Previous Chapter | Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

Discovery is ultimately a mechanical process rather than an "idea" or mediated fact that can be controlled by controlling information. To weaponize anything as an idea or symbol requires first appreciating that it holds meaning in a real world. A symbol or media holds no inherent power whatsoever. If there is a taboo around some symbol or token, there is a way in which it works and is reproduced, and this occurs every time the reflex is exercised. It is the same with honing any faculty, including tool use. This has been described before in these writings. What I have yet to do is briefly describe a few approaches to "discovery" that have prevailed throughout the ages. This is by no means exhaustive. It is from these changes in how people think and discover facts that the great arcs of history can be understood. It is from these changes to how discoveries are found generally that many naive historians fit history into a scheme of progressive stages, where one follows the other. This was never a reasonable historical convention, and in modern histories that envisioned such stages, the stages were understood to be broad generalizations so that history may be understood better, and the germ of history described the general attitude of that "stage". For example, history might have been viewed as a staged development of social types, from "savagery" to "barbarism" to "patriarchal society" to "feudal society" to "civilization" in the modern sense, and the germ of each was the individual, the tribe, the legal family, the feudal privilege and church, and the rational approach to studying the world, for each. But, the "germs" themselves have an origin story of their own, and here the "staged" view of history would break down. I list these inventions as leaps that were made once and then reproduced many times when such things were viable, and they remain active to this day. Each new "germ" is built atop the other, and never "sublates" or "replaces" anything. It rarely renders an old way of thinking obsolete, since the new way of thinking requires understanding why the old way could work to retain independent verification.

Primitive assembly: The first method of discovery, never abandoned, are the basic mental faculties themselves operating by animal instinct, in which the animal works out some "system" for itself. Without this, there is no discovery.

Superstition and association: An outgrowth of animal pattern recognition when it can store symbolic and abstract motions and possibly communicate them. Concepts are linked to some superstitious, pseudo-theological framework and can be related by stories that the reader may interpret and re-interpret. In this way, complex ideas can be communicated with simple tokens and stored for future use, and this allows elaboration beyond the immediate faculties available for "mundane thought".

Formal metaphysics: A formalized system broken down to rational "rules of thumb", the laws of which are inferred to exist as a result of the primitive assembly of such. The beginning of "symbolic knowledge" as a thing in itself rather than a makeshift, ad-hoc understanding of beings capable of this. It must be remembered that the formalism itself does not "know" or "think" anything. It is instead a way by which discoveries can be worked out by rational models rather than the more primitive models. This can be used to subvert the more primitive functions entirely or fill in details that primitive functions and superstitions cannot.

Mechanical reproduction and reverse engineering: "Learning by doing", using formal systems to hone technical knowledge of processes. The scientist builds a real-world manifestation of its model to test this ability, either as a curious hobby or as a more rigorous practice. In other words, "practice is the sole criterion of truth", in its simplest form. Absent any written language or greater theoretical model, this works to have a real-life example of the concept, which like the theological story, the scientist can reproduce and pick apart with any other faculty. Here, the products of this rational process can be developed further, and this process must happen to truly verify if a prediction "works". The "mechanical reproduction" need not be instigated by a laborious intervention as such; the scientist may simply select some process already occurring in nature as the "model". When doing this, the scientist is in some way making the natural world a "lab" in their own imagination, rather than simply taking in events and noting curiosities for some edification it might bring. The scientist must believe there is a way in which these events in the world work, and not confuse any particularly constructed model—for example, a toy chemical experiment—with the totality of the natural world where this is actually carried out. Likewise, the scientist does not take some event "in the wild" as final proof or suggest that "the real world" supersedes what can be rationally stated in all cases, as if the power of the real world was "just so" or a trump card in the court of science. If the discovery lines up with other such discoveries consistently, this is very useful evidence to establish a formal "theory". Yet, nothing within this process in itself establishes "theory" as an expectation that can be followed to the letter. It is possible to simply assert by a personal metaphysics that this is "just so" and so the scientist has an inflated opinion of itself and "the power of science", but that sort of grandiose posturing is just another elaboration. It has no standing on its own to establish truth and independent verification beyond the scientist's own assumptions about the world and the scientist's preferences for what reality has to be for their theories to remain internally consistent.

The "scientific forum": All of the models built above, or any other method of discovery, will be best verified by standards of comparison. We may work out such systems internally or with other models, but we have one source of knowledge that is dubious but readily available to us: other scientists. We know by trivial reasoning that we are not alone in asking this question, and that presumably every other person asking this question has asked if someone else has had the same idea before. The forum need not be limited to scientists who are like us, i.e. human scientists. All that is necessary is to consider that this process is playing out in some condition other than one of our creation or personal sense experience. That is something more than saying "There is a world in which things happen", but that we acknowledge that other events are playing out besides the ones we have ourselves modeled and that other entities like ourselves can do the same. Eventually, those entities meet each other and engage in some dialogue. I have described at length how that dialogue is immediately terminated in the aristocratic mode of thought. If we chose to, we could abrogate that "unbreakable law" to the extent we want, and actually speak to each other about these findings. In this dialogue, mediation is required, but that mediation is not something that needs to be confined to a type of media assigned by a third party or some imagined imperious arbiter of the world itself. We never "directly and plainly" communicate the thought process to each other in undigested form.

If established, the scientific forum is not limited to the communicated information, minutes, and transcription of the dialogue. There is in this dialogue a genuine meeting of the minds towards a shared objective. That is a pre-requisite of the forum being a forum rather than two or more people talking past each other for personal aggrandizement. Even if the participants were motivated by their personal convictions and were solely committed to proving their own theories, the very exchange of this information allows the participants to fill in based on that information and their own knowledge. This further leads to a process of "collective intelligence" of a sort, for the purpose the forum has established. This process is not comparable to a corporate body or institution having its own "thought" akin to our own. Even if we imagined a hive mind of interlinked agents who were wholly selfless and committed to the mission, they remain separate agents and the resources available to the collective are those agents and their initial toolset. The collective intelligence exists because the very activity of the agents is something contingent on the forum, rather than the mere idea that forums are possible. It is a specific meeting, however, it is conducted, and can never be assumed to exist "just so" or implied as something automatic or "common sense". The members of the forum are in communication with each other regarding the tasks at hand and only the tasks. The collectivity for the purposes of discovery cannot make assumptions beyond those.

The laboratory: The laboratory proper is more than an incidental necessity of building a model. It is a place set aside by deliberate intent that is ensconced from the competitive pressures described in the previous chapter. Where human beings conduct science under pressure, the laboratory specifically is established to negate that pernicious outside influence as much as possible. Institutions, which claim to be the "sole monopoly on research", are always malleable. The proper laboratory for discovery is not an institution or a social value, nor is it simply an extension of the forum of scientists. What is needed is not just a convenient machine for discoveries, but some part of the world where science can be conducted with the minimum of pernicious influence, and without the pressing of security.

Within the laboratory, the scientist is free to conduct science in the proper way that would be sensical to us. Rather than science being "obligated" to seek particular values from some external actor, the scientist does so through whatever genius is available to them, which the laboratory is established to facilitate in the way the scientist needs for particular endeavors. And so, laboratories can be specialized, for they are established not in theory but with the real tools the scientist possesses. The scientist's own body is itself a tool for this purpose when it is in this laboratory. The laboratory ceases to be a personal conceit and becomes an activity of its own. While the principle purpose of a laboratory is non-interference from pernicious actors, it only fulfills this function when those pernicious actors are haram, forbidden to transgress by a force that cannot be inherent to the laboratory. That is the moral requirement of anyone who wishes to conduct science in the most proper and correct manner humans have managed when we are enlightened enough to care about truth more than ulterior motives or "grand narratives" or some dogmatic total system.

