Previous Chapter | Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

While the study of science inherently concerns history, history is not inherently scientific. There is not in principle any boundary prescribed for what science can and cannot investigate, outside of what it means to conduct science conceptually. But, history, and a great many topics of study, can be approached without science and still produce truth or valid knowledge for history. Nothing about political society, which ultimately is rooted in a superstitious fear rather than material necessity, is affirmed by science which requires science to regard politics as anything other than a nuisance. Much of political history and knowledge is deliberately designed to obfuscate the investigation of science, and so, political history usually entails lies. The lies need not be convincing or even hold up for very long. All hitherto existing political society has been premised on forced ignorance and a vast shell game played with social information, where what happens in front of everyone's faces is denied. Contrary to the preferred mode of aristocratic politics, politics is not intrinsically pure lies or malice, where the malicious are blessed with a right to rule, "above God", and the rest of us just live here. The general fear, whatever its superstitious source, is very real because humans act on it and create machinery about it. The political settlement, out of necessity, becomes something more than an extension of purified general fear, for the aim of the political is stability before it can be anything else. The drive to be "the best" is only made self-evident by the insinuation that aristocracy is internally consistent and "super-true", and that conceit is discovered by the study of human psychology and the malice contained within a peculiar subject, rather than what it means to conduct all forms of politics. Such a crass aristocratic maxim doesn't even apply within the aristocracy themselves, who must be sobered by some real condition during their internecine conflict which aristocracy as a germ always glorifies. Endless struggle for struggle's sake is an ideology for the slaves, which presents as a faggy "master morality". Anyone who wants anything out of the study of political history must first be grounded in history and the use of science to discover truth without fetters. Only then do the superstitions of political history, which took on an existence of their own which is highly unnatural and anti-scientific, fit any framework that is appropriate to the task at hand. This applies to everyone, and in private, the aristocracy maintains a connection to the genuine situation while upholding the central holy of holies that those cast out of society must stay out. "Once retarded, always retarded."

The cruder sense of history concerns specific things and generalities of classes of things. The classes are independent of any other class in the crude schema, or only unified by some central form which is yet another object that is reduced to something "tactile" and approachable to the conceits of human beings, who are accustomed to remaking the universe in their image. The more developed sense of history concerns both specific things and the mechanisms that comprise them. It is the mechanisms or "simples" of this metaphysical understanding which become the necessary "unit" of demarcation, rather than the object/subject distinction. When concerned with political history, object/subject distinctions are relevant because of the fear and superstition inherent to human conduct of the political task. No subject divided can stand for long without addressing collectively the general fear, which does not happen "just so" or by any natural law. Nature's law regarding the general fear is blind. The individuals are not blind, and their institutions and associations always entail the security of the institution or association as something necessary for the same reasons a body must be integrated. However much this is necessary to a naive political sense, institutions and associations are not and never can be, corporate entities like a human body. The corporate structure of the "native" human body is necessitated by what an individual political agent must do to constitute itself, rather than any scientific essence of "human" or "man" as a type of animal. Even here, the integration of the body, where the interconnection of its parts is a well-established fact that will always be verified by a cursory examination through genuine science, is far from totalizing, as if the human body is defective if one part is missing from a technocratic, corporate form, or one deviation from an imagined "normal" is present. The integration of an animal's body through its nervous system arose not for arbitrary or essential reasons, but because such an entity was more adaptable to its environment, and it could not shed vestigial parts at will or in accord with some ideal, technocratic form that "perfected the race" so to speak. It did not arise for purely political reasons that intelligence or the corporate subject willed or imposed on reality. That is how animals with central nervous systems had to develop if they were to be viable as what they are—to be able to carry out the functions of animals adapting to their environment, rather than the limbs and nerves being incidental to a mental, intellectual conceit of the self glorified beyond all reason. Of the specific entities in the world that aren't living political agents—those whose volition follows from the imperatives of life or from consequences in the same entities that carry out of life function—none of them have any inherent "political sense", nor were they formed to fit into any schema of classification. Of the general classifications, distinguishing markers of the form are not confused with the facts of the genuine articles within the class. So far as an essence of any class can be discerned, they derive from root functions of what the entities do, rather than any Being which was inimical to the comparison that allows systems thought to be a worthwhile scientific discipline. The result is that the political subject, while it must be unitary for its conceits regarding the general fear and their social condition as understood through the information available to them, is never quite "total" in the way ideology demands it be. Humans, like any tool-using animal, cannot help but form a symbiotic relationship with their tools, and distinguish tools and technology as a special class of entity apart from living animals with volition, and the unliving which have no direct link to historical volition until made into technology by the will of intellect and the labor of meaningful action that is guided towards some objective that is morally valued. The activity of life that is not morally judged and acted on has nothing to do with labor. In the conceit of intelligence, the slave has no volition, as ideology mandates the slave is a tool, animal, and unliving flotsam all at the same time. In reality, the slave has a brain and must know how to meaningfully fulfill the directives given to it, even for the lowly "automated" classification as a slave. It must be able to compare not just classes of objects or essences but specific instances of them. The lowest class, who are deemed too retarded to be slaves, have the same question, but with a much more dire existence than the slave. The slave is valued and granted exemptions from the worst of human sacrifice if he is reasonably competent at his job. The lowest class is attacked for the crime of making any effort whatsoever, by slaves and freeborn alike. His only existence and this will be true so long as humanity is human, is to be humiliated. No revolution or technology or "fix" will change what humans chose to be, no matter what ruin the course of the human spirit has brought to the world. Regardless of the ulterior motive of the scientist, science does not care about such motives and only proceeds by mechanisms the world has allowed.

