Previous Chapter | Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

The aforementioned chapter concerned overarching historical models. History is always built from specific things, rather than general laws. All of those general laws are constituted from those specific things, no matter how small or whether they enter the knowledge of anyone, or would be relevant to science. Since this could turn any worthwhile construction of history into a morass of details and allow for a pernicious reduction to absurdity, general laws help understand the world. They remain superstitions. They may be useful superstitions, but there is no substitute for the genuine articles of history, and those details haunt every model or narrative of history. The "grand narrative theory of history" conflates every idea into the most reduced form, while granting to superstitious entities like "world-spirits" undue authority to explain anything. It is not difficult to detect that these grand narratives are unseemly to any of us with a sense of smell, and yet, they are persistently imposed by violent force and insinuation. They work because the ugly details of history tell a tale of a miserable race of apes that failed even the simplest task of cooperation, where no trouble ever had to be made over the matters that became political society. In another world, much of the life we live would be far removed from the pointless and futile struggle sessions we have been made to endure to the benefit of a few cajolers who stole a world from us and insisted the lie was "freedom", and any genuine security—the only basis for a free society—was irrelevant or unseemly, identifying us as weaklings for believing such a thing was for us.

Before there can be any security, let alone liberty, there is knowledge. Before there can be knowledge about a world outside of us, there is a fidelity to a world outside of crass conceits of knowledge. Without symbolic language, this step is effectively automatic. There is not much to lie with to create a cult around the power of concentrated Lie, nor other entities that would be known to regard such power as worthwhile. Animals are not above malicious cunning, but there is no general theory of habitual lying and extreme superstition. There is only the world and some sense that objects in it are relevant. Science is carried out in the first instance with this sense, which makes all of the developed scientific knowledge of the world possible. This is the basis for technology and of any institution, and the basis for a symbolic language that is intelligible and relevant to that world. All of these informational constructs are within the purview of science. This is not to say all that exists must be in the purview of science from this fact alone. Many things do not have any immediate relevance to a scientific view or remain formless concepts. In any event, the private worlds we might indulge in aren't particularly interesting at first to other entities like us. It is only when enclosure must press against the nerves of a human body, or any body like ours, that the private world, which most humans had little contact with beyond their meandering thoughts, is open for inquiry. There is not much in that private world compared to the variety of things already in the domain of science, but if the ruling idea must abolish all independent science, indulgence in the self and an eternal retreat inward becomes "The Science" and is granted undue authority to explain anything. This works because, regardless of what we believe is scientific and relevant to an inquiry of the world, objects in the world—including ourselves—operate on their own power, and without regard to any scientific law or expectation of what it should be. This places ultimately the authority to decide history in systems themselves, rather than grand models that relate them. "The purpose of a system is what it does." Not one system has any more inherent authority than another for this judgment. We are biased towards our knowledge process because it is so closely tied to life and the functions of life-forms. But, regardless of our bias towards living knowledge we are closely linked to—and this knowledge is never coterminous with "me" or "I", whose first existence did not regard any necessary knowledge and persisted regardless of that process—the history of knowledge and systems is dominated not by the human subject, but by systems generally.

It is systems rather than objects or subjects that dominate, with the object-subject distinction being little more than a philosophical shell game to obfuscate what we are studying. The true existence of anything, ourselves included, should not be confused with a system, which is a very limited concept of what things are and must be so to be functional. It is in spoken language that the system takes on greater prominence than it would possess to the native sense and faculties of human thought and existence. Spoken language was, for humans, the basis for written language, diagrams, and most of the information exchange concerning ideas and abstraction that we know today. The particular origin of language is less relevant than generalized abstraction. It was not in the same movement that generally alienable knowledge created generally alienable labor. In some way, the animal could budget their resources and faculties in some way that can be planned, and ask itself what it will do with its free time with the faculties it possesses. Generally, alienable labor begins not by the conceit of knowledge that this is possible by managers, but by the genuine existence of human beings, or any entity that begins to process the world in this way where they would labor in any sense. Where there is historical potential, labor is alienable from another labor. It becomes generally alienable not when a threshold of managerial wisdom is attained, but when the degrees of motion for a life-form allow this labor to be allocated towards a multitude of tasks, starting with the limited faculties of a body. This is to say, the animal must be free of undue pressures from its environment "making it" do particular things, like a cattle prod that it has no realistic defense against. The science of alienating the labor of a target entity is something different from the division of labor that some entity would understand for its personal use, or the division of labor that may exist in primitive sociality. It does not occur to us that all social relations are between manager and managed, or master and slave. That pernicious tenet is a modern thought experiment, rather than an ancient one. Ancients knew well how slaveries worked, and the "master-slave dialectic" is the work of those who were jealous copers who believed slaveries were quick, easy, and pleasant for the master. It required both an intellectual and spiritual divorce from the real consequences of slavery and a jealous defense of the core spiritual imperatives that sought displays of dominance and cruelty common to the races of apes.

