Return to Table of Contents | Previous Chapter | Return to Home Page

Briefly, I wish to consider the possibilities of human political "systems" had the potential been there. As it was, there were only two forms that were given consideration that were ever admitted as propositions with any currency. Despotism, only sometimes acknowledged frankly as the true state of affairs, is the only real idea humans had for government - rule by fear, whatever disguise it wears and whatever rituals and lies are told to obscure it. Republics, or political thought which concerned rule of a public domain shared by all political agents, were always wildly skewed in favor of an aristocracy whose mindset saw "the public" as an alien to be exploited and nothing more. We may consider that such a form of government is "default" due to the large size of a political class and the impracticality of despots ruling alone. This, though, is largely an illusion of machinery and the conceits of human beings, which never matched the true conditions of this world and operated on the myth of egotism and the myth of the "self". It is the excessive fetish for the "self" that would undo a republic as anything worth keeping, and it was only the necessity the world created that allowed such a system to appear operational. That same selfishness was inherent to the concept of a republic, for at its heart it concerned the intelligence, knowledge, and conceits of men who believed they were in on a great secret that would "free the world", even though freedom in the genuine sense was so far removed from any of the philosopher's considerations that it boggles this author anyone could believe in such a fantasy. Yet, so many did, largely because we were not offered any credible alternative, and it was a choice to disguise the most abject despotism imaginable with the language of a republic. This was the surest vehicle of the ideologues to push the world into what they wanted it to be, at the expense of anything a "public interest" would have deemed useful. All values, merits, virtues, technologies, labors, and bodies were at the disposal of a public interest in the thrill of torturing other humans, without a single good reason why any of this would result in anything but the result a child could predict if they thought for five minutes. When enough humans could think for those five minutes and then spoke to each other to compare notes, and it was no longer possible to use the excuses of distance and poor communication, the only course of action for aristocracy was a program of mass poisoning, habitual lying, and maximizing the thrill of torture, so that it would dominate every action from the highest acts of office-holders to private matters, with an especial focus on sexual reproduction and the control of life from the cradle to the grave. The brief periods where humanity considered that something else was possible were always clawed back, regressed to the "primordial light". But, the "light" was not despotism in a purified form as the point, or despotism as a natural order. Nothing about despotism is natural nor desires to be natural, and never appealed to nature in the first place. Far from it, despotic governments understood as well as anyone that the rule of fear was not a desirable quality or even one that was particularly effective. The surest defense of despotic ideals, if such a thing exists, is the abject failure of republican government when its leaders bare their fangs and show themselves to be far worse than mere hypocrites. The despotic governments that were most effective usually ruled not by fear alone but through the same religious mysteries which gave birth to the story of a "public" and then denied to the actual members of that public a single thing. The only things that differentiated the republican idea was a change in technology and communication, which made this power-sharing arrangement of a class desirable for the time where organizations of a social class were effective for disciplining labor. Rather than a warlord and his vassals dictating what would happen, the sociality which developed in nations and tribes would be subverted and turned against the nation a republic ostensibly defended. The nation is first replaced with the city as a hegemonic machine, and then the organizations of the city - its finery and the intensification of antagonism in close quarters to unbearable heights - are deployed around the world, preying on the public they ostensibly represented with far greater malice than any despot could summon or would even want to summon. What both have regressed to is not a "new world" or a "new system", but the exact opposite - a terrible cycle in which many despotisms clamor for position, and the worst despotism of all can be settled by a force that asserted itself to be Nature itself. Nothing about the primordial light is natural or inevitable, but humans have chosen - to the point of destroying their own brains and screaming like retards at anyone who wanted it to be different, and proceeding to melt down brains through drugging and everything that 21st century humanity oriented itself to produced - to replace nature and the world, which really had nothing to say about the political or most of our spiritual notions, with this faggotry of the worst sort. There is no "system" or "thing" that the primordial light returns to. It only creates parodies of everything old and asserts that they are realer than real, until such a time that the ugliest impulse which birthed the human race is purified, and by doing so, "the race is perfected". This is the only perfection eugenics seeks or ever cared to seek, and yet, it has won. While it is never too late to do something else, human political development is at an end. There is no "other system", the republican experiment proven to be a failed system, and monarchy being the worst of all faggotries until a worse faggotry can be invented by the boys and girls at Tavistock.