The critique: There is finally the developed and thorough critique, which is never confined to a method or a "meme" asserting that it can criticize all that exists. Just as the laboratory is set aside from competition and domination for the purpose of science, the critique and all it entails is set aside from competition and domination for another purpose. That is simply that, when humanity's endeavors are seen for what they are, humanity has to ask if there is a point beyond the dismal science. Such a thing is necessary for science to be on its soundest footing. The critique is not a tool for science in the conventional sense and does not "discover" anything directly. But, the need of the scientist for liberty requires this critique to be established. We have to be able to call bullshit on all of our hitherto known adjudicated facts or suggest there is a world where all of our best efforts to ascertain truth were wrong. Not one can be imperiously declared to be "above God".

The critique is from the outset a personal matter, but very quickly, just as with the forum, there are assemblies of entities who face the same problem; how to call bullshit on pernicious influences, or, if they are malevolent, how to create those pernicious influences. There is no reconciling the critique that defends right and wrong and the critique that upholds proud and confident wrongness for its own sake and asserts that it is "the ultimate weapon". The critique is never reducible to a mere idea. It is an establishment and a school, even if the school consists of one person who decided he or she has had enough of the bullshit and decides to write a rant, like mine, which began from a selfish and personal question, the likes of which you are reading now.

All of these "germs of discovery" are only realized in history, rather than them being foundational parts in of themselves. The world itself, knowing or discovering doesn't mean anything. In hindsight, "we should have known better", even though if we were frank with ourselves, we couldn't have realistically known better at the time. We are too limited to have perfect memory or fault, that is up to the task we assigned to ourselves. That is why we worked as well as we could, when we could, to build every single one of these "germs" to be better. We asked questions about how we think at the most basic, animal level, in an effort to hone this faculty. That was necessary to even grow to adopt the others. We are not obligated to do this task wholly nor will doing it more perfectly translate automatically to better results. We would want to best methods of discovery because understanding the world is intrinsically interesting. It is here where the competition to establish position and social engineering intervenes, for it creates a pressure to need to know for fundamentally ignorant reasons. Hence, "Ignorance is Strength".

Here we have finally seen where science, or discovery, is "the motor of history". Such a claim is an imperial claim, rather than something inherent to nature, human beings, or how humans have communicated. All of the methods of Empire had to be discovered, and so too did the technology humanity adopted for whatever purposes they had in fashioning it, or appropriating it from the world when such tools were available in the vast wealth the world bequeathed to its undeserving residents. However this knowledge was communicated, discovery proceeded with necessary germs that did not have any particular need for "mediation".

"New media" is something of a misnomer, for the very notion of "mediation" itself is a newfangled thing. Simply put, humans in whatever "base" condition they may assign to the entity "human", are finite creatures. We can simplify the obvious chicanery by understanding humans possessed their bodily faculties and brains for a long time before any "other media" were explored in great detail. It is still worth observing that spoken language, and how humans present this tool, never stopped changing. We need only see the change in how humanity speaks in 2020 compared to 1950 to see a world dramatically altered just from how people speak, even if writing, television, the internet, and all of the other media were nullified. No essential change happened to human bodies or their faculty of speaking, as if any of those media were inherently corrupting by any virtue of their mere existence. Humanity could choose to speak as they did in the past or contort and hone their speaking ability to produce something novel. If we observe recent history, the stilted manner of speaking is not accidental. It is taught in seminars, where treachery and malice are rewarded, and honesty is always unseemly and "retarded". Those who refuse to comply with the edict that "greed is good" and other Reaganite faggotry are sectioned off and forcibly silenced. There exists in the America of the early 21st century people who speak and think in many manners, each the result of their lives and the usually unpleasant interactions they have with their fellow man or woman. The same is true of every other medium that human beings use to express some idea. The medium is utilized not "as-is" but by potentials that are discovered by the writer, the artist, the musician, the speaker, and every other way in which any idea can be communicated or gesticulated. The advance of the late 20th and early 21st century is "joint production" or the use of multiple media in conjunction to create the appearance of a much larger system. An individual can grasp this for his or her own purposes and must be able to do so if he or she wants to navigate the world and its dizzying array of lies and more lies to sort through. In the past, speaking was speaking, writing was writing, and the new media like photography, telegraphs, audio recordings, and television were sectioned off immediately, lest control of the new devices escapes the clutches of aristocracy. A deliberate choice was made during the 1960s to abandon this strategy of media control in favor of a new one, which is beyond the scope of the present writing. In principle, though, media is never itself sectioned off in this way. Before the rise of public relations and exacting control of propaganda, this "joint production" could be seen and acted on by the wise presenter. The written word and literacy, long in use by humanity in one way or another since Antiquity, had to coexist with the spoken word and all of the things humanity did with it, and both had to acknowledge that humans were living creatures with lives rather than "information boxes" or "black boxes" whose workings were inadmissible. Ancient philosophers, Socrates and Plato being among them, described presciently the nature of the written word and human action, and these descriptions are comprehensible to us today, despite the denuded "education" we were given. We can comprehend these descriptions from alien philosophers and can ask what someone in India or China thought about these matters, which the ancient writers certainly did think about and write down for posterity. This must always be kept in mind if we are to speak honestly about media technology advancing. Humans use media for their purposes, rather than media using humans to cajole and "push" the world in the ruinous way I have described thus far.

Outside of the faculties of a human body, nearly all of the media that changed imperial communication are "dead media", like writing. The media are inscribed with some symbols and they are exchanged like any other piece of stable technology. Music is living, but records that automate playback of audio are dead; but listening to music is intended to evoke emotion and living response, while "dead" writing is there to be contemplated. The reader can linger on a sentence or passage of some writing and think of its meaning, and such writing can be searched on an index in principle. Music is imminent in its effect, yet it is composed as a sequence, and the use of rhythm grants to music qualities it can communicate that are not present in the written word. The best writing can do is inscribe musical notation that someone familiar with music will recognize immediately. There is then "media" that is indirect and would only be seen as "media" by the trained eye. Occulting, secret messages, rely on this sort of indirection to hide messages in plain sight, in part because this reinforces the secret world of the occult, and in part because hoodwinking those who are left out of the occult has been the game of human communication since the first ritual sacrifice. ("He doesn't know, he doesn't know, tee hee...")

The medium itself says only part of the story. How the media is produced, and how rapidly and thoroughly it can be produced, tells a lot. Paper is not in wide use until the medieval period, placing one limit on the written word. Printing presses are not available until the end of the medieval period and are less effective without movable type and a language amenable to its use. But, all of the media production in the world means nothing if no one reads it, or the media is covered in mountains of digital shit, as we today have seen in force. Today's terror is better described in another book, but for now, it is worth noting that the quantity of media only tells something about what can be produced. Quality tells yet more things. What must be understood about media is that every word, every minute expression, and every grand story, is deployed much like the social engineer or the officer. Institutional documents that are to become dogma and exist in some central location are the "officers" of media warfare, and the mass-produced language is the soldiers or the rabble to be defeated so to speak. The "officer" here may be the Bible of a priest or some document that is elevated to be a scarce symbol of authority and power and reproductions of that document are viewed with suspicion, but seen as a necessity. The "officer" is the standard of comparison that is authoritative by default, so long as these communications happen in imperial society. We can hold certain works or media to be authoritative without the imperial invocation or hold a sentimental attachment to something we read in childhood, but this says little about any sense of inherent authority. If we are to speak of an organized religion such as Christianity, the Bible, the place where it dwells, and the man delivering the sermon, is very important for understanding the religion, even if we personally are not Christian and do not regard the authority of any of these things.

