Previous Chapter | Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

If the condition of a republic is reduced to its essential want and how to control it, it is a commonwealth, in which all wealth is subsumed under the state's aegis and subject to its regulation. This is quite different from the proposition of Empire, which concerned the rule of space and control of entities rather than wealth, and it elides all other interests of polities and institutions other than wealth. This does not necessitate a dismal view of how to dispose of that wealth, or that Mammon is the true god of the republic. It simply means that this type of government is an idealized view of what to do with the wealth of a city, and the people of that city and its prominent institutional features are not particularly interesting. It says nothing about how political office is held and for what purpose it should be held. The republican idea can just as well apply to dictatorships but conspicuously omits despotisms which are alien to it philosophically and in practice. The republic begins its existence with a declaration that it will be a thing, and the authority to do this ultimately derives from Law rather than an appeal to force alone or the "right of conquest". In other words, there is an unbroken legal line of succession in any republic, and the republics of the world today all derive, in one way or another, from Roman Law rather than any other. It is a law that has been modified and re-interpreted over the centuries. But, from the outset, a republic is a creature of Law rather than Empire, and cannot exist as an assertion of will or "technology run amok", or even the law itself going haywire to devour everything around it. This establishment exists to regulate the wealth of its domains, whatever those domains may be, and that's all it does. The proper purview for "regulating wealth" remains an open question. It could be that the republic is little more than the keeper of deeds and oaths, or the republic may interpret the commerce clause to give its organs wide latitude in regulating private life, such that the subjects of such a polity can do nothing but be Lawful or face its wrath.

It is best compared to the other prominent system of rule hitherto known that can stand on its own—despotism. The condition of despotism reduced to its essential want is the private property of a person, and the sovereign sets the normative expectation for everyone else, whether they can meet that or not or whether they are allowed to or not. Despotisms are creatures of Intrigue and Espionage, which are among the hallmarks of aristocratic rule. Nowhere does appeal to "law" of any sort hold relevance. Empire might hold relevance as an extension of the sovereign, but every extension of Empire is an asset and potential liability that can be taken from the sovereign. The despot must, in all likelihood, maintain a chain of command from the sovereign to its subordinates, and all in the society are obligated under the penalty of torture and/or death to regard that chain of command and in some way be a party to it. For the despot and those who live in such a society, technology and all things in the domain are described frankly and often with the most disparaging language, given the sad condition they find themselves in. This is very different from a republic, where Law and Law alone admits facts. In a republic, independent inquiry is formally forbidden, and all who want to say anything about the situation must submit their appeal to the court and likely be ignored. In despotism, the sovereign couldn't care less about independent inquiry, and absent a compelling reason for the sovereign to intercede for its purposes, the subjects can think or say whatever, so long as they do not expect any protection or "right" to speak. The despotic authority, for lack of any other, is “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”^[1]. This is lifted from Aleister Crowley's "revelation", mentioned in the footnotes. I will quote the thing most people remember from it, forgetting the rest since the actual "revelation" is predictable non-sense with in-jokes for the Satanic lot.

“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.”
“Love is the law, love under will.”
“There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.”

The stupid and gullible take this as an invocation of Anarchy, but anyone who is not a sniveling retard will see that standards for comparison will be made, with or without the law. The very nature of the book speaks of the dominion of the god Crowley is channeling rather than anything created by a general will or the workings of mankind which would have found Law a very helpful expedient. If someone thinks a god is going to set everything right "just-so", they are not going to like the outcome, but Mr. Crowley is part of the legacy P.T. Barnum told us where suckers are born every minute. This is explicitly mentioned by Crowley's remarks on the governmental forms of his time, denouncing every single one of them but most of all denouncing that which the British always loathed most of all: democracy.

