28. America, the Bastard Country and the Bastards Who Founded It

If we are to illustrate free trade as a historical system rather than by the pretenses of its theory, the only starting place is to examine a country whose existence hinged primarily on the rise of free trade or what is today "capitalism". This country is not like any other country, though no two countries are alike and countries are not Forms that roll off an assembly line to be reproduced arbitrarily. The history of the United States of America is not the history of one place or a nation or a race or the founding documents of the country, but the history of capitalism's harbinger, which set in motion all of the other capitalist "revolutions" and conspiracies that created what bad philosophers call "the modern encounter", as if it were some passive thing that "just so" happened. What follows is a necessarily brief account of the formation of the polity, and many nuances will be omitted. Today, the history of America is made into a plaything of foreigners and grand narratives far removed from what actually happened, and I sadly am following in that vein because, for better or worse, that is what America was made into. It must be remembered that before the rebellion, there was political thought among the colonists and notions of what this land, "America", would be for the inhabitants, who assembled in churches and took seriously the proclamations of preachers. There was scarcely a nobility among them, and the merchants who would take on the airs of "demigods" were little better than the other trash that came off the boat, often markedly retaining the grubbiness and filthiness of their forebears and showing little evidence of anything other than the low cunning of pirates.

The first thing to keep in mind about America is that it is a country populated by castoffs who were all in some way or another the scum of Europe or Africa or wherever they came from. Nearly all inhabitants came in some form of bondage, and the few who were free were the merchant pirates, much like the conquistadors in the southern Americas. In all cases, the American colonies counted for nearly nothing in European or global politics, and the great idea of the colonies was to press "surplus population" onto the colonies, where most of the newcomers would die to disease or the viciousness of the colonists. All that was needed was to ensure that the viciousness of the colonists remained intact, which the merchants and trading companies readily did and as was already a common trait of the English. The native inhabitants of the Americas very quickly turned hostile against the colonists, and that hostility continues in one form or another to the present day, and the natives' hostility would be encouraged by the European masters for its disciplinary effect on the colonists. The new arrivals would, for all of the reasons one would expect, be disproportionately male, and would also die in droves with no offspring. The tightening of racial laws existed primarily as a prototype for eugenics and the creation of a class of permanently rejected males, until the races could be essentialized and form the foundation of the American branch of the eugenic creed. Almost certainly there was more interbreeding than eugenics would ever allow to be acknowledged, for such interbreeding violates every core shibboleth of the creed and legal penalties for interbreeding were introduced early and intensified throughout the dominance of the eugenic creed.^[1]

