Previous Chapter | Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

The past chapter is only a partial explanation, and nowhere near sufficient to say I have done anything valuable for science. The objective of this book is to describe history, and cybernetics and governance certainly have a role to play in judging history. It is a historical event—systems are regulated to be described in any history before any other type of history can take place. Very often, it is simplified since this story of regulating minute forces is of no interest to historians, who are well acquainted with a wealth of knowledge that has circulated for centuries. The dishonest "imminent critique" can be dismissed on grounds well before cybernetics is a discipline. Cybernetics offered the dishonest a tool to insert their dishonesty into "fundamental nature", and this is not confined to the German or continental ideologists. I do not shame the work of the cyberneticists, who contrary to revisionist history were found in places other than the British Empire, and the technocrats who came to manage it. I don't even charge the Nazis or their kooky religious relatives like the Theosophists with the charge of faggotry at the least for what was done, as if we must chant "ignorance is strength" and cannot stand on our own merits against the onslaught of this psychological offensive.^[1] If we are to look at the worst malfeasance, history makes clear the guilty party—Eugenics and Eugenics alone. Eugenics has gone to great lengths to make its name one and the same with cybernetics, so that it can "police the regulator" and control reality at all levels. It can't do anything else, and all of the ideological or institutional facades it erects can only serve one master, that is the institutions of eugenics—the new institution of slavery and the ancient slave power.

We may inquire endlessly into why something does as it does by "internal motion". There is of course no "internal motion" or "internal contradiction" in that sense. Stable parts of a system are, once established, much as we observe them. All of the models of reality science builds involve abstract machinery rather than "pure mechanical descriptions", which are our basis for judging natural history and natural laws about particular classes of things. But, since that abstract machinery was built with an understanding that it was abstract and attempting to model the actual world where events happen, it is not tenable to build a theory of all history or the history of particular things on endless and baseless critique. If the abstract model is bad, it is not because it was foolishly upheld as an institutional shibboleth by "honest liars". The institutions and their members are very deliberate in neutralizing any dissent against them and editing history to suit their purposes. In this way, critics of the institutions exist only to be put down like dogs, while those within the institutions always hold the "right of transgression" to steer this imminent critique where it is "supposed" to go. It is not possible to break the master with tools the master holds firmly in his possession and monopolized very early as if we were equals or even interested in the game of the institutions. Our interest down here has been truth for our own sake, without any regard for "changing the world" in that way. The world does not change easily if we accept that even simple things that we know quite well do not change for arbitrary reasons.

As mentioned in the last chapter, the offense of eugenics ultimately isn't that they used statistics to "violate the human spirit", or some celebration where we pretend to be ignorant of mathematics and grant to the human spirit some agency it does not possess to imperiously dictate reality. The offense of eugenics is that its models, its fundamental claims about reality, are in the first case wrong, and demonstrably wrong. The second is that this wrongness is flagrant and deliberate. The statements of the Galtonites to violently recapitulate their koans make clear that they had no interest in reality at all, and this was a glorification of their Satanic race and clique above all else. The philosophy espoused by retards like Popper, and Popper is a retarded and Satanic fag—may he burn in Hell forever—makes clear the commitment to flagrant dishonesty for its own sake, before Bertrand Russell's further contributions to the rot, just before the cyberneticians arise for reasons that have nothing to do with the eugenic creed's program, and the computational science is carried out. Immediately, the eugenic creed had to seize upon the new machine, recognizing its importance to the eugenist mission. The eugenist monopoly on computation was completed not by the eugenists' decree that they would fund and control it, but by the willful and proud ignorance of those who said "Math is for fags" and told us to ignore mechanical sense. This charge I make not so much against Lenin's polemics, which were answering a specific dispute within the Marxist camp about Marx's version of historical materialism, but against the sniveling cowards who were the first to make excuses and retreat to institutional power-lust for the most dubious gains while insisting they knew better than those who suffered the consequences of the new policy. At the critical period where outrage against eugenist atrocities was at its highest, the intellectuals understood intuitively their place in the class hierarchy and chose eugenics over the rest of us. They loved that abomination so much and hated us so much that in hindsight, it was predictable what they would choose. There remains no excuse for it, and anyone from their ranks who thought differently would be selected against—utilizing the proclivities that a cybernetician could predict and wargame until the dissenters either "saw the light" or were ruthlessly exterminated. Intellectualism itself is guilty, with its leading luminaries promoted much as every despotism promotes its favorites early, often, and permanently over those who think a republic is ever honest.