It may appear at first to be a call for overt despotism for the eugenic creed. (No one on Eugenics Island had any other religion, Satanism included!) But, what is really said is to create a republic of this and only this Law. Despotism comprehends Law for the same reasons any human can comprehend such a contraption, and every Law worthy of the name entails consequences. The distinction of despotism is that Law itself is not the basis for the regime, nor is will or any other necessary component called upon for the duty of rule. It is not even the past legacy of the despotic providing a "just-so" rationale, in the sense of "He who controls the present controls the past." The despotism exists as an active force wherever it exists, for whatever purpose the despot has. The despot is not made of magic, and this force is always limited, but it is not limited in accord with the dismal science or any "economism". It is simply a fact that despots and the gods they wear as skin-masks are finite and mortal, and can only be so. The despot is not motivated by blind avarice or want for more and more "pleasure". From its position, the despot can see such a program would be ruinous for ruling anything or motivating useful slave output. But, the essential difference between despotism and republicanism is its treatment of Law. Despotism has no particular attitude towards wealth. The despot can be accustomed to living a miserable existence, and the only wealth that is relevant is that which the despot needs to feed the continued operations of its rule. A republic must not allow this sort of intransigence. All wealth must be held in common and there must not be a great demarcation of wealth signifying the prominence of one order over another. The aristocracy of a republic does not necessarily need to be marked by exorbitant wealth. What aristocracy covets, in any arrangement of society, is the continuation of its primal wants, and those wants can be cheaply attained. It just so happens that aristocracy's primal want is torture for its own sake, regardless of "rule".

If the objective were pure "rule for rule's sake", a child can think of far more efficient ways to rule than the one that is impressed upon them. That is what usually motivates the graspers of society to seek out the ruling power and aspire to join it, overthrow it, or somehow escape it; that the aristocratic impulse is not particularly effective or "good" at ruling, but rules only as well as it must to continue its prime want. The same is not true of the other orders, which have little to do with actually ruling. We all just live here, and this is aristocracy's construct rather than one that would rule in any way that is actually worth our consideration. However, aristocracy made these constructs for its purposes rather than any necessity to do so. Had history gone another way, aristocratic rule would be weak, and simply by their lack of numbers, despotism among their own ranks would be the dominant pretension. This says something about despotic societies; the despotic ruling interest is vastly outnumbered and surrounded by people who hate the rulers, and probably hate the entire project humanity has been subordinated to. The republican ruling interest requires some participatory act of the ruled, while in practice, the rule is confined to a clique and only serves the common interests of the wider ruling interest or class so far as it needs to. The ruling class of a republic is never a small thing, and all members of the ruling class are not convinced for a moment that any "ideology" or "noble lie" governs this situation. Ideology is for the slaves and the simps who are, simply by believing in such a thing, not even nominally granted ruling status. Republics are dominated by political minds that mock the concept from the instantiation of the republic and know it's a bunch of malarkey. Despotisms are dominated by political minds seeking to curry favor, to flatter, to make petty insults, and the political minds of a despotic society are the lowest cravens and shameless in being so. The despot still has to reckon with these political minds, just as the executive body of a republic would have to. In a republic, the political minds are effectively the executive body, even though the politicians shirk this function, and the necessary executive functioning is left to those cogs who are never thanked for their sacrifice. The despot on the other hand is not subject to any public trust. If there is a good despot, that's great, but a bad despot is treated like some natural disaster that comes and goes. What grants a republic any justification is that the executive could be questioned and expectations are made of it, however poorly the republic fulfills them and however little the political agents, who are the true ruling power of a republic, care about doing anything good. The despot argues that the despot is the only thing keeping those political minds from going apeshit and willfully destroying what is good, but this requires that rare species of good despots that have to care about the outcome of the project. These are the two options humanity has had up to now. As I mention in the close to the third book, any "other system" would entail an end or an extreme mitigation of sacrifice of the lowest class, and by extension, the other orders of human society and interests that are not political interests per se. In every alternative, the political minds are successfully subverted without an appeal to managerialism or nature.

