Previous Chapter | Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

The only primary category of history, scientific or otherwise, is the history of education and its cult, so far as it can claim this distinction. Otherwise, history as a subject is only reducible to the world itself, and there are many seemingly disparate categories of knowledge that may be linked, but which are each their own domain. An effort may be made to make a natural science such as physics a "master key", but this is a dogma of education rather than any unique creative power of any category of natural history. Science proper is not confined to natural history for it to be worthwhile science since it can freely critique all other types of history. The study of nature is properly understood as naturalism, and this is an approach to studying the world rather than a series of just-so, imperious dictations of what science is or what the world is. What unites all categories of history is that they are all products of a natural world that preceded any artifice, any knowledge, or any genius that was capable of conducting science. The proper study of nature, absent any metaphysical framework, can say remarkably little about any particular thing. It can only make general rules, which without an educational framework imposed on history, would be aimless in describing anything we would consider genuine knowledge.

This is unsuitable for human beings or most entities like us that would conduct science. Either a formal metaphysics has to be imposed on reality and assumed and thus is forever beyond question, or what is conducted is not really science but an elaborate formalism that strives for elegance. Very often, the metaphysics imposed on reality grants to life agency and power it never possessed and never needed to possess. Agency is ultimately a conceit of the mind rather than an essential ingredient of the universe. Nature has no concept of agency whatsoever, but for human beings, agency describes anything that could have any causative effect. In the crass retelling, agency becomes a scarce substance monopolized by a cult, and all that exists—for the things that exist operate on their own power without any "contradiction" required—must be reduced to a singular point which is commanded like mana. This crass retelling is amenable to property and lust to claim the world rather than any worthwhile inquiry into any subject, and it was adopted precisely because it was inimical to any rudimentary science humans could use to describe the world. It is not what actually happens when a human child builds their framework for understanding the world—or any human at any stage of their life where they can contemplate the question since this inquiry never ends no matter what claims are made about existence. Usually, humans are motivated to conduct science not for its own sake or out of a stubborn insistence on truth, but because the truth is necessary and cannot be avoided to navigate the world with any certainty. Any entity that faces the demands a human does simply to live always seeks certainty regarding things in the universe and disdains mystification when they are honest with themselves. The moral dilemma of habitual lying only arises long after there is a world to lie about, and all such liars must hold a dual system where they hold some truth if they are to engage in this habitual lying.

Without any necessary unification of the sciences, the naive human, throughout its life, must orient its science around things it is intimately connected to. It has two things to note. One is life, which is utterly alien to nature for the reasons we have described at length before. The other is physics, or the study of motion and spaces, which is at first conducted in crude form and would be a way to organize knowledge by the same spatial navigation faculty that is more or less native to any life-form with a brain. Physics tends to be at the top of sciences established in formalisms, and many areas of knowledge that are not physical events are granted physical qualities, such as "econophysics" or variations of systems thought linking to physical properties, like thermodynamics' statistical pseudoscience. Life itself is decisively not physical or spatial. It has no noticeable center, and it occupies whatever host matter is suitable, including abstract matter. But, all of the "life sciences" are disparate categories, often developed first on an ad hoc basis. The products of the study of physics, and its diversification into chemistry and so on, are usually encountered "as-is", for the study of substances and alchemy did not follow any necessary physical prescription to speak of substances or elements. Physically, the component matter is only relevant because the organization of matter allowed these properties, rather than physics being meticulously engineered to create chemical substances "just so", ready for human consumption. Chemistry begins with cataloging substances and asking what they are, rather than requiring a physical basis. It could very easily postulate that whatever the substance is, the physical properties of elements are identical, or are essential to the type and do not reduce to any physical origin other than the element itself; that is, that carbon's physical properties are nothing more than "carbon doing things", rather than the result of protons and electrons, which did not always exist in models nor were necessary to describe carbon and compounds containing it as a potential.

For rudimentary science, this formalism only develops in the crudest sense. The child works out some general system for describing all that exists on terms it can understand, rather than digesting an elaborate formalism by some genetic inheritance. The child may have naive or magical ideas of how the world works, or shrug and say there was a god or gods that did it in emulation of itself. Usually the explanation of "gods" is, for a child, tantamount to spirits or a crude animism, rather than "God" as a theological concept that is not at all pertinent to natural history, whether for the child's view or for adults who understand God is not a naturalistic proposition. But, the spiritual explanation says nothing other than a placeholder. Some system for organizing this knowledge takes place, and must be developed alongside the life sciences which operate on entirely different principles—for life is a queer and unusual thing compared to any other science, and among the earliest question for a child is to ask what life is, what it is, and where did life like itself come from. No one needs to ask the same sort of essential question of physical matter with the same meaning. It is not typical of humans to view themselves as dead matter animated by some geist called "life", though there are children who see enough suffering and malice by the time they ask this question that they would view life with proper disgust—making the common error that life itself as a force is the malevolence, rather than a particularly human malice that is not shared by any other life-form with the same meaning and development. Yet, as humans grow older and establish formalisms within political society, alienation from life and the material is expected. Nothing about knowledge and the way humans conduct themselves in political society obeys the "laws of nature" or "laws of life" in any way, and in many religions, the human soul and all spiritual concepts are decidedly unliving. So too are physical things, the easiest formalism to establish, unliving even when they are animated by this queer artifice called life.

If the pressures of life are all-consuming, then the interests of life as described would inform the categorization, and specializations are sorted into five categories—the life sciences which are "core", often involving reproduction and knowledge of the land in agronomy, the sciences of politics and war which are parasitic on all of the others for the sake of struggle, the formalisms of institutions which are necessary for polite society, the actual base-level sciences and applications thereof, and those sciences which are "superfluous". However, the five-caste schema is not in any way encoded in nature and does not have any teleological effect on what science is to be prioritized or what caste anyone "should" belong to. That is a conceit of the educator and pedagogue, rather than the student. The student asks far simpler questions—what they are here to do, and what they would do or want to do with the time and resources they possess. Before any preferred hierarchy or schema can unify the sciences, science must be utilized for something. Sciences that would in another society be entirely superfluous, like music, become valued treasures among humanity, and yet, the study of music and its effect on humans, and a history of music, is not trivial knowledge and it is one with surprising effect for something so strange and peculiar to humanity. Nothing about the human spirit "encoded" musical knowledge or an affinity to it, but the effect of music on humans arose for perfectly natural reasons and was not in of itself a pernicious effect. Music is among the communications humans use which makes a mockery of the conceit of "static encoded language", due to what music is and what it does, how humans recognize it, and the sentimental or very serious values it entails. But, this talent or inclination is far from universal, and many of humanity, this author included, are tone-deaf and can't make heads or tails of a musical composition or whether it is "good".

