Previous Chapter | Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

It is at last time to reconstruct history to describe this modern trap, now that the unpleasant business of describing the concepts of economics, politics, and history has been done. By no means are these concepts complete and total, and a proper theory of such I have to leave to better people, for another time and place. If there is a place to start describing history, it is in the history of life, for that is where eugenics staked its claim of spiritual authority, and that is what must be challenged if anyone is at all serious about describing the beast that chokes the world in this century. While the claims of eugenics are biopolitical, the true origins of human life necessarily entail much more than a faith in what the eugenists call "biological determinism". Every version of their "biological determinism" reduces to Satanic koans that necessitate a Satanic cosmology that is wholly inappropriate for describing the world we live in. That talking point is always given contemptuously, while the "great working" of eugenics continues. If there is a determination of history—and I have already written at length on historical determination—it is inherently a political matter. In other words, the political and economic concepts are at work in the kingdom of nature, and there is no reason to believe this is not the case. We might ascribe to proto-humans the same political thought and will we would possess today, but if we did, those creatures would be no better than us at "changing the world", and I would be writing of tautological claims that are "just so". Politics as a historical event is a grim listing of the atrocities against this sad race. On Earth, humans are by far the greatest political force and the greatest enemy of mankind. I say "human" in the spiritual sense, which did not exist for the first life we could call "human" in the sense of a race with symbolic language, descended ostensibly from the kingdom of apes and inheriting their traditions. It is strange that after all of this time, the eugenists can't decide which apes they want humanity to descend from in their grand narrative. Behind the story of Darwin, the imperial mythos has always operated, where the aristocracy—an aristocracy Darwin himself is a part of—never believed any of this applied to them. They were a race apart, and so Darwin's theory necessitated favored races, among them the very aristocracy demanding this imperious theory be taught as "the science", "above God" and declared as a grand opening of the torture cult we live under today. It is with this biological theory and its immediate antecedents that the modern Empire is truly born, rather than with commerce or a liberal political program.

We know that the true beginning of the "human race" is ritual sacrifice, but we lack any definitive account of when this happened. We know this in our bones, and we may never have proof, but there is no doubt within any of us of what we have seen, and there is no other explanation of the conduct of humanity or why we are here. If not ritual sacrifice, some sad mistake or error has been repeated over and over again. This however denies that life is always deliberate towards some goal, rather than "random" in the way a cajoler would insist while doing deliberately the same thing they have always done. In whatever dim way the proto-humans knew it, they knew what they did, and they knew they were guilty, and did not care at all about consequences. This ritual sacrifice did not begin in a neutral or placid environment. The animal kingdom is one of rape, war, wanton cruelty, and the low betrayal animals are capable of and carry out often. There was never an idyllic kingdom of nature. What sobered the animals was no great virtue, but a lack of ability for their malice to go far, and a disinterest of the animals in any larger social grouping. Animals do not gather in large assemblies or associations, and much of their behavior is specifically honed to avoid such a gathering or subordination to any abstract authority. The typical life of an animal is that they are conceived, nursed either by the mother's teat or the yolk of an egg, and mature over a short time, after which they are independent. This "independence" still requires them to form some association and observe regular routines to survive. There is likely some ritual ingrained in the animal for meeting mates, as otherwise, the animals could not perpetuate themselves beyond their limited lifespan and abilities. So too is the activity to obtain sustenance from the world best carried out with the minimum expenditure, and so, animals inhabit some territory and migrate to new territory where the present territory lacks sustenance or contains too much danger. The instinct to flee or fight is not a singular pressing of the nerve, but part of a larger system that comprehends danger and some sense of reward for their efforts. Once their sustenance is met and the sordid business of mating is handled, the life of an animal consists of not much at all. Nothing like an exhausting "work week" is found in the animal kingdom. The animal may build structures and utilize crude tools, and the animal may be set to tasks like the building of hives, but all of these activities are not "work" or "labor" in the sense humans undertake them. Humans undertake those tasks in part because symbolic language allowed generally alienable labor, that otherwise was not native to the instincts of mankind. The beehive, constructed by the bee methodically and with exacting precision, is not the product of engineering or too elaborate a science, but a form replicated as an extension of the bee's necessary way of life. The most basic constructive labors for animals and humans start as this; a habit becomes ingrained in the way of life of an animal for many generations and is tied to some function the animal carries out, like the construction and storage of honey or a need of warmth leading eventually to some proto-human rubbing sticks to create fire, the uses of which are multifarious after the very obvious benefit of warmth against the cold is attained. So too are the more developed structures of human society things that are reproduced by example and a sense that these structures and tools are effective for purposes that are close at hand. Humanity did not need a pedagogue to tell them that an axe would be a useful implement and cruder tool use may be found from elements that did not require opposable thumbs and a big enough brain to fashion. Only when the technology of mankind becomes esoteric and detached from what native sense would deem useful is pedagogy necessary to "break" humans into their new way of life.

This is where ritual blood sacrifice enters humanity. It starts from a malice common to their race, and it is a malice that not every animal shares. Many animals are pathologically averse to being predators of other animals and lack any of the instincts to do this. It never became their way of life and could not be introduced easily as if there were a universalist desire in life to attack, attack, attack, as the eugenic creed insists is natural and "above God". Animals—and Man is no exception—are lazy once their want of sustenance is met, and the drive for security is only understood at a pressing attack against that sustenance. It is impossible for any animal, humans included, to account for every potential attack to their security. Humans have the advantage of a knowledge base that allows us to see dangers from the most minute potential over a long time, and if we looked at those calculations, we would be paralyzed with fear. The expectation of life is that, without a more developed knowledge of the world, living things are alone, and cannot realistically be much more than the faculties and functions that are close at hand. If we were spiritual animals looking for something not contingent on mere survival or sustenance, our calculation of what to do and what constitutes a threat changes, and the biopolitical rationale no longer applies. The spiritual awareness pertains not to the world of living things, but to an unliving world, and once that begins, the biopolitical theory of society cannot be maintained on its own terms. The life-form would see its spiritual condition as something greater than its mortal existence, such that the prospect of continuing to live for life's sake no longer motivates it in the same way. But, humans remain animals, and a pressing danger to their existence will be acted on, without a particularly good reason for the habits of animal life to be superseded by something more. In the other animals, lacking this investigation that we have carried out, this spiritual mission does not exist, or it does not hold the same meaning that it does to us. Human beings regularly abrogate the "natural law" of animal constitutions simply to maintain their society and understanding of the world, which was not given freely and not reproduced trivially. How does a determined cajoler interfere with this awareness that humans possess? One way is to denigrate the human condition and tell the humans they are just another animal. This, though, makes too many assumptions about "human nature" or "species-being" and makes unfair and pointless assertions about the animals, who did nothing wrong by being what they are. The animal was never a creature optimized for or dedicated to the biopolitical task that was assigned to them. It has its own existence and some purpose understood to it, and like humans, animals are lazy and defend that laziness by an instinct that is the "null assumption" of animal life. The animal is a higher form of life than the degraded "savage" that imperious pedagogues want the animal to be to defend their stupid theories about existence and Being. What is needed, and must be insinuated above all, is blood sacrifice and the essential act of killing and humiliation. This, humans know very well. Such behavior of humiliation and domination is known to the animals, but the human carries out this torture and humiliation as its most sacred rite. It did not have to be so, but once it started, it was the first "ultimate weapon", and it would be—due to humanity's repeat intransigence and incompetence—the last "ultimate weapon", and the only one that was particularly effective at the goals an imperious mind has for existence. What was needed was to place this ritual blood sacrifice at the center of the human sense of itself and what life was. "Only death creates life" is repeated even though this is silly if you think at all about what life does. Death creates nothing, and if we want death for some purpose, we can attain it with finality, after which life is gone forever. The counterpart to ritual blood sacrifice is the promise of eternal life. This eternal life can only be attained by the central focal point of ritual blood sacrifice. Christianity "perfected" this by inventing the totem of Christ-Lucifer on the cross and repeating the religion's cannibalistic rites and teaching a doctrine of calculated malice. The Christians did not invent this or disrupt humanity with a hitherto unknown practice. The likeness with pagan aristocracy is not lost if someone finds in their education knowledge of what the pagans and Babylonian Satanists preached and did.

