Return to Table of Contents | Previous Chapter | Next Chapter

If one presumes that "life" itself is the currency of politics - that all that is political is living and all that lives is subsumed into the political struggle for existence - the reality of technology and anything life is or does will be completely elided. History appears, however we understand it, as a triumph over the lowest class and a seemingly inexorable rise of aristocracy, capable of rewriting history and operating with impunity over al the world. In other words, it appears as the standard imperial Whig history, which we have been forced to mainline in ever-faggier propaganda extolling the virtues of such an informationless history. When this fails to work, eugenics cannot fail - it can only be failed, against all evidence, sense, purpose, or anything but the ruling ideas. A number of breaks with the ruling epistemology are necessary to even begin speaking of a different world. Regardless of our conceits about history or anything we do, the world in the end operates on its own terms. The agency of human beings only has so much effect - but that effect is always distorted and repurposed by the ruling ideas, which are in any cosmic view less than worthless. The agency we do possess is as much as part of the world as anything else, but it does not conform to a "thing" or "system" that is neatly dissected and presented in an eternal and omnipresent laboratory. What we really are, and what historical knowledge entails, is not reducible to a "system" in that way, simply by virtue of what history is and can be, and what it would mean for any change to be possible in a mechanistic view of the world. The systems we deal with are useful for understanding the world, and remain the status quo regardless of our conceits about them. We cannot relitigate in the court of Nature, and certainly humans claiming the name of nature are impudent dogs. The technocrat, due to the demands of their proclivity, does not want to hear that "shit happens", even though all genuine science comes to the conclusion that the existence of a world is absurd - a real absurdity that is impossible to deny if any system is to exist, but still, devoid of any particular reason why it should exist or any general rules to speak of how anything works. We develop this knowledge as best as we can for our purposes, and we affect the world in the ways we can, which include the political struggle. To overcome this gap requires overcoming a few ideological shibboleths, so that a more worthwhile understanding of systems can be held by us, without the fetters of political necessity or the imperatives of those who do not want any standard of comparison to judge the world. If we do this, we see a very different view of history from the story aristocracy tells and pedagogy demands. Pedagogy cannot freely replicate this understanding. The human being either operates with one view of history or another, and these views cannot be switched in the way our metaphysical views of the world can switch based on which mode of operation is convenient. It is not politics that is immutable and above our sense "in of itself" - we can and have reconstituted political thought throughout human history, and the politics of the lower orders never did conform to aristocracy's preferred narrative of what we were supposed to be, or the distilled essences of any of the castes assigned to us in a "circle of life". All we have written of in this book has concerned primariy the pernicious influence of the aristocratic concept of the political, for it originated for reasons we can understand. What I have written is far from a complete Bible of the political idea, and I would wish for the reader to see for themselves if anything I wrote elucidated that which was already written or what their sense and reason tells them independent of that.

The restrictions against the ruling idea subsuming all that exists are not a lack of sufficient energy or manpower to impose it, nor a "law of nature" forbidding such. It is instead something far more basic - that the political idea itself is insane, judged so time and time again, yet we are consigned to this insanity because of what humans are and what they did. If we acknowledge the ritual sacrifice at the heart of the race and approach it scientifically and honestly, then we acknowledge that nothing good can come of the evil. Whatever humans acquired since the ritual sacrifice does not change their genesis. Whether we care about our genesis - genetics - is a choice we make now. But, absent anything new, property defaults to claims to the past, and ultimately is beholden to this genesis no matter what the proprietor might say about their individual rebirth. The closing of all genesis and potential rebirth has been the product of modern ideology - to lock in place the genetic mythos and its religious origins, for the sake of aristocracy and its foulest practices. If we looked at humanity honestly, its history up to now has little to say for itself, and its potentials are at the least something more than what aristocracy insinuates we are. Yet, none of those potentials has any reason to exist, other than want for it. Numerous humans attempted to do something about their predicament since primitive times, but none of them ever reach far because of what humans are - their history, their spiritual constitution, and the purposes that are taught to them pedagogically and are the primary example for the race, which chose of its own volition to be a race rather than anything else. Because it chose to be a race, it chose to be represented by its lowest common denominator and nothing more, and retreated to a crass and faggy individualism that was a tool of aristocracy - a faggotry intended to undermine the most basic security which would make any alternative even temporarily possible. It may seem simple to renounce ideologically the human race and humanism, but this is a superficial change. What has been done by the human spirit has been judged guilty, and that will always be insinuated so long as humans choose to speak to each other in this way. They have, and were taught to communicate in only this degraded form, upheld by institutions and pedagogy for entirely self-serving and pigheaded motives, and serving imperatives that never could prevail or served any purpose we could regard as good.

