Previous Chapter | Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter
It is only possible to properly view history by delineating epochs. These need not be linearly arranged, and many "threads" of history occur in parallel. For every war and wave of the emperor's hand, human beings and families adapt to the latest shit to be crapped upon them, who have their peculiar history that has nothing to do with the "grand narrative theory of history" that is proposed by very bad historians. Herodotus told history as tales of glory and heroism, but at least the stories pertained to entities that were ostensibly real and could be assigned names. Modernity's trained liars stole the mantle of "Father of Lies" from our good friend Herodotus, but Herodotus did not invent any habitual lying out of whole cloth. Egyptians and Babylonians knew well the power of untrammeled Lie in their rites and cults, and so too did the Hindus and those who would become the Persians. Lie is not a natural monopoly, and it is the first claim of the Satan to claim that it alone possesses the ultimate right of transgression, which all other potential Satans abase themselves to.
We see this deliberate malfeasance regarding history reproduced as a "ruling idea" rather than a description of anything that happens. Whenever this lie is invoked, it is invariably invoked with the utmost contempt. So ubiquitous is the lying and contempt that it has become an ingrained reflex in the human race. The psychological culpability of the perpetrators based on their ability to commit guilt—mens rea—may be argued ad nauseum. When this feature of every law code is manipulated deliberately, the lawyer and the court know what they are transgressing. To claim this is the singular and absolute law, as Eugenics must do, is the same sort of claim as the influence of "Oneness" on cybernetic regulation. It is a stopper that insists that it alone monopolizes the taboo and governs history "above God". This insistence has no more power than it can force or cajole systems to accept, and it has little to do with the genuine integration of any parts of a system to form things that actually exist. Why, then, are we made to argue about it, and why in our time has this spurious assertion of "the power of Being" dominated our thought of systems and governance? A key myth is the treatment of time and causality itself, and then the theories of history which result from it. I have invoked political metaphors which are imperfect because it is political imperatives that drive much of the malfeasance, save for those whose deepest spiritual commitment is to the rot for its own sake. The latter group must be cognizant of political threats just as everyone else is. The group of "True Believers" in the rot of humanity are never equal to the ruling class, whatever their conceit about the ruling power may be. The worst of the rot can be found in the lowest class and among people who have no part in the franchise, and political rulers and elites have to regard the actual world regardless of any retards extolling the virtues of unlimited torture for its own sake. It is only through struggle that the true believers in this rot have asserted as much as they have, and they can only do so on the terms the world has allowed. The world itself has no affinity for the ideologues and has been telling all of mankind and everything that would heed its portents that this path of the ideologues leads to ruin a child could see. We can, in segregating epochs and threads as we must, at last break "the circle of life" that was imposed by a scurrilous aristocracy on this Earth, and speak of what history was for us. I include in us the vast majority of mankind who had no great desire for the venal rot I have described thus far, even if they think I'm a screaming maniac and we share no cause. I don't believe it is too far-fetched to conclude that most of humanity has seen the rot well enough and asks if this really is the best we can do.
History is not truly made by "struggles". Where history is made is in governance. Superficially, Laws of some sort are invoked as an explanation of the "engine of history", which all who struggle seek to capture and control. This was inherent to the free trade empire that demarcated "modernity" from all that came before. This is far from a clean demarcation. Concepts of Empire and what would become "capital" can be found in Antiquity, and the ancients were not stupid flotsam to be cajoled by bad historians. All evidence of their faculties tells us that ancient rulers and ancient men and women were not very different from those who lived at the turn of the 20th century. Where there are marked departures, we have traceable lines of cause and effect that explain why people became different in the period of "rebirth" around the 16th century. In general, the changes in the human constitution arose from the calcification of social class, which before "early modernity" was secondary to religious or national conflicts. Before modernity, "class struggle" was never the sole motor of conflicts, and very often the only classes that could contest anything in the struggle were the warriors and the priests. The warriors brought varying property to the fight and were always feudal and transactional in their outlook toward the world. The priests formed a unified interest that held particular visions of what the future could and would be, by their guiding hand or by the fates which priests have scryed since the Egyptians and Babylonians. This fundamental "class struggle" has not abated up to the present day. It is, short of the destruction of the human race or its thorough defeat and passage to silence, a struggle that is definitionally unwinnable. The remaining classes have little to do with the struggle and never saw their existence primarily through the lens of "class" as such. They had their rises and falls, almost always local to themselves and detached from the prevalent regimes of property. In every case where an interest alien to the war cult and priesthood entered political matters, it was always by alliance with some faction within the war cult or priesthood, or a faction formed out of elements of all. "For-itself", a class alien to the regimes of property had no standing and no goal in the matter that was contested. If they had any notion of what they would have done without the warriors and priests, another class would dissolve unilaterally with the power they possessed the entire model, and impose a new model that suited them. In practice, the same proclivities that created the warriors and the priests would be reproduced in this "new class", and new interests and classes would arise, with the fundamental structure of human society unchanged. It is a simple fact that the functions of war and the religious functions would prevail in political matters, regardless of the influence of technology, labor, and moral direction from the world, science, and the conditions of actual human beings who were, after all of this struggle, still what they started as—entities from the muck, with no more standing than a dog in any just treatment of their fate. Through all of these struggles, the objective of states is not profit or luxury or a conceit about what is "supposed" to prevail. The true nature of states is governance and arresting of the status quo. As a profit-making enterprise or a get-rich-quick scheme, the state is a lousy vehicle. Those whose specialty is finance and the manipulation of ledgers may see the state as an economic venture for their ledgers, but it is a shitty deal for the political class if the goal was wealth for them. The proprietors and priests would always be in hock to the bank, and while the priests may invoke some clauses in the deep recesses of finance which remind everyone that money itself is a spiritual superstition with foul rites rather than "just a contrivance", the "mechanics of money" as an abstract machine make clear that these superstitions cannot last long before the most clever merchant sees that they can rid themselves of inferior priesthoods and warrior cults forever. In this way, the study of history and politics could begin in earnest, and every class and interest would have their "take" on this, including the lowest class who saw correctly the entire existence of the human race as the closest thing to Abomination yet known.