Symbolic language can only operate with systems rather than the "true forms" of anything, and so it is the systems approach that is the most effective for describing history. Science proper is not directly tied to overarching history or narratives, or any political conceit beyond an awareness that there is a type of "politics of nature" at work to our perception to speak of anything stable. For private use, "the system" is only useful so far as we utilize language as a tool for our purposes, rather than an institutionally mediated tool to command and control us. The very proposition of spoken language requires systematization. Science in the genuine sense does not concern itself with building models, but with answering questions about the world those models ostensibly describe. Systems thinking does concern itself with building models, which are the only way abstract theories of the world can be demonstrated. Otherwise, science is left with tautalogical statements about what just happened, or outright lies as the command to disbelieve your sense and any reason you hold is the ruling imperative in the ruinous pedagogy we have been given. To best understand the world, a proper breakdown of the "system" is necessary. That is a lengthy exercise for this book, so I only reference that systems thought in these books and leave the full description of systems thought to another book and the authors who have already expounded on this concept elsewhere.

The "system of systems" will never arrive at the vaunted "totality" without collapsing into a morass of contradictions. That was never the point. The best approach to a general understanding is to segregate knowledge into areas of expertise while remembering that this division of labor is arbitrary rather than the areas of knowledge being morally separate, with one placed above another in an imagined hierarchy. So, there is a specialization in biology and the study of life, a specialization in physics, a specialization in all of the materials and substances of which chemistry is a part, a specialization in knowledge of society, a specialization of how human beings think—an often ignored or mystified science but a science nonetheless—and all of these specializations are capable of describing others in some way without necessary dependence on the other. What is inserted artificially are conceits of a "master key" to be held as the exclusive property of an elite, who declares that connecting any of these areas is haram and must be violently punished. This approach to knowledge, which requires systems thought to exist, makes systems thought impossible in the long term, and this was intended. The only way around this is to approach the systems thought as we would require it, rather than as institutions wanted it to be. A permanent and irreconcilable break from institutional shibboleths is the result. In their place, a kernel may be propagated that is simple, and from this, someone of middling intelligence, like myself, could do far more with his faculties than he would in another time. At the apex of the institutional dogma is eugenics and the belief that "the unique" is the only one who may possess this master key, which is granted Satanic powers of creation as in the Germanic ideology.

The history of economics is the history of technology and "dead" machinery, rather than a political or psychological subject. Political history, which is the majority of what is considered "real history", has less to do with any theory or clear science in lab conditions than it does with a history of superstition, religion, and spiritual authority. The names of this ruler or that are necessary knowledge for speaking of what happened in politics, but none of those names require any theory or model to tell us that historical actors didn't do what they just did in front of our faces. In the prior two books, I described common political and economic concepts so that it would be clear here what is referred to. Those concepts are not malleable without changing what it means to speak of political history. For economics, as a category unto itself, it is a misnomer. Nothing about management is scientific or follows any materially necessary model. If humanity chose right, the managerial problem is a trivial one that would seek its own negation. Instead, we have the opposite—a philosophy and institutions designed to install and make permanent managerial tyranny, to tell petty-managerial swine that they deserve to exist only if they make their entire existence the sneer and disgust towards social inferiors. It is for that reason I chose "the highest stage of managerialism" as my description of Eugenics, rather than "the highest stage of capitalism", for it is the role of the manager rather than capital as an event in history that is contested. The machinery that capital represents would be, in a better world, shared for something useful, or it would be delegated to the workers and the knife at the throat would not be tolerated any further. Eugenics to be eugenics is neither of these things, for at its heart is an aristocratic rather than technocratic fantasy. But, eugenics could only assert its conditions in a technocratic society, and humanity was in the late 19th century on the cusp of destroying the old world and ensuring the new could be nothing but what insinuators and cajolers wished it to be. It did not have to be so, but because humanity is a failed race and always was, the outcome of history appears inevitable in hindsight. For this to be sensical, political history has to be temporarily devalued and the machinery available to humanity has to be described in a history apart. This is the playing field for the political class. At no point do the machines advance on their own by some inexorable force. That sort of faggy pseudo-history belongs in the trash bin, never to be uttered again. Machines were not solely invented for political necessity. Far from it, political activity to spur technological advance as a general rule has been woefully inadequate. The reasons why are simple—no one of the lower three orders has any good reason to believe that their technology won't be pilfered or turned to use for some evil, and the lower orders are set against each other with eternally irreconcilable aims. The "High", "Middle", and "Low" really pertain to the low cunning of the commons, sectioned off to its wasteland while the aristocratic order and its running dogs conduct politics very differently, with the five caste model being their "eternal return" since Antiquity in one way or another. A denuded form of this is given to the favored "High" of the commons, with the strict superstition that this never be linked to anything without a "grand narrative" or overarching theory that is impossible for the multitude of machines that are known to exist. No one person realistically could possess the time or luxury to compile a personal library of anything close to a "master key". The masters themselves do not need to lower themselves to the muck of production or technology. Consequences and responsibilities are for the slaves.

