The core of political life and any state is knowledge of secrets, rather than any natural material claim or any essence that is simply a given ideal or an essence of indescribable power to be accumulted. It is the latter that takes the lead in practice in human society, regardless of whether the claim is made on scientific or pseudo-scientific grounds, or whether the claim is to assert baldly the essential right of some to be masters and the obligation of some to be slaves. It is the former that is suggested after the fact as a cause, when many of the material conditions were effects of political struggle or choices people made rather than something that truly originated without intent. The primitive intent of life before formal thought or language is still an intent, even if dimly understood, and when suggesting a theory of natural selection or Social Darwinism, the Darwinian is attributing to the animal economic behaviors that are understandable in a civilized context and treated as such. The animals or primitive men would not have recognized today's Social Darwinism, but they understood struggle and the thrill of domination, and they could assemble for themselves a world-system and guide their behavior in accord with that. As political life develops, due to the spread of language and the development of not just mental faculties but spiritual understanding, political knowledge without any apparent naturalistic origin becomes increasingly relevant to the struggle for existence and the struggle between states, and organizations centered around secret knowledge become the true germ of politics in any form we would recognize. Political life begins and ends with conspiracy, and the exoteric characteristics of state society belie an esoteric political reality that is only accessible to those who possess this secret knowledge. Knowing who is in, who can be trusted, who knows the secret handshake or the password, becomes the most prized possession of all, even though this knowledge is pointless for any ulterior material goal. Great expense is paid for little more than reputation, but to a political mind, these are the most vital resources when properly utilized, and everyone else is beholden to chase tokens of reputation and status regardless of opinion on them.

Educational regimes rely on the propagation of information and repetition of practice, all of which is read as information that grants to the educated subject a degree or some mark of passing. How it is done day to day is there for all to see - education is a continuous process, and it has less to do with a genuine love of knowledge and more to do with perpetuating itself as an institution. These educational regimes, however they are pursued, are organized around some principle and a core method, from which the more direct communication of knowledge is delivered, the topics of education are selected, and which information must be concealed is clear to those in the know. It is not difficult to see throughout history that the principle is typically political in nature, and this is made explicit with the state's investment in education as a tool to perpetuate the state and the demands of a political class against the multitude. Other forms of education would be provincial and limited to particular fields or particular types of people, but for any person who is socialized, some form of education is expected. This is not just about the communication of information to the student, but the passage of the student throught rites that make the student an adult, or forever forbid someone from legitimate social standing of any sort. Education is never a purely constructive venture, and the educational method as mentioned has been beatings and humiliations rather than anything that would communicate knowledge efficiently. Educational regimes are disgusted at the suggestion that knowledge should be general or approachable at all, even if doing so would be expedient for short- or medium-term political goals. The occultism inherent in education is so sacred a principle that it would be like renouncing the predatory element entirely for the state - to do so would be anathema to the institution in any form it has taken, and contrary to the purpose it actually accomplishes. If we were concerned with learning or the growth of people, we would approach the matter in a far different way, and in practice, it has been necessary to segregate learning - which for us has usually been a solitary exercise or accomplished in spite of any pedagogue's mission - from education and the political objectives inherent to it. Only begrudgingly is any real knowledge permitted to enter education, and it is always biased with the intent of herding the student towards a pre-planned outcome, or a set of permissible outcomes to adjudicate acceptance or failure.

Education can only be understood after the conditions of society under the general fear are understood - that is, when the first traces of the state enter human consciousness and affect the decisions humans make in a calculated way. Deliberation is the distinction between knowledge gathering of the new type from the old type where instinct and crude methods were sufficient for figuring out what was relevant. For every social unit imaginable, there is a course of education and proof that is expected for membership and belonging in the unit. It applies to whole societies, to organizations within society, and to the most basic institutions like a family or a loose association. It applies in principle to an individual themselves, for the general fear of political state society will include fear of oneself, their failings and a question of whether they will be able to survive as themselves in a hostile world.

For the individual, the struggle within itself does not conform to political demands, as if the body were ruled by committee. No individual could retain themselves like this for long, and so the development of the individual is more a material and spiritual concern then a social or political one. Individuals are inevitably formed by the conditions they live in, where they are around many other people, who established themselves and some organization long before the individual was born. Individual humans are born nearly defenseless and natively attach to some parental figure, searching for sustenance and knowledge. A very young human takes in information without a strong filter, for they do not yet know what is what when dealing with people much older and who have been playing the social game for a long time. Infants can hold very little for themselves, and it has long been recognized that childhood must be protected. Eventually, though, it is demanded by the general fear that a child be exposed to the world. If the society does not compel this for some reason or another, the child itself will recognize that their cradle is a prison and that no parent or institution can protect them against a world with vast potential. Attempts to maintain eternal childlike naivete will backfire, and produce consequences that are well known. It is because of the general fear that this is truly so. Materially, humans in the final analysis are always vulnerable to the whole world, especially if they are alone, in their body, against a world where vast organizations conspire and threaten the weak as their daily business. The personal is in conflict with the political, and the personal is in contact with the political so long as the individual lacks that most vital necessity, security. Eventually the political will come for the personal no matter how much politics disgusts the person, even when the political serves no genuine purpose and is the primary contributor to the fear which spawned it. To remain individual and intact means reckoning with the political, or submitting to it and living with whatever it hands to you.

This is the true purpose of "internal contradictions in nature" among certain ideologues. The struggle is not in nature, but within us, between the political demands of an alien education and what we know to be true in our own world-system. It is, in short, a mind virus to cajole, and this has typified the approach of the entire German ideology. It is a view that is incompatible with any coherent world-view, and intended to be so. This ideology, in all of its forms, was designed to subordinate individuals to the state, and through that, forestall forever any possibility that subjects can resist educational intervention. By forcing the subject with repeated failure, humiliation, and forcing the student to recite lies, while an elite is permitted the "real education", the student is forever tainted and made into a fool. The role of the suffering class, and its necessity in the formation of the philosophical state, was the most necessary one for this approach to reach its full potential. No one can actually teach someone through this method of cajoling and browbeating that has become toxic and common across all ideologies. The entire purpose of this approach is not to teach, but to test the resolve. Those who fail to resist the attack were intended to fail all along, and those who see through it may be allowed to progress. Ultimately, if someone who is not "supposed" to proceed through education sees through the lie, the lie will simply be pushed in their face, and the humiliations will intensify until the subject is habituated to failure. This is the Germanic method of drilling, intended to beat out any concept of democratic politics or any sort of society that interferes with a warrior aristocracy. It has sadly been adopted around the world, because this method is very effective at controlling and humiliating large numbers of people, and aided depopulation if it were modified. Even the Germanic model suggested a development and purpose to the drilling, whereas the Galtonite adaptation of these methods was designed for maximal torture and humiliation of the damned. The aim is to present, forever, the individual experience as failure, and the education of the state as absolute and total. By doing so, history is arrested, or as they say, the End of History is reached. This was triumphantly announced during the blackest reaction of the 1990s, and the death march of the eugenic creed truly began.