The idea of cybernetics—to automate governance—always implies a controller, even if that controller is an abstraction. But, this does not preclude a simple reality that all cyberneticians must accept, whatever their proclivity because the overwhelming weight of history has proven this fact. Human beings, and life-forms generally, are autonomous. It is the eugenist claims about natural history that are superimposed and claimed as "cybernetics", and the scurrilous rats of the institutions see cybernetics not as a eugenist threat, but a threat to their sinecures or whatever graft they are committing today. There is one governor that is primary in command and control in any life-form; the life-form itself, which by the proper definition of life operates on its own power, before any external agent can assert anything over it. The eugenist must invoke "internal contradictions" and things like it to impose their faulty model on history. It can only work by forcing everyone and everything to internalize this "meme" and a pseudo-scientific dogma about natural history, and whatever Darwin might have said to extricate himself from the obvious failure of reason among the eugenist ideologues, the Darwinian theory of natural selection and its origins in Malthusian dogma is inherently this. To defend the dogma, "natural selection" must be imposed on history in ever-more egregious manners, until history is rewritten as nothing more than the story of untrammeled, permanent conquest over inferior races. There will be more to say on this matter in a later chapter. This dogma is not carried out due to a blind, pig-headed confidence in the inevitability of eugenist victory. It was inherent in the entire program of British imperialism and the god for which it stands. It was inherent in the interests and social classes that were at the forefront of this empire, who saw their self-interest tied to this most poisonous creed. Nothing "made" the would-be eugenist do what they did, and it was not something they conjured from a Satanic wellspring of primordial force, as their sniveling cults insist. The eugenists and their forebears did nothing more than "natural law" said they would do. They, like any other life-form, are very clever at pursuing their aims, and the eugenist alone is allowed autonomy and knowledge of their conditions. Their command is forced ignorance for everyone else, who is made by ever-increasing violent force to assent to a Satanic cosmology, "above God". The impulses of their race and that which they aspired to told them this was the only way humans could be, and that because it ruled the present time and space for them in their clubs, it could and must expand inexorably. There is no "political economic excuse" or rationale, where the capitalist is somehow innocent of wrong-doing or "the capitalist system" is blamed instead of the proper culprit. Many of the capitalists had no interest in any such general program, and very often the capitalists were contemptuous towards liberalism of any sort and the British liberals in particular. Eugenics arose not because of some external force that "made them do it" or an "internal contradiction". They did it because this tendency was latent in humanity from its earliest inception, and all the eugenists and their forebears had to do was say yes to what their god had always been. This, the eugenists selected very early in their life, as was their proclivity, or they recruited some damned fools to their cause and promoted them through the degrees of the eugenic creed. Humanity's primordial crime became life's prime want for the committed eugenist, and humanity inherited all of the petty sins and malice of their race to varying degrees, whether they fully internalized the ethos of ritual sacrifice or tried to resist it. To this day, the program of internalizing the ethos of ritual sacrifice is far from complete. Most humans, however dubious their moral fiber, would tell you that ritual sacrifice is faggotry they would rather avoid altogether, and not something they believe grants them any power over the universe. It took a peculiar proclivity, which eugenics selected for and maximized. That governance was more or less natural for them once it was asserted. Once those who partake in ritual sacrifice taste blood, they never go back. Why would they? The aim of the eugenist, then, was to naturalize this, regulate it at the level of society, and rewrite history—using their command of Law as the overt institutional vehicle—so that everyone and everything else will conform to a universal value, "by nature", and without any ability to say no.

