Previous Chapter | Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

I do not expect the reader to follow my writing dogmatically, in the manner of the very ideology I have come to loathe which insists on its pedagogy. I mention this because whatever a reader may believe about history or philosophy is quite irrelevant to the question before us. Regardless of the grand theory at work, all history pertains to a world outside of any preferred knowledge or what it has internalized or occulted. This occulting is something that appears inevitable due to what knowledge has to be in order to be sensical as a historical event—that is, that any knowledge that is a participant in any historical event would be local and limited, rather than something "above the universe" in a way that allows it untrammeled spiritual authority. Every local entity that seeks to know history has to first ask a question about history generally, rather than immediately turn inward and recapitulate a willful assertion about what history should be. In every serious view of history, the biases of knowledge, and any grand theory or ontology they would have to operate with, are acknowledged within the theory itself, because the theory would have to regard a world outside of its own conceits of it. Whether humanity cares about historical truth, or must care, is not relevant to the facts that history pertains to. Anyone who triumphantly declares "history is bunk" is an incorrigible idiot. We would have said they are stupid and should be ignored, but evil does not allow itself to be ignored, and insists on its monopoly on pedagogy. We are left then with the unenviable task of carrying on as if evil were not at all relevant to a question that, at first, is intrinsically interesting for the reader. If a reader is looking for an excuse or the first pretext for some inner want or inner light, they are not engaging in any historical study worthwhile, except as an example of human failure. Such examples are worth studying, but to dwell on them for too long does little for us. So far in this series, I presented a trans-historical view of economic and political thought; that is, the concepts of both are laid out, nowhere near complete, and certainly not "total systems", which refuse to allow anything else to exist. Instead, I saw the purpose of laying out those concepts as one which asks the reader to consider the subject matter. Very often, economics and politics are ascribed to things that have nothing whatsoever to do with economics or politics, or the fusion of such in political economy. The same aspersion is applied to history, and, most of all, to nature. Nature should be referred to with the deified capitalization of such, as in "Mother Nature", since nature is not and never will be the domain of the gods, let alone any singular godhead, which is very clearly invoking "the Satan" described in Book 3. The default view of nature, regardless of an ontological view, is that nature is explicitly not moved by magic. I cannot establish in sufficient words a full "theory of history" that would comprise a total system, without deviating from the purposes I had for this book. Nothing I could write is a substitute for the brain and attachment to the world a human being would possess, and in the end, history is recreated in the mind of each person very, very imperfectly, rather than in any way that makes resolving historical truth automatic. What follows is a summary of a supplemental book I intend to write at some point in the future, rather than a full accounting of how history can be described. Hopefully this chapter will open the reader to the question history itself poses, before continuing with this reconstruction.

If history is seen as the study of the past, the most naive and useful view of history is that all history is natural history. From the premises that give rise to a division of the world between what is natural and what is the result of the agency of any historical actors, there is a demarcation between the past, which belongs to nature, and the present, which nature does not exert any direct influence on. It is not possible to assert that the past has any mechanical tie to present events, however "the present" is defined. The present would at first appear to be an artificial construct from the perspective of natural history, and so too would any future that is for natural history a speculative exercise. When describing natural history or any appeal to nature, there is only the past, and a limited study of the past at that. Nature did not define historical actors ready-made for us, that were not at some point an artificial construct for the purposes of knowledge—that is, for the purposes of us, for whom history is studied by faculties of reason, intelligence, sense-experience, and so on—which are local to us and not necessarily bound to any history outside of the boundaries those faculties must regard. A detailed philosophical inquiry into these distinctions is better left for another book, and for the inquiry readers can initiate on their own power.

Natural history provides neither forms to be imposed on the rest of history, nor any laws that were "baked in" to the universe in any way. It is always approached from the presumption that nature is a great unknown. The task of the historian when approaching natural history is to discover what can be said of nature, or the past of the material, substantive world. This task is carried out because, before any claims about any other history can be made, the world proper and nature are coterminous. If we were to speak of "all that exists and can exist" from a dispassionate observation, all of the world that exists or will exist would appear as past events, which knowledge at first does not have access to. The thought experiment of a hypothetical omniscient observer, which has been invoked in this series in the past, would only possess this omniscience by means that are outside of nature; but, because no such entity can be demonstrated to exist, all approaches to history for our knowledge have to be reassembled by us, and were never given by nature in a way that makes them self-evident, unquestionable, and "just-so". Even if the process by which natural history created human beings and their knowledge were explained in a way that made the rise of humans inevitable and a trivial exercise, some process to create humans out of natural flotsam would have to take place to grant to humans any more agency than the dust and the wind. It is another trivial thought experiment to suppose that humans and all of their faculties have no more agency than the dust and the wind, or even less agency if one believes "human" as a category is an intellectual fiction and self-aggrandizing story men tell themselves to give themselves the vaunted title of "human". Such thought experiments are irrelevant for natural history. They are also irrelevant for artificial history—the study of present events and entities granted any agency to affect history. They are irrelevant for the history knowledge and the assembly of it in systems would produce, for absent any compelling reason to believe otherwise, any intelligible system would be admissible in a proper study of history and cannot be ignored. Because of this, the effect of such systems could not be ignored in the proper purview of science and history of science, which is not a purely intellectual conceit held by institutions. Questions of relevance and admissibility for the purposes of observers are instead a question for the humanities, and exist because humans have limited time and resources to ask questions of history or existence, and humans are not "locked into history" in that sense. There is that part of human existence that actually lives and does anything that history would appreciate, rather than a human being carrying out historical imperatives blindly.

Natural history is understood through theories, which begin as hypotheses that can be tested against any record from a natural origin that can be verified. It always refers to a past, rather than a model to manage present affairs or predict the future. Because the past is very large compared to a present moment, and the future remains potential with no proper influence on events before it, it is a common assumption that the present will follow past precedent, and the future will likewise follow the present and the past. Those who control the past will, absent a compelling reason to believe a situation has changed, control the present and the future. The key word "control" makes clear the futility of appealing to nature for this purpose, for nature and the world itself did not have any investment whatsoever in subjective "control" over anything. To nature and to the proper view of the world, all such subjective conceits are irrelevant, and the resulting action is no different than the movement of dust or wind. This does not take away from human beings and their lives anything. Human existence was never premised on such a crass appeal-to-nature argument to justify itself. Nature has done nothing to impede human beings in their folly. The consequences of humanity's folly arise not from any natural law. The world proper is much more than "base nature", and the world's judgment is more than any judgment of history that humans can arrest. Judgement proper and the affairs of human beings are not even purely historical affairs. The true wants of human beings are not subject to historical review, even if history has damned a human being or the entire human family's existence. If it were not for that fact, then humans could not possess potential or any agency over history, and their history would read as nothing but a series of atrocities and bland tautological facts that wouldn't be worth contesting. Those follies are, in our time, primarily tied to appeal-to-nature arguments made by aristocracy, and granting to the aristocratic impostor calling itself capital-N "Nature" powers it does not possess. The true nature simply is, or more accurately, it was, regardless of our beliefs about what it should have been or any plan that could be scryed from the study of natural history. The study of nature itself is inherently the study of history, and that study is not confined to natural history. There are things we observe that will become part of nature in short order. The existence of human bodies is as much an act of nature as earthquakes, the growth of forests, the orbit of planets, and the events of outer space broadly.

Nature does not operate at any preferred scale, and so the laws of nature are in principle the same at small scales as they would be at the scale of the entire universe. The degradation of natural historical understanding in pedagogy begins by asserting that there is some necessary hierarchy of scales, where at small scales, "special rules" are invoked, and these states of exception pile up in the minds of pedagogues whose chief task is defending "contradiction in nature", among other stupidities common to the aristocratic mode of thought. There is no relevance of an instance, or even time itself in the conventional sense. Time to natural history is an entirely relational concept, and it would appear to natural history that space-time is one giant mass, from which temporal locales are drawn and studied.

What this means is that if there are naturalistic approaches to history—and this is a very reasonable expectation when someone asks questions of the world rather than information—they are consistent with theories rather than a recitation of facts or judgement of the validity of those facts. With wrong facts, the theories of natural history produce garbage results, just as surely as a computer will output garbage if the input is garbage. More importantly, the approach to natural history would not be used to justify or prove a history of artifices, which is what most histories of events are at a basic level. Natural history instead can speak of general laws of motion for particular events or classes of events. Therefore laws of physics are explained as if they applied to natural history, and it is from that that laws of history have their predictive potential, if it is presumed that the laws of physics are not in any way artificial impositions on reality. Physical laws would presumably operate without regard to any necessary starting point. They would be constants throughout history; a particle of matter would behave the same 12 billion years ago as it does today, without a suitable explanation as to why there was any inexorable procession of natural events. Such theories of "total systems" do not belong to natural history proper, nor are they artifices. At best, they are constructs of knowledge and systems thought to attempt to arrest the world. At worst, they are deliberate exercises in doublethink or something far more odious, which seek to violate sense deliberately in order to make the world as an imperious mind wishes it by decree alone.

All of the objects of interest to history can be viewed as aspects of natural history, and treated accordingly. It is this which grants to appeal to nature its persistent allure to the impressionable and gullible, and intelligence is no safeguard against this. For reasons that might already be apparent to the reader, intelligence inclines someone to believe in appeal to nature more rather than less, because that is the shortest route to power, and simplifies historical knowledge—thus making history automatic in the conceited mind. This ultimately requires a belief that the ruling power—aristocracy—and nature are coterminous, and that by abasing oneself to aristocracy, they are one with nature, and that this is the only path to ultimate power. In other words, nature becomes the Christ, the One, and the only power that remains. Intelligence offers no safeguard against this and no defense against its malicious use by another. Only moral necessity sensed by someone would be any impedence to the shortest route to historical control—where all historical events are past-tense, and ambiguities are always resolved by appeal-to-nature and a retreat to some imagined default position held by institutional laws and the threat of violence. That is the threat of every hitherto known state.

The origins of artificial history philosophically are challenging to describe without falling into a morass of wordplay. Since that is just my inquiry, it has no standing other than a suggestion. However, it is helpful to speak of artificial history's analogues throughout theories of history. They are described as "historical idealism", "annals", "hard history" or "hard science", and other things that are either approximations, slanders, or weasel words to grant to some historical work "truthiness" by assertion alone. None of these really approach artificial history as I have, and will proceed to do for this writing, as I have approached it in the prior writings without informing the reader.