To describe anything of agency, all "change" in the world must be understood as mechanical change. Within dialectic, nothing can change at all. The very nature of the concept is intended to elucidate meaning, or, in the hands of the dishonest, sow spurious controversy and doubt over things that did not need to be doubted. The "change" of dialectical woo-woo is no change at all, but a cheap and insulting charlatan's trick. There is a purview for dialectic, but in all cases, it relies on a mechanical dialogue in language or the deeds of two things, and the mechanism of a third party that sits in judgment, itself a mechanical observer of the two positions in the dialectic. All processes involved here are mechanical. The purpose of the dialogue is that no ready-made forms are presented with clear definitions in language. This, though, is a linguistic trick rather than any genuine fact of the world. What is not mechanical are timeless constructs, with nature and natural laws being among them. Nothing in nature "moves" or "changes" in the sense that artificial history prescribes change, and knowledge and meaning would comprehend change or causality. Yet, the natural laws describe a real world where those artificial agents exist. Those natural laws are understood mechanically by intelligence, but the mechanism of intellectual decision-making does not "make reality" or have any inherent power of truth simply by being intelligence. It would simply be the case that without intelligence—and intelligence is not defined by "pure information processing" which can be valueless for intelligence—this dialogue or reasoning would be meaningless. The world can carry on without anyone thinking of it, and it would remain as real as anything else—more real than our limited experience of the world, which we are always to some degree alienated from. The scientist is aware of this alienation—otherwise, there would be no inquiry into truth, since that truth would be already known, or they need only consult God to tell them the magic secret. So much ruin results from that path.