The communication of ideas is not a thing carried out with "unlimited freedom" or entirely by volition which can be judged by insinuation and taboo. This reality is used as another excuse of aristocracy to claim "we are not allowed to judge them" - an egregious insult to any sense we would have. Of course humans, wherever they are, will judge humanity. It would be expected of any human to sit in judgement and pronounce for him or her self what is to be done with them, so far as their volition has any say in the matter. To truly see the extent of the farce we were made to accept under the eugenic creed would make clear that the biggest of lies was limited to a time and certain institutions and their interests. To this day, much of humanity remains apart from the institutions, holding to whatever they can to salvage this mess. It has been primarily a problem of the institutions - the inability to make institutions that are worth a single damn - and the imperative to pursue new technology which was spurred towards particular ends, rather than a general or vague end that the world dictated. Had we pursued new technology and institutions in anything that was suggested by the naive, nothing of the eugenic creed would have been allowed to exist or insinuate what it did. It would face intractable resistance, its officers and purveyors rooted out and publicly beaten for the insolence of even suggesting such a thing. Yet, eugenics did insinuate what it did, because humans were a weak and failed race, and nothing in them suggested they would be much other than they were, whatever their potentials and whatever sense humanity had that none of this worked or could work. Those who saw this retreated to smugness and confidence for themselves, without much interest in the world and what they would do to it by this intransigence. The reasons why were not too difficult to see - revolt against aristocracy was nothing less than total and permanent revolt against God (the Satan), and there would be no further discussion of humanity if such a thing happened. It would have meant a true break from the past in our sense of the self, and this was unacceptable unless it were controlled by aristocracy, so that humans would become as perverse and Satanic as them. No interest or class in humanity has been more devoted to samefaggotry than aristocracy and its enablers, and this would be weaponized in the early 21st century during the final fall of Man.

What happens is not a salvation of much, but the uttermost end of necessity - that information is always finite, and this is taken to make claims about nature which aren't substantiated by anything real, but which are insinuated to make deprivation itself a sbustance, and eliminate any concept of distance. In the end, all of the conceits of humanity amount to nothing. All of its aspirations, which have been in the end foul and unworthy to continue, are defeated. Aristocracy rules in the minds of the subjects because it has insinuated - for humans - that it must be so, and to end this status quo is treason against the race. Aristocracy keeps for itself a special morality tied to the most predatory elements of society, and has no other way than to grant to predation the sole sacredness above all others. We could, as human beings, choose something else, and we do so every day just to exist. It is due to a pernicious machine of political thought - thought that is not required by nature to exist at all, and not even a particularly effective form of politics - that the personal became political, and with it, the morass of filth would be glorified as much as rulers needed it to be for their project. Their true projects are far more queer than pointless than even the ritual sacrifice, because anything that rises above sacrifice must be made worthless or inadmissible. The baubles aristocracy treasures are intentionally informationless, and there is no secret world wwhere they have anything realer than sacrifice.^[1] What aristocracy must do to persist is denude all outside of it - "for La Raza, everything, against La Raza, nothing" as their idiotic slogan would shout exultantly. This exhausts energy faster, which is great for the purpose of enclosure, but there can be no other, and this was indeed the only idea left of human interaction that existed outside of limited associations. Said associations would see alien associations as intractable enemies and outgroups based on an interpretation of historical truth at its core - that performative expressions and legal treachery are superior to anything else and make reality as they please, regardless of anything substantive that would say no. And yet, much in the world says no, even if all of humanity were subsumed into this fanaticism and it was truly unthinkable to know of anything else. It remains so to the bitter end, even if humanity reconciled with this fate and wished it to go on to its maximal outcome, the result being what we knew it would be long, long ago. We can see the heart of the Satan's appeal regarding information - not as an internecine struggle of consequence, but Man's adversity against a world that rejected its spiritual claim. No one reasonable believed there was an "infinite world" and "abundance" as the idiotic sops and koans of aristocracy invoke. It's an insult and faggotry to demean us by insisting we believe in such a thing, or that such a thing would be relevant. For most of humanity, eternal life was not a thing pined for, especially considering who we would spend this eternal life with, and the faggotry that such a life would entail. That is the true "life unworthy of life", which must shout, project, and insinuate until it exhausts all energy in a domain. This is the purpose of such a thing. It is not merely a "death cult", for death is far too noble a fate compared to what eugenics and its ilk intend for us, and have displayed in our time and the recent past as the last social settlement of the human race. But, for the struggle against information limitation - a limitation that is inherent to intelligence and knowledge and not particular to human conceits - it is a way of asserting that the vice of the human race is natural and the singular example to learn from. For most of us, limited information is not necessary for our political sense or view of what the world is, could be, or should be. We can regard it as yet another fact. So too would the technocrat know, at the end of the day, that there is some purpose beyond intelligence and information itself, and the proprietor likewise has much more to care about. The wiser aristocrat knows for themselves this is ruinous. It is instead the venal who always kick down, because it was fun for them and a filth race chose it until there were no other choices, who value this, and this institution finds its existence through class collaboration and transgression of the taboos it establishes for its sake. Such an insulting ideology only exists because they want it, and stopped asking themselves what any of it was for. It affirms itself now. I would suggest the Satan possesses certain virtues to the "the Satan", and all such efforts are carried out for some motive rather than "life for life's sake" shouted with the greatest faggotry. The Satan would not hesitate to use such a weapon - it would be the ultimate weapon for war's purpose, until reality inveighs on this and reminds us that this doesn't hold worldly merit. But, war's chief function is to engineer society and information, and the battles waged are steps to attain that - necessary steps if we are to speak of war rather than "Plan War", for war is carried out in the world and not in abstraction. If aristocracy can eliminate all sobering influences in the world, it would rule in principle forever by insinuation alone. There is one great problem for aristocracy - the soul of hte human race, as foul and irredeemable as it is, never conformed to what aristocracy required it to be. There is only so much Abomination a human can tolerate before Abomination "above God" makes itself known, and this is the only transhumanism such faggotry can allow - a transhumanism that appears to creep forward, oozing through all that exists and unknowable, but bearing the familiar mark and stink of Jabulon and his associates.

