Previous Chapter | Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter
The purpose of the preceding chapters has been to fill in the gaps that a purely "theoretical" political history would miss, or a purely "economic" breakdown cannot acknowledge. The content of history is not superstitions, or information, or theories, or conspiracies. Any historical agent is a necessarily complex proposition, and for the sort of history described here, it will relate to all other histories. It is up to us to judge the proximity of some history to what is relevant. History is not comprised of stories, narratives, or epics. It is an everlasting travesty that "historical materialism" has been ascribed to models that are vociferously idealist in what they tell us history is "supposed" to be. History is made by agents, not by theories or "nature's law", which has always been trans-historical and can only be understood as a narrative by inserting a prime mover. If we are to restore a genuinely materialistic approach to history, grounded in science and reason that we know well and reproduce independently, it would only be possible by comprehending these ideas not as a "blind force" but as facts that human agents—us—have always acted on out of necessity, with or without our full knowledge of history. Every human actor will see themselves as part of some history, even if they have divorced themselves from political history since it was always an onerous and unwelcome imposition. The rulers have a disproportionate obsession with the historical weight of the mass of humanity, when the majority of humanity had no choice in the folly of the rulers, and most of humanity would, if they had their way, not allow the ruinous course we are on to continue for one more moment. Even with all of the malice and petty cruelty of their race, the aristocratic mode of politics has created nothing but predictable ruin every time it has been tried, and it has been tried every time by insinuating that it cannot be any other way. Aristocracy has chosen as its most reliable ally faggotry, and this has created much of the needless confusion and lying that we suffer under today. It did not create all of it, but it has willfully perpetuated the worst of it and forbade humanity to stop doing stupid and cruel things after the first sin, out of a sense that this is useful for hypocritical posturing and compromising the very flawed human beings that have been the main driver of this history. Humans make history as they please, but they do not make it particularly well or in accord with a design that any of us would consider good. For the most part, humans detach themselves from the historical plotline because they must do so to survive, due to the prevalence of aristocratic faggotry and compulsion from above to insist we cannot correct for ourselves the ruinous course other people imposed on the world. Now, though, what is done is done, and it has for the first time in humanity's existence attained a critical mass where the people of the world, who once enjoyed some genuine freedom in their fate, watch helplessly as this fag torture cult chokes the world for pure "pleasure".
Far from the dismal view that faggotry is the motor of history, as the narratives offered to the people insinuate ad nauseum, I believe that political machinations arise from one want above all others: security. Regardless of the type of machinations and how much they are really "political" matters, everyone labors under the threat that politics imposes on the world, and seeks to mitigate that. For simple things, this has always been what the default behavior of the lowest class would do. If humans have little to do with each other, there are no openings for a "man in the middle", and if their relations are constrained to what we would want them to be, any "right of transgression" would be detected and immediately denounced. The game of aristocracy would stop, and due to what has transpired for many centuries, it would lead to an immediate abandonment of history and humanity as we know it. It would not lead to the sudden "running around like headless chickens" phenomenon that the Fabians insinuate. We would retain memory of the world before and what history was, and have some notions of what the future would be if the aristocratic game ended. Any long-run project for what humanity would do together meets a simple problem: Humans have found they really do not like each other, and the end of the aristocratic mode of politics would mean there is no more "us" as a collective polity, or a highly integrated society. We will never like each other, and recent history has made clear any reconciliation of the orders, even by studiously avoiding each other but continuing to plod onward by inertia, is impossible, and would be unacceptable even if it were. A true end to the aristocratic mode of politics would likely see humans admitting publicly their own inadequacy, and they would look to something in the world that would allow humans to be something other than this. The result would not be to attempt to repair "us" or the notions we had before. We would ask a much more basic question of politics, and it was the first question we had if we were reasonable: What is necessary for us to enjoy security so that what we have known is forever relegated to a past we can safely ignore? In short order, common habits of humanity would cease. There would be no more parties. There would be no more uproarious celebrations or pleasures. Very likely, the habit of enslaving animals for meat would be immediately brought down to acknowledge the grievous injury to life and the world this habit has entailed, without regard to human health which is no longer legitimate unless the loss of nutrition were an imminent danger to the peace. So too would exploitation, or really any expectation that there is any "great working" to be done. Most of humanity's time would be spent in the study of the world, of history, and what this was. It would be life's prime want, rather than the want for more of the "human spirit" that brought us to this sorry impasse. Certainly, the squealers and whiners of the human race who loved every moment of the faggotry will complain about how evil we are for wanting basic things like peace and food and not having to endure public humiliation for the sake of their pleasure, but if they are too insistent, they would be summarily exterminated and nothing would be lost. Such would be the necessity of the peace. I believe, the transgressors being what they are, that they will return to the closet, for their enablers will be nowhere. Perhaps, inshallah, the transgressors may yet be redeemed in some way by simply not doing what they have always done by their primordial instinct.