Every social unit is a potential trouble source until sufficiently resolved. Not one social unit or institution can be taken for granted. Families can be toxic or betray their members, and friendships are fickle things if they are formed on lie after lie. It is in the most immediate social units where the first political consciousness develops. At first, the family, the band of people you are immediately are, is society; it is these people who someone will relate to most of all and must coexist with. Families pick who will lead the household, and the roles of each member. Mothers are known to select from an early age which of their sons or daughters will advance and which will be left behind, and this at first is purely out of a sense of the mother's advancement through her children. Fathers choose their favorites and exploit their children as they see fit. Brothers and sisters fight for position, and in many cases someone is the runt, the humiliated of the family. It becomes a persistent trope in family life to find the black sheep who is blamed for the family's sins and exposed. All of these things can happen within the family unit without any outside force compelling it, but these social units are not hermetically sealed. The basic social units accumulate and are subjected to wider society, because the general fear does not stop at some border we have constructed for ourselves. In the immediate social unit, it is usually the case that the participants know each other well enough and expect to coexist, but within the microcosm of the family relations like slavery can already be seen - just take the black sheep or the dutiful son or daughter and make them do the work, remind them of where they stand in the organization and that it is not going to change. Sentiment in the closest relations cannot be taken for granted, and in the end slaveries are enforced by some direct action, even if the masters are secure behind gates and guards and make themselves untouchable. Slaveries always involve a chain of events to ensure the slaves' compliance. The same is true of systems of control, command, exchange, and cooperation. The social relations, no matter how they are mediated, are always things that can be isolated as events. If there is a sense that society is total and inescapable and exerts an inexplicable force in the domain, it is not truly magic, but the causal chains are obscured and mystified. At the local level, because real humans are interacting with each other, it is not as easy to maintain alienation between members as it would be for a vast bureaucracy to shield itself from interlopers. To obtain useful cooperation or exploitation of the members requires thought that isn't political or concerned with merely answering the general fear, and at a wider scale this applies to large societies as well.

It is that task which education answers, more than any search of knowledge for its own sake or some other motive. Education concerns socialization and habituation to the social unit or institution in question. If someone educates themselves, then education concerns reconciliation with political life, rather than any other goal of socialization. It has to relate to something real that is not strictly political, but it also concerns purely political creations that only exist because we are in a struggle with each other, and that struggle concerns the general fear of a predatory society. Struggle does not exist simply becuase it does or because it is foundational to all else, but to resolve a particular psychological condition life finds itself in.

It would be nice to pretend in education that wisdom will conquer all fear, and the truth will set humanity free, but that never will happen. Power does not care about truth and you can speak the material, concrete reality to another face until your air runs out, and not one thing will change. If we cared about knowledge for some motive other than a political one, education would not be the vehicle for this learning, nor would the knowledge be held by any particular institution. Knowledge of the material world is there for the taking, if only we can grab it; but what is the point of that, exactly? We are not repositories of unlimited knowledge, and we only have so much time for learning. If we are only here to process information endlessly, it is a pointless existence, no different from the computer without a user. Education goes to great lengths to control the information presented to students, prescribing a course of education for advancement. This has an obvious function of developing information that is useful, whether the purpose is political or some concrete task that is subordinated to it, and learning would require such a filter even if it were not education as such. The rigidity of canon has less to do with making the information digestible, but placing students through a course which is presumed to be universal for all passing through the institution. If there are different types of education for different people, it implies an unequal society and status. There would be, in any given social unit, a standard of education which is presumed to be the baseline against which all others are measured. For example, the Prussian-style model of state schooling is the default in American society, and all other forms of primary and secondary schooling are marked as distinctly inferior, no matter how many attempts are made to persuade someone otherwise. The standardization of a course of education is necessary for the institution to exist, even if the society presents many roads to the status of maturity. It is implied in any regime of education that there is a singular truth, which is the concrete reality. We only live in the one real world, and attempts to section off different realities for different people is not truly possible. If there is one truth, then there is a standard in any society for what makes someone a valid adult and allows him or her to participate in the social unit proper. The black sheep or retard of the family will always be left out, and no attempt on their part to change the predicament will ever be tolerated. If the black sheep were legitimized, it would undo the dominant idea of the parent who must be the authority of the household. Everyone cannot be a winner, unless no one is. Perhaps we could imagine a world where everyone is allowed a place, but education as a practice must segregate different degrees of knowledge to accomplish the political task inherent to it. In any social unit, inequality of status will exist, however minute. The question is whether the inequality becomes an absolute, or differences in status would be mitigated such that all members of the unit can live. Whether that unequal status is backed by any substantive difference between the students is irrelevant. If no marked distinction is apparent among the body of students, education would see to it that some marker exists, if only to denote who will perpetuate the institution's leadership in the future. It may be conceived that such distinctions would not necessarily matter and that a society could be conceived where individuals are largely interchangeable, but for education and political life to continue as a process, there are teachers and there are students, and there are expectations of both. However minute the distinction, it would exist out of necessity. So too would the expectation of universal knowledge remain. Without universal knowledge and an agreed-upon singular truth, not only would society as we know it not be possible; at an individual level, our view of the world as something coherent depends on the belief that we are seeing something that others can see, and that truth will not change regardless of subjectivity.