When human beings discover the world for themselves, they are presented with situations that are already established and authoritative. We learn very quickly that Christianity has a hierarchical structure, and so if we inquire further into Christian teachings or where this religion came from, we would recognize the authority structure it presents. Nothing we possess intrinsically grants to us knowledge of Christianity's esoteric mysteries or the secrets of the Church or any particular congregation. We have at first nothing to go on about the nature of the Christian except the exoteric behavior of Christians and everything Christianity produces. This law applies to media generally, rather than to religions in particular, which we described in Book 3. Christianity in particular presents a written doctrine and chain and command unlike any other religion in human history, and so the propagation of media and doctrine took on greater importance for the Christian than it would for a Muslim or a Hindu, and the Christian has very particular expectations about communicating words not just on religious matters, but on all communications. Every religion has some interest in words, their meaning, and the moral value of any communication, but Christianity's interest in this topic is particularly important to the religion. What is the authoritative source for religious teachings? It is the Bible and the established body of men of a church, whether it is the Catholic Church with a formal hierarchy or a Protestant church that relates to other such churches and shares the same doctrinal history with all other Christians. Even something that is clearly heretical like the Mormon "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" is a product of a long-standing Christian society and would be most familiar to other Christians.

This applies to scientific inquiry about anything that is "mediated"—that is to say, what we see is never a "just so story", but something that arose from history. And so, right off the bat, there is an obvious contradiction with "science is the motor of history" just in principle, since science itself is a historical understanding to be science. If however we view human actors as actors motivated by their discoveries, and this is what humans must do if they are to interact with the world in this minute way, we can—after taking all necessary steps and due diligence—inquire into this concept so long as we confine ourselves to the study of Empire and imperial society. Discovery does not move the world itself, nor is "discovery" how humans conduct themselves in all things. At a basic level, humans' motivators can be the same as they are for any other animal, or humans may be motivated by strange things in their private life that only have an effect on this discovery by some process that would make no sense in the imperial framework.

We would instead understand "rational actors" in imperial society to be inherently connected, whether they like it or not, to the dismal science, and this would make the definition of "rational actor" a loaded one, but a necessary one. Whether the people who must act "rationally" agree with the imperial vision is irrelevant. They will be made to abide by the imperial science, even though the imperial science is not really rational or a sensical course of action. Its fundamental claims are irrational and superstitious, yet they are "more real than real". The Empire does not lie about the irrationality of its claims or insist that subjects not think about them at all. Empires can be completely in line with genuine science and recognize the absurdity of imperial edicts. The imperial society's demand is not an idle threat, and we discover that in case we forget what we live in. It is the imperial ideas that are the only ruling ideas, in the sense that "the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas" Marx invoked. Many an imperialist will admit in a moment of dry humor that this really is crazy, but the imperial creature is imminent and doesn't take "no" for an answer. If it must relent from a position, this is always temporary. Unlike a state, for whom faith in its cause is a necessary principle for the state to exist, empires are willing to concede publicly their positions, but never once relent on them in private. They simply cannot, to the bitter end. The state and its officers can, in a moment, disappear by unilaterally disarming. It is not so for empires. "If not us," they will say, "then it will be someone else, and it certainly won't be you." What is at stake for empires isn't just their personal stake, but the very notion of Empire itself. Above all other considerations, Empire insists that you, whoever you are, are less than Empire, and they will fight passionately to deny you existence or the thing you wanted in the first place, even if doing this would be expedient for the empire or even for Empire conceptually. States can dispose of their members or the ruled more or less as they please, but empires are locked into their commitments to remain empires. This is rational and necessary, even though it is absurd and no one has a good answer for why we should regard Empire as anything more than an intrusive menace. It is made necessary by "biological fact", or what purports to be such. If someone wishes to relitigate Empire, they always seek to disprove its naturalistic claims, rather than its political or philosophical claims. If the empire in question has very broad naturalistic claims, then there is very little to disprove and the empire's forward-facing fronts like the state and civil society do the greater work of regulating life. If the empire faces a threat against the very entity that is "Empire" itself, when its conditions are no longer tolerated at all by the ruled, it always retreats to naturalistic explanations, whatever their nature. It invokes the "superior Law" of nature and science, even if the science in question is dubious as the claims of the eugenic creed have always been. The empire itself could alter its naturalistic claims; for example, it could impose an edict forever renouncing Eugenics as unnatural and incorrect. What empires and "Empire" conceptually cannot do is alter the past, however much they make such a claim. They made past commitments to Eugenics (for one example), and the eugenists themselves have lived and breathed the eugenic creed for generations. In that way, Empire internalized itself in the new religion of the eugenic creed and its believers, who were all committed "Jehadists" who had spilled blood for this empire. Such a movement will exist for itself, beyond the state and beyond a particular empire's temporal claims. All of it is rational. Eugenics is the clear and present danger that created our current general fear. It would be crazy and insane to pretend that eugenics wasn't central to the present conditions of humanity. It was a deliberate choice of the eugenists alone to assert certain things about this empire and the state that they captured. To accomplish this, the claims granted to media and symbolic language powers and qualities it did not possess. The greater the need of Empire to cow its subjects into submission by purely imperial means, without the intermediary of some political or social form like the state or some understanding of the governed, the greater the insanity, until it is maximized.

This is a constant when any new media and new message arises, and people find new and creative uses for this medium. For most of history, it occurred in the background, only occasionally described by writers. No consistent theory of communication is established for the public, but they are developed for institutional use in the Church and universities. A great wealth is spent on the arts and humanities to describe language, folklore, classical literature, history, and so on, which would be expected of educated men and picked up by autodidacts and those who find the subject intrinsically interesting. Public relations in the 20th century changed that irrevocably. The same open debate that was permitted for free trade and liberal capitalism would not be permitted for the new world order that had seized the world as a result of the War of 1914. Immediately, the offensive pre-emptively seized any and all media that may communicate anything, weaponized them, and stripped them from the workingman. The lowest class, as a rule, was never allowed any expression whatsoever and would be publicly beaten and sacrificed, showing the exultant thrill of torture described above and throughout these writings. Did Empire suddenly discover that it could do this? In part, that is exactly what happened. It discovered not only that this was technologically possible and verifiable, but that all of their internal rivalries and potential usurpers had been accounted for, and no mass of people were going to stop the insidious program that was launched. The creation of this public relations beast was not sudden, as if the foul mind of Walter Lippmann summoned a daimon out of the void and set it to this great work. Its predecessors had been tested for centuries among the true believers. By the last third of the 19th century, they were trialed on the literate segments of society that took a great interest in seizing power, who conspired against each other to be at the apex of this new way of doing things. The linguistic and psychological treachery required to impose this in a group setting was worked out, and the rules of habitual lying for every medium were laid out. Every book, every tabloid, every vinyl record, every photograph, every film, was to reproduce ugliness and tell the viewer, louder and louder, "This is you". Those familiar with the Masons' habits will tell you this game is one they played when they abused young boys and girls, something they have always taken great delight in doing because they could and it was taboo to say what was done if the right people had the right of transgression. What worked on a small scale to curse and stigmatize "fair game" could be trialed on a mass audience, with those who were non-compliant screened out by this new contraption, "state schools" that the German ideology mandated for the world. In this structure, which is more germane to the next book of this series, many machines complement the media itself, which exoterically presents a garish vision for the human race—and here the human race is understood only as a race, stripped down to a biological facsimile and devoid of its historical context—and tells the people to lionize a ruling class that the laborers despised and wanted to tear limb from limb with a passion difficult to fathom in words. In the short space of a generation, those who doth protest too much against this new regime were isolated and pushed into the residuum, and their meetings were forcibly broken and dissolved.