The sundry details of history without intrigues or faux-dramatic backstabs are not wholly uninteresting errata or irrelevant. I do not speak of the daily reproductive routine of going to work, eating food, or other things which are rightly understood to not in themselves constitute much in history, though the daily life of those who are part of history is something to consider when making bold claims about "human nature". What I refer to are the labors of many men and women that affect history when they are not "meant" to. As much as those who make public relations loathe it, there is a world where technology must be invented and instantiated, and reasons why anyone would do this. A blind ambition or lust for social tokens is pointless to anyone who thinks for five minutes. Usually, this is where public relations substitutes a narrative where all men seek social proof so they can attain a woman for hedonistic pleasure or other snide comments that wouldn't be worth anything except for the sad recurrence of such motives in human society. Very often, the technology used to affect history was made by people whose names or forgotten or who are historical footnotes. It would not be possible to speak of the "Industrial Revolution" without describing the function of artillery and what it did for war. In the American and French revolutions, artillery officers, sometimes working with few supplies, were the decisive invention that distinguished modern warfare from its prior iterations. The use of siegeworks was not new, and artillery did not suddenly make all fortifications obsolete or grant to the aggressor an unlimited right of transgression, as many a fag believe. Artillery changed warfare not just because its destructive force was "just made", but because the artillery required technical precision of the makers and the operators. For the first time, a general education in physics and science was a military advantage, and then a military necessity, and this did not fit the presumptions of warrior aristocracies or the conceits of education that imperial-feudal societies upheld. The cavalry charge of old times was regularly met with swift death against every other weapon until their use was worse than suicidal for an army. All of these details are often missed in grand narratives, but it is in these details that any story would be intelligible, rather than a koan or saying repeated to "make history" in a most ruinous way.
The most basic political unit is the association, rather than the institution or the human being and its genius. In the prior book, this was stated as a moral superstition that had to be before institutions, when politics is viewed as a concept unmoored from history. In history, the association arises not "just because", but because there was a great wealth of resources and technology already extant. The associations of history inherit this technology, wealth, and the established cults of humanity and are the entities in the world that decide what is to be done with it. Individual beings do not decide anything unless they have formed some association, even an association of one, that behaves as an association. It is not the institutional or legal person that decides anything. People as institutional, corporate entities can only behave as flotsam. The ruling ideas of the present day recapitulate the opposite deliberately and flagrantly, where there are no human beings and certainly no associations of them, but the institutional projection and claims of imperial wealth rule. The associations, which are the true life-force of political society, are treated as beasts of burden to be manipulated and cajoled.
By no means does this mean "democracy is natural" or "democracy should rule", or that there is any demos as such that can be taken for granted as a fact. It is rather that politics happens not from the essence of persons or some will within them, but from what happens between them. Without this interpersonal meaning, there is no general fear. There would only be agents "pseudo-randomly" acting regarding their own conditions. It is the conspiracy of those who work together towards a goal that creates the greatest fear. Individual "lone nut" actors are not only extremely limited in their real potentials. What the "lone nut" does is not really a political act at all, and the "lone nuts" have little interest in any political goal or consciousness. The loners do not even have the scrambled, self-interested notions of politics that are often ascribed to them, or clumsily presented as an excuse for what the lone actor wanted to do for entirely apolitical reasons. It is control over association that has been the chief aim of rulers, starting with the primitive oligarchy that is the inherent counterpart to democratization, to formal institutions concerning rule itself that are set up with knowledge of political association and how human beings think and act.