Consider how silly this political contest looks to anyone who is not made to comply with it. Ideology exists in that world where compliance is mandated by fear and nothing more. Outside of such a condition, no one was particularly given over to an "ideology" of any sort, and this would be shown in how they considered their situation and security. What is ideology, except a vicious attack on all decency that might exist? Yet, ideology pervades human language because they were at heart jabbering apes rather than the enlightened figures we were told to obey and worship. It exists before ideology as a concept it worked out in modern times, and the moderns have only described the world - badly. None of this ideology could change anything by insinuation, and yet, the insinuation is a force in the world like any other. The great problem is that the only interest in life that really wanted it to be different was the lowest class. But, the reality of this existence is that social class is an illusory threat - an illusion made real by superstition, and a thing we would have to regard because evil will not let us ignore it. Nothing about social class mapped on to anything that was necessary for society or political life to continue. In many cases, the struggle of classes has been ruinous to any political security. Its value for contesting temporal authority is only because of repeated insistence that this works, and it is only useful when nothing in the world, which despised all of the conceits of men, stops it - when all barriers between a predator's will and the body of their prey have been abolished or sublated. Seeing this in advance, the only way to respond to the insinuation of ideology is to destroy it on sight - and it was this that was desired, was captured, and would be weaponized from many angles for the competing classes. The eugenists took the lead for their conspiracy, for the biological idea was granted sacrosanctity, but every order has foolishly chosen ideology as the path of least resistance to temporal victory. Reduced to its most essential quality, ideology can only have turned into a pressing of the nerve, and an exultant shouting against the undesirable. The lowest class will then be told to internalize this - to defeat themselves, become living abortions, and not be permitted to say in plain sight the horror that they were born into. Satanic race, failed race, in other words. Those who are damned never can forget it, so long as the beast continues. It can, of course, end, but not by any contrivance of political contests. The only argument against it is that such a world will inevitably reach a point where it runs out of sacrifices, and this was what it had to enshrine at the center of its program. It is for that reason that the eugenic interest's command of the world was the most consistent uniting force of political schemers. Only when a general theory of technology could enclose the Earth, and insist it is forbidden to question why this would be done or how it was happening in front of our faces, would it be granted any superstitious power. Past cults relied on an endless stream of victories in war to grant to such a ruinous creed spiritual authority, and this only could last if there were worthy opponents that could be goaded into conflict. In practice, the true history of the human race has little to do with the stories of world-historical struggles. Kings, chiefs, and nations would be set against each other and had little interest in this changing, except to place themselves at the apex of the struggle. To do otherwise was, for them, shirking their duty, for they would be made to fight regardless of any idea they had about what the world could be. But, for all of the struggle, little would change. Even the names of masters would, in the end, resemble the same sort of people who were always amenable to aristocracy, or who had been trained by some natural selection to supplicate to massa. The struggle for mastery was distant because the master really couldn't do much, when considering the potentials of human malice. They could torture people a lot, and aristocracy cannot compute mercy except as a holding action for future pleasure, as their filthy race has insinuated in our time. It cannot compute kindness except as a sop, or comprehend that we have no investment whatsoever in their project, and their presence has been the majority of evil in our lives. The muck we live in has little danger by comparison. We could easily die without ever seeing this rot and this stupid contest, if it has to be like that. The limitations on aristocracy are the same as they are on anyone - that technology is in the end a servant of the world and the world alone. Institutions are beholden to operate like flotsam. Our genuine sense and existence are not, and cannot behave in such a way. That is not what living, knowing entities like ourselves are, and however miserable human knowledge is, it will always be better than what aristocracy intends for us, for aristocracy always invokes abomination and ritual sacrifice - so far as they are human aristocracies.

We might have imagined another type of society where those who rule were not chosen because of their skill at immiserating all who come in contact with them, but that concept of rule would be different from the politics that institutions enshrined. There is no solution within institutions or technology for this, for the problem was not really about a particular technology or thought-form. It is that thinking taken for granted that allowed ideology to be an effective weapon. Otherwise, such a foul insinuation would have been rejected out of hand, and its agentur would be sent away. Persistence would be useless, for there would be nothing for them to say and no real purpose for the interaction. The philosophy where the thrill of public torture was maximized would have been so abominable that it would become immediately possible to break the ancient taboo long enough to disallow the firm hold of an institution mandating it. There would be nothing for ideology to destroy, because the institutions humans build would have been easily adapted to account for the filth of aristocratic meddling. This adaptation likely would lead to a different conception of the institution, society, and how humans communicate anything. It would also lead to a view of the material world that was cold and distant. "Love" of a fickle sort would become impossible, and many eugenist retards, and they are retarded, confuse this with a philosophy of hate or death. Nothing could be further from the truth. What I love or hate is ultimately irrelevant to the possibility of a different world. I could be an emotionless entity if I had to be. But, I am not, and there was nothing wrong with loving simple things in this world, without the mediation of aristocratic assholes or the insinuation that I'm supposed to love something else. None of that love manifested to much in my life, because this society forbade love of even a simple thing like a home. Nothing I love has anything to do with eroticism, which is a wholly alien sentiment to love so far as I am concerned, and it is no surprise that insinuation about eroticism - that which I call faggotry - overruled even the simplest kindness and friendship, and most of all overruled that kindness which made existence tolerable, for the sake of the pure thrill of rejection. But, the projection of "reject, reject, reject" is only relevant because of material enclosure. It can only proceed on the terms the world allows enclosure and ecologism to persist for the world had no need or intrinsic want of such a thing. All the world did, at a basic level, is forbid aristocracy untrammeled and immediate victory, and aristocracy never forgave the world for doing what was for it no more than the same machine aristocracy deployed to allow their insinuations to torture us. Blaming "the world" or "life" for the machination of aristocracy has always been odd to me. The trees and the clouds did not do this. The birds did nothing but consume and migrate, and bird-kind so far as I know has nearly no kill count against the human race. Aristocracy hates the world itself more than any one of us, for its hatred of us has always been fickle and as faggy as them. The only thing they have are the stupid stories they tell their vile offspring, the supposed gems of wisdom their filthy race grins and throws in our face ad nauseum to insist it is totally worth saving and not worth extirpating mercilessly. Everything else, they stole - and must constantly continue to steal - from the lower orders. For property to stabilize under the rule of aristocracy, property must become a constant pressing of a nerve. It was never a thing to take for granted, and many a fag insist on the opposite. If this were carried out for the self-serving motives of property, it wouldn't serve what property wanted out of its actions. It was not carried out for any such purpose, but because the impression of doing this was the point, ant the only point.