This is a very short retelling of the sad arc of recent history, which we at this time have a record of and can verify independently. I bring it up here because it illustrates perfectly how imperial "language control" works. Secret societies, taboos, institutions, associations of the well-to-do, and many great games are played. Essentializing the word and the very idea of communication itself as "inherently powerful" was a peculiar (and wrong) advance of the German ideology, and this won it support among the proprietor class and the landlords who above all despised any notion of democracy. The retreat to essentialism is not strictly speaking a necessary feature of imperial language control, because it was never the "fetish object" that was central to the imperial cult, or ideology. It was chosen because of the peculiar fixation on the self that was shared by the European aristocracy, because it was inherent to republicanism, and most of all because it was inherent to Christian understanding of the Word of God and the role of the institutions in Christianity. In other words, it was a deliberate attack against—or a ticking time bomb within—Christianity that motivated the push for essentialism. It was an obvious benefit to the proprietor class and the low cunning of this sad race of Satanic apes. It works on those who are amenable to the promise of something easy, so that they may surrender their thought immediately and without struggle. The rest of us, who do not share this "Satanic" affinity, are made to suffer and struggle whether or not we accept the essentialism. But, even if the game of essentialism were never played or trivially refuted, the imperial control of information would proceed in the same fashion and would make the same claims about media. The greater necessity is that "the system" must be simultaneously obfuscated and exalted so that no one can speak of media about a world, nor speak of media as "just media" for idle speculation. Every piece of mediated information is exhorted to have a "point", and must conform to a stringent ruleset of "how you say it" that is imposed by a thought leader. It is control of the whole process of interpreting and composing messages that imperial media controls do their great work. Only after this is automated are these information transmitters perceived as "black boxes", and the transmission is always one way, where imperious commands are delivered to the subject, without any reciprocal information to the controller being necessary or desirable. Where the imperious public relations officer collects information, it is collected surreptitiously, and just like the rules of the "great game" cannot be stated too plainly, acknowledging that information is collected on you or can be collected at all is haram. The latter is a precondition for the former to be an enforceable condition. But, nowhere does the transmission of so much information in bulk necessitate that there is a watcher that "knows what you are thinking". Very likely, the imperious controller does not care what you think, unless you are a person of interest, in which case you will be spied on and interrogated by other officers than the mediators. Heightening paranoia of the neurotic subject is not necessary, but the image of the neurotic, immiserated subject that "believes Big Brother can read my mind" is projected en masse to insult the intelligence of the people. The true collection of information about subjects has little to do with anything the subject does or happens to see for themselves, and a permanent record is collected by bureaucracies on every subject starting from birth. This is common knowledge, and one of the other insulting lies is to assume that a state will be willfully blind to subjects in the domains of said state because of a pinky promise. It's retarded faggotry to make these claims, but the insult is the point, delivered anviliciously. The message itself does not make it so. It is all that is done to interdict processing of these messages, repeated ad nauseum if one evaluates their own thinking, that makes it so.

In all cases, the transmission of information is a mechanical act. The transcription into the record is another. So too is the sorting of information for the receiver, especially if the receiver is some agency that wishes to surveil an unruly population to control their lives. So too is that crucial faculty of thought itself, which must be interdicted with far more forceful methods than the message itself. All of these acts must be understood with every new medium and every transmission. Human creativity with some media cannot be discounted, and we are capable of transmitting fragments that must be completed with context, either from the environment or something occulted with the intent of subverting the "man in the middle" who would surreptitiously observe our thoughts and deeds, or seek to disrupt something that did not need to be disrupted by these dishonest actors.

There is another calculation made by the propagandist. The goal of the propagandist is to spread a message far and penetrate deeply the target population. In other words, the propagandist is waging a campaign of social engineering. Like any war, the battles are envisioned, and the general does not relent or section off the propaganda act with any magic spell that the world has any reason to respect, just as war does not respect any of the polite limitations certain assholes believe to be natural. The propagandist does not seek to produce mere volume. The propagandist does not make a product at all and is not a producer. All we can say about economics being the study of the distribution and exchange of technology in society can be viewed as acts of propaganda rather than "just exchanges". Similarly, not every word that we speak or every expression we make is propaganda for that purpose. We can talk about something without invoking the incessant hectoring of these assholes, and they truly are assholes of the lowest sort. A propagandist requires victory in the battle or a showing of such. All such acts of propaganda are carried out with that objective or must be for the propaganda to be effective. The innocuous must be suspicious and unseemly. The personal is political. The righteous must serve an imperial mission at the expense of all others. Perhaps the "propaganda war" is for something far less than the state, but all propaganda efforts enter the state's domain and notice. The moment one commits themselves to the mindset of propaganda, they are playing on the turf of the state and Empire, and would do well to remember that. Any talk of a world without the state or Empire has no place in propaganda or efforts that are propagandistic in their goals. If someone sets out to "change the world" but espouses an anarchist view of society, they are shameless and disgusting liars at best, and fags if their sole purpose is to disrupt and interdict actually useful propaganda. If the opposition to the imperial regime must wage some propaganda campaign, they are aware that one needs to be at least a little sneaky about these things. They would ever "disdain to conceal their aims" if they were propagandists and knew their position was at odds with the imperial ruling ideas. Very often, the malcontents in the Empire voice their propaganda not as strident messages or demoralizing slop, but as a simple truth that states and empires cannot ignore forever. The world does not sanction any part of the imperial mission, and what is said can never be unsaid. We have no good reason to ever go along with this ideology, and so, "we continue", even when hope was lost long, long ago.

It is here where the law of sufficiently small numbers mentioned earlier in this writing is important to remember. An aggressive propaganda campaign will claim that it is everywhere, and there are no other ideas, ever, that are not immediately inadmissible as real. But, the smallest objection, if its existence is sustained, makes this aggression untenable. However much propaganda is assembled, there is a finite amount, just as there is a finite number of people. Without direct intervention into the lives of those people, there isn't much a propaganda campaign can do. The propagandist who follows the imperial mindset must assert things about information that grant it a special power. This need not be the essentialism that prevailed in our time for purposes peculiar to the proprietors. The effective propagandists of our time have always known that is a tool for the stupid and those who have always clamored to be good slaves. But, the imperial mindset must negate the reality that they don't live in a world with an infinite number of agents and an infinite number of firms, and assert that the resources of both are potentially limitless. The rest of us are not beholden to that at all. We're not beholden to any belief that there is an infinite world to exploit, because we have long lived in a world where we will surely die sooner or later. What difference does it make if we live 30 or 100 years, just by the number alone? How we live and die is much more important. For the imperialist, such details must be abstracted away, in favor of the model. This is not merely a conceit of the technocrats or the middle class, where looking for the next fad is inherent to their proclivity. Without that conceit, the imperial propagandist faces an intractable problem. They would either have to accept that all of the propaganda in the world won't "change the world" in that ruinous way, or they would have to engage in delusion about the empire's true capabilities. This is where the empire's propagandists are backed by a gigantic police force and legions of enablers, and that is the aim of imperial propaganda rather than any notion of universal truths or universal ideology. However, the imperial propagandist cannot openly acknowledge the true nature of his work without ruining the method. So long as the imperial mindset persists, there will be people who adapt to it and find new avenues of resistance, until the resistance is exhausted or the empire's resources are dry. The imperial propagandist would want to use their resources efficiently, rather than operate under the belief that propaganda alone makes reality. The power of Lie is a power for fools rather than a power that is effective on its own.