Emergence is not a mechanical "thing", nor the product of wordplay or dialectic. It does not "change" anything by happening. What really happens is that classification schemas, which include all forms we could speak about, are malleable not by insinuation or wordplay, but by the genuine existence of those things as historical artifacts. Only after the fact are these emergences recorded in natural history as "something happening", but nature does not prescribe any way this must happen, nor does mechanics "make" the emergence happen. They are consequences of the proposition of some action, and the "being" of something is still an act It is emergence that makes historical change possible—that something new can arise from volition, rather than the result of a pre-planned algorithmic procession of mechanical events. What then causes this event? The only answer is that this is a property of all things—that they emerged from some condition prior, ad infinitum. Mechanics explains the procession of things that are static as artifices and explains motion as a construct of artificial history. Natural history has little concept of "motion", except as a property that is possible for classes of objects, but artificial history very easily allows motion through mechanics. Dialectic allows no motion whatsoever—it describes a method of arresting history so that more may be discovered about a theoretical instance or situation as it is. It is not intended for that purpose, and it is insulting to those who do not read philosophy or pore over the history of this beast to tell them dialectics is "the philosophy of change". It is, by its nature, the exact opposite—that dialectic denies even the agency and volition that mechanics implies as a static, fixed property of objects, and must do so if it is to describe a situation that has yet to be translated from its expression to a working model of what it refers to.^[1] The inquiry of dialectic necessarily refers to a fixed question, rather than a question of something which moves and has its own volition. No one can speak of a situation in flux as a dialogue without lagging behind far more than mechanical motion would imply as a result of distance. Used inappropriately, dialectic is a—deliberately chosen—stopper for intelligence, which can be arbitrarily modulated to declare a monopoly on thought and reality itself. It can't not do this by its nature, but it has been—due to the incompetence of human language for describing the world beyond its utterance of word tokens and imperatives—a necessary kludge. It originated at a time when mass literacy was uncommon, for libraries of books and treatises were not yet written and this type of media and communication was novel to the Greeks. It originated at a time of superstition, intrigue, and malice, and at a time where pedagogy remained so laggard and despicable that many a Roman counted a lack of such education as salvation rather than a hindrance, even by the poor standards of Roman society. The contemporaries of the Romans fare little better in this regard. It also originated at a time when formalisms had yet to be tested or effectively critiqued by anyone, for the audience participating in this was small and ignorance—an ignorance enforced by the most sacred rites of the human race and every nation's cult of power—was such that humans were more likely to talk past each other than speak to each other in an honest inquiry. Humans have chosen this hostility over even the simplest expression that was inimical to the cult of power and the grubbiness of their filthy race.

The ultimate origins of emergence are murky, and for us, confined to the kludges language and humanity's pitiful Reason have managed, this is where dialectic can be a useful tool—to describe how "something" can arise out of "no-thing", or rather, how something definite can arise out of the unknown. A common stupidity, especially popular with the lower, fools' rungs of Masonic lore, is the belief that "order out of chaos" is a monopoly of the wise Mason. This faggotry, and it is faggotry, is pablum for the rubes, granting to order, chaos, nature, and the universe powers it does not possess, for the sake of hooking said rubes on the track to failure and leaving them there. "Chaos", in any proper science, does not exist and refers entirely to a subjective failure to assess a situation. Because human reason does not intrinsically concern itself with very small things beneath its notice, it is easy to use this sleight of hand for trillions of small things to stymie thought and the intelligence of those who will only be lied to. Emergence as a concept neatly elides this, but sacrifices the certainty of definite data that artificial history relies on. Emergence does not belong to natural history, where all emergences can only arise after the fact and seemingly "just because". But, to developed knowledge, and especially to proper science, the properties of objects that grow and develop from tiny seeds to large systems, and are adaptable rather than fixed by some intent or impulse of "the system", are as natural as breathing—with life itself being one such system which is the easiest example to reference to speak of this emergence, often with comical errors. Every act of labor and every element of knowledge the laborer must act on requires a world where volition is a reality, and certainly, labor describes so much of what humans do, even that which is beneath notice and hasn't been claimed yet by capital or its counterparts in other epochs. The question of genesis or a grand model trying all things to the One—the vaunted "theory of everything" that is the darling of obsessive technocrats—is not immediately necessary to conduct proper science, and any such theory is contingent on a world of objects with volition which can be arrested by that theory. For most purposes, the properties of emergence and transformations of things are understood in the first instance as some alchemy of the objects in question. It is the task of the studious laborer to discover these properties for the work that is done, and then make comparisons with other types of work, for no specialization of labor is so exacting that it cannot be compared with other types operationally, or lock the laborer into a specialized caste so rigid that the manager can imperiously declare "this is what you are." That sort of stupidity is beneath the dignity of even Germanism, and German philosophy reserves that assignment for retards and "savants" who are held up as models of humiliation and mockery, with snide comments "whispered" very visibly in front of the retard's face to remind the retard that this filthy religion will never, ever change. A Satanic race cannot change. GUILTY.