What has taken place was not the design of a particular group or class which can be blamed, but collaboration of all who were drawn to the central purpose and interest of aristocracy. Ideology exists not to unite a class or interest, but to draw all of the malevolence of a nation to a core which becomes a concern unto itself. It worked that way among the German aristocratic ideology and its partners, and it worked that way with its left antithesis. The latter understood ideology to be a bad thing, when its members were sober, but at heart, class struggle was the program for the rubes. Class mobility into a party of new type - conspicuously marking the lowest class and carrying out a mission to "sort the poor" religiously - was a program for those entering the ground floor, at a time where the technocratic polity was an infant and its recruits had yet to be processed, through a filtration scheme that could only operate over generations, by natural forces. Ideology could only exist in a nation. A civic cult that was intact would be motivated by its interests. But, civic cults only exist atop nations, and eventually find themselves in conflict with them. In this way, the conflict of modernity is superimposed over another - the final struggle between civilization and barbarism. It would not be until the later 20th century that "barbarism" was truly defeated. The struggle of such shifted from a crusade to "civilize the world", to a struggle to pit colonial territories against the imperial core nations, confining both to their holding pens. Civilization chose who their cult selected to live, through the ritual sacrifice inherent to its institutions, and through making sure nothing of nations or the constituents of states worked against that program. There was in this struggle an expectation that the new would arise - a thing that overcame the faults of civilization. That was the national consciousness and growing exchange of information around the world, which operated without regard for the political struggle. The states of the 20th century always supposed their temporal command was absolute over a space, but in practice, all of the volumnious record-keeping of a technocratic state was nowhere close to the task of commanding reality at all levels. It could insinuate that it did this, but its only tools were negative - the cull, the humiliation, the toil, the sack, the enclosure. There would be in the technocratic states some recognition that this arrangement did not work, and would not be sustainable - that it would exhaust the will of any nation or its members to continue, and once the institutions were forsaken, all that civilization stole from the world was at risk.

I have not the time or ability to write here a full account of what is to be done, or how the tools available to this society can be repurposed for a mission other than aristocracy. I take it on faith that the reader here has already considered potentials of the technology of the computer, energy technology, biological technology, and so on, to circumvent a monopoly on education and knowledge that was asserted. What motivates the lockout is not imbued in nature, but in this coalition of interests. It is the coalition of interests more than aristocracy itself that presents as the immediate threat. Aristocracy is the essential class which gained the most from this pernicious program - so much that every other order has been lied to, threatened, or pandered to in order to go along with any of it, and the aristocrats did not bother offering any reason why the eugenic creed did anything for us. It can only insult and humiliate.

What is clear in this time is that humanity has no particularly good direction, and no aspiration accessible to most of its members. The favored interests and this cult has made clear their vision for the world is little more than a recapitulation of some despotism. They may differ in which kind of despotism they intend for the world. Not one of these despotisms can rule outright. But, there are a few machines above others which will rule, and they are not the machines of aristocracy's choosing. I hope to write in a future book about what this turns into, but the broad outline is already available and has been in various avenues announced on top of anything given to the public. What is given to the public will only be more lies and repetitions of a cycle of some sort, and because of what prevailed in humanity, the Satanic Cycle will be the last and eternal lie given to us. Since that is not particularly interesting, it will instead be worthwhile to speak of history as if this aristocratic beast were irrelevant to its final outcome - a menace among us, but in the end, its moral worth in any sense is nil. We could continue contesting these aristocratic shibboleths until the end of time, and they will not change, nor will the struggle create anything new. Yet, the new exists largely in spite of these struggles, in the places where such things are not snuffed out. It is entirely possible for the institutional chokehold to become such that nothing at all can grow. We have in the 21st century passed that threshold. But, the powers that be do not have it in them to destroy the world for a good cause. They could only destroy the world for the cause of faggotry, and this destruction always carves out exemptions. The only way their nuclear weapons would be used is by tacit agreement of all of the states, and this insulting song and dance in recent years is another contemptuous lie. I do not believe a "terrorist" seizing weapons would work to destroy the world to avert this. Ultimately, those with such a aim would find, as I have, that we would do far more damage to the creed simply by being obnoxious and disgusting to their sentiments, and regarding that, I have no shame.^[2]

