Previous Chapter | Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

The origin of humanity is the deed of ritual sacrifice. There is no doubt of that. The decisive distinction of mankind from its animal forebears is that, during the happenstance where language development was possible and the resulting actions, a decision was made, over and over, to select for ritual sacrifice based on failure to carry out this faculty and by the newfound bigotries it enabled in the human race. This has its antecedents in animals who are not noble savages. Still, the animals never could carry out a thoroughgoing program of ritual sacrifice or communicate this to the offspring, where it became the first sacrament of their race. It happened because, in this primitive form, humans did hold a "racial" consciousness around this act and this act alone, rather than any necessary biological fact or essence about them. Yet, for all of the sacraments of ritual sacrifice and the glory it holds in the mind of such a foul race, there were conditions in the world that were wholly contrary to this, and the vast majority of human existence is not expended on this ritual. It was only the case that, in every situation where it mattered, humanity chose to continue the ritual sacrifice without fail, in one way or another. Any decision contrary to this was usually a deliberate "holding action" to preserve more ritual sacrifice and torture in the future, for that is understood to be the wellspring of their race. When it was not, it was an aberration to be wiped out and corrected, first by the nurture of the sadistic mother, then by ideology and the pedagogy we know today. Ultimately, no objective purpose for the ritual sacrifice is declared or needed. The ritual sacrifice is the one truth the human race as a race holds to be self-evident, "above God", and the first and last word of their race. Yet, for all of the glory of the ritual sacrifice, it never accomplishes anything near its goal, which we must hold to be self-evident by the conduct of the ritual. All ulterior motives for the ritual are irrelevant, and in any analysis of why this happens, the motives are less important than the essential act itself. For any ulterior motive of domination, control, Empire, or growth of the organism, the ritual sacrifice is ruinous. Laid bare, no one, not even other humans, would tolerate such a race. Extirpating it would be a glory far greater than any gain the ritual sacrifice holds, or any appeal it has on the monstrous mind of the human. This has always been known and weaponized—this knowledge of the ritual sacrifice's pointlessness has always been held as an aristocratic monopoly, not allowed to be declared too plainly for what it means about us by those outside of the franchise. That knowledge is among the reasons why ritual sacrifice has this power—the right of transgression is both property and spiritual commitment of their race as a race, hence the name sapiens in modern times haughtily applied to this race of Satanic jabbering apes. Yet, for all of their accomplishments, they, and this author is no exception to the rule, accomplished nothing with their jabbering. They only somewhat comprehend that what they did has never worked, and the goal of all of the ritual sacrifice has been nothing, but they cannot speak of anything else they have consistently been, and all who have tried to find their aspirations are temporary.

This has been the basic difficulty or "contradiction" of human existence; that none of their struggles or aspirations lead anywhere but to the primordial condition of their race. For all of their existence, anything good has existed despite their ambitions, yet goods exist and must exist for this cycle to continue. The goods are more valuable than any goal or "pleasure" humans have ever known, and the majority of mankind pursues those goods rather than the struggle for domination and control taken to its only possible conclusion. Because those goods are necessary to realize the race's ultimate purpose and core ritual, the ritual seeks to produce these things, only to denude them and pervert them so they are subordinated to the god of their race. Because humans were beholden to ritual sacrifice that required definite conditions rather than a blind feeling, the spirit of those who direct these affairs have only been able to operate through material greed and limitations of what is possible for intelligence itself. It cannot produce any "super-thought" that is always the ne plus ultra of ultrasadistic creeds like the eugenic creed. It can only produce bog-standard knowledge, and so too can those who have no desire for ritual sacrifice and would, if allowed, work against it. Those who work against ritual sacrifice do so against the human race and spirit, and they find that their ambitions are transient because they have nothing to "return" to and nothing at the other end of their efforts that would be the final outcome to last forever. Eternal life and stasis aren't even goals to pine for. Most of the human race only possesses imperfect knowledge of ritual sacrifice as something they would wish to run as far away from as they can. A proper listing of human history would be a nearly uncountable listing of atrocities against their own race and against the world, all in the name of ritual sacrifice premised on this conceit of intelligence. That was the founding condition of their race and every time it has been questioned—even when the alternative retains the eliminative functions that ritual sacrifice ostensibly served to kill off inferior races as they saw them—the alternative is rejected in favor of a purer ritual sacrifice. The close alternatives are more likely to devolve into the ancient rites of the human race faster than those that devalue ritual sacrifice and the eliminative function entirely. There is no "nice" way to eliminate human beings or carry out the educational functions to police society, and pretending there can be is a gross denial of the conditions that could realize such elimination. The alternatives that devalue elimination are constantly put on the defensive against baseless insinuation, rely on limited knowledge, and are eventually destroyed by the ignorance and malice inherent in their race's constitution. This limitation might be overcome, but clearly, humans have elected to never allow this, for it would transgress those who won in the institutional struggle their race has waged for centuries. Any "other system" would be beyond the scope of what humans politics has accomplished, and would require not just an end to ritual sacrifice, but a paranoia among the lowest class that remembers why humans were like this, and what pushed them to do things they never should have had to do, all because some insinuating fags demanded the world be this—and those who did this to the world and we are truly fags.

The technological challenge for this aristocratic Empire is not merely a question of how to inflict the most torture and humiliation it can be as if some quantity of torture is the solution to all of their problems. The managers and functionaries of this Empire must believe that "pleasure", i.e. torture, can be quantified and universalized, but this is an ideology particular to Christian history and the necessity of the Empire to abolish previously extant notions of value, mercy, justice, and what anyone in that society did. All of mankind had concepts of money and wealth. The Islamic world, unique among human religions, sanctioned the merchant's function while obligating the merchant to religious duties and practices, among them the mandatory donation of alms and a body of laws regulating what is done with those alms. Nowhere does the good exist as a tradeoff with the evil, as if it were negotiable in a cosmic bargain. The good does not directly compete with other goods by any calculation. The evil does, and that is what money is—a measure of torture and humiliation to be doled out. The effect of the torture is psychological, but it is not the sole or primordial psychological motive as the torture cult claims. The goods of the world are appreciated because they are good in themselves, without any necessary reference to the torture cult, ritual sacrifice, or the evil. The evil does by its nature exert an effect on human beings in the world we live in, but in the main, the evil is an expenditure that exists entirely because most of humanity has no motive to comply with the lusts of other humans on any matter. The coincidence of wants among humans in economic matters occurs first with goods "in-kind", which are appreciated as the goods rather than appreciated as a path to the evil of generally alienable labor. Some system for allocating or arranging goods or virtues may be asserted, but it is always on the terms of the goods rather than what anyone wishes or wills them to be.

The creation of novel products does not allow for calculation to be reduced to the primordial evil or some willpower of men to make the world. There is always in the aristocratic mode of political thought a virtue that is invoked, but virtue has no creative power and does not concern that which is novel to the world. Much of the technology humanity built, and especially the technology of the 20th century, had never existed before then, and this is not merely some conceit of a futurist vanguard insisting comparison with the past was impossible. It is possible to compare the new to the old if scientific thinking survived what the institutions did to destroy such thought during the past century. But, the political and spiritual thought had no way to process that which was new, without reverting to that ancient wellspring that declared that suffering and torture are the fount of life, and that "death creates life" by some superstitious economism of the universe. It could only believe it was possible to torture inventors to procure technology since that is all the aristocratic model of political thought ever knew or ever wanted to know. This has been the primary limitation, but far from the only, to the advance of Empire's technology. It requires imperatives that are not found in the order of property and conquest and will not be appreciated by them, and the proprietors will see the new as a threat to their wealth, for it is indeed a threat. When the claim to technology becomes proprietary and declares a monopoly on technology and thought itself, this condition, which a lower proprietor can understand and navigate, becomes impossible to move away from. "The system cannot be wrong" becomes the refrain, and this refrain comes not from the proprietors who have always been aware of the need to keep ahead of technological advances and pre-empt threats to their wealth. It comes from the technocrats themselves, if the technocrats select this imperative of proprietary, monopolized technology as the possession of their class and institution alone. The technocrats became a far worse version of the proprietors of old, preferring an abstract corporate facade over any person or merit that would have been judged as the proprietors always are.