Mechanics describes all motion, but any "alchemical" transformation is from emergence, and those are the things that move. Machinery and technology are always described as mechanical motion forming systems without any regard for emergence, for mechanics has no prescription for emergence. When a chemical entity "transforms", it is described decisively as if no transformation actually happened at all—instead, electrons are swapped, or protons merge by some physical process, or the elements are treated as "just so" existent things which came out of "production factories", by some alchemy of stars which is a black box. In this way, all of the processes are effectively mechanical, but without any description of mechanism or standards of comparison allowing the mechanism to be discerned. The description of what things "are", which is the result of emergence from prior conditions, is an invitation for wordplay and endless chicanery. This is only resolved experimentally through genuine and proper science, rather than by any intellectual rubric. It is the task of technology and knowledge only to systematize a world that preceded any conceit knowledge held about it. In principle, "anything can be anything", but when judging emergence, the scientist only assesses those transformations which are useful for the question asked. There is a general rule within some domain of knowledge of how new things come about—how new chemical elements arose from physical mechanics, how novel life-forms arise by the mechanisms and functions life carries out, and how those elements interface with a world of things that are alien to it. No one discipline contains within itself an inviolable body of knowledge. The universe itself would, at first glance, be susceptible to everything in it, but we quickly can establish comparisons and judge the substance of anything as a thing operating on its own power, rather than by the whim of some universal Demiurge. Emergence has a limited purview for describing the new or such transformations. For any given domain of knowledge, the laws of emergence discerned by that science are judged based on the class of objects in question. Emergence of chemical elements would not be used to describe transformation or mutation in life, for the two have nothing to do with each other. Life could very well be construed as an immaterial entity in a simulation, and it would function just as life does with physical substance. A novel life form does not create any necessarily new physical substance, but such a transformation would be necessary if life—or any other domain of knowable things—could exist in the first place, and for the category "life" to be a valid category. It is then possible for the crass dialectician to play a game where "there is no such thing as life". Life may not be what a cult of education must assert it is, but it certainly exists—or else, what are we doing here, and what do we call this entity, for nothing about its physical or chemical composition tells us any "essence of life", no matter what violent recapitulations eugenists make about life's substance. Nothing can be created "ex nihilo" without emergence from prior conditions, and no substance is created by doing so. The fundamental substance or "prime matter" of the universe doesn't go anywhere. All emergence says is that something novel is possible, and bad philosophy aims to make this impossible—inadmissible—in all models it allows to exist.

The other game to play is to turn emergence into an act of wordplay or formalism, which is not what happens. Natural history and science do not possess intrinsically any preferred forms of things. Those forms are assessed and then understood because they were committed to historical memory. Yet another game of wordplay is to claim that the only potentials that exist were hardcoded or fated by nature, but this is trivially counteracted.