The republic contains within itself the expectation of its own demise. Either it would have to become one of those "other systems", or it reverts to or simply is at its core a despotic regime. There is no "cycle" ensuring the timely rebirth of republics. Once they are dead, they are gone forever, and it is on whoever thought a republic was a good idea to build another such thing, from an entirely new foundation. The despot's rebirth is far simpler. It arises because the only "lower system" would be anarchy or some of the "bad alternatives" I will briefly describe in this chapter. There does not need to be a "theory of despotism" as such. The concept of being ruled by a single person or small clique acting as one is not a very complicated one, and it is not a "theory" in the sense that science describes worked-out systems. What is really at the core of the "cycle of political forms" is the general theory of technology itself, which is independent of any particular "theory" of government. The general theory of technology is what allows any "rule" to happen, rather than a primordial assertion of will or any forms of the state recommended by nature. In modernity, the general theory of technology and rule were indispensable. At the time when the general theory of technology dominated the decision-making of the executives—when free trade became the paramount imperial idea—the hitherto known forms of human government—despotism and republicanism—were no longer tolerable. At the time free trade rose, the prevailing ruling idea was "enlightened despotism", and this was replaced gradually by republican governments ruled by ominous executives, occult secrets, intelligence agencies, and claims that intended to invade private life unlike anything yet known in human history. Yet, not one of them speaks of a government fit for purpose, because any such government would have required abandoning what aristocracy coveted, or aristocracy would have to commandeer the entire society to an extent that was presently impossible. This continued until the turn of the 21st century and the sad times we live in make abundantly clear the failure of all hitherto known human government. Yet, any "other system" is further removed from thought now than it was in the late 18th century. There was always acknowledgment that the entire arc of human history was grossly unsatisfactory for the kind of society modernity made apparent as a potential. Humans would have to become something they had never been before and do things they never did before, and the ruling order proclaimed and succeeded at imposing "no innovation!" In this way, all of the things that would have been reasonable to the vast majority of humanity, who were never given over to political conceits, were snuffed out before they could begin. But, the general theory of technology remains and must remain, for without it, rule over any affair of interest is impossible. Without such a theory, we would be little better than animals. The modern period did not invent the general theory of technology out of whole cloth. Men of the past understood and wrote treatises on what they were to do, and did not rule blindly or innocently. It would be necessary to create a crude "general theory of technology" in very primitive conditions, even without our developed symbolic language, for such a general theory is a prerequisite for that developed symbolic language. But, animals, and many humans, do not concern themselves with "rule" in the sense that is familiar to us. Where animals comprehend "rule", it is limited to the impressions within animal sociality and is confined to that sociality. The "alpha of the pack" or "king ape" only has rule over that grouping, and its claim to the world is never made explicit. Only implicitly does the dog piss somewhere to mark territory, and this is a learned habit of the individual dog that all other dogs individually understand by their inborn sense of smell. Rule as we know it over territory or concerning the world generally requires something much more thoroughgoing, and that has been imperfectly pursued throughout human history even among those who obsess over rule and how to secure it. For most of humanity, "ruling" is not interesting, and knowledge of it primarily tells us what nightmares the rulers intend for us in the present and future, based largely on their past commitments and what we have known about the world thus far. The theories of rule of the future would be something much greater than that, and that is the impasse we have been stuck at for about 250 years as of this writing.

It is here where modernity found its vehicle to formalize the worst of both worlds - a republic that "naturalized" the worst of despotism, with none of the virtues of such, so that the political class of that republic can rule forever. This has antecedents, but the worst before the eugenic creed is one that was known throughout the world—monarchy. Monarchy already made efforts to naturalize and essentialize the despotic whims of the sovereign, while giving courtiers and sycophants a game to play with the lives of the subjects. Monarchy has always been a ruinous type of government, and the British eugenic creed has one overt and obvious purpose—the full reconquest of the American colonies and the utter defeat of its people, who were the "residue" or "inferior stock" of British society. But, all monarchies are accursed to be the worst of both worlds. Monarchs do not attain their thrones by genuine merit or even a proven legacy of something that appears meritorious but from the conceits of stupid men and women who want the world to be dominated by orgies and rape gangs. It is truly a depraved and demonic type of government, and it has prevailed because the order of property is drawn to such a thing. But, the true victors of monarchism have been the slimiest elements of any society. Civilized societies, despotic or republican, see such monarchy as a menace and disgrace to anything. The despotic sovereign is, ultimately, a man with a lot of political power who might take on explicitly religious roles, and it has been his privilege to keep concubines (and the despotic societies hitherto known have always been patriarchal or inclined to such). The monarchist revels in the orgies and keeping of concubines, but delegates all of the functions of rule and government to his perverts and economic bloodsuckers as a rule.

