Morality and ethics, to be meaningful, must pertain to a real world that is accepted without regard to our personal biases concerning it. For an question to be moral or ethical, it must first concern the material world. Morality in interpersonal relationships can only arise because there is a material world in which both participants act, and morality is seen in light of those material conditions, rather than the arbitrary whims of each person. There may be a moral or ethical consideration for someone's thoughts or feelings, but in the first place, those thoughts and feelings are manifested through some material basis - that is, we only consider it moral to care about the thoughts and feelings of real people, and do not concern ourselves with the feelings of imagined entities which dissipate from the world as soon as their forms are no longer held in our own mind. Second, the feelings of us towards each other and the relationship itself entails involvement in a real world with consequences, for our actions towards each other to be morally significant. It would seem strange to be morally offended simply because someone believed in the wrong ideas, or liked the wrong movie or video game or consumer product. If we do consider the ideas someone holds to be morally good or bad, it is because those ideas have real-world implications beyond an imagined world we conjured, alone or together.

For as long as humans could conceive of morality, there has been a question of how we judge the things we value. It is simple enough to say something is worth so much in money, or something is assigned a value that is appropriate to our calculations. Morality concerns a judgement of purpose beyond a simple declaration of value. Normally, we reduce this judgement to rightness, or good, or wrongness, or bad. Morality in full is not reducible to these polar opposites, but instead concerns any concept we believe to confer to a value relevance to spiritual authority. That is, moral concerns are concerns about a spiritual purpose, or why we are doing anything that we do. It makes sense to us that we reduce something that is always good to "good", or we can qualify "good" based on certain criteria, and it is self-evident that what is good is what is moral. There is a problem with this. We do not have any basis whatsoever, materially or spiritually, to assert what "good" is. Every moral philosophy, no matter how elaborate, brings mankind not one iota closer to a definition of the good that is satisfactory. We may either give up entirely on the concept of the good, or reduce "good" purely to something that is expedient for a chosen spiritual authority, or attempt to declare by diktat that some material phenomenon is the basis for "good" and all other conceptions of good must revolve around it. For example, "good" in the eugenic moral philosophy is reducible purely to that which secures the segregation of civic worth, enshrining the best and punishing the worst, and delivering to each grade of civic worth what the ruling eugenic interest, or Eugenic College, believes is best for each group. The eugenists may define groups sorted for a eugenic purpose however it likes, and so eugenics lends itself to the elevation of social identities, such as race or sexual proclivity, which is why eugenic society declares the existence of 86 genders, all of which including heterosexuality[1] are actually moral or ethical attitudes towards sexual relations that are defined in a pantheon by the expert class. The attitudes are not arbitrary or inconsequential, as they imply different things about a person, but it is telling that all of these tendencies are designed by thought leaders, and every new niche is inahbited and co-opted before any organic understanding is possible. If there were organic understanding, it would be understood that none of these identities can stand, and the identities were stripped of historical meaning. In the here and now, though, there are people of different races, people with different abilities, and so on. Eugenics must essentialize these differences, make then political, and assign moral value and spiritual authority to identities chosen by its thought leaders. The only identity allowed to possess the value "good" is the Eugenic College and its decrees. All other moral terminology is either bad or a distinctly inferior grade. Eugenic morality defines precisely what an identity is allowed to be, and what it can never do; and this means most people are defined by an alien, and their acceptable behavior is constrained by alien rules, which are designed to suppress each identity. We can define moral terms that are neither "good" or "bad" or anything in between, but they always refer to values that have relevance to spiritual authority. "Smart" for example becomes a moral value more than a description of intelligence. "Smart" is associated with good, but entails a particular quality that is valued for its own sake, and certain prescriptions are made about what signifies "smartness". It is differentiated from intelligence, which could be understood with a description of the thought process and how we would scientifically judge it. No one takes a test to adjudicate "smart". It is an assumption people make that is presumed to have some moral and spiritual significance, and being smart is more about being proven so because society values this trait, without having to explain why "smart" must lead to good, or what precisely constitutes "smart". We have more to go on to describe "smart" than "good", but there is a deliberate vagueness so that people can save face if they're supposed to be smart but do dumb things. If smartness were morally neutral, we wouldn't obsess so much over it that people commit suicide if they're not smart enough. The trait takes on a life of its own, because it becomes one of the proxies for "good", and "good" is a concept with no objective definition. We want good, so we seek substitutes and assign them moral qualities that they don't actually possess. Being "smart" doesn't mean someone will make good decisions under pressure, or that their decisions would be just or good for some other reason. We wind up making "smart" a self-justifying prophecy, where certain things are just "smart" because we say they are. Therefore, the cult of "smart" is more interested in the signifiers of intelligence and liking the right things, rather than demonstrations of ability or merit that would be appreciated as useful. A careful mind might discern the useful attributes of an intelligent person from the "smart" traits, but if they are too careful, they will start asking questions about intelligence as a concept and how exactly we should judge it, and the meaning of intelligence for the rest of the things we do. Humans are not particularly intelligent, and do not need to be to make sound decisions. It is very easy for intelligent people to be trained to do bad things, or things we would not want, or for intelligent people to remain in a mind trap.