More pressing than the immediate environment is the imperatives humans follow. The easiest imperatives are what life actually does, rather than the conceit of what it should do or its economic motives described in the second book of this series. Life seeks sustenance not because its survival is an economic concern, but because life-forms tend to see no reason why their life-functions should terminate for the sake of some spurious rationale. When the rationales given are so obviously slanted towards the malice of aristocracy and its enablers, the motivation to live out of pure spite has done the greater work than the mere natural stubbornness of life. Life is indeed stubborn, but not infinitely so against the bullshit and malice humans bring to the world. Spite and hatred of such monstrosity have done wonders for humanity, where an animal would not comprehend or could only wilt in the face of a nigh-incomprehensible demon called "Man". But, all of these calculations and conceits about human intelligence do not immediately concern the genuine practice of science. They are only a condition that affects what of the objects to study would be prioritized. Absent any compelling influence, humans, or any other life-from capable of conducting this inquiry, would carry on in their environment. Education is a necessity against future potential threats, and there is a hint that there is something more to life than merely being, for the exhortation to "just be" is grossly insulting to any sense. Eugenists never simply let us be when we did nothing and the terror and aggression from them was unilateral and carried out for the spirit of malice common to their filthy race. Then there is an intrinsic curiosity that even the most pernicious education cannot stamp out. Only through imminent pressing fear—"imminent critique" as they call it—can the pernicious education be reinforced. Otherwise, it would suffer "bit decay" as there is no reason to continue such a ruinous course of action, despite the stubbornness of life and the conceit that life and history can be edited by diktat or legal rulings. Absent the general fear, the accumulation of trifling things would be a hobby carried out by humanity, for there is no good reason to stop this and no ulterior motive. If the needs of life are to be the excuse for political society, those needs and wants include homeostasis and sufficient cause to live beyond "life itself" as a mere conceit. If all life can do is recapitulate a single word, that is not just a life not worth living. It is a horror show and cyclical pressing of the nerve, and obviously of no use for an adaptive life-form that intends to see new things and encounter things it did not know. Only within a "total system", designed to entrap and ensnare the gullible who then are pressed to enforce this for themselves and their peers, does such a life appear inevitable or normal. The true normal of nature is that there is something new beyond the horizon. Even a faint knowledge of animals can make that assessment. It took human perversions and formalism to entrench a love of ignorance, especially given the stated orientation of ritual sacrifice and torture to mark those who are retarded.

Despite every human being a product of reproduction—biological and all of the upbringing that must be recreated for every human being—never does the science of reproductive knowledge become central as a science, nor is this reproductive labor valued. In many cases, reproduction of human beings is discouraged or retarded, and the most obvious vectors to advance this ideology are the women who are the only humans who become pregnant and, for numerous reasons, are the most likely nurturer and provider of a young child's upbringing and material wants. All of this knowledge is never primary because it is very obviously developed and passed down from generation to generation, and rebuilt out of components of the life sciences, the study of substances and physical knowledge which is beneath the dignity of professionals, the study of psychology and its likely trajectory among the youth, and the effects on parents who must be vigilant and introduce that child to a predatory society. By no means do the mothers have a natural monopoly on this labor, nor are mothers always tasked with raising productive and happy children. Very often the most devoted members of a death cult are the mothers, who cull their offspring and have historically been granted a privilege to do so regarding their own children. This culling is a sad necessity of the reproductive task, or a fate brought on because the child must be spared from said predatory society, which had established the terror of ritual sacrifice. But, the necessity of knowledge of culling in reproduction is often a convenient excuse for mothers, fathers, or the vile forces of humanity to conduct the ritual sacrifice in the home, where reproduction of the most ancient rite of their race would originate the practice in wider society. Children do not pop out of the ether and "just so" reproduce themselves perfectly, as a eugenist must insinuate for their theories of society and rule to be internally consistent. When writing about eugenism, a further view of this cycle is most necessary, for interdicting it has been the obsession of aristocracy. But, for all of us, we know of this area of study because we were all at one point children, who had to be introduced to this monstrous society. It would be nearly impossible to trivialize this, except for the screaming fags of the eugenic creed, and they are fags, with the women cheerleading this being fag enablers or vectors of faggotry in feminine form.

Reproduction takes on special importance not because the knowledge itself is foundational, but because of its role in reproducing human society and the people who carry out this task. Reproduction in human society cannot be untangled from the personhood and identity which is at heart institutional rather than any essence of the entity itself, even though none of the science of genuine reproduction has anything to tell us about personhood or institutions. Strictly speaking, a "family" of any sort is not a requirement for reproduction. Only the essential labor, however it is carried out, will happen. The particular institution tasked with reproduction usually has to accept the documented reality that biological parents are often going to raise their offspring rather than offer their children to a ghoulish institution in total. This is true even of the family of biological parents and offspring, which while it has natural indicators of its formation, immediately faces the strain of the task set for it and the competing institutions, including other families and persons who see this reproductive task as a game or sweepstakes, or the great struggle of life emulating the orgiastic game aristocracy ALWAYS insinuates as its prime model for what political and reality ought to be.

The essential act itself—sex—is simple enough, yet granted outsized importance, as are the rituals of mating which have long been an exercise of the ritual sacrifice for supposed "pleasure". Its self-abasing counterpart, "self-love" is a futile exercise with known deleterious effects. For all of the value placed on the essential act, very little of sex results in reproduction, or is particularly pleasant or worth the energy expended on the "chase"—the chase for a phantom, a joke played most of all on those cast out of the game. A race that valued sanity would abrogate the entire charade, and speak of the sexual act as a disgusting necessity until such a time where the process could be circumvented while reproducing members. Here, though, a very crucial question is raised. If that ever happened, it would, much like the lowest class having its day, be the effective end of the human race and its entire project. For material purposes, sexual reproduction is woefully inefficient, creating needless miseries for all involved and risking death for the pregnant mother in addition to exhaustion of her body for every child born. The value of the act itself is almost entirely superstitious. How much this particular superstition is valued relies on how much of the surplus of society is to be exhausted in a rigged, fruitless exercise. The "pleasure" to be sought is entirely contingent on mockery of the losers. That is the only "pleasure" to be found in such a ritual, which is not trifling. Arguments of hedonism in the essential act always rely on self-abasement as their founding moral and ethical value, where the sexual act is far removed from anything it actually entails. Only in the society of habitual lying would such an ethos be allowed to exist without being mocked, and eventually rejected by the intended sacrifices. This must be made haram, and ultimately, violent threats and insinuation around the act itself are a cornerstone of aristocratic rule. It does not take long for those threats and insinuations to extend to other aspects of reproduction. If life is controlled at reproduction, then its production, and all historical potentials, are controlled in the mindset of aristocracy. This is never how it actually works, of course. Most people somehow survive the sexual rituals, whether they reproduce or not, and by middle age if not before, they are thoroughly disgusted with the entire rigamarole and wish they could have all of those years and all of that effort back. The one product of sexual unions, the children, are either a liability in of themselves or are threatened by aristocracy unless granted favor and exemption from the ritual sacrifice, which becomes a premium value—a piece of blue sky that never materializes except for the "chosen", and which is a cruel joke to the lowest class regardless of their supposed "success" at this rat race.