Let us see the example of Christ-Lucifer since it is most illustrative of why ritual blood sacrifice took on this central role. "Through Me, you must pass", they will exhort you to believe, first with promises, then with threats, then with their ultimate purpose—enclosure and slavery. Does this offer make sense to anyone? Of course not. But, what did human instinct or its wealth of wisdom have to say no to it? Avarice and cruelty came early to those with a political mind, and it was reproduced in the bullying of family life, where "boys will be boys", as the sadists smirk and they are confident the cycle of humiliation will continue through that vector. Darwinian "selection" is obviously farcical unless this assumption of avarice and the malice of the race is central to their theory of life itself. When Darwin inserts political economy into the natural kingdom, it is this that he is inserting rather than a full understanding of political economy. That treatise would be impossible to formulate let alone prove, based on the preceding writing I have made to describe the very concept that would be inserted into natural history. It was also a treatise that did not produce a satisfactory outcome or explain much of why life turned out the way it did. What political economy and things like it can tell us about life's natural history is that life is not what someone would naively assume it is. It is not a "thing" like any other object in the universe, for there was no clear demarcation between the living and unliving. Life was understood as these functions and operations. We find that what is done by Darwin by inserting political economy into nature has a twofold purpose. One is to explain some aspects of natural history. That explanation is provably wrong, but I am not writing a biology textbook so the proof of that I must leave to authors working in that area. The second, and more important task, is to naturalize political economy. Economic, political, and social functions are transformed into biological functions. The demands of life are inserted into the political settlement, and in turn, the political settlement is inserted into the kingdom of nature. This, Karl Marx remarked, demonstrated Darwin's dialectical thinking about natural history. Whether Darwin was a "dialectician", I leave to another writing. A "dialectic" does play out, but it does not proceed on the terms philosophy suggested it should play out. The more proper terminology is symbiosis; that the tools of life acquired by animals have an effect on the animals themselves, and this is confined to the behavior of life and the aspects of the lifeless universe it interfaces with. I don't see Darwin viewing this as a dialogue in the Greek philosophical sense. I see him as an inheritor of operations research that was an interest of the British Empire, and the centrality of computation to both the biological and economic projects of the Empire makes clear that Darwin's mindset was analytical rather than philosophical. Here, the religion of the East India Company clique—Satanism—would be readily apparent to me, being who I am and in the environment of this time. Darwin, like any good British imperialist, was a Satanist, inheriting a Satanic view of the world and humanity's place in it. That is what the Unitarian clique and its moral philosophy always entailed. Such an ethos and cosmology are very appropriate to Empire. Calling him a Satanist does not lend any proof or disproof to the claims involved. If we view humanity's religious history and its tendencies, humanity is more aligned with Satan than any "good" entity or goodness in the universe. What is the essential element of natural "selection"? It is blood sacrifice based on limited information and the faculty of life that works with information. This mostly concerns intelligence, but it also concerns the temperament of the animal, its susceptibility to hostile influences, the fortitude of its will, and—crucial for the aristocratic claim of "natural selection"—occulted knowledge that is the property of a limited class, which belongs to the eugenic interest rather than the technological interest.

Of all of the inclinations of life's behavior and technology, the eugenic interest has the least to do with anything life does during the essential moment of its existence. Only after the blood sacrifice has been accepted as default does it appear that life's eugenic interest is the prevalent trait of the life-form. It may be demonstrated that if life were viewed as a struggle for existence, the eugenic interest prevailed by default, and we have only worked that out for ourselves. But, consider what life actually does to be life, and why the animal or any life-form acts as it does. Life does not exist for the conceit the entity holds "in itself". The intent, genesis, and fate of life are necessary to speak of life, but for the life-form, none of this "struggle for life" is worth much. It is rather a fact that life would have to follow some intent to be consistent, rather than the particular intent being sacred or worth preserving by any instinct. Life-forms can metamorph or act regarding an intent that cares not about victory for their "species" as if the victory of the race were a self-evident truth "above God" or anything that the animal natively cared about. All of the things animals do as part of their intent do not exist because the species was worth anything, or because animals had that strong a concept of their property. Territoriality and possession are for the animal means to various ends, and they are only appreciated so far as those ends are met. Usually, the basic property of life is its own organs, which fill with sustaining material and regulate the distribution of them, like lungs processing air in the environment or the non-trivial digestive tract processing food into sustenance. The organs do not wage a struggle with each other or compete for managerial resources in that sense. They at first exist for themselves, but like any tool, the organs of a body are symbiotically linked to each other. At first, this linkage is an inference, but in animals, the linkage is a nervous connection that the animal relies on to produce some result from a combination of actions. Eventually, the motions are categorized and fit into that animal's knowledge of itself. All of this suggests that it is the technological interest and the need for that technology to be meaningful regarding a world that prevails if life's history is to be described. The interest in property has to be inserted conspicuously into history to make it "more real than real". In the abstract models of society, it is easy to detect property and claims and less certain to detect particular technologies that are at first vast unknowns. We don't have schematics of life-forms, but we have evidence of their existence and the continuation of their claims. In the moment where history is made and where potentials exist, though, technology and science are dominant in the history of life-forms. Science is contingent on the life-forms' ability to know for itself what the world is, while technology is evident without any necessary knowledge of the life-form. The sum total of human technology is far beyond a human's ability to harness that knowledge at any particular time, or even the ability of humans to categorize, memorize, and act upon their accumulated body of knowledge with a given limitation of faculties. There is simply too much "state" to account for all of the minutiae known to exist but not accessible in a timely fashion. Only with the assistance of more tools can the plodding pace of the biological entity acquire greater knowledge of states in the world. Humans are the only animals known to possess this ability to read and utilize technology for both education and expansion of their native faculties by means of a library and search of this vast reference. Humans acquired this knowledge not because of any inborn ability to make it so, but because the technology was realized and could be realized—was allowed to be realized because nothing in the world stopped it after many failed attempts and the vicious behavior typical of their race. Nothing about humanity's technology, even the most primitive, could be taken for granted. The behavior that men were exhorted to follow was callous, stupid, cruel, and reveled in ignorance of all but rape and plunder as ends unto themselves. The war cult can be found in the most primitive formations of humanity, and it would be celebrated for reasons apart from the cult of ritual blood sacrifice. The warlike behavior inherited from the animal kingdom did not value any of this technology, and it was left to the most primitive technologists to fight so that even this crude and miserable level of technology humanity attained could exist and persist.

If we are to insert political economy to explain natural history, the writing I have done so far explains some—but not nearly enough—of the difficulties that arise from the naive view of technology that prevailed in the 19th century. If we are to insert political economy into natural history, it should begin not with an esoteric notion of value as a substance, but with the technological implements as they were envisioned upon their invention. Many times over, the tools known to humanity are reproduced, and the knowledge to create them is reproduced anew with each new laborer acquiring the skill to do this. So too are the societies that create these tools reproduced. The technology of mankind for most of its history is reproduced with nothing more than oral transmission and that ancient pedagogical technique "monkey see, monkey do" doing the greater work. It consists of tools created by laborers for their own purpose, and later, tools made by specialized blacksmiths whose technique is no great secret. The metal tools can be worked by their users to an extent, but the furnaces to do this are more efficient if they are held by guilds and tradesmen, and this was the essential break that divided labor rather than the ignorance of farmers or soldiers in how to work metal. The techniques of metalworking could be taught, for they were often passed down by the same oral record, even after writing could have produced manuals.^[1] This sort of deceit is not a secular trend in history. The conditions in which malice and habitual lying may thrive are variant and opportunistic, and the skilled liar learns by instinct when to utilize this most honed tool of the human race and when they are forced, or find it expedient, to demonstrate honesty and goodwill. In every case, humans are condemned by the conditions of their genesis to seek the only outcome their constitution allowed when it came to the intended enemy of humanity: ritual blood sacrifice. Yet, no good reason for it exists by a self-evident law of nature. Proving humanity's malice as a definitive fact is a complex matter. It is proven for us by far more than a feeling in our bones that it is so. So many of humanity would want to do differently, only to find that there is nothing else "in them", and a propensity to do so for reasons that are historical and repeated by the malicious, who have always sought to make their proclivities permanent and unchallengeable by any means.