Our history is really the history of persons in their genuine existence, rather than their institutional personhood as has often been the case. Institutional history is always, in some way or another, political history, for every institution requires a state, and a state requires and is itself an institution. The genuine existence of the entity called a "human" is never freed from its institutional origins, and the same is said of all life. Life-forms, like states, are as stable as institutions are. What differentiates life-forms is that they are not pathologically committed to a "state" as a going concern. Likewise, no institution survives forever without a material basis, where the institutional officers must bother with the muck of moral labor or do the unthinkable and reduce themselves to the existence of the lowest class to answer their wants. The distinction of life-forms, or anything that would exist in nature or in a world that was something more than political, is that the political is only relevant insofar as the necessities of life require it, or the wants of life desire it. The latter want is not as a crass ideological cajoler would have it. The want for political peace and stability has value of its own, which informs the political life of humans as something different from the concept of politics in its most basic form. Neither necessity nor desire accounts wholly for our genuine existence, for most of what humans do and are is "junk data" so far as ideology is concerned. Even the simplest acts like breathing, eating, and defecating, are unwelcome intrusions into the ideologue's vision of the human. Gods, after all, do not poop, and the first institutional claim of the aristocratic polity is that its rulers are gods or have been granted the favor of the gods. Some rulers place this favor in Heaven rather than a personified deity, or some sense of right from above which does not face the dilemma of morality and ethics which, rationally, has no solution or worthwhile course to suggest. Those who would place it away from the aristocratic skin-masks of "gods" prove themselves time and again to be superior in all moral sense to those who preach god-abasement, for the gods are and always have been vehicles for the ritual sacrifice and vices of the human race. The further removed our moral sense from god-abasement, the better humans tend to be. Most self-professed atheists, as described in the prior book, are no atheists worthy of the name, and did not think for a moment of the most basic problems religion answered. The noblest of all are those who dismissed the gods correctly as demons and set about living in a society where said gods prevail as the epitome of humanity's evil. This has nothing to do with willful ignorance, as the eugenist fags preach. We are quite aware of the history and spiritual authority invested in gods and religious concepts or can be aware enough. We down here, and truly most of humanity, never had much use for the gods and their constant demands for abasement and sacrifice. They have always been a fetish of those who should be ignored—if only evil allowed itself to be ignored. If we understand human existence as one dominated by spiritual authority rather than political authority, our sense regarding history and this problem is sounder. This does not in itself solve any questions about what we really are and what we do, which certainly happened in the past.

The naive approach to this problem is to place ourselves in the past and ask what I would do if my life were in these conditions. This is at first the only approach available to knowledge until some basis for comparison in the world is found which allows us to judge the world without our existence as a fetter on the truth. It is a self-indulgent approach since it does not take long to see that the subject or the human essence has no special power in the universe. We can however isolate those aspects of ourselves that have a common likeness in the outside world, and also aspects of ourselves that are only common to humans, and aspects that are common to knowledge and spiritual sense that would only be held by knowing entities in a world outside of their immediate knowledge. Every problem of history is ultimately a problem of learning, and so, the educator steps in out of necessity, even though education and learning are very different tracks. Any learning that would help us understand human history must account for education. Education in itself offers nothing but rote beatings and the misery education always entails. Learning without fear of the educator and its malevolent role is directionless and fickle. Our true task is not to place ourselves or look for mere human likenesses in all of the things of the world. We ask ourselves what we are and what we do, and we look to the world for guidance, which we are a part of and interact with. The rudimentary investigation begins not with an intellectual task that can be automated, or a moral question posed by science, but with the entity that conducts any of these tasks, and the vehicle by which it can do so—genius, as described before. Once the necessities of life-functions, political necessities, and political desires are accounted for, this would leave a great wealth of genius—the overwhelming majority of it, as it turns out—for nothing but answering this question. This is granted to us by the world, without any demand of favor or insinuation about agency. Absent any overbearing institutional presence, this surplus is entirely ours, and the greater priority for us to spend this surplus on is the work of science rather than the dogmas of any institution. Any worthwhile education would be aware of this, but sadly, humans never progressed beyond rote beatings and humiliations as befits their pathetic race.