So far as the "ideal republic" in a genuine sense could exist, it was not in the mindset of the technocrats who believed the world could be managed by intellect, nor by the aristocrats who indulged in the smell of their own farts. It was a thing that the proprietors promulgated, and in some cases could believe so long as it was convenient for them. The ideal republic never lives up to anything that would actually work or answer the questions that philosophers exploited to formulate the idea, and the proprietors' republic would still be a pale shadow of what was promised. But, there was an expectation that this would create "a world that works", and this was partly described in the world in Chapter 6 describing the "circle of life" sans the existence of aristocracy and its aims. This is to say, the proprietors would see, in a better world, that their intercine conflict solved nothing and never could solve anything, and that the lower orders would be granted security to live their life and accept their lot in this world, with no more given to them than the proprietors deem fit. While the proprietors' true aims are always miserly, a wiser class of proprietors - and this was the plea Saint-Simon made to his fellow nobles - would see that the alliance with science and industry would be the most fruitful thing for them to back, and a peaceful transition would see elevating the condition of the lowest class as the necessary priority and the weak point which would dictate how successful that society would be. Literally no one would lose and this would be almost trivial if not for the efforts of those who insisted that we must suffer and struggle. Yet, humanity does suffer and struggle and does so mightily, and so this didn't work for us. What if it did? If that was some potential humans readily accessed, I doubt we would be here or that the conditions of free trade would have begun in any way like they did. Within a few decades of the 19th century, enough people around the world would have compared notes, seen that all of the conflicts around them were stoked by interests that had nothing but threats and lies and didn't even ask why they did a single part of it, and this concept would be offered to the masses who, in the main, never had revolution in their hearts. The desire of the masses, both the laborers and lowest class, was simply revenge for all of the lies and betrayals against their class, and a wish to be largely left alone and not have to live in the world of the political, which was always a burden for them save for the few of their ranks which inherited the perverse mindset and talent which recommended them for some form of political life. There were a number among the workers and the residuum who very much had an appetite for predatory politics and eagerly joined the game where they could, many of them happy to be useful idiots or fag enablers because that proclivity was one they learned and internalized as many humans did for reasons prior to social engineering or efforts to incentivize that tendency. Most workers, though, were motivated by a primitive patriotism, fear, or local interests to them that could be manipulated without the wariness of those workers against the threats science and aristocracy had in store for them. It is the scientists, the would-be technocrats, and the middle class which bear the true shame of the republic, for it is in the middle class that the fate of a republican idea was settled. They alone had a choice to see that none of the programs on offer worked or could work, and yet their position grew more precarious until they were given a panoply of fads, movements, promises, a few lumps of aristocratic information to feel they were in the big club, and various other incentives that overruled what they might have done in a better world. Yet, the choice really was theirs, if they chose to claim it - if they chose to circumvent the institutional chokehold for long enough and marginalize the eugenists and those who would insinuate that we had to do any of this. It was not the middle class as a class or the bourgeois that truly wanted this world, where they stood divided or they would fall. The calls for class unity of the middle class were always calls for the conditions of eugenics, rather than a solidarity premised on the genuine shared interest of the technological interest. I find it very unlikely someone in the 19th or early 20th century would have independently reassembled my own breakdown of why humanity turned out the way it did, where the tendency of demarchy would be properly located in the technological interest and the middle class and its faults and virtues could be expounded upon. Instead, demarchy was associated with the "unworthies" and "useless eaters". Very often, the middle class and technological interest were not venal men and women in the way they would become after a century of eugenics-oriented technocratic rule, and the specialization of high political office would be monopolized not by technology as a whole, but by the particular interest of those who clamored for rule itself, and the imposition of psychological force. What was missing then was a worthwhile understanding of the psychological modus operandi that ensured the past century turned into what it did. It was not for lack of trying, but the resources of the monopolists and their courtiers were vast and the trained liars, inquisitors, and those who reveled in the thrill of torture could receive a vast war chest from plutocrats in addition to the gains of their efforts, which would be first granted sacrosanct status, then turned into "services" that were marketed as a necessity for entry onto the proverbial lifeboat in that retarded ethics exercise we today were made to live through and suffer the consequences of. We could place moral guilt and shame on those interests and aristocracy as a force for what happened, but the simple truth of the matter is that without the vulnerability of that middle class, none of this is possible, and the rationales for the middle class falling in line - not without efforts to hold their own integrity - were largely the genetic inheritance of the human race, and what humans really were. Humans, in short, are not natural republicans and never could be. The republic as a concept of "natural law" is not just wrong, but a disaster that could insinuate itself because it was granted a religious status that exploited all of mankind's goodwill and mocked them during their final moments. We can blame the Christians, the Muslims, the Jews, the heathens, or some religion or cult, but the ugly truth is that the spiritual weakness of humanity is something apart from any particular ancient creed. All of those religions, in one form or another, suggested something about the nature of evil that allowed adherents to choose a different path, if that was something within them or a potential of the world that any of them wanted. It is unlikely the spiritual authority humans chose early in the historical record could ever produce a working "republic", and so the proper task would have been to forgo this failed system before it began. This is why there were very few republics in history, and why most of the world never bothered with such a farcical concept. But, the republican idea was a useful thought experiment to suggest what, if anything, was possible, and that was the intent of many political writers, ancient and early modern. Only with the rise of the technological interest and an avaricious faction within it did a cult grow which made the idea that anything could be different inadmissible, a thing to be avoided at all costs and shouted down with a vigor scarcely imaginable until madmen could gather in sufficiently large cults and work out the finer aspects of psychology and the dark impulses that were always at the center of humanity. In short, the solution to resolve this problem was never humanism, let alone this disgust veneration of a parodic form of humanity, but its exact opposite - to see correctly that humanity was rotten and foul, and that no technological fix or fad would purchase redemption, and neither hard work nor predestination by genetic legacy gave anyone a thing. The proper moral basis in labor was only dimly understood and never given any appreciation, because humanity's language and thought had always been dominated by disgust for labor, and this was ultimately secured by labor's own disgust for the lowest class, and the long history of ritual sacrifice, humiliation, abasement, and so on that all of us in this class have seen for our entire existence. The only ones who truly wanted it to change were of the residuum, and any of us who dared speak of a truly different world would be sidelined, mocked, and ridiculed. None of us could publish anything or speak of much at all due to a lack of context and lack of free time to access the ideas used against us. Those few who did and made the mistake of becoming known would simply be marked down and ruthlessly exterminated. This extermination did not need to be secret, and in many cases, it wasn't. The lowest class could be tagged and shamed for any crime, real or imagined, but humans always knew the real crime was a crime of Being. Any of us, regardless of our inclinations and the malice in us, would be tagged as the worst villain, and chosen "rotten apples" would be promoted specifically to associate lowest-class agitators with Satanists, perverts, sex and drug addicts, malicious gangsters, obnoxious neighbors, and other such obviously odious characters. If a member of the lowest class believed in decency, it was the duty of the sworn servants of Jabulon to strike as phantoms in broad daylight, unmentionable and hoodwinking their way to victory. If not them, there were many enablers and intercine conflicts to raise, and few ways for someone of low class to defend themselves. This would be enough to work until the eugenic creed could make the war against the lowest class not just an insinuation, but a profession at the apex of the state and granted spiritual legitimacy not by the intrigues or cults of older times, but by science and the appeal of technology to suggest that this institution existed as a public good or service, knowingly working alongside those who were the ugly and hidden enforcement arm of the eugenic creed. After enough such examples can be made, the very trifling threat of the one interest in humanity who truly wanted anything different could be wiped out, and everyone else would be put on notice about just what this filthy Satanic race was going to be - or else.