What this also means is that science motivates political action, but not in the sense that "science is the motor of history" and the scientist is there to "move history" by their theories and the method of science they employ. The true purpose of science towards this task is that every political actor is a deliberate actor concerning the meaning of the world, rather than deliberate concerning particular facts presented as a disjointed excuse for political behavior. Everything the associations do requires both sanity—recognizing that their actions pertain to the world we live in rather than a conceit about it—and the intelligence necessary to conceive of a potential difference in the world that political activity can make. If the intelligence is convinced from the outset that change is impossible or change only happens by prescribed methods imposed on reality, then no faculty of intelligence will amount to anything. If the theory of history is incorrect, then all of the intelligence and thus all agency is wasted. It is for this reason that sanity and intelligence are the necessary judgments before all others for Law to commence. Crazy or stupid people do not have legal rights whatsoever, not even as slaves recognized as the property of another. They are stains to be wiped from the historical record, and Law must carry out that directive no matter how questionable the court's judgment of sanity or intelligence is. Yet, regardless of the judgment, the madmen still attempt to conduct his science and reason, for he lives in the world regardless of Law and regardless of politics, until those with the franchise forcibly terminate the madman and verify that it has been done. This becomes the last and only "justice" that Law and political society can understand. It has no concept of any other, no matter how ruinous the result of doing this is, or whether the court's sanity and intelligence is dubious in the first place. Law and the class of lawyers are aware of the danger this condition creates for the whole of society and for the Law itself, and so it has always known that by doing this it plays with fire. It would be checked because the association of men who become lawyers is more attached to their association than the institution of Law itself or the class of lawyers. The lawyers make buddy-buddy arrangements with their fellow Masons or whatever secret society exists that has greater authority than the overt, official Law. The Law of Man is born corrupt and intended to be corruptible, but it was checked by a sobering condition reality placed on the associations, where if the association cannot reproduce itself and its technology, it would itself be terminated, and it could easily be displaced by another power or—the worst prospect possible for the valid—the lowest class successfully extricate themselves from the beast as well as they can, such that they do not regard political society as anything other than a danger best avoided. The judgment of sanity and intelligence are not carried out for arbitrary whims of the valid class, however much that is their tendency. Such judgments are necessary for the conduct of science to lead to any facts or conditions that would be the appropriate purview of Law. We can envision a world of endless struggles and legal mischief, but that has a predictable end that we have seen many times over, and that way leads only to faggotry.
It is silly to reduce all politics to one thing, for the needs of associations are many and exist in a world that didn't provide any "singular seed" for their growth. If there is one central need of the association, it is the freedom to think, know, and regard the world as it is, without mediation or imperious decrees of what it "should" think. This is not as simple as the members autistically uttering truthful facts as if this were an accomplishment by itself. Knowing two and two make four means nothing if you cannot act on that knowledge, and must accede to the received pedagogy that tells you that you are not qualified to think that. It does not mean that the act of "doing things you want" is any more powerful than the utterance of words. Among the truths that must be acknowledged is the theory of knowledge that necessitated this association in the first place, for no association was a "prime mover" in the sense naturalism requires such a thing. The true prime mover of this cycle was the world itself and the genesis of the entities doing this, which can be traced back to many origins rather than a necessary singular "One" that told us this is what we are and can only be. Once the association of beings starts, it has its own life and must defend that life and the needs of that defense are varied rather than singular, for the threats did not arise from a singular evil in the world. Very often the threats that arise are novel things that were never baked into the universe or any natural law. Civilization's technology only existed because there were humans to make it over many centuries, and civilizational histories are not freely reproducible as if the universe rolled a civilization off an assembly line by some natural industrial process. The judgment of intelligence and sanity is central because it allows these multifarious needs to be compared in any way that regards the genuine world. The madmen can make comparisons without knowing the world and can acknowledge their own inadequacy, but if they do, they are surrendering the political matter and will be made to bend to those who claim the world. The monopolist then produces forced ignorance, forced stupidity, and forced insanity to secure its rule, and must "negate the negation", i.e. negate that which would tell the monopolist "no". There is no other path that can be taken, for if men were sane, they would not abide by any part of this monopoly. If sane men ruled the monopoly, they would see that the monopoly on the terms active now is intolerable and produces nothing but its own ruin, but when the madmen hold a total and Absolute monopoly on the court and dictate that they are a law "above God", such sanity cannot be relied upon or ever assumed of the political actors. So, even in the requirement of sanity for political society to continue, the madness of the ruling ideas must be accounted for as if such madness held political agency, even though we all could live without such madness, and the madness might have been curable—if only there were something in humans or around them that allowed such a thing.