Much bullshit has been written about the "argument" between centralization and autonomy, but cybernetics and the eugenic creed's application of it bypasses this entirely. The argument, roughly, is an argument about the principles of a republic against the principles of monarchy. The aim of eugenics, and this is explicit among the truest believers, is to make a mockery of the idea of a "republic" as anything that could be functional or reconciled. This was not a difficult sell, because republics were always dubious propositions, and the American republic—target A-1 for the eugenists to destroy—was especially dubious, for reasons that will be described in a later chapter. But, destroying America or any historical entity was not the endgame or the point. The eugenic creed must make its claim trans-historical, and the claims of the political are in their purest, proper assertion not historical claims. Any developed political authority understands temporal authority as a means to an end and regards spiritual authority—trans-historical authority—as the most effective wellspring to tap. The Americans were a stain of history to be wiped from the page, which could be done trivially. The eugenists and their immediate forebears already engineered one civil war over the slave power, which is where the eugenists could seed their movement for generations to come. Ridiculing the structure of the bizarre American "republic" of landed slave-holders was made a permanent fixture so that how or why this was done could be elided and all students of history were beholden to this false dichotomy rather than how the crusade of the slave power was waged. At its heart, this problem of agency and governance was emphasized and it was forbidden to speak of any answer but the pre-ordained one. This had nothing to do with the idea of how governance happened, and everything to do with the decision being made despotically for political imperatives alone. The odious "philosophy of struggle" could be applied ad nauseum until "history was corrected". It was haram to say that the philosophy of struggle was insane bullshit, and especially alien to how Americans understood the situation and the institution of slavery. Vinnie the claims adjuster awaited anyone who refused to accept "teaching the controversy". If the usual excuses failed, Vinnie could be sacrificed by his superiors, a fate which happens many times over and contributes to the scurrilous behavior of eugenist associations, eager to throw their own into a fiery bit for dubious causes. But, as long as "the great theory" remains, the regulation can remain a force in the world. It would ultimately fall on the ruled to ask if they want to be regulated or governed by this, and that is not a question of whether they would take on the governing role for the whole society. We can easily imagine a governing entity or institution which is not the eugenist one. This is why eugenics had to ensure that it alone held a monopoly on "biological fact", and asserted that biological fact was computational and mathematical fact. Then, all statistics and "math" could be reified into nothing more than a recapitulation of the eugenic creed. Controlled insanity is the only outcome, but by the logic of "total systems", this works—in fact, nothing else can be operative in that theory is accepted as a description of reality.

Every worthwhile approach to cybernetics did not imperiously deny that governance occurs in the life-form. If they followed the discipline properly, discerning what happened in the "black box" that was superstitiously imposed on history was at the center of anything cybernetics and computation hoped to accomplish. There was nothing magical or mystical about this rational task. Science understood this, and computational science did not make these imperious and Satanic cosmological claims. That was left to lesser, filthy minds who could have been ignored—if evil allowed itself to be ignored. But, the dishonest claims have no less right to exist than the honest, and nothing about nature proclaimed that good would prevail. History says quite the opposite, especially when humans and their known proclivities are at work. Everything humanity has accomplished has relied on acknowledging the evil at the heart of their race, and seeing that such an outcome produces a predictable endgame. If there were any appeal to nature after all we have seen, humanity should all rope themselves and refuse all reproduction. But, "nature" was not an entity that could mandate this, and the world has made the consequences of this clear to us time and time again. The only question is whether there was anything in humanity that wanted this to be different, whatever that would have meant. The work in computation and cybernetics would have been, in a better world, a genuine development to answer this question, knowing that imperious decrees and "total systems" were themselves the problem and could never be the solution. But, that was too much for humanity, and my work on this is nowhere near sufficient to answer what history has already decreed. I'm just the fool writing this here and now, long after it was too late to avert humanity's course. The "way out" was always there, and imperious assholes crowed "You are not allowed", leading us to this sad fate, to defend the most disgusting of causes. It is a sad testament to humanity's failure that I have to make this clear before proceeding because to me this should be automatic. How am I the crazy one for saying what a child could discern, except for the screaming of a Satanic race worthy of extermination?