To speak of the new as inevitable or inexorable is to ensure that it cannot exist in any way except a parody of the old. The other version of this is that novelty itself is granted value for being new, and this is a superficial novelty of no use to us. It is not given that there will be anything new - or at least, nothing new that is not a simple rearrangement of prior conditions. It is the judgement of those prior conditions that are, for subjective experience, the error - that those conditions are always reduced, simplified, or given superstitious value. Complicating this is that all of our formal knowledge originates in superstition, and sense experience and the native faculties only allow limited throughput and processing ability. If it is abstract or ideal, it is rooted ultimately in superstition, more than anything in the world which asserted any preferred form. If it is material, then the language humanity uses to communicate this formally - for humans have no reason to trust another until their guilt has been accounted for and we consider that when anything is said - is a barrier to genuine knowledge. There is always a world that did not regard any of our linguistic treachery, but the senses and faculties available to us are not immune or suggest a natural language of any sort. This is where superstition and pernicious behavior supercede things we would independently verify - without which science as a worthwhile process would be impossible. Self-doubt and an obsession with the self dominate this ruinous educational regime that we have been subjected to. There is an obvious solution, which I started this book series with - to discount entirely the self, until it has been proven to be an object worth any attention. I am hardly the first to do so, but the implications of this change with the ages and knowledge base our knowledge can compare against to establish itself. In the past, the media available to human treachery remained limited. They possessed rituals, working knowledge of the body, formalization which allowed a student with luxury to develop further knowledge so long as they were not under constant, pressing assault. They possessed considerable knowledge which grew in fits and starts, much of it ignored by political history as irrelevant, and dying with whomever worked out for their own edification some model or genuine knowledge. It is only once knowledge is transformed into technology of some sort that the stubborn persistence of knowledge is evident - and this was largely due to humanity's virtue at reverse-engineering, which in spite of being a failed and monstrous race, has done the majority of the work holding together anything functional. The pedagogy given to students has been disastrous in every iteration of the educational institution we have ever known, and this is unlikely to change. Education is the last holdout of the most pernicious elements of aristocracy, and it is a place teeming with the ugliness of the human spirit by the nature of the task. Only out of necessity does the pedagogue acknowledge that anything they teach pertains to material reality - always doled out sparingly and with dripping contempt for anyone who isn't given over to the guru-worship cult and the faggotry it entails.^[3] In a better world, all of this would be done because we have seen enough of abomination, and we would see this degeneration as what it always was - boring and devoid of interest, beyond a cautionary tale of our own conceits gone horribly wrong. But, what we want or think has little to do with history. If history worked in this way, any existence at all would have wilted away as soon as it formed. The "purpose-driven" life guided by pedagogy is far more nihilistic than merely giving up on the conceits of life, or the crass self-interests that are by now a honed instinct. It was because something novel was possible that life could exist, and the cult of life - the cult of aristocracy - immediately understood that novelty must be controlled by any foul means available, or granted superstitious qualities far removed from what the new meant.

Very little that is novel enters the existence of human beings. Children are seen as blank, impressionable slates, when they are placed in institutions and around vicious humans who were selected and honed by the rites of predation that defined the race. For all of the efforts to steer humans, very little of it seems to change a familiar cycle of childhood and later life. All of the ideology to declare that which was selected to die retarded don't change the aging of the body or that sense experience remain largely disconnected from social life. We spend far more of our aspirations apart from society, or in a few relationships which are always tenuous due to the hostility and malice of humans. That is where we really created anything and the new was possible. The larger the number of relations, the less likely anything novel will appear in any system, and any disturbances would be less prominent and reinforced by the pre-existing conditions. But, the life-form largely persists outside of any social "system" or integration with a system other than itself. The relations of life with its environment are limited, always at some distance where interactions are closer or further from life, and the parts of life do not join by "spooky action" with unlimited potential. Life has no monopoly on the new, and by its nature, life suggests the opposite - that life is persistent and reconstitutes itself unlike anything else in the world. But, a human body and its typical life-cycle change very little, short of termination. Efforts to delay or accelerate life can only work through methods which rely on poor guidance and a lot of energy from the world to force the life-form to conform to the "correct tempo" a social engineer desires. What can be done is to pervert the course of development, and steer life in that way - but for many reasons, this only works towards a few ends and in the worst way it could be done, or it insinuates and relies on superstition rather than anything reasonable or that would be the result of mutual interest. Most children understandably do not want closeness with adults of any sort, first out of a self-defense instinct, then out of a yearning for security that is natural, and then - as they acquire language and are exposed to antagonistic society - because the menace of adults is barely concealed, given what humans have been and what the child probably notices about their own behavior and patterns. The children who are selected for by pedagogical screening are invariably given over to the malice of the institutions. If institutions had any good about them, they were aware of the common failing of institutions and those who occupy them, and this knowledge is not terribly secret, complex, or requires any great intelligence. It has largely been a willful negation of sense that did the damage in pedagogy, and this was carried out for spurious purposes. There would be in sheltering children from a harsh world necessary censorship and control of an environment, to remove obviously malicious actors or encouragement of humanity's worst vices. The choice of the institutions to embrace that rot, and even make it impossible to say no to it, is a peculiar failure of the human race and the willful selection of such in our time and place, and even this selection of those who live and die by the eugenic creed is weaker than it purports to be. If it were so successful, we would all be dead by now, and its claims to truth would be self-evident. The eugenist can't even say what it is for when their filthy race dares show itself in anything other than staged performances, for projection and aristocratic faggotry is the only thing they can produce. The new cannot be prevented unless the old is to be disintegrated bit by bit, leaving behind a primordial spirit. This in of itself might be expected, except that the primordial spirit channeled is selected to be ritual sacrifice, rather than the actual conditions of genesis for life or anything worth keeping. I do not believe that choosing "true life" for its own sake would lead to a significantly better result, and if such a choice were made, then it would be trivial to recognize that life is born and grown on its own power. Our accumulated knowledge of life, vast as it is and necessary for human societies to be understood, is still limited and an ad hoc creation, particular to the history we know, record, and communicate. Even if we had much more knowledge than we do, humans have not distributed that knowledge in any sound manner in their institutions, because the institutions are designed to do the exact opposite - occult, sort the population, and coerce by the foulest means an order that had nothing to say for itself but "more blood for the blood god". All of this leads to a conclusion that, for all that has been new - and this is not a small record - the past is recognizable, in some cases preserved in pristine information that could be independently verified without a great rigamarole.