What is the wellspring from which monarchical government truly rises? It has never been given a proper name, but here I will give it one. It is faggotry! Superficially, it wears the facade of property rights and thus the wellspring of all "rights", legal or presumed as a consequence of the person's existence and claims to such. In practice, all of its "rights" are a sick joke, intended to become an inversion of "right" as we would understand the concept in a better society. We would do better to examine faggotry in raw form, to understand its peculiar habit of rule.

Faggotry is not identical to anarchy, for even anarchy expects an outcome of its condition, and there are a few meritorious things to say about it. Faggotry is not even controlled anarchy or "orderly chaos", as it often insinuates. Faggotry is the essential act of projection laid bare—contemptible, unseemly, and set given sanction to exist despite an overt taboo on the topic. It is the right of transgression in purified form as the sole remaining concept of rule when all is lost but faggotry and those who purveyed faggotry smile at getting away with this yet again. If suicide is how life understands justice in the genuine sense, then faggotry is aristocracy's retort to it. Faggotry is, if laid bare, a seemingly suicidal impulse. A fag cares not about consequences or the grotesque ruin they leave behind. It is a smug, self-satisfied knowing that aristocracy can invert all justice and all that causes justice as we know it. It brings no benefit to the faggot or those who are roped into such a lifestyle, both in the sexual sense and in the sense of the clique that forms around political faggotry. The faggot abases itself before his aristocratic master for nothing more than the thrill of being associated with aristocracy. It is a suicidal act that is like the noblest suicide we might imagine to save one's dignity, except it is a suicide for the sake of denying the ruled such a grace—to insist we must "stand and die" as this is done to the world. The faggot revels in the rot of it all, and I speak here of its political aims more than its sexual aims. The faggot insists its habitual self-abasement is some sort of strength, and it is a type of strength, so long as it parasitically attaches to another interest that encourages such faggotry. There is always with faggotry fags and fag enablers, as the good pastor Fred Phelps preached, and one is scarcely distinguishable from another unless we have observed faggotry enough to know why, in full gory detail, it is so perilous to societies. When faggotry is purified, it appears as a novel form of rule, no matter how many times we are warned about faggotry, its history, and the time-worn tropes that we may call faggotry. The right of transgression is presented as always "just ahead" of the present moment, and it can only be purified when reality is mediated in the way I have described. With less perfect methods, faggotry has been weaponized since ancient times for the purposes of rule. There are, in brief spurts, periods of "fag rule" overriding the whole setup. This faggotry always seeks to supplant revolution and insists that the faggotry is revolution personified, and that revolution can be nothing but faggotry. There is nothing truly revolutionary about faggotry in any sense. It does not bring in a new idea or challenge to the public. It does not grant to the fags the status of rulers, for fags always look for their dom daddy to abase themselves too. It is not a tool of revolution, for it cannot foment or instigate something that anyone would fight for. It can only create something so offensive that it goads the public to attack the transgressor or the transgression is repeated and the public is goaded so that they are exhausted and made to accept what they never had to accept. For most of history and up to today, faggotry is openly associated with Reaction and the most depraved elements of conservatism, which the Conservatives never have any great objection to. They will sing the praises of faggotry and homosexuality when such a cult serves their political and personal perversions, which for the conservative order are legion. I make clear that faggotry is not one with the conservative order or the forces of reaction. There have been weaponized "left-wing faggotries", as have been supplied by the past century of history. Faggotry at its core is something outside of any particular normal it is compared to, for faggotry is the right of transgression of the very idea of identifiable names itself.