What this means is that the mechanism of "natural selection" describes not a universal behavior of life, but the peculiar behavior of humans who, for their own reason, made this "natural" selection very artificial and for purposes of those conducting ritual sacrifice understood from the outset. If individual agency and self-interest were the necessary vehicles through which "nature selects", there would be no sense of "species-being" nor any pressing reason for a particular species to be selected against another in a given niche. It would instead remain a morass of struggle, with some species winning and another less fit species losing, but the losers would remain until they are whittled down to their last members and have no one to mate with. If we observe the mating behavior of humans, we see that it is always very deliberate and ritualized, and has been the primary vehicle by which social status is rewarded, and social demotion is enforced. Battles over mates were also the chief driver of conflict between men, both in internecine conflict and in battles between groups whose collective pride had been offended by the sexual transgressions of an enemy.

There is one other matter in these mating rituals. Rather than the unfit being weeded out at the stage of the mating ritual itself, or by the expiration of the unfit from old age by the elements, the only way the Malthusian principle could be applied to a population is if the unfit do not survive their youth. The habit of nursing being what it is, it is not common or natural for mothers to abandon offspring based on a technocratic assessment of the child's fitness. Deformed offspring are still the mother's to keep, for whatever purpose she has. If the deformity ensured that the body of the unfit would expire regardless of any nurture or remaining virtue of the offspring, then that is that. But, only those deformities that resulted in early death or non-viable offspring would be eliminated in this way. Such deformities would never arise to become a "species" in the first place. They could only arise out of an extant population. There is nothing to be done about life that was never viable on its own terms, regardless of the great political struggle for existence. But, if the deformity did not lead to early death, then the deformed would carry on just as any other life-form would, even if it were comical in its efforts to survive in the world. Neither nature nor the basic instinct of life particularly cared about that which was deformed, other than assessing the threat of something unusual. If the deformity entailed maliciousness in the person or entity, then the crime is not deformity of biology, but the behavior itself. Yet, malice and clearly senseless traits survive in humanity if they are believed to be hereditary, and this author believes that such malice is hereditary and flourishes. Therefore, it was never "selected against" despite an imperative basic to life that would have selected against it for their own security and collective security.

All that would be necessary for the deformity at a basic level is its survival up to the age where it is viable to mate, and its faculty of mating to remain intact. This refers first of all to fertility, and second to the sundry details of the very deliberate and ritualized mating ritual. Here, we might imagine an animal instinct that functions like the bouncer at a nightclub, judging by some merit who is allowed to join the mating game. But, such a whim does not have much to do with fitness as Darwin described it. That can just as well be the arbitrary whim of the animal. There is no reason to believe that such an arbitrary whim does not exist in the natural constitution of animals with highly ritualized sexual behaviors. It would seem to a naive approach, and confirmed by observing the behavior of animals, that such an arbitrary whim is indeed in force, and that conformity to some standard is itself a requirement of "fitness", simply because the other animals refused to allow that which did not pass standards into the mating ritual. This whim might be a recognition of that which is alien and not fertile for reproduction, such as different species recognizing that an alien is not an acceptable target for sexual attraction. Even if inter-species "mating" happened, no offspring result and the alienness of the two would be apparent and likely repulsive by some standard in most of the animals. Since the function of sex is never purely reproductive and wasn't designed with eugenic fitness in mind, this can be expected. Sex often plays some role in domination and malice in the animal kingdom, and it certainly plays that role in humanity. But, the arbitrary whims being what they are, they would not account for a natural drift or segregation of species, and if they did, it has nothing to do with resource competition, It would be, to an external observer, a struggle within the mating population for standing. If we understand the ethos of the East India Company clique, this is precisely what they must naturalize and assert is above the varied mating strategies of human beings at that time, with noted distinctions from one culture to another and very different expectations for humans in different times and places, and at different stages of their life. Elderly animals are not going to pass as spry youngsters, and children are off-limits to any sense of decency that an animal can understand in its dim way. Humans created an elaborate ritual of pederasty, which persisted for purposes explicitly unrelated to direct mating.^[2]

So, it is worth noting that this behavior of reproduction is already loaded with ties to other social behaviors, and the essential act was never solely about the propagation of life-forms. So too were there motives to carry this out that were not about "species-being" or any inherent familiarity with one's own species or race. Mating populations are local, and for offspring and heredity, whoever in the population produced viable offspring would be "naturally selected" by something. The problem with natural selection being premised on resource limits is that the mating happened regardless of those limits. The choice of which offspring die is then moved to what happens after those offspring are born, where the ritual sacrifice of the young can be naturalized and "just so".

We know now that the traits of offspring are never a random assortment of genes or traits from a pool of parents that "randomly" mated with each other, as if they were too stupid to know who fathered whom. There is also the consideration of the traits themselves, and which are likely to be viable in a species. If there is a mating population, the distribution of fathers to mothers is not fixed by any law where every father mates with every mother equally. Then there is the expression of any hereditary "factors", the nature of which is alien to Darwin's theory since Darwin did not have a genetic theory in his evolutionary work. By what rule is an "average" or "normal" determined? The baseline for any mating population is not its average. It is either the fittest or the least fit of the mating population. The least fit define its liabilities, and the most fit define the ideal towards which a mating population would strive for. This is in some way deliberately carried out in the mating ritual itself. Successful men are chosen as mates more often, and unsuccessful men are de-selected or segregated out by some conspiracy of the women. This success ultimately arises in the perceptions of such rather than any objective metric, since for the purposes of reproduction and why any of these animals are present, any penis or any vagina is suitable. Then there is an overall tendency towards the use of organs that are suitable for being selected or able to be selected for mating. This is not a passive trait of the mates, but one that is actively honed. The habit of seeking an "ultimate weapon" is found in the mating ritual, where the middle class proclivity to follow fads is present in the kingdom of nature. This is not a superstitious assignment of such to answer the question of natural history. It is instead the chief origin of the technological interest's obsession with fads. Sexual mating and the impression required for entry always look for the "next big thing", whatever that may be for a particular seeker of a partner, whether it is male or female. So too is the development of life amenable to choosing, or honing during life, the organs most useful for an animal in a niche. This chiefly happens in the early stages of development, where generally the more favored trait is "weighted" to appear, and the disfavored trait is less present in offspring, even if all other matters in the ritual are carried out and seed meets egg. The prominent, positive traits in an organism make the greatest impression on the newly conceived offspring, while the negative and disused traits diminish. This only works so far as the organism can be honed within a mating population, which is always limited. If we look at the mating pool, it is not an orgy of all members of a race, but whatever males and females are present at some locale. It may be, and often was, biological relations that were to our standards incestuous. That was what was available, and so, the effects of inbreeding can be found throughout the animal kingdom and were certainly known to the dog-breeding English eugenists, who have a peculiar affinity for dog breeding.

If the mating population associates with each other and thrives or fails together, it would follow that—even if this population did not meet each other or plan their reproduction—the population would be selected for and against collectively. So too would they be in proximity and face the same sort of challenges individually if they were to meet for mating. Inbreeding of the limited population exaggerates traits within that population, but they all eventually mate with each other and the traits are distributed among them. The members of this population exercise the same traits and hone them.