It has been well known that intelligent, highly educated slaves almost never rebel and tend towards traits that habituate them to slavery and abuse, while average slaves are more likely to retain their wits and consider the futility of the master's carrots. Intelligence can lead someone to make value judgements that do not comport with what they would actually want, because a conceit about intelligence and the manner in which intelligence is cultivated and utilized works against the better interests of someone. If someone were really intelligent, they would be able to break out of the trap or never fall into it, but the most vicious and cruel of humanity are typically the most intelligent, and as a rule, intelligent people tend towards cruelty and sadism, while merely dull people tend towards non-aggression and a consideration of their situation. This is a trait that has been shown to operate independent of ideology. Intelligent humans are vicious humans, and also the humans most habituated to devout slavery and domination. I have yet to see significant exceptions across the world, and all protestations of the intellectuals are betrayed by their regular statements and behavior. They cannot change themselves no matter how they try. Perhaps this says something about human consciousness and the true motives of the human race, but it is something that operates independent of the eugenic creed. No intelligent person allows themselves to be sentimental, except for the things that are rewarded by the dominant ideas. Intelligent people are almost always obedient followers of any ruling system, and when they are rebels, they are the rebels most willing to reconcile and most willing to sell out those who follow them. Principled rebellion is neither intelligent nor smart. You have to be stupid or really desperate to rebel against the existing order, or like anyone who goes to war, you have to rely on that old sell and say rebellion will quick, easy, and that you will surely win. Given how rebellions are nearly always unsuccessful and don't produce the desired result, you have to wonder how people can still sell revolutionary politics, but as always, suckers are born every minute. Of course, all of these things do not make the intelligent "bad" or "evil". Viciousness is not inherently moral or immoral, and I would want a vicious and cruel fighter on my side if I have the choice. Vicious people can be just and righteous in their viciousness. We can see in this discussion how moral values are implicitly attached to a great many words, and we judge them as moral not because we've worked out a coherent theory of why they are good or bad, but because an instinct in us guides us to moral associations with words and the spiritual authority is either the word itself, or a response in the mind that is conscious or subconscious, perhaps conditioned into us, but nonetheless acted on. We are trained to react to the word "psychopath" without comprehending psychology or the actual meaning of the word, and then act surprised when multiple "helper" professions are filled with psychopaths because that is the trait that was selected for. It comes as some shock that "helpers" are there to hurt people, and that psychopathy is omnipresent in the educational sector, because psychopathy is what that institution does on a regular basis and why it exists. We even duckspeak and praise psychopathy when it is socially acceptable, and then invent a dodge to say it's not the same thing as someone who is accused falsely of thoughtcrime that he didn't even think, when he didn't do anything and went out of his way to avoid doing anything. In modernity, the imprinted moral associations attached to words and concepts is more elaborate and engineered by repetition, conditioning, threats, forced interventions, and the disproportionate political power of experts and elites used as a battering ram to crush independent thought and action. Expansion of morality beyond "good" and "bad" is not itself wrong, nor is it wrong to have moral consideration of various things by instinct, but the moral associations of eugenic society are in line with the eugenic creed, and every attempt is made to denude morality of any meaning except "must serve eugenics", and all thoughts alien to eugenics are either evil or considered "retarded".

"Bad" and "Evil" are the other two moral states commonly considered. "Bad" is whatever isn't good, and if we have never in thousands of years found the good, we have certainly found plenty of bad. Therefore, we have very effective moral systems for measuring how bad something is. Bad is so ubiquitous that in moral philosophy, we are really just considering which level of bad is the lowest and calling that as good as we can make it. However, just like with good, pinning down just what is bad eludes clear definition. We know bad because we can infer that it is very common and that a lot of our lives end in failure and disappointment. The quest to eliminate bad has typically led to austerity as a choice, or a disgust towards the world. It is quite strange, because in all of this, the world itself didn't do anything bad. It gave us a sun, a planet, all of the resources we live off of bar those we manufacture, and the world created safeguards against human evil and cruelty that stop them from reaching too far. The malevolence and that which we consider truly bad is largely the creation of humans making it so. We can say many things in nature are bad for us and our consideration, but life being ubiquitous and not do difficult to maintain on its own power suggests that the bad in nature is really a matter of preference, and that most of the world is not trying to kill us or do anything to us. The world largely sits there until we consume a small part of it, and the world does not mind us mooching because the world is a pretty swell friend. The world is blamed for things Father Malthus and his guys did, rather than actually bad things the world did like floods and earthquakes. The world giving us things doesn't mean we should bow and scrape to it. The world isn't going to understand our quaint and strange notions like "worship", but the world appreciates the thought that we would like to do something we think of as good, so that the world can remain livable for us in the future. This claim of the Malthusians and eugenists over ecology is deliberate and intentional. Crimes of the eugenic creed, which are numerous, are blamed on "the world" or "society" in a vague sense, while the creed's officers are hidden behind a veil, and if you dare suggest anything untoward about the self-appointed rightful stewards of the world, it's off to the glue factory with you. If humans are the source of most of the bad, then why aren't all men venal and corrupt? This is where good and bad as the sole moral positions lead to an outcome where humanity trends towards "bad", since "good" doesn't exist without an assertion that good is reducibile to life or a will to power, and the will to power always rewards bad and easy behavior to rule over over men. Degrading other people leads to obvious material efficiencies, and rewarding growth and development is only useful so far as loyalty is ensured towards a generally agreed upon plan. This has meant that the crudest morality and ethics tends towards empires and totalizing governments, and so it was embraced because that was what was desired. If there is to be a peaceful, "good" society premised on the will to power, it must presume that the good comes from outside of people and thus it only exists by parasitically sucking off the value of the world and other people. This is obviously undesirable as the past century and a half have shown, where "good" and "bad" are the crude morality implied, and any indicator of what is good and bad is provided by thought leaders who will tell you what to think, what is what, and what you are. They never tell you what to do, because that would be too decent. They tell you what you are, and therefore all decisions are herded towards pre-planned outcomes in a rigged game.