It is here, in education, where the first break between the concrete, real world and a wholly abstract world-system is truly enforced. It might have been possible, in another time, to suggest that what you see is what you get, and your own thoughts possessed a native connection to reality. Education, in any form, must override this, even if it can only work through that native connection for pedagogy to function. The goal of the educator is to impose an alien world-system, and bring whatever native thought process is it shaping into compliance with that world-system. Education does not tolerate individual initiative or contribution, and does not appreciate one iota of what an individual's native connection has to tell about reality. If any individual contribution is permitted, it is always on the terms education allows for new ideas to propagate. Any idea that is inimical to the ruling educational dogma is rejected, declared a mark of retardation and heresy, and purged from any real education. This is a necessary function to ensure wrong ideas or contradictions do not enter the canon, except those contradictions that are designed as a thought trap or a way to suppress those who were not selected to have the real education. Every possible position someone could possess after education is judged by the educator. Education is the first totalitarian structure humanity can truly conceive, and it is the basis for every other form of total society. Without education, the state as a formal institution is an impossibility. At the very least, those who occupy the offices of the state would educate themselves and each other, and teach those officers who is in, who is out, and how to conduct political affairs. Education for the masses is only considered so far as it is useful. Historically, educating the masses was seen as a waste of time, or harmful to the goals of social control. It was not possible to use education to forcibly dumb down subjects, because such a regime would have been rejected, and there was no reliable enforcement mechanism. The only such education would have been through the slave system's beatings, and the cruder forms of humiliation found in early education. This is not to say that the education of the favored classes was going to improve them. Usually, every educational regime in history has left most of the students passing through it incurious of anything outside of the values taught in that regime, and the most educated are the most bigoted and most in line with any imperial project. It was not possible to teach an entirely false world-system that was clearly contradictory with what your own eyes and ears told you. After a point, education that denied basic material reality would no longer be able to propagate itself. Modernity showed the way to make an education that did deny reality, and did so through the methods of science that purported to describe that material world and natural history. Even then, it was only possible to do this after development of technology, an accumulation of resources that translated into energy sufficient for the project, generations of habituation to this type of education to weed out those who would dissent to the bitter end, and a preponderance of state and institutional force that would compel submission to anyone who would dare suggest that it was wrong. Even today, education must make certain concessions to reality. The modern way to engineer this is to build a dual system where concrete reality is temporarily acknowledged, in some limited way that is important, but no wider connection or awareness is possible. Whenever thought strays from its accepted purview or pay grade, the abstrat pseudo-reality kicks in, and programming is activated to terminate a thought that goes against the ruling ideas. This is most apparent when any concrete thought is inimical to the eugenic creed and suggests that Francis Galton is a pervert and full of shit. When that happens, it can't possibly be the theory that is wrong. All variants of the Marxist and Hegelian systems suffer the same disease, because they prohibited any systems analysis that could suggest errors in the ruling ideas or narratives. The final lockout was to import the methods in the Hegelian system of contradiction and mental cheating into positivism and then to a neoliberal system, and strip those methods of anything that pointed to what the German philosophy was really suggesting. It had to be possible to teach what was an essentially Hegelian or Marxist view, while repudiating entirely Marx's work and intent and removing it from any context. This is why many rabid anticommunists will, without thinking, scream about Marxist saboteurs corrupting education, and then pine for economic and political doctrines that essentially call for might be called a dictatorship of the proletariat, where the rightist identifies with the workers and claims he is engaged in a revolutionary struggle. The co-option of Marxist phraseology and methods by the Right is very intentional and had been theorized by fascism's intellectual wing, and their work was suggested by the philosophy of the late 19th century which venerated perversions of moral thought. There were other paths to this brainwashing, and the final implementation of this required the very systems thinking that was alien to the philosophical trick that would be used for the lower orders. It is here where philosophy concerns itself with pure lies more than it ever did, which is saying a lot.

Education always concerns approaches to the world generally, because such a thing is necessary for education to mean anything. An education limited to a provincial, closed-off world is not worth consideration. The education within a family, or within oneself if they are subjected to the school of hard knocks, must confront educational models for the whole society, or at least what is presumed to be "the world". The education within the family is affected by what other families do, and the general competition between social actors. Families are brought into contact with wider society whether they would want it or not. Generally the family has to stay together as a unit to remain such, and is opposed to other such units; the same is true of any band or association people would form that depends on daily cohesion.

Education is not merely a side-effect of state society, or something suggested only after it was deliberated that formal education must be imposed on a society where people before were mired in unlimited ignorance. Education is a pre-requisite for state society to form in any recognizable way, and the first education would be those who condition themselves to perpetuate such a scheme and teach it to others. State society and the general fear wouldn't be possible without a sufficient history suggesting some method to formalize it and institutionalize people. Nothing about the state is natural except an impulse of fear, and even this fear developed only in animals that developed in such a way that fear could be understood and reacted to. The impulse by itself would mean nothing if there weren't a real body and experience seeking to survive - if there were nothing to live for, then fear is just a fleeting illusion and people really would be zombies. Fear is not the foundation of life, but the foundation for complex mind, and the mind can figure out without too great difficulty that a life of perpetual fear reduces to its most base components.

Since the mind typically desires to stay intact, or at least retain some form compatible with life, if fear is made total and the basis for all existence, then this has the effect of proclaiming death is supreme. Such a claim is made by the earliest state society, but it can only be acted upon if there is a conspiracy of real humans acting somewhere to realize it. If there is no conspiracy, then whatever it is that oppresses mankind would not be something we would try to negotiate with as if it were a person. The world, in its actual material state, is not actually trying to kill us. Not only does "the world" as an entity not care about us or conceive of "us" as anything relevant, but the world provided a vast environment and all that went into our natural constitution. The world went to considerable lengths to keep us alive, despite our best efforts to kill each other. It wasn't necessarily going to be a good life, but the failures of life are not attributable to "the world" as a material entity. It is either life's inherent failure, as life by its nature only knows to proceed through its typical cycle, or it is the result of predation by definite actors which have motives we can understand. What makes more sense - to blame the bear that tore through your guts, to blame a causal chain linked to that bear's existence, or to blame "the world" in some vague general sense? The first makes the most immediate sense and would be what we attribute the death too in casual conversation. The second is what we would reason if we had to develop some general rule of what happens when the bear is fed cocaine. We know cocaine would bring the bear into a state of rage where it proclaims its love for cocaine, and we know where cocaine is grown, the suppliers, etc. The third is always a mystification and only exists for those who do not want you to know that causal chain - in this case, the cocaine dealer doesn't want to be busted and would be very happy to obscure entirely an ability to feed bears that will kill people. Such obfuscations are a trick of low cunning repeated often, and this is a way to protect forbidden knowledge through fear. There are a lot of other ways to induce this mystification and take advantage of an inherent limitation in humans to process information.