If this is understood not just as the overarching condition of a whole society, but broken down to the germs or "units" producing any technology that circulates in society, we see the same failure to allow the new replicated in miniature. New things are for the individual scary or uncertain, and absent a compelling reason to do so, the tendency would be to do today what was done yesterday and to plan to do tomorrow what was done today. But, novelty for its own sake does not occur for blind purposes or because novelty is intrinsically interesting. The new arises because the real conditions of some agents in society are intolerable enough that something new is necessary, and these real conditions are not limited to the stability or security of the agents of society. An agent can even decide that the stable recurrence of something odious or evil is itself the problem, even if they know changing this means the end of their existence. Nowhere can a preferred conceit of the self or self-interest be inserted into history as a universal rule. It is not hard to see that human beings are mortal creatures who will have to pass anything they do to their inheritors, and to a world that will endure regardless of what those who pass down property would want the world to be. Still, the disdain for the new, even when such changes are expedient or useful, is inherent to this approach to technology that Empires mandate, for the security of something alien to what any agent would want, or what agents together would have done in a better world. The malice and the evil precede our efforts to change the world or the behavior of men, even ourselves, and for purposes that would appear to objective sense to be entirely reasonable for all. If we saw history thus far for what it was, we would forbid most of what humanity considers socially acceptable behavior like ritualized malice and celebration of that fact in itself. We would forbid humans to have much to do with each other and forbid the conspiracy that foments the greater evils humans accomplish when they unite for the spiritual cause of their race, until such a time that humanity shows it would no longer repeat the habit of ritual sacrifice in any way, let alone the ruinous glorification of such that has prevailed in their race's history. And so, through all of this, humanity has one defense. This is why the vast majority of humanity has no reason whatsoever to go along with one iota of this program, and the aristocratic program has always appealed to fear and domination. The success of the republic at circumventing this was the first movement towards the decline we live in today. In the republic, domination is held collectively by a class or interest against all other classes and interests, rather than by men or entities that are accountable to the world and cannot use the dodge of a corporate persona. At no point does non-domination become a feature of republican rule; at best, domination is carried out by an abstract ruler until aristocracy re-asserts itself. Fear is omnipresent in all human societies where the drive for domination is not appealing. Yet, these drives—fear leading towards anarchy, domination towards despotism—offer nothing whatsoever to nearly everyone, and are dubious prizes for the victors. It is only possible to deploy this "meme" of the ideology I describe in these books when it can be operationalized and perfected for long enough to become a learned reflex, and this requires a biopolitical rationale such as eugenics, and entities that appreciate such a system and acted upon it. Since this pedagogy can only be taught by intensive intervention by the willful believers in such, that limits for a long time the reach of any omnimalevolence like "The Retarded Ideology". But, for most of history, and in practice up to today, ideology has been a terrible motor. What was needed was the operationalization of functions that were at first only carried out by men. Without written language or formal study, the primitive conditions of Empire of this sort worked primarily through men and the superstitions they held. It would be through the men that the most overt acts of Empire would be carried out rather than the women, for a variety of reasons. Chief among them is that men were the soldiers of human societies and the first who would be sent to scout or contact enemy societies, and the general expendability of the male sex for the cause. This, I believe, is more or less ingrained into the mating behaviors of men and women, and these entrained many of the most malevolent behaviors in the sexes. And so, sexualism has been most often the best vehicle for mediating faith in the imperial creed, and every imperialist is drenched with hyper-sexualism and appeals to such, either as a cruder version of biopolitical sense or an extension of modern biopolitical religions like eugenics.

The appearance of "mediated reality" is most necessary for this imperial religion and its practices, more than any explanatory power it grants to us to understand the world. Very clearly, a child can figure out that their eyes and ears interface with a world that had nothing to do with human mediation or the direct intervention of any god to "process reality" in that sense. Usually, the animistic deities were understood as metaphors of something, either of natural events or of things that are believed to hold spiritual and temporal authority over men. But, for Empire to perpetuate itself, it and it alone must mediate reality "in God's image", and then retroactively impose that mediation onto time before its existence. All of the technology that Empire builds for unrelated purposes must fit into this "mediated reality" of the imperial monopoly on knowledge, rather than the availability of technology being assumed or taken for granted.

We can see of course that this is madness. Technology is made by men for their own purposes without any necessary mediation, and in practice, the imperial power is just as beholden to reality as individual men are. No one who rules believes they are actually made of magic and their intellectual monopoly is actually granted by nature, however insane their religion and institutions have become. But, this is a limitation understood by any imperial power, and this is a condition of Empire rather than states or philosophers. The disdain of the philosopher for technology is ultimately a bigotry of their class and their profession rather than a necessary concern. So too is the proprietor's disdain for technology, which the proprietor recognizes as an enemy to his class but something which has no grand value to the world itself beyond the fact of what technology can do. It is the imperial apparatus that must violently insist on "no innovation" rather than the interests of men or any other shared interest or class property they hold. Empires do not do this because they believe "Ignorance is Strength" by decree alone, but because if reality is not mediated, their claims to be a thing are violated. It is only possible for Law to uphold this claim in certain ways prescribed by Law, for the interest of the lawyers and their own conceits, which are different from the imperial conceit. The lawyer can accept that there is a world outside of the law that must be assimilated and dealt with on the terms of the Law and the Law alone. The imperial ideologue cannot break from "mediated reality" once, whereas, for the lawyer, the use of language and facts in court is a necessity of the institution if it is to be anything at all. What I am saying here is the origin of the imperious need to force ignorance on the majority of people, far beyond any natural ignorance of humanity. Indeed, humans do not immediately meet each other or exchange secrets. How humanity has communicated up to now has made an exchange of technology and knowledge problematic even between two people who want to understand each other, or a one-sided supply of information from one party to another that is unimpeded by hesitation of those who are interrogated. There is always a distance between them, which is not true of the philosophical state as a construct. The philosophical state abolishes distance for its purposes rather than any malign intent. For the philosophical state, distance in communication is irrelevant to the construct they have built. The state must operate as if common knowledge were in its domains, even if the truth is not immediately accessible to those who rule the philosophical state. The Empire's need for forced ignorance is altogether different. The imperial manager is never himself ignorant of anything, even if he professes he is, and even if the management of the Empire is maintained by mutually agreed ignorance of its functions of the others or the limitations of the men who manage society. But, the forcing of ignorance for the Empire takes on a different character. Where the philosophical state views the depoliticized subjects as thoughtless or irrelevant to the structure of the polity beyond their compliance, the imperial ignorance mandates aggressively pushing that ignorance into the operations of individuals. For forced ignorance, "the personal is political" in all cases; and yet, the actual political state of the Empire is left vague and outside of the public interest or any public accountability. What the Empire hopes to accomplish with forced ignorance is the illusion that it has transcended a natural barrier to Empire—timely communication and physical propagation—while making the barrier as great as possible for the slaves of this Empire. "We are priests of power", they will crow, no matter how decrepit they are or how ridiculous their cult is. I leave the greater description of this to later chapters in this section, but it must be remembered that all of this technology of Empire is presumed to be "mediated reality" for it to be usable by Empire, and this will inform what is developed and what is "allowed" or "incentivized" to exist, rather than what technology would do if it existed to solve a simple calculation problem.

We have to step back from the conceits of Empire for a moment to see this mediated reality for what it is. In doing so, mediation itself must become a technology of importance, and so, forced ignorance about the nature of forced ignorance is expected and turns inwards on itself. Hence, doublethink and "contradiction". The truth of the world does not need either and we can see this trap for what it is, without a "mediator" telling us who is sane and who is insane. Sanity requires a knowable world and this implies some independent way to ascertain it, and the complications of doing this in Law are not relevant to asking if we are sane or if someone else is so, or if the speech of another is intended to foment insanity and control it for some foul purpose.

I can only list some of the constraints placed on Empire for this task, but following from Book 2's chapter on "The Ecological Claim", some of them should be clear to us, given that this claim of forced ignorance is an ecological one rather than an economic one.

It is a simple reality that movement is never instantaneous or "entangled" if it can be spoken of as movement. To speak of "entangled change" means asserting the existence of a system that can be demonstrated as following the principles of its constitution. This can only be done for limited cases and cannot be a general law of things, all of which exist in a world that is of interest to this question. When "movement is instant" it always pertains to abstractions of things rather than independent mechanisms linked by "spooky action". For everything else, movement can only happen over time. This can be movement in space or "movement" in some other sense, like a measurement of change in some system. Ice melts and water evaporates over time and from causes that can be assessed, rather than change in temperature being an inherent quality of water or the universe. It is possible to treat temperature itself as a system with its properties and find some way in which all physical substance is linked, but in all cases, this physical knowledge can be documented and repeated by experiment. We learn over time how the various substances and compounds of the universe react in chemistry and build a model of why it is so, up to a point where further expounding on "why" is onerous and useless for knowing anything meaningful. In practice the imperial concern is not with the low level of chemical actions, but concern over bodies that are temporally distinguishable and can be demarcated as useful. Bodies of human beings, prominent features of the land or sea, objects like a ball or the tools of men, and so on are the units of interest for imperial administration.

That which is administered is always understood mechanically because that is necessary for any history or record that is to be mediated. This may be abstracted or "sublated" in a model for administrators, but all such abstractions must be aware of the abstracted system and answer why such an abstraction is valid. It is also accepted that velocity is only possible with force that must be generated by some engine. In some way, mechanical force becomes the true universal currency of Empires. All of the tools for the exchange or regulation of society are reducible to these mechanical forces, and how forces can be summoned or channeled is key knowledge. For example, the use of oil for combustion engines is a real condition and constraint of empires, rather than one arbitrarily chosen from a potentially unlimited list of energy sources. There are only so many potential sources of this force, and natural laws like the flow of a river or gravity are forces that can be summoned and must be regarded. This applies to the "physics" of abstract things just the same. There is "political force" or what is necessary to initiate Acts of government, what is necessary for the Law and court of imperial societies to back their claim that the court can do anything they do, and so on.