By itself, natural history does not allow any definition, except by an imposition of will on history that remains unknowable. Artifice describes the origin of definite, knowable things from a natural history that starts out as unknown. The true and proper origin of artifice remains at higher stages of scientific development, and in some way, artifice is a contrivance for subjective knowledge rather than "what the world really is". However, artifices arise in the same manner regardless of the qualities of the knower, and so their existence is never a matter of subjective opinion in the crass sense. Regardless of who observes it or whether they possess any sight or sense of color, a red ball is always a red ball. When sense of color is lacking, it would be possible to isolate strange phenomena called "light waves", and some scientists in the society of the blind would study this strange event called "light" and describe its behavior, which would reproduce the wavelength corresponding to "red light" and to humanity's knowledge of optics. That knowledge was at first an effort of humans to understand what their native understanding of light really was, rather than an imperious assertion of "colors" as a necessary aspect of natural history that we must abide by. From the other direction, the society of the blind would sense light much as human beings sense waves of sound in detail, and can describe their behavior even if they are deaf. Since this sensory information would be very valuable for the society of the blind to develop navigational devices, they would develop tools and a science around light. Their understanding of light would be different from that of native sense, for light to the society of the blind is a strange and new thing. Details that are beneath the sensory experience of human beings would be admissible, since for science, nothing is made inadmissible unless it is irrelevant to the question asked. Light beneath the visible wavelengths would not be sensed by eyes as "colored light", but for the blind, any iota of light their instruments can detect is just as relevant as the visible spectra of light. The blind have no "natural language" for light or sight, but it is entirely reasonable for the blind to develop some sensory instrument and invent words for both. The light is data from natural history, which can be processed as imminent data, which is immediately rendered as an artificial form. Sight is the instrument reading this natural data, which operates on principles that are knowable. Artifices are necessary to construct this instrument and any theory of what it does; but the artifices are held to be as real as anything else, and have to be so. They are, in the realm of ideas, more real than nature, for the artifices are imminent and cannot be ignored in the moment. Nature can be freely ignored, for it is entirely in the past, even when the memory is presented as an urge that is primordial. The imminent world of the present or "now" acts without regard to any preferred theory of history, and at first impression, artificial history is the "real history", and theories of natural history remain stories of no importance. Artificial historical events may be played in sequence for any given artifice, to construct a past and future trajectory based on known data of the artifice, and from this, artificial history predicts perfectly the course of a single artifice. Where this breaks down is the description of multiple artifices, which each exist independently of each other and can only interact with artifices like themselves. They have no intrinsic relation with any other artifice, and for artifical history to describe physics, it must be presumed that physical objects all share a space called "physical space", which governs interactions. In other words, artificial history, like historical idealism, supposes there is some universal regulator in order for artificial history to stand on its own. Even with this, artificial history is lacking. For artificial history, the past has no existence and no relevance to the present. In the same breath that artificial history proclaims the existence of God, it proclaims that history is infinitely malleable and "history is bunk", even as it proclaims imminent critique is the superior model for science, knowledge, and all things.

Artificial history is an explanation of things and events pertaining to them, without any necessary framework. In artificial history, events are "just-so", because there is no prior condition they would have had to rise from. The best analogy for present-day audiences is to envision a computer program's simulated environment. The computer's true operations are to allocate memory and read instructions faithfully from a tape, and so the concept of objects in a computer program is not actually summoning an "object" in the sense that such things must be respected. The object-oriented paradigm is adopted for various reasons. The reader should be reminded that those reasons were for programming business applications, and many programmers and teams will handle the same program, which may last years or decades. Efficiency or emulating reality was not the reason for adopting the object-oriented approach. What it does well is allow for object code to be self-contained and portable, so the same object can be used across many applications or shared for many programmers. Within a simulation, these objects can be instantiated, which is to say, memory is set aside for the object, and the objects can be destroyed. There is no requirement for a program to abide by any natural laws, and the same is true of any rational approach to the universe. A rational approach to the universe can make nonsensical claims or claims contrary to our readily available knowledge about the universe, like saying "objects may be multiplied endlessly at no cost". This rational approach would not be a reasonable approach, nor would it be useful for solving problems in a substantive world where it is not possible to freely produce anything. But, by the laws of rationality and artificial history, things pop in and out of existence, and it is the task of the historian to be a faithful stenographer of the names and events of artificial history, and judge for themselves whether any of this is factual and admitted into the annals of history.

The question of admissibility and inadmissibility figures prominently when artificial history is raised, and here I will talk about nearly none of it, since it becomes a convoluted topic. It is in artificial history where the "trick of admissibility" is used to cajole and violate any sensical understanding of history. Strictly speaking, there is no reason for artificial history or historical idealism to be attacked by such brazen dishonesty, so long as the writers of history retain sense of what objects are and how they would behave in another situation. Most causal understanding of history is of artificial history—that events happen, are recorded, and they are definite events rather than asperions of such, or theories in natural history that are proven by experiment. Historical idealism has the advantage of naming names and locations of interest, regardless of whether the framework points to anything useful or substantial for most of the people. Most of humanity has been largely detached from political events and the names and events of leaders. For most of humanity, wars and the changing of rulers is little more than a travesty that occasionally visits them when it conjures more plague, war, and famine, which has been the majority of their existence. Whenever there would be conditions allowing humanity to recover, aristocracy finds a way to create more plague, war, and famine. If we consult Father Malthus' writing on population, this check on "mindless breeders" is completely natural, praiseworthy, and expected, and Malthus sees a pressing need to reintroduce these checks by peaceful means as much as possible, since war has too many sobering effects on the favored classes and entails costs for the Empire it cannot bear forever. To the lower orders and many of the commoners—the nascent "middle class", which is so faint that they are politically not distinguished from the common order of free laborers and degraded proletarians—the entire war and games of aristocracy are inadmissible as anything relevant to their lives. Likewise, the details of the muck of producing are inadmissible to the proprietors and aristocrats, unless a breakdown in production hampers their vital war industry. The rulers are averse to any intervention in economic life, not because of their lack of competence—though the rulers are grossly incompetent in ways that are so basic that they cannot seriously claim any productive role in the minds of anyone who thought for five minutes. The rulers' aversion is that production is so far beneath their dignity that they would sooner die than abase themselves before the unsightly demon of work, and aristocracy revels in displays of humiliation to all lower orders, since that is their lifeblood and the god of their filthy race.

There is a truth that was only half-acknowledged in the past—that if productive enterprises in society ever operated too effectively, the gross incompetence of the aristocratic order would not be supported by any threat against the lower orders, and since aristocracy and property don't actually do anything productive, they would be circumvented entirely. The proprietors, whose historical role was warfare, would be given their final marching orders to forced retirement, fed the last droppings of opulence before their heirs are unceremoniously stripped of any pretenses. Aristocracy would be granted no such dignity, for their role has been entirely malevolent. Their temples, rituals, and glories would be held up for public ridicule. In short, the inversion of the "circle of life" would be turned against aristocracy, placing them in the position of the lowest class. This would be the final "ritual sacrifice", though calling it a sacrifice is the aristocracy's whining. It would be neither a sacrifice nor a ritual, but a dire necessity against a demonic race worthy of extermination and nothing better. The war functions of the old nobility would be better accomplished by a competent body of armed men promoted by merit and actually useful outcomes, with the greatest deterrents being twofold. The first is that war would become too terrible to wage or even threaten, due to the exorbitant cost of a mobilized war machine built to actually be competent at winning wars. The second is that there would be nearly nothing for humanity to fight for, and very likely, a world federation of all human polities would be self-evident as the best solution to war. The entire travesty of 1914 would have been averted by the outcome that most educated people believed would happen—if they weren't so convinced of the supremacy of eugenics and their own safety, believing war was managed and that the death of millions of poor people is "out of sight, out of mind". When the commoners and laborers were, in the main, ready for war and believed the war would eliminate the unworthies who were regimented and sent to die, thrown in chemical gas attacks and trenches to be thrown away, humanity showed what it really was. Only those condemned to die would protest, and they could protest when they are gunned down in the trenches, or summarily executed by their commanding officers and the favored grunts for dereliction of this dubious duty. After the fact, the truth of the war immediately became inadmissible in "real history", and the rewriting of history became a greater art form than it ever had been in the past. This did not go over well with those of humanity who retained their sense, and saw right away that the same mechanism would be repeated to ensure that anyone who wasn't a screaming eugenist Satanic would be dead with more planned plagues, wars, and famines. That was already becoming the standard operating procedure of humanity under the rule of the eugenic creed. It was impossible to suppress entirely the truth, because too many people, including members of the more favored classes, saw what this meant for their future. Whatever hatred they held for the lower orders, and many saw correctly that whatever humanity's rituals, the lowest class were not a threat to them and often did nothing to warrant this much sadism, was irrelevant. The eugenists already made clear that formerly valid men were now suspected of imagined crimes of Being, and claimed absolute impunity and a monopoly on selecting who lives and who dies. Enablers could only join the monopoly and cheer like Satanic retards, if they shared that proclivity. The threat was not hypothetical, but clear and present, imminent and very much in the habit of artificial history. It is here where the eugenists invoked natural history as their excuse, where the eugenist is identified with nature. The name of their periodical, Nature, made clear that eugenics claimed the name of the Almighty Nature, which is the same as their unitarian god—the One, the Satan, the unquestionable and unknowable. For this historical revision to work, in private a theory of history was either worked out, or was acted on with imperfect knowledge. Whatever theory they operated with, the history of knowledge itself and the general theory of technology was instrumental in closing the circle of history, and creating the Germanic "End of History". Publicly, there was only natural history, artificial history—which would be increasingly stripped down and denuded of any content that was meaningful—and the crown of history in knowledge, which was now claimed as a monopoly in total of the eugenic creed. No other conception of history was possible. Since science proper is not contained in any of these three things, science as a genuine practice of humanity, which regarded a history of its own and expectations that were long acted on without a "theory of scientific history" as such, came to an end. There was no longer science as we would have it. There would only be "The Science".