Keeping the mind intact requires some form of education. It may not be formal, and may be little more than the most primitive stirrings someone made up for themselves, but it must systematize knowledge of all threats and all things so that the thinking animal has a concept of what to do in situations. It must reckon with the material world, and also the world of political animals like itself. It does this when it makes contact with another human, and cannot take anything for granted regardless of its instincts. Those who follow an instinct to trust blindly will see at some point the betrayal inherent in the human race. They remain totally ignorant and incredulous at their own peril, and so the most primitive education concerns real things, and then most basic formal knowledge. Language and basic mathematics must be consistent to be understood - if someone does not know what a symbol means when communicated to another person, they will face difficulty building further knowledge through formal methods. It may be possible to survive with only the rudiments of language one picked up through their own learning, but when learning they are absorbing information which is foreign to nature. There is no "objective" form of language - it is always dependent on what other people are speaking to, and so someone learning English learns English rather than generic language, and there are commonalities in language which are peculiar to humans, and some common principles of spoken language that would be necessary for a spoken language to exist. None of the linguistic tokens have "objective" meaning that isn't informed by experience and a shared vocabulary; if someone invents their own word for a thing, it is on them to explain the meaning to another person to perpetuate that word. Nowhere in the universe is there a metaphysical "objective" dictionary that will decide the meaning of words. There is truth that can be derived by scientific observation of nature, but this is not the same as the words which convey that truth and are particular to people. For the mind to tell the difference between what is concrete and real and what is political and subjective, education is necessary rather than mere learning. Learning can allow someone to assimilate knowledge for some task they had in mind, but education concerns general functioning in a political environment, and is always oriented towards political aims - that is to say, the aims of a socialized person, rather than what our bodies tell us we would want. It is not as if the body will collapse if it doesn't receive education, as if education was genuinely the only way people could learn information for survival. Education concerns a particular approach to information that is contingent on sociality and integration with other people who are educated, in one way or another. The need for education is political rather than something that is divorced from politics or natural to humanity. We could live without education, or with only the crude education we could fashion for ourselves to cope with the world. If, however, formal education becomes a requirement to be considered a valid man, or worse, if education is required to not be killed immediately upon the age of majority as the ideologues of the institution imply through coded language, then education is vital and the price can be set by a monopoly. Since the educational standard is set for everyone in a given society, and that standard becomes ingrained with the state of that society, the price for education can be incredibly high. If someone is convinced that piece of social proof is the difference between torture and a life worth living, they will pay anything, sacrifice anything, to attain it. It works that way in various slaveries and it works that way at the highest rungs of free society. To stay in free society requires the esteem of others, and the moment that is stripped away, the only thing protecting someone is whatever material violence they can bring to bear. Someone resorting to nothing but violence to survive alone, in a whole society arrayed to destroy those who are considered invalid, is resigned to a fools' errand. Even if they win, they're still retarded and will be, and no ruling class holding this monopoly will bend on the matter. If they did, the entire project is undone. The exercise of the monopoly in slavery is far more overt - masters torture or kill slaves who refuse to learn, and the uneducable will be made examples in any slavery. With violence being preferred to material rewards, slaveries tend towards excessive violence and punishments, with callous disregard for consequences. It has long been understood, though never admitted until modernity, that smarter slaves would be far more pliable, so long as they are fed an ethos rewarding their conditioning. Stupid slaves are fearful slaves. The master barking contradictory orders deliberately to a slave does not want the slave to figure it out for themselves - they want a slave who can't get it to die, die, die. Sadism towards slaves is not arbitrary whim but calculated for a purpose, and it is the same with any bully. To claim otherwise is ignorance of the basic conditions that make the bullying worthwhile in the first place. Any education which fails to answer the question that pressed it is not much of an education, and the answers that it provides go far beyond the initial problem.

An early example of education is the rites of manhood, the passage in which wider society recognizes who is a legitimate adult and who will not be, and who will never be. As you should expect, there was never a time in human history where every male was accepted as a man, or every female a woman. The standard of a man or woman is established as normative, but there are always degrees of who is more in the know than others, who outranks whom, and who possesses secret handshakes. There is a science of making deals and trading that is a world apart from the ideal set up, but there is a code of traders just as there is a code for warriors and a code the producers abide. There are of course different worlds, different social networks which abide their own code and standards. In the political arena, there is only a singular standard of what it means to be a man and valid, and all other definitions are distinctly inferior, to be defined by those who are considered valid men. The valid are not class equals by any means - it is possible for a very lowly man to be considered valid and possess political rights. Those who possess a say and any standing in political society to decide what is what are marked from those who have no such standing. There is always a presumed interest in the state, or what counts as such, which will govern who can do what. Who is in and out of that interest depends primarily on access to knowledge and acceptance of peers, since the state is ultimately a collection of people rather than something apart from them. States can only become impersonal if the machinery associated with the state can take on a life of its own, with its own imperatives that outweigh the interest of human state actors. Since historically states were associations of people who exercised their personal authority, the impersonal, bureaucratic state is not something inherent in nature, and states go out of their way to present themselves as human constructs, by humans and for humans. A true state of nature would be callous beyond anything the managers of society today could imagine, and would make decisions that are clearly not in anyone's interest nor answering the general fear that led to state society in the first place. States always begin as the creation of political actors, and only afterwards do they make a rationale that the state is natural. This naturalization of the state must be advanced by educational methods, because it does not occur to people in every case that they should obey any authority let alone the authority of someone who is obviously interested in their person at another's expense. Part of the rites of passage are to attain the esteem of those who are already established, to join something that has a history. Creating out of nothing a new state is not a trivial task and must contend with all other actors in play; and so, you don't get to decide for yourself whether you are a man in this political sense. In the end, esteem is always given by those who have a right to do so. Insisting you are a man to a social organ that rejects you will never, ever work, no matter how much you insinuate that you are factually a man and complied with all the rites. Objectivity or scientific truth count for nothing. Political truth is what people decide it to be, within the boundaries that are possible for them to accept. If the political truth is that human wills can make their own reality apart from the material world you and I live in, then that is what someone must abide to be a man and act politically, no matter how ridiculous the rites of passage are and what lies you will be made to utter to be politically acceptable to your peers. Nothing stops a social organ from doing this, except sobering influences that care not about our thoughts or conceits. In a world where human conceits are by far the greatest threat to your person, this means the sobering influences are few, and the objective of many in state society is to ensure that those sobering influences never stop them from accomplishing their goals. States typically set themselves against the natural world, while claiming they are a manifestation of natural laws, if not imbued into the fabric of reality itself. To be valid is to be above the base conditions of society, distinguishing men from the beasts who are to be commanded. No one can be satisfied with a lesser tier that denies them the status of being a free man, and no slavery can respect the rights of the slaves. There is only in the end valid or invalid, man or beast. That is the key distinction that some form of education marks. Education is sold as the salvation from a natural order, and at the same time must preserve an order that is deemed natural to rule over the lessers.

Now, whether you pass through the rites of manhood or not, a human will grow regardless. There is no turning back the lifecycle, and once youth is exhausted, an old man can only live with what he has, whether he is a retard or a person. A man's desires proceed regardless of what society recognizes him as. This would be as close to self-evident as it could be to someone who thinks about what life and experience are for five minutes. The same is true of womanhood, though for a lot of historical reasons, it is the rites of manhood that are most scrutinized and studied, and woman had been trained in patriarchal society to remain in hidden spheres or remain locked out of the mens' claims to the world. Modern attitudes, particularly in societies where eugenics prevailed the most, is that the woman is prized for her utility in fertility and is the object to be chased after, and the male is expendable. The results of male failure are far more common and more pronounced than female failure, and are made a central focus of eugenic propaganda. It has long been the case that a significant fraction of the male populace would fail at both the mating game and the game of social advancement, and this had become institutionalized in every society. The period in modernity where working-class men were likely to live at a higher standard than their ancestors was an anomaly, and this period is not what it was purported to be in 21st century retellings of the modern golden ages.