The agreements between men—consent or agency being common agreements that are appreciated—have no force simply by saying they are operative. Those agreements are understood to be things human agents act upon for their own reasons, rather than the imperial interest. No force or velocity "makes" agreements or promises effective. Men can choose to dishonor any treaty at any time. But, the consequences of doing so are remembered, and it is the task of the scammer to insist that no one is allowed to say lying happens, so that the lie may be repeated with a smug, superior grin. The consequences of such a lifestyle are clear to anyone who thinks for five minutes. No one has any reason to respect or regard such lying, and once the lie is committed, what is done cannot be undone. In that way, habitual lying can be imagined as a sort of "force" with peculiar properties, but it does not exist in the minds of men or as a fantasy. The lie and its results are consequential, and this is what gives the professional liar pride in lying. So too is the stubborn refusal of the victims to comply with further lying force. The force occurs not in the willpower of human beings, which has no native goodness or trust or regard for the concept, but in the clockworks of events that comprise history, and the laws institutions make regarding lies and their need to secure their existence against them. What a human being does about this lying or moral turpitude for themselves is a matter apart from the force of the essential act of lying. Honesty or truth do not have an inverse effect or force in the same arena. The world of habitual lies, deceptions, and ulterior motives is something unrelated to a world where men are honest and this scurrilous behavior is haram. The honest, knowing the uncertainty of the world and humans' judgment which must seriously be doubted if we are familiar with ourselves at all, can accept ambiguity or misunderstandings to a point. They will never accept "contradiction" or the insinuation that Lie itself must be respected. Where do these abstract notions operate? They operate only in the realm of potential. The potentials of humans to lie or commit to honesty are definite for any given society, knowing the means people can communicate and what they can get away with, and some knowledge of human psychology for all of the participants. This is not an intractable problem, but it is a problem that changes over time because human beings are not fixed agents, and they are aware of the problem and act concerning it. For the imperial liar, the "power of Lie" is not in a collection of individual, petty lies, but in vast systems and institutions of lying for lying's sake. In other words, public relations as we know it relies not on the philosophy of lying, but on the known capacities of human beings to lie, their wish for honesty among a dishonest and monstrous race, and communication technology which itself was revolutionized during the 20th century, and continues to adapt to the changes of this century. The peculiars of physics in a given mode of communication—for example, radio waves or digital signals through fiber-optic cables—do not have a direct effect on the power of Lie, but each apparatus for communication is a tool with consequences that are not interchangeable with another tool for no cost. Digital communication allows computerization and interception of a message, editing its content with precision. Digital media can't communicate anything without this malleability presumed of the bitstream. But, there is no essential ingredient of "digitality" that insists reality must conform to it. That conceit is always ideological and operates through different mechanisms. Here, I concern myself not with ideology but with what is possible in a known situation of the world, even if the society where this happens is dynamic rather than static.

So too is transportation of tangible goods relevant for any empire. What is the function of the state in economic life? The producers have throughout history largely operated outside of the state. The state's sole function is to extract the product so that its operations may continue. The state can impose this because it has an army and asserts a right to establish laws and force. For the state to continue this, producers must be allowed to produce. Nothing prevents a state from intervening more directly for its purposes or some purpose of the general peace. But, absent a mechanism to do so, the state and political conceits have nothing to do with the productive sector. All producers, though, must be able to distribute their products to the consumers. This logistics problem must be solved not just as a managerial problem of information, but proven to be something that can be enforced. There must be vehicles and fuel to transport the products, and just as with propaganda, there is a force of lying itself and trust or honesty in this project of producing. There must be machines and tools men use—and the bodies of men are themselves machines—that must be operational for production to happen. There is a place where this happens that must operate in conditions of peace rather than war, for nothing will be produced in the no man's land of a battlefield. There is an order that is not just a technical specification, but a realized production line that would be valued. If productive enterprises were carried out for their own sake or for a motive that was innocent regarding the world, they would be judged only as a matter of fact. But, when empire inveighs on the production process at all, the calculations are very different. The effect of money, issued by an imperial bank for imperial purposes, is wholly corrosive on the productive enterprise, yet all productive enterprises are judged based on this imperial money rather than the things a producer wanted out of it, or that would have been goods to the majority of mankind. Not one good comes out of the evil that is "money", and no theory had to tell us this. What is money except the mediator of reality imposed on production, which natively needed no such dickering over imperial spoils to be justified? The productive enterprise in another world is concerned with a matter that is not doubted by anyone let alone an intractable struggle waged "just because". There can be some other arrangement where imperatives are imposed on production, and production for its own sake is what started the cycle. If, however, production were for those who worked, and it was done because men morally valued the product for reasons that weren't reducible to serving Empire, it would look very different. In such a world, production would be a thing entities do, rather than the point in itself or a self-perpetuating beast. No such beast was ever needed nor desired. Products were desired for what they could do for the workers who made them. Whether the imperatives were expressed in money or some other excuse makes no difference. Regardless of these imperial demands on production, the real transportation of products must occur, and this is used as an excuse to claim that reality itself is "mediated" in that way. It does not work that way for the propaganda of mere ideas, let alone for tangible things with significant mass. The simpler solution is that no such mediation is operative, and money—or whatever else is used as an imperative—is a tool used by particular people for nefarious purposes, and has no place in any scientific view except as that. We can write a science based on pure Lie, but that is uninteresting to anything that would be independently verified. The elaboration of lies can be carried out ad nauseum, but there is a point for any agent where nausea sets in and exhausts the agent's resources. That has been the sole point of relitigating what did not need to be relitigated.

For every system subjected to the dismal science, the agents of that system are definite and indivisible. There may be an argument over which entities are significant enough to be granted "agency" in a particular model, but once established, the entities are not doubted. The numbers of such entities are definite and not subject to interpretation, even if human perception lacks immediate knowledge of all such agents within a purported system. A "society" for instance may be interpreted as a vaguer sense that this exchange of information is possible, without any necessary counting and record-keeping of the individual agents of all in the society. It may be that no agent in the society quite knows the number of people living in the city, but it is definite that there is a number that can be counted, and everyone will arrive at similar conclusions if they are honest about evidence from the world—if independent standards of comparison are possible, which they must be to speak of this as any sort of scientific matter. This applies to all systems that are judged by the dismal science, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant. Even obscure curiosities like the details of some childish video game may be subjected to the dismal science and treated as a thing to push and manipulate for the "greater good" of the Empire. This, the reader might have figured out, is the reason for so much shittification of recreational activity, where even our downtime must be invaded by the dismal science and the grodiest of managers.

The relations of agents do not arbitrarily scale to any number of agents for a given agent, nor are all agents equally treated in their full relations. Every relation between two agents is a definite relation rather than an arbitrary and infinitely divisible one. "Agent" here is interpreted broadly, and so a human being, a large tool like a car which is also a mode of transportation, and smaller tools or articles that are multifarious in purpose, are all related individually, and cannot be subsumed into any collectivity other than one that is known to be a useful "shorthand" to describe the relation. For example, all of the possessions of a person may be subsumed into the category of that person's personal property, which is not to be conflated with another type of property such as private property or state property and the agent's relation to the state. In managing their personal property, persons are reasonably aware of each individual article, such as their clothes, their chair, their utensils, their common tools like a hammer or axe, and so on. A full accounting of personal property may be a laborious task instead of something remembered offhand by a person, but there are expectations of persons about what domains contain their personal property, how to designate such, expectations of any shared property between two persons, and expectations of the commons which is understood to be shared by members of a polity or some group. To illustrate the law of sufficiently small numbers, the most readily accessible example is with the personal property of one person, but it is not difficult to see that personal property is not a sacrosanct shield or any natural demarcation that will be enforced by the world itself.