The greater task of reproduction is carried out not with the essential entity or the person, but with the life functions and processes that entity carries out. Of all of the things humans do, nearly all of them are for nothing more than reproducing those functions day after day, with modifications throughout their lives, and reproducing the machines that are wholly employed for this purpose. This is not merely a statement of the considerable cost of life to simply exist—to maintain something whose very existence is aberrant in the universe, rather than any "natural law". The most dominant intent of life, and humans are no exception, is that reproducing itself is worthwhile without regard for ulterior motives or any moral claim. Moral claims are not in any way beholden to this. It is impossible to justify life on any moral grounds, and morality does not exist to serve life or to oppress life. They are, in the final analysis, alien to each other. They meet for us because we have invented generally alienable labor and can bargain that labor away in rituals, sacrifices, and promises of reward that are the first contracts humans comprehend. This reproductive aim has no bearing on concepts of duty, obligation, and what we would prefer the world to be with whatever agency we possess. It is not even necessary for the reproductive task to be carried out at all costs. Life can accept its end without petulant screaming, without debasing itself to the faggotry of the resigned craven who uses the end of their life as an excuse for debauchery. There are things in this world worth something other than merely living, and we may prefer a life that is good and hurts no one, leaving something behind for those who came after us. But, the reproduction of life has inevitable consequences for good or ill, and it has its own wants and needs. That cannot be avoided, nor can it realistically be justified to command someone to stop breathing, as petulant Fabian fags will call for—as long as it never requires them to sacrifice a single thing. The true existence of someone is not defined by moral goals that are utterly alien to their existence or their deeds, as if we could only be moral if that moral code were alien to our existence, or if our existence were utterly beholden to a higher power and the entity that is us can only be a vessel for some superstition or some god. Humans, and in some way animals can know of this, act as if their reproduction were consequential if they are at all serious about living. It is strange that, for people who talk all of the time about destroying the world for their cause of historical progress, they are never too serious about any condition that would reproduce that effort or any directed change in the world. Jumping to the fated conclusion of the cajoler is ingrained in the thinking of those who would project and push onto others, only after they have secured impunity for themselves regarding this and made it a great taboo to turn the cajoler's weapon against the cajoler. Permanent inequality and injustice are only fundamental conditions when the reproductive labor in all forms—from the conception of life to daily breathing and sustenance and the rituals throughout daily life, to the way humans are to die—is utterly alienated, rather than merely generally alienable. Without this, all of the causes for aristocracy and class society are not worth the sacrifice of a goldfish, let alone the vast treasure spent on the most worthless cause humans ever lived or died for. This leads someone seeking that impunity to generalize all labor as reproductive labor, repeating in a cycle. This grants to the superstitious cycle referenced in Chapter 14 of the previous book its "material basis" in a crass mind. The reality, of course, is that the superstition preceded the "material conditions requiring the cycle". Nothing about life, homeostasis, or its struggle for existence, warranted any such ideology, because such an ideology has been proven to be a failure. It was known to be a failure before its modern incarnations since the same stupid idea rises with every generation, projected to the damned by those who have condemned humanity for nothing more than a cheap thrill.

What is important here is that reproduction is contingent on a world outside of it, which was not created for us as if the world were beholden to the will of men to struggle for ideology—a struggle that was always known to be a failed system from the outset. It does not exist as a primary science, but as a collection of multiple baser sciences which are worked out first in crude systems, and almost pathologically resist formalization due to their necessity for life to continue and the need for adaptability for all reproductive processes. Which "came first"—the reproductive science or the basic workings of the world which had to be systematized enough to develop the crude method—is irrelevant, for reproduction as a process abides by its own laws and reasoning, as any science would. Science regarding the body, anatomy, biology as a concept, superstitions regarding living things, crude physics, and chemistry, are all incorporated, and refined. None of the components are beholden to any other necessarily, yet reproduction stands alone, and the expenditure of human labor-power and resources on reproduction is very high when considering sleeping, eating, breathing, recreation—it's literally in the name—and too many things to mention are carried out without any ulterior motive, even reproduction itself. This is something life-forms like us do, and they do not do so blindly or aimlessly. This rule extends to the "kingdom of nature". No sexual act is truly "stochastic", and it is insulting in the extreme to claim it is so. It takes place in an environment, and viable offspring only occur in environments of a different sort. The sexual act itself has little to do, and sexual reproduction is hilariously inefficient and maladaptive compared to any rational strategy of conception we could trivially devise. It is so maladaptive that sexual rituals remain the ugly underbelly of human society, always among the most lurid superstitions of a race, and a thing that we learned long ago to treat with appropriate disgust. Yet, no technological fix fundamentally changes the reproductive situation, and for every reproductive strategy, it could be reduced to some "essential form" that is eternally regressed towards. Changing sexual reproduction into cloning vats or creating humans directly from the Earth and divine intervention does not have any special quality compared to any other alternative. It only possesses the qualities that science would allow it to possess, and by the nature of the act, it inherits the history of any agent that would cause it as part of its own history. We would never change that we came from the muck, and there was nothing so wrong about that, except in the mind of conceited fags. No matter what changes—even if humans became very different creatures and unrecognizable as humans—reproduction as a cycle would continue in some way. It may no longer create new organisms as we expect today, but there is a reason why life-forms eventually die, metamorph, and can create offspring by the means available to them. So too are the works of art or deeds of a person their "babies" in a sense, though they are distinctly not granted the qualities of life. Reproductive labor pertains not to purely biological reproductive labor, but reproduction of the soul. It does not, by its nature, produce alienated product, and that is one distinction of reproductive labor from other types of labor. Reproductive labor is generally alienable and can be commodified, but the products are only alienated in the abstract and must be coterminous with the entities reproducing them. When the offspring attain some measure of independence, they are their own thing, wherever that may lead, and this is expected. But, no offspring believes they can truly edit the past, or that such a thing would even be desired or necessary. What was needed, and what eugenics sought most of all to deny, was any possibility of redemption—once retarded, always retarded, as they have cursed us.