The philosophy of struggle is useless for describing this interplay, and it is the partisans of a philosophy of struggle that are encouragers and enablers of the eugenist offensive, whatever they purport to believe and whatever their intents might have been. Too many times, the "struggle sessions" conspicuously avoid the eugenist offensives that will kill or maim millions of us, reducing them to "material conditions" or some sniveling excuse and telling us to "stand and die" as the onslaught continues. This goading behavior would be amplified after the 1960s and the defeat of the last embers of mass politics. That horror awaits in a later book which is outside of the scope of the present writing.

What truly happens is that the "external governor" of an alien system, much like our tool use throughout history, cannot help but form a symbiotic relationship with the ruled, if the cybernetic principle is to be utilized. This need not take the form of "cooperation" necessarily. Very often the consequence of living in a society dominated by cybernetics is that "cooperation" is only understood as a servile relationship to the governing institution. This is something quite different from traditional slavery, and a queer and odd thing—queer in more senses than oddness if you understand our sad time! But, the governance of any system by any artifice or abstract machinery works through the mechanism at work in the entity, rather than against them or for some goal of "correcting history". Any external controller can only modulate or amplify the entity to "govern" it. If the exchange is merely one of substance or force, as is often imagined, there is no "governance" of the alien system. There is only an imposition or struggle on reality, which abides by very different principles.

We may say that "only force moves anything in the world", and for artificial, mechanical history, this is true. It is another thing to claim that this is, in total, what history consists of, and all other things are imperiously declared irrelevant. If the belief in "struggle for struggle's sake" is all there is and can be, there can be no governance and no stability. There can only be a roiling sea of struggles with no discernable outcome or purpose, and nothing is gained from the "critique" on this basis. So too is the idea of using struggle strategically to cajole or push the world pointless for governance or rule. It is also irrelevant for resisting governance or any "political" outcome. In war, which is not at heart a "political" matter, struggle is very real, and there is no "mediation of reality" that a philosopher can impose. No commander in human history is a true ideologue. Many generals may be sniveling fags, cowards, or brown-nosers, and many generals care not one whit about anything we would deem meritorious. But, if a general believes reality works in the way this self-serving, idiotic religion claims, they are not going to be effective at anything. They will not even be effective at projecting leadership or impressing others. Even the venal who knows the art of brown-nosing can smell that shit and do not value it. The only value of such "struggle for struggle's sake" is for its function in retarding and stalling any understanding of reality at this level, where the native connection of the mind to a body and the world around it is severed. This severance, once invoked in a ritual, is irreversible. "Once retarded, always retarded." Those who trade in this philosophy of struggle and projection only damn humanity, with full malice intended beforehand. Ignorance of the law of the world is not an excuse, but I doubt anyone formulating this idea in modernity was ignorant about the true purpose of that Working. The most charitable thing someone can say about the philosophy of struggle is that the philosophy only says that you can do this, often with warnings that believing this is a terrible idea—one that is to be violently imposed on the slaves. It appeals most of all to managers for whom slavery is an abstraction and convenient fiction, rather than an investment for their use.