The salvation that is sold through the technololgical interest - through the middle class - is always dubious, and then would be constructed specifically to circumvent anything of the new that would work against the shibboleths of those who believed they would guide human history by insinuation or clever schemes. Common knowledge about the potential of science was to be suppressed, declared heretical or, worse, retarded. Grand theories and narratives would be tirelessly promoted, insinuated, relitigated, and then enshrined as a super-truth we were compelled by force to abide. These narratives would be, from the late 19th century on, increasingly divorced from anything that actually happens or anything that was at all sincere. Reading between the lines for any meaning from such filth is pointless. Anyone who insults and demeans so readily for so pointless a goal does not deserve one iota of regard, and this was their intent - to create a movement of cloistered fools who will believe anything put in front of them. The story of salvation works on the naive because the new really is uncommon and faint in its appearance, and the new is definitely needed for human society to be livable if we are at all familiar with humanity. The appeal to the past is never about what the past actually was. For most of us, appealing to the past is specifically resistance against "historical progress" - against these imperious assholes insisting they can control fate by insinuation, threats, or a lot of force that justifies itself. We "cling to the past" whenever we dare say no to the beast. What is really clung to is our remaining sanity among a race that was always as a race insane and irredeemable. The new was repurposed into something parodic by repeat insinuation, something monopolized, and something that is always just out of reach - where if the true believers hold on to the creed for 20 more years, all will be theirs, whereas their threat to us is that if absolute power is not invested in the aristocracy immediately, then 20 years from now all is lost. Such a thing is part of a campaign to snuff out anything new, as befits the eugenic creed, except the new that is nothing but the exultant celebration of ritual sacrifice. This works because the study of historical records is itself a technology rather than a substantive thing or a moral interest, and history does not reward merit. If that is true, then why would history reward the scheming with anything? History cannot lie enough to make aristocracy's super-truths real, without telltale signs of insanity. History may be rewritten and its theories decided by institutions, but for any history to be sensical or open to any standard of comparison - without which someone could write any garbage and say "this is what you are and always were" - it would be first beholden to technology and its laws of motion, and it would like any technology rely on a world where technology can exist. History in this sense is something which can be edited. The past cannot change, and the people cannot really change outside of ways their existence allows, which is notoriously stubborn, but our ability to adapt to sense experience, reason, and all of the information available to us allows us to study metaphysics, epistemology, and everything else which would allow us to build a formal theory of history in the first place. Without that, history would be confined to a record which is taken uncritically or an annal of sense-experience that doesn't speak of social or political history - it would be nothing more than a diary, and it wouldn't even be a diary for personal use. It would be a permanent record, filed by a bureaucracy against a subject who is otherwise considered to lack any history or native thought. By invoking "historical progress", the long crusade to sever forever the people from this world would continue, and this is the only purpose such a theory of history could serve. We can of course see history as this, but we will learn very quickly that history can only appear as something alien to us if this is upheld, and there would be no way out and no redemption. There would only be inexorable progress to the ends we could foresee long in advance, because those ends leave little to the imagination and do not suggest any destiny but the one we have expounded on at length.

The disproofs of such a theory of history are available to our sense and can be assembled independently - but if we live with a knife at our throat, there is no imperative for honesty. There is only fear, and under fear, any form of history becomes unbearable to observe. The version of history which reads as a list of untrammed atrocities against us, upheld as glorious while we were made into living abortions, would be unbearable even if we knew it to be full of lies. Aristocracy laughs at our protests for anything at all worthwhile, since for them, life's answers were solved a long time ago, and they laugh at the idea that we are on a question for some piece of information to save us. Whether they rule or aspire to rule, or if they are fools who take on the aristocratic religion but lack any of the power, aristocracy will always be a Satanic race and failed race, insisting that everyone has to be clones of them by the faggiest reason I can possibly imagine.