The mechanisms of discovery mentioned at the start of this chapter are well-known to any effective propagandist, and they are known to those who are effective at resisting propaganda. The propagandist is not ignorant, nor does it believe that reality conforms to the messages a propagandist repeats. Propagandists are those most acutely aware of the necessity of science to discern what effect, if any, media has on the world. The propagandist sees what they do not as influencing people or human bodies in a direct way as if the word were the tool. Everything the propagandist does has an effect on the world, or some sector or niche of the world where their message is planted. It just so happens that there are people in the niches that propagandists target, and as much as possible, actual human beings or institutional persons must be abstracted away. Otherwise, the troublesome behavior of individuals would make propaganda an intractable problem. No one who is not a dedicated propagandist could keep up with the propagandist's devotion to the task at hand, and this is even more so if the subject has a job and a life that entails interests alien to propaganda and "mediated reality". Collectively, the subjects would fare better, for they have each other as a support system with a clear interest opposed to propaganda. So too does the truth hold some merit for genuine science. Truth does not hold imminent temporal power or political power, but truth is undeniable when discovery is necessary for any effective deployment of technology, and that includes propaganda which is a technological imposition on the world rather than an imposition of will or property. The power of science and truth here is that a trained liar will face difficulty stamping out a truth that is so self-evident that the subjects cannot help but see it. Here is where the hectoring, overbearing manner of the eugenists was necessary. In the 1920s, eugenics remained a potential for the future, rather than what it would be 100 years later when historical memory of a world not dominated by the eugenic creed had been methodically destroyed and we have 100 years of failure to show for the eugenic project. It was possible in the past to point to a simple truth that there were invalids and take that to the conclusion that the invalids could and should be exterminated. We today have 100 years of that legacy, and learned the hard way that there will never be enough deaths, enough humiliations, and enough tortures to make real the intended result of eugenics. Someone who saw eugenics early would have told everyone that this was the only result it could have created, but the eugenists were by 1930 still an elite movement with faithful followers, but less political and social reach than the movement needed to realize its conditions. The eugenists had the law and courts captured and passing rights of untrammeled transgression for the eugenic creed, but far too few had any reason to go along with it, and democratic thought persisted through efforts to destroy the culture of nations and a growing sense of international cooperation among laborers and the condemned. I want to make clear to the reader that the eugenists did not win solely by the power of Lie or because they commanded a monopoly on information, and that victory lay with a struggle to dominate the flow of information. That is a goal for the superficial and those who seek fads. How the eugenists won was by attacking methodically any moral basis for society outside of the eugenic creed. The very name of their movement contained a perversion of "good", and immediately the opponents of the eugenic creed were accused of promoting sickness, decay, degeneration, and above all stupidity. It was enough for them to forbid us from saying a truth we always knew: They are retarded. Having the correct metaphysical understanding of systems to refute the eugenists' arguments, which would allow us to say with precision what they had done to language and communication, would not have changed what allowed eugenics to prevail. It prevailed because a moral view of our existence could no longer be defended, because the cost of existence independent of the ruling idea of eugenics was made exorbitant, and compliance to the intolerable was enough for enough people that the condemned could be set against each other for a bargain price. The victory of propaganda and mediated reality was accepted not because it was intellectually sound, but because it was morally fortuitous for those who aspired to short-term temporal power and gain.

Before moving to the feature presentation of this book, I want to revisit the common view of economic value; that it presents to us as an assortment of commodities and values that were already present, and only by investigation do we peer into the productive circuit that creates these values. If we speak of economics as dealing with abstract values, as "management of the house" must, then this is how political economy would have to appear. Presuming an origin before the evidence available to us, to say "all values are the result of labor", or "all values exist for the sake of utility", does not recognize what we have contended up to this point. The political ideas have little to do with this or that economic matter. The core economic ideas are not historical artifacts, where before there couldn't be any conceivable "economics" without humans. We can easily assign economic values to objects in the past, and assign economic motives to entities that themselves did no "economic calculation". We can speak of animals borrowing or exchanging things in the kingdom of nature, or molecules borrowing electrons, and we observe in physical nature a balance of energy such that no new energy is created. The "economy of nature" has nothing to do with political economy. Where does the latter meet the former, except in the "biological nation", which itself contended with something very different from the later political economy of office-holders?

We can draw many paths from the behavior of humanity's forebears to the habit of office-forming that I wrote about earlier. What is constant for all of those paths is that the productive process is a thing apart from the economic matter, exchange, or any title claiming the objects of the economic inquiry. Production occurred not for these reasons, but because there was some want of labor to produce goods. How those goods were exchanged is a matter apart, and the true producers saw nothing in exchange because their experience of exchange was that it was an unwelcome imposition on their existence. If it were decided by labor, the entire circuit of production and exchange would be theirs alone. The reason it is not has been entirely due to the limited faculties of the laborer, just as any human being is limited. Laborers only have so much time they can dedicate to the management of media. If the propaganda war were purely waged on the conditions of abstract labor, the laborer would surely lose unless the propaganda army were too weak and there was a pool of collective effort for the laborers. However, the shared pool of a collective institution implies the laborers would hire their own propagandists, thus playing the same game. The propagandist does not merely have labor multiplied as if the propagandist and laborer were social or political equals. The very profession of propagandist becomes an office to hold, which is tied into a larger institution. These institutions will always be alien to the laborers, even if they claim to fight for labor's interest. This is clearly undesirable for labor.

Where labor, science, and the truth would have an advantage is simple. History does not work the way institutions prefer it would. The weight of evidence is available with the sense and reason of every individual, and the propagandist cannot command others to turn off these faculties. Usually, the propagandist requires the active attention of people, or else any propaganda would be ignored if it did not speak to the interests of those who see or hear it. This was accomplished in the 20th century by the pressing danger of the general war that was instigated. In the 21st, it was accomplished by the pressing danger of society itself, in which the institutions attack the people openly and brazenly. No such pressing danger favored the propagandists in the past. The people of the past were aware that there was a world, but the war that aristocrats fomented in the past only affected the broad masses by demanding some new sacrifice or outrage against decency, until the great wars of the 20th century could be instigated by the eugenic creed. The pressing danger is never as total as partisans of the ruling ideas insist it is. What the imperial propagandist needs are two things. One is a knife at the throat of all people that can slit the subjects' throats with a mediated message through the institutions. The other is the destruction of the old world and pre-existing culture of anyone, so they are plugged into media that only present degrading images of anyone who is not a propagandist. The propagandist seeks this not just against the subjects, but against their own masters. Propaganda itself and the belief that "this works" have to be enforced violently, even when the true source of power and the purpose of the ruling program is different from the propaganda machine. The propagandist, like any political actor, looks out for #1—itself—before it serves the "greater good" of the imperial cause. The propagandist has to dicker and deal with the wider imperial structure, while the laborer is beholden to no one but itself and those who share a similar interest in the truth and their shared security. Then there is a much simpler asset that can work in favor of labor but ultimately works against it. The truth is there, and it will continue to be there. It is very hard to edit history so thoroughly to eliminate all other potentials, without forcing the internalization of a pernicious metaphysics that makes science functionally impossible. Such a world is ultimately counterproductive for the very propaganda that a technocratic state requires to exist. In that world, propaganda becomes purely "public relations", with the public reduced to an animalistic condition that makes them unfit to replenish the state, save for a few who are trained with just enough to carry on the state's affairs without knowing what the buttons do. As I said: They are retarded, and this is one reason why they are. So far as imperial propaganda has been successful, they have been successful by one undeniable truth. Humanity and labor are guilty, and this guilt is put on continuous display for public consumption. The atrocity reels I speak of as the necessary cure for the eugenic creed already exists. They are directed at the people, for the "atrocity" of small things, where workingmen are venal, dirty, trashy, and given over to every inducement an opium- and prostitution-riddled Empire has to offer. The guilt of the propagandists is irrelevant since propaganda is inherently a one-way activity. When the classes of the propagandists and their masters are guilty of the same atrocities as laborers or much worse atrocities, the atrocities are described as meritorious acts, and the Empire sells impunity to judgment as an asset the favored classes may hold. Above all, what is considered an "atrocity" must be calculated deliberately to avoid mention of a society or a world where there are consequences beyond the immediate and imminent critique. The greater atrocities of the favored classes are not imminent or impulsive. They are carried out with full knowledge and deliberation of the goal, and the goal itself is the atrocity. Very often, laborers are (a) not even guilty of the atrocities they are accused of and scorned with, (b) guilty of things that were the result of the very vices the propagandists promoted and advertised, such as the proliferation of sex parties and orgies leading to broken families and domestic violence, (c) guilty of things where the parties that suffer most are the laborer themselves and their immediate family, scoring a "double win" for the eugenic creed and the fucking Satanics who instigated the great struggle, (d) clearly scorned if they dare say this regime is bullshit or dare to defend their existence as necessary for this society to continue, and (e) the greater purpose of the humiliations and rejections is to destroy the true fount of productivity in the laboring and lowest classes and invert totally humanity's moral judgment of laborious acts. The propagandists and the enablers of the rot insist you must celebrate professions that have brought nothing but ruin to this world as if the ruination itself were the valued substance. But, the propagandist does a job. It is a grisly job, but it is a job every propagandist knows, even if they do not avail themselves of this technique, or see the damage to wider society propaganda can cause. Just as the malicious can use propaganda, the honest and those tasked with public order and morality require propaganda to hold their line, and would require awareness of the malicious use of this technology. The true horror of the eugenic creed and its complete inversion of all moral sense is far beyond mere propaganda. That, I cannot describe wholly in this book.