The colonial project in the 17th century is not predominantly an economic project or an ideological one. The colonies are not designed as economic engines or corporate governments from the start, immaculately formed to serve what would be called capitalism. If they were for economic purposes, the colonies were not profitable nor productive, nor did England levy taxes or do much to administer the colonies for that purpose. The colonies were land that the Crown and Empire centered in England could command in principle, and the colonists were culturally English regardless of their national or racial origins. At no point was there the establishment of a non-English culture that superseded the law of the English; black slaves were stripped of their tribal identities and adopted, out of necessity, a modification of the culture of their masters, and their common dialect to this day descends entirely from English-language mannerisms, whatever inborn qualities their race compelled which are not uniform nor consistent based on readily available evidence, and their common class origin as slaves subjected to laws intended to break their morale and eventually impose brutal, sadistic depopulation. The later United States formally denied an "official language" and discouraged any notion of cultural homogeneity or supremacy of a particular "master race" established from a particular European country. This is in line with the sense the English held about themselves and their origin; the English culture demanded individualism and its founding legends were those of ruthless pirates, warlords, schemers, and later corporate officers. While England was England with a long history that could not be avoided, the colonies inherited the English habit without any strong notion of a particularly English "racial identity" or a belief that a highly peculiar racial ingredient was made fully formed for the country. The later United States during the revolutionary period instead promoted the formation of a "new race" constituted from the desirable elements of the colonists and any new immigrants.^[2] The mythology of a truly "White" race corresponds not to an extant body in its whole, but a purified race subjected to Eugenics. Nowhere does a shared racial or national heritage prevail in the colonies or the early United States. Where democratic ideas invoking the new American people as a singular nation are invoked, the nation as such is united by shared self-interest only, and cultural markers are only relevant so far as they serve or work against that shared self-interest. There could be no "American People" as an imagined volk, but there could be "White" or eugenically correct persons whose self-interest aligns with slavery of the non-White and purification of such a White race so that most of European descent are nothing more that white niggers.^[3] The racial conception does not at any time, up to the present, occupy the apex of the American project and history, unlike Nazi Germany were the race-theory was the only permissible theory or the State of Israel today where the racial and religious conception is inherent to the very existence of the country and must teach its principles for the entity of Israel to be forceful in world history. Whatever the peculiar racism of the framers, it would not make any difference whatsoever if the American project, its ethos and purposes, were carried out by a multiracial coalition or the purported hierarchy of races were arranged differently and arbitrarily, and whatever divisions exist within a race were emphasized to speak of the proper rank of an individual by genetic or racial qualities alone. This is also different from the various caste systems with their gradients of descent establishing someone's rank by a common formula, as had prevailed in Spanish-colonized America, and there was no thorough and long-established caste slavery such as the Hindu system, however much the later eugenic creed clamored for the most monstrous cruelties of Hindu caste and looked to their operations in India as a way to starve, exterminate, and ultimately modify the "residue" for the current terror and its results. In the American notion of race, there is a group tied to the project of the country and a culture that was inherited from history but modified to file off any particular identity politics. One was either purely within that "race" or, by the one drop rule, out of that group. Membership in the race was only politically relevant as the demands of the ruling system wished it to be. It did not possess, in of itself, any moral quality or grant any entitlement. Racial classification may be used to enforce deprivation, most of all towards the black slaves, but it never granted favor or Right. The Nazi conception proclaimed superficially "German Rights" on the basis of volk identity alone, detached from history until such a time that the true eugenics could redefine the nation and carry out a more thorough social engineering program. Because the Nazi conception has been, in so many ways, presented as "default" in the grand narrative theory of history since the 1930s, it is easy for the commentariat to twist history to suit its purposes and derail conversations of how these concepts were treated. In every case, Eugenics or a precursor to it was established as an interest that we were supposed to care about, and this is unique to history after the establishment of the United States. Since all of the modern republics and liberal experiments and their counter-experiments follow from the American example, every country in modernity has, in some way or another, internalized this "Eugenics question" that was posed mostly because a few people who could wanted to do so and insisted we must respect it. We may then ask why it was posed, and conclude that it was in no way historically inevitable or required. It's a stupid question divorced from anything the people, rulers and ruled, would want for any immediate result in the world.

Eugenics, by its nature, is not inferior to, a consequence of, or an accidental or incidental quality of, some other system. Its claims are, once fully established as a civic religion, answerable only to Eugenics itself and form a total system. That total system was not made at once, immaculate and whole, at some time in history, where its practice has not changed. I have written enough about the German ideology and can write more both in this book and in next two books of this series. Its core, its precursors and the wellspring Eugenics drew from, arose only within a historical situation where they were possible and realized their goals. The system of that situation, that government, has to exist on the terms of the world and be able to persist on its own terms. Nothing about the colonial charter or the United States, even the denuded law of the United States that survived in the early 21st century, required Eugenics or any particular racial or cultural consciousness. As mentioned, the law of the United States formally denies that there is a necessary racial identity or even a collective "American" identity. The Law of the United States is an instrument of rule and nakedly so. The Law of past polities and empires was only an aspect of rule, which was invested in the sovereign, whatever its nature was, and in the customs that carried on among the people. The American Law inherits, against its will, the customs and traditions of both their English forebears—the Bill of Rights is a copy of the English Bill of Rights and the rights of feudal lords—and the customs of those who emigrate to America, which are only rejected if those customs were diametrically opposed to the country's existence. So too does America formally deny a state religion, explicitly stated from the establishment of the United States because of the known history of wars over institutional religion and particularly the history of the English Civil War. Its civic religion directly descends from Christian law and custom, but the practice and any and all religions is a private matter and so America is a haven for heretics of all nations. Very little of an alien religion penetrates American institutions without being repurposed or reinterpreted for compatibility with the rest of the system American law and its practice entails. The vague belief, not unusual to encounter, is that every religion is to melt into a singular amalgamate where every religion is contorted to be essentially the same thing, such that a sanitized version of Islam or Buddhism is repackaged, and Christianity itself continued its degeneration into a million and one sects and heretical churches become first commonplace, and then assert themselves as the dominant and new Christianity.