Arresting humans in social childhood was not just a temporary measure, where the age of manhood increased to 18, from around 14 or 15 as would be typical. It would always be a measure of society to with-hold the esteem of manhood, and qualify it based on certain criteria, such that all men are not equal socially or in actual political sense. All esteem given by others can be taken away at any time by a simple conspiracy, and you can shout until your face is blue that you're a man, but in total competition, if it is useful for a ruling faction or a mob of people to believe you're a child, then you become a child in social standing and will be treated like such. Humiliations and denigrations are as common as dirt, and grossly unequal societies like ours which exaggerate the social distinctions between supposed equals employ humiliation calculated to destroy someone with little more than the word go. By first setting the age of majority to 18 or 21, then extending that further by making college the "true manhood", and then trapping many who pass through the rites of education such that they never actually pass as "real men", childhood is effectively permanent. Every attitude of the dominant technocrats insults the intelligence of the people beyond even the low standards expected of them, always driving them lower with the goal of outright enslavement and utter domination of the scientists and experts against those cast out. To those in the politically relevant groups, all who are outside of the group are less than children, and they will often treat people as less than animals. The eugenic creed, by its own admissions, views anyone outside of the eugenic faithful as vermin to be tortured infinitely, and eugenics could never have operated on any other principle. This is not a new game, but eugenics applied it to the vast majority of humanity and made this judgement total and inescapable. Ruling classes have always despised the lowers and treated them as less than animals, but their ability to invade private life was always limited and at some level rulers understood that their people needed some mobility to be of any use. Eugenics not only could envision a world of absolute suffering and terror and glorify it as an ideal, but had every reason to do this and a stated aim of extermination from the outset, declaring its intentions with a violence difficult to fathom before its rise. Past rulers could only manage a chaotic violence and largely coasted on the ignorance and impotence of people to change their lot. Eugenics as a movement was extremely violent and adapted to industrial bourgeois society, finding its home in particular classes who saw the potential for an invasion and "pleasure" for themselves that was not technologically possible, and the need to command utterly the processes which would lead such machinery into their hands and disallow forever anything that would tell them no. Past ruling classes could, at some point, reckon with the failure of their social orders and accept that they were as mortal as anyone else. The eugenists can never acknowledge a single failure, and from the start their movement edited history and revelled in a Satanic degree of lying and cruelty, adopting Luciferian imagery and a conspiracy of terror as its first great move into relevance.

In any time, the rites are never what they appear, and if those who own society simply do not like you, you will never, ever win. The cycle of rejection, once started, can never stop. If it does, the entire enterprise is undone. Promises of redemption are dangled in front of the desperate, but they are always lies and the decision was made a long time ago. Attempts are always made to pretend that the rites don't matter for old buddies and those who were "supposed" to win, while no redemption is possible for those who were selected to fail and rejected. It was always a lie. On what basis is the decision actually made? It is made on what is expedient, because social proof is something valuable to hold against another person, so they can be manipulated into behaviors without any cost to the holder of social proof. It is based on the sentiments of those who hold the proof, and the biases and bigotries they hold. It is based on a sense of identity of themselves as a thing apart from the rest of the world, with an understanding that the social club cannot be too large or inclusive, or else it loses its allure. These motives are always taken for granted and simply stated as "just the way things are", and explaining anything about them is a great taboo. You know who rules by knowing who you are not allowed to criticize or even reference. The rites are, in the end, meaningless displays. None of it is based on anything real, and you could accomplish the meaningful functions of the rituals without the social proof or watchful eye of another, if you were honest with yourself. Most of the things tested are absurd and pointless if someone were to step away and think about them for five minutes, or were engineered specifically to obligate people to compromise themselves. Usually ritual humiliations are part of the passage of any education, for no other reason than to extract some suffering and weed out anyone who defies such a dictate. It doesn't serve any purpose, and that's the point. It is a way for the holders of the institution to mark members of society and constrain where they can go, and it never stops.

This is, of course, education and the rites in their purest form - the intention of the rites, and why they exist. If it were about construction of character or selecting on the basis of merit who was worthy, the rites of learning would be very different and would not place an inflated value on esteem. Esteem matters not at all for the real development of a human being. The lowliest scum of humanity in social proof develops in his or her space just as anyone else does. It is necessary for education to impart a belief that the scum of humanity deserve to be humiliated, and that they are children no matter what a material analysis of their conditions would say. If the material analysis shows that the child is capable of anything at all, education must eliminate that child, as it violates the core principles and the purpose of the rites of initiation. Education exists purely to filter out those who violate the integrity of the institution, and whatever learning takes place is always in favor of the institution's perpetuation. Education in practice cannot meet this pure expectation, but always in educational institutions there is a drive to attain its purest form - which is to say, a purely predatory institution concerned with rule and answering a political question, rather than anything we would regard as good or constructive. It is for this reason that education, in any form, is a hotbed of opportunists who will resort to every predatory trick and lie available to derail genuine learning, and why education presents learning as an endless struggle against arbitrary authority, like Sisyphus pushing a rock for eternity. It is why education and the rituals of cults emphasize the eternal struggle moreso than it actually exists in the world, and even moreso than those who subscribe to a cruder belief that violence is the supreme authority. Eternal struggle in education is not merely a self-serving myth to justify appeal to the basest instincts. It is the fulfillment of its core function, and necessary for the institutions of education to continue as they have. The purest form of the rites and cults of education is self-destructive and consumes all material around it, and this is recognized by the cults. The approach to resolve this problem may vary based on the kind of education provided; some will present the educated as the rightful stewards of the land and economic life, others will create a lie that infinite abundance is possible in an imagined world that never arrives, others still will emphasize the right of greed and the most degenerated imperious instincts in mankind to rule and create all manner of excuses as to why this is moral and just. Never can the institution make a genuine retreat from its core positions, even if the truth were acknowledged. If the truth is acknolwedged, it is treated either as a mystical truth imbued in all reality that cannot change, or it is stated with smug superiority and all who object to being treated this way are retarded, insane, and invalid in all things. Failure of the cult of education is always a temporary measure, and the former elites regroup and seek to insinuate themselves in a new way. If they themselves cannot do this, it becomes imperative to their sense of themselves to suggest that the cult of education and its predatory behavior will persist among the successors, such that society doesn't really change, and eventually the same interests regroup. Those who possess the virtue they stole from the world recognize each other and their shared interest, even if their material interests are diametrically opposed. To surrender that is to surrender the entire enterprise and open the gates to a reckoning they will never accept, and the collective rage of all who have been damned and rejected.

This is not a very sound plan if it is laid bare for all to see, and the cult of education knows that at some level they are obligated to material reality to sustain themselves. They need food and water just as any other human would, and they need the material means to impose their thought-form on the world and new subjects. Even if they recognize the predatory core in their institution, and they usually do, they must go to lengths to present this predation as good, necessary, or inevitable, or they must celebrate evil by claiming that evil doesn't exist, and what is good is what is strong and what is bad is what is weak. The last of these was the solution for most of human history - concepts of good were presumed to spawn from what was strong and what was effective for imperium, the power over life and death. The idea that education was about learning at all is a newfangled thing, and never actually believed - education as it existed in the past was acknowledged as a way to social proof and status, and one of the values taught was explicit incuriosity and a disdain for science and the material world. Even in progressive circles, genuine curiosity is disdained and seen as retarded, incurably so if curiosity leads to questioning the dominant mores of today. This is even more exaggerated in the education of rulers, who always default to an appeal to tradition and a faith in eternal rule, no matter how ludicrous the claim may be.

