesn't have to be explained too often. Those who would transgress this proudly showed what they were and that makes it easier for us to mark down the abomination and judge accordingly. For us, there is little to expect of this world, except to follow the same dictum - to not make this worse by engaging in intercine conflict over bullshit, and to not become enablers. The enablers have a special place in Hell, whatever social order they came from.

Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

Return to Table of Contents | Return to Chapter Start