We may view the economic matter as a managerial one primarily, as we did throughout Book 2. It entails the management of a creature that is very troublesome and does not like being managed, and the managers' intentions are dubious, to say the least. Humans have never been forthright with their true intentions, because their true intentions are either obviously evil or they are attempting to reconcile with institutions that in the main have been evil in purpose. Neither the people nor the institutions can be made good by any appeal to reason or any moral quality they have taken on. If we wanted to do good in economic matters, then the economic problem is a trivial resource management problem, and we would not fret so much about it. That problem has indeed been calculated. Such a calculation would be necessary for any technocratic polity like the present one to carry out its basic functions. It might have been possible for those basic functions to be the extent of technocratic rule, and more of humanity could have at long last had what it had really wanted. Even if many in such a society continued to toil and had little to live for, the great aim of most of humanity was not luxury or some sense of greatness, but security. The calculation for the security problem is simpler than the resource calculation problem because the greatest danger to humans has been humans in organizations and secret societies, the nature of which has always been known to enough people. The "divine mysteries" of secret societies are not so difficult to work out and could be fashioned independently by those whose minds are malicious enough or wary of the evil. To solve the security problem, the answer is simple; humanity refuses to allow publicly or privately the sort of malfeasance that leads to such conspiracy. There would be nothing to fear because the occult mysteries would be laid bare, first as a sad tale and then, when the occultists refuse to disarm, as a great faggotry that we would despise and root out. It was precisely this condition that eugenics had to disallow. It would not take long for such a righteous purge to see the central locus of the eugenists fomenting and instigating the wars of the 20th century, and the benefit of peace between all nations would have been so clear that any state action other than mutual disarmament would be wholly unacceptable. Whatever regional distinction there was between the peoples of Earth would no longer be an excuse to foment more wars. We in the early 21st century can see easier than anyone that the past excuses of war or national discord were wholly unnecessary and brought nothing good whatsoever to most of the people in any country. It was precisely at this time that all vectors of the eugenic creed were activated to make inadmissible this simple truth and opportunistic grasping were fomented from "a million points of light", clawing at the wealth of the people around the world. Eugenics was aware of the solution before it began its "Jehad", for its own program has been to impose the same violence and rooting-out of enemies against the lowest class. These are the two true poles of the human race in modernity. Aristocracy on one side, and everyone else on the other. Anyone who is a running dog for aristocracy gains nothing but threats and lies, and not even particularly appealing lies, for their effort. Yet, aristocracy continues with an untrammeled victory, and the position against aristocracy is nearly unmentionable. It is a crime to hate aristocracy more than it is a crime to murder and rape, so long as the eugenic creed rules this Earth.

Attempts are made to essentialize this oppression as "economic sense", and thus all treatment of the economic problem is axiomatically doomed by some inexorable "historical progress". I do not agree with this. Not the free trade condition, nor the technocratic polity, were doomed to produce any such outcome. They have, as terrible as they have been compared to a sound policy on economic matters, understood that some transgressions should not be made, and it was in the liberal idea that the first notion existed that humanity's politics did not need to be the same cavalcade of shit that aristocracy has always imposed on history. What I hope I have accomplished with these books up to this point is to place this inquiry on a sounder footing, first by elaborating on the trans-historical knowledge of what it means to speak of these things, and then by describing history itself. If we just do all of these things, then there is one and only one persistent source of the evils in economic thought. That is human beings themselves and the "human spirit". Someone may argue that humans are not pure evil or even that humans possess an inner virtue that allows any goodness to be practiced. This is not the place to indulge too far on whether humans possess this inner virtue, despite their entire history. I do not believe that can ever be answered, but all of my instincts and reason have told me that, no, humans do not possess this virtue in any quantity, anywhere. The contest for virtue itself is a reason why such a program is doomed to failure, even if humans did once possess an inner virtue that is otherwise unknowable. What is virtue, except the command of men's souls? Virtue has always been vampiric upon the human project. It may have been deemed a necessary vampirism. The vampires might have had reasonably good intentions regarding the world and spoke the truth. There was, out of many origins, an evil that essentialized and purified that vampirism. Philosophy and the Magian, Babylonian wisdom from which it came is one such origin. I have referenced many of the others. Not one of them or all of them as a sum account for the result of its parts. It was why this terrible program was imposed, rather than the fact about it, that was the missing piece. "Why" is an inherent part of every motive that can be ascribed to agency. It need not be a good answer, and many times the reasons why are simple and need not be mentioned. For something like a grand economic ordering, "why" is very relevant. It cannot be abandoned to the whim of people and left forever unexplained. There is a reason why every economic model is presented and a reason why they are deconstructed or "gamed" by people who live within them. The imperatives are never the whole of the reason, since for most of history, an unstated aim was to be freed from those imperatives of older ordering of the world. We see now what humans did with that freedom, or at least we know so much as they possessed freedom regarding this matter. At the first moment the predatory elements of humanity could assert themselves, they did, and they were able to do so because there was never an idea that spoke explicitly against them. It was all but inevitable that however human history happened, it would prepare for one final battle. That battle is between those selected to live, against those selected to die, once the shifting alliances give way to why the contest was conducted. The only way out would have been to abandon the contest. That is to say, it would have only been different if the positions of aristocracy were irretrievably lost as worldly aims. They would be historical artifacts, and those selected to die would first be granted redemption. Then, because it would be necessary, the entire conspiracy of those selected to live would be reversed. The damned would become the new ruling class, never relenting for a moment for we know what "freedom" did to us, and what it was for. Those formerly selected to live would be given a choice. They can acknowledge their guilt and they and their offspring live forever with it, they can kill themselves—and we would not be averse to that outcome—or we can forcibly remove them. This too, eugenics seized upon and weaponized as their dominant sentiment. We, the damned, had to be accused of the same essential crime they did to us, even though everyone knows we did no such thing. Our interest was only security, and so the guilty would admit their guilt, and we would no longer speak of this failed social experiment. We would then proceed to the world that would have existed if humanity did correct its original transgression, however painful that procession may be. It would be a grim and lonely world, but it would be the correct solution, and it would have circumvented century after century of this imperial virus. We are back where we started when this inquiry into history began, where we can see with little effort the outcome of the project. Now, though, there is some imperative we see at work that is worldly, rather than a vague sense of why this was destined to happen. The imperatives are those that Empire sought. Who and what really made Empire in this world, except aristocracy and those who saw that they could instigate wars and receive for their class unlimited free money and laugh at us? That is what the hitherto known human project is for. It is also a motivation that does not allow any "mode of production" as such, and so, essentializing this malice ensures that, whatever the "mode" may be, the result is the same. The particulars are a minor historical matter.