Where the dismal science enters this is that in history, genius or willpower is almost insignificant in deciding anything. The wealth and technology that was before any agent have far more effect on the course of any history, even if it is a small history of no importance to anyone. This does not grant the dismal science an automatic victory over the foolish humans who believe history can be overcome. For human beings, much of that technology was made by those who had no such vision for the world, and nothing in the world corrupted technology by some strange alchemy. Human beings did that for their own reasons, because some of them could, and no technology would root out the malevolence or the evil so cleanly or automatically for the rest of us. It is not the fact that the dismal science describes human behavior, but the potential that it can and, on its own terms, the malevolence needs no justification and respects no external actor. So too do the moral sentiments and wishes of anyone else, if they are determined to exist as anything other than flotsam. The reason humans did turn out to be so malevolent is because a few among them insinuated that the ritual sacrifice must continue above all other concerns. What was needed for the most malevolent of humanity, then, was some unchallengeable weapon that was singularly effective. Empires have long sought some ne plus ultra that would deliver them automatic victory, and have attempted to make many new fads that thing that would be unanswerable. As a rule, the would-be ne plus ultra is announced with great bombast and it always insists that this time, nothing in the world may exist against it. This may be some destructive, energetic, physical weapons platform, like nuclear fission which was immediately announced as the weapon of the technological interest, appropriate to their proclivity to look for easy and cheap solutions as the next fad. For aristocracy, the "great weapon" was philosophical and spiritual, and it was a conviction of their imminent victory against technology using their own special, occulted technology. In modern times, ideology was the first effort at the aristocratic ne plus ultra, where an invasive regime commands life from cradle to grave with eternal escalations of some depravity, starting from the regime of education aristocracies always impose on a society. The military men lionize some unit, some formation, as the best of the best, which unsurprisingly is the area of warfare they specialize in when their specialty can claim its ascendancy. The technocrats and scientists pick their field of expertise, such as Marshall McLuhan choosing his study of communication as the weapon of choice for the next general war, and the technophiles choosing cybernetics through the computer or biological weapons as their ultimate weapon, however, removed it is from such a thing. Labor and those who hope to channel the masses maintain a superstitious totem of the collective, general will, and try to wrest control of the general will from those intriguers who have always claimed the name of the people and the public for their narrow interests or for some conspiracy that hungers for all sources of power over the minds and souls of human beings. And of course, the name of Nature itself in the abstract has always been the chosen ultimate weapon of aristocracy, and their aims are always to declare triumphantly that there is no Nature without themselves, closing forever the cycle and declaring that they are the world, and the rest of us are only renting the universe. In every case, malice is always visible when these "ultimate weapons" are advanced, and it is scarcely hidden. It disdains to conceal its aims. Yet, not one of them has been victorious, or would even be able to claim victory if it were realized. As soon as the ultimate weapon is constructed, something about it is never good enough, and the overriding imperative of all is to do everything to spite this ultimate weapon, up to the solution that breaks the cycle forever and spites the very idea. It is here where faggotry claims that it is the ne plus ultra not just as a weapon but as an affirmation of what the universe is and can be, and this is what always happens with such grandiose visions of imminent victory and "imminent critique". They always hunger for more and more conquests, and this is the only way Malthus' mindless eaters can be realized as a fact. Nowhere in nature, as we will see, does such a mindless imperative have any endgame. A child could see through the stupidity of grown, intelligent men dancing like retards around the promises of always-imminent victory, and yet, this is what we have been consigned to... except, perhaps, in the future to come, if humanity finds something in the world to correct its ruinous course and all hitherto known efforts of its ruling interest.
This is not a new idea. It is the most basic concern of anyone who wishes to take the political matter seriously. This does not require us to become politicians or play the game aristocracy intended for us. The ruled have to take seriously the intentions of rulers even if they would much rather not have to do this, and would be terrible at political judgment. The race is not to be the first to transgress some static line drawn as "the normal", but to defend against all such transgression and doubt from the outset any conceit that this ruinous course can or should be "normal". This is but one of the conditions of political machinations; that no one is ever convinced the political act is one of kindness and goodwill, even when that would have been the obvious solution for many political problems. This arises not by a calculation of self-interest or a "just-so" essence of politics, but because humans are spiritual animals before they are political animals, and among their spiritual interests is the study of evil that religion entails. That is operative for purposes outside of politics. Very quickly we can see that political machinations never exist for their pure essence but are held by those who have some stake to defend. It does not translate to a stake in the polity itself, for most of humanity has none. It is instead a stake in their own spiritual fate, and what we may call the soul of these entities. If we are soulless political animals, we don't do much except carry out the dismal imperatives of Empire, because there would be nothing else for us to do. If we were soulless political animals, then we are beholden to all of the imperatives inherent in the concept of the political, without regard for any self-interest.