If the traits are "mostly hereditary", they still must grow in the womb to produce viable offspring, and this requires definite inputs of nutrition for the mother and child. It is not possible to conjure new hereditary material ex nihilo. But, what are these "factors"? They are machines and organs tasked with survival, rather than essences of information bereft of purpose. Much of the "genetic information" is confirmed to be "garbage data", because that genetic information was never "information" to be read for computation. It instead was a machine for purposes that begin as chemical ones, like producing some pigment or some antibody. The easiest genetic engineering concerns these chemical properties, such that the color of eyes may be altered or selected. Any trait that is complex like the musculature of the body or development of the brain was not contingent on producing more of a particular substance or a particular type, with everything outside of that substance irrelevant. The growth of muscle mass is not as arbitrary as the choice of pigmentation for the color of irises. If there is an alteration, there is a systemic cause that can be known mechanically. There is a reason why this happens, rather than "just-so stories". The "weak genes" would be disfavored in development, and the stronger would assert themselves, and the admixture of the two would over time favor the stronger over the weaker. But, positive qualities of weakness that disrupt the machinery would also be favored, and so a struggle between them continues without any true conclusion. What this means is that the "selection" never ends nor does it produce a stable outcome or speciation on its own. This developmental stage occurs either in conditions where resource limitations aren't a pressure on the life-form, or in starvation, in which case the life-forms will resort to austerity measures rather than immediately move to eliminate people "at random" or "let nature take its course". Resource limitations of the environment do not have this particular selective effect. It is the presumption of animal behavior that results from resource limitations that would be the "selector", but animals do not dogmatically turn to ritual sacrifice to solve their problems. Humans did, or at least some of them did and would insist, up to the present day, that ritual sacrifice—eugenics—cannot fail. It can only be failed.

We may assume for the sake of argument that "acquired characters" are insignificant past early development of the life-form, and that the hereditary characteristics are particularly resistant to "acquired characters". This would be a reasonable assumption due to what life does, which requires it to be something that does not alter its "core material" that would pass on to offspring so easily. The point here is not that characters are "acquired" in early childhood only and immediately become eugenic property. The point here is that this early development of the life-form is not "blind" or "stochastic", but very deliberate on the part of the life-form and its nascent organs. The universe doesn't turn on an informational switch to grant the child a "male essence" or "female essence" as such. The distinction between male and female arises from the reproduction of the appropriate hormone, and male or female traits only arise in the offspring when this hormone is produced and the parts develop as expected. There is enough documented literature of intersex conditions or defects in sexed development like "single-X females" or androgen insensitivity that leads to wholly undeveloped "male parts" and the appearance of a feminine human until its innards are examined and a competent doctor, knowing this history, would be able to diagnose what the body did mechanically, rather than retreating to essentialism and insinuation as eugenics and Darwinism must assert. The same would be the case for any trait more complex than a chemical production that does not interfere with the rest of the life-form's organs directly. For example, some chemical conferring resistance to an herbicide is a simpler change than modification of the root, branch, and stem.

If sufficient information about hereditary factors were known for "eugenics" or "natural selection" to be asserted, then that same information would mean genetic engineering from whole scratch is a trivial extension. The "conditions of eugenics" would be irrelevant for any "necessary" program of race betterment or social engineering. It would be far more convenient to construct new humans from seed material and forgo the woefully inefficient sexual process altogether, and with sufficient knowledge of biology to make the assertions of "natural selection", it would be possible to circumvent wholly the reproductive process hitherto known. Nothing about sexual reproduction was sacrosanct and this had always been known and was the expected long-run outcome of any futurist program going back to Antiquity. Whether humans would welcome such a change, or consider "de-sexing" their existence altogether, is a personal sentiment. So too would a sense be immediately known that if this editing of life-forms were possible, "optimization" would be irrelevant. It could just as well be decided that all of mankind would be subsumed into a super-organism and the race as we know it would be terminated in this way. This has already been inherent in the eugenic creed, becoming more apparent with the insane proclamations of the eugenic creed for "mind uploading" and the insanity of their Satanic race.

By nature, though, no such "selection" or "natural eugenics" takes place in a population. The chief effects on hereditary changes would be the results of inbreeding and the possibility of "intermarriage" between populations that are always conducted on an ad hoc basis rather than from one population "subsuming" the other or creating an indistinguishable admixture over so long. These mating populations are not congruent to "tribes" or "nations" that were unified politically or economically. They were instead people who associated first as individuals, whose association became regular enough for mating to be possible, with the knowledge that there were other such populations further away that were unlikely to mate with each other. But, individuals might have traveled to another mating population in a disorderly fashion. There is no natural law that suggests this intermarriage of mating populations would have to take place by any simple trend, or that people "mindlessly breed" as populations. The essential act of mating is carried out by two individuals, who usually "want" such a thing and meet for this peculiar coincidence of wants.^[3] And so, from the outset, the meeting of male and female is never wholly "random" or something that could be described as a secular trend. If there is any "natural selection", it can only take place in a controlled environment where the agents are mapped out, their behaviors suitably "random" and "dumb" to insist they will behave as the simulation demands.

There is a struggle for life to exist, and for particular types of life to arise out of the mutual ruin the contest creates. It is a struggle whose outcome cannot be easily "gamed" unless the game is a reconstructed history that only could have turned out as it did. And so, "natural selection" turns into a gigantic "just-so" story and nothing more. It does not explain what happened or why it happened. It can only proclaim that it did happen, and so it must have happened. The particular way it happened is irrelevant. If there is a "natural selector", it is the populations themselves that behave for their own reasons. There is only one species that behaved in this way, and we know from a cursory evaluation that their actions were not "accidental", but wholly deliberate and consciously acted on. That, of course, is humanity, and its habit of ritual sacrifice. Not one other species in existence "selected" itself in this way, or could have. Humans did because the malice was deliberate. The excuse given afterward was whatever was suitable to guard the sacrosanctity of their ritual, and it could only have been that. The excuses are not constructed purely to beguile those who are not initiated. The myths the eugenists tell themselves about history are part of their own education and are fervently believed and acted on, above any other consideration they ever had or could have.

The problem of transitional forms may be answered far more effectively by mechanisms that were known or knowable in Darwin's time. I will list a few and by no means can I describe all alternatives:

Hereditary populations are spatially removed from each other: This is very obvious. Take two populations in different environments and they will, by whatever process is active in that environment, go their separate ways. Here I must make clear that there was never a "blank slate" nor were members of a species ever indistinguishable. The very notion of "species" is counterproductive, since for the purposes of natural history, there are only mating populations, whatever their nature. Members of the same species far removed from each other might as well not regard the others' existence except as a hypothetical until someone from one population center migrates to another and finds members of his or her species that are alien to their population, but cross-fertile, and this traveler decides "any penis or vagina will do" and intermarries with the alien population. This traveler being alone, will have next to no influence over a large population and a culture that existed without them, to which he or she is alien and will have to assimilate. The great terror of the British imperialists was one of their officers "going native" and forgetting the core Satanic doctrines of their Empire and their race. The East India Company clique were devout believers in that Satanism and constructed their ruling idea to contain this while maintaining their compradors. Officers are not to intermarry with alien races. The compradors of alien races are to intermarry with selected members—hostages—of the aristocracy. In many cases, there were aristocratic-minded compradors ready for this, and they weren't going to let the horrible suffering of the lands they ruled over get in the way of that ancient rite. But, no one outside of this club has any investment in this, and in nature, no such aristocracy can have a "natural existence". The animal kingdom has no notion whatsoever of "aristocracy". Animals know behaviors of domination and signifiers of power, but they have no signifiers of status or abstractions that require language to appreciate.