It is not really worthwhile to describe the antiseptic "good republic" because that only existed against the farcical trope of the "bad empire" or "bad despotism", which was never how these things actually worked. Not once did a republican form of government produce anything virtuous, and in every case, republican governments were far more exploitative and warlike than most monarchies and despotisms in history. They usually existed because there was an imperial interest which could better assert itself by pooling property and technology in such a way, feeding its operations with conquest, slavery, and internal development towards the same end. The republic, in short, was always a creature of enclosure, and the enclosures in English history were possible because excess poor people had a choice - sign up for indentured servitude in the American colonies, which for a good number of them was effectively a death sentence. Everywhere the republican idea spread outside of the city-state that could only be moderated by dire necessity rather than any particular form of government, it encouraged and glorified the creation of estates and private landholders and did so while insisting this was for the public. The habits of eugenism are not a unique perversion to undo the "good republic", but a extension of its logic from the outset. The problem with republics, in the mind of those who ruled them, is that they didn't oppress poor people enough, and this is smack dab at the start of Plato's dialogue where he wants the producer and workman to eat shit and accept the fewest scraps possible, starting off with his cope because the democrats gave to Socrates what was coming to him for political conspiracy and buggery beyond the bounds of good taste for that time and place.

We of course have many examples of what the "good republic" would look like, and can strip out the obviously farcical defenses of technocratic norms and the appeal to institutional authority that pervades culture in the past 100 years. All of this was expected, in some way, to lead to something good that was salvaged out of the ruin it creates. Nothing in despotism suggested that producing anything at all was worthwhile or that there was any point to the world other than whatever the boss wanted from it. This appears crass and pointless, but the despotic base was not natural nor an imposition from conceit alone. It arose because that was merely a truth humanity held to be self-evident, for lack of any other example available to it. The ideas that would have overcome this would have seen the thought experiments of the past as a thought experiment to be moved past, and in some way, the early modern writers did see that there was a future far beyond the philosophical conceits and superstititons of their interest. The modern writers, being reasonable men, saw in technology itself the true promise of what a republic might have meant, and in some ways this fate was referenced. It would never be worked out as an "other system" on its own merits because we have, up until so late a time as the 21st century, always contended with philosophy and religion of the old type, which made the concepts of doing anything else inadmissible. It was believed as an article of faith that historical progress worked in stages and that, by some strange alchemy, republics were a necessary transitional step before we talk about future societies. This strange idea was seeded precisely so nothing new could be possible, and it was finalized by the eugenic creed which placed effect before cause. In this way, the expectations of naive causality would meet a great institutional stopper which was granted absolute impunity and the backing of conspiracies high and low. That story, the rise of the eugenic creed, is still beyond the scope of this writing, and the eugenic creed has no place in any properly constituted society worth living in. Since humanity has chosen eugenics, and this ruinous cult cannot be extirpated as it should have been on sight, we are ruined. But, based on what we have seen, we can speculate on the world that might have been, and the visions that would have been truly hopeful. What I write for the next section will appear as a bizarre fantasy to many readers and may as well be ignored, but it is worth writing this to see a glimpse of the fevered mind who really, desperately, needed this society to be something else, and found time and time again that humans simply did not want that. If someone did want to salvage the republic and turn it into something functional, those who ruled it had a really funny way of allowing the rot to produce something worse than mere failure, and the rot we live in today was entirely preventable. It is still deliberately exacerbated against the wishes of anyone who cared at all about this world being compatible with life, by a concerted cult that went insane and never looked back long ago, but that has due to the foulness of this race assured that we're getting the worst of all worlds. The "good republic" in actuality would, upon attaining any condition that looked like this, see that "the public interest" as a union of individuals or minds or intellects was never anything they wanted, and none of this was about personal freedom or self-abasement or any of the things that were sold as the path to the good life. We could have created the material benefits a republic promised without any of this rigamarole, and that was never a political question nor should have been made into a political matter, other than acknowledging that it was possible and that the excuses of poverty or nature were no longer acceptable. Since the appeal to nature argument was so facile that classical and feudal societies refused it, that disease is a particular creature of modernity and the eugenic creed's particular stupidity, casting the final doom of humanity. My cursing of humanity here is just a confirmation of the ugly curse eugenics imposed on us forevermore, even if in some fortunate future, something in this world may be restored.