When rule is sound, faggotry is largely ignored and can be ignored. It is an exceptional condition by its nature, and when invoked, faggotry requires a particular state of exception that willfully seeks to transgress some concept of rule that is extant. The concepts of rule are never reducible to a singular notion like despotism or republicanism. There is no "substance of despotism" or "substance of republicanism", and the essence of such must quickly adapt to the situation it exists around. There are no "republics" as reproducible forms that are ubiquitous in nature, nor are there "despotisms". There are republics of particular cities or domains that exist in history, or despots who rule in particular times and places and do what they must, rather than what "the theory" tells them to do. When faggotry reigns, it will constantly call for "return" or "rebirth" while offering no such thing and making such things impossible. The reality of any form of rule is that rebirth, redemption, and memory of the old are always necessary for rule to continue. Never does the establishment of rule require the ruler to resort to the autism of "the original and primordial idea". Every method of rule, faggotry included, is an instrument of government, and expected to operate in a real world. Those who commit faggotry are perfectly aware of what they are doing and their first law is to insist that you cannot see what they do. When faggotry is ascendant and has found a method by which its rule can be sustained, desperate measures are needed. In no way should faggotry be conflated with decadence or degradation of a prior form. It is a form of its own with its own purposes, even when faggotry relies on the will that another type of government must supply. If faggotry were the overt command, as Mr. Crowley wants, no one should follow such a government, and it resorts to nothing but the pure exercise and display of torture. There is no way to stop faggotry once it has attained the state we have observed at the vanguard of the ruling interest of this time, that exists within the theories of rule handed down. Any future theory of rule must always be vigilant against faggotry.

When faggotry is evident in the world, those who live in such a condition are obliged to ask if this is what it is all for. No theory of rule can ever ask this question, because it is not a question of rule or necessity. But, if the ruled are to be anything other than agents of rule itself, they will ask this question, for faggotry has an obvious outcome a child can see. There are those children who never ask once this question because they never had to, and they are the chief vehicles for faggotry in our time and have been identified throughout history by the most malevolent pedagogues. The countervailing force against this faggotry, which can challenge rule, arises from one simple wellspring—refusal to the bitter end, and an emphatic "no". Rejection, in other words. The advanced faggotry of this time claimed this right of rejection and the display of public rejection of the subjects as its first agenda item. The entire campaign of modern faggotry was centered around the rites of sexualism and the public display of rejection from any man, woman, or de-sexed human from the central orgy and ritual sacrifice. No one is to ask why we are supposed to glorify this central orgy and ritual, for the right of transgression is pre-supposed for every monopoly. It long ago ceases to be for reproduction of anything but more faggotry, and this is what the eugenic creed does. The name eugenics, I tirelessly repeat, is a perversion of language from the outset, and this is deliberate and flagrant in everything such a faggotry does. By no means is eugenics limited to faggotry, or faggotry limited to eugenics. Faggotries may develop a theory or elaborate system to support the faggotry, but the key distinction between effective systems of rule and faggotry is that for faggotry, the faggotry is held to be self-evident, thus inverting notions of political facts or situations that were self-evident to men who instantiated an instrument of rule with decent or at least inoffensive claims. The offensiveness and repulsiveness of faggotry in the recapitulations of its ruling principle is deliberate and celebrated for itself.

Faggotry always sees two and always two alternatives that are propped up by itself as parodies of "the possible". This requires the mediated reality and "false normalcy" described earlier. There are many other concepts of rule, and the expected trajectory of human history would have been, for the educated men, that despotisms and republics would be replaced with the first adequate concept of rule in human society. That progression was never allowed to exist for long, but more elaborate republics and despotisms were envisioned that suggested there was a future condition different from that which was established at the foundation of the throne or the republic. Faggotry does this not because a modern theory said it was possible, nor because of a religious superstition in the trinity allowing the "man in the middle" to be faggotry and nothing else. Faggotry chooses this because it knows only two masters: hedonism or "pleasure", and refusal of its transgressions which is the only "pain" it knows. Faggotry is the depraved sword that gloats it never needs excuses for the terror, for faggotry is superior to all virtues once it has established its conditions. We, on the other hand, have our reasons for the terror, and faggotry's advance is to create the projection and impression in the ruled that its pointless, valueless terror has its excuses that "you should have known", always enshrining the sacrosanctity of faggotry above all other values and all other pleasures. This pleasure does not work as a philosophical conceit about what pleasure is. It works at a visceral level that humans are well acquainted with and cannot ignore. They cannot deny that they have a sense of pleasure and pain, however refined and however it has been modulated. The feelings humans have are very relevant for every sense they have of themselves and the world around them, for they were before our rational faculties to ask the question formally. Faggotry, in short, is the necessary tool of the dismal science when its models to vampirically feed off the world and its beings provoke the necessary reaction, as surely as physics provides an equal and opposite reaction for every action.