The reason eugenism can work is because causality does not work in a simple way, and never did. Events lead to other events, and the substance of the world allowing any of them to happen is a fact we have to accept, however limited our perception of it is. If history worked in the way we are conventionally taught - and we have to believe in this for political history to be sensical, since life, death, and social standing are always definite propositions - then eugenism would be self-evidently insane for placing effect before cause and hectoring its adherents to believe so with the most anvilicious faggotry, and so too would the cajolers of humanity be rejected out of hand. If nothing else, humans would lay down and refuse to play a rigged game rather than submit to this. Eugenism relies on this calculus to justify its praxis - that they can shout and scream like Satanic fags, and they are fags, until they get everything they want. But, history does not conform to this predictability so cleanly. It is quite the opposite - the moment humans see such a trap, and know it is devised by an intelligence that is like their own, the first sense is to seek any alternative, including novel alternatives, before accepting something so foul and pointless. Intelligence does nothing about the actual world, but the world did not care about any of our political rationale or temporal existence. The world is merely where the contest is settled, because that is a limitation of us - we do not get to choose political reality, no matter how insane it is. For the world itself, all of the scientific inquiry of humanity suggests that the world is not a thing that can be totalized at all. The "total systems" on offer are even more idiotic with each iteration and effort to defend their dogmatic positions, but even with the best effort to build a total clockwork of the natural world, the model is only as good as the limited information humans possess or will readily possess. "Infinite information" is an impossibility, and even if it were true, it would not change fundamentally the problem, as if information or any conceit of knowledge had substantive power simply by Being or asserting crimes of Being. Just from the information available to us, anyone who took any view of the whole world would see immediately the futility of the dogmatic praxis at work. It would refute itself quickly, as it always has, but because the praxis was always an excuse to do what humans always wanted to do for good or ill, the truth is no longer relevant. We would, if we wanted "perfect information", see that the endless insinuations make that worse than problematic - it suggests a morass of lies will always await us and provide a wealth of psychological fears to use on others, and humans being what they are, they always choose that when they grant to intelligence the virtues a Satanic ethos would. Otherwise, intelligence wouldn't have meant anything more than the fact of it, and would not have become a political matter, especially over distinctions that are by all objective metrics trivial, irrelevant, and made no one any safer, happier, or better in any way. But, humans did this because the chief aim of their intellectual mission was not truth or justice, but malice particular to their race. That was the best thing this filthy race could manage, because it was too much to allow even the simplest conditions that allowed anything other than this pressing to exist. It would only be a matter of time before the vampires collect their reward. No "restraint" was ever expected of these vampires, and they only demand restraint towards anything that would upset their rule. Towards useless aims, they promote indulgence, rot, opulence, and the faggiest way of life possible in any epoch. Very visibly, the transgressions of aristocracy are glorified, just to remind humans what they always will be, for they willfully excise any potential the moment it appears. Humans really only know what they need to know, and once they were able to secure enough knowledge about the human body and mind, there was nothing for them to do but what we see - turn on each other like slavering dogs, returning to their genesis and ridding themselves of anything new. Despite this, none of the efforts to attain this goal are every wholly successful. They are successful in the afterlife of aristocracy's choosing, with the aim of creating the Living Hell and nothing else as their gods always desired. Other than that, this world is disappointing for them, and they will always seek to change the world in accord with their spirit, having eliminated all other potentials. We can continue like this indefinitely, but it is a particularly human problem.

If the real truth is right in front of us - that humans are a failed race, should be held in contempt, and we move on from there for what little remains - why are we stuck relitigating this? Nothing will ever come out of the struggle. The rewards will be less and less. Life will wilt, refuse to wake up, refuse to offer a single thing, as it must. Over time, the most basic conditions of the body will disintegrate, and this will be seen as necessary and worthwhile. We are made to relitigate this because humans really are this in their genesis. They will only be something when they really, really want it to be different - and only the lowest class has wanted that with any seriousness, only to be told we're retarded and we must abase ourselves to these Satanic fags. Nothing will change humans because the moment such a world is a potential, a horrific shrieking is the human spirit to shut it down, call it degenerate for suggesting anything at all would ever change, while the inexorable rot of humanity proceeds to its intended conclusion.

At some time and place, this madness is no longer relevant. It will always be there - "once retarded, ALWAYS retarded" - and we have no feeling whatsoever for it. None of the cyclical superstitions would exist if there were no world for them to feed on. The religious cycle is always a parasitic one, but the world itself is not. The entities which live in this world have no need of any religious cycle of that sort, beyond the utility of such a thing for understanding the evil. Very likely, the entities of the world, having seen the ruin of political society, would do what they should have done from the outset - forbid the insinuation games that were normalized in the human race, and with it, humanity would indeed end, for good, with no conclusion and no goal accomplished. Those who endure will see the end of humanity as a necessary thing, and most of us will have seen that little of worth was destroyed by the final decision to bring an end to this human project. Sadly, the suffering and toil that humanity created is forever, etched into us by history - the true history, which was never subject to editing to meet institutional shibboleths and did not give one whit about anything humans wanted. We would, having seen this, make clear that any effort to reintroduce the insinuators and cajolers would entail swift death. The last gambit of aristocracy then is to weaponize this, claim this necessary outcome as theirs, and pervert the obvious solution to our problems - to declare humanity a failed race and operate accordingly, rather than retreat to institutional koans about the human spirit or similar such nonsense.

At no point can any human working by pure reason or any mental effort connect with "fundamental nature". The connection human beings have with nature was not subject to any inquiry or quest of attainment. What we are alienated from is political society and political society only, rather than the material world - a world we cannot help but accept as the necessary pre-condition for reason and ourselves to exist - or alienation from reason and sanity. Human reason is always limited in ways a child can learn. Such learning was required for humans to even acquire language and use it for anything other that instinctive, trained purposes. It only can proceed in ways that life will allow. The insane, far from being "random" or "unknowable", are very predictable. Every form of insanity has a pathology. The ruling idea is that they alone possess impunity to decide who lives and who dies - who is sane and insane, intelligent or retarded. That is the only idea that humans know of ruling, because they forsake any form of rule for any other purpose. Only necessity required humanity to pretend, temporarily, that they abided any other condition or purpose. In practice, this pretense was never an ideological statement, but a frank recognition that human states were in the past too limited to do much at all, and human institutions were so laughable that even the most enduring of them reeked of the race's failure and absurdity. To this day, the rulers relied largely on passivity and insisting any of this is tolerable or worth approving by silent assent. This was no longer acceptable during the technocratic period, where the mass of humanity were to be at long last subsumed into civilization and habituated to a cult that always was the human spirit. Calling it the "bourgeois spirit" is re-directing why this happened and what imperatives truly motivated it, but it was indeed born in the civic cult and the republic in the form we observe today. Every human society, in one way or another, acclimated to the republican idea, even if it was alien to every sense they held and had to be imposed by violence and democide.