There is one "way out" which is offered today, and has been offered in the past - to discount entirely the mind, view its assertions with the utmost skepticism. Once the absurdity of the struggle is evident, most people in that society would reject it, and in time, the state would "wither away" for lack of interest in such a ponderous beast. This could be entertained so long as technology did not grant to state institutions any great inroad into the subjects, and states were too pre-occupied with survival to invest in some foolish "Jehad" to micromanage private life. Because human beings are necessarily concerned with temporal authority and living in some sense, the only way this could be asserted would be if technology truly won in its own right - if the commons claimed all virtue for itself, and "abolished class society" entirely on its terms. The commons alone would be the most averse to any class alliance with another interest, and it is for them that revolution was waged. But, revolution was a creature that could be summoned and steered, but could not be micromanaged if the members ceased taking orders from agentur and oriented themselves towards aims quite different from those that existed historically. The aim of the commoners who retained standing to exist, but were not party to the aristocratic mysteries and privileges, saw correctly that revolution was a bad idea from the start, and anything that the revolution would win was won by the transformation of the 1930s. It tickles the senses to think that so many believe a revolution will happen any day now, when all revolutionary programs in the industrialized countries of the time attained every aim they aspired to, and the victors of the revolution sold "revolution" as a dubious commodity to the next generation selected to live. For those selected to die, the revolutionaries showed open disgust and were all-too-eager to allow eugenics to continue, inventing every excuse and showing that behind their pretensions and promises, the new revolutionaries were every bit as venal as Plato described them - just as they were trained to be. But, for most of the commons, this program was obviously contrary to their interests, for they knew that the pool of sacrifice and opportunity was finite and controlled by hands which were not obscured by ideology or fear. After 1945 and the final victory of "the revolution", the favored interests curiously denied what just happened and immediately began rehabilitating the Nazis after a "job well done" opening Germany's asscheeks for deeper ramming. The generation to come would be subjected to the first stage of a multi-generational social engineering project unlike any other. There was much to be done to root out the last embers of resistance to imperious institutional rule, whatever the result may be. On that, the commons would all have to agree, for labor was already burned by the wars eugenics instigated and continued to foment as they were introduced to the new "society". There was no possibility of reconciliation and not even a hint that anyone found such an outcome desirable. For the struggling commoners, the objectives were much different. They could look inward, or break from history altogether as best as they can. There would be a conscious emulation of the habits of the lowest class, who were broken, poked, prodded, and experimented on, and made targets of middle and working class sadism, and this was accelerated by the dominance of eugenism in the institutions. Eugenism is often conflated with technocracy, but the two were very different propositions, and outside of the aristocratic core with the "real program", most of the technocrats and commoners and technicians thought that something good would come out of this. As the clampdown on any idea inimical to the ruling institutions continued, it became harder to square this aim with what "the republic", or what called itself such, was now. None of the machines or ideas in vogue suggested anything but "the system can never be wrong", which is curious since every engineer and scientist saw Murphy's Law every day in their career, and saw it exemplified with management's demand to run whatever operation benefitted the people into the ground in every way possible. This would play out the same regardless of whether capitalism or communism prevailed, because for all of the purposes that were really valued, technology and the contest to command it were the only interest worth fighting for. The ideological excuses for either were so laughable that it's a wonder that the narrative worked at all. For much of the early stage of this social experiment, the coming world war was premised on fear or national struggle rather than a belief that a "communist system" or "capitalist system" was operative or desirable. If you asked the paranoid in America, they would see - and they weren't wrong to see - faithful Republicans as communist infiltrators with something new and awful. The communist apparatchiks did not aspire to create a magical unicorn or justify themselves. They saw their institutional chokehold as the point, and the professional class of the contending powers recognized each other as more valuable than the sacrifices made to toil, fight, and die for them. Enough of them were willing to abandon any pretense that there was a struggle, since they remembered as well as anyone that war was there to select who lived and who died, and the assholes who arrange them loved to demonstrate by example that this chokehold was never going to change.