This above all has been what I have been attempting to write up to now. Self-interest as a ruling idea has a terrible history, and in practice, self-interest has never ruled polities, even when the interest of personal wealth and status is promoted and acted upon. Self-interest only governs societies so far as genuine self-interest serves security, which is a necessity for agents to be constituted. If they are nothing but that self-interest, then they will quickly see that they are hopelessly defeated. The invocation of some ultimate weapon to make it so is secondary to the ne plus ultra that already exists for someone to speak of a political situation in the first place. The political situation only exists because there are entities that believe, for good reason, that their life is not confined to political matters, and the political matter has always had a limited purview. The ultimate weapon is the world itself as it is and as it will do, rather than any conceit about the world that some idiot believes they can monopolize and re-sell as an ideology. The world knows no masters whatsoever and cares not for any of our political struggles, and so the contest would be fruitless. Should mankind persist on this ruinous course, as it has elected to do for spurious purposes in this time, then the concept of the political and a rudimentary sense of history will make clear that the victor in such a world would be the most dismal intentions of Empire, and there can in the end only be one ruling power and one ruling interest. That ruling power has no regard for the conceits of any particular person or group of people. If events play out as they "should", by that calculus, then the result will make the final outcome of human government self-evident and there would cease to be any serious struggle or rhetoric to be deployed against it. The rest is a pathetic game of strivers looking to capture some ultimate weapon that will win the struggle for political office. In the 21st century, the true "ultimate weapons" that would rule such a situation are not difficult to detect, if one truly cared to wage the political struggle in any way that would be sensical given humanity's knowledge. They are not the promises given as public relations slop, and they are not torture itself. Torture has its multifarious uses and the torture cult at the core of all states and empires has its imperatives that it has imposed on history. Since a recounting of those "ultimate weapons" of scientific despotism requires first acknowledging the technocratic polity as it exists and the dominance of the eugenic creed overlooking this travesty, I will decline to say too much about those weapons here, but some of those weapons have been alluded to throughout this writing and in my typical screeds elsewhere on the Internet. Some of those weapons are overt now, and while eugenics is the overt ruling institution and the idea promulgated as the holy of holies, everyone who truly cares about political power has seen these weapons and, being true to their proclivity, hopes to commandeer them for some seemingly mysterious purpose. They are not weapons that would occur to the mind of people who wanted the world to be decent and something compatible with life, but if the motive for acquiring them is not some petty malice, there is one motive that everyone will regard: If these weapons are not claimed and understood in the near future, someone else will understand what is needed and the type of polity best capable of holding them. Any fool believing the "anarchy of struggle" of this "natural law" can continue indefinitely is a damned retard and damns the rest of us with their retardation.
Much of this has, in various ways, been known for a long time. Religious treatments of the end times, eschatology, and the nature of worldly power have long seen the reign of the Dark Lord, whatever version of such exists in a particular religion. A philosophical view since Antiquity can appreciate such a dreaded fear for the same reasons that a Christian or Muslim would readily understand. So too can the modern atheists and secularists comprehend the true nature of the struggle at hand, without indulging in some faggotry. Faggotry as I have described it is a projection for the slaves, that becomes an indulgence for those who have nothing left of themselves but this crapulence that eugenics and filth like it have imposed on the poor souls of this accursed race called humanity. So, everyone who has spent sufficient time asking this question would know what I have written in some manner that is appropriate for them. It is a basic necessity of political education worth a damn to be able to make this inquiry without the prompting and reflexive response of education. It is a testament to Germanic education's ability to stunt the brain and soul of the subject that this education is considered "reserved for the brights" and a grotesque ignorance is promoted as some sort of virtue or intelligence. But, most people do not have politics in their hearts, and it is a good thing they don't because it is a shitty proposition if anyone thinks about what is contended and what has been done for it. It would be much better to mitigate the political matter entirely, as I have described before. It is enough to know "humans are shitty", and that is a more useful education in the subject than much of what is taught in education regimes. Mostly, though, politics relied on obfuscation and a low cunning that only humans have been so depraved to embrace. Even then, humanity generally sees after enough of this shitshow that we could easily do better. It is the primordial ritual sacrifice that allowed this regime of habitual lying to continue. If it were only rejected and upheld as Abomination, the farce would end after no more than a few generations, and the worst of the outrages would end immediately, save for the immense force for it already in motion. It would be possible to finally work against it, and however great the force