"Evil" is one way to break this stalemate, and its value was recognized early in human history. From the start, humanity knew evil, and something in animal morality sensed evil long before we could express its meaning in words. Evil lacks any clear legal definition, but it is something distinct from "bad". We do not define bad as the opposite of an assumed good; we posit the existence of good because our judgement of the world shows that much of what life does leads to bad, and good is the path we have to believe exists so that bad may be mitigated, or purpose may be found in life. "Evil" serves a similar purpose. We do not know the good, but a deep sense in us can tell that our conscious experience happens in a largely "evil" world. So much of our experience is premised on a discord that begins because our own conceits about ourselves stand opposed to the world, and we find ourselves in conflict with other life for no apparent purpose. We knew all along that we did not have to do this, but no easy answers exist to make that possible. We knew on some level that embracing evil and malice didn't actually do a thing for us. Even animals have a moral sense to not attack each other for the thrill of cruelty to the extent that humans do, where humans rationalize and glorify cruelty even when they know it to be ruinous. An animal is usually callous and has no regard for what we would consider ethics, and if a cow ever got the chance, she'd eat you and your entire family. For the animal though, this is mostly about food and a sense of territorial security, and a habit to attack that which offends it grievously. Animals don't have conscious, deliberate malice in them as humans do, and any path of spiritual fanaticism would quickly tire them. Without any language to reinforce through a chant that malice is glorious and awesome, the animal's capacity to perpetuate a predatory thought-form is highly limited. This does not make the animal "good" or "noble" in that regard, but we as humans have to ask ourselves what the point of our malice was, and why we ever let those people dictate a single thing to us. It is not difficult to see that all of the games of viciousness humans play have no end and only devour precious resources. Usually the hunt was futile, and hunting in nomadic society was often conducted not because it was a necessity of survival, but because it was what men did to prove themselves or have something to do. When the hunt was carried out to meet sustaining goals that were practical, it was conducted methodically, but most of the hunting rituals involved men goofing off and playing a great game.

Very often, the pursuit of game and herds was not for some sort of economic plan, but for men to brag to each other and potential mates that they were good at killing things and all of the other tasks a hunter would do. The hunt to obtain meat was usually careful not to exhaust game, because primitive tribes could see over time that hunting too often depleted the stock and would require the people to move to new lands. It did not take much sense to know the danger of over-hunting, and the killing of large game would grant to a tribe a considerable haul of meat for one animal. Rationing of this meat, so that the members of society could be as well-fed as possible, was preferable to a personal lust for meat. The incentives of that society discouraged personal consumption, but encouraged personal initiative. Over time, these practices to regulate predatory behavior, regulate dangerous behavior that was known to lead to unfavorable results, regulate behavior to each other that promoted favorable results, would be known and codified. These provide crude moral values of evil, bad, and good, with the latter being the most difficult to find. Evil and bad are everywhere, but good was a prized goal that could only be measured by uncommon merit and comparison to history. It was easier to teach evil and bad by simple authority and dissuading people to do bad or evil through fear, and the world practically forced humans to learn these things through the course of life. Good, in this crude sense, was only possible through careful experience, and it was not a given that other humans were interested in telling you how to be good. Being good was a competition itself, because to be good meant greater success in a game with limited resources and the prize of social esteem. It might have been preferable to promote good behavior to the extent that it was helpful for the cohesion of a social unit. No one should just attack each other, now that they know what words mean and the intents of other humans can be verbalized. It would be very easy for someone to use this new invention of speech to speak lies and teach people maladaptive strategies, as a way to control and destroy them, but this is limited in utility because words are at this point cheap and actions speak far louder than words. Only through persistent psychological warfare does heavy verbal abuse take its toll, or it must operate through mystical methods that allow a conniving proto-priest to take advantage of the nature of other people. There is a drive in people to be good not because of some spiritual value of good for its own sake, but because being good means not doing bad and evil, which we have a sense to avoid because it is so obviously painful and futile. Moral philosophies which reward bad and evil in their own right do not last very long, unless they can qualify "bad" and "evil" in ways that make those moral qualities either seemingly good, or justified to fulfill some vision of what the world is and can only be. Most people who revel in cruelty do not actually believe themselves to be bad, but consider viciousness and cruelty to be morally good and upright because it enforces a natural order, and questioning that natural order is taboo. Someone may explain as much as they like the inherent contradictions and self-serving lies, but without anyone to tell a predator no, power itself justifies good, because weakness is always considered bad. There isn't a society which considers weakness and foolishness to be anything but bad, evil, or at best a thing to be overcome. The most favorable attitude towards the fool or weakling is that the potential of life should be protected, and that there is some virtue even in the lowest of the race. This vaunted status for fools is very uncommon, and the fools and weaklings themselves find no comfort in such a noble view, not for themselves and especially not when others humblebrag to the fool about how great and magnaminous the strong and wise are. For the fool, the malice and evil of humanity is everywhere, and usually humans don't bother with the niceties and mask they use to maintain a primitive mos maiorum of decency. To attack fools in the open is not just good for the thrill of doing so, but interpreted as the first defense of society and the race. A fool faces an uphill battle to retain any standing to exist in