The motives of most of humanity do need a productive society and must keep the product they have built, managed, or came to possess as wealth. The lowest class, like aristocracy, has little need of a "productive society", for their entire existence has been one where the productive society exists without them. The lowest class is not so much parasitic upon productive society, but wholly disinterested in their fate within it. It would not matter so much to the lowest class if open war were declared on them since that has been their genuine condition and the true overriding imperative of the human project. The promise of peace and prosperity to us is less than a false promise. At times, we have been producers of what little we can be, in the vain hopes that this will make the predatory society go away for a little while longer. That was all we could do, and for that, we were scourged and shamed, while our social betters brayed about their personal virtue or a vague collective goodness that they knew never existed. Their behavior towards us in the main was evidence enough, but among their own, they never could justify their own existence or actions, and when they tried, they retreated to a pseudo-rational excuse or a series of "just so stories" that all worthwhile teaching would refute easily. But, the need for a productive society sobered the expectations of all actors. Because aristocracy produced nothing whatsoever, all of its activities were dependent on producers. The unique product of the aristocracy was, to all observers, the true source of the problem, if any polity is viewed as a grand machine that can suffer from sickness and disorder, and so its removal would have made a lot of this easier for all of us. Aristocracy itself could have been removed, whereupon the remaining work to liberate humanity could proceed gradually, with its typical fits and starts and dead ends. Most likely, in the course of such actions, the lowest class dies out and is not replenished, for the most overt tortures and humiliations are no longer sacrosanct for humanity. Those who would have been "the lowest class" would mostly be placed in the lowest grade of labor, or in some low position of scholarship that hurt no one and gave us something to do with our existence. There might have still been unfortunates who, for no fault of their own, could not coexist with humanity, or whose life-spans were never going to be much or filled with any activity. We have the moral sense to know what that is and we would, without the baleful malice of aristocracy and their fucking running dog Satanics, know a better way than the sadism that is glorified under the eugenic creed. What stopped aristocracy from attaining what it always wanted to do; to torture us all maximally as befits their god and their race? It was economically disastrous for a productive society, and very quickly the agents in society could make the calculation that once the grandest orgy of torture and death began, as it had happened many times before in human history, the formerly valid would be next, and no one was safe except the proudly depraved. Aristocracy needed its right of transgression to be unlimited, and then to assert that all economic behavior is human behavior, and human behavior must uphold the most sacred rite of the race (which would now be understood as a race and nothing else). Nothing short of total transmutation of all matter in the world would suffice for this task, and this goal aligned with the ultimate aim of Empire—the only aim it could sustain above all others, never spoken too plainly but always evident in the actions of mankind. Some feared it and tried to avoid the consequences of such a world, but only the lowest class believed, temporarily, that it really could be different. Any existence that was at all tolerable relied on that.

What people do to produce is not confined to managerial relations. Managers and overseers create nothing whatsoever. Their very existence is pure waste in the productive enterprise, and any competent manager is aware of that. The manager still needs a product despite his or her uselessness, but the manager's role is entirely administrative. It relies on office-holding, and so it is tied inextricably to the imperial system. Of all of the classes, the managerial classes are the most slavishly devoted to Empire as a theory or concept. The technological interest is not confined to managers, but as much as possible, managers within that class distrust and loathe the other technocrats, whose use of technology is actually worth something. The manager is not only useless as a piece of technology. The managerial technology would have operated far better if it were held by laborers themselves, and the only communication between laborer and capital would be for labor to report what it had done so that labor could be coordinated efficiently. Certainly, there would be an administrator somewhere to ensure the smooth operation of this feedback mechanism, and planners who set objectives to deliver to the laborers. None of this required overbearing "management" at all. If the objectives do not line up with what a laborer wants to do or can do, those objectives aren't done, and the laborer would make this clear before any plan moves forward. The administrators would see this problem and not make grandiose promises for the plan. This plan would have been carried out for a shared purpose rather than as an office to be dickered over for petty privileges. Since that purpose is a public matter and not controversial to anyone who would read the plan, there is no good reason why a sound plan for basic things would face intractable managerial problems. People need food, and farmers know how to grow this food. The land, tools, and inputs are all definite and knowable to everyone. The manager cannot tolerate this simple feedback loop. The reasons aren't about self-interest or petty privilege but for the "greater good" of maintaining human blood sacrifice at all costs. The manager's standing was entirely contingent on his or her service to this "greater good" rather than any productive metric. Why, when we are supposedly a "capitalist" country, and the workers are exhorted to produce and produce? It is due to the nature of office-holding itself, which had imperatives far removed from the abstraction thought to be operative. When managers were compelled to produce tangible things to survive as petty capitalists, the abstraction worked because there was a sobering reality that all had to accept. Without the production of goods, there is no society, and managerial waste could not lead to an exorbitant increase above the equilibrium price of a good. Even if this happened in a monopoly, polities were not globally unified and faced sobering effects from war and the realities of maintaining a colonial empire. They faced most of all a sobering reality that their effective reach into the lives of the masses was something the masses could safely ignore unless the ruling class sent death squads to torture them maximally. Finding said death squads was problematic outside of a few disgusting fags, and they are fags, from the downwardly mobile nobility. Workers and the lowest class had little incentive to carry out such a mission that will obviously not pay them enough to be worth the long-term risk; and in any event, workers had mafias to bring retribution to such fags. Aristocracy really does not like us learning of that history but delights in telling the story of union leaders killed by corporate masters as if they were automatic and thus the workers should have given up their assembly. What was needed for the strikebreakers was a type of society that allowed this untrammeled right of transgression, whereas capitalism allowed only the rights of coin and vice. Eventually, no coin is worth what this is doing to the lives of anyone but the predatory, and no argument for the price system survives for long compared to values of labor and products that answer those wants that sobered humanity's evil. Humanity could choose to do the right thing despite themselves, or double down on personal piety and weaponize it as a value unto itself. It was the latter that was chosen, with disastrous consequences, foreseen in advance and not at all a bother for those on the highest horse this sorry race has ever known.

To solve the problem of these sobering influences on human malice, propaganda internalized those values and chose to conduct the entire society as a war. There would be no escape from propaganda. There is no good reason why propaganda requires hoardings and advertisements in every nook and cranny, and no evidence that any of this propaganda boosts sales for a particular product or the entire economy of the producers. Far from it, propaganda exhorts the subject to hate itself and its existence and presents all potential choices as some variant of torture that the subject is made to accept. This began very early in the "Jehad" of public relations—all for eugenics—and it was a marked point that gluttony or consumption was a sin. Every inducement to consume more was an insult to a weakened prey animal, and this was re-emphasized and glorified in the mass propaganda that was produced after the Great War. The chief aim of propaganda, whether it was in capitalist or communist regimes, was to justify the oligarchy and states. How many people are going to buy jet fighters from Lockheed Martin? Does anyone need to hear the gospel that Pepsi sells products when Pepsi can list its catalog and display on its packaging what a prospective buyer would like to know about it? The efforts to build brand loyalty have nothing to do with any quality of the product but exist to heighten "fetishism" that did not exist for earlier iterations of capitalism, where all products were effectively generic and anyone who believed in brand loyalty was a god-damned fool and called as much. The "consumer economy" exists for eugenic purposes, rather than anything necessary for consumption to continue. Even if everyone hated capitalism, people needed products and would purchase them from the producers in any arrangement of society. The monopoly that lords over us is not going anywhere, and there never was anything questioning its existence with any seriousness. If the argument against capital was this insulting regime of informational slop, why could the socialists and communists not say as much, or make an argument against it? No... they encouraged it, for it resembled their own contempt for the ruled, and it would have a demoralizing effect on an enemy population. Culture in socialism was reserved for those selected to live, and whether they would acknowledge it or not, class distinctions in socialist society were stark and made clear in every way they possibly could be made, to drive home what really ruled. For the socialists, the desired end-state was a compliant subject that did no more or less than told, and here we see the taint of the Germanic philosophy on the Soviet Union. While propaganda will always be "war-like" as social engineering must be, it was a choice to subsume all that exists into the war. That was an instigation beyond all others; the final, total, and unlimited instigation. It was, is, will be, and in all potentials shall always be, aristocracy defined. That is the central germ that was studiously avoided because all contending parties believed in the aristocratic ethos in one way or another. To speak against it was inadmissible and all powers would ruthlessly attack anyone opposed to this futile game. Who didn't go along with it was most of humanity, who saw nothing in it, and until the later years of our time, asked why we were made to suffer for no particularly good reason, when nothing would be gained. It simply was not enough for aristocracy. GUILTY.