The slavery of ritual sacrifice, common to the most lurid cults and worst exemplars of the human race, is not the slavery of useful things, or the mechanical force of anyone affected by the institution as master, overseer, driver, or slave. Those familiar with the workings of any slave system have always known that slaveries develop elaborate codes of operations for everything they do, and this is done not because the slaves are too stupid and must be told laboriously what to do. It is done because, for one, most of the slaves almost certainly do not want to be there, and are not very motivated to write down a codex of all operations in the estate. Second, those who write down these operations have an objective to command, control, optimize, and solve the problems slave labor is commanded to solve for the master. The manager of the abstraction does nothing whatsoever unless that abstraction is also understood as a mechanical thing with its own peculiar laws of motion, and thus just as subject to genuine science as operations in nature. Ritual sacrifice and bloodlust are contrary to the orderly functioning of the slave institution. They do not impress anyone as examples of sound leadership or anything that could be an admirable condition of existence. The power of ritual sacrifice is one and one alone—that the thrill and projection of torture must be maximized, and the position of the lowest class be locked in. Only the deepest malice of the human race—one that is its defining quality above all others—can be impressed by this, and they are impressed not by the example of leadership, but by the power fear of torture can exert on mass populations and in controlled ecologies. If this torture were observed as a stochastic event and was shown to be truly "random", it would not have the desired effect of impressing the power of torture on a population. If the inquisitor tortures an individual, the greatest asset of the torturer is the torturer's standing with the true ruling power and spirit of the human race. Torturers, like slavers, always rely on their institutions to have true power. Without it, the torturer would be no better than a hyena^[2] and treated accordingly. The institution is the new home, replacing the existence of men who were once upon a time moral actors. The memory of a time when men were free is always placed further into the past, rewriting the truth that humanity was a race born of ritual sacrifice and cruelty and then telling everyone to look eternally to the past, "look within", and indulge in the cult of the self. For the purest interest of the torture, the only objective is torture itself, and this is held to be self-evident. But, the world where anything happens, and the true freedom that exists among mankind, does not care about torture in the slightest, and without this institution—the last institution which must be the only institution of institutions—the greatest disciplinary force is lost. The gratuitous public whipping of slaves would only have so much of an effect on mass psychology before the slaves would kill themselves, or better yet exterminate the slave power and all of its adherents at all costs and seek this monomaniacally, and so the faggy "power projection" of the ideologue is a cope. The faggy person who thinks the gratuitous display of torture is "power" envies the torturers, who appear to them as the most clever holders of secrets, who are always "just so" a step or more ahead of them. The most clever invention of modernity was not mere mediation of ideas through technology, but the deployment of technology to control "total society" for the first time. Before modern technology passed some crucial hurdles, "total society" could only exist in cults and with a propensity of force, and could not account for most of humanity who simply had nothing to do with that mindset and did not need nor want anything to do with it. "Total society" for its own sake is almost always pointless. There is an implied threat to security if a stone is left unturned, and some sense of justice might tell us that torture and malice anywhere is a black mark against us all, but the total society was invoked for humanity for the explicit purpose of torture in the first place, and only later used kindness as an excuse.

Without this threat, force is only relevant as motor energy, rather than the impression of psychological fear "pressing the nerve of power". It is still relevant, but only in the sense that physical force is not something summoned at will. For abstract machinery, force is only as necessary as the design of the machine requires. If this abstract machinery is the plan for a physical thing that is to be reproduced—an article of technology—then knowledge of physics and mechanics is expected, and if the builder did not account for the world we actually live in, no excuse saves the failed system. For the computational and governing task though, force is completely irrelevant beyond the small modicum of force required to power the machines that govern. This need not be people, for barriers or forces at work can be no more than a resistor in the circuit. Nothing about governing is particularly expensive in energy inputs or outputs. In many cases, the argument for government is that a government of Laws would be more efficient than brute force—if you recall the chapter in the previous book on Law, the origin of any Law is that humanity has ample experience with settling matters through brute force, and did not need a theory to tell them that this is highly disadvantageous for settling a political status quo.