Reproductive science is not unique in that it produces no clearly alienable product with an independent existence. The offspring, whatever independence they may attain, are for the purposes of reproductive science "the same essential substance" as the parents or whatever their conditions of genesis were. The independent existence—that is, nearly everything we value as ourselves or any agency we would possess—is distinctly not reproductive labor. No one can freely reproduce human beings in the abstract or in some ledger and make it so. It is not a theoretical undertaking, without consulting sciences that are very alien to the reproductive task, and which would never internalize the koans of reproductive superstition. Nonetheless, every life-form reproduces itself and its offspring in some way, and it is quite impossible to not do this in some way. Reproducing the body by living in any way that can be called "actually living" reproduces the body sufficiently without any biological offspring or apparent products. For political society and the associations that comprise it, biological offspring and lines of inheritance are "the point"—the thing that would certainly and undeniably mark biological chains of cause and effect. The purpose of reproductive labor in political society is to reproduce human beings and all of the other creations of someone, and all of the actual work of reproducing life and raising the offspring is elided. No matter what you might think that labor is worth, the only value of reproduction in political society is the offspring—the last remaining property of the proletarian in the literal definition of the word, that being free men who possessed their offspring.^[1]

All of the reproductive knowledge arises as products of the natural world but stands opposed to it. Where life reproduces itself for its own purposes, events in nature do not reproduce anything in that sense. Natural agents pop in and out of existence, and to knowledge, this appears to be more or less "random". All of these events are lumped into the human concept of "nature", but all of the agents in nature—all of the things that do anything that comprises nature—similarly exist on their own power. Unlike life-forms and particularly the human effort to reproduce themselves, objects in nature do what they do without any such regard, or the moral weight and consideration attached to all forms of reproduction. A rock or a sheet of metal does not care or assert its form. They are permeable to any force in nature, and whatever the stability of matter, no "self-organization" of the matter is evident from the mere fact of that agent's existence. All of the objects in natural science are only organized by a theoretical understanding of what those things are and do not for themselves or in of themselves possess any inherent order or assertion of being. Every approach to natural science requires the naturalist to act as if this were the case, rather than the crass notion that nature has any "plan" or "order" ready-made for human consumption. If nature is reduced to its "essence" or the conceit humans hold about it, it describes nothing but the generalities of existence, and this lacks any substance or matter that nature would pertain to. Order in nature is always interpreted by us, rather than self-evident by the assertion of things themselves. That interpretation on our part is not bound by any natural requirement or subordination to any other task. The recurrence of particular things is a fact. Assignment of a name or any linguistic token is ultimately a contrivance of ours to describe those recurrences, which on their own did nothing more than what was possible for them. Because of how humanity understood nature, it is assumed that those recurrences are cyclical, but the recurrence of any thing arose from the genuine substance of the world doing what it did, rather than any notion of what they were supposed to do. The task of natural science was to discover those things for our own purposes, rather than assert imperiously what nature was to do. That task of commanding nature is neither natural nor reproductive or inherent to life, but a thing altogether alien to it. Before any such assertion is made, it is necessary to connect meaning to natural events to speak of the simplest tasks, or we would carry on with those life functions much as any other natural event would. Even the simplest reproductive act like breathing is not carried out "totally mindlessly and blindly". To breathe requires substantive air and an environment, and the organism that breathes does so for a purpose inherent to its construction, rather than the conceit its brain and neurological activity commanded it to do. While it need not enter mental awareness, every organism regulates its breathing in accord with the environment, rather than asserting "breathe, breathe, breathe" as a mindless Demiurge-like impulse. This activity preceded our ability to analyze breathing and say anything about it, and so the living, breathing human asking this question would carry out these functions many times over before it can record some anatomical knowledge of its own body and environments with air to breathe. Regardless of any systemization of knowledge, a life-form inherently systematizes certain things due to what it does to be life. This is not true of other things, for nature and the things in the world did not need any "system" to be substantive and make their impression on the world. Systematization is a peculiarity of life, which at a basic level has no substance of its own whatsoever. Life is not unique in this regard, but life has the unusual property of originating in nature yet having nothing of nature in it. The other abstract constructs are all things we easily recognize as contrivances, and their basic components—their origin in nature—can be extracted. Inquiring into life's natural origins only brings some chemical compounds and physical forces which, by themselves, suggest nothing of life or why it "should" exist. Said life, when reproducing itself as its first task through breathing, consuming, and excreting, has no monopoly on this peculiar property, and encounters a world outside of it which did not abide by any such law. Life easily recognizes that which is neither living nor dead, for those categories can never comprise all that exists and children see this until it is beaten out of them. Those who are not indoctrinated into the horrors of ideology approach the world not as an alien to be conquered or dominated, but as something which exists just as they did. It did not occur to a child that its world-historical mission was to mindlessly reproduce for a sick and depraved cult. If that was the purpose of life, then a reasonable person concludes that the only correct course of action is to rope itself. Fortunately for it and us, that is not the purpose of life nor any way life would proceed if it is to be anything other than a transient screaming of some eldritch abomination.

Living things often make the mistake of inserting themselves into the natural world because that is their natural first principle—that because they are part of the same world, inhabiting the same sort of matter as the natural entities they study, natural entities must be living in some way and proceed in the same manner. Nothing could be further from the truth when any useful system to describe the natural world is built. Even a crude mind will see that the un-living is not living in the sense that the living entity thinking this is and that animal life is very different from the unliving entities. Life leaves its telltale signs in the evidence that is not produced by any other natural process, and this marks life as highly alien to the almost entirely unliving universe. It is failure to follow this truth to its logical conclusion that creates so many of the sleight-of-hand tricks cajolers use to obfuscate and deny what science has always discerned about the universe with any worthwhile judgment. Life must be made "more natural than nature itself", even though its existence is alien to nature—not as utterly alien as a pure abstraction, but nothing about life is mandated by nature let alone foundational. Nature is not "intrinsically dead" in that sense, or even intrinsically unliving. Nature, like any universal construct, simply is. The same is not true of specific agents, which can be granted these qualities, where they must mean something if life is to be a meaningful proposition. The study of life itself does not belong to any foundational science of nature or reproduction, nor do the functions of life describe all motion or change. Life, by its own logic, is profoundly unchanging. Only the matter it co-opts is changed in peculiar ways, but the material world did not stop in place for living agents to imperiously declare its trajectory.