Every rite of education had to stand up to scrutiny in the material world if it was to survive, just as people individually must reckon with the material world. There is no way around this. To protect the rites and the institution, it was necessary to claim that education was the sole path to command the material world, and that any native connection someone had to the world was no longer valid. If the rites of education were spat on with proper contempt, they would not possess the hold that they do. Nowhere are the rites of education pure or concerned with a contented search for knowledge. Every educational scheme that is relevant must insist that it is the only way to knowledge, and must monopolize it as much as possible. This has been successful largely because independent people have limited means to propagate knowledge or develop it independently, and because thinkers in communication will build a repository and check against other ideas for comparison. Individually, humans would reinvent the wheel, and because individual human capacities are limited by time if nothing else, this means that individually humans do not get far. They only attain an overall improvement in the state of knowledge off the backs of their predecessors. Knowledge that might be considered scientific was, in the past, almost an afterthought. The important education was in how to be a man, a warrior, a mother, the rites of prostitution that were a key divergence in civilization from what would have existed before. Scientific knowledge for the day was fairly common, limited more by a lack of suitable media than any program of forced ignorance. Human beings are, in nature, incurious creatures, because they did not evolve with a drive towards science or technology. Human rational faculties are an accident of evolution, only developed so far as they served the goals of survival and competition. Those with time to delve into scientific mysteries were typically cast-offs or those who didn't have anything else to do, often being rejected from political life. If they were men of status, they were typically secure from predation due to holdings in wealth and slaves that would fight for them, or their intellectual pursuit was in the ruling arts with science a secondary concern. Nothing about the Greeks or Romans suggested that they cared about science beyond what it could be applied to for gain. A sustained theory of science as something independent from philosophy and the ruling arts did not exist, and so far as it did, it was seen more among the educated slaves and conquered peoples than among elites. Science did not possess the spiritual authority it would in modernity, and ruling attitudes towards science was that it was something to be suppressed. The same attitudes are present in the rest of the world, in one way or another. Elaborate pseudosciences could be developed specifically to retard understanding. Alchemists, herbologists, physicians, and the like were notorious for hiding their secrets behind a veil of mystification, specifically because they recognized the value of their talents and the danger of knowledge spreading. If the knowledge was not held in occult hands, it would reduce the value of talents in medicine, and simplify knowledge. If knowledge became general, various scams involving pseudoscience could not be sold. One of the worst fates for the cult of education would be for scientific knowledge to become general, and the ordinary people and slaves seeing just how much they were lied to and the litany of atrocities committed against them. Knowledge of the atrocities of early science was known enough that ordinary people distrusted science. It was the obligation of the ruling arts to spread the idea that science as a process was at fault, and that ignorance was strength. This was the first of the founding trifecta of doublethink to truly make itself known - "Ignorance is Strength". The second to arise, "Freedom is Slavery", would arise in Antiquity as a formal theory. The third and the necessary ingredient to make the hypocrisy total, was only possible in modernity, when control over material processes advanced enough that it was conceivable to control struggle and cajole people to attack each other - and so, "War is Peace". The contempt for material knowledge and especially any connection of the invalid mind to reality was the first step, and that was built into the general fear and the theory of the state in its most primitive form. It would be reproduced in education daily, from mothers selecting which of their sons and daughters were to be damned to rulers' bullying and the cult of fear and terror that became almost automatic in humanity. It did not take much to systematize deception and cruelty and make that the primary educational tool. Only out of necessity did education involve tangible knowledge, always disseminated in the most limited way possible to ensure the student never exceeded the master unless selected to perpetuate the educational ideology. The worst thing for a pedagogue is for someone to actually "figure it out for themselves" and reject the way their elders taught as an obvious effort to hold back the unwanted. Even those selected for success are rarely given tools to exceed their forebears or operate independently. The cult of education only seeks to perpetuate itself indefinitely, and anything that is too dynamic or critical would up-end the cult altogether, leading the actual human beings to ask why they did any of this and if there was a better way - specifically, a way that didn't involve <i>them</i>, who had lorded over them since time immemorial.

Education is not a service, but an obligation placed on members of society. Whether you pass through formal rites or not, it is there because it is expected. The expectations cannot be completely arbitrary, but the holders of the institution will decide in the end what they want. They are only beholden to the conditions they must operate in if they want to be a going concern, and that only obligates them to operate at the barest minimum necessary to perpetuate themselves. Even if the matter were taken entirely into our own hands, we individually are forced to reckon with a world where others are educated on the principles of a predatory society, and expecting that to change out of some sense of moral goodness is effective exactly 0.000% of the time. The mere existence of state society forces its participants to do something bad in order to survive, and a path to the good is always in spite of the natural tendencies of the institution. The end result of education in state society is there for all to see; absent a compelling reason, the philosophers and ideologues of state society will proclaim that the strong create their own morality, and impose that on those who thought in their naive fantasies that society could be anything else. It is not merely a matter of doing the minimum of evil or accepting evil. Unchecked by anything outside of humanity or life, the impulse is that everything and everyone must become predatory or subordinated to it - master or slave, free or subdued.

The cult has to make contact with material reality eventually. The great game is to make the cult of education appear as if it were spawned by natural causes. It is not particular people and their actions which create the necessity of education, but "the world" or "nature" in some vague sense, in the retold history of the institution's origins. Nothing in nature requires this form of socialization, let alone the particular forms that dominate in society. We learn very early not to trust anything from a pedagogue without using our own sense to know if what they tell us is true or false, and effective pedagogy assumes the student really does not want to be there or ingest an alien ideology. For the naive who take in information incredulously, trap after trap awaits them, and the intent of the cult of education is to throw to the jackals anyone who is not deceptive enough to play the Academic game. It is never the fault of the institution or the ruling ideas that people suffer. It is always "nature", as if it just sort of happened by chance and there was no causal chain that came back to a conspiracy of any sort. Great effort is spent defending the conspiracy and making people tell themselves lies to pretend that the lies thrown in their face are not malevolent acts, but some sort of character-building task that is inherent to nature. None of the predatory deception helps anyone, and most of the time it doesn't work. The only function of such brazen lies is to weed out those who were selected to fail from the start. Those who are selected to fail will always fail no matter how hard they try. Those selected to pass, due to connections or the needs of the institution, will find education trivial and wonder why the failures can't get it. It is always designed so that the participants lose any ability to compare facts with each other, and education in its purest form imagines the participants sealed, with the direct link from pedagogue to pupil being the pupil's sole source of information. In this way, the cult of education can control entirely the pupil's environment and, presumably, the pupil's development. This is the only way in which the cult of education can operate if it is reduced purely to its mechanisms. Any outside information in the course of education is interference that the pedagogue must teach the pupil to dismiss, so that the correct ideas may be told. Education presents itself as the child stepping out of a cave and being exposed to reality, but it is in reality the exact opposite. The child is led into a cave to prepare himself for a society that had been constructed by people with particular aims, that seeks to recreate the world to suit its purposes. The long-run aim is to create a wholly artificial reality, in which political conceits about the world are truth and what your eyes, ears, and any thought process developed independently tell you is false. Once processed, the pupil is let out of the cave and into the simulacrum, stripped from a natural habitat and told to see that world through the mediation of the educational institution.