What the United States introduced to the world was, for the first time, a corporate government of a new type. It could not, like the East India Company, exist as nothing but the Company bases occupying a host nation parasitically. There was not at first any host to feed off that had a command structure that was amenable to corporate rule. The theories and conceits of corporate government were by and for themselves wholly inadequate for the purpose the American rulers had for their state and their project. There was not prior to 1776 any concept of an "American nation", and afterwards there is only a novel construct and a gang of rich men with no noble title or standing entitling them to make the claim to the world they made. The Americans are not immediately an empty void to be occupied with a true sovereign, as the laws of hitherto known aristocratic politics asserted had asserted. The men who rule America rule in their own right, whatever their position in the global "great game". There is not after the establishment of the revolution and its security against counter-revolution any prescribed mechanism by which a ruling class or interest is entitled to rule. There is no nobility or peerage from which the pool of acceptable candidates may be drawn, even though behind the curtain the associations at the heart of the country have always limited the pool of candidates, and the law of sufficiently small numbers ensures that the pool of candidates is never an arbitrarily large wellspring of potential from which the ideal men of destiny are drawn. The rulers may establish a clique or means to maintain their club, but nothing about this club can say much for the qualities of these men, and they are upon any close analysis disreputable brigands who attained their fortune by hocking opium and every other foulness of the world. What was remarkable about the United States is its detachment from the past or any religious tradition tied intrinsically to its state that was an overt and public matter. For nearly every polity up to that point, the state took an interest in religion and religious offices, with the religious offices either being state offices as in Rome or religious offices directly elevated at the level of the state with a state religion and the state's support for that particular religion. The religious cults of Rome were tied to the fate of the city and the empire that arose from it, and likewise, the superstitious Romans infused their imperial mission with the religious mission and the veneration of Jupiter, Saturn, and all of the pagan gods fit to join the polytheist pantheon. The imperial cult can be found in America with the same lurid rituals if someone is at all familiar with history and its genuine study and has no interest in maintaining the biggest of Lies, but formally the state is detached from the religion. Instead, American civic religion is explicitly detached from any particular religion and proclaims that someone does not need to join a particular cult or association openly to hold office. The Masonic cult is a secret society that officially allows anyone to join so long as they believe in a singular godhead—any god will do, and the cult's propaganda proclaims early and often that all religions lead to it and, if you are at all familiar with its practice, that all religions are as false as silly as the most overt Masonic rituals and symbols. Membership in the secret society is not a strict requirement for social promotion or political office, and the office-holders may remain in the dark about the true mission throughout their careers, only knowing that there is a God and they will never, ever know anything about Him unless they have the "master key" or some other such faggotry. It is entirely possible for a blessed fool to become the President or stand in high office for decades, so long as he knows not to change what cannot ever change but by the aristocratic power alone (which never, ever changes with any seriousness). Where a religion is the state religion, or pretends to be a state religion, prospective candidates are required to pass the loyalty test of following the correct religion and the correct version of that religion and the correct teachers, and this is expected as the political settlement. While the Christian habit is to do this with or without the state, and the religion establishes a clear segregation of church and state, just as many if not more would find demanding this dogmatism unseemly or a violation of the secular public trust, especially if the insinuation arises over the particular denomination of Christianity to sow doubt about someone whose Christian belief is a fact they can attest to publicly. The explicitly irreligious nature of public office is first observed in the United States, and this irreligious office-holding is a defined feature of the American system of government. It may be taken to a greater extent to demand state Atheism, but in practice the mores and customs of Americans remain Christian, even though the true religion of most of the people is left to their own devices. As mentioned, America is after its establishment a haven for any heretic, including well known Luciferians who are granted the same protection of freedom of worship as various Christians and form clubs, associations, and magazines free of censorship or too great a moral shame. It is, after all, a "free country", and among the habits of the typical American is a penchant for the loner's life.^[4]