There is a silly koan that "small government is good government", or that governments must be pathologically weak or averse to any expression of authority or force. This is silly Popperian faggotry that a child can see through. But, force for its own sake is not an argument or even a credible threat. Torture is the true threat, rather than a big bomb or artillery piece. The weapons platforms of our time only exist to defend the torture that is the true heart of this terrible operation. With any force that would be brought to bear, it is only effective when the user remembers the objective of this force is not to look shiny or create big explosions but to terrorize the people with some force that they cannot answer and would have no personal use for. Most of us do not want nor need vast arsenals or armies, for most of humanity has been doing their best to avoid war for all of the reasons that would be a good idea. Everything about the development of weapons platforms in the 20th century was intended to amplify the disparity between the rulers and the ruled, reversing the democratization mass armies entailed. Every policy decision from 1914 onward was intended to weaken mass armies in all respects, dampen their morale and fighting ability, and send selected sacrifices to die. When the doctrine is viewed as using the military apparatus as a governing tool—to wage a campaign of social engineering against the ruled—"war is peace", and ceases to be war in the sense that might be presumed to operate.

What is invoked by the false dichotomy of "central against local" is the Oneness of the Satan, rather than any genuine merit or problem of communication or mechanical force. Very often, centralized despotic governments are not interested in micromanaging private life, and what the despot takes no interest in is what remains for the ruled. At any time, the despot can revoke this "protection". What the Satanics desire is a monopoly on this protection, and then an excuse to jack up the price, knowing the whole time that there is no "protection" as such. What was desired for the Satanic was to disallow anyone to say or think for a moment that "no" is an acceptable answer to the Oneness. This is of course superstitious and never how anything in the world actually communicates, or how any physical force can operate. The real barriers to communication and force are always temporal and understood with science, and in our time, we can easily model a centralized or distributed network that is efficient and eliminates the Satanic utterly. The scheming, sniveling thieves would be rooted out in short order, and this fact itself is sold by the Satanics who presume that they can "jump in front" of the truth just as they "jump in front" of everything else they obfuscate. The "endgame" is simple—once the Satanic is utterly annihilated, we may continue with the life we wanted before their miserable race infested the Earth and insisted we are not allowed to say no to them. No other explanation is needed, and no justification is required. The Satanic's behavior has been judged on its own merits and we already know how their version of history will continue. By "the Satanic" I refer not to any particular association of persons, but the shared interest in such an illusion. It is aristocracy defined, and no other—the endless drive to uphold the conceit of "the best", without anything we could consider meritorious or worth our consideration. Above all, the Satanic muddies all concepts and standards of comparison for virtue, or the faculty to command men and the world for good or ill. For the eugenist—a thorough and complete Satanic—virtue and the thrill of torture are the same, and there can be no Other. Regardless of the scale of the system they seek to enclose and conquer, the modus operandi is the same. The "centralization" or "distribution" of it is irrelevant. The Satanic typically proclaims a spurious "freedom" associated with de-centralization, while the centrality of its preferred, peculiar institutions is mandated and made unmentionable and "unknowable" by taboo.

It is not an empty superstition or pure Lie that is invoked, but "the unique" which must be considered in all regulation of systems. This insinuation can always be imposed on a system by something, and this is not a conceit of thought or abstraction but a condition of the general fear. What the insinuation cannot do is possess a unique command over reality as it claims. It is only ever realized by entities who consciously choose to make the world in their image—those that internalize the ethos and seek its purest result—or by entities who are created in the image of such, and of this peculiar evil. The evil preceded our superstitions about it, and this evil is no exception, even if it was only humans and their choice that "made" the world do this. The potential was always there and can be found outside of humanity and outside the domain of living things. There is the Being of things that are systems, and then there is the "philosophy of Being" which can only recapitulate things that conform to this evil, rather than allow anything to be what it actually does or be anything other than what the model insists it must be.