This is something educators and the unwashed masses alike are aware of, but the full implications of this are often overlooked, either deliberately or because people are inundated and locked in to the type of society that this creates. It is not merely a creation of modernity, nor is it something eternal or built in to the very concept of knowledge and learning. It is not even a creation of the philosophers of antiquity, before which a heroic age of warriors sung as they charged gloriously into battle or whatever myth was told. Every subtle humiliation, every mark of status in society, stems from this rather than a more base psychological or material cause. Nothing in nature suggests a particular mark as the mark of maturity or manhood that grants social proof. There are certain qualities of a valid man that are so common that they are almost always encountered, and the qualities of a valid man can relate to some real, material requirement of the society. Education will, out of necessity, adapt to the environ it is in. Education, like political activity, must be deliberate in order to be meaningfully education, and this is more pronounced in education because the subject matter is directly a kind of information, knowledge, or training of the body, whereas politics can point to material causes as the thing to contest. It is never truly the case than a teacher is beholden to material forces outside of their control. They may be beholden to an administrative bureaucracy, and in some way they are beholden to the material basis for human society. They are beholden to a state or some institution that requires material goods, almost always extracted from a class or group that is subordinated to the holders of the institution. The decisions made in education, however it is done, constitute the meaningful site where any idea of what is to be done, and why it is to be done, is developed. Even for the crudest self-imposed education at the school of hard knocks, to contend with the need for material resources, there is a chain of thought that leads this person to act in the way they do. Out of this the student constructs an ethos, or has one assigned to them, which guides their future behavior. Even if the ethos is nothing more than "follow the leader" with no awareness of a world beyond what is in front of them, it is still required to adopt that ethos and refrain from asking any deeper question about what you are doing. This is only possible with symbolic language or at least some system worked out in the mind that surpasses instinct or behaviors that are more or less natural and not spurred by any deliberate plan imposed on someone, whether by their own willpower or by another entity. If there were no ethos, it would not be possible to make meaningful political decisions, and ultimately even the most basic acts of life would be futile or automatic. If they are automatic and someone is completely bankrupt ethically, then the futility of life becomes obvious and there is little reason to continue with any behavior on your own power. Even the drive to simply live is not an absolute imperative, and there will be a level of degradation where life ceases to be a life someone would want to live, especially if someone knows that a better life is possible if not for some onerous influence placed upon them. Even the inchoate stirrings of instinct will, out of necessity, impose an ethos on someone. That, after all, is how political life and education would have begun, out of a basic drive in people to grow and interact with others and the world in this way.

It does not take long to see that a life driven purely by the basest instinct must become more, and those who have been degraded and told their thought is completely retarded and invalid can see that those who lord over the world do not want anything good whatsoever for the retarded and damned. If the retarded are to be truly suppressed, such that political society can go on without them escaping their confinment, they must be actively suppressed or killed. Merely leaving them to their own devices cannot be taken for granted. It becomes the first obligation of every valid, free person in society to ensure that those deemed uneducable are kept away from any interference with proper society. This may be overlooked or seen as a trivial task beneath the notice of states, but it occurs in every society. To give the retarded or insane the benefit of the doubt or assume their equality once their status is known is to undermine the entire enterprise. The level of suppression may vary, and perhaps a cretin may be permitted some sort of life, but this is an exception to the rule where stupidity is the first and most egregious sin. If the retarded are to exist, it will always be in a clearly subordinated position, and it becomes the expectation of those inducted into the ranks of valid society to note that distinction. How this is done and what the line for "retarded" is may vary, and the ethos in question may have other conditions for invalidity. Perhaps moral uprightness is more relevant to an ethos than intelligence, and fairly stupid people may be endowed with a bare minimum of humanity that is accepted. There is no rule which states that the stupid are truly incapable of understanding what is expected of them, and societies in practice have been forced to tolerate a level of stupidity within people. Humans are, after all, remarkably stupid compared to any standard a reasonable person would hold as an ideal, and modernity did not make humans markedly more intelligent than the ancients. All the claims of eugenics to accomplish this have been proven by the 21st century to be not just wrong, but the exact opposite of what eugenics accomplished. Eugenics made most of humanity stupider, cowardly, fearful of authority, given over to depravity and cruelty despite clearly possessing the means and motive to end the worst consequences of all these things. It did not make its ruling class particularly smart, but instead trained them to value markers of status and engage in endless backstabbing. Technology in eugenic society has essentially frozen in place since 1980, outside of limited applications that were always useful for managerial control and the imposition of fear. Even in military technique, technology has regressed in many ways, which is appropriate because the past causes of war ceased to be a concern for the political class.[1]

[1] The reasons for this claim go beyond the scope of this book, but the astute reader who follows the words and implications of the political class in the 21st century has likely figured out that a global oligarchy eliminated any serious opposition to its actual concerns. The nature of war was never what grand narratives or tales of heroism supposed it was, but even the appearance of consequences for war is a thing actively avoided by the political class in all nations. This is covered with an endless supply of mystifications, so that the myth of national conflicts can be sold past 1989, but between states that are firmly within the imperial camp, there can be no serious war. The serious warfare, so far as it is pursued, is to forcibly integrate nations into that imperial system, its economic and technological project, and the wars to control Asia are not fought for the same reasons as the wars between nation-states were. The wars between European nation-states, up to and including the world wars, were not what they were purported to be either, but were in effect a struggle within the imperial camp to ensure that certain interests and classes would rise as the subordinated classes were sent to kill each other, and then to ensure that subordinated races and colonies did not rise until they were integrated into the world order established by the victors. The motives of war actors are better left for later, but it is important to note here that the advance of technology was pursued largely to secure the interests of those in the classes and institutions that would come to dominate, rather than an impulse towards technology that was self-evident. Once the necessity of war to achieve victory for that interest was complete, there was little reason to advance military technology, and advances or practices that would clearly make tactical or strategic sense are deliberately avoided because the purpose of the war machine in the past century has been primarily eugenic, with political objectives of war a secondary concern that is sometimes accomplished. Almost never are wars in the past century fought for their intended purpose, and the true motives range from base concerns, such as the defense of the drug trade and mafias, to a game of intrigues and backstabbing so that key figures are installed in all governments in spite of whatever their stated ideology or ethos suggests their states are. The ideological narrative of global conflict never matched at all the actual stance of the United States, the Soviet Union, or the People's Republic of China, and the motives for all of these states were never purely ideological nor necessarily committed to a particular idea that was inviolate. Just what any of these states actually were is obscured by enough mystifications, but the ideological veneers of these states had nothing to do with the actual motives at the base of society or among their political classes, and usually ideologues fail to understand basic things about the genuine constitution of any of these states or what motivated actors in those states. Ideology was always a concern of a particular type of person, or an excuse to change the line or marketing strategy of the political class to each sector of society, and a new set of expectations to deliver to the key subordinates of the ruling institutions. It is one reason why today we have a ridiculous confusion over what the term "socialism" even meant, despite every large nation-state in the world owing something to the socialist program in its conception of itself; at the same time, socialism was conflated with things that had nothing to do with socialism as a project, for good or ill. Communism, fascism, and eventually liberalism were reduced to little more than scare words, stripped of their original context or any genuine thing they were pointed to. The communists would be the first to have any genuine concept of communism stripped away, something inherent to the construction of the philosophies which came to dominate in communist circles, and the fascists were always cynical supplicants to the ruling power who would be propped up as bogeymen. Fascists willfully obfuscated the genuine content fascism was pointing to, as part of their program to sell fascism to a public that loathed it, and eventually grind into submission anyone who disagrees with it. It is this author's belief that fascism constitutes a genuine divergence from past society and must be understood, and what that divergence was is written of later in this book. The disintegration of liberalism as a significant trend in society has been a gradual process, often initiated by the liberals themselves. The liberal political class at the apex has already given up on the idea and embraced an autocratic elite locking ranks, such that any "liberal" characteristics of the project are long gone. The great narrative of the past 50 years has been that liberals are awful and only exist to make poor people suffer, which given the ethos of self-professed liberals is effectively what remains of liberalism. Only in a vague sense are liberal concepts of freedom still believed by the general public, almost never by convinced ideologues. An active program has been to tar any concept liberalism was pointing to as "freedumb" or some degenerated concept of freedom as an idea that has nothing to do with freedom in any sense a normal person would appreciate, and then to claim that there never was any such thing as liberal rights or any concept that the world was anything other than the present regime.