These distinctions of the United States do not arise solely because of corporate government, or because corporate government corrupted or violated "natural history". The decisions of the Americans, from its ruling executive to the actions of the peasants and down to the slaves, were and are a response to their situation and a reality that exists in the world. The point of this is that the United States is not a typical nation, and does not conform to a conceit about "national essences" that was a product of the German ideology.^[5] Everything about the United States and every other country in the Americas defies every notion of "nationalism" that could be controlled or quarantined. It is formally a union of states that themselves have no significant culture or history of their own and no independence in their foreign policy. Informally the understanding between Americans is purely one of self-interest and a common history that cannot be denied. There is no common culture or even a common language that is made official. Later American society, especially after the 21st century, was uniquely capable of segregating the populace such that members of different classes—castes if you understand the desired outcome of the eugenic creed—did not speak to each other and could not even communicate to each other regarding basic things. In every other country, a common language and culture prevented this from reaching the maximal condition of a caste society where castes could not speak to each other. Conversely, again owing to history, formal class distinctions for most countries were explicit and established in Law, and never fully went away. The socioeconomic class of the Americans was always the class of the merchants. Either someone had money and was a valid member of society, or they did not possess money and effectively did not exist and could not exist as "real" persons. In practice, Americans maintained an aristocracy and imported all of the class bigotries of the Old World, but it was established early that it was taboo to acknowledge too frankly the true class structure of the society and the imperatives at work. It was also a simple fact that, whatever the conceits of the ruling merchants, none of them possessed any special ingredient or birthright to be anything. Once their family's money dried up, they were reliant on the pedigree of other rich assholes, and these rich assholes betray each other eagerly and for no reason other than because they can. In practice, new people could not rise by acquiring money, without passing through the true path of social promotion, which is the secret societies. Anyone in possession of money or property would be quickly relieved of this property by some pretext or another, and in any event would be unable to spend it on tangible wealth claims for long. A meager existence was permitted for some who would be middling or petty-managerial. For slaves and those consigned to the company town, even these meager scrapes of savings were forbidden. The company town paid its slaves in chits. The slaves were forbidden formally from possessing property or any "rights", except with the master's permission which was held in accounts. Slave law allowed for the slave to be assigned advocates, while the company town forbade advocacy religiously and went further to deny the rights of workers and uphold the rights of corporations and institutions. The psychiatric slavery of the past 100 years not only denies any possibility of advocacy but establishes the permanence of the legal status of political and social insanity and follows religiously "Once retarded, ALWAYS retarded." Psychiatric slavery is a subset of eugenist slavery, and it was the most effective legal vehicle for slavery in the 20th century. The psychiatric slave is not only deprived of all rights but it is a shrieking moral imperative to enforce slavery, and a grave crime to act against the slave power. This form of slavery has since been mandated in all countries of the Earth. Psychiatric slavery, if one understands Law, is inherent in the very notion of Law itself, for the insane cannot have any right or standing in a courtroom setting, with or without an advocate. To acknowledge that undermines that there can be any condition where Law is stable. When psychiatric slavery became a monopoly of the eugenists, this principle would be tested time and time again, brought to its limits until the legal code and society could not abide the existence of any Law, but this is far ahead of our present chapter. Any property of someone in any condition of legal slavery or de facto slave status by custom can be seized at any time with impunity, and this is expected and glorified.