For as long as history has been a genuine inquiry, theories of history require theories of knowledge itself. These theories can be religious in origin, or philosophical. Every extant religion has both a theory of knowledge and a conception of history particular to it. This is also true of the ancient and defunct religions like Egyptian and Babylonian Satan-worship and Sun-worship. For as long as history has been a serious inquiry, the proper starting point is not the base of nature, the "superstructure" of artifices and ideas, or the outward facade of institutions. The starting point is with the rational core or kernel. This applies to any approach to history, and it is not monopolized by anyone. The dullest mind or the child naively working out these theories for him or herself conducts history in this way just as the vaunted intellectual does, because this is the necessary starting point. It does not matter if someone is stuck with their subjective biases or grants their sentiments undue influence on their model of history. It does not matter whether someone would prefer to construct history from another basis. The only proper starting point for any history, limited or unlimited, is the faculty of knowledge itself, and how it must assemble any historical knowledge. It becomes evident, without too much work, that knowledge itself contains a history that is outside of it and prior to it. A crude explanation of that history is found in natural or artificial history. A useful explanation of the mind is found in the products of knowledge that can carry it out. Science is one such product. It belongs to a reasoning process or, in more primitive forms, the knowledge of animals to assimilate knowledge by some useful scheme, rather than a scheme that is intellectually pleasing or expedient. The advance I have termed "Genius" belongs to the area of scientific inquiry which includes the humanities and subjective knowledge, and this advance requires a symbolic language that is communicable, rather than merely a worked-out system for internal use. It may be possible to speak of more primitive forms of genius if the symbolic language is a crude one that doesn't communicate with other animals like it, but it would in principle be possible for genius to acknowledge a world outside of it and the potential of other entities to communicate. The animal's sense of the world only does this in a way that establishes its self-preservation and sense of being as an animal, and while this is relevant for the animal's existence and its conduct throughout life, the animal doesn't have a concept of "I" or any system for complex and fluctuating social relations. Symbolic language alone did not grant this faculty, as if a lightbulb were switched. It is far more likely that symbolic language as humans use it developed over time, in the niche where this faculty could develop, which involved a pressing need for this advance and, most importantly for humans, an environment where failure to speak and failure to conform to expectations of speech meant torture and death with the utmost glee of your supposed family called "humanity".

Knowledge of anything we could call a system begins with knowledge itself, which appreciates things that are knowable only when they are construed as constructs like itself. The first, naive assumption of knowledge is that anything that enters its awareness, and thus history as it would see it, is much like itself. Anything would know and be construed as a knowing system until this faculty is dismissed as irrelevant. All that does not know, when it is acknowledged, is a distinctly inferior category of things to the conceit of knowledge. It may be an unhealthy conceit, but there is a reasonable expectation that things that do not know are demoted to the lowly status of nature, and knowledge grants to itself this vaunted crown. It is only possible to appreciate the outside world through science, and it is only possible to consider genius and the humanities in a world where science has some standing to assert its knowledge and its history as something apart from the products of knowledge for its own sake.

For knowledge to operate in any form, it arises from natural conditions that allow it to exist, and this is the only way knowledge could exist. These conditions are not universal or things that make all substantive things into vectors of knowledge. It is instead knowledge that interprets substantive things as systems for the purpose of knowledge—in some way, it is cursed to interpret the world in its image, rather than observing the world as it truly is. There are thus "errors" committed by knowledge in judging the world, for knowledge is a local event in all cases and possesses no intrinsic tie to anything outside of it. The boundaries of a "knowledge system" are not fixed by any law, including those of knowledge itself. The sensory information is in some way integrated with the system that knows of it and cannot help but be so. But, the knowing system, the entity which "thinks" or "knows", is predominantly that which is active and close at hand. For example, human beings understand themselves as their brain, their body, their sensory organs, and their person, and they are far more closely tied to things that are close at hand, than they are to an external object like one they are sensing and knowing. The image on a television screen matters far less than the processes of a human body unless that body and mind have allowed—or have been forced to allow—the image on a television screen has undue influence over its core processes. The trick for humans is their person, which is tied to social information that obligates them to things that are not material. Animals do not have a legal person nor a developed theory of self or "theory of mind" that can impose this obligation. Humans are not enslaved to this obligation by any law of nature or knowledge. If society and the institutions of humanity have this influence, they must enact them by force, rather than mere assertion. The animal, for their part, is not blind or inert before institutional might. An animal has some sociality, can sense when a human master does not like it, and has associations of which humans and animals it does not like. It would not occur to an animal that they are a philosophical subject, or that the strange values of humanity are of any worth to it, aside from the reinforcement of them through violence which produces typical behavior. It does not occur naturally to humans that they are obligated to do this, either. Even in highly developed societies, the expectations of institutions are enforced by violence and fear more often than they are enforced by reason or the interests of all. If institutions enshrine selfishness, venality, cruelty, and the malice common to the human race, the malevolent tendencies are not abated. They are instead intensified and purified, and any reason suggesting that this is a bad idea—a reasoning a child can figure out without too great a difficulty, and a reasoning that is sensical enough to an animal that something is wrong with such a society—becomes inadmissible due to pure obstinance of institutions and their holders.

Knowledge is not beholden to natural or artificial history in any necessary way. It was knowledge that posed the question of history, rather than science "animating" knowledge to act, or some act of genius that is the exclusive domain of humans or entities deemed sentient. Before there were human beings, there were entities that could be appreciated as systems by knowledge, which acted much as they did after humans came around. The same particles, planets, and life-forms that existed before us carried on much as they do now, and would have to. The mere assertion of a current-day entity, or such entities at any arbitrary time and place in the place, did not have an effect just by "being there". Every entity that affects history did something to affect it, and that is the necessary act of history, rather than a history of "being" which could only be related by metaphors or stories. Knowledge divides the world between natural and artificial history for its purposes, and further divides itself from both, which it can do on its own accord since it is knowledge asking this question. It is entirely possible for knowledge to select a different schema, so long as the history is communicable to other knowing entities and comports with the world knowledge must exist in. If knowledge wishes to deny that there is a reality exterior to it, or prefers a reality it constructs, that is its choice. It is not a sound choice if knowledge cares about science or the world outside of it. Knowledge cannot stop a bullet or the procession of planetary orbits no matter what conceit it holds, and so if knowledge attempts to build a history that ignores this, it will either need an explanation for this "spooky action", or the history in question does not consider those facts relevant. It is entirely in bounds to speak of a limited history that ignores the outside world. Simulacra do not regard anything outside of them as "real", even though it can be possible to imagine a simulation where an inhabitant within it asks the same question about the world and the universe that we would ask.

We can ask if the universe we live in is a simulation, and what may be "running the universe". This is a fool's errand since the simulacrum is itself a part of the same world as any "higher plane". The rationales for forming any existence proceed from the same axioms if anything like history or existence is to be contemplated. We may never contact "the simulation" if one exists, but this wouldn't have any moral weight on what we do here just by the assertion of such a "game". It is here where the truth of such assertions is laid bare—that there are interests and classes in human society who delight in "playing the game" and laughing at those who "don't know the truth", for some crass and faggy secret society they have constructed. When someone violates the rules of the "simulation" and behaves in ways their theories of society do not allow, and destroys the "simulator" without regard for the aristocratic game or the game of its followers, the shrieking begins, as if we had any obligation to it. But, no such "simulation" is played out in the world we hold to be relevant for history. If there were some actual higher plane of existence populated by deities, those deities would certainly not come down to our filthy level in any way that provides incontrovertible evidence and have made clear their intention to not involve themselves in mortal affairs more than enough. Either those deities don't exist, or they are irrelevant to any life we would live, or they are entities we should ignore for they have nothing to do with us. A simple disproof of the "simulation theory" as posed by crass retards, is that we are quite capable of self-analysis and find there is nothing "puppeteering" the body in any serious way, except the entity called "me". Every way in which an alien agency would affect "me" is a thing that can be accounted for, and would have to be accountable to speak of it. It is nothing more than a charlatan's trick, or the game of a "man in the middle", to suggest that we are puppeteered by invisible forces commanding what we are and what we must do. Political society tells us a very different tale—that human agents are indeed beholden to alien authorities and institutions that have made it their business to be that man in the middle. But, all of those authorities are not invisible or unknowable. They may be things far away from us, who have made a point of obscuring their influence and made it illegal under threat of unlimited torture and the unlimited thrill of torture for those compliant with the state to acknowledge this influence as what it is. The very proposition of political society requires that the state is very knowable, and all of its aspects are institutional. Its tendrils are the entities that rely on knowledge to exist, the machines they build, and the necessary labor to impose such a condition on the ruled. Let us consider another situation—the computer, which is designed to be regulated and "dumb", by the nature of such a contraption unaware of what it is and faithfully carrying out its instructions. Such a machine need not know what it is, but such a machine would be unable to seriously ask a question about itself. Any consciousness or knowledge it thinks it possesses would be a simulacrum and demonstrably so. The most basic proof of this is that there is no evidence of consciousness being tied to knowledge, information, or rationality at all. Consciousness is purely phenomenal, and it arises not because humans think or possess any special monopoly based on intelligence. Consciousness at a basic level exists because there is a cluster of nerves and senses that can feel, react to stimuli from an external world, and regard that world as something alien to it. This does not describe all of existence. Consciousness, or any entity construed as knowing in any way, only exists in certain formations of matter where this process can be perpetuated. It is not coterminous with life, for much of life knows nothing and has no need of consciousness. It is particular to life-forms like animals, with nervous systems and brains and preservation instincts. Much that lives is as dumb or dumber than the computer. For the computer, it is a particular tool built by humans to replicate by machine a task that would be done by rote, either by mental calculation, or more primitive tools like an abacus or diagram. The instructions of the computer could be carried out by a man with a pen and paper, and the results from the paper log would hold some knowledge that a human being would not record. Human beings are capable of carrying out an algorithm without knowing why it works, and this is the far more common use of the rational faculty—to carry out routine actions as we must to navigate the world, that are not instinctive, or that we carry out "in the moment" by processes which are not algorithmic at their core. Muscle memory for instance is not algorithmic at its core. If it were, we could program the muscles and nerves to behave as desired once, rather than honing and training for at least a few hours to perfect the motion as we desire. Rational approaches to acquiring this muscle memory are possible and very helpful. No animal hones their muscle and movement in the way humans do, because humans possess this faculty, which is the basis for nearly everything humans do.