If the number of something or class of things in personal property is large, it is unlikely for a person to relate to each instance of those things on an individual basis. If for example, we held a change jar or piggy bank that is filled with spare coins, we would know that there are so many pennies or small-value coins contained within and that the sum total value of those coins exists, but the person only cares about the concept of that change depository, and will occasionally count the change, exchange it for larger denomination currency or for goods once assembled and counted. How the coins are counted is irrelevant. The person can count them him or herself, ask their children to do so as a chore or exercise or place the coins in an automated counter to sort, count, and present the coins in useful form so they can be exchanged. It is important to recall this since obfuscation about how to count is seriously claimed by the dismal science as an imperious demand it can make of the mind of a person. But, if the numbers of any thing are very large, it is expedient where possible to contain them in a concept of some collective, and the collective does not treat individual agents as tokens with an assigned quantity of value. The coins in the change jar imply that there is a concept of currency that is active in society and that this is the function of the collection of coins for the person. If there is no society to exchange with, then the coins are devoid of value, save for the metal content or some sundry use that can be made of any regularly sized solid object, for example using the coins as "play money" or tokens representing agents in a game environment like a board game, where the dimes become heroes, the quarters become dragons, or whatever the rules of the game assign to them. By no means are the agents confined to a preferred utility, but for any purpose, the agent may be assigned utility, the utility is something a person is aware of in their property. It is also a definite fact regardless of utility that these things require space to exist, even if they are virtual objects stored in a computer's memory or an "imagined construct". The point here is that any time a grouping of agents is "sublated", the person doing this knows the reason why they are subsumed into a group and could pick apart the agents if needed. The assignment of this grouping status is contingent on that. If a grouping of some things is not easily divisible—for example, the number of molecules in a grape—then the molecules are irrelevant as agents in the "society" of this property. Only the grape, which is a definite proposition, would be, even though we could surmise there is a way in which this substantive thing devolves to its component substances. If we rephrase our possessions as the possession of some substance, where the person is looking for any source for some purpose like any combustible material, there is a way to ascertain which of these possessions is suitable for the task, which is the work of science; but, no new possessions are found by this.

Mentioning these conditions again is only done to remind the reader that for whatever purposes this person has subdivided possessions into agents or collections of agents in a class, the number of such agents and collections is limited, and the number of these agents or categories is not an arbitrary thing. The units are never infinitely fungible or exchangeable for some crass unit of value.

There are two ways this law of sufficiently small numbers can be found. One is by working from "below", at the level of an agent itself and its likely relations with neighbors, which follow the same calculus as a person to speak of their relation. The other is from "above", looking at the sum total of agents in a purported system and describing subdivisions of it. From below, it is simple. Insignificantly sized agents are either coalesced into something significant in size or are irrelevant until something warrants acknowledging their existence. The agent to be related to and treated as a "center" only relates to other agents in knowable ways. From "above", the example has been used before in these books. I used the example of a city and then divided them by ability, social status, and what they were likely to do in the political matter, where in a city of 200,000, perhaps 8,000 would be "active citizens", and this would not have undermined the democratic character of the city in any way. The "passive citizens" might have enjoyed a standard of living and education that allowed them to know what was happening and hold an opinion about it, but in practice, they were beholden to the active citizens, who shared an interest that was not bound to the conditions or abilities those active citizens possessed in any necessary way. They were distinguished instead by being active citizens who could relate to each other, and this formed a new interest—the association—that could make decisions at the level of the polity, rather than just for the association and the interests it held. This was confined to an explanation of politics philosophically, rather than a rule that was supported by history. The "passive citizens" with the means to do so could abrogate this arrangement at any time when they see that none of their interests are represented in the "demos". So too can an active citizen decide to take up the cause of those who were excluded from the franchise, or effectively excluded as active participants. This is something that happened throughout the history of democratic societies and republics, and champions for the poor and landless can be found in human societies around the world even when the ruling idea is despotic. To better understand this condition, it is necessary to place it in some historical context, rather than presume the abilities and conditions of people are simply there and active in any society. It is possible to consider societies where active participation is equally distributed and must be so for the society to work. Socialism, for example, required the active participation of the vast majority of humanity in the fulfillment of a general plan, which required the participants to understand reasonably what that plan was and its implications. The ideal "technocracy" if it resembled the pure interest of the commons would be very different from the technocracy humans have known and all versions of technocratic government that humanity has written about up to the present (except, perhaps, the scattered fragments of such in the early 21st century, which these books are a tiny and haphazard contribution towards in part). In the ideal of a technocratic government, there would be no ambiguity within the polity about what is to be done or why it is done in the way it is, and the plan would be reasonable enough to the participants that the malcontents would have little to say for themselves. They could complain and invent excuses, railing against the injustice of the majority, but the majority opinion would be in line with an objective truth that could not be denied, except by claiming the majority are ignorant and do not possess received wisdom. That claim, if history is laid bare, has never been credible, because the conditions of humanity are, even in a time with information too vast for any one person to know, not difficult for the lowly to discern. The lowly see the parade from 1970 to the present year (2024) as contemptible, for the rulers that claimed a monopoly on knowledge and nature itself can do nothing but push the torture button and insist the rulers are by law the best and brightest. Not one excuse from the ruling aristocracy is anything more than the same tired scams aristocracy has deployed since ancient times. It is because of this situation that a sounder explanation of this law of sufficiently small numbers, and related laws, must be made here, to the best of my ability. I do not claim to have invented this law, nor would I want others to dogmatically quote me as an authority, but it is worth clarifying this due to the extent of statistical charlatanry at work in this time and the recent past. The growing prominence of technocratic government and the necessity of such, at a time when the technocratic settlement is attacked from all directions and from the eugenic interest that claimed the apex of human society a century ago, makes clear the necessity of a sounder historical grounding for any future "theory" or notion of what human societies do.

The conditions of agents and their abilities are all definite and finite if they are to be historically sound. We are capable of ascertaining the past and the future, and all potentials of what could have been in another course of events. The potentials of things are also finite, so envisioning an incalculable "potential" and using that as a philosophical excuse does not hold water. Yet, the problem is not trivially solved just by stating the finiteness of historical potential. It is known that all of the ways to independently verify any information pertinent to the problem are limited, for all human knowledge is similarly finite, the ways to communicate this knowledge are fewer, and the ways to teach and confirm knowing this shared knowledge between us are even fewer. Whether the agents in question are knowing agents like ourselves, who are the chief historical actors of interest for the questions the dismal science entails, or the agents are unknowing flotsam, all systems that we can analyze are products of knowledge. They are only considered in terms of knowledge, rather than any "super-truth" or claims about the world's fundamental nature or decrees about what anything is supposed to be. Because this is so, there is one "system of systems" that is pertinent to this question; that of knowledge and computation itself. This knowledge is abstract, but it pertains to a world we hold to be real and that is not immediately under our control. And so, laws of physics, chemistry, and so on are rendered as knowledge rather than the "things-in-themselves" whenever an understanding is reached, with the full knowledge that these models describe a world that was not beholden to them. The conceits we hold about any "law of sufficiently small numbers" do not say anything about the universe itself or laws we must bow and scrape to. They instead say something about how we understand the world. No science deals with statistics or informational constructs. Statistics are used by us to relate these concepts in a way that humans can manage, without having to question ourselves about what is related to them. The moment anvilicious insinuations purporting statistical proof are introduced, that is intended to terminate the thought process. To understand the world after the preliminary work of figuring out what things are and what they do, it is helpful to work with agents that are small in number and relations that are definite, rather than a morass of infinitely many relations. If there are a large number of relations to track, there is some system to categorize them and break them down into something a meager human intellect can use. But, for any question of what a statistically related grouping of agents is or does, they only operate in the way the agents in question would operate, relating to one other agent at a time or one union of such, the latter treated as something with its own properties or subdivisible as needed into its constituents. And so, when looking at a group of such agents that are as free to move as they can be, they only do anything in accord with the physical potentials of the agents, rather than any statistical law asserting their behavior. This may be complicated by knowing agents like humans who can compare statistics and work with them, but such considerations are far removed from the basic behavior of systems. The most basic social relations are bilateral between agents, rather than relations to statistical constructs, and this is always remembered when speaking of a given collective of persons, whether imagined as a polity, race, nation, association, corporate order, religious order, or whatever the situation may be.