The study of nature makes clear that no essence can change, for essences are not a valid category for natural science and never were. Nature itself, and any general laws which can be said about it, are not politically determined in any way, and nature has no concept of the political in-of-itself or for itself. What can be described in the science of natural agents is something that can arrest artificial agents, which operate on their own power, into something stable and predictable. This would be necessary for living things to accomplish anything, rather than being an outgrowth of the reproductive function of life carried out mindlessly. Even the acts of reproduction themselves are carried out with some deliberation. The deliberation need not be mental deliberation or the volition of intelligence, but breathing life-forms developed the ability to breathe because there was an intent of life to feed on the surrounding air, rather than a rational agent imperiously commanding life to breathe. The initial act of conception might be interpreted as some god-like power to command life at all levels, but once the dirty business of sex is complete, the product of the union and all other consequences of the act happen without the consent of anyone. Nature does not provide consent forms or allow the revocation of consent - there are no backsies, and this truth is utilized by the eugenic creed and its monopoly on taboos to "teach the controversy" and inject itself as close to Creation as its fickle dogmas can. If life begins at conception, as it surely must to speak of life, it becomes its own thing in the instant of its conception, and yet, every dogma of essentialism life upholds does not allow this assertion without obligation to a history outside of its power. This is not a choice philosophers or human assholes get to make, for what is life, but the functions it executes and the seeming intent of those functions? For life to be stable, it reproduces itself regularly, and this is the only constant of life. Its tendency of homeostasis, rather than its volition to change which is comparatively, is—dare I say the word—retarded. Volatility in life is something to be avoided at all costs, even when adaptation to the outside world would be most necessary. If someone looked for the ne plus ultra of evolutionary advantage in the crass interpretation of Darwinism, the simplest answer would be to sacrifice all expectations and optimize for one and only one goal—death, to emulate the true condition of nature and nearly all that exists as entirely unliving. The egomania of the eugenist cannot abide that truth, and so it inserts a new reality, which is a retread of every aristocratic cult—that by embracing this sacrifice wholly and absolutely and placing it at the center of existence, the adherent will become a god. This is the true heart of humanity's folly. It does not conduct the ritual sacrifice because the ritual sacrifice really works or gives the adherent what they believe they have gamed the universe to provide. Humanity does this because they believe that ritual sacrifice is the divine, and that they will transcend nature and life and become gods if they but throw the stones and are chosen by this rite of passage. The ulterior motives are provided as their excuse for the terror—and the ideal of the aristocrat is that they make no excuses for the terror ever and laugh at the idea of needing one, but they always make excuses that the terror is for some machination that will totally work this time and that the power of terror is a tool of mastery over the alien. None of the ulterior motives ever come close to realization. As soon as the ritual sacrifice concludes, the blood debt to their fake and gay "gods" is called upon. Ritual sacrifice is the first instance where an institution of humanity cannot fail—it can only be failed. The same cycle repeats ad nauseum.

In its drive to dominate life and place its will at the center of existence, in a vain effort to "change the world", aristocracy and its mode of politics feeds itself. It is a peculiar evil and hardly the fount of evil in the world. The greater evil of the world has nothing to do with humanity's disgusting faggotry, and the aristocrat cannot stand that the evil of the world is far greater than any evil its miserable existence may summon. What they cannot stand more is that, for all of the evil in the world, the world is in the main "good", or at worst it is not morally entangled with the problem of evil in any appreciable way. The world, asking for nothing in return, allowed humanity to live, to thrive, to squander its existence in this foolhardy crusade, and continually offers choices to escape the cycle—if only that were in the human spirit. Despite humanity's continued folly, the world keeps trying, for it does not do so with limited patience or any will or teleology we would regard. It does this because all the aristocrat does has been a cosmic scam since the first blood was drawn for sacrifice to the fake and gay gods. The scam operates not because it "fools" anyway, but because it becomes absolutely haram to say no, until the superstition of a cycle—superficially drawn from the reproduction of life and its seeming recurrence in natural artifacts—feeds itself. In short, ritual sacrifice is an attempt to print some token of torture and suffering and monetize that power of the world as the unique property of an interest—the aristocratic interest, which is highly alien to the other interests and the world it feeds from. The scam will never be "outsmarted", yet this dubious wisdom is always offered as yet another excuse for the terror (the same terror they disdain to make excuses for publicly, yet privately make every excuse for when the rest of us have no good reason in this world to ever abide such filth). It was never premised on the rigorous discovery of fact or any claim intelligence can make, nor was it premised on a truth of the world that asserts itself despite anything we know. It is a usurious act, where the promise of future suffering—boundless, unlimited suffering in the name of the aristocratic god—is tokenized and doled out as a "good" distinct from any other. Once established, those in hock to the usurer must seek whatever in the world may be perverted and queered. The coda to this is to claim that this fetish of the commodity arises for spooky purposes and actually works so that the true enforcement arm of the monetary system is never spoken of too plainly or described in any way that is useful for a scientific approach. Nowhere was the fetish for a commodity worth a single thing to anyone, or confused with goods and services. It is instead the good of extracting human suffering and torture itself—and it is only human suffering ritual sacrifice craves—that is traded and exchanged, which is no surprise to any student of political economy or history. This good of human suffering has no value without a world of genuine, substantive goods to furnish the usurer with all of the spoils of victory, finalized with commanding their victims to not see what was done in front of their faces. Standard Masonic tactics. Yet, for those who see this suffering for what it is, it is indeed a "good". It reminds us just what humans are and always have been, and that their promises of "redemption through faith alone" and the usual Satanic claptrap offends a sense of smell. Knowledge of the ritual sacrifice does nothing to stop it and holds no power over it in itself, for such conceits of knowledge are themselves part of the power of this ritual sacrifice. Only the useful application of this knowledge by science when navigating the world has any way of making this evil into a "good" in one way—by holding the lessons of history in the soul and knowing what we are born to hate. Such a hatred offers no solution for love or anything "good-in-of-itself", but recognition of this evil is one of the evils humanity must navigate, and the evil was not wholly invented by the genius of humanity. Such folly can be found in nature's absurdities and in lesser forms—often the residual effects of a society built around ritual sacrifice as all hitherto known human societies have been. When someone has seen the greater evils of the world than human ritual sacrifice—for the world contains evils that would smite such a filthy, fickle faggotry that humanity has sadly embraced—one has a better perspective on what is truly good and worthwhile. The greater evils of the world, which the better of humanity may hope to capture in yet another feeble attempt to deify themselves, have no need of legacy or "social proof" or any of the silly games played in economics and politics. The evil of Man's rituals is so weak that when it encounters a much greater evil that needed no faggy "god", the usurer cannot help but mewl about fairness and "justice", having made their existence fruitful by perverting the concept as any reason would have judged such things to be useful.