What was invoked - and what we know to never have been a reasonable plan, but one that was embraced out of increasing desperation, with the plan to laugh as the honest thrashed in their holding pens and tried to live - was that the old would be abolished in total, and the new would take its place. In other words, this is the kinder and gentler version of "destroying the world for your cause", with rainbow flags and a certain faith that this will work, somehow, to make the world better.

This plan is not as foolish as you might think, as if it were automatically retarded to want such an aim. What has hitherto existing humanity been, and what has the world done to actively change it? The world has been preventative regarding some things, but they are few, and the world is generally cruel and devolves to madness when we try to rationalize it too much. Seeing "the world" as the problem would appear natural in this mindset, and that is the origin of so many koans cleverly inserting the machinations of aristocracy into every space and asserting "this is Nature". It is this that the programs of ideology captured - a way of "sorting the poor" who were more favored, while for the working poor and the residuum, it was torture, beatings, and Delta/Epsilon programming to the end of the Earth. Yet, if you are invested in technology and have friends, and the institutions present as functional enough for some shared interest, it is far easier to see the world, or at least the bad parts of the world, as a problem to be fixed, analyzed, and navigated. That has been the habit of the technological interest for good reason. This was qualified by the reminders of human malice, but if human malice were foundational and imbued in every institution, this type of thinking would be paralyzed. The only way to resolve this "contradiction" would be the final solution that would make every other order see this grouping as an alien threat - that would be a radical restructuring of the human mind, its body, its faculties, to eliminate the obvious malevolence over time.

We can see similarities to the program that is in force today. The difference is that they actually believe history can be changed. The foolish version is to believe history is infinitely malleable, and this faggotry has been weaponized to close the trap, to induce the confined to thrash and project their rage onto the intended target of Hate Week. Most of these people though are perfectly aware of the limitations of reality control, and have no good reason to invest in such a fantasy or believe history is malleable. Far from it, their attitude towards the great war is to mock it, show complete disgust and disinterest in the ruling program, and escape to fantasies, science fiction, or anything that suggests the future that will come, somehow.^[1] Nearly every invocation of time travel and "spooky causality" is a recapitulation of this desire to break from history altogether, because what the world is becoming is unbearable.

If anything like this were to happen, it would render hitherto existing political thought worthless, including that which currently purged the world. For it to operate, the prevalence of the mind and the subject altogether must be destroyed. This would require over time detachment from life and the body, and from any particular sense of self. This would be, in the way we have been made to do things, the only "way out" - to abolish all expectations one had, and for a new entity to replace it, redeem it, and make good on the promise that many are ready to abolish themselves for, having not particular reason to live in the present order of things. In the present ideas, this leads to someone being proclaimed insane and unfit to exist, intended as a filter. If the chokehold were somehow removed for good, then the new thinking would have choice for the first time. But, the world itself did not change. The concept of what it meant to contest politics did not change. All that changed is that the entities we call the subject abstracted themselves enough that they would no longer value the old superstitions or shibboleths, and they would proceed to operate on the world without regard for the old, much as we rummage through garbage to make something out of this scrap. Because the same mechanisms are operative then and now, the proclivities of the technocrats and commons would play out again. We would see then that this is not the first time "the new abolished the old", rearranging the status quo in what seemed like an irrevocable turn. The same mechanisms that gave rise to aristocracy would reassert themselves, and would need to harken back to something to legitimize themselves. Looking forever to the future leads to a fools' errand. Our hypothetical middle class that did break free would not be burdened by a superstitious view of "historical progress", but there is a reason such a superstition could form, and insinuation and the heart of aristocracy would not die no matter how many aristocrats are exterminated. It is possible this new ordering of things would be more conscious of the trap, and would by our reckoning be a far better society than this one. It would mean that humanity as "humanity" would be over. It would rely on something of substance from the world itself, which human beings through reason willfully accept, with or without knowledge of what they are doing. It will never be the working of some scheme, for such schemes are the creatures of aristocracy and silly conceits. In other words, this world only appears at the uttermost end of necessity, and it does not appear as we please or in the way that would reach a final restructuring. It could only cycle through new iterations of the political. They would be new ones, with new strategies. In our time, we already can see that the body of dogmatic knowledge fed to us pedagogically is woefully inadequate compared to the potentials of machinery available to us, and this has always been known about education and pedagogy. Only an ideological fool believed that education is the best possible demonstration of merit. The most effective educational regimes relied on regular infusions of fresh meat and exploitation of underlings in the Academy, with the expectation that fresh meat was to be exhausted before the age of 30 for most of its creative potential so far as pedagogy valued it. What else could come out of an institution that exists so that pompus aristocrats can hold sinecures and rub our faces in shit?