this world, and as a rule, once retarded, always retarded. That rule can never actually change, because the hatred of fools runs deep in the mind of humans, and the first symbol they look for regarding another human is whether the human is smart or stupid, to determine if they possess the knowledge to be a greater threat or that they could safely be ignored. This is what differentiated humans from animals, and who was fair game for the hunt and all predatory acts. The hatred towards human fools was a special hatred, out of a need to eject close relatives from society and make an example of them. What the fool actually did besides exist is less important than the fact that he is a fool, and naturally this attitude was far more often applied to the males than the females. Female intercine competition for status is cruel, but only rarely are the consequences death, where death and torture await any male who fails the rites of manhood. A foolish female was still seen as breeding stock, for female fertility was limited, and even a foolish female had qualities most men needed for the health of offspring. Even a bad mother could be effective if she possessed a shred of kindness and sense to tell her children not to do bad. It takes a particularly vicious woman to just be completely evil to her offspring, and usually the evil mothers were not fools at all, but the more intelligent who considered all the methods to torture their offspring and make them into vessels for her desires. Foolish males, though, are there to be sacrificed. The most cruel and vicious sacrifices are towards a human, male or female, who is a stutterer or visibly retarded. That is the original sin, which can never be forgiven under any circumstances. What the stutterer did was less important than what it is; a reminder to mankind that they always were just sadistic apes, and eventually Satanic apes, and that their pretensions of good were a laughable joke on any cosmic scale.

Now someone might ask whether the retarded are evil, or if the hunt for the retarded would eventually devour perfectly acceptable men. There has always been a balancing act to decide the line between "retarded" and "not retarded", or insane and not insane, or the other identifiers which define who is permitted standing to simply exist. The biases of a nobility or elite are for now not a concern. This is something humans did before the establishment of nobles and elites, who in their eyes view the majority of humanity are irredeemably retarded and impose predation far greater. There has to be something said about the superficial bigotries that usually go into this judgement, where a teacher decides "retarded" at age three, and begins the Satanic cycle. It then becomes a social obligation to maintain this cycle at all costs, because if the cycle is ever reversed, it means the system is wrong, and this is unacceptable in any era. If the rites of manhood are exposed as a farce or a lie, or they lack meaning, the basis for society is undone forever. There is a judgement of what values are needed to be a man, and what marks a man of probity from the less noble. This posturing over morality is the political facade, rather than a genuine consideration of someone's morality. "Let me who is without sin cast the first stone" clearly suggests that whomever can ride a moral high horse had better prepare stones and ensure the rest of the crowd follows. Only the weak interpret it as a dictum to avoid throwing stones, or a suggestion that maybe throwing stones is a bad thing altogether. If there were an injunction against such sacrifices, it would not come from a dictum suggesting stoning a ritual sacrifice is the highest good if done by the superficially virtuous. It would instead ask questions about what we are even doing, and if there were a way to manage subordinated people without torture and death and the celebration of maximal thrill during the sacrifice. This was all implied in the judgement of evil, and it is not particular to any religion. Someone in Rome could see the ritual sacrifice of crucifiction and ask if this is actually a deterrent. It was a punishment reserved for slaves, to emphasize just how little a slave's life mattered and that the basis of any slave system must be torture. It is not a difficult question to ask. Ritual sacrifice was inherited from the animal kingdom, in whatever form proto-humans took. The morality of ritual sacrifice does not require a great intellect to begin the cycle. All it requires is enough sense to take a thrill in seeing another suffer, and the primitive stirrings of the moral high horse that has not changed all the way up to now. Pious Christians will get on the same high horse and shout with thrill at the torture and death of retards, then justify it as the destruction of a sinner who must have done something wrong to deserve it. Allusions to karmic justice from Hinduism can be conveniently mashed with Christian teachings, because only the really obsessive Christians will consult the holy Word to see if any of this torture is kosher. How many Christians have been doctrinally pure? If they are, they would learn in the religion's esoteric sector that the religion of kindness and mercy is not what it seems, and those people have been able to furnish justifications for clear torture as a humane treatment of cretins. Even the concept of "cretin" enters the language as a remarkably humanitarian gesture, to suggest qualities could be attributed even to some but not all of the most retarded. Rather than this discourse, which implies a connection to history and truth, a high and mighty Christian will disregard even the most basic teachings that ask an adherent to investigate their action. They revert to a sense that the retard did something in a past life or possessed some essence that is simply inexplicably evil, no matter what the nature of "retardation", or the clearly predatory, hypocritical, and sadistic practices Christianity aided and abetted that exacerbate any natural retardation or any fault of a child who is subjected to this cycle of ritual abuse. Once the cycle starts, no child can hope to better themselves through the ordeal, and if they do survive it, they will have a gigantic chip on their shoulder for the rest of their lives. There is no humiliation humans inflict on each other that can match the hatred for a retarded child. It is taken for granted to such an extent that no one expects that it would be any different, as if by some unspoken rule someone damned like this was meant to live in the most abject slavery and humiliation. It becomes a foregone conclusion that this is the way of the world, the final step in which the ritual sacrifice is made a natural moral truth, even though most of the results of this are the result of society's decision that this child will be made an example, and if it survives and manages to do anything at all, that's great, but it is still and always will be retarded, retarded, retarded.