The spatial distance is not just geographic, but "cultural" and a matter of affinities that would be present from seemingly small distinctions. Of course, once two population groups can be distinguished by something, there is no rule to say they must rejoin and lose this distinction. A population group is never uniform for this purpose. It is comprised of distinguishable life-forms which are the agents that can "select" or be "selected". It may be that these two species live side-by-side and co-mingle, and do not see themselves as "Others", beyond this distinction. Perhaps this distinction is that some have brown eyes and some have blue eyes, and that is all that is different between them. In the game of mating, the smallest distinction can be the division between one group and another, with no sacrifice of either necessitated and no particular attitude of the agents mandated. It can "just so" happen that blue-eyed animals mate with each other, out of some affinity to likeness, or the fairness of skin is a taste of the men or the women in choosing mates. It is also well known that animals do maintain signifiers of power and prowess, and these primitive totems are substitutes for social status, without fully working out a theory or "justification" for them. The distinction between these two populations may be anything and at first trivial, and with nothing more than prowess in the animal kingdom, no "system" or "class" would arise in the sense we understand it. But, one distinction of group leads to another, and another, until the distinctions between two groups, however defined, are more significant. The distinction may arise, and the mating populations may, either by decree or by mere preference, be asserted, until the two populations are apart and, in a loose sense, become two races that just happen to be around each other. Here, a political principle suggesting two and only two opposing camps may be supposed to act on a stable population for no reason other than politics being an individual game rather than a team sport for the population. To believe this isn't in effect is to invoke conceits about the political that cannot be defended, or requires us to abandon the insertion of political economy into nature. There is an argument to abandon political economy as an explanation since life is not intrinsically "political" in that way. The struggle for existence does happen, and politics is read into it. If this is done, then such politics is limited to the association where it takes place and is contingent on the qualities of its members rather than any natural law that acts equally. What is invoked is to suggest populations can be segregated more or less arbitrarily, and then "reified" into species that are treated as a population. Such "natural selection" would not have much to say to predict which species exist, whether transitional forms exist, or how they are eliminated.

Absorbing transitional forms: "Transitional forms" are presumed to be continuous, but with nothing to truly divide transitional forms, they are subsumed into a population without "transitioning" anything. The far more likely condition is that any mutation or variation that arises necessitates more transitions in short order, or the transitional form is subsumed within a population and it becomes just another quality of that species, rather than a "new species". The small changes that begin the process of language acquisition are an example. With the first means of recording language and working out the memory of words, the animal realizes that it must enhance this faculty and select it as a virtuous trait. So begins the human ritual of blood sacrifice of any who were stupid, or if they were more enlightened, those who did not "make the jump" were discarded and left to nature. In either case, the imperious mind declared not only that this was a transformation for itself and those like it, but that any who were not selected to join the new race existed to be exterminated. This, though, was a unique occurrence rather than a rule for all such transitions. It is the occurrence that ritual sacrifice—institutional Satanism—chose for its "Jehad" and as the proof that the whole world would bend to their conceit, and so, all other things were viewed as the products of intelligence like language were. Let us choose another example, where mammals would have had to arise from or break off from some non-mammalian ancestor. The very likely cause of such vast distinctions in forms is that the kingdoms of life arose not from an established kingdom, but arose from more primitive life-forms, where change would be rapid and the divergence to form mammalian features would arise.

To best observe this, consider life-forms that are far simpler, shorter-lived, and volatile. They have less "property" they are tied to, and exist more as life doing what it will for the strange reasons that gave rise to such a thing called "life" in the beginning. It would be far more likely for a change in affective motility, like the development of legs or wings, to arise in nascent form, and then, for whatever reason, this quality could develop further. Very likely, the first flying animals did not have to spend a long and arduous path moving from land to air. In the same development where sea-borne life could walk on land to reap the wealth of that land, small animals could fly or hover and, by the honing of aerodynamic traits and their prevalence allowing survival, those animals developed on a trajectory apart from those that adapted to the land, where different optimizations were selected and incompatible with those that could fly or swim. In every case, a small change would for an individual promote something new, and if something that had not been done before could become common, the new strategy would not be compatible with the old strategy. The sea-dwellers may return to the sea or remain amphibious, while the new strategy is locked to land or, in the case of flying animals, they adapted this ability so that they could traverse where the land-bound could not, with costs to other faculties that did not encumber the land-bound. Had these novel changes, which may start small, not led to potentials that the life-form would exercise simply by living and doing what it would do to survive, they would be reabsorbed into a population, perhaps laying dormant but producing species much like the old. The new could not coexist with the old forever, not for any reason of struggle, but because, by whatever chance a mutation happened, they lived in two different worlds when mating populations were concerned. They still lived in the same world for extracting resources, for there were no ready-made "biomes" to enclose. If resource competition were the driver for "selection", it would cut across species that are very different, and this, of course, was something the proto-eugenists wanted to naturalize and essentialize. If, however, the transitional forms were most pronounced because the "ecology" of the life-form was altered by some transition, or the need for sustenance and daily life of the animal made a distinct path from the old self-evident to that animal, then over time, mating populations would arise for the new life-form, where the internecine struggle would play out once more.

Larger life-forms do not change as arbitrarily as smaller ones, and there would be more "internecine struggle", carried out in more developed, ritualized forms. The acquisition of language is, to the hopelessly naive, no great distinction, and yet, this development led to a whole new "ecosystem" for life to colonize—the "virtual world of ideas", and a very different concept of themselves and what they were doing in the universe. This did not happen immediately, but it arose from the functions these animals carried out, which now included language and more elaborate representations of systems, which they would have worked out in the time they had. Since the surplus of time and resources for primitive proto-humans was considerable and nothing was stopping this, the only limitation was intelligence itself, which was of course always limited for any entity. It was here the eugenists saw the absolute necessity of asserting their monopoly over intelligence and information processing, and that was the movement of modernity. It should be clear that for evolution to be sensical, it never ended, and human beings, human communities, and Empires are all subject to the same selection. It cannot be any other way, and this was the necessary claim of Darwin—a violent assertion of what the Empire and humanity were to be, rather than a story about its past which always relied on scant evidence and many contradictory sources in the study material. If humans wanted a genuine story of their past, they would not have superimposed so crudely a political-economic rationale on history, without first asking what politics and society are. It is that which led me to lay out this series of books as I did, first describing the concepts of the economic and political and briefly the concept of history which I cannot adequately define here. If that inquiry were carried out, and my path is not the only one, then the entities doing the "selecting" do not act blindly, whether they are humans with language or animals doing this by instinct. Language, rationality, and all of the tools we possess that demarcate humans and their "new ecosystem" from the world are really much more elaborate forms of animal instinct, and inventing a supernatural distinction between them is folly if we think for five minutes. Hilariously, none of the ancients who asked the same question had any belief that humans were anything special, or that humans had a divine spiritual right to anything at all. It is not the claim of the Abrahamic religions either that insisted the story of Man was a "just so" and naturalistic excuse for plunder. Their religions asked why the world was as it was and the consequences of such a world, rather than the first pretext that was suitable to satisfy "me wantee". It took modern depravity to reach for that excuse, in an environmental niche where, for the first time, such petulant whining could undo all of the effort mankind put into redeeming its original crime of ritual blood sacrifice. Certain assholes—fags as I have called them—could not abide by that happening, lest the technology of our time make a mockery of their stupid, fruity conceits and false notions of knowledge.

Transitional Forms created by environment crisis: In the most primitive conditions of life, what that life absorbs to sustain itself could become the very life-form that does the consuming. There is no reason to believe life fully "sublates" that which it consumes. "You are what you eat" would be more prominent in simple life than it is in complex life, which is certainly affected by the available resources to consume. The break in a population can arise not from any hereditary distinction in them, but from some environmental happenstance or deliberate condition where one group receives something different from another in sustenance. This may be that one group lives with little while another lives with plenty, or two groups receive different sustenance by encountering a different environment. Two once identical populations could, by exposure to different conditions, become very different by what was "selected" for, and what changed was not about any condition between the agents in mating competition, but the agents and their sources of sustenance.

The change to environment does not occur gradually or incrementally. It occurs suddenly, either when a population splits off to different spaces and acquires, just as they would by the imperatives of life, the sustenance in those spaces; or it occurs suddenly when some event occurs that is significant to the cycle of daily reproduction of life's functions. Say, for example, a great fire destroys the fruit where a population once drew its sustenance. The great fire could just as well kill members of the mating population by nothing more than the dumb chance that the animals were in one place rather than another.