purports to be, we know through any cursory investigation in genuine science that the real "substance" of the force is human beings, most of whom have no great commitment and many good reasons to act against the ritual sacrifice. At the very least, ritual sacrifice would be so mitigated that its recurrences would be increasingly feeble. I have said before that if the sacrifice ended, humanity would end. But, what if that weren't necessary in the way that the general fear insists? What if the end of humanity merely meant the end of this project which was a bad idea, rather than the termination of a race and all it could be? So far, the only visions of such a "post-human" world are grim and lonely, and I believe that is all humans will for themselves ever be capable of. But, none of us were ever motivated purely by self-interest or a sense of personal legacy. There was a world we have always known that has rejected all of the "human spirit", and all of our aspirations were never human aspirations. We have always known the human project was a rebrand of the imperial project, and the rebranding of humanity as a race-theory made clear that there never was anything else for it. For most of humanity, and for most of its history, Man was always believed to be a fallen race due to its ancient rite, and nothing good could be done in its name. That was irrelevant to those who wanted goodness and did not do this for themselves or a sense of anything human. It did not require aristocracy's core conceit—that aristocracy is a race apart from base humans and thus are the only ones spared from judgment, fitting perfectly the "right of transgression" that political society entailed. The only condition is that those who wanted the good did so knowing there was never any good for them or for any human, who are all accursed by the society they live in. Even if a society of the far future were largely removed from the rites of ritual sacrifice, they are still accursed. The people of the far future would likely have seen their existence as something very different from our sense of self, and we have historical examples of this. We did not always have this self-indulgent conceit of "us". If anything, the modern example of such is an extreme aberration, pathologically insane compared to humans who largely understood themselves as a type of animal with peculiar qualities of thought, and as an entity that understood temporality in a way other animals have never communicated to us or shown an interest in. The modern "self-psychology" or "theory of mind" is designed by madmen to advance the eugenic creed. The people of the future would almost certainly recognize this as a contributor to the problem of this time and such a "theory of self" would be abolished. We do not need to wait for the future to see this. Already, a rebellion against "the century of the self" has been underway by the few means available to us, by those who have no reason to buy into any of these ideologies that were manufactured by public relations and marketers who want us to suffer and revel in the most grotesque sins at best, and faggotry as is the order of the early 21st century.
This rebellion would not be the end of the political, or even the end of the political as we know it. This rebellion is inherent to what it would mean to seriously ask the question of what we are doing and what we are contesting. What would be a greater threat to security than being told to comply with a hostile, alien way of life and sense of self that insists "There is nothing outside of us" and "You do not exist, and we decide who lives and who dies"? It is the utmost offense against us, carried out deliberately and with no excuse for the terror. All of the political ideas hitherto known have been rebellions against "natural law" as declared by the dismal science. The reign of gods is a rebellion against the insistence that animal conflicts should determine our fate. The reign of despotism challenges primitive gods and suggests that Rule of Man is possible. In every case, the rebellion is not a grand, Luciferian revolt, but a rebellion against the dismal science and its purveyors, and a rebellion against what I have called faggotry. It is a rebellion carried out in ways large and small, and many times it is a rebellion that is defeated. It is not a rebellion for life's sake or a willful act that requires a special spirit. It arises from one simple truth. That truth is that no one has any good reason to act as flotsam, even when they do little more than what their instincts suggest is worthwhile. The greatest fear of all is the fear of being commanded to submit to the insanity of "natural law", and this is carried out not for impetuous, selfish demands, but to comply with the torture cult that "natural law" entails has an obvious outcome. Nature itself rejects this "natural law" by granting anything the agency to act on its own power, and nature has made this evident in all of the complexity that exists. Yet, for all of this knowledge, the dismal science came to rule humanity, and by now its progression is irrevocable. What is done is done and will keep happening for quite some time. That is not a statement of "nature's plan" or even the spirit of us. It is the judgment of history and the inertia of events that have been set in motion, and there is no way to make the good out of the evil. The good was never "in" humans. It was always in a world and there it shall remain, as it should. That is no excuse for humans to continue the ruinous path we have been on, if only for their own sake. By no means is the rebellious spirit "foundational", for humans like any other being exist for their own purposes, which are in the final analysis quaint and peculiar things for us rather than a high and mighty mission. But, if this existence is to be anything but the dismal outcome a child can see, it is necessary to revolt against those that reflexively retreat to the institutions so that more shameless faggotry may prevail.