It is this question that is at the heart of sin. Sin enters the language as a failure of virtue, or a failure of humans to command other humans. It is not about good or evil or bad as sentiments or objective truths, but that certain humans miss the mark and are terrible at the hunt, or the task of struggle to survive in a hostile world. The educational rites, from the most primitive to today, are purely about marking down the sinners who did not conform to a prescribed course of development, and they could never be anything else. Any attempt to make education into something constructive is a waste of effort. Those who try are engaged in a fools' errand. If someone cared about learning or growth or anything that would help someone, there are far more efficient ways to offer a sign to the child of what they should learn and do than education. This is not the point of education. Giving people knowledge and a sign to the truth is the last thing they want. The function is to root out the sinners, the retarded, and then get on a moral high horse to claim that those who are damned did some moral crime by existing. This moral crime outweighs the good, bad, or evil of deeds a valid person does. Valid people, no matter their morality, are still valid. The punishment of grievous sin for the valid is to become invalid, but those who were valid once are less sinful than those born and raised invalid. There is no shame or sin comparable to retardation, and this is absolute in every religion and in every educational practice. To be retarded is the absolute marker of what it means to be sinful, and sin among the valid is compared to the sin of absolute invalidity, or retardation. To be a valid sinner is to be temporarily retarded, and if someone is too sinful, they are absolutely retarded and absolutely depraved. This, as you can probably guess, is embedded explicitly in Christian doctrine, to drive home a point that was implicit in Judaism, the practical forms of primitive pagan society, the Satanic tradition going back to distant times, the Hindu caste system and the monopoly of gurus, the Buddhist attitude towards life as suffering which is ultimately defined by the stupid people keeping the good down, in Chinese moral philosophy putting the dunce cap on kids and making everyone kowtow, and so on. No one is without sin, but better to be a valid sinner than retarded. No sin is ever worse than retardation.

You can see, then, the moral position of those deemed retarded. The whole of human civilization and its moral posture appears as this sadistic party train that has rolled on for as long as they can remember, and the concept that it was going to be anything else is a sick joke. Out of desperation, the retard latches onto anything they can to allow them something in this world, and every time, the valid laugh at this little retard thinking they will have a single thing. God hates retards more than He hates fags and far more than He hates the cruelties of the state. Fags, or homosexuals, enter the lexicon as a designation of failed men who are, in some way, deemed sexually retarded, and usually homosexuality is identified with pure retardation. It is a way of disposing failed men and encouraging maximal depravity among "sinners", and then getting on a moral high horse and blaming them for the crimes of Sodom and Gomorrah. We have mentioned this tale a few times already, but the emphasis on Sodom's, well, sodomy in the form of anal sex is a misdirect from the general venality and superficiality of Sodomite society. The aim is to take all of these acts, which are morally reprehensible for very sensical reasons, and conflate them with the homosexual, who is a proxy for the retarded. Homosexuals who do their part to advance the ritual sacrifice and depravity but possess standing in valid society or some strength to be useful as instruments of violence have always been spared from the worst persecutions against the homosexual, and pious society will go far out of their way to protect sadistic homosexuals so that the ritual sacrifices may continue. There has long been a gulf between bourgeois homosexuality and the homosexual practices of the lower class, where the former is praised and protected and given every privilege, while false insinuations of homosexuality and depravity are leveled against the workers and beggars precise to denigrate them, until they are made true by systematic rejection and shame. This is an old strategy, in which the females of the tribe select who is rejected from mating and communicate that information to the sisterhood. Eugenics formalized it and made it an absolute law, from which there can be no escape, and created a grand caste system in which everyone in humanity is retarded but a few nigh-omnipotent elites. Someone can argue about how wrong the eugenists are for doing this, but they are acting through a long-held principle which insinuated itself repeatedly throughout civilization. In the revised eugenic history of mankind, this is the first and only commandment, and all other ideas humans ever had about themselves and what they are doing here must be abolished. All moral considerations must be abolished, and even the crudest definitions of good, bad, and evil, are the property of the Eugenic College. Moral relativism is encouraged, except when it comes to the eugenics question, where the rule of the College is absolute and cannot be criticized. All thought must be paralyzed if it impedes eugenics, and this becomes the last thought. Again, all life dies screaming forever. That is the world the retarded see since time immemorial, and the brief promise that it was going to be anything else has always been a sadistic lie. It is cruel in hindsight to tell these people that there ever was going to be anything, but since when has humanity been anything but Satanically cruel? It is little comfort when 90% of humanity is so judged, and made to go after each other to be king of the retards, while an elite live in their world where life goes on, bragging in our faces that the rest of us live in absolute depravity and shit forever and ever. That is the world the eugenic creed creates. This is the world the invalid underclass saw all along, and the world that no one is allowed to mention too frankly without reprisals. To speak of it as if it could be anything different is to speak of absolute sin and the unthinkable. Those invested in this view of the world do not want it to ever end under any circumstances, even when it means a world where 90% of humanity is infinitely tortured and nothing is produced except a feedback loop demanding ever-more slavery. This is the heart of why no one can give up a slavery, even when the institution is no longer viable in the form it currently takes.