Where emergence arises is in the theory of knowledge itself, rather than science and meaning proper. To judge that this has taken place requires scientific and historical knowledge, rather than an assertion by language or declaration that it is so. If an analogy with computer programming were to be made, consider a structure in program memory that could allocate dynamically memory without any necessary definition of its parts, and that a function related to this structure could write its own program code which allocates that block of memory. Someone may diagnose what output a given program is likely to produce given certain starting conditions. But, in principle, this self-altering program would only suffer the limits of whatever hardware is available to it, rather than any necessary parts or constraints on what it can "be". Its substance in the computer simulation is nothing but memory. The computer's operating system itself is such a program, and this only exists in a physical machine with some device capable of it, if it is attached to some machine that carries out the instructions rather than a device that is purely a mental construct. What is expected of a computer, or at least the computers we use, is a limitation of the machine, but nothing in nature "required" the computer to be fixed to this in its real existence. The mechanical computer was designed specifically to not do this because to do so would violate the mechanical execution of instructions it was built for. Computers are engineered specifically so that errant instructions do not affect the operation of the machine, which must not fail or must correct for these failures by whatever means are available to it, if any. Once operating on its own power, the mechanical computer has an existence outside of its user. It is only appreciated as a "computer" with a user. But, the electrical signals and operation of servos, which were once built by humans as tools with an intent to do this, are very real. They did not spontaneously pop into existence, and nothing in nature reproduces this device we call the digital computer. History and nature do not work that way and never did. It is much the same with life. The complexity of animal life did not spontaneously pop into existence, or emerge as the result of stochastic activity at the most basic level, as if life were as blind as Yaldabaoth. Very early in the establishment of cellular life, the cells and organisms must sustain their existence as cells, organs, and the organism, rather than appear randomly out of physical or chemical fluctuations. The "flux" that would have instantiated life need not be a physical interaction at all. What difference is there in the "substance of life" between physical forces or chemical interactions and the functions of life that are mediated by those forces and substances? What life is—what it does—is not at all related to that, and never had to be. It is, well before the establishment of animal life which is adaptive to its environment to seek food, operating on its own power, in accord with laws far removed from emergence from physics. It can even be found that no singular necessary emergence is necessary to speak of an "origin of life". Similar interactions to "spawn life" might be ubiquitous to the universe or ubiquitous enough that they are repeated. It is how we have chosen to understand life, as a politicized subject with a genesis, that subsumes all of these emergences into a genetic story from the first cell or proto-matter, assigning to it a Oneness that has no basis in any evidence. There is no God, if that is the God of this filthy race; and that is what the Germanic philosophy and its eugenist cousins must always recapitulate. This was done deliberately to terminate any possibility that life could exist at all, for the cult of eugenics and German ideology is, loudly and proudly, a cult for something worse than death. To call it a "death cult" is unfair to death cults.

When this fails, the next course of action is to subsume all emergences into the One, the "prime mover", which must exist for naturalism to be a valid approach to a history of things. This superficially is satisfactory for reason, for everything came from somewhere, even if the explanation isn't a good one. But, the sleight of hand is to attach this to a particular thought-form and make the thought-form "the One". "All is life", "All is change", "All is power", or similar such retarded and faggy koans. Once a category of things truly becomes its own thing—and this judgment is not made by formalism or adjudication, but by the evidence of the world which is in no short supply—those things operate by mechanical principles regarding what those things do, rather than what they were "supposed" to do or their genesis, which is now worthless for science. It does not prove anything to say what "was". What we are now, and the potential of things, is what is historically relevant. If this were accepted, the ability to push and cajole history would break irretrievably. The true scientists would then be in the position to decide history—and thus, who lives, and who dies. The positions of international aristocracy would be lost. The favored and caunted would be seized by the throat, as it should be. That is the only way such rank lying and foulness of this race can be answered, and that answer is as certain as the principles of physics—that for each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, and the opposite reaction here would be a terror unfathomable to any crowing idiot who would say he makes no excuses for the terror. Every terror worth a single damn has its excuses ready to go, and the undirected terror is a faggy terror that must be coddled and kept in the retard box, where it belongs. One way or another, this is the only way the ritual sacrifice that founded the human race could end. The result was contained within the essential act of ritual sacrifice and its insistence on the rest of history. We could end the cycle any time we wanted if we really asked what humans wanted to do in this world. But, that is not a question science or institutions get to answer, and all factions except the lowest class decided a long time ago what the outcome of this project would be. The verdict remains: GUILTY.