The point here is that the distinctions of these agents, men or otherwise, are never "just-so" excuses. For example, the social class of men in a city does not assert anything on its own. There is a reason why social class exists and how it is perpetuated. In the example of an ancient city of 200,000, the chief distinctions that removed most from the active citizen pool were sex and slavery. The rationales for the exclusion of females are multiple and well-known to anyone at all familiar with human society, and they can be reproduced by men and women alike. The institution of slavery is often what the democratic society was established to protect. It was still possible to consider the manumission of slaves and their eventual assimilation into the democratic polity, but an ancient taboo prohibited the freedman from being equal to a naturalized citizen. Even without that taboo, those who were slaves before never forget the terror of life as a slave, and no slavery in history has ever been passively enforced or treated as no big deal upon emancipation. Some tribes did assimilate slaves into their society, or allowed freedmen standing in society due to necessity, as many new cities were founded from the dregs of humanity and someone had to be important in the new city. However, slavery is not an incidental relation in the abstract, as if it could be entirely allocated on paper and history will conform to the abstraction. And so, the status of slavery and knowledge of how slaveries are enforced makes evident the distinction in any given mass of people, without granting to slavery any supernatural or "natural law" status that requires it to be universal to human societies. It is not hard to envision a society where past slavery or shame did not matter and manumission was a necessary expedient to maintain a polity. The remaining distinctions in the ancient city pertained to wealth, the intelligence of the free men, their ability to speak or convince, and their desire to do so—consider that most of humanity has no interest in political life whatsoever and would be happy to delegate that to another so long as they hold an acceptable level of security—and extant institutional relations that lock out considerable numbers of humanity from active participation, for example, membership in a university that declares am absolute monopoly on political rights as the situation is in the 20th and 21st centuries. Each of these limitations cannot be taken for granted. The university lockout on political rights does not stop the uneducated from hating their condition and seeking ways to circumvent all lockouts. Wealth is not fixed in the possessions of men, inviolable by any natural law or custom, and wealth can be squandered or deployed wisely. The bigotries of the society exist because they are actively enforced, rather than by any natural law requiring bigotry to rule the minds of men. There is one distinction among humans that prevails in our time and is treated as Absolute—intelligence. Yet, this intelligence does not mean what it purports to mean about the agency of the agents, where intelligence is conflated with moral virtue and right. Intellectuals, as we have seen, are far more amenable to slave societies than any other group in humanity, for it conforms to their expectations of what the world should be. That bias will be noted, and by the 21st century, there should be no doubt. The intelligent will always clamor for more slavery, even of their own kind, because intelligence is adapted to slavery as the law of the human race rather than any notion of a free society. "Freedom is slavery" was judged by the history of humans, and this is because of what humans chose to be and the volition particular to their race, rather than intelligence mandating slavery as an absolute natural law or inexorable tendency. It does not require great intelligence to see this trap, and a better race would not have allowed this to start. But, it did start, and because of the stubborn insistence of the intellectuals, it will persist. Guilty. If not for this bias, intelligence would not account for nearly as much as it is presumed to. Still, if the intelligence of humans is judged by its realistic outcomes rather than the conceits of what intelligence is "supposed" to mean, it will distinguish men and what they are able or likely to do in a given society. The faculties of intelligence and learning are limited, as is the accumulation of knowledge in men or their institutions. Because the institutions of mankind loom large over every city, it is not a trivial or banal fact to assert a "law of sufficiently small numbers" that is universal to every society, as in the infamous Pareto principle of elitism - the "80/20" rule, which has its origin in the caste system I have alluded to or explicitly denounced in this book. But, because intelligence is necessary for the dismal science, it will figure into these systems where humans are involved, and it further figures into how humans hobbled by the dismal science judge systems of unknowing things, mostly in line with their pre-existing bigotries rather than any need to do so.

The law of sufficiently small numbers can only apply to agents whose agency is free and multipurpose; that is, it does not describe behavior in a closed system or "cycle", but the agency of something expected to interface with agents throughout the world in theory. That is, it answers questions about what something does with any other thing, rather than a limited example that can fit into a preferred purview, for example, "human relations" treated as a special domain of knowledge. There would be nothing special about humans beyond the consideration human agents might have for identifying something as "human", that would allow these human relations to abide by special rules. Right away, the claims of ecology to be "prior" to the system are nonsensical and must be imposed on reality. The true condition of ecology, following from our writing on economic thought, is that it is first contingent on the agents in this "ecosystem" before it is fully assembled. Where are they imposed on reality? They are imposed by men and men alone, and so, the managerial function is naturalized and granted status "above God". Nothing about such an imposition applies to the understanding of systems generally and how we judge—or misjudge—them.

We can salvage something out of this "ecology" by refusing to believe that these impositions describe "natural law", and are themselves dynamic and responsive to their constituents. That is, the ecosystem itself can grow, contract, assimilate something from outside of it, and transform it into a new system. If the "eco-system" is to be judged as a system though, that is a proposition of something definite, and that definition can be judged to not exist, or no longer exist, or be a potential in the future. It can only exist in history and in "pre-history", for there is no such thing as "genesis" for this system in the sense that it has birth and death like life-forms. It is a demarcation for historical purposes, much like the division of history into eras or stories that allow history to be intelligible to us. And so, for any "eco-system", there is a pre-history of what existed before this system, which can be the history of its constituents or the history of the land or space before this "eco-system" existed. It cannot exist as something "created" as a system unto itself or instantiated like a proper system. It begins as a vague construct, given further definition so that history can be understood. That is its proper function, rather than this "trans-historical" explanation that was granted to ecology in the 20th century.

It becomes clear that this "eco-system" is a sleight-of-hand trick to grant to artifices "just-so" natural causal power, rather than a system in the genuine sense. All of the agents of ecology can exist without "ecology" as such. There is an environment that is peculiar to life's expectations of what life does, rather than the world "making" or "selecting" anything.

Where does this law of sufficiently small numbers come into play, then? It arises because this construct only tells us about significant contributions, rather than minute ones; yet ecology demands "absolute, total knowledge" that it can assert imperiously to dictate to all agents with the minimum of managerial effort. Ecology in other words is a slave-management idea rather than a scientific idea to understand the world, beyond our need to understand the nature of slaveries in the world as a scientific matter. Who thinks of "eco-systems", but those looking for a way to cage slaves and whip them into service with a pseudo-natural excuse? Yet, for all of the agents involved, only significant relations matter, and all of those relations are definite. Even if these occurred among animals, the animals behave as they do for reasons of their own, rather than how they are "supposed" to act. The only way to impose the "ecosystem" is absolute forced ignorance—i.e., the Retarded Ideology. It is here where slaveries and ritual sacrifices, which were carried out for religious and cultural aims in the past, are now declared to be the height of science. Indeed, they must be super-scientific if ecologism is to be maintained. It does so with an ever-increasing supply of violence to "regulate the system", which is ruinous if we think for five minutes. Since we live in the results of such ruin in the early 21st century, I hold that truth to be self-evident.

However many agents may exist in an ecosystem, it is possible to refine our search for some interaction in the ecosystem or something that describes a behavior of the ecosystem as a whole. If for example, we wish to judge populations within an ecosystem, we have to ask how these agents procreate, how they obtain sustenance, and what they do in periods of scarce resources, since they do not axiomatically behave like jackals. Here it is helpful to note a second law, operating in parallel with the first, to create the outcome of both. To understand what numbers are "sufficiently small", a second law of "self-evident solutions in large systems" must be operative.

In the simplest description, this means that all systems exist in a world that is definite to knowledge, and so, all systems are more likely to mimic the greater world than they are to exist as isolated points of light or genius to act on the world. Until the systems' features are eliminated by reduction of that which is not factual of them, they would be like the world around them, and similar to other systems of a different sort. That is, there are laws regarding systems generally, and "systems" themselves are a subset of knowledge rather than a self-evident "germ of knowledge" themselves. There is knowledge that is not systemic, but all systems are products of knowledge. This is not new. What is helpful is to see that a large association of agents can be established just by looking around and recognizing all are in the same situation, and in a world where this situation is likely to be repeated. It does not require us to believe in empty koans like "humans behave like this when they starve, just because". We understand the behavior of starving humans because we understand starvation generally, and we are also aware of the behavior of animals in particular. Starvation is a different proposition to entities that do not act regarding their environment in the way animals do. It would not occur to unliving matter that it is "starving" if its existence is deprived of energy to continue a cycle. The proposition is very different for animals because the central nervous system will act, in some way, to stabilize the system, in most cases. Perhaps an animal can "lay down and rot" or be as malleable as unliving matter, but the typical behavior of animals is active rather than passive. Even the sleeping activity of animals is more active than the behavior of a dead rock, and the behavior of plants is very different from that of animals even though plants are living and adaptive by all of the laws governing life-forms. This does not grant animals a "drive to live" or "will to power" in some philosophical sense. An animal may scurry around desperately in search of food before it expires. But, the behavior of animals is social, and the animal is not dominated by the "struggle for life" in the way that is imagined. Its reflex to live is a definite part of its constitution, rather than a "just-so" fact, and these definite parts can be manipulated or damaged over years. Perhaps there is a law of the world that no animal would respect the "struggle for life" excuse of the predators, and so fighting that even when it is hopeless is worth something more than a mere instinct to do so. Why would an animal be obligated to respect the "right of conquest" at all? Why would such an ethos not be an absurdity of existence? The predator has to expend energy to attack its prey, but by nature, every animal feeds on something to exist. Nothing about the world mandated any predator-prey relationship. They are aliens to each other, the former an unwelcome imposition on the latter that would live much happier without the existence of the former. It says something about the degeneracy of the ethos where self-described predators cry and moan like retards that prey refuses to cooperate with a "right of conquest", but such is the absurdity of ideology.

Every generality that arises when an agent relates to the whole world is contingent on that agent's existence, and the agent regards that which is closer at hand, like its own body and immediate tools and environs, more than any generality that abolishes distance or void. General knowledge about the world allows the elimination of those relations that are unlikely or irrelevant, but specific knowledge describes how that elimination can proceed. The generative force of agents or the world is not immediately something that matters for this judgment. We do not, at first, claim any knowledge to probe into the secrets of agents or some belief about the spiritual workings of any agent or the world. The first contact of systems with each other is too far removed from that. But, all of the agents are capable of novel functions of some sort, rather than being locked into a list of functions "from on high". They would be highly unlikely. Pigs will not fly for no reason. But, a wealth of knowledge about what things are is already extant, and would not be questioned willy-nilly or for obviously dishonest purposes as insinuations always do.