The other path that is visible but never really available is a mass religious society, sometimes invoked. The problem with this is that religion by its nature concerned itself with a singular evil, and so every religion we would imagine is a recreation of the original rites of humanit, and exists largely as a recreation of the world to restore some form of the priesthood and initiation into degrees. Those people see no great issue with the course of humanity, as religions have found humanity's vices compatible with their view of the world and the institutions and nations they form.

At heart, the rule of humanity is spiritual rather than material, and the effective leaders and cajolers have always kept this close to heart. Destroy their aspirations, and the material conditions will be a trivial matter. There will come a time where this ruin cannot produce anything for its masters. The existing religions have a creative dodge - they rewrite history, reform entirely on their terms, and slowly bring humanity back to an inexorable path. All of the struggle hitherto known is for that purpose in the end, foreseen in advance. Anyone who went along with any part of it is an asshole, but such is the nature of the evil. But, there is struggle. The eugenists invoked the language of struggle and placed it at the center of their program, calling for a new religion - the last religion, from which there can be no escape. The old religious order were happy to facilitate this rise, so long as they received their cut and obedience to the old dogmas carried on long enough to pilfer the wealth of their parishoners in one last run on the bank. Every religion, in their particular way, has stood by as eugenics ravaged the populace. This is a feature of human religion due to their particular history, but since there are no non-humans around to enlighten us with received knowledge, we're stuck with what we have. Eugenics simply sought to purge all religions and institutions of any impediment, to remake the world in their image and lock in place all we have written about. Without eugenics, humanity would have been at an impasse, and the call for jihad would be an evident necessity of the time. Because humans were what they were, any serious crusade against the ruling ideas was snuffed out - but it was not for lack of trying. In this time, in the conditions of humanity, there wasn't a serious possibility of questioning the long-standing sacrifice at the heart of humanity. A true reckoning would be more terrible than anything humanity has ever known. But, such a thing is inherent to the evil, and nothing good is going to come out of the evil no matter how many times insinuation will insist something evil is the greatest of goods. So, here, in the past, and at some time in the future, none of the aspirations of the struggle can lead to anything but what we could expect from the start. We could detach ourselves from it, but if that is the case, then why would any of this be encouraged? We would choose a fatalistic view of existence, as most humans do, and not grant to any aristocratic horseshit the power it attains. It would not even have a moment's existence.

If political truth is a total system - and this is particular to ideology - then the only outcome would be that all mankind will, over time, truly give up, regardless of any fleeting attachment to a conceit or thought-form, or any energy put into them. Ignorance or knowledge would not change this. It is only because we are not living in such a total system that anything is possible, or history has anything to it. Yet, the machine of rule is as real as anything else, and never goes away even if its form were very different. We could manage this for a very long time - perhaps long enough that the litany of atrocities that are the true name of "human" would be a thing recorded, but largely irrelevant to that day. So far as there is a political contest on the terms aristocracy dictated, and their superstition is granted the authority it has been shown to possess, there won't be "another world" of any sort. That means that all of these possibilities, and all of them are far removed from anything humans will do in the near future, run into the same difficulty - that they are creatures of interests that were mostly suppressed in our history, but are evident enough as potentials that effort must be made to channel them into useless enterprises. Technology is created for the sake of a conceit of technology which turns on itself. Religion to study the evil is mired in property and genetic lineage and loses any sense beyond an evil that can be worn as a skin mask to scare the plebs, ruling through unlimited fear. If these interventions were not staged repeatedly and placed at the center of a ruling project, there would be "irrational drift" in the total system, which would destroy the "self-regulating system" conceit that was superstitiously imposed on reality. There is one self-regulating system of a sort - life itself - but life-forms do not exist for political purposes. We do not live to serve that, nor live in pure self-service. We live because that is what we do, rather than what we are. History has judged enough what humans are, and when the best humans can say for themselves is that they are too limited to transgress decency infinitely, it says something horrible about what this has been.