Something about this entire arrangement has always been wrong. There is an obvious endgame to the hunt for the retarded: on a cosmic scale, all are retarded, all is pointless, and all of the pleasures that are sought are for empty vanity. No matter how much humanity tries, it does not escape the futility of its quest for the good. It develops more defined knowledge of evil, and how to harness it or avoid it, but it never moves one iota closer to the good. The ugly truth, and this was figured out by philosophers a long time ago, is that humanity will never, ever know the good. The great secret of the story in Genesis is not that Man fell because he discovered evil, but because he contemplated the good life and through that developed more refined capacity for evil. The evil had always been there, and it is not difficult to see that Yahweh is a stand-in for a God of the world, and the emphasis on a particular aspect of it. Christ is a stand-in for a Luciferian trend that was implicit in paganism going back to its distant origins, which co-opted the rebellion of the world against the "light" of elitist morality. The point in Christianity is not so much to shout Jesus' name ad nauseum, but to read into the religion this understanding. Judaism's doctrines begin as a rebellion against the gods of Babylon and Egypt, and develop a general theory of spiritual rebellion and authority. Many of the world religions are really theories of how to rule, excising any other truth except that which is expedient for ruling. In the finer details, religious authorities are always aware of when to bend or ignore the rules on lesser behavior, because they must be oriented towards the core spiritual authority that desires to rule. Every system of rule ultimately comes down to an ability to perpetuate education, so that members of society are marked from those who are outside. Each religion and educational practice may consider different criteria, but the final word on anyone who is rejected is absolute: "retarded".

The true seed of morality may elude us forever. We sense bad and evil more or less instinctively, but what these are can vary to describe as many situations as we can imagine. We have some rules of thumb for any moral quality we assign to a deed or an object we arrested. We should be clear here that there is a distinction between doing and being, but being as a concept is in the end the doing of certain actions to say something exists in the real world. There is a distinction between moral deeds and the morality of certain objects, which may be good or bad or whatever they are valued as. Moral values are not the sole social values, but it is only through morality that we can assign to existence any purpose whatsoever. Nihilists may claim that there is no purpose, but in doing so they are implying a purpose that the world is futile and therefore destined towards certain outcomes. Nietzsche may insist morality is "me wantee" in so many flowery words and justifications, but his thinking is premised on a ridiculous and infantile fantasy and the spooks of German culture. Only by insistence does that view truly create morality. Morality always must come from something real, rather than something we imagined in our minds. We recognize that the material world in which events occur and the subjective world in the mind are two different worlds. The latter is informed by the former, but the subjective, ideal world will operate on its own laws of motion, and concerns things which are entirely apart from the world. Our moral sense is, for ourselves, subjective. We cannot say that there is an objective morality that can be isolated with science. We can, at best, understand ourselves well enough to see certain tendencies inherent in being human, or being whatever we will call ourselves in some other time and place. These postures about what humanity "is" have been the source of so much consternation in modernity. We are told humanity is a highly specific thing which must correspond to parameters written by thought leaders, and we are not told in any clear terms what those parameters are. We are lied to over and over, and this is not just moral but ethically just at the highest level, according to today's ruling ideas. To lie to people who are deemed retarded, and the intellectual elite consider anyone who is not them to be retarded and invalid, is the only thing they can do. They lie to us for the sake of lying, just to show who is in charge. They lie even when the lies are destroying society and destroying the intellectuals themselves, as the lies they tell us seep into their own view of the world and their own sense of themselves. They deny that this lying actually affects them, because the intellectual elite are sacrosanct and cannot possibly be retarded. They may be insane, which is a different judgement we will write on shortly, but if they remain valid, it is a controlled and socially accepted insanity. "Retarded", on the other hand, is a moral absolute. Socially acceptable stupidity and forced ignorance are never deemed "retarded", or stupid in the genuine sense of the word. Socially acceptable stupidity and ignorance is given a virtuous quality in its own right, and stupidity that serves eugenic aims and serves the whims of an intellectual elite is praised. It is this which infects the eugenic movement and its conceits of intelligence, and this thinking has crippled everyone's understanding. The true elite, who see this for what it is, work in secret to continue their rule, but they are beholden to this system of moral and intellectual cheating to do this. They must lie to the people and never stop lying, and once the cycle of lies begins, a lie for the greatest good can never be truly exposed and shamed. Everything the people believe must become a lie, and this lying is considered not just the political truth, but morally superior to the material truth, which tells us that the high and mighty are the prime contributor to humanity's moral woes. Stupid, retarded people do not present some great threat by their actions alone. The cycle of degradation and shame strips someone from their natural habitat, tells them over and over "retarded, retarded, retarded", and brags that they destroy people for the pure thrill of doing so. This is what intellectualism and the drive of science created for the world - a world in which the vast majority of people are beaten down and humiliated, and told to take out their piss on the weakest link. Not one bit of the reign of science has led to anything but greater immiseration for the vast majority of humanity, and we are told this denuded existence and oppressive authority, which doesn't even give orders other than "suffer", and "die, die, die", is some sort of morally virtuous utopia. Both the antiseptic visions of a bright future where retards are tortured and vivisected, out of sight but always in mind to reinforce what this is, and the grim dystopian torture, are the only ways the reign of science could have ended, as it was formulated. The scientists themselves invent copes to say they are something else, since they themselves are victims of their own creation, and they blame some spooky capitalist instead of themselves, who gave the capitalist his current tools willfully and in alliance to pursue a joint project. These copes are never really believed, because whatever torture awaits the scientist, most of them survive, and even if they are tortured, they can always tell themselves in the torture chamber, "at least I am not retarded".