I have largely considered examples of living animals because those are the subjects of the dismal science, but these laws would apply to anything, and they apply to the dismal science's treatment of things that have nothing to do with life. A whole imperial cosmology is proposed to "lock" the world into a ruinous cycle, claiming that it was not just nature in a vague sense, but some Great Working of the universe's cosmology that demands, like a hobgoblin, all perception conform to the imperial insanity. That is where stupidity like "many-worlds theory" and a whole host of magical Theosophical thinking is imposed on reality. This is done deliberately and is calculated to manipulate the perception of the universe. It requires a "dual system" in which the capabilities of human agents, or other living animals, are known, at least with some working knowledge sufficient for the cajoler's task.

For unthinking agents, education is irrelevant. It is still read into things, as if unthinking entities "know" or "learn" in some way, as a metaphor for our use rather than any volition on the part of the unthinking agents. It may be possible to speak of "self-organizing" components of life like amino acids, or some logic of the universe that allows or generalizes this. Life as a proposition itself has nothing to do with the chemical compounds forming it, as if they were "thetans" moving the world, or some statistical law created life ex nihilo. Life as a feature of the universe is artificial and instantiated in some way as the functions of life-forms, rather than the "being" of life-forms ready-made. We can read behaviors of survival or selection into unliving things far more than we can read some "essence of life" in lab conditions. If those behaviors weren't observed, stabilization of some process called "life" wouldn't happen.

Animals and especially humans are different in that their primary behavior is not physical or chemical, but deliberate concerning their environment and an established cluster of nerves like the brain of a human. For animals, their learning remains primitive but can be understood as a lesser form of the processes humans use to navigate the world, which all of us are familiar with from our own existence and memory. It is folly to make a general analogy of human thinking to animal thought or volition, but much of what humans do has its clear analog in animal behavior or has passed into human existence without any alteration of purpose, like the human propensity to breathe. The low level of learning and "education" I leave for another time. I will move ahead to formal education, communication, and media that humans utilize once they are familiar with language and symbolism at the least, and humans draw upon the memory of much more if they can inquire seriously into the question of what "we" do and are. The cursory investigation of early childhood, usually ceasing around the age of 7, gives way to this formal inquiry which continues for the rest of a human's life. We may never arrive at a suitable answer, for the question of what we do is very open-ended, even in dismal conditions. We probably would not be happy with the answers we receive, because the truth says damning facts about the human race. But, this inquiry is not an idle interest or fantasy to be subordinated to the imperious demands to "mediate reality". The very educational process is necessary to reach that "reality is mediated", and interdicting this sense is not easy. Education of some sort is not merely imposed by pedagogy, as we have mentioned in previous writing. The student must constantly critique the educational pedagogy for his or her own sake, must educate themselves in the true university of the world, and will likely educate others in some way rather than merely teach or communicate, even if this education is a tiny contribution. It is inextricably linked to what humans do beyond the educational function since education presents codified standards of right and wrong that are sensical for institutions. We would require some education to conclude that true moral right and wrong are judged in the world, rather than expectations of such set in education. Without that education, we would always be plagued with doubt about whether a naive judgment of good and evil, right and wrong, is sufficiently verified for us to make sound decisions. If nothing else, we learn from many mistakes what not to do, like learning not to trust a fruity Satanic cult insisting humans are made of magic.

In artificial history, the artifices are defined and are what they are. They do not "change" so much as they assemble new features or functions from a "kernel" allowing this, which itself is either fixed or reassembled just like any other artifice in the same fashion. In a more developed theory of knowledge and history, which the dismal science must accede to, the agents are by default free to act in any way their machinery allows, with the potentials knowable but not arrested until the events happen and the results pass into history. What this means is that the agents are themselves capable of adaptation, without any invocation of essences or "laws of life" imposed on history. It would be a dramatic transformation for a lump of chemical compounds to suddenly form a full-fledged, adult human with the memories and functionality of such an entity. The human agent, whatever its social status, is understood to have a history that entailed growth and interaction with its environment. It is not just a deliberate actor, but aware of its deliberation and that which it cannot control about itself, and so too are all of the other humans aware of this and aware that there is a situation in which these humans meet and interact. The dismal science cannot "just-so" destroy this. It must actively destroy this by repeated interdictions, and this, the dismal science in its early forms cannot do. The dismal science concerned matters of Empire, from on high. It has nothing to say about the human condition and cannot, simply by assertion, decide what humans are in total, and define their spirit. That judgment rests ultimately with history rather than the courts of men. Ordinary humans can, however, observe this trial, presided over by the judgment of the world itself, and we lowly humans can throw peanuts or rotten fruit at the opposing counsel if we so desire. The law of the world is not the law of men which is known to be faulty, and the proceedings will continue regardless of how much we holler and object to the farce of the trial. It is farcical to see this trial, especially when many of us know the outcome without needing to deliberate further or watch this sad show of human history play out. But, the trial will happen, and so too will the verdict and sentence. Humans do not get to object to the full weight of history and the world's forces, but they do act about the trial taking place and the absurdity of this situation we call the mortal coil. Usually, though, we do not need to look to the whole world for the grossest absurdities. Imperious humans saying stupid shit in our time and place offer absurdities that make the typical absurdity of the world seem like a rational design. We must remind ourselves that rational designs are always artificial histories in the end, and while the systems involved may be something more, rooted in a scientific view of the world, attempts to use science to "move the world in accord with the plan" always return to artificial history and its laws.

The agency of human beings is, by all objective metrics, not very great. It is, however, agency that is demonstrated to exist, and it is greater than the barest minimum. The dismal science may choose to inexorably grind down this agency so that history "inexorably moves towards its fate", as we have been condemned to for the entire arc of recorded history thus far. But, this is not how history actually develops, regardless of the designs to impose that. It is also known that to grind down history so that it can be "corrected" in this way implies there was greater agency in humans than the barest minimum. The dismal science can choose to work through that agency rather than against it, so that the dismal approach to history, and the imperial mission, becomes the want of the agents who will passionately carry it out. How it can convince humans to embrace this perversion passionately may be strange to those who spend their lives resisting the imperial science, but some find in the dismal science a source of power that is unrivaled in human potential. The imperious habit of command and control is a historical fact that will assert control over events even when men have no faith in the process. When men do have faith in the dismal science and its program, and carry it out faithfully, we must consider that such men believe they will drive history in this way and act in accord with that dictate, and this informs the behavior of everyone, regardless of our agreement or knowledge with the dismal program.

Once again, intelligence becomes the great limitation that the dismal science must commandeer more than any other. Nothing about nature demands us to believe intelligence has this "godlike" role in determining history, or that intelligence has the sort of causative power granted to it. Humans are, by all objective metrics, not much more than animals in their intellectual pursuits. The majority of their race are drunkards, and the high aristocrats who tell us how smart they are can be seen by objective measurements of men to be the same drunkards, and in some cases worse drunkards than the typical human, for they are drunk on power and the fumes of smugness that exude from their class and its citadels. The human intellect is by objective measurements a shambling beast that barely knows what it knows and is perverse enough to take pride in its ignorance. The human intellect delights in obscuring basic knowledge out of some belief that it will "get ahead", and this habit was established by the race's origin in ritual sacrifice of that they deemed retarded. That this ethos is itself retarded and produced a retarded, drunken race and society that created so much needless torment never seems to occur to them, which is a testament to the stupidity of this foul race. History has judged, and so too have even the dullest humans, who did not need any great intellect to see this problem and the repeat and deliberate intransigence of its "best and brightest", who benefit from forced ignorance to maintain the social hierarchy and the dominant institutions of their society. Most of us, regardless of social class, must ask if we are capable of better than this because if we look at this with a naive approach, the answer is a resounding "yes". Humans can do better, and out of some strange impulse to do good because goodness is necessary for any of this to continue, humans have done better than the bare minimum, even when adhering to the dismal science. Yet, the great demand of the dismal science remains a condition of forced ignorance, which runs against everything necessary for human agency to create the conditions allowing the dismal science to refer to anything real. If humans truly wished to degenerate maximally, the result wouldn't be a world of fanatical screamers drawing from a wellspring of the Satan's power. The result would be that nothing of this world would continue except by some inertia of the race's foul origin and habits. Perhaps that world would become a roiling morass of torture and humiliation that never ends, and it would no longer be possible for any one human to see anything approaching the extent of the nightmare. Humans would have reverted to their animal beginnings, the purpose of the ritual sacrifice—to segregate human intelligence from the animal's—lost to history, but its consequences continued by a terrible impulse. But, this situation could end the moment humans decide they really want this to change, so long as no greater will and motive in the world does not intercede to prevent those acts of goodness that have been carried out for some purpose, often barely known to men whose race is dominated by malice and venality. The greater will is of course the Empire. It is not truly possible to "abolish the Empire" as if it were a thought-form or institution that could be reasoned out of existence or refuted. But, it would be possible in theory to use the logic of the dismal science against the imperious mind, either to usurp the imperial overlord and start the process anew or to live one's life despite the Empire by turning its machinations against the very idea of such a beast.