Two educational tasks are executed simultaneously throughout the life of any human. One education pertains to political society, and this is the primary education of a human being. It must be primary because the proper task of education is not learning or our fulfillment, but adaptation to a world with many hostile threats, the most dangerous of them by far being other humans. Even in primitive conditions, no animal other than a human or their close relatives poses a significant danger. This is largely because most animals had the decency to not invent this demonic ethos of ritual sacrifice as humans did, and if they do, they do not extend it to alien humans and we are spared of that particular threat. The education of human society never wholly gives itself over to the ritual and its glorification. Satanic education goes out of its way to deny that education and learning occur at all, except "by nature", where history is edited to claim that all knowledge and potential is innate and monopolized. To speak of the educational regime of Fabianism as "education" is a pale shadow of what such a thing would entail, even with the miserable procession of education as a rite of passage into human society. The point of such an education would be to not become a ritual sacrifice, and the simplest way to do this is to be the one on a high horse casting stones or to follow those who are without sin as they so claim. If an education selects the majority of those who pass through it for automatic failure and encourages this failure through deliberate maladaptation and cruelty, it would not take long for such an education to be rejected out of dire necessity. Only by violent force would such an educational regime persist, and those who are selected to die cannot be said to receive any education whatsoever. Education, for all of its faults, introduces the human to the predatory society of other humans, and to a world where learning entails consequences. That is a simple fact. The second educational task is carried out by ourselves, but it is not an education or learning or desire. It is entirely an education in the malice of the institution that prevails. In all human societies, education is the institution of institutions that allows all of the others, including any state society that imposes mandates of education. Before state society is established as anything other than a transient phenomenon, the "state of nature" appears to be in effect, except... it never really was that. Those closer to the breaking away of civilization from barbarism were very aware that the civilized were, after all pretensions, a more elaborate variant of barbarism. The establishment of formal education, which required something other than human labor to mediate it and a sufficient body of knowledge that couldn't be independently reassembled, makes clear the stark contrast between these two tasks of education. For as long as there has been formal education of the sort that is relevant to the history described in this book, there has been a critique of that education which must, eventually, become an educational curriculum of its own, rather than mere whining of the failed students and the rejects selected to die. It is not axiomatic for state society to view the critical faculty of the other type as a hostile threat. The losers by definition are there precisely because they were not an institutional threat as-is, and due to the pre-existing monopoly on wealth from generations of human history, the losers were not going to just pick up some tools and miraculously reverse all hitherto known human society. Nothing in the universe required this to be the case, but realistically, the losers' aim in history was not to overthrow the tyranny of the victors and repeat the cycle, but to break the cycle altogether. Breaking this cycle means an end to the superstition and ritual sacrifice that sparked the fear in the first place. That has always been the demand of anyone who wanted to end this shitshow. This, they do not as some glorified violent act or a performance for the world. We act towards this goal because we have to, despite everything that is valued by those who champion the institutions. Within the favored classes, this same educational splitting plays out. Why the favored delight so much in this manufactured contradiction, I will never know, but "contradiction" as a philosophical koan has always been the maniacal barking of a Satanic race. No one ever can benefit from this rat race that has been handed down to us as "human nature", and yet, here we are in the early 21st century, looking at the majority of humanity thrown away for the saddest story humans ever told.

Rather than being "contradictions", these two educational tasks provide feedback to each other. The tasks are not a personal obligation as such, but a condition of existence that was understood from the outset. Someone not only takes from the institutions what he individually finds useful, and in return offers his person to a faceless superorganism that defies rational explanation. What formed these institutions were men like the student and the women and girls who were in many ways a world apart from the world of the males but interacted so frequently that it would be nearly impossible for a male to not figure out on his own power what sex is, even in a society where sexual segregation and ignorance of the act is compelled. Too many questions and the noodle in his crotch would make clear that something was up with that, for it takes incredible institutional fear to train men to abhor their bodies enough to lie about their functions that brazenly. It is the same with those who insist on "contradiction" at the center of education and knowledge itself, except far more offensive to sense. The eugenists, for all of their evil, weaponize contradiction and insinuation for their foul aims, which are no contradiction for them. It takes an unimaginable level of malice to insist on the sort of forced ignorance that German ideology and its promoters insinuated, and they did it for less than nothing. The feudal rats, naturally, never ask "why", even at the basic level of a slow child.

Education to be useful for anything—even the most miserable of causes—is never a dialogue between pedagogue and student isolated from the world, or between the student and the subject to be studied. What is the evil which education must pertain to, but the many things in the world which preceded it? It is here where education has to resign itself to an uncomfortable truth—that some actual learning will be required for the pedagogue to accomplish his or her mission. The genuine learning task is, necessarily, a dyad between the student and the subject to study. Whether that learning is an exercise of intelligence or honing of some muscle or muscle memory, learning always concerns the subject at hand, and outside interference or "noise" is detrimental to the subject. All learning is, in some way, reducible to intelligence. The question is what the subjects to study are, rather than the study of particular things or classes of things.

Every subject that must be learned, and thus is subjected to educational interference, is broad, and within each subject is a wealth of information that a student could never digest automatically or "just so", no matter what processing power was at work. Learning to be effective is not merely the processing of managed information, as if they were carrying out computational instructions. To learn requires a state of the world or meaningful knowledge to build from—that is, learning entails something that originated from the world, rather than purely informational products for consumption. Any intelligence, human or artificial, would be judged not by some dubious metric, but by a capacity for learning which required some moral value of what is worth learning. By abolishing concepts of the political and education and all standards for comparison, the philosophical anarchist made inadmissible any judgment regarding education, and this is an invention far more odious than the Germanic ideology that informed the creation of such an abomination. The objective of philosophical anarchists is far from removing the influence of the political or education, but to make opposition to edicts from above inadmissible. It becomes impossible to say meaningfully a sentence such as "Big Brother is ungood", without it being interpreted as self-evident nonsense. There is of course no "Big Brother" named as such, but there is the central, Unitarian Oneness smirking from above, forever unknowable and yet immaculate and cajoling all that exists. Jabulon and his ilk are merely foreshadowing the horrorshow envisioned for humanity in this century.