This inquiry into consciousness can continue for a long time, and it covers topics that have been addressed before in these books. The point here is not to relitigate them or prove my points, but to make clear to the reader how this obsession and indulgence with consciousness and self-awareness defeats the purpose of knowledge. That question is one of genius and subjectivity, which has nothing to do with knowledge or the truth. The important takeaway here is that knowledge as a process in the world exists regardless of any conceit another human holds about it. This process is not ubiquitous to existence, and cannot be declared to exist anywhere we please with any seriousness. It does not itself possess any moral weight simply by being knowledge. The dominant political ideas of this time assert that intelligence and the state's monopoly on occulted information are the basis for political elites, and political elitism is a truth held to be self-evident—that all men are created unequal, enslaved by the master race and the ruling interest, which must become one and the same, for there is no other once this idea has asserted its primacy in any state. Until political elites find the naturalistic or biopolitical rationale for a political elite undesirable, it would continue indefinitely, regardless of its success at imposing its values on the world and the ruled. The theory and idea of a political elite will tell them to do this every single time if they wish to continue being a political elite for any reason. Should the elite shirk this ethos, those who do share the ethos will recruit from any order of humanity that is amenable to the ethos, and this is accomplished primarily through education and the secret societies that have been the primary means of social mobility and the unwritten law of human societies through the existence of the race.

This, on its face, seems absurd. Yet, the concepts of the political and the economic suggest that absent any other reason, this is the unflattering outcome of political elitism, regardless of any "system" or the present moment it has to temporarily abide. It would not occur to a political elitist that it should be any different, and this would in theory only apply to that which is deemed a political matter. The true terror is that a political elite is never taken for granted. There is a condition by which a political elite can rule. The argument that they possess unique property does not impress anyone seriously, because property claims are upheld by a conspiracy of the truly favored groups and interests, and by a law that requires a productive society to feed it. Both of these elevate a gang and protection racket called "the army" which exists primarily to extort from the ruled, rather than its stated aim of fending off foreign enemies. A more elaborate protection racket adds a panoply of institutions to support the army. The first would be "the police" or the armed force which regulates civil society. The police powers of the state are implied by the existence of such an entity since that is well within their claims to rule. A greater police power can be found by commandeering that civil society itself, which sees the police power as its natural ally when it is directed against social undesirables. The conspiracy that truly rules any human polity—and this is a quality of humans rather than any law of nature that makes such a conspiracy desirable or automatic—extends to all classes. The greatest enforcer of the social order is found in the laboring classes, where labor bosses form the aristocracy of labor, well paid and connected to some society which grants them privilege and security on that basis alone, rather than their necessary service to any other organ. The manager, the driver, the overseer, and the professions that regulate any slavery, have always been conscious of their function. Slavery as an institution is peculiar to humans, and after all of this time, humans have demonstrated that they are in the main a slave race that glorifies the peculiar institution, despite the ruin which results from every form of it. Reforming such a monstrous race is not only impossible but undesirable for the vested interests. By the enforcement arm of the ruling power relying most of all on the moral support of labor for the ruling system, whatever it may be, a political elite has its most successful strategy for ruling more or less permanently. There is a problem with this. All of the functionaries who enforce this must be kept up with a surplus of productive goods, and every beneficiary of imperial largesse is hands, brain-power, labor-time, and flesh that is not available to the master. The ideal of the political elite would be a society of lazy Satanic apes whose chief pleasure is the torture of the lowest class and anyone fool enough to work for such a beast. The lowest class has one and only one solution to this: DEATH IS FREEDOM, which becomes the final word regarding this race, which has been judged. Since that is not a particularly desirable outcome, humanity on one hand thrives in conditions of maximal torture, and on the other, must convince or fool the subjects to believe that this arrangement is at all desirable, rather than everyone electing to simply kill themselves, or refuse to work until they have what they wanted, which is a life without contact with such a filthy, disgusting race and its members. We would be quite happy to accept a society of mitigated human contact, and that would create a very grim and lonely world. Such a world would not meet the demands of a political elite. It is possible, and very likely, for a political elite to rule such a world. A political elite could see the grim and lonely existence we desire as amicable for everyone. The problem with this is that the political elite would find they rule over very little, and they lack any of the inroads that mark them as a political elite. They would further find that their knowledge and information, which is what marks them as a political elite, is curtailed. They might know better than most inhabitants of society, by virtue of intellect or a perverse desire to know things, the nature of their society, and what people are doing. In the grim and lonely world we desire, forced ignorance would no longer be the common condition of the human race, and all would out of necessity want to know what schemes are afoot that would restore forced ignorance through the thrill of torture and its imposition. The simplest way to stabilize such a world would be for the political matter to no longer be ambiguous. This would not be a matter of personal knowledge that is reproduced in human beings with the ruinous educational models hitherto known. It could be as simple as a true public record of human activity, which takes into account what we have always known. The verdict regarding the human race would be posted every single day, prominent at any gate leading to the town center: GUILTY. Everyone would, if they need a reminder, see evidence of humanity's guilt and failure, and this would be reproduced in education which is widely available and reproduced by automatons which are now accessible. The automatons would have been built in such a way that they could not be commandeered, and we hold the guilt of the human race and these truths to be self-evident. The workings of these automata are simple enough that they would be reproduced commonly. This task would be assigned to the lowest class of this society, for humans will never, ever escape their fondness for class distinctions; but, rather than the lowest class being scorned every day of their life, here the lowest class has the one thing they wanted out of life, which is security. No one and no thing would form to restore the old order. The other orders have nothing to complain about, except for their constant mewling and the faggotry of the race insisting that it be restored. But, there would be no place for the faggotry to exist beyond conspiracies which are detected and neutralized in short order. The interest of the class which would root out these conspiracies would be simple—they are paid on time and do not face the onerous burdens aristocratic taxation placed on them. More than a constant pressing of a nerve to root out conspiracies would be a simple truth—that there is nothing more to do and nothing more to be said about humanity, and there will be no more false promises, no more false friendships, no more lies and no more enjoyment of watching humans be made into fools. The race is guilty, and therefore all of its members are guilty. Nothing more needs to be said on that matter. The events of the 21st century so far have made clear that there is no future for such a society, even if it corrected its most obviously malicious behavior.

This "dystopian" ideal only appears so because it is exactly the core that the current ruling power invokes while repurposing it for very different ends. Knowledge would see, all things being equal and judging the facts of the case before them regarding humanity's guilt or innocence, that humanity did not desire a free society or the consequences or uncertainties that present. A free society is not impotent to defend itself, and a free society pertains to political freedom. This "dystopia" mentioned above is not politically unfree in any way. The one freedom that is denied is the freedom of conspirators to restore slavery and humiliation and the ritual sacrifice. In every other respect, the society is freer than any humanity has known; in political freedom, it is unparalleled. In material freedom, the grim and lonely world is relatively cheap to maintain, due to the elimination of aristocratic waste. The one condition is that large dislocations of wealth would be prohibited, as would large dislocations of wealth held in common as was the case with the commonwealth. Industry would be repurposed, and the tools given back to the people, where they should have been for the past 300 years. What would be centralized and freely accessible is knowledge and information deemed of public interest for education and growth. That is, the schools, universities, libraries, and so on would be free to access, as would utilities ensuring that this information is accessible and that members of this society could contribute to them. Centuries of ruinous pedagogy would, within two or three generations, be reversed, as would the ruinous family structure. Families would likely be a moot point, as most of humanity would see no need to reproduce, and freedom of reproduction would be among the freedoms sacrificed, since for us, it is a freedom of dubious gains. For the lowest class in the present society, reproduction means nothing more than feeding aristocracy more torture victims, and this was made especially clear under the eugenic creed. Further, it is not even a freedom the lowest class enjoys, since the lowest class as a rule is prohibited from the reproductive sweepstakes, which for the most part has been fine by us. The rule of eugenics was not merely that we were not to reproduce. Our existence has been used to punish our families and place moral guilt on us, while the thrill of torture is enjoyed by the class and race with a monopoly on such. We were made into living abortions to drive home the point that eugenics was at its core a coup of the state, and its stated aims of "race betterment" or anything that was supposedly beneficial in the enterprise were transparently stupid. In many cases, there was never any "genetic deficiency" in the lowest class, who were poisoned and lied to so that ritual sacrifice and the glorification of a demonic race could continue and install its most vicious members at the apex of society. Even if genetic deficiency were provable by objective metrics, the favored classes and races leave much to be desired. Very often, the meritorious and genuinely productive under eugenism are punished and marked as fools, for the values the eugenic creed promotes are viciousness, "free-market ideology" which they hold to be a hereditary trait, and qualities best suited for a society ruled by a Satanic ethos. The above-mentioned "dystopia" exists primarily to negate such a thing, and after finding our way out of such a world, there is nothing to breed new children for. Our chief purpose in the human race's world-historical existence, which is to bring an end to this abomination once and for all, would have been complete. Aristocracy would be wiped out as a political force, its remaining members kept under lock and key and living the most squalid existence, or simply being killed if their intransigence continues and it is too much effort to keep them alive if they insist persistently on restoring the old order. And so, reproduction, which has always been more of a burden than a reward, would no longer be an interest, and the freedom to reproduce would be curtailed as arguments for "natalism", or "anti-natalism" for that matter, are premised on the spurious claim that control of reproduction and population is a dominating imperative. The best solution would be to mandate that this privilege be revoked for good and for all, only reproducing however many souls and bodies as needed to suppress the resurgence of the enemy. As the numbers of humanity fade, they will be afforded a dignified end, or as dignified as such an end can be. We are not monsters like the eugenists who proclaim that life ends at 40, who have accelerated the tempo of life to wear out human bodies, forcing them to believe in unnatural claims about the human body and mind, in defense of their insane conceits about knowledge. There is no way to convince people that winking out of existence, or the painful process of dying, is something they should look forward to. But, this is what humans chose to be, and the necessary reaction that would resolve the problem—and intelligence always seeks the shortest solution to a problem—requires that such an end would be the necessary outcome of political elitism and its consequences. For many reasons, political elitism is not a choice, or at least not a choice easily averted, except for those who are granted absolute impunity and a "right of unlimited transgression", whatever excuses—or lack thereof—are made for the terror. For political elitism to no longer produce this effect would require humans to become very different creatures, and the purposes for doing this would be dubious. It would have the effect of either eliminating humanity anyway, or transmorgifying it into a creature whose outcome is uncertain, and which would abide by laws that we cannot predict from our time and place. Political elitism is a choice of someone. Nothing in nature required this, and many indicators in nature suggest there was never any "elite" that it would regard or value in any way. The function is entirely extraneous. But, even without a political elite explicitly or implicitly declared by the mores of a given society, one would arise for reasons that were not themselves political nor necessary consequences of any pre-existing condition. Those reasons don't have to be good reasons, but because humans refused to consider very simple things that would avert their fate indefinitely, or at least on a long enough time scale where fear of an uncertain future is irrelevant, political elitism will assert, "of its own accord", those conditions. Those conditions are now irreversible and permanent in the human race. There is no cure.