The purpose of science is not the institutional conceits about it, but that science pertains to the world we exist in, which would have been relevant in some way to speak of existence at all. It is not limited to a preferred interpretation of reality that conforms to the demands of enclosure. The ideas and institutions that are built are things that can just as well be viewed as features of the world. This cannot be done freely - nothing really can be "free" in that sense - but the institution has no claim whatsoever to any "superior reality". If we want to pursue science for an ulterior motive, we could seek those endlessly, but the only important thing for us is that we would have to reclaim that sense from any institution, organization, or insinuation that insists to tell us what reality is, in ways that cannot even justify trivial tautologies. Somewhere, a belief that the world was "fundamentally rational" was granted superstitious value because it was an expedient road for political purposes, without asking if any of this would produce a single article of worth. There was a way which rationality could exist, that did not rely on any "prime mover" to assert it imperiously. For all of our understanding of history, a prime mover of some sort is mandatory, and this has remained the unspoken assumption. It is stronger after the so-called "death of God" than it was when religion was the primary vehicle for asking this question, since the question most of all pertained to the evil rather than simple curiosity. A religion can easily qualify what the prime mover is and is not, if it is any religion capable of any explanation of the evil. Almost immediately after "God is dead", pale imitations sought only to cajole and insinuate what humanity ought to be, invoking the same prime mover and granted to it psuedoscientific superstitions far more onerous than the idiocy found in cults. If "God is dead", why are we constantly made to relitigate the past and told "there can be nothing new", with far greater fervor than religion which almost always considered history and fate as genuine propositions, because it had to? The cajolers keep in the back of their mind the genuine history and made it proprietary, and insisted that the people will only be lied to, so that "evil science" will be defeated - that is, any science inimical to the eugenic creed and the fags for whom it stands.

All material conditions that we would regard with science are historical conditions. In language or models, sense is never "in the moment". We can model such a thing and simulate it. When doing so, we are very careful to define "motion" and the things we study so that communication of the model is possible. By foul tricks and insinuation, education breaks these models, whether they are independently made by us or were made by another in good faith. Education can do nothing but this, because its function was political. If there is a germ of the Retarded Ideology, it is pedagogy and the insinuations such a cult demands, and this more than anything else has been my chosen temporal enemy, so far as I have any say whatsoever in worldly events. I am not burdened by the expectation that I will win political office, property, or any standing. From the outset, I make clear that I am pissing into the wind of fate. For that to be done well, what "fate" even means - what history means - is what I hope to write about. Only then would a worthwhile understanding of these political, economic, and spiritual concepts fit into any meaningful framework. I cannot hope to produce anything close to what is needed for the task I set out to accomplish, but given the proliferation of filth in mass media, something to dismantle its procession - to live in spite of such a filthy culture - would be a temporary reprieve, however little that may be for readers. For myself, there is no going back. The reasons why are not important to the reader, but I am not the only one who has seen, for reasons independent of any insinuator's opinion, that his life is given over to this fate. It is not really a choice of mine, as if I chose to live through the destruction of decency in me or aorund me for the most spurious goal. But, volition and choice are different things, and this distinction is one that would be exploited ruthlessly - to make moral posturing by institutional decree the sole remaining volition or causative agent. I could stop doing what I'm doing, or shirk it. I do not devote my entire existence to this singular mission, and I have a life, however meager. The life I live outside of this does not pertain to anything I write here. I can tell the reader that I would not write this for the sake of lying or cajoling, and if I did, I would write a very different book. Nothing I write here would be particularly useful for the familiar foulness fed through the influencer schemes of this time. Perhaps, by explaining some of these things, the reader will see how a different world was not just possible but very likely, and how forces dedicated to ensuring that will never, ever happen weaponized peculiar conceits about information to get their way.

The theories of science are recreated with each new practitioner of science, whatever the type of science or its veracity. They are all based on one and only one proposition - that there is a singular world that is knowable in all of its aspects, regardless of any conceit we hold about knowledge or any institution that may be established. That proposition is never provable by reason, since it was prior to reason just as the world was. The singular world is established not because of the mythical appeal of a singular entity, but because to speak of "another world" is metaphysically impossible in that sense. We may imagine systems that never have any direct relation to each other. Political thought does not conform to physics, and always sees the physical world as an alien to be overcome - for distance to be wiped out in its models, as it would be for mobile entities or entities whose movement is controlled by imperious demands. They are all related in that they are subject to scientific inquiry. The scientific endeavor is not strictly speaking a "materialist" view - an idealist science is possible, but it would be undertaken with the knowledge that any idea in the domain of science is subject to analysis as if it arose from chaos, without submitting to retarded koans about "chaos is the Creator" or other such faggotry. Likewise, the material world can always be a thing rationalized in some way, however that is done. There comes a time where "ruthless criticism" has to be viewed with correct suspicion. It is funny how the sacrosanct ideas above this ruthless criticism uniformly were those that defend the eugenic creed and its world-historical mission, but any understanding allowing us to independently reassemble anything and claw back a piece of the world from institutional command was to be pissed on, until it became inadmissible to speak of the beast that ruled us, created by conspiracy of the intellectuals, for whom these narratives have been a great joke at our expense. Satanic race. Failed race. The intellectuals have shown themselves to be wanting, and insist their failure that is in excess of the norm for humanity's failure is morally equal to all others. Why would they think any different? The only thing that crowd ever believed in was eugenics.

Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

Return to Table of Contents | Return to Chapter Start