In technocratic society, the republic is presumed to be the default because despotism would be enormously expensive to calculate for all of the technologies available to humanity today. The republic lost its "public" character where the ruled believed there was a public interest and trust that was relevant to the individual subjects. In all of the ways that rule would be judged by a reasonable subject, the rule remains republican in its principles. Office-holders compete for position and they do so while ostensibly serving the public trust. The problem of recent times has less to do with corruption or graft, but with criminal syndicates that act in unison and compartmentalize their activities, such that it becomes "the public trust" to not disturb the thieves as they plunder the subjects. The promise of a coming despotism to "reset" or "wipe the slate clean" is always made to those amenable to such a thing, where the despot will "eliminate the deep state" and "end the corruption", but these are showmen like Hitler or Trump who are great totems of faggotry, surrounded by syndicates aligned with a purer and more perfect faggotry. The real difficulty with despotism is not that there is no public will for such a thing, or that the public would resist by some blind instinct. The difficulty with despotism in technocratic society is that no "total system" can be held by the despot, and the ruling ideas of the technocrats are rightly paranoid about such a system held by one person or a small clique of persons who are not challenged by anything. Despotism would undo all of the violations of the public trust that are encouraged by the syndicates, for everyone would see that there are no more promises and no more lies. There would be nothing to trust, and it would become an invalid category. Faggotry insists that it alone will establish the true despotism of the future, where science can be contained, but this is folly and retarded. The only path to despotism would be for technology and science to match the grandiose claims of the technocrats. This would not be an illusion or a "trick of the mind" to be imposed on the subjects. The despot reckons not with its subjects but with the world as a whole, where menace against its rule can arise not just from any one by any thing. Whatever the pretensions of today's technocrats, they have nothing close to such a commanding knowledge, and the approaches to knowledge today's technocrats are taught are wholly inadequate for the purpose. What conditions would establish scientific despotism are beyond the scope of the present writing. It will become apparent, due to the ruinous course human history took, that scientific despotism is inevitable and this will be the last form of human government. Everything after it would no longer be a political question or a question of rule regarding the world, and humanity willfully terminated all other potentials. If I am wrong, then humanity would have broken the terrible cycle I have described thus far. I would be very happy if that happened, but I do not offer a programmatic plan to abolish the present cycle or make predictions. Such predictions or efforts to cajole history are a contributor to the problem, both of the rise of scientific despotism and faggotry which revels in pseudo-science in any era. Men of the past made pretensions close to scientific despotism with far fewer means to implement it and could do so for the faggotry or for the virtues of such a government, which do exist if we wish to investigate them. The important takeaway from this chapter is that if we looked at these theories of rule without the philosophical fetters that are associated with them, we would better isolate faggotry and similar pernicious efforts within society. By no means is faggotry the sole menace, and for most rulers, faggotry is not even the primary menace. Only those of us with a blessed commitment against the habitual lying of the human race would be able to see fully the disastrous effects of faggotry. Yet, without the ability to forsake rule altogether, we cannot move forward with anything we would want. It is not for any want of ruling on our part. True rule is self-rule, which requires us to have the thing we wanted in the first place and that all rulers deny as a matter of course. That is security against the general fear, among them being the fear of starvation. Rulers strategically withhold food and living standards to induce measured changes. Faggotry revels in the act of deprivation for its own sake and makes it a public example for all. That is the nature of the beast of rule we suffer under and must navigate somehow. Since the public trust was never a true concern of republics, we're left with this ruination that is somehow blamed on those who wanted something different, rather than the obviously guilty parties.

Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

Return to Table of Contents | Return to Chapter Start