It is education which allows the state as a concept to become an institution, and allows any other institution - state or otherwise - to perpetuate itself. Proper understanding of what is done with education would see it as the germ of institutional knowledge and the way in which social values can be propagated. Simply the state's existence will not compel anyone to agree with the values of a state. The first instinct of any man encountering an alien state is to see it correctly as a menace, before he can be habiutated into accepting the state in one way or another. While there is a learning process which is native to humans, and occurs in spite of education, formal propagation of knowledge likely have to proceed through institutions, so that books may be written and the basic methods to read them are available. There are not too many autodidacts, and without any reliable education or pedagogy, reading can be difficult to pick up in a way that allows someone to acquire meaning, or pick up references a writer will make. Certain references in writing are intended as a hoodwink and a way to tell those who are in the know what the real meaning of the written word is, especially when writing concerns political topics. Since I am not a political writer, I have refrained from doing too much hoodwinking, but the culture of this time has led me to slip in many references a literate American would catch. This is helpful for me to provide some reference point that is helpful to current-day readers, and someone knowledgeable about the context I am writing in would have something to pick up which is not immediately evident. By writing this and suggesting any alternative to the existing institutions, I am at least hinting at the formation of different institutions and suggesting a type of education to propagate them. The ruling interest is very jealous to spot anything that looks like an institution it doesn't command, and has been very good at that. I would ask the reader not to look to me as a guru, and I hate gurus and everything that spawns them. I will not prescribe a specific course of action, and this has been a failure of many socialists who are enamored with gurus. What I would really hope to impart to the reader is some meta-knowledge that would allow them to critique these institutions altogether, without falling into the "ruthless critique" trap that goads so many to do stupid things. A constant problem in education, which has been observed in every iteration, is that there is a fear of moral decay and that no one is learning what they should. Attempts to reform this institution never work, and any reform is initiated by those who hold the institution and insist on trying the same failure again. Education remains the most regressive of all institutions, holding to canon for decades if not centuries, and only ever reforming in an effort to cull unwanted students and relegate them to retarded status. To this day, the ancient philosophers are venerated, without really being understood and the context they were writing in mangled by the demands of the institutions today. What would really be needed for the people who are cast out is some organizing principle they could hold for themselves, so the cajolers are muted, and the strategies of stochastic violence and terror do not have the effect that has been utilized thus far. This is not easy, because with enough torture and breaking, no one can really stop this, and in any event, the money and the means of production it points to are controlled by an oligarchy. The long run goal of state schooling is to place all wealth in the hands of the oligarchy, and this is exactly what did happen over the prior two centures. When that was close to accomplished in the 1990s, the bloodthirsty jackals entered the institution and made clear the order of the day was ritual sacrifice. That is the only way the state school could have ended, before the ladder was cut forever. The goal, now, is to ensure no independent alternative is permissible, and so far educational alternatives are co-opted by variants of fascism or are purely nonsensical. It is unlikely any secret pedagogy can remain undetected without giving away certain tells, since it has become obligatory to know the password and secret handshake of those in the know to do anything in this cursed society. Anyone deviating from a set of behaviors too much will be screened out, and that is tantamount to death. I highly doubt depopulation will be reversed. It can only be impeded by what tools are left, and that struggle will be a bitter series of defeats with little hope that there is any different world. The damned of the Earth who were selected to die will have to do horrible things to themselves simply to live, and accept things about themselves and the human project that preclude that this ends well. The only thing to live for at the moment is revenge, and this was predicted before the present depopulation began. The eugenists love seeing those they deemed retarded lash out, and set this up from the moment they no longer had chattel slavery, with the ex-slaves being the first test case of the eugenic creed.

Education should not be confused with spiritual authority. Education is a method propagated socially and fed through pedagogy, while spiritual authority speaks of something transcending education. It is not too difficult to detect the religious origins of nearly every educational regime today, and the philosophy of education is there for anyone to read. Spiritual authority is not tantamount to the words or pratices of a religion, but what the religion is pointing to that allows anything it does to mean a thing. That will be discussed in a later chapter. Education should not be mistaken for anything more than it is, and as always, education should not get in the way of learning. Spiritual authority entails much more than building knowledge, but guides moral decisions and why we would want to do any of this. It is precisely this which encouraged modern philosophers to deny spiritual authority exists, outside of an elite class which can speak to the gods or whatever they proclaim, and hands down edicts to the unwashed masses. There is a great effort in the past 30 years in America to proclaim "a million points of light", the Satanic ethos becoming a spiritual authority that enshrines the individual. This new spiritual authority does not care about your individual thoughts, feelings, or actions in any way, but seeks to substitute its dogmas for the things we understand about the world, thus completing the short-circuit of the mind that was engineered in early modernity. A true spiritual authority always exists outside of us, or any particular thing propagated by society. If the spiritual authority is the Word, then we always ask why the Word means anything, which has never been a problem for Christian philosophy and doctrine. We can doubt the claims of the Christians, but these things do mean something, and it is that which state schooling knew to abrogate, replacing a native connection to spiritual authority with pure pedagogy and the spiritual authority of proprietors - which is to say, the claim that violence in the supreme temporal and spiritual authority, and that there will be nothing else. Even when the state merely suggests educational regimes for private schools, the result will be the same. Society will be organized around what eventually become eugenic principles, and all other concepts of education will be dismissed as retarded or insane.