All of these paths lead us to a realization - that in whatever way we go about it, the political is doomed. It has often been said that political economy is a pseudoscience. I would retort that politics itself is a pseudo-practice, and the doctrines regarding the political - any doctrine humans could make about the political problem - are also pseudoscientific, because they are ultimately products of knowledge and its conceits rather than true products of the world. Nothing in the world obligated us to sense the general fear or act in the way we have regarding it. Nothing in the world obligated "us" to exist at all. We have had one obvious solution - eliminate the source of the general fear by removing the problem of persons altogether. The obvious and impractical way to do this is to simply wipe out all persons and their bodies, or allow them to fade from this world without any particular reason to keep them. This, though, leads to the eighth path coming up if nothing else - "do we really, really want to do this?" Such a nihilistic aspiration has obvious implications about what we would do here and now, and we do not get to shirk those implications simply because we concluded that politics is fake. Naive nihilism - the "Kefka"^[2] approach of wishing to destroy the world for your cause - leads not to eschatology, but to faggotry and nothing more. A technological "fix" where there are living and thinking entities without "people" as such is not as simple as merely obliterating the self. Obliteration of the self might be the best of the options available to us, if we are ever so enlightened for it to be an attainable and real thing, but obliteration of the self and the new thought that would arise still has to answer the general fear in some new form, and knowing that this cannot be shirked would be a necessary prerequisite. To really speak of a fix that "eliminates the problem of people and so there is nothing to fear" is to speak of the same thing as just killing everyone the easy way. It is just a more complicated path to the same implication as before. While we may conclude that there is nothing so wrong about faggotry of the type I have described, especially if it will be a fleeting concern once we're finally gone, there is the problem that no living creature abides the process to get from where we are, as terrible as it is, to the sort of faggotry that encourages this malevolence. The only doctrine that accomplished this was the very eugenic creed which created our current predicament, and it would be far simpler to just give up eugenism and the tenets which led to it, after which the problem of the general fear, while still present, is not this intractable problem the eugenic creed weaponized and pushed into our lives at all levels, in ways large and small. We may content ourselves with the humble acceptance that, at the end of the political problem, humans can only be what their potentials allow, and we should not be too hard on people who didn't have a choice in this matter's true origins. Humans knew, and they are guilty of the first ritual sacrifice and every ritual that followed forevermore, but were humans going to be different, and could we realistically have expected humans with nothing to stop them to do other than what their instincts told them to do?

All of these problems require us to ask the real question - that is of history, rather than a thought experiment or abstraction. It is here where we can finally move our discussion from the mechanisms in a model or our metaphysical inquiry beginning the series, into something truly tangible and relevant to our existence. It is through the true assessment of history - what it is, and what we can say about it - that we find our true answers. The political problem ultimately is less relevant than the spiritual problem, and spiritual authority - even if it is the only way we know anything at all - is not the purpose of us, as if we reduce ourselves to spiritual animals instead of being political animals or "just animals". To be human is to be a historical actor, even if we don't rate to enter history books let alone a worthwhile presence in history outside of the esteem other humans would hold us in. At the root of the modern tragedy is this belief that history could be arrested and turned into a piece of technology, and nowhere is this felt worse than in the German ideology and all that rose from it. It is a disease which infected the Marxists despite knowing that this is a bad idea, and the Nazis and fascists embraced the disease and led the world into far more misery than humanity ever needed to endure, all for this fruity Satanic cult called Eugenics that would have been ruthlessly exterminated for great justice if humans were not so fallen. History is not a technological question or a thing that can be edited by decree, or by learned men asserting that they can tell us what we are and what we have been. History to be worthwhile implies that history itself is its own thing, and an aspect of existence which makes all of our technology and political action real. This historical existence is not dictated by struggle. It is in the investigation of what history really is that we begin to see something that places all of our models in a context that is finally relevant and can answer something about this situation, where before we have been rudderless and misled by a blitz of mystification and occult horseshit.