This generalization of history as a narrative is reproduced at the level of something, down to the smallest possible unit of existence. I call this the "narrative theory of history"—that all hitherto known history is stories or fables. History, as you know, does not work that way. A child could see that this history does not work, but at everything, every moment, every event, this can be inserted and it will work for the same reason any governance to create a "thing" works. It would be quite impossible to speak in vagaries or surmise that there is some "trans-temporal" causality which is something other than trans-historical. Invoking "bizarre" time does not change that cause leads to an effect for a mechanical motion to operate. It is a mechanical motion that is at work when speaking of history as a chain of causes and effects regarding a singular "stream of events". Whether the history has a proper beginning or end does not change that a beginning and end are implied and will be substituted when the history stretches to the infinite or infinitesimal in either direction. Any "bizarre time" that is not linear would not change this or change mechanical sense, which would be necessary to speak of artifices our language can operate with. Any "bizarre time" events would be explicable mechanically, with the caveat that we are aware that "time" is not what we naively presume it to be for historical purposes. It would not matter, since the true purpose of history is not to possess a master key or "total system" to arrest a status quo, but to study the consequence of entities we suppose to exist. Those consequences will be construed as a "story" even when we are aware of the folly of doing so. Those stories can be played with by language for malevolent or beneficial purposes. In all of the language employed by humanity, the listener or reader retains an independent train of thought to reconstruct the language into something useful for them. Words and symbols have meanings, and those meanings are at first local to us. We recognize that words have meaning in society or a language generally because there are entities like us who do this and would need those words to be mutually intelligible and referent to a world where independent verification is possible.
What this strange inquiry leads to is an unflattering conclusion for students of history—that by the reasoning of mechanics, history cannot work in the way it would be presumed to work if time and causality were linear revelations, one after the other. Mechanics applies first to abstract machinery and then to the artifices we understand as "things" in the crudest sense, and surely all that exists would be described by mechanical motion if we are to speak of any particular "thing". There is no "super-mechanics" which overrides this, without changing what a "thing" is referent to. Yet, this "super-mechanics" must be invoked by the dishonest to maintain their personal conceit about history, when it is not warranted. What actually happens is that naive causality breaks down when working with abstract machinery. Much of the physical world is as we see it—a force that does not arise arbitrarily or easily, the origins of which can be investigated, and the story of how physical things move reconstructed. It is the abstract world that is queer and alien, and efforts to assert laws outside of their proper purview are the source of so much malevolence. The greater part of this malevolence is deliberate since the malicious thought is itself a physical machine in the end rather than a purely virtual one. It occupies brains, bodies, and machinery, and claims them for a nefarious purpose, and it is this more so than any interested party that rules for the truest believers. They would sacrifice themselves and all allies forever to maintain the "state of nature" as their god commanded them to see it. To do otherwise is worse than failure and death in the cause. It would have made all of their cause futile, and above all, they could no longer destroy the world for their cause. They would be nerve stapled, as we were in this time, as history's judgment is rendered and, as surely as physics, the actions they took to press that nerve are met with the most cruel reaction.
I cannot wish away what Satanics did to the world or the clear and present danger of them. I highly doubt these Satanics will face "justice" of any sort. There is only the world's retribution and consequences, which at some level a Satanic embraces as "proof" of their theory of nature "above God". They would rather die gloriously in defiance than admit that I was right. It is less about a refusal of the Satanic to admit that he or she was wrong. Proud wrongness and queerness is a Satanic virtue, however much I disdain it and its effect on the world. It is admitting that I, a retard, was their superior, that would be a bridge too far if they must accept it as the final answer to the human race. The same would apply to any retard or one damned with the mark of inferiority that presages ritual sacrifice. The greatest dread of the Satanic is that their victims win, even though "winning" such a farcical game was never a great cause for us. Should the Satanic truly wish to arrest history to make it into this, the damned will, as they must, curse such a Satanic race and never stop, to the uttermost end of existence. This we do not out of some smug sense of superiority. We are not the moral equals of Satanics and do not see moral equivalence with Satanics on anything. We do not care about their game or their smug pretensions. We the damned wanted one thing, which was for the Satanics to stop attacking us. Not merely "go away", for we cannot abide by the remaining threat their existence and victory of this sort entails. Since the aims of those who arrested history are irreconcilable with our aims, this means "we die, or they die, it's that simple." I would submit that this inquiry tells us this "struggle for struggle's sake" is entirely pointless, and in practice, it doesn't happen for the vast majority of humanity. In all likelihood, I will perish after a miserable human life, and I can assure the reader, that this madness will not be on my mind, even if I am to be thrill-tortured for the sake of the eugenic creed as I dread. We who know what these people have always been are prepared to annihilate ourselves and persist as ghosts, and have to live as such because it was too much for these