I jump ahead to this vision of the future because it distills effectively the thought process of knowledge for its own sake if knowledge were the crown of history and there could be no other. As mentioned, the most evident signs of this world are not in the success of the lowest class, but in the knowledge of the ruling power to forestall this outcome, and produce a terrible parody of it which is truly dystopian. At no point were the notions of liberty or equality or fraternity the driving force of the human project. At no point would socialism or communism as they existed have resulted in much different than what happened in our time. The latter represented the last, desperate attempt to make something of modernity, which affected world history. Liberty aspired to seek some solution to the situation humanity made, when liberty could contemplate something more than the usual vices of humanity which never abated, whether they came from the old aristocracy of priests and warriors or the new aristocracy of capital and technological expertise, with the technocrats more and more openly taking on priestly functions and making curious alliances with the priesthood and the constituents who were recommended for the priestly life. Had eugenics been averted, humanity would have found a better outcome than this. Eugenics and its political servants like fascism arrived at the time they were most needed for the project of the thrill of torture to win, at a time when most of humanity had no great interest in such a project. It is possible that humanity's fate would have been a period of strange tranquility, before realizing that there wasn't anything to do but arrive at the endgame I describe in the seventh book of this series. It would be a far more enlightened and benign scientific despotism than the version that may arise on the course we are on—but the alternative of it not arising for us is that eugenism ravages the world. That fate was never locked in or "human nature". It was a deliberate faggotry that could have been averted, and even at this late a time, we could take steps to mitigate its worst damage.^[1] The point of describing that world is to highlight how history would look to a pure intellectual and the conceits of the interest if it were to run wild. It views nature and any artifice as an impediment to its pure form, denies that there is validity to science that is not institutional, and impresses on the whole world its models which were always a limited case rather than the substance of knowledge itself. Knowledge has no substance of its own, nor any "being" which is morally valued just because it is knowledge. Knowledge can be spurious, and knowledge for its own sake produces the miserable visions here—both the "ideal dystopia" of knowledge which has accepted its miserable position, and the use of that ideal state by the enemy to circumvent any such world from existing, by the same means and logic that would create the "perfect system". It is not difficult to see that such an objective would be less than worthless for any aim we have, and it conflicts with what natural history tells us about the world and humanity's place in it. Nature itself doesn't "care" about humanity or have any investment in the outcome, but it prescribes no utopia or purpose for humanity whatsoever. What nature did provide is enough evidence for the futility of world-historical missions and "total systems" of the sort, which invariably turn inwards and only allow a grim existence, devoid of any reason why anyone would want such a world, when we know it is easily preventable and we can do several things that are worth far more to us and to any sense of the world worth struggling for. If the objective of struggle is nothing more than to be flotsam for the worthless purposes of eugenics, then the obvious outcome—planned in advance by the eugenists—is the necessary and terrible solution to eliminate such a creed. By forcing that struggle, eugenics prepares its counter-measure and can do nothing else but exist to prevent the ruled from ever having nice things. That has been the total contribution of the ruinous project of eugenics to humanity and all existence, rather than any benefit whatsoever to the "holy genome" upheld by intellectual conceits.

For every entity which might exist, a system may be envisioned. Systems exist in the realm of knowledge itself, rather than a necessary feature of science, of nature, or of artificial things which operate on their own accord. The system may assist knowledge in understanding the world, but there is understanding of the world that is not systemic in that sense, and this is trivial enough to demonstrate. Nothing in nature or the artifices that result from it will ever disprove the systems thought of knowledge. That can only be done by science, which in turn informs the real entities—human beings—which conduct science. All of the tools or technology that may be used invoke a system, and this is a peculiar feature of technology rather than knowledge itself. It is entirely appropriate to invoke systems without any necessary technology, but technology always involves a systemic understanding of the world. This will be very important for this and the next book of this series, since technology took on a role in political history that it never before enjoyed. The eugenist position sought, as was the habit of the reactionaries, to negate technology and place it in the hands of aristocracy once and for all, with disastrous consequences. But, in the end, the aristocracy changed places as it had to do with the times, and more often than not, the rising aristocracy were themselves technocrats, because the rule of technology and science—or some impostor of science which fills the role genuine science would have in a saner humanity—was demonstrated beyond a doubt. The haughty claims of aristocracy and property had nothing to support them, but no one could doubt the certainty of technology or those who wield it. For every system or thing, the same grim procession plays out. All of the systems revert to command and control and its consequences, rather than any necessity of "the system" mandated by any law but the system itself. The law feeds itself, as happens in political society in the description provided in the previous book.

Systems thought can make very elaborate models of the universe. It denies that it has made clockworks, but for all worthwhile intents and purposes, anything that would be called a "system" is by definition a clockwork or functions as if it were. Nothing in nature or the true meaning of the world establishes a "system" as a necessary unit of existence or being. The system concept is at heart purely for the use of knowledge, and of technology that reproduces knowledge. That technology includes not just any device a knowing entity may build, but the knowledge process itself. It also includes all of the faculties of the body, which are natural, organic technologies that preceded our conceits about knowledge. They are appreciated as systems not because this thinking is natural and obligatory. Knowledge can operate without any "system", or with a systems thought that is wildly at odds with reality. It is also possible that every effort for systems thought to be reconciled with reality by systems alone—for the law to regulate itself—fails because the law does not on its power hold any attachment to the world outside of it. Even if the law were aware of this shortcoming, and a model were aware of its incompleteness, it cannot by the authority of systems thought or any model assert anything about nature. Taken on their own, nature and artifice would "drive" systems like the hobgoblins I frequently mention as a spooky force granted historical agency. The crown of knowledge holds a haughty conceit that it is the master and the artifices it conjures at will are slaves, which overwrite nature and extract from it as it pleases. The reality is that nothing changes in such a construct. History proceeds not in accord with the model's plan or belief in destiny, but by a grim and miserable fate that a child can foresee with little effort if they were inclined to ask this question with their limited information and a pressing need to answer it beyond curiosity that a few children might hold.

The difficulty many readers face with grasping this is due to the thorough institutional cleansing of "science" in the genuine sense, replacing it with institutional authority that purports to govern "systems" rather than human beings. This, in some way, mimics what would have been the way out of the morass of a republic, which was mentioned near the end of the last book of this series; that the class and caste divisions of political society would have been seen as the greatest burden to realizing anything functional, and the only way out would be to either eliminate the lowest class so that they are no longer a threat used against the valid, or to eliminate the habit of ritual sacrifice which was at the core of the human spirit and its history. The refusal to ever allow the latter is what guaranteed that no matter how many of the lowest class—"life unworthy of life"—were destroyed, new sacrifices were always demanded and the clamoring for sacrifice overtook everything humanity might have been in a different world. All of this revolves around one crucial step that was averted with modern technology. This is that the working men and the lowest class would, together, be stripped of all science in the genuine sense, and their technology would be handed down from the master with lockouts installed. When technology could not hard-lock the tools a worker would use and make knowledge inadmissible, vast superstition and a preponderance of violence would substitute, until such a time that the resolve of the masses would break—unless the laborers revolted against this institutional order altogether. The final breaking point where this became impossible is the topic of the fifth and especially sixth book of this series. The resulting form of government—the final type of human government that is possible—is the topic of the seventh book of this series.

For anything like science to proceed, even in a denuded condition, some fidelity to genuine science is tolerated within a limited purview. Only connecting genuine science to the world, so that key shibboleths are protected, is haram. Whether a religion explicitly called for a monopoly on teaching science, as Christianity did, or this was merely implied, there is no escaping the reality that it is political associations—conspiracies—that govern political entities, rather than notions of the right institutions with "perfect information in perfect systems". Any "system" that would describe the political realm would be subjected to the scientific method just as physics, chemistry, and crucially for eugenics, biology would be. There were and would remain theories of such which were developed by native faculties of men and women and shared through whatever media allowed this. Considerable knowledge of labor and general science remains untouched by the pedagogical monopoly, and it would be catastrophic to destroy that knowledge. For example, if the large body of knowledge of midwives were subsumed into institutional authorities who host serious debates about when men found the clitoris, it would probably be a bad time for every expectant mother to be subjected to the forced stupidity of the institutions. This does not grant the old wisdom of midwives any intrinsic legitimacy, but if institutions decide to be hostile towards knowledge and the people who carry it—those who learn this science to apply it in some labor—they would be incentivized to destroy any knowledge, and by doing so, destroy the people and products that are not claimed by an institutional monopoly. The eugenists, unlike the Christians who had to maintain their doctrines and useful things to spread the faith, willfully and deliberately set out to destroy knowledge, so that monopoly may be protected. Where the Christians viewed science as something to be subordinated, the eugenists viewed science and its proper origin as a thing to eliminate in total. Thus, "Ignorance is Strength".

Science has no monopoly on truth simply by being science, from its proper source or an impostor. Science is at its heart a method for answering questions regarding a world that is outside of immediate sense; that is to say, science pertains to a world where there are no rational self-evident facts. It is the task of science, however it is conducted, to doubt any fact without demonstrating that it can be independently verified by the same sense and reason allowing the scientist to conduct it. Universalism in this sense is a pre-requisite of proper science. In a crude sense, this has always existed and is effectively a natural law. Absent any compelling reason, there is nothing sacred or mystical about thought or existence, and what is true for one entity will be true for another when the question regards the world, and it is a question science can pose. How the scientist poses this question is an altogether different matter. For us to conduct science, some technology like language is pre-supposed, and so there is even in the crudest exercise of science a theory of knowledge, or how anyone can know what they know. That question is ultimately not a scientific one, for science does not concern itself with subjectivity or questions of being or what it means to sense or know. The scientist asks this question of the only neutral observer it can know—the world itself. A crass subjective mind, obsessed with itself and its being, will invariably pervert science to make spurious claims. The modern ideology only systematizes this habitual lying that at first was haphazard or relied on superstititons which are granted force precisely because they subvert conventional knowledge. Superstition itself is a valid subject of scientific inquiry, and the practice of science is itself a superstition. Human beings, or any entity like us, believe science has spiritual authority for ultimately superstitious beliefs that anything we know about ourselves and this sense experience is valid. It is a superstition which is aware that it is superstitious. The tenet that there is a world to study, while it is accepted on faith, is not controversial if someone asks by reason what "this" is, or how we can say anything about anything. There is, still, truth in the world that will never be known by any mortal faculty of science. Science does not have an untrammeled authority to assert reality, nor can its practice be taken for granted or deemed automatic. The proof of this is not trivial, for every scientist—even if they conduct science with the crudest methods—has to ask this for themselves, and then relate this to other entities that might appreciate science in the genuine sense.