We continue viewing history not as the struggles of aristocrats to capture the world, but as the interests of those who had another vision. The history of aristocracy is not a complicated one, once stripped of its finery. The names change, and these names are important to remember if someone wants to play the aristocratic game. All of the base conditions that the aristocratic struggle must take place in regard the world where we produce things, whether we think it's for us or not. As much as possible, political actors seek to negate that productive world, so that it does not interfere with the procession of "historical progress". But, the moment something breaks or something upsets the careful "just so story" that aristocracy and politics desire, "history must be corrected", even in the most degraded condition humanity can make for itself. The world did not care at all about this, and never will. The world only allowed it to go on, for whatever reasons it had. Among the things the world allowed was for humans to make their own history. It was the imperial science that insisted it go further than it ever had to and in a most ruinous direction. The world could decide for its own reasons to drop a giant meteor on planet Earth and this game is over. The sad thing is that this is not just silently prayed for, but becomes an unironic political campaign slogan, and it really would be the best solution to humanity's woes to just end it before it gets worse. But, the world doesn't do things for justice. It merely punishes humanity's abomination when it arises, out of some reflex particular to it. , humans did not choose, but humans could have always chosen to reject abomination, and for the most part, humanity did reject abomination. Even here, there could be a world where humanity's commitment to abomination is such that it will only lead to the sad, inevitable outcome of such an ethos because humanity will continue to "change the world" and believe themselves victorious by digging a deeper hole for this and only this god. That is the saddest faggotry of all, where the wheels have truly come off the bus but some terrible force can continue to impose it on the world.

What humans really wanted out of this enterprise was security. Beyond that, they had pitiful dreams which really had little to do with material necessity or cost. A few had visions to build great monuments, but most would build libraries or things that would be remembered because they were useful and met a need for knowledge that had been sorely lacking for most of humanity's sordid history. In any event, the objectives were technological products. Labor itself, though it was important to our well-being when we ask what we do with our existence, was never in of itself a "want" in that way. We would in a better world have accumulated technology so that we may eliminate drudgery and toil in our own lives, so that more free time was available for things we actually would want to do. No one needed to engage in weeks of back-breaking labor with threats of whipping and humiliation for non-compliance. The slave labor system was never particularly productive when it became generalized, and peasants always were most productive simply by being left alone and allowed some sort of life outside of these ruinous political intrigues. The whole of liberal history can be seen as a grotesque stripping of rural peasants from the land they had known for centuries. However crummy their lives had been, being ritually sacrificed for the bourgeois daimons was not their idea of freedom, and urban life had little to offer anyone except a peculiar sadist who likes the stench of human suffering. When humanity attempted measures to allow urban life to be less of that suffering and more of useful products or things that were intrinsically interesting, certain people were always ready to step in and say "Nope! Only struggle for you!" with the standard sadistic grin. What a pathetic and sad race we turned out to be, when even that small pittance was too much, and depriving us of that was entirely a choice because the thrill of torture was valued above all other things. But, before there was an unlimited terror that social engineers could envision and make us abide by, humanity had natively a level of security that no agent could really challenge without going too far out of their way or overturning long-established laws and customs without replacing them with new laws and customs compatible with a new time. No matter what claims and excuses are made for the terror, for all terrors have excuses to be terrors worth our interest, every terror produces its outcomes, and it is on those who inherit the world, whatever they are, to navigate the result of such instigations.

The purpose of this meandering diatribe, repeating things I have said before, is that we know better why the world presents to us as it does, rather than taking the immense collection of commodities at face value. They appear to us as disconnected things, but there is generally a question of why each one of them appears to us. What is truly contested in the modern free trade situation is conglomerations of technology, which arose out of a history where humans had coveted this technology for purposes alien to the labor that forged them. Some thing for sale, whatever it is, is rendered as a piece of technology to be picked apart. The methods of discovery are applied to each and every article, and these discoveries and our interests are never limited to this technology. Much of the technology we would pick apart is not freely reproducible or movable in the way commodities or the products of human industry have been; nor is human industry confined to these small things that are resold in vast quantities. Human industry built the cathedral, the city, the parking lot, the underground network of tunnels, and very importantly for those paying attention in the 20th century, the weapons of war. The weapons of war remain at the dawn of the 19th century personal implements. Men supply their own firearms, which are improved throughout the 19th century in a way that destroys the old world of cavalry or charges of men into the fray as in the old melees. The political and social organization of mankind remains in the 19th century the inheritor of feudal traditions and expectations when it comes to the greater part of human existence. What the liberal revolutions entailed was not an overturning of hitherto known reality, but a few simple questions the liberals asked about this question, and then posed to the literate members of the general public. Dominant in liberal through up to the present day, in a way that is impossible to miss, is the liberal obsession with "sorting the poor", which is to say, sorting the working class into grades of civic worth for promotion and demotion, and marking down most zealously the lowest class as the common and eternal enemy of the human race, inescapable and irredeemable even in small ways that were once possible. There is no divorcing liberalism from its fundamentally "anti-human" core when it came to the lowest class, and the liberals' words drip with contempt for the lowest class in a way that makes even the most pigheaded German blush. The liberals confined their immediate contempt for the lowest class and largely presumed everyone else would be sorted without too great a hassle. This is indeed what did play out. A new aristocracy of capital arose and a game of musical chairs was played, with many aristocrats discovering suddenly that they were liberals by some strange spirit that violated the grand narrative theory of history, if such things were ever operative. What the German idealist held contempt for humanity in general and specifically any notion that anything could be different. The conservative order of Europe embraced the most depraved and degenerate instincts of the order of proprietors, just as they were trained to by the true instigators of events in this new world. For all of these changes, very little changed in the true expectations of most of humanity, and very little changed in the functions men of all classes played out. Humans were still humans, women were still breeding babies whether they had to work or enjoyed the luxury of entering the idle class, and soldiers still had to show some merit to continue being soldiers. Men of commerce, far from falling over themselves to become liberals as the latest fad, saw this new situation "capitalism" as yet another scheme to part the struggling from their wealth and any hopes and dreams they had, with many of the "free folk" defaulting to conservatism despite conservatism's utter lack of appeal to a mass base. The liberals were, in their economic and philosophical posture, simply that disgusting to the middle class. Where liberals saw success and gained esteem, it was not because of any liberal ideology or the excuses the grand narrative theory of history made. Liberal politicians were cunning and capable, when they had to be, of turning to the masses with temporary "cookies", and their political acumen and theory—the correct theory, as history would show—made the liberal into an effective bastard and the most effective evil, if only there were men who could claim such a thing and know what to do with it other than abase themselves to the usual for the human spirit. By repeated strokes of treachery and yet more instigations, a new class arises within the situation of Europe and the world as a whole, and this new class immediately sees that they hold for the first time "master keys" of technological systems, and that none of the extant knowledge of humanity is suitable for the purpose of wielding those keys. By the last third of the 19th century, it was this race for the next "it thing" for seizing power that inquiring minds and graspers cared about, and any ideological pretenses they showed were secondary. This was the time when Eugenics rose, and it is this time where the historical narrative to follow will rest. What I hope to recount is a necessarily condensed history of the world from the very important year of 1776 to the aftermath of the American Civil War. Some will take issue with this history, and I cite no sources. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to consult reliable historical sources, should they still exist in your time, and cross-check them with this model I present. Only in that way can these concepts be placed in a way that the reader may find useful. I do present this period of roughly a century as a sort of narrative with some breaks to speak of niches that only become prominent much later. I will give some introduction to link the world of ancient and medieval empires to the state of affairs in 1776, but I would ask the reader to find those reliable sources rather than take my word for everything.

Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter

Return to Table of Contents | Return to Chapter Start