No one human can internalize the educational canon from scratch. Even those who dedicate their life to this schooling only reproduce a part of something that was premised on the communication of many entities and hands that built its materials. Yet, each who engages in any form of education leaves a permanent mark, however foul it may be. What is said cannot be unsaid, and jealous observers do not let a word spoken go unnoticed in their judgment of the world and the evil in it. Each failure and ritual sacrifice is never "pure waste", despite the overbearing dogma that it is not real. For generation after generation, humans have been made slaves to the pedagogy and the insinuation of those who conduct this vehicle for ritual sacrifice. Rather than assembling a hanging or stoning of the unfortunate, the educational ritual sacrifice is prolonged throughout the shortened life of those selected to die, where the humiliations and the thrill of torture at the apex of any ritual sacrifice are distributed in acts small and large, that are considered praiseworthy and moral in-of-themselves. This applies not just to institutional education which is the main vehicle of institutional ritual sacrifice—the ritual sacrifice which has been the true center of human history and its proper genesis as "humanity". The critical education that works against the institutions is no less given over to the ritual sacrifice, even when it claims opposition to the practice. That is the evil to which all of mankind must adapt, whether it wants this to be the world or not. That is the decision that is made for each individual act of education. It was never truly a decision for any particular person, but the carrying out of the imperatives of education, and the learning process which always sought the simplest answer for a problem.

When all is said and done, the typical human response to ritual sacrifice is "So?" It does not occur to most humans that this ritual sacrifice is truly "wrong", or says something about the existence of their monstrous race. There is no way out of this through any education and learning. The easiest response to ritual sacrifice as an evil is to give in to it, and that will always be the choice intelligence makes. It is for this reason that ritual sacrifice centered around markers of intelligence, rather than any other quality that suggested ritual sacrifice like moral failure or removing a clear danger. The ritual sacrifice cult throughout history has been oriented towards two goals: rooting out the stupid and eliminating the large number of people to be fed. The result—habituating the human race to be nothing more than aristocracy's feeding ground—is an expected consequence of these two imperatives, rather than an imperative that could be found through any easy metric or that would be improved by ritual sacrifice and selective breeding of slave traits. If the objective was to selectively breed pliant slaves, ritual sacrifice would work against that goal, for everyone in the society would be far more pressed to fight an enemy who glorified the thrill of torture above all than an enemy who would be content to survive while "nature takes its course". The problem with the latter approach for aristocracy, which is how the aristocracy publicly describes its stance, is that nature itself does not abide by the imperatives aristocracy insinuated for its political theory to work. Nature proper really has no stake in the games humans play with their own kind, and the world has shown its contempt for humanity's malicious soul and treated humanity accordingly, even those who wanted better but share in the crime of being human and contributing to an evil race. It is the malice of the ritual sacrifice that is demanded for the ritual to be effective at its goal. If it were the fate of most of humanity to die with no issue, then that frankly would be of little concern. We would live out what life there is, seeing correctly that there wasn't really a purpose to life for its own sake, and very likely the rulers would have nothing to do with us, and we would retain the life and part of the world we cared about in the first place. None of aristocracy's mysteries have any great appeal to us, for without the fear of ritual sacrifice, their mysteries are all faggotry. The malice of the ritual is necessary for its disciplinary function regarding intelligence. The numbers of humanity are ultimately a managerial problem from an administrator's perspective, rather than something that could be induced by incentives. Engineering the environment for "passive culling" for the sake of reducing numbers has limited effect, compared to the far more expedient avenue of active killing or building explicitly lockouts and hiring guard labor.^[1] This guard labor tasked with carrying out the grunt work that arises from the consequences of ritual sacrifice is a small price to pay for a claim of monopoly, premised on "the best" ruling everything by a super-natural claim above any claim of mere property. The reliability of the guard labor is questionable and all of the ways it can be made reliable rely on something more than a passive lockout. It always relies on active enforcement, like any intellectual conceit about "solving" the world. If the guard labor were to defend a monopoly on some other basis, it would be far less effective for humans, due to human history granting ritual sacrifice a unique weight. Another race would have seen the futility of the practice and mitigated it before sectioning it off to an abyss which it would be our greatest pleasure to rescue others from. To truly "solve" ritual sacrifice in favor of the practice required some educational advances that were not immediate upon the start of the education cult, but which would be "retconned" into history to assert they were always active. It is those that are given fuller treatment in the sixth book of this series. But, even without the eugenic creed and the "perfection of the race", ritual sacrifice provides to any monopoly a cornucopia of artifacts that are not reproducible by any other known means, while the alternatives would most likely disavow monopoly altogether as a futile goal. With that in mind, many who are opposed to the regime of ritual sacrifice see their ambition not in creating their own monopoly, but escaping it for as long as possible, until such a time that monopoly is viewed with such suspicion that its partisans would be strung up and shot without question—no elaborate ritual or drawing out of the torture required. It would instead be replaced with a swift and terrible execution of transgressors, which I wrote of in the previous chapter. For ritual sacrifice to be truly naturalized, all vectors which speak against it must be co-opted and perverted, and this is a task of considerable learning—a task which can never actually be completed, but the glory of exterminating every alternative for the thrill of doing so and seeing the horror on the faces of the damned has granted to ritual sacrifice a power for humans that nothing else would. Other attempts to emulate the fear are insufficient.