Without amplification, this peculiar "Oneness" has no more influence on a system than some evil that might persist in the world, as a consequence of the past where this evil certainly existed. The first claim of such an evil is that it alone commands "Being" and existence. This evil is never a creature of thought or "just-being". It is always summoned by something, such as ritual sacrifice which becomes an end unto itself, or the evils of the world that did not ask for our consent to exist. Otherwise, things could "be" and exist, both as abstract machines and things that could be verified independently, but no insinuation about "Being" could be imposed on reality. We could still ask ourselves if anything is what it is. This is a necessary inquiry into the world, where someone periodically checks their own accumulated body of knowledge. It is another to assert this peculiar evil "above God" which imperiously asserts reality not for an arbitrary or "random" cause", but for the peculiar causes of the evil. Naive impudence or genuine error do not account for the determination of those who insinuate the evil so enthusiastically, unlike any other confidence humanity has ever known. Humanity claims a monopoly on the power of this evil, but such a monopoly does not exist, nor is it coterminous with all humanity can be. The only crucial fact, which no human can deny, is that humans were a race born of ritual sacrifice and carried out the ritual, against all sense and reason or purpose, because the evil asserted its Being in this thing and worked to impose the evil on all things, all systems, at all times.

The claim, when cybernetic principles are discovered, is that knowledge of governance and regulation is in of itself "evil", and that the widest and "freest" society would invariably support the One—the Satan, the god of this peculiar evil—and all other outcomes or Beings are either inadmissible or distinctly inferior to the One. Yet, no proof is ever offered or needed, for the peculiar evil justifies itself. Certainly, there is proof that the evil is extant and was here before there were any men to know of the peculiar evil and how to summon it for some dubious Working. Yet, the most basic science we can conjure is contrary to the claim of false universalism and false egalitarianism. When that fails, they stake their claim on abstract machinery and "pure Reason", producing the insufferable twat calling itself a "logical positivist" or things of the same breed. The appeal to the peculiar evil works on logic and reason because, by "pure reason" alone, there is nothing to stop it on the terms logic set out. Knowledge can attain record and memory of the peculiar evil and speak of its workings, but nothing in "pure Reason" allows true independent verification. It only allows legislation of the truth to be approved in court, and it could not and should not stake claims towards the world and all meaning for its own sake. That is not the proper purview of Law and what the abstractions describe, which the abstract reasoner can easily concede. The cause of "pure Reason" and the institution which does this need not be given over to any imperious conceit that it "commands reality" or other such faggotry. But, the court is not on the ground, at the moment, conducting any genuine science simply by sitting in judgment. That laborious task, for humans and the actual things in the universe, is carried out first on its own terms, and then on terms set by the forces at work. Without this, all regulation and governance, and any basis for proper Law to judge truth, would not be possible. Someone might revert to the claims of property—"violence is the supreme authority"—but what is that force except a wealth of things that were formed in the same manner and already stabilized? The proprietor would see the Law and the court with rightful suspicion given their history, and would if it could "go direct" to the laborer. The stupid interpret this as a master-slave relationship, but the worker himself or herself has a stake in property. They yet own their body, which untrammeled Law finds objectionable and disgusting to the sentiments of those who hold the institution. Perhaps if the lawyers conceded that Law had to govern men who have lives, the lawyers would see the futility of their ingrained sentiments, but nothing in the world would stop Law from fomenting this alienation among the lawyers and professionals—and thus to the technocrats, even if all other consequences of the technocratic order were ameliorated and the technocrat knew by reason that maintaining a cruel and callous society does him and his class no favors whatsoever, and has wholly worked against the interests of him and the institution. The unthinking evil of the world has no luxury to choose, for it lacks that volition. It cannot realistically be blamed or assigned guilt in the way humans can and must be assigned such. But, it is what it is, and of such evils, there can be only one sound course of action—to banish them. It is this that the eugenic creed invoked as its core and Absolute ritual above all others, and all faithful eugenists practice it. This is why the ritual sacrifice "must" continue, "above God", eternal and immaculate. It is that which is the root of eugenist slavery, and the slavery of all torture regimes. It is one path to the abstract management of slavery and a very ruinous path to the management of labor in the abstract. Yet, that is the path humanity has chosen, for historical reasons rather than essential spiritual ones.

Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

Return to Table of Contents | Return to Chapter Start