As a country founded on the principles and plans of corporate government, slavery and freedom were at the center of the project in a way that would not be realized in any other country, no matter how slavery was imposed on that country. This is not the result of an empty sentimental attachment to freedom, as volumes of Fabian filth propaganda have always insinuated. If there were a society outside corporate government, it suggests that there is a world where the legal condition of slavery or freedom is ultimately irrelevant for the existence of a human being. This is one reason the Germanic mind-virus of "freedom" was able to spread so easily on the European continent. Europeans had no serious value attached to "freedom" or "liberty" that could be sustained. The question was a moot category and treated as such for valid and invalid alike. The English and British are thoroughly given over to various slaveries and the eugenic creed, and so horrific daily oppression is a standard feature of life in Albion and treated as casually as breathing. For the European, freedom is a joke. For most of humanity, freedom does not register as a value with any significance, and so far as freedom had any meaning, it was established by strength to resist foreign occupation. Freedom and slavery could only take on their modern meanings in corporate government. While the whole world now lives under some form of corporate government and so the question is now posed to them, only in the Americas did the question of freedom or slavery become an existential question for their country. Why would this be so? It is because the legal status of a subject, its institutional standing, is everything. The corporate government is only effective through institutions and command and control mechanisms that require Law to be its instrument, rather than historical meaning or force. The corporate government is an instrument that would on its own terms function as a great clockwork, with any resistance against it impossible. I have throughout these writings spoken of untrammeled Law that is answerable to nothing, and corporate government is an example of that. The holders of corporate governments are entirely aware of what they are doing and the manipulation of reality required for this new brand of legalism to function as an imperial apparatus. The Law of the corporate government is ultimately servile to the genuine functions of Law in any society, rather than the code of the Law as it purports to be or the "spirit of the Law" which doesn't exist since Law on its own has no necessary spiritual or moral component whatsoever. And so, "the object of slavery is slavery; the object of torture is torture". Within corporate government, no meaningful opposition to such an impulse is possible. This is not a blind avarice or a requirement of a corporation. The corporation could easily have been established by men with clear limits on its extent, and the officers could at any time abandon a ruinous Law and replace it with a new policy. Every corporation can only exist in the real world with a charter. What happens when the charter for that corporation proclaims the same faggotry seen in Mr. Crowley's work, where the will of power itself is the only Law? The corporation is a convenient excuse for the holder of the corporation to do what he always wanted to do. It is only ever realized by men, of men, for men, and the conceits they realize. The Law itself, even when its clockworks are realized and impressed upon the world, remains an instrument. The clockwork is, as much as is possible within Law, redesigned to fit the imperatives of whatever system is imagined as "natural" or the dominant system to govern its affairs. The Law of corporate government is a clean break from the past, and can assert by diktat and worldly force that it will establish over and over again yet more clean breaks from the past. This is contrary to what Law requires to be consistent Law across regimes and remain believable, but all the lawyer needs to do is create the thinnest of pretenses to say Big Brother never contradicted Himself, until such a time that history can be edited and a self-serving Lie may circulate and no one can say no to the new Law.

The Law of corporate government must be a clean break from the past for the government to be established. There is no good reason why a "corporation" should have any existence whatsoever, when as a managerial implement it is always onerous for whatever the corporation ostensibly accomplishes. Institutions exist at first out of necessity, for human beings notice a pattern and follow that pattern to interface with the world. Institutions arise and become obsolete, then can be replaced with new institutions that better represent the world we interface with. The corporation is by its nature fixed and cannot change, beyond the injunction of the Law that the Law does not change of its own accord or for "random" causes. For the "Law of Law itself", the "system of systems" or institution of institutions, there is very little the overriding Law says or requires about these institutions. A damning injunction against a legal person like "once retarded, ALWAYS retarded" would not mean anything more than a statement of fact, if the fact is established and relevant (never mind any ambiguity over what "retarded" means in a given time and place, since by cosmic measures, humans are idiotic jabbering apes obviously not fit for purpose compared to potentials they readily can see; if humans at their best are demonstrably inferior to what would be a proper bar for making sound judgments, what does that say for humanity's intelligence on a cosmic scale, where it is not difficult to consider entities far more capable by all metrics than any human or any machine humans can command?) For the corporation, these injunctions are permanent and a going concern. If slaves were no longer slaves in a spiritual sense—if slavery were Lie—it says something about what the exploitative corporation does, and no mental trickery can deny the history of the corporation and its democidal effect on humanity. "Once retarded, ALWAYS retarded", indeed. The history of corporate government and the firm is one of outrageous atrocities committed over and over for nothing more than baubles and the conceits of pigheaded people, none of whom can speak of anything they accomplished except exploitation. The firm, like any managerial implement, is wholly a waste for anything substantive that a human would want. The absurdity of corporate government is that they really think that by crossing out a few words, slavery, torture, and suffering can be abolished and history can be dictated.