One thing that becomes clear in education is that "The Oneness" is inherently opposed to any education that could amount to anything. Regression to the Eternal Light, as "the One" is usually presented results in an endgame which we know well—that there is no point to education, for its outcome has been predestined to ensure all but the One will lose. Such a dogma is contrary to anything education would instill, even slavish obedience to the One, for that obedience too would only exist as a just-so story—you were either born to the elect or you were not, and this becomes an excuse to be an obnoxious eugenist asshole in the typical interpretation of Christianity's Oneness. While any cult of education presents its school as the only correct school, it is expected to know your enemies and their tenets, and the same is true of every religion worthy of the name. The names of enemy deities are well known to the priesthood, and of no interest to the layperson since they refer to demons they are likely familiar with, and dwelling on the question of evil as a total system is less relevant than what religion can tell us about genuine morality. There are at least as many demons as there are human beings to preach a religion, and very likely far more, each as disgusting as another and differentiated more by the type of evil they represent than any imagined spectrum of foulness of the deity in question. As an adherent of a religion or a cult of education—for the two are often tied if not one and the same in most human societies—you are betting that the demonic forces you are aligned with in your religion are stronger than any other collection of deities and that you have a better "system" for navigating the evil that is the proper purview of religion.

Reducing the question of history to a history of evil and religion is itself a crass reduction of evil itself, let alone the world which is far more than an evil impulse imagined by some sick humans in the distant past. There is no "Demiurge" or gnostic master key when describing the world. It is rather that the recapitulation of aristocratic cults is a deliberate false reality—or rather, an imposition of primordial will upon the world, on the faith that the demons of the aristocratic tenets have a stronger effect on history than anything you would do in your person or any other agent in the world. The reality, and this is not hard to see, that all of the primordial will put together, and all appeals to ritual sacrifice, amount to far less than piss or shit, on scales noticeable to us puny mortals let alone the cosmic scales we can trivially observe and judge with native faculties. The problem of evil is a necessary barrier to prevent the greatest distortion of knowledge. Ignorance and the failures of reason exist on their own without any great evil, for any entity capable of reason is limited in its faculties and the information available to it. The malice of ritual sacrifice makes particular claims about human intelligence and both the value of intelligence as a quality of people, and what intelligence must inexorably seek to "solve the problem of evil" from the position of the ritual sacrifice cult. For the ritual sacrifice devotees, the problem of evil is the inverse—that pesky mortals refuse to bow to the One, to the Satan, to their self-evident deity which has all of the answers to existence already. It seems pathetic compared to the evil their practice brought to the world every single day, but for the screaming fags who pushed this, and they are fags, the most innocuous thing out of place is a stain on the perfect race and perfect system that their god created as an immaculate yet unknowable totality. It is these shameless fags who preen about aesthetics and indulge in the lowest fads and fetishes that are the proclivity of the commons-made-aristocrats or their enablers of all orders, among all mankind.

This is in the main meant to be a scientific history rather than a spiritual or religious one, and so my aim in the rest of this book is to put this spiritual question aside temporarily. It is helpful to make clear that this is a problem of education and the evil education alone portends to, rather than the problem of evil in religion, which is largely outside of the scope of this book. While it is impossible to truly speak of human history without religious history, the broad strokes of exoteric religious history are available elsewhere, and the theological disputes within or between religions have been waged by far greater persons than little old me. Religious history does not end with modernity, as the narrative goes. But, religion shifted in modernity. It would be distilled to its essential elements, and the formalisms that began with religious education could stand on their own to produce very elaborate models of history, which will be given further treatment in a later chapter.

For most of history, science, or what counted as such was a discipline apart from religious education or the socially dominant modes of education and their priorities. Education for most of human history was almost entirely devoted to reproducing the men and women of the society rather than discovery or independent inquiry. This is true of the "counter-education" as well as the dominant models advanced in a society, and it would be true of any educational alternative offered—which is always offered as a distinctly inferior approach that marks someone as outside of the rites of manhood or womanhood. Education which flatly rejects the fundamental claims of the dominant education cult is not really an education, but an "anti-education" that reduces to absurdity for the purposes education must answer. Education is a dubious service, but it is a necessary service for all hitherto known epochs of human history. A humanity that no longer needed this model of education would be scarcely recognizable, and even when established, the drive of education cults to dominate a space and declare monopolies would remain. They might be mitigated to pertain only to their appropriate purview, which has been the de facto standing of education when reality sobered the behavior of humanity, but they would always assert a toxic effect on learning and the moral aims of humans around the cults. The best we could accomplish, and this is accomplished many times over, is to limit education's invasion into private and commercial life, and eliminate the lockouts that monopoly insisted we had to accept despite the obvious indicators that the world provides more than enough for human wants, even with woefully suboptimal production and distribution mechanisms. Humanity today faces an interesting dilemma. By reason, productivity is both far more than what is necessary to meet human material needs and the need for security, and reason can easily see that human productivity is disastrously wasteful, and much of the muck of industry and commerce could be automated out of existence. The toil of the worker could be compensated with a level of security at virtually no cost, and this invention alone would end many of the sacrificial cycles that aristocracy mandated as our fate. Every improvement to productivity entails an increase in the threat any one human poses to other humans, and without any good reason to believe our greatest danger above any other is other humans and the institutions humans build, the woes of humanity are never a material limitation let alone imposed by nature itself. The path towards a rational distribution of the social product suffers only one severe defect—that humans have never allowed such a thing to occur in the past, for it would immediately lead to most of humanity shirking labor or servility, and shirking the race for productivity altogether. With the surplus, humanity would tend towards its inborn proclivity—ritual sacrifice—without anything to sober human behavior or drastic changes to the human constitution. The surplus, however large, would be expended on restoring the conditions of deprivation. This is entirely a problem of morality and moral education in particular, but asking humans to not do evil has a hilariously poor track record. It is even poorer given the historical proclivities of mankind and the proof of their Satanic essence. Those given over to a naive faith in justice would judge that the verdict on humanity is what we've always known: GUILTY. The sentence is clear and needs no further explanation if justice is a value worth anything. With that in mind, an increase in productivity is no longer merely a hazard of possession, but a danger to be averted at all costs. This mentality has been fully internalized in the ecologist rationales of the eugenic creed, and taught as a virtue of scarcity and probity, despite the source of the problem being their malice rather than justified retribution which never happens. Just retribution would, after the necessary task of establishing a worthwhile enforcement arm, simply see productivity as irrelevant beyond needs and justifiable wants—that is to say, it would not be the business of society to cater to fickle desires, but security would be a public good. The imperatives of guard labor described below^[2] would be changed irrevocably. Here, rather than guard labor working for the employer or some institution, or a vague conceit of "the general good" or "the general will" which has always been a pretext for aristocracy, guard labor would be morally inspired by something other than justice. It would be inspired by vengeance, enough historical knowledge of humanity's malice, and having seen the solution for themselves by reassembling history using science.