The creation of a new class is not carried out willy-nilly to describe an uncountable pantheon of "Beings" or deviations that must be historically corrected. Emergence is not arbitrated by any legalistic prescription of what is a class and what is not. There are no "classes-in-of-themselves". I speak here of classifications of things, but the same is true of social class, for all social classes arise for mechanical or emergent reasons. Between the classes or orders of society, once established the dialogue between them is terse, by the intent and design of the institutions of that social class. Slaveries prescribe not just alienation but deliberate isolation of slaves from the free, and slaves from each other in a more direct physical sense. If the slaves could freely associate and conspire with each other and the slaves were not participants in the aristocratic mode of politics—which is what the favored grades of labor have always done going back to Egyptian Masonry—they would realize that ancient condition, "slavery is freedom", and conversely, "freedom is slavery"—that freedom-in-name-itself would be a step down from the slavery of the valid, where the slave retains standing as an object of utility and some social presence, even a distant one. If there were a society where the free association of men extended to the lowest class, or to the disfavored grades of labor who receive no benefit other than sparing from the tortures of the lowest class, that association would offend the senses of those who believe an essence of classification necessitates the most extreme political antagonism, and justifies it. It is a stretch to extend this treatment of social class to all classes of things in science, but that has always been a claim of aristocracy, that it must violently recapitulate—that any distinction in men necessitates exultant shouting and screaming for torture and death, and that this is the highest form justice can take in such a world-system. Reality must conform to the imperious will, and this is anathema to any science or any useful classification, or study of classes of anything. Social distinction is never a convenient fiction or something that can be denied. The drive for "sameness" is not a popular demand or an instinct of life. Life doesn't particularly care about a distinction of class or essence in other things, or how alien a thing is to it. Its base existence is one of alienation from the world and all other things in it, necessarily so for life to be constituted as life. If something different from its primordial form exists, why would that be relevant to its aims? Aristocracy demands "sameification" and false equivocation as one of its tools for torture, more so than any efficiency this standardization creates in slavery. Every slave is assessed as an individual unit rather than a class of slaves in the abstract. For those sufficiently removed from slavery, for whom slavery is an abstraction on a ledger, insinuations about class can be raised to obfuscate the very real distinctions of men and the political distinctions that are manufactured as an excuse, or that truly exist among them. Nothing about nature ever required or assumed political equality was natural, and no such condition was ever considered real and present. The only claim that was ever made was that absent any realized distinction, the null assumption was that political agents were equal to each other for a given polity since nothing about the concept of the political mandated a universal distinction or anything "encoded in nature". That concept had to be rendered inadmissible to defend "natural slavery" and the abstractions of slave systems. For this to be upheld, the same insinuation in politics must be extended to science and all other things—in other words, the general fear of the political has to become universal and nothing can exist outside of it. The only claim that can be defended in such a view of the political is fascism. This is undesirable for any purely "political" goal since the answer to the general fear or uncertainty is stability and a level of truth that is incompatible with controlled insanity. But, the goals of humanity were never purely political. The spiritual commitment is to aristocracy's core, rather than its political conceits. The concept of the political must claim spiritual authority and no distinction between spiritual and temporal authority, stretch it back to the origin of the universe itself, and thus, obfuscation of classes in the philosophical sense, which are necessary distinctions, are politicized, and the distinctions can be asserted arbitrarily so far as the ruling power and ruling interest allows.

This insinuation about classes is a necessary precondition for reality control, which necessarily entails control of history and denial of mechanics. All change in the world—or rather, all that can be regarded as moving in artificial history, which is the origin of all of our notions of change in the universe—is mechanical change. The classification schema ultimately follows mechanical reasoning to exist. The problem for rationality is that there is no "lowest form" that is naturally or universally prescribed, and nothing about natural history "commanded" history in any way. To natural history, only the past exists, and all that emerged would be to it an absurd fluctuation. Nothing in nature prescribed anything, including emergence itself. If natural history were interpreted strictly, it describes very little at all, but it is the necessary starting point for the investigation of existence—the "null assumption" of history before any artifice can be judged and assigned a past existence. Imminent critique is wholly inappropriate for the questions posed to us. If we were to speak of what is imminent, we would not invoke koans or grand theories to insist the world ought to be any particular way. Our meaningful existence as human beings is neither imminent nor "wholly natural" in the sense that is insinuated, nor is it a chaotic series of emergences as is one of the koans to suppress meaningful understanding and science. The next redoubt, which is never taken by the aristocratic mode of thought except in its most desperate moments, is to insist on a morass of procedures or feelings regarding science, without any genius or substance regarded. The world then is reduced entirely to moral sentiments and anvilicious assumptions about what the world ought to be, with that stupid Masonic smirk or raised eyebrow to tell you what you're supposed to think. Certainly we in the past century of human existence have seen quite enough of that.