This corporate government can only exist if it reconciles with the real world. America itself possesses no colonies or imperial holdings at independence. It holds captive slaves, but those slaves do not themselves constitute a distinct nation and the entire institution of slavery relied on breaking any nascent national understanding of the slaves. The black slave was to the master an appendage of the alien culture, to be either commanded or cut off. When the slaves are emancipated, the slaves do not cling to a "national culture" that essentializes their slavery and cannot establish a nation-within-a-nation of their own, nor would the latter course seem particularly worthwhile for any reason other than the refusal of whites to allow the existence of a free black person. The nations of the Indians are never assimilated into the imperial structure and remain external to it. The relations of the whites to the most oppressed races and nations within their boundaries cannot prop up a society premised purely on corporate rule, where White is tantamount to "master" and a master ideology of the Germanic sort. A nation of some sort is made, but there is no imagined brotherhood of a tribe. There is instead the brotherhood of the corporation and its attached secret societies and clubs. This brotherhood readily finds its fellow travelers in any other country of the world, some more or less initiated into the same mindset regarding government and what they see as their interests. Those interests are never reducible to a singular argument like "free trade", and as it turned out, the Americans were not all ideologues following Adam Smith's system. Adam Smith did not write down dogma that was automatically accepted by all, or even embraced as an ideology of some group as a party line. The party line of modern political parties didn't exist at this time and wouldn't exist for another century or thereabouts.^[6] Economic orthodoxy was even further removed than ideology. Immediately, the new country establishes a plan very different from the classical formulation recapitulated in the revised history. Tariffs are erected, and the first goal of the country is to build a native industrial base, from a country where the largest cities were small, the slave-holding estates held outsized political influence. Like any local elite, the American elite pursue a program for pragmatic reasons rather than any ideological conceit of what the world should be, let alone a conceit that is wholly subservient to the former mother country.

A NATION THAT ISN'T A NATION

The United States begins as a strange experiment; that of a landholding republic over a large landmass with few cities, where the acquisition of new land is paramount to the early success of the country. Cheap land grants to new tenants something that had become impossible in the Old World; a new start on terms that allow a free society to exist and defend itself. This was not so for the non-White inhabitants, who were for decades forbidden from American citizenship. The necessity and fertile land for an artificial union was made clear, and the means by which disunion would be fomented were starkly established by the conditions of such a polity. Everywhere America could succeed, it was inclined towards union of those who migrated to the country as a matter of collective self-interest and for the success of any greater project that could exist in the country. Where disunion and sectionalism existed, it existed not for any real reason, but for purely intellectual conceits about what "should" be, which are reducible to the arguments of essentialism. The latter is the most important to keep in mind throughout this text, for it is the latter I have spent much of The Retarded Ideology describing; those forces, which can be found anywhere we can speak of a society, that have the pernicious effect of spreading by insinuation and the lowest arts of mankind. The union of the Americans was never given to them by Heaven or any condition established at the outset, but there was a far greater reason for union; without union, there was nothing for all of the people who came here except the worst qualities of any colonial society, and the country is described materially as nothing more than plunder and despoiling of the Earth and a doctrine of pure theft. The religious vision of Puritan colonists might have led to the rise of some political consciousness among the colonists, who were in the colonial period given a free hand to handle their local situation, but new arrivals to the United States almost never shared that religion, and the United States was never constitutionally a Christian nation let alone the highly particular type of Christian society that the Puritan churches preached for. So clear was the potential for a religious culture war that the framers of the country's laws knew not to disturb the religious question at all, and up until very recently in American history, religious struggles in the country were never a high political matter for the whole nation. Heretics and heathens could come to America and face no great persecution on account of their religion, and never a state-directed religious terror. Without religion to use as the great culture war issue, the essentialist argument had to cloak itself in something far more insidious and far more in line with what the world would become. What was needed was essentialism in the sciences and a whole system that was utterly alien to hitherto known reason in humanity. Such a tool had uses for much more than the dissolution of a nascent republic of this type. It is in America that such a thing would be seeded, grown, and morph into something truly monstrous, which has been the objective of these books to describe as a global event. Without the existence of America and all that came about here, all that transpired would be a very different story, and it is precisely because the very existence of America is highly irregular that such a doctrine took on the qualities it did throughout the world. Even if America remained geopolitically isolated and disdained any involvement in global affairs, the example of the country was enough to set off the rage of the European philosophers, and certainly the dissolution of anything "American" was the British aristocratic obsession ever since this country started. The British ruling elite had the greatest purpose of all to "correct history" for this ruinous purpose, and yet they could never have done so without the ingredients of the toxic stew found in America.