Here we see the imperial "just so" mythology prepare answers for everything which assert that because it did happen this way, it "had" to happen this way, and it was entirely due to the inborn virtue of the life-forms. This imperious "science" hates an explanation that the dimmest of us know well: shit happens, without any good reason why it should. Since "shit happens" cannot describe the secular, inexorable trend that Darwinism needed for its theory to be sensical, it must be inadmissible in the theory, despite our common wisdom telling us that such happenstance is regular in our lives. The coincidence of some good fortune may be from nothing more than being in a fortuitous place, recognizing it, and immediately seizing what fortune granted to the life-form. Misfortune, of course, must be decreed as evidence of personal sin in the Satanic cosmology.

What if it were these fortunes and misfortunes that were the chief mover in natural history, rather than any teleological goal? Once established, life would continue with its functions and this would do the greater work of "selecting". If mutation is possible, there is a way in which this happens. Otherwise, heredity would only be able to reassemble existing "genes" and selection would be entirely negative, or the "selector" would be some primordial will. It is the primordial will—the primordial light—that was the intention of the eugenists, for they presumed that they should hold a monopoly on all will and all fate. Anything less would make the imperial mission a self-evident absurdity. But, the fortunes and misfortunes are not limited to, and probably wouldn't be minute things. They are never "passive" things, as if the famines happened because the fertility god was not fed his quota of blood sacrifice, which was the next thing the eugenists wished to return to. If there is a famine, there are reasons why there is famine, and usually, famines are man-made calamities that were throughout history fomented by deliberate malice of some party. Perhaps humanity would ask itself why its farmers were always at the bottom of the valid social ladder, and why life was so casually dumped into the residuum, instead of believing the famines were caused by failure to observe the so-called "gods" and were divine retribution for refusing to commit more blood sacrifice. Yet again, eugenics—ritual sacrifice—cannot fail. It can only be failed, and if there is a crisis, it is because you didn't pray enough to the thing that foments man-made crises and makes crisis a predictable, cyclical thing. The aim of the eugenist then is obvious—a monopoly on fortune and misfortune and a monopoly on all probabilities and potentials. This is not how "luck" actually works, and it is not something that can be channeled by any superstitious cycle so cleanly. Mammon has known the casino business for a long time and deities trying to subvert Mammon's will meet their predictable fate, if that is the ambition of a cajoler. Natural history is not Mammon's casino where value is ascribed by the merchant's whim. We can insert politics or economics into nature, but both are distinct propositions, and we do not get to insert our preferred model or "total system" ahead of what politics and economics are conceptually. There simply is no "exchange of favors" that can be treated so cleanly as a secular trend. The fortunes and misfortunes are unaccountable until proven otherwise. They are guilty—some fortune or misfortune has happened—but they are only proven innocent, i.e. removed of their superstitious quality, by specific facts of what crisis happened, and when it happened. In doing so, a giant meteor crashing into the Earth becomes a historical actor, if the theory of giant meteors causing dramatic global environmental change is to be believed. It is a plausible enough theory, but here the eugenist invokes the inversion, where heavenly acts are "total and imminent", again playing the Germanic mind trick on the gullible to re-sell their cosmology above what sense would tell us. Each natural crisis has to be judged on its merits and demerits, rather than given singular causative power. Here we probably should consider the "grand narrative" of dinosaurs to be a gigantic "just so story" to place the eugenic creed deeper in history, and that humanity knows far less about the period given to "the dinosaurs" than they would like to know. But, we can suppose the fossil record is authentic and that such creatures existed in the time period described by the conventional theory. There is a lot more reason to believe that life flourished at the time and the estimates of vegetation are much more reliable. We would probably want to look at any historical narrative with skepticism when looking at a scant fossil record. But, Darwin would have read the literature of life's history up to his point, for he was not the first to construct some narrative of where life came from.

The important question I have is why anyone would assume living populations are "total systems" in such a way that they must dominate with any secular trend when the history of recent life is one of catastrophic events? Even when those terrible events are limited in number compared to a daily life routine that does all of the productive labor of life, the sharp crises and terrible events are the most memorable, even though "life conquers all" in the ruling ideas. Eugenism is rife with catastrophic thinking, which is intentional since they seek to impose that catastrophe and naturalize it. The theory of rule relies on catastrophizing everything, and so any minute act is "violating Gaia" and invites disaster if the Great Plan is undone. Yet, these catastrophes never affect natural history, despite their omnipresence. We should recount from earlier the proclivities of the middle class and technological interest in history generally to see why this catastrophic thinking "works". If that were a trend we could see repeated often and we have a model for why that happens, why would that not be replicated in the natural kingdom? Would not these misfortunes or, Heaven willing, good fortunes, be more prevalent in natural history? Would these momentary crises not be more imminent and effective than an abstract notion of resource shortage, which a life-form has many strategies to manage and mitigate?

We have to consider what would prevail in a famine condition or a city under siege. It is not "fitness" in the Darwinian sense that would prevail, where starvation is a fact of life yet the animals blissfully behave "just so", ignorant of their condition. Far less danger would lead any animal to behave very differently than it would during periods of abundance. If the individual animal did not notice by some sense their depleted conditions, the behavior of starving animals around them, who would be part of their mating population, would be difficult to mistake. The conclusion that the EIC clique wants you to believe as automatic is that when pressured, animals turn on each other, "as they should", but this is such a terrible strategy that animals would never adopt it so readily, let alone regarding an abstract condition. They respond first to the obvious danger that is pressing, which is another animal. The other condition is that animals will towards rivals and not care about scarcity. Behaviors of domination and control disregard any "need" to do so. They are carried out because nothing tells the dominator "no". What would happen in scarcity is the reverse of "the strong taking from the weak". In scarcity, it is the strong who prey on the environment who suffer. The suffering of the prey has already been assured. For the prey, their behavior is almost entirely concerned with concealing their existence and avoiding contact with animals they cannot and should not trust. This can operate within a species, for the malice of humans towards their own kind is not a unique quality. But, such behaviors are never "justified", for they never require any justification and the animals certainly make no excuse for the terror. Again, it would not be possible to draw the "correct" conclusion you're supposed to, if the question is one of transitional forms within a mating population. In any event, famine or active predation are exceptional conditions rather than regular ones. The result if they are commonplace would be degeneration and the promotion of cunning over any positive virtue. We know where that would lead if animals are purely judged by intelligence. This, of course, is the central conceit of the eugenists; that intelligence alone dictates reality, and it is intelligence and technology that must be scarce, rather than wealth. Absent a change in animal behavior, the result of a famine or some sudden catastrophe is far simpler. Members of a species die, and the sociality of the species determines what happens in whatever associations they form. Not one species has a uniform "natural association" that is reproduced so perfectly as if these associations were technocratic polities. A band or a pack is assembled with some variation in its membership and their conditions are never equal at the moment of any crisis. For the pack animals, the outcome is simple. The domination hierarchy is established, and this domination is not premised on any virtue or justice of the "alpha" other than its ability to dominate others in the association. In moments of sustained crisis, the domination of the alpha could break down, because domination behaviors are never about justice or a worthwhile chain of command. But, the hierarchy being what it is, the strong would kill or chase off the weak, leaving them to starve, and the little guy does not win in these situations. This is not a rule of nature, but a pathological want of pack animals. Very likely, the lowest in the pack, just like the outcasts of a human band, see they are no longer welcome and will be attacked, and must, out of dire necessity, leave such a ruinous community. Those with an imperious mind about "just so nature" will assert that this is the natural order, but it is in the end those cast out that decide to leave, finding whatever they're going to find. It isn't worthwhile for the "alpha" to forcibly eliminate inferiors purely out of some abstract notion of maintaining an ideological order where the alpha is on top. It would be a waste of energy unless the runt made the mistake of challenging command. Hierarchical pack animals are trained by every instinct to never challenge the hierarchy once it has been firmly established, and so, a desperate, starving dog is not likely to stage a revolution or anything of the sort. If we must observe the behavior of hierarchical societies, animal or human, we know how that would play out, and should not ascribe human motives or conceits that wouldn't exist for animals. But, the animal needs food, wherever it will find it, and will be pressed to do what it "shouldn't" do, rather than follow a programmatic routine for the sake of the social hierarchy; and this sociality, however ruinous, served some purpose for the members. Without any notion of slavery or exploitation in the abstract, a pack stays together because of an instinctive want of domination and authority in the animal, but no more than that. The pack survived because it could operate in groups, rather than an ingrained, programmatic structure ready-made in the animal. It may possess tendencies to respond to authority or tendencies for independence, but nothing of those tendencies could create a predictable response to crisis generally.