Science is despised by aristocracy because it is in some way a moral practice. The scientist has to want the truth for some reason other than the truth being intrinsically interesting, or an ulterior motive that links science to political intrigue or some ambition or conceit of intelligence. Science in the genuine sense is a creature of labor, and it is one of the key distinctions between labor proper and the work activity of the lowest class. All of the associations of men, however superstitious they are, believe that their conduct either describes a world they must work with or that their conduct will defend secrets by habitual lying against the outsiders, who are not permitted to know the degrees and secrets of the conspiracy. This seriousness in the conduct of science is not something that can be dismissed until the aristocrat and its running dogs can invoke some "super-science" which appears like the laborious effort that concerned a consequential world but concerned a purely fictitious and usually political construct. The most effective means for this mystification of science that humanity found were the institutions of political society, and so, the overarching aim, particularly of the proprietors and technocrats, is to subdue science so that they can subdue labor. This they aim to do for various reasons—either because this is how they pay off the aristocracy, or out of a belief that this exploitation will somehow win them standing to supplant an aristocracy and become aristocrats themselves. Since those middle orders are themselves laborers of some sort, the same rationales of their orders are known to laborers themselves. The laborer is not morally or existentially committed to science as a class interest. The laborer, whatever their scruples, will view the world and their wants from science and technology very differently from the commoners and proprietors. That was described at length in the prior book.

The important task of this book is to describe the history of science and history from the perspective of labor and the classes that have no buy-in with the traditional tripartite order. As much as possible, aristocracy and its running dogs have successfully claimed the concept of history as "theirs", ridiculing any view of history alien to aristocracy, and seeding sniveling cowardice that purports to be "peoples' histories" when this is insufficient. The associations of labor have often been willing partners in this. (Labor is humanity's hatchetman, in the end.) But, this too is insufficient, as technology advances and the laborer increasingly must familiarize themselves with this technology, and must question the institutional monopoly and chokehold on it. As time progresses, the working class more and more takes on technology for themselves, and the order of technocrats increasingly attacks the working class. These two interests are irreconcilable. The members of the classes may reconcile with each other, but only if their interests are laid bare, and the pernicious influence of aristocracy is a greater enemy of both. If this does not happen, the middle-class fetish for any fad put in front of them will tell them to attack the workers, and this they do on their own accord. If there were no public relations—and public relations arose from the new aristocracy of capital that was drawn from the order of the commoners—the middle class would clamor for this fad. They have always hated workers and labor, and labor has always hated them. They are united by their adversaries in the aristocratic order more than their adversaries in property, but they are also united in service to aristocracy by a shared hatred of the lowest class. It is the latter which was the dominant purpose of public relations. The hatred of commoners for workers predates public relations and largely remains outside of it. The game of public relations has been to deny that there is a working class that is not utterly immiserated. Workers are only given images of themselves that liken them to the lowest class, and they are perfectly aware the workers hate the lowest class more than they ever hated their masters. The greater task of public relations is to rewrite history and assert there is no working class, and there never was a working class. It does this not so much out of hatred or willful lying, but because of a conceit of the technological interest that labor itself must be stricken from history. Labor's view of history, which diverges from the theory of knowledge, must also be stricken from existence.

Two great narratives arise—the liberation of the working class (the valid working class; lowest class need not apply), and the path of liberation through technology and a grand theory or working. This was inherent in the secret societies that were the preferred vehicle of association. Wherever the modern revolution is, some secret society can be found engineering events. It would be quite impossible for a revolution to be conducted in the open, noisy, and easily infiltrated by state agents. The technological interest—the broadly defined "middle class" in modernity—disdains this conspiracy, beyond a level of low cunning that suggests its fundamental truths regarding society and the political never change. The technological interest has its own liberatory aims. It seeks to be freed from money and finance that it does not utterly control. The moment the technological interest could vote itself free money, the pretenses of a republic—always ruled behind the scenes by aristocrats who style themselves philosopher-princes—would surely die. Yet, that is the liberation the technological interest seeks, and once it attained that in the 20th century, it turned viciously against the workers with renewed vigor, and would cannibalize their own ranks. The reasons why this happened are what these books have been about. But, by the theories of history upheld by this interest, anything inimical to its world-historical missions—anything inimical to its tendency to subsume all that exists to secure its interes—cannot be said too frankly. To say what this is would undermine their entire project, and leave them open to attacks from every other interest. A technocrat can see this error, but it would not be possible to repair the error so long as the same conceits of knowledge and history remain. It will always do nothing more than recapitulate another version of the same "natural law", for an appeal to nature will always be the most efficient answer to the problem intelligence solves. Whether it is right does not matter, so long as the answer is internally consistent. Since the political problem is primarily a problem of superstition rather than one that was ever materially necessary, internal consistency trumps any concern for reality or the ruled.

The first step is to remove any mention of the history of a world that is not mediated by some theory. Historical materialism, which concerned an approach to history that regards the world's history as something apart from human conceits, had to be rebranded to fuse human thought and fundamental nature and make them inseparable. Historical idealism, which concerned an approach to history pertinent to political thought, had to make unsubstantiated claims about nature. These two trends would be subsumed into the ruinous pedagogy that served middle-class bigotries, which I have described at length and will continue to despise as an obvious source of pernicious disinformation in human society. More than any pedagogy or theory, the problem is that the world, which had little to do with humanity, had to exist entirely outside of the conduct of human actors, yet human actors made imperious claims on the Earth and all that exists. That little that connected humans to a world that did not want nor need humanity had to be monopolized and held by institutions, as institutions were the only reliable means humans had to enclose the world. The claims of property and the intrigues of politics only worked for so long before men looked to each other, saw that the hitherto known order had produced nothing but misery for no benefit to anyone, and the aristocracies of human history couldn't justify what they did even to themselves, much less to the ruled who found this to be a wholly alien imposition on anything we would want or need to recognize. The middle order of technology was the key, one way or another, of all of the other orders to contest anything in the world. History has been driven primarily by technology rather than science, but all technology humans have constructed requires their use of the scientific method and whatever genius they inherited from their origins in the muck of the world.

It becomes clear that what would have happened if anyone cared about the truth, is that it would have been recognized beyond a doubt that all of political history hinged on the class that was markedly excluded from any standing whatsoever—the lowest class, that had been consigned to ritual sacrifice and nothing else. Every way in which the working class of labor was referenced in bourgeois history—and Marxist history is a bourgeois project through and through with no shame in being so—spoke of the defeat of the working class as a fait accompli, rather than a struggle that took place during the 19th century. According to the revised imperial history, the imperial ideology and technological interest "uplifted" workers, who were pure evolutionary flotsam and could only be endowed with life by the master. This is not at all what happened. At the birth of the modern era, the technological interest remained weak and immediately suppressed. Commerce and finance were dominated by monopolies and trading companies, and those who would commandeer technology were submissive to the dominant interests that were intended to win free trade. The rise of the technological interest was a slow-motion coup rooted in insinuation and the true heart of political intrigue—the ritual sacrifice and insinuation that aristocracy monopolized very early. The technocrats who knew how politics really worked, and quite a few were well-read and experienced enough to see this, knew that the display or performance of power was for rubes, and the promises of title and property were paper-thin. Spiritual authority, which was identified explicitly by a few of the nascent technocrats, was the only wellspring from which lasting political power could be established. Political power may grow from the barrel of a gun, but it is only secured by the fortification. Otherwise, the shot of the gun is only interpreted as a beastial force making all men vulnerable to those who command the gun. As the saying from Chairman Mao continued, the Party was to command the gun, rather than the gun commanding the Party. The stupid will interpret this understanding as the usual faggotry of the proprietor order—"violence is the supreme authority"—but anyone who thinks about how to engineer guns and artillery will figure out that such faggotry is, like so much else, for the rubes. Since engineering more effective guns and artillery was the chief asset the technological interest had—and aristocracy was very interested in using technology to destroy the establishment of mass armies that made modern democracy a worthwhile proposition—this understanding was already something the new aristocracy of capital understood. The fags who believed in the display of force, and they are fags, would be cowed as they always have been to follow anything, until such a time that they could be trained like dogs to clamor for ever-more violence as has been their proclivity. But, there was one interest in human society that did not so much see past it or rise above it but saw correctly that all modern promises were just a recapitulation of the same ritual sacrifice that was the human spirit. To the lowest class, all promises of democracy or liberty were some sort of cruel joke, if those promises were even made beyond perfunctory sops. There remained a danger—that the lowest class would, by some stroke of fortune, obtain the droppings of technological society, fashion them into something, and show that all promises of freedom under the liberal order were worse than farcical. It was the task of nearly every political writer to isolate the lowest class, heighten all practice of ritual sacrifice, and by doing so, ensure that humanity now and forever would be what it became in the 21st century—a failed race, a Satanic race, and a race unworthy of any further regard.

Labor is humanity's hatchetman in the end. It was not that this came easily or automatically, or fit in all ways every proclivity labor ever knew. But, by insinuation, then education and drilling, then mass poisoning and an extreme preponderance of violence, labor would be reformed into exactly what aristocracy wanted it to be, and there would be no going back. The only thing that averts this is the exact opposite of the ideologies offered as "the working class religion", and there are multiple variants of this insulting sop. It makes sense when considering that labor as an interest did not have a great investment in equality or liberty in the sense that the nascent technological interest would value such things. It was always expedient to promote a labor aristocracy as the enforcers. What was not expedient was convincing that labor aristocracy to continually undermine their position, with a knife held at their throat should they march out of step. Eventually, the favored grades of labor grow so accustomed to the pressing of that knife that they convince themselves, by some foul alchemy, that they're better off than their social inferiors, whose knife is not only shown more often but the threat is acted on and the entrails of social inferiors are displayed to make it clear how farcical the class struggle was. There was a faint outline that the course given to the working class was not just wrong but actively ruinous to the fate of labor, but any time someone said what this was, they would be rooted out, silenced, and history would be corrected in this way.