Science pertains to things outside of peculiar human conceits about what the world ought to be, or is, or will be. It is by removing the human bias and "human essentialism" imposed by aristocracy that human history can be seen for the disgusting debacle it has been, that we down here have always known to be true and have been told to pretend isn't real. When that is accomplished, we see that this is the extent of humanity's genuine agency in political life, rather than any appeal to primordial will or inherited property which was always the product of technology, labor, and the true material of the world, of which human beings and their genius is a minuscule portion. Humans are unique in that they have developed a faculty of science and generalized it, first through language and worked-out systems for personal use, and then as formalisms that are communicable across language barriers and capable of describing an unlimited number of things from a limited set of linguistic tokens.^[3] It is not possible to build a worthwhile language without the crudest application of science informing its development. Even a worked-out system without any direct attachment to the world is refined because those who use the system interfaced with a world, and recognize they are themselves a part of that world, however miniscule and whatever their true nature might be. The scientific task is in some way a task of knowledge, but it is never a creature of language in a direct way. Language is the only vehicle humans possess to communicate it to each other, for we are not linked directly to each other in the same way a human body is integrated with its parts. Even here, when human beings act in concert, their genuine existence is not as "social information", but as an association of beings who are not locked into any preferred dyadic model of communication for their actions to be meaningful. They are recognized as beings by science not by their person or by some essence of their individual being, but by associations, their shared tasks, and deviations of their members from others, either for various functions or as incidental truths. The association of humans is never "whole and indivisible" as a phalanx. A phalanx works as a battle formation because of the conditions where it is operative and by laws of physics and knowledge of human bodies and their general functioning. Putting any arbitrary human entities in a phalanx or a Roman legion would not make them functionally identical. Social information, which is the basis for sociology as a field of study, elides any information that is not mediated. The members of association understand a society as information, rather than their genuine shared existence. The English language lacks a suitable word for this, and I have yet to find one in any other language, but the concept can be appreciated more now than in the past, due to how society has been managed in the abstract for too long, and society presents to us as an alien excluding anything man-like or human. Society to be an intelligible concept is informational rather than a shared existence since the joint efforts of association are transient and only noted in experience, rather than "as the play was drawn". The association of an American Football team practices in many formations and can adopt varying strategies, which take into account the assets available to them in their players but generally revolve around a few generally favorable formations and strategies compared to all potential formations. No one doubts the objective of the game—reach the endzone or at least kick field goals—and formations are dissected and understood scientifically as the information on the play chart. So too are the motions of a football player, the exercise and training, calculated meticulously, since the scientific approach to the sport was at the heart of its adoption as the de facto national sport of the former United States. All of that meticulous planning would be meaningless if the game were not played live with actual men wearing the armor, and the various rules and regulations of the sport—among the largest volumes committed to any sport in human history—were adopted based on the limitations of movement and restrictions on passing and formations deemed useful for the sport being a worthy challenge. That challenge is played out in a field, rather than in a simulation, and the simulations of the sport attempt to replicate that experience as much as possible.