So too are the nature of these "crises", or strokes of good fortune, never uniformly about food or living standards. Take again the idea of primitive life, whose adaptation owes much to happenstance over factors it has no agency to control, and whose adaptations would be far faster than a more complex life-form. Very likely the outcome of these fortuitous events is not death but some sort of change, perhaps innocuous, that would not diminish or become "inadmissible". In all ways, the "natural selection" mechanism only knows two values: life and death, which really only entails the value of death. They decide who lives and dies, and say it is "nature's law". This decision must be essentialized and purified, and all other factors in life must diminish in importance. Yet, all of the things life does, and all that would contribute to hereditary traits, do not concern death. Only in those moments of acute crisis will life and death "select". In all cases, the same difficulties with causes and effects on a population in the behavior of the agents themselves, and of any other thing that may be granted agency, exist for events other than that leading to death. Very little of life, as it turns out, is consumed by the "struggle for existence", as if this were such an impossible problem that it could be imperiously granted and denied.

These conditions and many others have been raised since Origin of Species to poke holes in the argument. My argument is something altogether different; that the entire theory was, from the outset, a deliberate power grab, which asserted that it alone could explain evolution, and that it was the first such theory that "allowed evolution". This runs into common sense. Every naturalist since Antiquity, and the null assumption of philosophers and wise men around the world, presumed humans were not a special exception to nature in any way. The language always described humans as a type of animal. Their spiritual condition, and concepts like the soul, spiritual authority, and the evil religion entailed, were not a "biological" question at all. Where "biological essentialism" is granted spiritual authority, it is always the doctrine of aristocracy making a just-so story rather than anything relevant to science or any inquiry into what humans are. The naturalist fallacy came entirely from the dismal science and aristocracy's stake in Empire, rather than any utility of this for explaining humanity's existence and what it can compare itself to. Conversely, there was no notion that animals were "IQ 0" or utterly devoid of a thought process that could be compared to humans. The ancients had no good idea where to begin with dissecting their own bodies, but—bad philosophical medicine aside—most humans would natively figure out the importance of the brain, due to the prevalence of ailments affecting the brain and their effect on thought. Every concept of animal behavior required comparisons to human behavior, and humans honed their own behaviors by studying the animals they hunted or had to flee from. It would be possible for those most familiar with animals to judge animal intelligence and cunning, and see that there is a creature with feelings, even crude feelings. Animal husbandry would be impossible without knowing how to exploit that sense, and most humans became pastoralists or hunters rather than farmers until civilization made the farming strategy one that could be imposed on the world thanks to that novel idea of "slavery". It was with bad conceits about slavery, mostly from those who sucked at operating slave systems, that many of these conceits about intelligence arise, rather than the belief that would be self-evident to humanity at any stage of its development. Who claims a unique exception? Aristocracy. So many philosophical assumptions were loaded into the natural selection theory that it would be impossible to untangle them or keep them at an appropriate distance. Either the theory was ill-founded, or it was deliberately ill-founded and zealously pursued by the imperial clique. The latter is noted immediately after Darwin's writing, for this was the time when eugenics formed and began the core of its "Jehad". It was necessary to aggressively overwrite the nascent knowledge accumulated during the 19th century, itself built on knowledge that had been compiled off and on since Antiquity, and knowledge that had been passed down out of necessity outside of the surviving written record. The claim must be that Darwin was the first to suggest that life could have an evolutionary origin and that anyone else was too stupid to think this way, even though evolution was the null assumption—something arises from a prior condition.

There is a worthwhile legacy in Darwin, for it broached the greater question of what life was, how evolution could be spoken of and the consequences of doing so. It had been accepted by the arch-conservatives of the Catholic Church that humans were indeed another type of animal, and because this is so, it could be classified just as any other subject matter in science could be. The insinuation of Darwin is not that humans are "just another animal, with all that entails", but the opposite—that natural history was political history and spiritual history, and that this origin of species had spiritual power it never actually possessed. It does not take much to figure out that humans arise from the muck, and if a child is mistaken, the grotesque environment of its upbringing says enough. The rites of adulthood and the malice of their race suggest not only that humans have nothing good in them, but humans have time and time again chosen to revel in the muck, never leaving the pig sty—if humans should be compared to creatures as noble as the pig. If I am to denounce natural selection as I must, it is on me to produce an alternative. For many reasons, in the milieu of the present world, this is impossible. Eugenism has locked ranks and humanity has chosen to scream loudly whenever something unpleasant appears that contradicts the ruling power. (Failed race.) The reasons for this are ideological rather than anything necessary, but ideology has persisted for this long, with terrible effects on the world. The only recourse, however hopeless this is, is to continue with a proper grounding for natural history, as we can conclude the institutions are beyond hope, their members trained from birth to revel in the terror. If such a terror were directed towards anything useful, humanity's problems would disappear tomorrow, but eugenics and the Satan only know one master. The imperious decree, deliberately calculated to undermine any concept of democracy, has taken over all other things. The republic refuses to die.

If politics is to be inserted into the kingdom of nature, then it all must be admissible into the record. No demarcation of "human politics" would be granted any special qualities. That was the purpose of writing the preceding books in this series; to render those concepts as something that would apply to any agent, without any bias towards conceits of humanity. "Nation" does not map neatly onto any natural formation, nor does it map cleanly to any social information. The concept of a nation relies on a superstitious notion that we can speak of such a relationship between entities, and that required knowledge of its alternatives and a concept of communication between them that could bypass mediated reality. That implies that the agents act as if others would "mediate reality" since this mediator is always in the end imagined as a human, even if it is given the veneer of something else, and the objective of the nation is specifically to defeat this. An animal has no concept of "nation" or any of the sociality that requires language. But, the animal also has no concept of scarcity or an abstract model predicting its starvation. Animals have hoarding behaviors and territoriality, and they are always seeking food and have some strategy on how to obtain it, in addition to ways to protect their existence from the elements. In this way, scarcity in the environment has some effect on the animal, and while the animal has no theory or scheme to reverse the situation, its behaviors will assert some system that will attempt to survive, if that is still something the animal has any drive to pursue. Perhaps the animal will lay down and rot (LDAR), and it cannot be assumed to be an inner light or imperative to survive that it values. But, the animal doesn't have any conceit of existential crisis in the way we might imagine for us, and its behavior was something that made sense to it at the least. It may not make good sense, but it was able to acquire its sociality and hone its instincts for reasons, and without learning to hunt or forage, the animal's existence would be much more grim and denuded. An instinctive taboo can arise from some acute crisis, and it informs at least the living population at that time and their behaviors. Without language, there is no way to say why the taboo exists or to spread it as an idea, but the animal will learn from the cues of the survivors of such a crisis, before "nature" takes over and life returns to its cycle. Perhaps that cycle will be altered in the hereditary record in some way due to the effects of these crises on breeding populations, but there is no genetic memory for the taboo or ideology as such. The effects of such conditions on animal psychology over the long term would be limited and not last as long as anything humans are familiar with, where historical knowledge dominates what we will be from the moment civilization is established. But, such events would teach animals fear and a primitive notion of tribe. They become suspicious of that which is not familiar, and so far as the animal's personal life is concerned, they learn as any animal would of their enemies and friends. Once set, it is not an association that changes easily—guilty until proven innocent is the law of the world. By now, the animals all see humanity as a demonic race, save the few who are imprisoned and conditioned through a most cruel habit to bend to domestication. That most humans have been effectively domesticated by the same methods and for the same purpose is not something the animal will care about, but the odiousness of aristocracy is something even an animal will see, and likewise, the aristocrat is quick to disparage animals, mostly as a proxy for disparaging humans.