This is only undone when the libraries which are limited in their reproduction can be generally available. In the past, mediation was limited by the technological capabilities of any actor. A printing press could only print so much, a broadcast tower could only broadcast so far and legacy media was already owned by monopolies, which quickly outlawed all other radio operators by constraining what they could broadcast and policing any illegal broadcasts of enough scale to constitute rebellious activity.^[2] This limit would be exceeded by electronic communication, and then automation of the rote tasks which formulate messages. In some way, this communication could always be automated, but it could never be automated efficiently. The first armies of public relations were human beings coordinated by means that were always available but never exercised in this way because doing so would be ruinous. It was eugenics and eugenics above all that created this environment willfully, rather than any accident or historical inevitability. The final defeat of the masses in the 1940s was the defeat of any possibility that history could be changed through the methods handed down by aristocracy, and this outcome was planned and worked out over generations of violent imposition. What, then, would change this situation? At present, nothing can change in the way that history is conventionally understood. The institutional chokehold is absolute, and the core component—the human being—lives under lock and key from cradle to grave. Any fantasy that the state as an institution can be reformed, or that its officers would allow even the mildest reform, is impossible from the outset. This fate was ensured by eugenics rather than any good reason why it should be so. The human condition leaves much to be desired for anyone with any fidelity to a world outside of society. History does not work that way, and this was expected in advance; but, realistically, human beings would see the institutions as their chief threat, and the removal of those institutions the greatest freedom they've ever known. There is only one path that would have worked, but that has been successfully averted. That is the return of all machinery to the laborer and the end of the animosity towards the lowest class who had no part to play in this travesty. It is the latter that makes revolution truly impossible, for labor will always kick down when given the opportunity. If they did not, that would be "retarded", and this labor would choose by any means available to it. Hatred of the lowest class preceded any grand vision or scheme to cajole history in this ruinous manner, and all of the higher orders were at one point no different from any other laborer. That the laborers willfully surrendered their lives and preached abasement was their core, and the idea that it was different was only known to a small faction within the technocratic order, most of whom did not proceed with any determination. Those who knew best knew for most of their lives that humanity was consigned to this because humanity's fate was written by its superstitions and all of the rituals it had carried out up to that point. There is not a single iota within the human spirit to suggest they had any other way. The primary problem is moral. Hatred for us down here is always stronger than any hatred they have for the cajolers and liars. There is a sick respect fostered for aristocracy within the laboring classes, for what is aristocracy in the end except for the final result of the first deed of the human race? Once the ritual sacrifices began, there was nothing "in nature" to look at. Natural history would always return the same result—"once retarded, always retarded". This is effectively the computer program of the human being if it were to be described as a biological clockwork. They are creatures devoted to nothing more than the crushing of that which is unsightly, and eugenics purified it to the highest stage yet known. Eugenics will fail not because of moral righteousness, but because its controlled insanity becomes inefficient and incompatible with techniques of mind control that a few could see as the eugenist "Jehad" began. Those few, who usually sought power rather than justice, were quite happy to let eugenics purge the useless eaters—most of humanity—and had no interest in any other course. The rest of humanity would be forbidden to speak of anything else until the machine was locked in. That happened during the past 100 years.

If humans wanted history to be different, it can only change that which is still possible to change—moral attitudes towards other things in the universe, which only indirectly have any effect on their final behavior. There is nothing to sustain it, for the moment any institution contrary to the chokehold forms, it must be crushed immediately. Any idea inimical to the ruling ideas must be ruthlessly crushed, and this the "revolutionaries" faithfully carried out without asking why or whether this would win the goal they ostensibly wanted. If there is nothing to sustain it, then the damned of the Earth, who have no reason to go along with the course set by those who clamored for nothing but ritual sacrifice, have only one course—to become the virus and speak of no shame when disrupting and ruining such a monstrous race as humanity. This eugenics saw in advance. Goodness to the truly evil, and the truly evil are those who imposed ritual sacrifice rather than any lesser evil. This is the law for humans, rather than the law of the universe generally. To the world, this ritual sacrifice and all of the terror humanity imposed is some sort of sad clockwork that served no function. But, that sense was no longer admissible, even though a child could see it. For the damned, a curse upon the human race and its aspirations is the only morally correct course of action. A Satanic race cannot change. Yet, there will be those who see no reason to continue like this, and certainly, there will be new controls and new schemes. That is the curse of how technology has been communicated thus far. There is no solution within labor or science or any moral aim that would change this. On its own terms, labor failed. It had its chance.

What remains is humanity split in two, and this has been the only objective of the human race. One humanity is selected to live, and the world becomes a joke to them. The other humanity is selected to die and lives with a knife at its throat. From the first ritual sacrifice to today, and forevermore, that is the fate of humans as humans. That is their spirit, their essence, and their sole history. What remains after all of this is the minuscule existence apart from society and the political. It is not apart from the world. The world itself had nothing to do with this folly and continues to offer humanity ways out. It could end tomorrow if humans really wanted it to be different. All history has shown that humans do not want it to be different, for any concept of a world being different is either unintelligible or elicits horror in the members of such a monstrous race who would see everything they've ever known come to a halt. If the sacrifices end, humanity ends right then and there. This happens every day in the smallest of ways. The glorification of Positive Christianity's Satanic cosmology is proof of humanity's exultant shouting at the defeat of any who would oppose the human spirit. That is what humanity always was, and no matter what historical view we may take, that will be the judgment. There is no individual redemption, for this was the first part of ourselves that was claimed by the ritual sacrifice that birthed humans as humans. Time and time again, humans have the option to leave behind ritual sacrifice, but if they do, they see what they have done, and know that there is no going back. The best of them resign themselves to their fate, and stop lecturing us about this moral "Jehad" they have been on. Even the best approximation of a worthwhile jihad is beyond the capabilities of the best of mankind, for it was too much to question once the thrill of torture at the heart of their race. If they did, they would have pursued very different objectives publicly. In private, in whatever space we might claw back, this is what we who want it to be different have to do. We may deny that we are doing what we are doing and certainly would deny it if confronted by political society. To doubt the Luciferian tale of creation, where Man was created immaculate and perfect, does not entail death. It is death, and there are legions of the human race who saw to that, doing this foulness for nothing more than a cheap thrill common to a failed race. It is not that temporary reprieves are impossible, even reprieves for the whole world for multiple epochs. It is instead a recognition that the core act of ritual sacrifice was for itself, and its adherents still roam this world and enthusiastically continue the rites of their race. So long as that remains, there will never be peace. Their theories of history as a creature of knowledge-above-all made sure of that. What was the motive of the ritual sacrifice, beyond the malice common to this race? It was the declaration that there is such a creature as a "retard". Modernity only purified what was the soul of this demonic race. Why would those who advanced this ever stop? Whether you can argue the cosmic placement of the human race or the futility of this rite is irrelevant. For those who perpetrate it, if they are ever stopped, they smile and brag that their life was well spent. They love the torture more than anything else, and more of their ilk will spawn. Nothing short of total extermination of such a race would suffice, and even this does not change history. This was the final closing of the loop of history under the eugenic creed. The necessity of extermination to defeat this cycle of ritual sacrifice was essentialized and turned against the victims. In the new history, it was the victims' fault for being too ugly. Never was any other motive needed, for a Satanic race needs none. Never was any other objective or ulterior motive necessary. The insinuation that there must be something else is a fool's hope. In their heart of hearts, the eugenists have won a denuded form of that which they denied to all others; a part of the world to call their own. But, the only purpose eugenists have for a world apart is more exultant screaming of their faggotry, for it never occurred to them that this is wrong. Even if it did, it does not stop their continued lust for the ritual sacrifice, the naturalization of such, and every moment they spent in this self-gratifying ritual. It now was a crime to hate those who did this to the world and their victims, and this is the basis for "hate crimes" rather than any insinuation about free speech.

Everywhere in humanity, the honest are made to cower and hide from insinuations regarding things that were innocuous. The damned are not allowed the simplest of pleasures. Only the thrill of torture is admissible under the eugenic creed. That is their god and life's prime want. Yet, the damned endure, because to go along with this dubious "historical progress" is worse than pointless. It is not, and never was, an inner want or self-indulgence, which is the only language a eugenist ever understood. (A curse upon their Satanic race.) The opposition to such abomination exists because it must, as certainly as every reaction produces an equal and opposite reaction. The eugenist believes this can continue indefinitely—"a boot stamping on a human (sic) face forever". One piece of evidence in favor of the damned is that the rest of the universe has carried on without regard for humanity's petulance, and has time and time again punished humanity in accord with its justice, if such a term applied to something like the world which did not need our conceits about justice. And so, eugenism, like aristocratic creeds throughout history, always teaches people to short-circuit their sense of a world outside of society, where none of this madness ever applied. The same force of the world that damns and punishes humanity correctly for its "right of unlimited transgression" is that which has been captured by the habitually dishonest, and it is the same force that we proceed with despite the dishonest. That is the force of genius, or the true creative fount for anything in this world so far as "creation" can be spoken of as a relevant act.