"Retarded" is not even the first symbolic representation of evil or bad. The choice of which "original sin" that all human behavior is reduced to varies from time and place, and in accord with the proclivities of anyone on a high horse. Evil, which is the most developed understanding of human morality, is necessarily an emergent and complex beast. With each new technology there are new evils, and no one can arrest history and set out in any document a laborious definition of evil for all times and places. The description of evil in any religion should be a starting point for the adherents to judge for themselves, individually and collectively, this problem of evil. The philosopher and the ethicist did the reverse. Rather than elaborate on the study of evil, they developed sand castles to protect "the good" that was suitable to their class and ruling interest. There would be investigations into evil, because it was impossible to suppress a human need to understand it. The philosopher, if they began this investigation, was more interested in harnessing evil for their purposes, and to tell the ordinary people that they are evil if they dare possess their own ideas. This would be anathema to the sense of anyone who thinks about evil for five minutes, and a worthwhile religion or philosophy understands that evil, or any morality, is an open-ended question. The more honest philosophers admit their investigation will be limited and particular to them, but how many philosophers bully their followers as any guru does? The ignorance the guru insists for his student became favored by educational pedagogues, and found its ultimate expression in the state school. It is the prevalence of this ruinous institution that pushes a certain sort of person to either seek the guru who will tell them what to think, or the Fuhrer who will tell them what to do, or tells someone that any thought beyond the crudest is for fags. The termination of thought is presented in education as "preventing evil", but it is always truly intended to enshrine and protect evils that a thought leader wants to harness. If we cannot speak of what these things are at some point in our lives, we will always be at a disadvantage. The eugenic creed, revels in controlling permissible dialogue, and granting to the creed untrammed moral and spiritual authority which is used as a celebration of torture and sadism. The eugenic creed practically brags that it evil, but does not allow you to call it evil. Eugenics is there to "help" you. The teacher and doctor and therapist are there to "help" you, by marking you down for torture, humiliation, and extermination. It cannot be any other way. This is absurd, because it is well known in society that the "helper" professions are there to hurt you. Few are convinced this is about "help", but you're forced to go along with a Satanic chant which repeats "help, help, help", by people with full knowledge that they are invoking for a ritual sacrifice. "Help" takes on moral connotations with a knowing grin of what is really meant, and the power of the moral lie makes the world what it is. Pure determination to act in spite of what would actually be helpful or good creates its own morality and its own reality.