Any overarching plan to do this is not immediately evident, and it would cripple someone to spend their whole life with the imperial totality pressing every nerve, as is the version of history ideology has imposed on us in this sad time. What is known to us is that the imperial mind-virus, in some form or another, has been operative so long as ritual sacrifice has been institutionalized and glorified. It did not start with the first ritual sacrifice, which was a local event and had no bearing on the destiny of everyone just by the first transgression, as is the claim of the worst of its perpetrators. It did not start with the state or the general fear or the concept of the political, and the language humans developed to act on this political knowledge. It did not start with the concept of war or conquest, for similar practices are found in the animal kingdom. It started with the temple erected for this ritual sacrifice, which became the first cities of the human race, and whose sacrifice was carried out not for a singular purpose chanted madly and glorified "for itself". The temple sacrifices were carried out for purposes large and small, and while they never discounted the rite of ritual sacrifice and its centrality to the human project, there was some belief among the priests that the use of this power allowed for open-ended potentials. They might have envisioned a world where ritual sacrifice was no longer necessary, or where the conduct of such was reserved for enemies that would have done the same to them, and who had to go one way or another. It was possible to conceive of mercy even among the most terrible of the old religions, though humans being what they are, even the denuded mercy of Christianity was far too much mercy to tolerate for most of them. The continued crying of sniveling fags about Christian mercy being "too weak" tells us all we need to know about any goodness of the human spirit intervening in this question. But, it was entirely possible for most people, whatever their religion, to see the utility of mercy as an expedient, especially after gathering some knowledge of human psychology and politics and how this operation works as a system.

This, and many other superstitions humans develop, becomes a basis for how humans behave regarding this agency they possess. Humans can rationalize this agency and figure out that they did not need the favor of gods or body thetans to act, and that much of the world they live in is knowable and the consequences of acts are regular rather than extraordinary. If the fear of the worst of all worlds is a motivator, why would it hold a monopoly on technological development? The development of technology requires science generally, rather than an imperious "mover" of history that demands it alone decides what may happen. The conditions allowing genuine science are contrary to the dismal science since this requires resources that are not consumed by the internecine struggle the dismal science and Empire mandate for all. If there are other objectives, they too face inherent limitations to what they can do, but those limitations are decided by what is possible in the world, rather than a calculus prescribing that all must live under economic deprivation. With very little, a lot is possible, but there is always a process because humans only possess so much versatility. Their thought and science do not occur in an ideal space with no barrier between problem and solution. Any knowing entity like humans only proceeds with the tools available to them at the start, and the plodding pace of their thinking, which for humans entails more than the limitations of their body in computation or their immediate faculties. In any complex knowledge system, the media that can record information and communicate it presents limitations. There is only so much that can be expressed with spoken words, and writing has limitations that speech does not while opening new potentials. Because all of this technology is developed first in the abstract rather than with "pure, fundamental thought", there is a true mediation of sorts that hobbles humans; but, humans know this is a limitation of theirs, and says nothing about the universe itself. What can be said about the universe is that any knowledge would face some limitations, and those limits are not identical to the subjective experience or the present condition of humans, or any other entity doing this. But, if humans were to consider their existence as something different, they can only proceed from the knowledge they possess presently, and cannot summon perfectly knowledge of their past which has faded from their present awareness and functionality. Humans can lose knowledge. In practice, "loss of technology" does not happen because humans learned long ago to reverse-engineer technology that was already built and something that was of conscious, intelligent design like artifacts from ancient times would be recognized as man-made if it were discovered 3,000 years later. It took the Rosetta Stone, an Egyptian inscription alongside a Greek inscription of some law, to reverse-engineer knowledge of the Egyptian written language, long thought to be lost to the world. In reality, it was lost to modern European civilization, which never had a proprietary claim to anything in Antiquity, but the ease of reverse-engineering something demonstrates that proprietary claims to historical knowledge are silly.

There are the limits of language and knowledge systems themselves which are definite, and then there are limitations of physics or the material world. After all navel-gazing about human potential is exhausted, we are left with a few key technologies that have dominated human advancement. One of these is propulsion for transportation. Foot travel is displaced by wheeled vehicles and animals to pull those wheeled vehicles, up to modifications to create chariots and war chariots. Horseback riding is developed to field mounted warriors and cataphracts, and the use of horsemen and the building of roads affects the transportation of men and goods. Eventually, steam power and oil arose, up to the propulsion of today. There are not that many leaps made, and they are always leaps in some quality rather than iterative improvements that change locomotion very little. For media technology, speech gives way to writing in various systems, with the alphabet becoming the most effective written script that is gradually adopted in most of the world. For most of humanity's history, speech and the written word are the most effective means of symbolic language allowing for rational discourse, and to this day, neither has been surpassed for the purpose of expressing treatises and allowing the reader to contemplate those words. Written language possesses the advantages of permanence and portability, especially when written language can be inscribed on computer memory that fits in a tiny space. We could fit a vast library on a device smaller than a human's hand with present technology. This media is only useful if its meaning is understood and the record is checked for reliability. We would ask where any written record came from, and if it has been edited by something untrustworthy. But, the written symbols are what they are, and the reader can make of them what he or she will. That cannot be doubted. For every media technology, those utilizing the media never forget that it pertains to a world that is real, rather than any symbolic language being divorced from context. A computer might parse media without knowing anything about it, but it will always be possible for a reasonable entity to ask where any media came from and come to conclusions based on fact rather than assertion alone. If a computer program were well-designed, this intent of human beings would be passed to the computer program, and error correction is something a human can program. There is no reason to believe a rational computer could not replicate this ability, but it never does so "just so". Nor, for that matter, can the intellectual integrity of human beings be taken for granted. The dismal science cannot change those conditions, but the most vicious insinuators of the human race always recall the power of Lie regarding any information and have never once given up this power.

The human intellect, even at its best, matters very little for the procession of technology available to the agents. There is no "quantum leap of intelligence" as such. The marked distinction of humans from animals was this development of symbolic language, which required means to do so, first in crude forms before it was refined by practice and honing into what we have known. Humans were able to develop this because there was nothing in the world to refuse it, once the cruelty of humanity's ritual sacrifice and its love of torture and war were sufficiently abated. Nothing about the ritual sacrifice of that deemed stupid contributed one iota to "human betterment". A Satanic race cannot change. The true conditions of life, though, change all of the time, and it is the task of things like the eugenic creed to snuff that out—to make all agency impossible, inadmissible, and thus "change the world" in this and only this way. It presents as superintelligence, but there is no thought behind it except the primordial one. It cannot allow any other to exist, and in this way, it asserts all technology serves the beast, by appealing to intelligence alone and without regard to any real condition other than itself. Such a thing is contrary to what life does and what humans have to do despite themselves. Humans do not change, and never did, but their technology does and they have had to make do with the limitations their founding act—ritual sacrifice—entailed, until such a time that humanity gives up its founding principle. Humanity never could do this of their own volition, as if there were anything "in" them to force this change. Humans could only superimpose their conceit about intelligence onto the whole of the world when no such thing is operative beyond the insistence that such a thing "should" be operative. In practice, humanity's technological advance was accomplished by anonymous inertia and the hopes of individual men, rather than any shared goodwill that sought a final end to ritual sacrifice. Humans couldn't do other than this so long as they were constituted as a race, and that is what humans deliberately chose instead of paths that might have changed this outcome for the actual entities made to suffer through this. Until this changes, human progress can only exist by vampirically feeding off the world, and that is what humanity chose, and couldn't not choose. By no means were other humans excluded from this feeding, and so the result has been that the chief aim of humanity's existence was to find a way to exploit other humans. The dismal science did not invent this; it merely formalized something that humans chose very early in their existence, and any human with the temerity to question this ancient wisdom was summarily executed with exultant cheering from that Satanic race, that failed race. History has judged—guilty.

This has, of course, no direct effect on what technology actually does, or how it has been perceived by us. The preceding laws aren't the result of mere ignorance of humans, but a limitation of knowledge itself when it is placed in a real situation, with all of the limitations intelligence entails. A better race, no matter what resources are available to it, would fare no better in bypassing the problem. The best we can do, and the best any intelligence can do, is see its understanding of the world as limited, and the relations it can engage in as limited. The primary problem, then, is a moral one. Do we really want our existence to be confined to this? Can we not see there is a world outside of us that does not care about this? History has already judged affirmatively that life will go on regardless of whether humanity is a Satanic race or embraces that. The salvation of the human race or its spirit is irrelevant to history. It is also irrelevant to us in the end. This life will expire, and we have long seen it for what it is, and that it is irredeemable. That is no excuse for us to glorify the sacrifice itself that imposed this situation in the first place. The reality of technological progress, even under the dismal science, is that it proceeded because humans are limited, rather than because these limitations were ideal or some sort of creative force for genius. Even if humanity rejected the dismal science as its guide, it would have to labor under that restriction; and so too would the dismal science have to accede to the reality that it does not remake the world in its image by decree alone. Only after sufficient application of violence is "history corrected". In either case, the aims of human beings really aren't given over to this dismal cult or a belief that it "should" be so. Usually, humans act and invent for far smaller aims that are particular to them or their associations. A general plan would go far in tabulating those aims and find some way to reconcile that with the known conditions of the environment. It would almost certainly not be a democratic plan in the sense that everyone would vote and the plan would be dragged into that most hated of human practices—the committee meeting. But, a wise planner would see that this plan has to be handed to actual people who have to live with the consequences, and the people this is handed off to are not cogs to be sublated in some fascistic social experiment. The people are the only reason any of this could have functioned at all, and the people would if given the choice want much of what they have known to be good in their lives, but cheaper and without fetters. That is all a plan would have entailed, in another world. But, it was precisely that which humanity's vanguard chose to deny, precisely because that would be too decent.