How then does science know what it knows? Science has no limit on its inquiry, but it is always carried out by entities that are capable of it, rather than something freely reproducible in the universe. Nothing at all is truly "freely reproducible". It is presumed instead that intelligence and the faculties of knowledge are free to act without any necessary limit to rationality itself—that is, rationality cannot exist in a world where hobgoblins are posited to "push history" or make sure history is corrected. Rationality cannot remake the world, nor does the world require "fundamental rationality" to be approached as a subject of inquiry. If the world were fundamentally rational, then what intelligence and subjectivity have to say about it would be irrelevant, but there is no such universal rationality at work—and the presumption of universal rationality was necessary for the more corrosive forms of dialectical woo-woo to continue, displacing the naturalistic assumptions that were one of humanity's scientific inquiries. Rationality is necessary for symbolic language to say anything intelligible about the world. Here we see the ultimate tool aristocracy required to arrest the world—that it must control education from an early age and stage unlimited interventions, to make real the conceit that its products are freely reproducible and emerge from a fount of unlimited potential. That is, "infinite production in a finite world" must simultaneously be presumed to be a natural possibility, and yet totally impossible at the same time, and it must incredulously and violently be asserted in all models and "total systems" that operate.

The classification of things ultimately is a convenience or "short-hand" for us, rather than anything nature or the world prescribed for our understanding. If we suggested there was a way to know all that exists, the classification scheme would be a linguistic limitation in expression rather than a natural law to suggest that some "being" is doing anything special or unique to it. There is, at a hypothetical "base" level, the same mechanical concept of motion that governs systems we operationalize in everyday use. It is a violent assumption to declare a likeness of mechanical physics with fundamental nature, but it is an assumption that is affirmed once we make clear that the question of "Being" has nothing to do with subjectivity or tricks of perception. There is for any class or hierarchical level of knowable objects a metaphysical mechanics that operates if we are to describe its motion, whether we will ever know what those things "really are" or not. That is the only way to describe motion in the manner we expect, where cause leads to effect, and so the emergence of new classes or novel ideas does not have any metaphysical claim to exist. Emergence itself is instead a statement on that "prime matter"—that it is not constrained to any preconceived notion we have about what it was supposed to be. If however, we are to posit that anything is real or substantive, new classes of physical objects do not have "special laws of motion" particular to them. Life does not possess any monopoly on truth by being life, and we already establish with little effort that life is very alien to the almost entirely unliving universe we live in. The physicalist error is corrected by re-opening the inquiry into metaphysics and the most important task of the developing mind—to ask how we think instead of asserting imperiously that thought is any sort of substance with special and unique properties. Genius, human or otherwise, is then understood as what it was, inverting entirely the aristocratic lie. It is this that leads to the strange mirror observed in the "circle of life" early in the third book of this series. This is that the aristocracy is a perverted mirror of the lowest class, and the proprietors a perverted mirror of labor, all facilitated by the technological interest and its class which invariably turns inward on itself and can be defeated by self-indulgence.