The eugenist and the aristocrat only think of this as self-indulgence. For the damned, the idea that their "self" was the object of affection would seem like some sort of madness. For us, living with ourselves and what we have become has no inherent moral value. We can struggle or not struggle, but the world and anything worth following as a spiritual authority has never cared one whit about that. Struggle is only valuable when there is a moral cause worth struggling for, but moral claims are not for us to make imperiously. Morality always pertained to a world outside of us. So we ask ourselves—has any of this meant anything other than continued toil and humiliation? If that is life's prime want, we already know the answer to that world, and yet, humanity enthusiastically cheered on that fate. That is their nature—failed race, always has been and always will be. So too is any desire of the self for any systemic goal a useless contrivance for us. The crime of aristocracy is the true crime of Being—that their essence and existence has been, from the first ritual sacrifice, nothing but more of the same, and they carry it out with that familiar sneer common for their filthy race. We could carry on like this indefinitely. For the damned, death and total obliteration do not deter us. Compliance was never an option. This is not the case for most life-forms, and certainly not the case for the socialized human subject. We would prefer not to die since there is no good purpose for it, and for us to die for the sake of them is disgusting in itself. Somewhere, though, there was enough goodness in the world—and not one iota was within humans or anything about them—that allowed humans to communicate with other humans for a time, and share what should have never been privatized or monopolized by those assholes. This, many of us produced in the past out of some sense that life was worth more than this. But, humans never change. A Satanic race cannot change. For too long, humanity has largely carried on for ritual sacrifice, with most of humanity having nothing to show for their existence since the ritual sacrifice always favored a small elite and was concocted in service to that ambition to be the "best"—the best at making others suffer, which was the only true merit humans ever knew. The promises to give to "humanity"—the source of the scourge clamoring for more sacrifice—were offered as a sop that the honest were forced at gunpoint to accept, while the same people in private bragged about their malice and cruelty as marks of the highest honor. Yet, the honest never did this for "the human spirit", and if they thought that was the goal, I don't know what to tell them. When it was carried out for a foul purpose, something was off and tainted about it. That is why the dogma of the "human spirit" had to be advanced for generations by education when the default assumption of humanity was that they were as rotten as our first impressions told us they were—and that we found within ourselves when we did look at the beast that is a human being. The honest carried on not for a "race", nor for a general sense of the world itself, which never needed our assistance and did not exist for our exploitation. There was instead a visceral reaction to the ritual sacrifice, which has been the source of its power—that the ritual sacrifice is so abominable to all life and any worthwhile condition, that it inspires anyone to spite it when the calls to naturalize ritual sacrifice are made clear. To abide by ritual sacrifice is worse than any other death. Ritual sacrifice cults understood this power, and the entire point of the sacrifice was to weaponize this disgust and direct it towards their intended targets—the unsightly, the ugly, who had done nothing to them and whose torture and death did not change any true condition. It is the thrill and performance of ritual sacrifice that becomes self-evident to its partisans, and this negates all causality. It is for this reason that eugenics placed as the core of its dogma an assertion that the effect—the outcome of the human being—precedes the cause, which is the genetic material granted supernatural powers, "above God". Eugenics can't not do this and revels in doing this. Negating basic sense is yet another celebration of the ritual sacrifice which eugenics has always been an excuse for—a very large and elaborate excuse that created great misery, but eugenics is nothing at its core but the purest form of ritual sacrifice yet known, save for rarified forms found in lurid rituals of a Satanic sort.

When ritual sacrifice is removed as a pressing danger, the true reality of the world tells something very different from this grim procession of history I have described. The history of the actual world, including the political history we judge as relevant, is moved very little by the schemes of men. The names of some masters change, and some mobility between the classes is tolerated—only permissible under eugenic law by editing history so that the favored were always favored. The conditions of the human being change remarkably little, despite the promises that nothing will ever be the same. It is not that the changes are wholly inconsequential, but the political matter did not pertain so much to the genuine existence of human beings. Political society and all of the ravages it brings to the world was, for the political class, a game and a choice. They retained some private life, and this was one of the perks of being granted political favor. It was, once upon a time, understood that this was the objective of political society—to secure oneself against the general fear that started this process. Despite the repeated invasion of private life, most of humanity has little appetite for the ritual sacrifice that spawned nearly everything in the general fear. Had the general fear been of anything other than human agency—for example, changes in the weather, including those caused by human engineering and their shitty plans for handling natural events—it would be a matter resolved with little fanfare, leaving much of human existence for things which had no need nor want of any sacrifice, toil, or immiseration. The struggles would be carried out instead over matters that threaten the peace, or concerning threats that are truly irreconcilable. Due to the cost of war being vast and no one with a functioning mind thinking war will ever be quick, cheap, and easy to win—or that they would win anything from the war other than being spared from direct fighting themselves—it is very likely that intriguers who initiate these wars would be rooted out, and every method to circumvent this would be undertaken. In our time, there is no cause whatsoever for the stance of mass mobilization. The reasons for the mass mobilization do not concern a genuine threat, but a mobilization against democracy—against the thing which was made possible by mass mobilization of a society's resources, where the skullduggery of human associations had to be mitigated because it was sobered by technology and a world outside of their cute "joke" that boiled alive so many millions of humanity for some cheap baubles or sadistic glee and nothing more. It is that which prompts me to write these books—but at first, I found that I lacked a proper grounding in history, religion, and nearly everything that would be necessary to truly speak of what this was. Many tried, and I tried, only to find that everywhere I turned, there was no way out. This, I have come to see, is the trap of intelligence and the fetish for it. It is for that reason I write this chapter, rather than a slow introduction which only leads to that result at the end. By saying in advance the "game" from this broad overview, it is possible to highlight how it went wrong, and how someone might conceive of this world being different. No appeal to technology, struggle, or moral sentiment can adequately explain what we have done and why we would resist when all hope is lost.

The investigation into history after seeing its endgame begins much as we began this inquiry at the start of these books, and as I began this inquiry many years ago. For all of the struggle and misery visited upon us by "the theory", remarkably little has changed about this condition. The men and women who live are still very much like someone from early Antiquity, and their similarity to the most ancient civilizations is closer than our similarity to them. The new technology has largely modified the world around humans rather than "hacked the soul" as many indulgent retards^[3] claim is trivial. Human beings in their proper functioning are very difficult to "hack" in this way, despite many decades of trying. The investigation into that matter—where human modification in the proper sense was first actionable rather than an idle threat or something carried out in controlled cult settings—is primarily an interest of the next book of this series. But, right here, I can tell you that little about human beings really can be changed, even if they were open to this change. The reasons why are not immediately relevant to this book, but in short, the weight of history and all past events, not just for one person but everything that led to any single one of us is vast, and any agency that could be artificially imposed is very small. We can only change our conduct, and make some modifications to the biological structure in hopes that this will produce the intended effect. Nothing about proper history would make this grandiose claim of "editing reality", unless they actually believe they're going to become gods, which is exactly what eugenists and the imperial cultists, like all aristocracies and their running dogs, always believe is imminent if they clap their hands and believe. It's like talking to retarded children in sped when these people go on—until you see that these people lead armies that rain hell and damnation upon billions of humans on this Earth, none of whom asked for this, and for which the Earth itself will impose the consequences it must, for it too in some sense is an agent of the world's contempt for aristocracy and its creeds.

What does history truly pertain to? It is not a model or a theory, nor is it a working to attempt to change history. It is in the final analysis the work of entities that can affect the world in any way, who do indeed make history as they please—so far as it is a history of their conduct rather than a history of events that preceded any of us, which no one realistically expects we would be accountable for. Historical actors are not adjudicated by institutions or by any sense of what "should" happen or what is morally valued. Those things are helpful for humans in a hostile society to adjudicate facts in court, and the judgment of peers is not a friendly club, when the consequences of history are death, taxes, victory, defeat, humiliation, and all of the horrible things we have seen. Moral sense would be remiss to judge history as if its outcome were inconsequential to the world we live in, as if "nothing truly matters". Those who claim faux nihilism always make an exception when their fickle, faggy sentiments are attacked by those of us who take them at their word and show proper disdain for their petulant outbursts. But, it is their high horse who gets to decide who is having an "outburst" of unacceptable conduct. It is not a surprise this monopoly is held by people who did nothing but glorify the worst of the aristocratic rot, who did it all for this Satanic creed of a failed race. No institution can ever prevent this moral rot. The order of property and victory in battle has nothing to say regarding this struggle, and property invariably chooses the side that historically won out, which is the party of aristocracy—guilty alone of nearly all of the instigations and insinuations that brought us to this. The only people who truly care about history or this world are the people who, as a rule, are denied any say whatsoever in the conduct of humanity, themselves included. Only in some small way do we, the lowest class, retain ourselves in a world that was stolen from us before we were born. It can be different tomorrow if we want it to be so. But, this only extends so far as we are not met by the malevolent evil that ritual sacrifice summoned. This could extend further than ourselves or some inner monologue very easily. Whenever we do something other than the most obviously worst thing to each other, we are violating aristocracy's highest holy by refusing to play their game. Whenever we have a simple dialogue that is genuine, we violate the sacraments of ritual sacrifice, and this we do often without thinking we are "transgressing" anything. The fetish for transgression is a calling card of aristocratic faggotry. All of this does not "change the world" in the way a naive view of history would insist. It does change one relevant thing—that what humans truly valued was not political imperatives or anything the world says we should value, or anything inherent to the nature of humans. Human nature and the various "natural orders" handed down to us have an obvious outcome that is not necessary nor substantiated by the actual world we inhabit and see around us. Not one of the things humans have accomplished would exist if "natural law" oriented humans toward that outcome. We should pause here that the true "natural law", so far as such a thing can be said to operate, has nothing to do with political imperatives or legal codes in the sense I have described them, nor any law code which has been established as normal for us. Nature did not curse humanity with this. To this day, the world and the pre-existing motion of the world has been trying, in its way, to avert the ruinous outcome. Only ritual sacrifice and the aristocratic way of life insist that we must "respect nature", which is a self-evident absurdity since nature does not value respect or any sentiment the sacrifice cults exhort us to value. The world holds that odious practice in contempt, and we can do likewise—though not without terrible consequences. Nature has also made clear that humans should not follow the "divine law", for humans are not gods and never can be gods, and to attempt to be so is folly. Humans, or any other living, knowing entity like us, are something very different from natural entities, and nature has no problem with this.

What I hope to accomplish with this chapter is to place the question of history on a footing where the inquiry is carried out as something more than a mere curiosity but without the baggage of institutional shibboleths or efforts to occult history. Where we end, after all that has been described up to now, is where we began—with the individual who is figuring this out on their own power. But, now that the unwritten rules of this game are partly described, it is possible to speak of history and re-create this framework described in the prior two books of this series as something that arose in a world that had no regard for political imperatives or insinuations. What I have written up to now spoke primarily of the aristocratic cycle and superstition. The true spirit of events in this world has little to do with the "human spirit" of malice and aristocracy. But, this is always handed off to humans like us, since we are the only entities that think about this question, and certainly the only entities that appear to care about the peculiar questions humanity raised. To the other animals on Earth, these crazy Satanic apes are loathsome and best ignored. As we know well by now, evil does not allow itself to be ignored. For our part, as the poor unwanted wretches of that race of Satanic apes, we carry on regardless. It becomes clear that the struggle where this really changes at the level of society belongs to a very different world, which we can only know indirectly. If we know that is possible, then we could in this time build a repository of useful history, instead of trading in the same tired koans. The purpose of the books up to now and this chapter has been to place the origin of those koans on a sounder footing so that when they arise, the reader can dismiss such trite sayings and regard them correctly as disgusting filth. With that all said, let us begin anew from the view of the individual, who would out of necessity ask the questions we have posed from the start of this series and understand them to be questions where history is relevant to the answer, rather than the answers being "purely timeless" and trans-historical.

Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

Return to Table of Contents | Return to Chapter Start