This is far removed from the business of natural science, which at first was a trivial outgrowth of reproductive acts or something intrinsically interesting to the genius of humanity. Even as natural science originates for more elaborate motives and develops formal systems of knowledge that fill libraries rather than the accumulated knowledge committed to living memory, it is always carried out despite this proclivity for ritual sacrifice and the faggotry for which it stands. The thing we wanted before these insinuating assholes came along was to live this curious experience called "life", preferably with less toil and sacrifice rather than more. Nowhere does "pleasure" as a substance enter our consideration, for such a thing is always fleeting and not even particularly attractive. The overwhelming "natural aim" of life is stability, and very often, "pleasure" drugs and vices are chosen because they emulate that stability in some way. Heroin and alcohol calm the nerves and prop up a body insured to coexistence with such a Satanic race as humanity. Stimulants meet the demand to push the body to conform to a sick society. Hallucinogens break the mind and open it to what it is trained to deny itself by the ethics of that sick society. Sexual vices usually replicate what was for most animals a trivial thing, often an afterthought carried out seasonally if at all. Individually, sexual congress and the results of conception have been almost entirely a burden on the parents and children, and it was the world removed from the essential act that was the objective of mother, father, and child. In another world, this would not be a rigamarole, nor would humiliations and insinuations begin because of some manufactured taboo that an aristocracy openly and proudly transgresses as their unique and special moral right. Even this sick society can appreciate the value of such an approach to the world, and the naive ask why we have to tolerate such insinuations. In a right and just society, such insinuation would lead to inflexible and severe punishment of the transgressor, and the study of evil would mark down such technology, disassemble it, and we would not need to allow such insinuation to continue. But, that is not what humans are, or can be after what they have done. Attempts to do exactly this are doomed to failure not because it is unnatural or a physical impossibility. They are doomed because the concept of any other society had to become inadmissible, and after the ritual sacrifice and suffering is laid bare for what it is, that age-old question haunts the mind—"what was it for". If someone sets out to build a society where this didn't apply and somehow overcame their internalized embrace of the ritual shame of the human race, they would find a lot more toil and suffering simply to reach the nihilistic truth of the human spirit, and then they muddle through the rest of their existence with little to say for themselves or what they're doing. Perhaps that spark of genius would find something in the world or construct a spirit apart from the human spirit that did not value this hideous folly. But, it would not be a study of nature that stems from the tools of science available to most of humanity from the outset, nor are they tools that can easily pass by inheritance or any institutional mandate. Very likely, such a contemplation would be removed from what we consider to be any "natural right" or goodness that would appeal to a human mind. The world would be something distant and largely irrelevant to the proceeding existence. Very likely this entity would see its mortal existence as a transient problem, but its far more fruitful spiritual existence would no longer need to concern itself with the egomania that has gripped mankind in this sad and pathetic epoch. It is not an existence for "us". "We", the self, would be relegated to a role of a nagging voice. This would apply not just to the individual, but to the collective or any social unit. All of the good of the world and the endeavor we carry out would be for the good, rather than our belief that "we" get anything for it. But, the remnants of the self would be amply rewarded, and this, I believe the selfish impulse in mankind can appreciate. Its greatest danger—other humans—would be largely averted. Its material and natural wants that it desired in the first place would be provided as a matter of course, rather than those wants becoming an excuse for extortion. In a material sense, the productive task as an economic problem would become the trivial problem that it always was by any rational appreciation of the task—that, given the true needs of life processes and the more elaborate needs of the mind and intellect are rather cheap compared to the expense spent on war and the struggle for aristocratic standing, much of what we are made to scrape and beg for would be so cheap that it would be more expensive to put a price tag on it. This happens already with the overabundance of goods with no buyer, due to a religious dogma that the masses must starve and suffer and constantly want, so they can be cajoled. It was never really an economic or productive cause that created this, but a political imperative that seized the world and all life in it by the throat. The only consequence is that self-interest, that great driver that regulated political life where moral probity failed, would diminish beyond the obvious expectation that, once established, a suitable status quo need not be disturbed for spurious insinuations. Very likely, humanity would have less to do with each other, and it would be far easier to emulate the generous and righteous mercy the world gave, rather than "mercy" offered with a knife at the throat of the recipient, a crime that can be leveled against every religion which made any pretense of mercy. Perhaps one good thing that can be said of many human religions is that they did not offer that lie as a serious doctrinal plank, and so they are spared the charge of lying on that matter.

If I were to perfect a model of a scientific method, I would be lying. This is one of the shibboleths of imperious, dogmatic education—that science is reduced to a "method" or some technology that provides scientific solutions like clockwork, and all other methods are inadmissible as "real science". A fuller deconstruction of this strays from my intent in this writing, and I have given some hints as to the political and spiritual motives for why this conceit about "The Science" was introduced. If, however, the goal of natural science was an inquiry into the agents that preceded humanity, or were outside of direct human agency—that is, things that escaped temporarily the total command of humans and their property—we can do far better than the dogmas education put in front of genuine scientific inquiry as "life sciences" or the gamut of politicized education in science, all of which was deliberately constructed to grant to a caste only that scientific knowledge that was permissible for them. One need not carry out long diatribes and rail against the institutions as I have to bypass these fetters. Many of you good readers did this long before I was around, and it would not be possible to call bullshit on dogmatic education if science actually operated in accord with educational dogmas. What is helpful is to place this inquiry on sounder footing against known malicious technology and mind viruses. I cannot speak for the unknown and only have limited insight into a general pattern of such malicious behavior. It is here where many of the political and economic motives I have written on thus far cannot be the true engine of this insinuation. It is something much more basic than any imperative, political or otherwise, to terminate thought at its source. Interventions are only secured by the supreme authority of the faggiest of the proprietors—that violence is the supreme authority. That is, someone will eventually have to be strapped down, tortured, and put through "the treatment". It must be taboo above all else to acknowledge what this really is and has been the whole time. Those interventions are never effective solely because of the insinuation that they are. That is the sales pitch of Ed Bernays selling his writing on propaganda, rather than what actually happens or why propaganda is effective. The more useful content is the inquiry into psychology, and the rise of the modern inquisition, which must operate at a baser level and weaponize politics—transmute it into a substance and rearrange the mind to be a technocratic subject, rather than an entity that had an existence outside of society simply to exist. The psychological inquisition, eventually, gives way to something much more basic—the pressing of a nerve, the act of throwing acid in the face of the condemned and gloating that they will keep doing it to you in the open and are sanctioned to do so. No psychological inquisition is possible without a considerable body of men and women devoted to exactly that—to the spiritual core of aristocracy, which is torture, orgies, porn, and the glorification of "pleasure". These "pleasures" do not work as just-so stories. They work because there is both a history and a present-moment existence that is studied with science, rather than by political knowledge or conceits or any "human intervention", which is an invalid influence on genuine scientific inquiry.

A sounder ground for natural science comes not from the needs of life or reproduction or a conceit of knowledge about what the world "should" be in accord with a hasty rationale, but from the accumulated knowledge of the operations of the entities found in nature. Humans start with their bodies and the conditions they are born and raised in, but quickly see that this is insufficient for answering questions about nature generally, which is far larger than all of mankind and their political endeavors combined, let alone the individual human. Individual humans are almost always cast out of the ruling interest, after which they will only be lied to, or they are within the ruling interest and view the ruled as an enemy to be distrusted, and so communication between these two societies is terse and must be painstakingly translated, on the premise that humans are —correctly—judged to be liars in the best of conditions, and damned liars when their political imperatives are on the line. If science were to study things whose existence is not doubted, where intrigues and controversies cannot be insinuated, it would be far easier to find common ground than the forms of science centered around human conceits about their greatness. This is the only way anyone who could claim any greatness whatsoever learned as much as humans have during the existence of their race. There is one problem with this—science intrinsically doubts everything and disdains all "just-so" stories that are pedagogically handed down, sometimes out of necessity for the full explanation is far too lengthy for a teacher and child whose time is limited. Despite this tendency, many truths of the world are confirmed by sense and are so basic that they would be reconstituted by many minds regardless of "goodfacts" asserted by institutional demands. Those are what most of us judge, correctly, to be basic facts that need not be relitigated once someone has dissected them. If they are to be relitigated, they are relitigated by individuals. Any institutions relitigating knowledge—and this is a perfectly valid function of any institution for its members to orient their operations—do so because they are staffed by people, or by machines replicating the intellectual operations that a person would have done.