The important lesson here is that Empire has been limited not just by technological ability as a process "just happening", but by the wants of anyone to go along with this, and the wants of those who believe the dismal science is a way to control people and thus meet some imperative they have held. Nature and the world have not been our enemies in any of this. Nature provided the world to humanity purely because it could, and the only stipulation is that humans should not destroy this gift for spurious causes. The consequences were not the result of a mind or imperious decree from Nature or God, but a simple fact of existence, since humans were themselves part of that natural world. A stupid conceit humans held about themselves created nothing but ruination for the sake of doing so, and rather than correcting this, vast treasure is spent to insist the evil cannot fail. It can only be failed. But, when all is said and done, this has been accounted for, though never perfectly. What remains is a study of physical properties allowing movement in this world of things and ideas.

What has been written here describes the torturous routine that humans go through every day due to the dismal science. They may have nothing to blame but their genesis in the end, but that is no excuse to continue like this. Those who do this are not merely technological or laborious instruments, but spiritual animals. At the base of society is not labor as such, but the same muck humanity started with, where all of the genuinely productive work is done. Toil itself is, for better or worse, what we get for the effort of labor or anything that would change the world for a reason other than ritual sacrifice. The only promise for labor has been that more toil, more suffering, may be extracted in the future, for some unspecified purpose. Those who presume to rule through the dismal science have already decided, and had their antecedents early in history, that the purpose of toil is toil. The purpose of torture is torture. The purpose of power is power. For this to be sensical, the cosmological view must both place effect before cause, and it must mediate reality so that no other priority can be admissible. The German Ideology of modernity is one such system that accomplished this, to the ruin of all mankind. But, the Germans did not invent this, nor is it a quality of their race or an accident of geography. Those who advanced this ideology were conscious of the goal and the global empire that was rising, and showed their intention to spread the ass cheeks of Germany to it for deeper ramming. Looking for a "prime mover" misses the point that ideology must be reproduced with each new subject, and this requires a peculiar education that was hitherto unknown, let alone was it natural or self-evident. It is the exact opposite. The dictates of ideology are only sensical by repeated beatings, never producing any satisfaction or purpose. It is the perfect antipode to the essentially Satanic utilitarian world-view; one that purports to be a path to higher knowledge, liberation, and "creative destruction", but history makes clear that both the German and British imperial systems were created to complement each other; Britain being the buggerer as is the habit of their race, Germany the catamite which became by pedagogy the habit of theirs. The same sodomy would be repeated ad nauseum in each country and passed down the social hierarchy. It is, and I cannot stress this enough, not mere sodomy or a sexual act. It is faggotry!

This faggotry, though, is not appealing to anyone except those who see it as a tool to impose on others. It is never meant for the rulers to believe, and if they actually believe in this, they are truly lost. Similar faggotries can be found, for this is not a unique path to the singular rot at its core, which is ritual sacrifice. Such things are common in humanity and are reproduced even without a nation's history for raw material propagating it. It can be found in the muck just as men were and just as their first faith and knowledge of spiritual authority was. Before men could look to the heavens, to the astral plane, or some other existence, they had to assess the world around them. It is never the other way around, where Heaven imposes a thought-form on the world. Heaven's authority does not need such imperious commands, nor is there anything that would impose these commands in the sense that is familiar to us. Any "god" doing so just as we do would be a thing described with the same sort of science we know, whatever obfuscations may be invented about it. It is something altogether different from the trans-historical question that was invoked by us when seeking spiritual authority.

Before there is a purpose of agents regarding the world or want of those agents to do anything in it, the agents tend to their genuine existence, rather than a supposed one. For human beings, they will not see their existence as one bound to the world at all, but as an existence apart from the world, only after which their connection to the world is established. We might see something interdicting this, or some constituent matter of the world that comprises human beings, but it is not difficult for a human to see that its material conditions could easily not exist, yet its own existence cannot be denied after seeing its constitution and the world around it. That event happened and cannot be undone or vaporized even if it would wish it. It may be ignored or made "inadmissible". Its life force may be terminated so that it does not have to see this sorry shitshow any longer, or it may view its existence as an absurdity of little importance for perfectly valid reasons since it is absurd. There remains an entity that does, or once did, interface with the world on its own terms, however hopeless that cause was.

Fortunately for human beings, the world is not a copy of their spirit or the dismal science. The world has seen much worse than anything humanity can offer, which is saying a lot. Humans could compare themselves to the world and see the absurdity of the dismal science and this sorry course we have been on, and many do. All efforts to mediate reality to prevent this fail. It is not necessarily that the spirit yearns for freedom or any particular abstract notion. It is a simple fact that every such oppression entails definite costs, which are entirely a loss for any genuinely productive activity. Even for the production of torture and misery themselves, the insistence on a particular form of such is an inefficiency. The only way "mediated reality" can survive is to make the torture "infinite and abundant", and for the torture to imbue every aspect of the entities that do this. In other words, a Satanic race must become truly a "Satanic race", with no further ambiguity about its purpose, its world-historical mission assigned to it by some imperious assholes. Creating such a race is never a fait accompli, even from the foundational ritual sacrifice and the repeated insinuation that this is "above God". There is not a single good reason for this to continue and many better things for life to do than this.

When speaking of transportation or media as technological developments, it is worth noting that these are never meant purely to be machines moving machines in a morass of physical activity or abstractions thereof. All of this pertained to entities that did not see their existence as reducible to any germ or germs that should take precedence; nor did their existence as a "totality" hold any necessary virtue. It was that genius that allowed life to be anything other than much that inspired all of humanity's efforts. Even the terrible ritual sacrifice of their race began as a result of genius rather than any natural law or tendency requiring it, or some primeval force of the world pushing it. In some way, the evil pushed humanity as little else could, but that is a quality of the evil humanity recognizes for what it is, without too great an inquiry into the evil. The argument may go that human beings are nothing more than these hobgoblins pushing a body into existence—or "body thetans" as they might be called. This argument fails to ask why humans would do anything or act on their existence, even an absurd existence. If the actions and consciousness of men were reducible to these hobgoblins, that is just another version of the stupid koans that are uttered to self-justify every abomination humans do. Since that thought process is known for what it is, we can dismiss it. All of the technology developed, even under the dismal science, was developed by creatures with a soul and genius, rather than as the result of "random" physical acts that "just so" happened to coalesce in the form of a human. The "just-so" story might have explained the origins of life itself, which did not consciously act on anything to self-instantiate. The bizarre, loopy thinking of the eugenic creed inverts common sense. In the eugenic creed, life is granted supernatural powers and a far greater purview than it actually possesses, and genius is reduced to "material conditions" in that faggy way we in the 21st century sadly know. In reality, life is incidental to the genius that arose in men and animals, for that genius took on an existence apart from its base conditions long ago. We do not live for "material conditions", but for that existence that was established. Without that existence, it would be pointless to speak of material conditions or wants in the world as if we had any agency or purpose. It is of course an absurd existence we have. We don't really have a naturally mandated "purpose" or "point" to be here or do any of this. But, all of our existence has been for the purposes of the soul and genius, rather than anyone's insinuation of what we were "supposed" to be here for. We do not get to make our own morality or facts as we please, but we have always made history more or less as we please, without the intercession of those who think they will cajole history to do something foul. That has motivated humans explicitly when humans themselves ask why we are here or what they want, both of which pertain to a spiritual existence rather than one subordinated to the contest for temporal existence. All of the ways in which the key technologies—transportation and communication—are relevant require the existence of this genius and all of the things moved pertain to that want, rather than a want or need of the world to impose this on anyone. The world and the soulless things in it do what they do for their purposes, and it is not on us to care necessarily that those things do not conform to human conceits about them, nor do we really care about conquering the world to make more clones of us. Even if the machinery of human bodies were standardized, and it never has been, none of that speaks to what humans do with those faculties. It was the necessary task of the eugenic creed to abrogate that understanding totally and irreversibly, and this is the non-stop screeching of their Satanic race.

Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

Return to Table of Contents | Return to Chapter Start