Nothing appropriate comes to mind to close this book. It has been the most depressing to write, because the political is a beast that should never have been allowed to become what it did. So far as human existence has been tolerable, the political has been understood, kept at a distance, and not granted more virtue than it deserved. This would be weaponized by eugenics - we are told to "relax" when the intolerable is shoved in our faces, as if we were crazy to want any temporal existence and ought to be ashamed for the sake of these fags who stole everything and have no good excuse for any of it. We are then told to be ignorant of even the most basic historical facts that would allow any world outside of it. We have little to really build about "real politics" based on the concept of the political, because what we actually live in has been a product of history in the genuine sense, rather than these stories that are crafted to ensure the Satanic cycle, or some religious cycle, repeats ad nauseum. Because of that, this book has repeated often, and meandered because there was less to the political struggle than anyone gave it credit for. It is difficult to discern the necessary historical foundation to describe this world when there is a strong inclination to leave it behind entirely, wash myself clean of it as best as I can, and resign humanity to the judgement history has made. I do not hold out any expectation that the world can be saved, because humans don't want it to be much other than this. What I have done, and what quite a few have done throughout history, is look not to a fantasy world, but to the last world - eschatology. This is one of the final necessities of the religions with staying power - to speak of where this world ends, after which the question of the world becomes wholly different. We would not have anything "we" wanted out of this, but there would be a world to speak of, and because there is in the end only the one world, it is possible for someone detached from the stupider temporal insinuations to act as if the "great game" deserves the contempt that should have been made clear from the start.

I do not recommend anyone seek out this "last world", because unless you are familiar for whatever reason of what the desperate have had to do to tolerate living around the abomination that is, it won't lead to any novel conclusions. What it can do is provide some perspective on this, without the fetters of the crass superstitions. It is still a superstition to believe there is an endgame or a "point" to any of this. Nothing in nature or appeal to science can create out of nothing a "purpose of existence", and no information or anything readily available grants guidance towards this. But, there are those who have given their lives over to the hermit's existence because that was all that was left for them, and we make of that what we could. If I have learned anything from this awful course I have taken, it is this. Living for crass interpretations of spiritual authority is a waste of everyone's time, and awaiting the end of the world and nihilism offers little we haven't figured out centuries ago. In a better world, the dubious "pleasure" of Empire would have been seen as highly unpleasant and worthless for anything but death. At this late a time, I have not too many years ahead of me, and even if my conditions in society were improved - something I would like very much - what is done is done, and all of the knowledge available to mankind cannot stave off the deterioration of these faculties. My hope in this is not to play the game of thrashing around in a cage for the amusement of these fucking Satanics. If there is one silver lining to the events of the past decade, it has been that the ugliness of humanity is so visible that it vindicates everything I believed in the first place. Despite this, there are so many of humanity who really did nothing to me, or anything too horrible, and knew the menace around them was granted this impunity by the enablers of rot, who I will hold in greater contempt than the prime beneficiaries. One of the most depressing things for me to see are people much like myself who were made into living trophies, displays of the victory of the eugenic creed and its tortures, and couldn't be anything else. Perhaps now, as the eugenic creed enters this stage, enough can be said about what they did to us - just before history is edited to remove all mention of the atrocities of the 1990s.

The world beyond, or any afterlife, is a topic I must leave for another time, in another book, if I so wish it. I write this book not to speculate about the future or the past, but to best describe the present and the trap that was placed during the neoliberal period - the great wasting of any potential humanity once had, for the sake of the stupidest religion I have ever seen. There will never be another time like the one I grew up in, and it is depressing to see how quickly influencers and the slime of humanity have rewritten the past. Even recent events of the 21st century are immediately rewritten to conform to the conceits of these idiotic fags, and they are fags, who insist on pushing the BigLie button for the same Hitlerian magic as before. They will receive a much worse result than the past. A great error in understanding the events of 2020 and beyond is to believe that history is repeating the filth of the German nation and its abortion under the Nazis. This thing that has been in the works is something new - and if we understood the Nazis, novelty and futurism were at the heart of every variant of fascism and inherent to its construction. What we are in for during the 21st century is much worse than that. It is already worse than anything humanity has been capable of. The eternal enemy of mankind - other humans - is more perilous now in a real sense, because the new has happened and we face it presently. To best speak of it, I devote the next three books of this series to:
- recounting history as material force - the "mode of production" that operates by means of technology
- describing the genuine political format of the past 100 years with that economic and industrial history in mind, and dispensing with the standard ideological superstitions altogether as best as possible
- describing the spiritual authority of its most pernicious and dominant movement, which would describe the principles and world-historical purpose of fascism.

When this is complete, I hope - going ahead of what I initially sought to write in this series - to write of where this will lead, since all other options have been exhausted, and there is nothing left of the aspirations of technocratic society to meet but its fate, now locked in because humanity rejected the potential for anything else in any realistic political scenario. I expect the seventh book of this series to be shorter than the others. Finally, I would break from the narrative and framing device I have utilized for this series entirely, to describe what we would do given that these conditions are operative. What I hope with the final book in this series is not a "grand narrative", but a description of miscellany, nooks, and crannies that would be of interest to those who have been left behind, for whom the last world is our port of call, and for whom the promise of Earthly or Heavenly paradise was not merely some sort of sick joke, but not a thing seriously pined for when offered at the cost offered by the serpent.

Return to Table of Contents | Return to Home Page

[1]

[2]

Return to Table of Contents | Return to Chapter Start