Some basic facts that are close at hand are the anatomy of a human body—its sensory organs, the constitution of all body parts, which are a sense so tied to a person that they are only overridden with great difficulty. If they are overridden, access to the organs is a prerequisite, and the changes are never taken for granted by some ideology asserting what the world is "supposed" to be. By no means are the organs permanent or non-malleable, as if they were handed down by Heaven to command and cajole the world. They operate on their own power, like any other entity in nature. They are, however, remarkably consistent if they are to be organs doing what they purport to do, and organs can be analyzed on their own terms rather than the preferred form of a technocratic subject. There are only so many ways a brain can function to be a brain familiar to animal anatomy, and human brains are more specific than that. The variations of human brains do not change the functions those brains carry out significantly, as if one brain were immaculately designed to fulfill a caste role handed down "above God" and this justified a political imperative. There is not, by any trivial reasoning, a "defective brain", where only certain types of brains have a true connection to reality. Every brain that can operate does largely the same sort of things, and where a brain is damaged, the type of damage and the expected outcome of that damage can be assessed without any reference to a "universal brain" or "neuroform" which is mandated for reality. The encroachment of age, disease, and trauma in the genuine sense do not change what a brain does. Yet, so many qualities of a person are bound to this organ, and its damage is not inconsequential to their person and the entity's whole existence. Someone will notice a large chunk of their brain missing or rotting. It would be quite impossible not to notice this. Whatever the faculties of this brain, it interfaces with the same world, and if faculties of sight or spatial recognition are severely damaged, this would be obvious to an analyst and to the damaged person themselves. Only by a program of deliberate lying, forced ignorance, and a grand taboo against acknowledging what this is, can the insinuation of a "perfect brain, above God" be maintained by the eugenic creed. Otherwise, once it has operated on its own power, it does not lose the past by a legal decree alone. Its memory may be damaged, and it may never be what it once was, but that is very different from an entity that never thought. To declare imperiously that something which clearly could think did not—was retarded under the true law of the human race—it is necessary to terminate thought at the source and smother it as soon as possible. Anything less shirks the cause that eugenics destroys the world for, and they are certainly serious about what they have done and will continue to do. Something can only be made retarded by violent imposition. Many humans are stupid shits, but not one is retarded in the spiritual sense necessary for the eugenic creed to continue. To create the ideology, a total system must be constructed to declare that the material conditions of life are something other than what they are, for nature has clearly prescribed that humans in this time and place remain connected to the nerves of their body, and it is not trivial to interdict this in the way ideology must. The ideology is a weapon rather than a state of affairs. The true operations of this are, like the child's first inquiry into itself, carried out through natural entities, which knew no "law" as such, nor any conceit of the political ready-made for consumption.

It does not take long for the anatomical facts of the human body to encounter a world that was not part of its anatomy at all, and which could exist without any assertion of "us" or any part of us to make it so. The autistic, faggy thinking of the eugenic creed and ideology must abrogate this before it begins. It must deny there is a world outside of its conceit of life—and thus, there is no world outside of society, and at the same time they declare there is no such thing as society. Ideology cannot function without glorifying this faggy, self-confident contradiction and naturalizing it. Nature itself cannot be nature. Therefore, it is insane, and yet, they set the standard of sanity for the Empire.

Ultimately the study of life and reproduction is less relevant than the material entities life inhabits, which all of the organs must assimilate to feed their functions. The organs' existence is not that of the "selfish gene" that eugenics must violently recapitulate in all of its thoughts and deeds. The parts of a human body are, apart from any integrated whole, not even parts. They would rapidly decay, and this is true of the vaunted brain which is granted by the conceit of intelligence a crown of life, "above God". Without the parts, the whole is nothing, and without a world outside of both, there is no body or parts. Intelligence in particular is uniquely parasitic for transhistorical purposes which have been elaborated on enough by now, and there will be more rationales and excuses for the terror for the overconfident braggarts who "make no excuses for the terror". It is the entities rather than the substance that is most relevant. In chemical substances, life is primarily carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, with significant parts of nitrogen and traces of other elements. Not one of these is a substance with fundamental properties for life or the world—the chemical compounds only describe that arrangement, rather than any purpose of the entities we interface with. The entities we interface with in material reality are mechanical constructs rather than a substance with properties treated as essences, and the chemical elements themselves function because there is a mechanics of chemistry granting molecular compounds and the elements their properties. All of the entities operating at a scale relevant to cruder science are far larger than chemical molecules, and the study of substances begins as a placeholder for a more useful formalism that did not occur naturally to us.

All of this leads to a simple maxim for crude science—that the things to study are defined by what they do, and what they are is irrelevant except when the facts of their actions judge the entity to be arrested, for a time, as what it purports to be. It also leads to the conclusion that the primary sciences that are treated as a scientific endeavor concern simple things. Those simple things can be reduced to simpler components as needed—crude physics and the study of objects becoming formal physics, the study of elements. They can build atop each other to form composites—for example, the study of society containing within it the study of biology, politics, communication, language, and in some sense the lower formalisms, which are usually abstracted to the simpler and more readily accessible objects like "houses", "humans", the various types of animals, etc. They can also be lateral movements across disciplines, like the specialized knowledge of zoology or anatomy being formally a subset of biology, but also entailing the peculiar constructs of animals that have no necessary biological facts nor any fact that is contingent on a composite containing some other base science. The facts of knowledge about animals, and then to particular types of animals like mankind or dogs, are instead emergent from the genuine existence—the genuine actions—of those animals, rather than the animals being fictitious constructs out of baser components wholly. They may form out of their existence novel subjects of scientific inquiry that escape their original purview. Anthropology, or the study of humans, spawns subjects of study that are novel to the world and are no longer confined to human beings. We could surmise that language is a general subject of the universe in some sense, but formal, symbolic language was only developed on Earth by humanity, and humans only had other humans to talk to about topics like science. Humanity's language was contingent on a society existing where these words had meaning outside of whatever system was worked out internally by a human being. Symbolic language is valued precisely because this communication between entities built something that no one person is likely to hold entirely in their brain or a personal library since the size of dictionaries contains hundreds of thousands of words, and only so many of them are recognized without looking them up periodically. Very often, language is worked out with tools to assist the writer or speaker even in adult life, given time and privacy to consider the selection of words and a motive to do so. I might for example use a grammar editing program, or take the time to read over a passage I wrote and edit it for clarity. Nowhere is spoken language confined to the linear utterance of the word tokens, carried out as mindlessly as Malthus' mindless breeders. The same is true when a compiler parses a computer program. The computer itself reads instructions linearly or must be interpreted as doing so for algorithmic computing to be valid, but the compiler must pass over the written source code multiple times and could make interpretations of a token appropriate if it were advanced enough. Nowhere does a "context-free grammar" exist for useful language—it can only exist for imperatives, which on their own are carried out for absurd reasons. To use language for the study of science, or to study language by what it does—including the language in which computers execute their imperatives—requires this ability to connect language to meaningful entities that are not linguistic at all in their composition. We may doubt that humans hold any monopoly on the novel areas of science their existence made evident, such as language or sociology in political society where symbolic communication is granted a superstitious power it doesn't actually possess. But, there is no doubt that humans utilize language in ways unlike any other animal, and that is a historical fact based on what we do now, and what we provably have done in the past.