Knowledge can only comprehend mechanics that are accessible to it. It carries out instructions that are available to its machinery. Unlike a computer whose instructions and imperatives were worked out by rationality, the instruction set of knowledge itself was not built for the task of rationality. It works with what it inherited, which for human beings is biological machinery and the implements created by its labor, which are ultimately limited by the abilities of human beings. Ability and disability are used as a political excuse to demarcate classes of men and the tools they deem useful for their preferred slavery. Ability is far less useful for the classification of things without this political imperative. We do not presume the potentials of things based on our conceit of what they "should" do, but what they have been demonstrated to do and known mechanics about the world. Nothing "spontaneously" happens, even if it may appear to so far as intellectual reason can discern. There is always a cause and effect to speak of mechanical motion. What is not necessary is for the world itself to exist as nothing but motion in this sense, or for temporality to be defined entirely by this idea that history can be pushed and prodded as an ideal slave for the master. Genius inherits things so basic that even the simplest mind is already working with something complex—never "infinitely complex", but because a base-level existence is not prescribed, genius operates at the smallest scale it can. Not nature, reason, genius, or science presents to different scales any special rules of motion, which has always been the conceit of the eugenic creed and the aristocratic mode of thought. What works at the scale of particles would work at the scale of bodies that we interface with every day. What doesn't scale up are the types of structures worked with. Particles are not rocks, oceans, mountains, or planets, which are not stars, and there is a reason why planets form as they do. It would not be possible to reduce a planet or a human being to a particle in a system of heat, as many charlatans do with statistical models. But, all of these things abide by mechanical motion. It is their very different histories that differentiate them as distinct classes that can be understood as operating at expected scales. There is not intrinsically a hierarchy of such classes, but the matter of particles and compounds comprises common objects and thus objects at stellar scales, without any necessary intermediary where stellar-scale objects abide the conceits of things at our scale. The Sun around which the Earth orbits is primarily hydrogen rather than an accretion of Earth-like substance and constructs, and every planet in the universe has a history unto itself. That history cannot be said to exist in particles in the same way. There is not enough "stuff" to speak of particles in any great detail, and if we did, we lack any observational evidence to describe particles as much at all. Our efforts to do so bind them to a framework that hopes to explain physical motion as we have been able to observe it in common-scale objects, rather than make imperious claims about fundamental nature. There is one and one claim above all others that such imperious statements defend—the genetic myth of the eugenic creed, where effect must precede cause and assert all of history as a just-so death march aristocracy shall impose on the world, has already imposed to make its victory natural and eternal, and all can only choose to embrace the imminent victory of eugenics. I curse the human race and the culture which promoted this "imminent critique" which has no use for any inquiry into the conditions we see, scientific or otherwise. Its sole function is to present to humanity an overwhelming wrongness, so that we may refute its arguments when they arise.

Our objective is not to insinuate what we have long known but to build atop existing knowledge that was always the inheritance of mankind, starting from the lowest of us. Historically, those who hold the state do not possess any great secret. The knowledge they possess is almost entirely managerial or in the dark arts of habitual lying. States historically were weak compared to their promises, and their plans were made to pre-emptively attack to efforts of the ruled to circumvent whatever program claimed total lordship over existence in any era. Nowhere does the state respond reactively to those below it. All state action is active, for if they acted passively, all the people would have to do is hold what little they cared about and let the assholes in high places do or think whatever they like. It would be of no consequence to the world and most of humanity. We do not want to share the world in any way with those who did this to us. We have nothing to do with each other and nothing to say to each other. The chief aim of the majority of humanity is to restore that condition since aristocracy won't die any time soon and refuses to die for the same reasons the ruled refuse to die. Their aims are irreconcilable. So too would their approach to knowledge and any science be irreconcilable.

That is not useful for our purposes of understanding the world and history. Confidently asserting we know what we know tells us little about the world, which remains largely unknown and does not tell us anything general about the universe. But, the same building materials that comprise us comprise the rulers, who have to abide by the same universe if they want to pursue their program. What differs is that the aims of the vast majority, which were never political aims, cannot be communicated to those who grasp for political office in the aristocratic mode of thought. Aristocracy came from the muck and from the same type of emergence that created any other class. Somewhere, it became necessary to internalize a belief that aristocracy had something special and "unique", to placate vanity or follow a fad, as is the proclivity of the commons. A mechanism needed to be pulled from the primordial that was immaculate and "more real than real". It is in this way that "the Retarded Ideology" was truly born. It was not born long ago or in the first ritual sacrifice, but preserved for modernity. It could only exist when its prior conditions were mechanically possible, and that is something we can assess as a historical fact. So too can we assess as historical the accumulated knowledge of mankind, and verify it against other knowledge. We do not possess a connection to the "eternal, primordial light", but anyone who claims such a thing is selling something much worse and much less valuable than a piece of blue sky. Indirectly, we are connected to nature, and while the distinction between nature and artifice is illusory, for us it is a useful distinction to recall what knowledge is in the domain of natural history and naturalism, and what is in the domain of artifice, and how naturalism and science generally are distinguished.

Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

Return to Table of Contents | Return to Chapter Start