The true origin of nations, rather than any political association or conceit about political society, is found here. Sociality is not a given or programmatic information "encoded", but the outgrowth of these instincts, developments of the agents, their technology (which includes their bodies and any hereditary information about them), and the situation that these agents find themselves in. A crass mind will claim that this means that only biological entities form nations, but the same factors apply to any entity and can be perceived as "nations" in some sense. "Nation" is not a clean type that can be identified or placed into a hierarchy, and so the scientific rigor of such a category may be doubted. In all of the ways, nations would be relevant to nature, and thus be likened to "race", "species", or the technology of life that gave rise to this situation, it is the primary way humans would understand their own history, and make comparisons to other animals. The assignment of "race" or "species" is wholly improper for describing natural history. Races are categories under law or Forms that have to be internally consistent. If someone has to raise a debate about what a "race" is, they have already undermined "race" as a useful scientific category. This is, as you probably know if you read about the matter, exactly what biologists in the 19th century understood about race and its application to humans. It was simple enough to suggest three broad races, which have been given multiple names over the years. It was the "Caucasian" race that was the most ill-defined, and the most loaded with fantastic German racism, the term invented in the 18th century by German academics. It was far easier for someone to regard race frankly when it is further removed from themselves, though as a biological taxon, it was not particularly useful. "Race" was in practice conflated with geographic origin, since the hereditary groups were found in places that were separated by considerable distance and natural barriers. The "borders" of such could be explained without too great a difficulty; humans did not travel too far for most of their existence, and when travel took them far, they either traveled in small numbers or were in large groups fleeing from something. Most of humanity understood family or clan more than "nation", and concepts of "race" were almost always permeable, and usually unforgiving of those too alien for the bigotries of a particular writer. Not one ancient writer commanded a suitable knowledge of geography to declare how many races existed in the world, and whenever this knowledge is updated, race theories would have to "back-date" their discoveries, for this concept of race already acquired legal force in the mind of the lawyers and priests. Every writer could invent their pet theories of how many races there were and their world-historical function, and yet all of them were removed from the most basic question that would define a "race"—how humans come to form these associations by heredity, from which the qualities of a race would have arisen. Here is where the race theorists always invoke more fantastical notions of race and ability whenever they create a vast catalog of who is sorted where, as is the aristocratic habit of deciding what others will be. This practice continues to the present day, in the Theosophical ramblings of maniacs who gave us Nazism and the New Age death cults.

What is it that brings humans into association? The causes are multiple, but the result is understood properly as "nation" in some sense. Nations are not tribes, which are very loose notions of who or what people are based on something they do. They are not bands or direct associations. They are not directly units commanded by some leader or executive force. Nations are the natural origin of the political association, where the potential "demos" can be found, however, the result plays out. The existence of a "demos" doesn't create a state or even a status quo, but it is a pre-condition of any state existing as more than a legal conceit. No state as such exists without subjects at the least. It is the subject that is the universal category rather than the rulers. Rulers really have no necessary function except a managerial one, and rulers have long loathed the very "demos" that allow a polity to exist. But, states recognize subjects or those who would be brought into the state's dominion. If the state is a figment of the imagination of those who claim one, Empire as we have described it is further removed still. Human beings can exist and form associations without "nations" in any sense, but the very act of associating as a band or in some ad hoc formation has a clear meaning to anyone. If this association happened once, it could happen elsewhere, and there are likely others like the association one is entering or forming, and these associations do not exist for any preferred purpose. They exist instead for the same reason individual humans exist or have been able to accomplish anything; because they can, and because they did indeed happen and proved to be stable. For the animal, "race" or "nation" aren't values with significant association. The animal seeks flesh and impressions that are suitable for all that animals do with their existence, and their sense of what to do with any of this is very crude. Humans, though, are very deliberate and, through their faculties, invented generally alienable labor. If labor and economic functions can be alienated in this way, so too can their associations and concepts of the nation, and so too will it be more acutely recognized where it exists. Even when "nation" defies immediate legal definition, it is evident in everything humans do in labor and association. This extends to heredity and a sense of where humans are from, rather than a rigorous legal definition of who is "in" and who is "out". Whatever humans are "supposed" to be, humans are quite aware of the conditions they see and the shit that comes out of the mouths of their fellow demonic apes.

These biological "nations" are the only political and historical units to have an origin in nature. Technological contraptions and institutions belong after their origins are elaborated, to artificial history. Property and the eugenic interest belong not to nations but appeal to the muck of humanity's origins, and so they belong to some genius. Immediately, the genius that brought about humanity's genuine existence and purpose is stolen from, expropriated, and told that they are by definition propertyless and devoid of all virtue. It is the world-historical task of aristocracy to carry this out, and this is ultimately a conceit of knowledge alone and its peculiar history. As for the sundry details that are left to the lowest class, they are all understood by our history as technology of a lower sort, which is relegated in standing compared to valued technology, but which can always be assigned a price tag and contended by commerce and conquest. It is the association of entities alone that has any claim to exist "as-is", and it is here where all politics really plays out. This includes any "politics of nature" that would be the selector of who lives and who dies. How the entities are to live is not wholly dictated by this primitive so-called democracy, because that in the end was never in the domain of natural history. Only the results of the association may be naturalized, for what that tells us. What is really described in the origin of life and species is a very large artificial history and, for humans, an imperial history.

Nations are selected to rise and fall not by any conceit that is imposed on history like war or struggle, but by the virtues of their members. It is no different for any life, however their "nations" are constituted. If politics can be inserted into natural history—and no rule says we must disallow this by some sacrosanctity we have assigned to nature or life—then the only unit that is appropriate for the purpose is the nation. It is not any virtue that may be measured out and dickered over, as many an obsessive have tried. It is those virtues that allow the proliferation of the nation's members, and it is the nation's members rather than an abstract notion of the nation that proliferates.

The nation is not an idea imposed on history, but a reality that histories are made to accept. Natural history has nothing to say about what nations should rise or fall or what they should be. Nature only suggests laws by which nations are governed, and these laws of nature—the true laws of nature—are few in number and follow from the premise of a nation or a society of agents. The agents are by no means limited to life-forms of a uniform type but include the social agents that enter circulation within that nation, such as tools that are reproduced by their members. Nations possess technology through their members, and any notion of "national property" or "national traits" is at first an abstract notion. It is however something we readily accept when we conclude that some nation or tribe possesses some technology and this is a sign of their presence, or the presence of some nation we once understood.

Nations exist in reality, and so they break off from each other, intermarry, and are participants in every type of history rather than a curiosity that could be extricated from a grand narrative of such. Nations cease to exist only when their members no longer behave as a nation. It is not a guarantee that nations will arise to fill a power vacuum, contrary to the imperial political sense which always sees the Empire (for it has always been one Empire that vies for the world, and imperialists recognize their ruling classes as natural allies). What is known is that one does not live in two nations or two associations and remains in either of them for long. Either one subsumes the other, or the two form a third and their past grouping is a historical artifact. In no way is history rewritten. People are not stupid and can ask where they came from, and if they were once upon a time divided into different nations. They can determine when a new nation arose. Membership in a nation is not a legally binding definition in that way, where history must be edited, but it is exclusive from membership in any other without losing the meaning of "nation". There is no prescribed rule for when nations "should" disintegrate, nor is a nation a feeling or sentiment. It is definitionally not "just an idea" or an identity marker. So too is the birth of a nation not something that can be imposed by thought leaders or focus groups telling you such a condition exists. They only exist when the members of such a thing behave as if there is a nation. Their awareness or identity as such is not necessary, though it would be very difficult for a nation to exist among humanity without some awareness that it is a condition.

Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

Return to Table of Contents | Return to Chapter Start