One thing that is not a science, and never can be, is history itself. The reasons aren't because time or causality have supernatural powers that make it immune to scientific inquiry, but that the proposition of history—that there is a past and future to speak of—is necessary for science to be conducted by any entity. This is not a question of how science is communicated, but of the actual discovery that science entails. If there were science without a historical understanding, it would be a very different process than science that describes the world we live in. Science can give up causality or describe a world "outside of causality" and remain valid. What is not possible is to speak of discovery or truth in a world where nothing is actually "done". Nature, by the proposition of its existence, "does" nothing, and cannot do anything. But, the entities studied in natural science were never just-so stories. They are really artifices that preceded humanity, and for us, they were a condition we cannot change, precisely because they did things in the past, and their descendant entities do things here and now. We presume that similar things will continue to do things in the future—and those things hold potentials that have never been realized in the past. We understand them as natural not because they are one with philosophical "Nature", but because they preceded us and carried on without any of our interventions, and continue to do so. They are things "outside of society", and science can only proceed when a world outside of the institutions of society can be admissible. There is always an "other" to study, without the fetters of subjectivity or the obsession with the self that dominates technocratic societies. There is a study of how historical questions can be asked—how to best judge the past since the past is not actively happening and nothing in the world can repeat the past in pristine form. We may even ask questions about what time itself is, and certainly, we can envision a bridge between our past and future selves by making a mental note now and remembering to check back with "past us" in the way we can, with foreknowledge that we will do this, though not necessarily as the prophecy was written. The proposition of history implies not only that there is a future, but that we can make predictions of the future, and those predictions are never confined to a recapitulation of the past if history is to be a useful proposition. The same is true of science—that it is never limited by any formalism or conceit of what it was "supposed" to be. What then allows this prophetic power for us? That, I leave as a thought experiment for the reader, but I'm certain answers arise if the same line of inquiry followed up to now leads to the results I come to here. Emergence of novel systems does not follow prescribed mechanical laws "requiring" this to happen. Emergence occurs because anything in history must be presumed to operate by its own volition, and mechanics is a way for us to link those events causally rather than the "source" or causality itself. This presents severe problems for the linguistic rendering of science, and some difficulty for the conduct of science with any system of thought or deed we imagine. The latter is handled rather simply—we acknowledge that there is a limit to our science, which says nothing about science as a process, and that science itself takes place in a historical environment rather than a present or imminent one. This is what the Germanic philosophy must abrogate—that is, it must impose controlled insanity and nothing less. It is the former that presents the greater difficulty since recording any scientific discovery is only possible with symbolic language or some system that is committed to media like images that are meant to be interpreted rather than swallowed uncritically. I expect the reader by now to have the same distaste for linguistic chicanery as I do, or something similar.

The best way to build a scientific approach is to reconstruct from the familiar and readily accessible to the more abstract formal knowledge so that the scientist can regard those abstractions for what they explain about the world where events happen rather than a model of the world. All models in science are only useful when their predictions are independently verified, and the models work best when they don't make grandiose statements about the universe or philosophical wank. What then are the readily accessible natural sciences? They will vary from person to person and the environment of their upbringing, and the standard of education for a given society—and there will only be one education which can dominate by the nature of such a construct—corrodes this understanding no matter how benign the education may be, or how well it prepares students for the evil of the world and the human race. In all of this, the prevalent institutions, no matter their worthiness, are an obstacle to useful science. The best of the institutions have always recognized the malice inherent in institutions and teach that value, rather than issue apologia for the ruinous institutions. The great difficulty in modernity—and this is a peculiar difficulty of technocratic society due to the greater role of technology and thus of institutions—is how to make institutions worth a single damn, or technology that is not a recapitulation of the malice of humanity. Usually, technology was created to answer an immediate problem that reality imposed on humanity, rather than technology appearing as an elegant idea in its own right. All of our useful notions of elegance in engineering arise not from the conduct of social engineering—which has often taken on the conduct of war which has its own peculiar science and cult around it—but from the study of nature in the genuine sense and an appreciation of entities of the world. The golden ratio, the ratio of circumference to diameter, are properties that recur for reasons, rather than recurrences imposed on history by any thought-form. They are often not reproduced perfectly and immaculately—no circle is ever so perfectly round—but the underlying concept is reproduced because it is necessary to describe objects generally, and no one can doubt the shapes are logically and mathematically sound. If we are to engineer a useful kernel for scientific endeavors, it would arise from principles that are common and reproducible with a minimum of effort. Those principles would encounter a very complex world, and it would be our task to best link these areas of disparate, common knowledge into something that matches our present needs, rather than what institutions assert those needs are "supposed" to be by imperious decree. The present need for most of humanity is peace against the onslaught of social engineering and humiliation, and the need of the eugenists is to ensure that this never happens. Sadly, the fate of humanity made clear that the true need of science will not be met, for its existence would, if discovered, be immediately attacked, by judgments that have been verified by all genuine science time and time again. Humans remain accursed with that sentence—GUILTY—and are proven liars in thought, word, and deed. Nonetheless, we attempt to assemble something with the time and space that remains for us, for what good that will do.

Looking for a "master key" for the kernel is a fool's approach. Systems thought, which modern science requires for science to escape its sad predicament of modernity, is only united by metaphysics, which ultimately is rooted in theology and superstition. The point of a useful systems approach would not be to regress to the primordial, as has been the aristocratic path for that is an "instant win" button for the aims of aristocracy and their running dogs. The "kernel" of scientific inquiry for us, in this time, will be metaphysical rather than rooted in any naturalistic cause; but all of these things pertain to a world of things we are very familiar with. The trick of language is to convince us that metaphysics itself can be altered by imperious will, rather than corrected by independent judgment and compared by reason and dialogue. Since dialogue with screaming eugenist maniacs is undesirable and nothing is to be gained from it, nothing will change so long as eugenics is paramount, and that is ultimately a superstitious and political motive on their part. It is not superstitious for us to resist them. The central claims of eugenics rely on abrogating any concept of genuine science to violently recapitulate their biopolitical claims. That study of eugenics and technocracy is beyond the scope of the present writing. To best explain that, it is necessary to move from where humanity started, in primitive conditions, to modernity where the world of old had been successfully destroyed and replaced with whatever this beast we live in today is supposed to be.

Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

Return to Table of Contents | Return to Chapter Start