It is necessary to overcome the educational filter not because "education teaches you science", but because education is a necessary barrier to pass before science can be conducted in light of the pernicious effect of the evil on any scientific endeavor. Science itself is not "good"—it is solely concerned with as much truth as is needed to speak of genuine knowledge. But, the evils humanity faces were uniformly tasked with interdicting the scientific process and any connection, and it did so through social mechanisms more than political ones. This is to say, the evils that retard science were more often rooted in economic excuses than political excuses, but the economic excuses were for the political imperatives of a group that was hostile to all other classes and interests. When the evils were less present, they could be avoided without any process of education as such. When the evils are omnipresent and spread through social information—language being among the vectors—science in the genuine sense would diagnose the evil and sense that the evil humans summoned was based on conceits of intelligence and knowledge almost uniquely, and all other bases for humanity's evil were reducible to vices a child could recognize as monstrous if they had any sense of smell or standards of comparison. A child doesn't need to be told drugs are bad because they see someone wasted on the classes of malicious drugs or even something like overeating, and see that they want no part of that and any reward the drug pushers offer is not an idle pleasure. Usually, humans turn to vices first by rites of initiation and pressure from their fellow humans, and then see drugs as numbing compared to an evil that already pervades their lives and has likely infiltrated the supposed sacredness of their body. A child doesn't need to be told that many sexual perversions are not to be repeated, and absent any overbearing ideology, children are naturally disgusted by the sexual and its consequences and need only see its consequences among the sexually active. Only later in life does a desire for reproduction and the obvious means to do that become more evident as a kind of security. Even here, making a child is often driven by an expectation that this is what humans do in society, or because children were expected to upkeep elders as their elders were kept up and likely had some influence over their upbringing. Very few people are driven to reproduce out of an ideological conviction that this is "just so" or innately good since they can see many failures of such thinking among the unfortunates. Perhaps many are rushing to reproduce because of some primal urge that has been stoked and encouraged, or a pigheaded conceit about their eugenic quality and their right to sow their royal oats or receive the seed of a deity. These cases, too, have predictable consequences that many children will see around them at some point, or they would have read these stories and learned why they're not supposed to be fool enough to believe that shit. But, all things being said, the drive to reproduce is never wholly blind, and while many find a miniature version of themselves intrinsically appealing, this is never done mindlessly as Malthus' mindless breeders are postulated. To create the most fertile ground for such evils and malicious incompetence, the evil must interdict science rather than intelligence. The intelligent have, throughout history, been amenable to every fad and the worst malice of the human race, and consider it a special right of their race—a race they consider apart from the rest of us lowly humans, as the ritual sacrifice commanded it to be. A scientific inquiry would provide ample and obvious proof that this is dumb, and this would circumvent the "total system", until ideology could be weaponized to make permanent "the science" that supersedes genuine science. Even a dull intellect can sense that something is wrong with this situation. The dull have no use for ideology since ideology to work was premised on their eternal damnation and ignorance, and telling the dull lies about their smartness stretches credulity and is so farcical that it only works on those with some other poor moral fiber or malice in their souls. The intelligent, on the other hand, are tailor-made for ideology, and the greater the intelligence, the greater the madness of their race.

The antidote to this poison, whatever one's level of intellect, is recognition of the vast world outside of the beast, and the systematization of knowledge that subordinates the beast that is knowledge and intelligence to a more proper crown. That will often be science since the genius of the lowest class offers little respite from ideology or the machinations of the outside world. Another crown may be property and the historical rights that property entailed, with all of the deleterious effects of property on society and the world accepted as preferable to the insanity of "pure reason" and its horrific outcome. The aristocracy in the past and today have a simple solution to the quandary—wu wei, or "let be", or lassiez-faire. In short, the passivity of everyone but aristocracy will be taken as the best of all possible worlds, and so, the status quo is eternal. History would end, and because the only direction of historical progress can be from bad to worse in the model of history handed down by the master to the slaves, it would be better to preserve aristocracy's standing than risk the new and unfamiliar Satan from the commons, or worse, from some Ogre of the People. I propose a very different solution—that the class struggle be superseded in the only way that it truly can be. That is by recognition of the truth of this political settlement, and mass refusal to continue its core. There would truly be no more ritual sacrifice and no more insinuation or anvilicious "truth-telling" from proven liars or those who are reasonably expected to be inveterate liars. At that point, the cattle train humanity is on will be stopped in its tracks. History would not "end" —it would be broken irrevocably, and some new theory of history will have to be worked out to navigate the aftermath. That, though, is far away from our present time and writing. We live in the history that was dominated by the evil, and that evil will not be vanquished any time soon. Even in the best of cases, humanity has been irreversibly scarred by ritual sacrifice. Nothing good can come out of that, no matter what our thinking on history. Even if we do the best we can to salvage the good of this world despite our rotten nature, the evil still prevails and inflicts new scars so long as it sits at the apex of this monopoly, and the scars to come will be deeper than any humanity has known up to now.

Before there can be any division of science into specialized categories, there must be an approach to science grounded in something that is both approachable and portable enough to be learned en masse, rather than "received wisdom". In other words, it is most necessary to decouple rudimentary scientific education from the "rites of manhood" that were monopolized by Germanic education and its ruinous model—a model specifically designed to interdict every scientific inclination in mankind and replace it with screaming faggotry. Science is to be for everyone. This is the foundation of every success this sorry Empire has ever known, despite its ruling orthodoxy and the shitting up of "popular science" handed down from the masters to the slaves.^[4] Scientific education would still be education, rather than mere learning. There are standards to uphold and evils to manage. The investigation into science proper is not an educational matter, but teaching a useful "kernel", and communication across them, is paramount to any successful effort. The teaching of knowledge will not liberate a single person, as if the truth would set anyone free. But, for us to even speak of anything different, it is a necessary preliminary step.

Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

Return to Table of Contents | Return to Chapter Start