The flipside is that we know, out of necessity, that this is evil, or at least, we can construct a model of the world that suggests to us the nature of evil from our view. To a eugenist, their options for good and evil are evil, and always devolve into a singular germ. That is the commitment of their moral philosophy and the nature of what they created in the world, and so long as they hold to the shibboleths that Galton proclaimed about genetics, "nature vs. nurture", and so on, the only conclusion they have is that what is good is torture and extermination of the weak and what is bad is "retarded" and what is evil is anything inimical to the growth of eugenics, like any genuine thought other than "eugenics, eugenics, eugenics" and a pressing of the nerve of power. These moral stances are all an inevitable consequence of the claims Galton makes about reality itself, in which political truth is decided by an elite which will tell you what you are, where you can go, and who you can associate with in any relationship, not just mating. There is no version of eugenics which can permit resistance to it, and all forms of eugenics regress to a form that is dominant in the world. This makes more sense once the principle of the Satan, to be described in another chapter, is understood. For most of us, though, evil is a complex creature. We know evil cannot be reduced to a singular ideology. We can recognize the centrality of eugenics to everything that happened, and that eugenics is the scientific veneer of a predatory movement. Whether we recognize predation as "evil" may be our choice, but unlike the eugenists, we have a more thorough understanding of the question posed. A eugenist, to be a eugenist, cannot seriously engage with anything that is wholly inimical to the eugenic creed. We can, if we really wanted to, engage with the eugenists on their terms, to highlight errors in their system. This is quite irrelevant, for a central tenet of the eugenic creed is that power creates its own reality, and facts and ethics exist to be manipulated. Galton's statistical manipulations, which will be described in another chapter, are exercises to mystify Galton's claim that is nothing more than a just-so story to glorify institutions he and his cronies control. No serious investigation into intelligence is undertaken in Galton or among his successors, who are always quick to jump to flimsy conclusions and make egregious and basic errors in posing the question of what intelligence is. The creed cannot do otherwise, for if it did, the claim of a hereditary aristocracy is specious. Those who see the eugenic morality for what it is and declare it to be evil - and it must be declared evil for this to hold true - arrive at a useful critique of what eugenics does, without resorting to a distant amorality. If we lack moral understanding, the case against eugenics cannot be made. Nor, for that matter, can a case for eugenics be made. Eugenics ultimately rests on the same moral philosophy as the free trade thinking did, but where Adam Smith views this moral philosophy as an open-ended question, Eugenics severed all possibility that there can be anything else forevermore and did so with its many triumphant declarations. It would be impossible to speak of civic worth, the first basis for eugenic caste, without moral philosophy about what was worth anything, and why we should value money in this particular way the eugenic creed demands, where money is a proxy for eugenic genius and the poor are there because they deserve to starve. The prior moral thinking was that a manager was there to rule his workers, and this did not in of itself entail that the workers were entirely screwed or that workers couldn't manage themselves. It was actually implied in the long run that workers' self-management would be the most efficient course of action, because it was not hard to see that the managerial task was ruinously inefficient. This could not be automated until cybernetics became a discipline, but when cybernetics came to realization, it was only done to advance the eugenic creed. Cybernetics for any good purpose could not be permitted, but a million cybernetic mechanisms to impose violently the conditions of eugenics would be the primary focus of the last half of the 20th century. Here, the moral imperatives of eugenics supercede capitalist imperatives, and the objective of the oligarchy became economic contraction and enforcement of monopolies in all ways. Monopolies were "too big to fail", even though the obvious alternative was to do away with the monopolist and allow the people what they wanted from the outset. If that happened though, eugenics would either have to drop its mask and declare it was time to torture maximally those selected to die. It had already begun its commitment to this with the Reaganite doctrine, and confirmed it totally in all conduct during the 1990s. To those in the know, eugenics already dropped the mask and proclaimed in their own gatherings that it was time to initiate the death march, and in America this change was formalized with the reforms starting in 1994 and 1995. The death march now became the leading policy, and the partisans of eugenics crowed as they invaded in full all institutions. It is here where the eugenic creed crushed the last resistance in the institutions, repurposing them entirely. We were simply not allowed to say what this was during the crucial phase where it happened. Only those in the know would hoodwink, as is the habit of the rulers of this country. Only torture would await those selected to die, and to do anything else violated every moral principle America now stood for. In 2001, it was done. History recalls what happened next, and eugenics joined this death march and reveled in the atrocities Bush committed as they revel in all atrocities.

Glorification of torture and evil was aired on American national television, and to a global audience. This was the new world order. Of course, "new world order" was a conspiracy theory, but there was a new order of things all right. The great myth was that nothing at all actually changed, and history did not move because the thought leaders didn't tell you it had permission to move. The 1980s and 1990s would play on infinite loop and no new culture whatsoever would be permitted. The visible sign that the public world was all selected to die would be proclaimed in the toxicity of the culture, and all of the vices that came to the forefront in the 1990s, encouraged by school and university administrators, became absolutes. Schools revelled in seeing failure reproduced and the liberal intelligentsia herded as many children as possible to damnation. That is the world they wanted, and the world they craved. To see this as neutral is to misunderstand the motives of the human actors gravely, and this is one reason why all moral understanding had to be abolished. To have any moral sense at all, except that which was approved by the eugenic creed, would make clear that no one but the most sadistic had any reason to tolerate Nazism at all. A proper country would have rooted out the most vocal eugenists, publicly tortured and exterminated them, and made it clear what was needed. That is the only language they regard, and the cravens who enabled Reaganite rot would crawl back to the slime they came from, no longer enabled and empowered to spread the rot. This of course requires a greater question of what to do now, because all ideas of what the world could be were destroyed long before the eugenic creed began its death march. We can only pine so much for a different world, and the different world would have had to diverge some time before 1900 to be significantly different. Too much was allowed to happen and all resistance was snuffed out by intellectuals who chose which side of the war they were on a long time ago. Anyone who tried to maintain their own intellectual tradition would either be co-opted and herded to the slaughter, or they would be eliminated. Most eliminations were quiet, and those who dissented would disappear or be terrorized into never daring to speak. A few eliminations would be quite vocal, and here the Satanic cycle came to its maximum, revealing what moral creatures the high and mighty professing Christianity really were and always were. The last doubts of Christianity's core were easily dispelled when church leaders proclaimed the eugenist regime was as godly as any other, despite the creed's open disdain for the Christian flock and the older mercy. Anyone still following the religion did so either because they knew which side of the war they were on and it was an esoteric mystery, or because they were duped and thought the religion was something entirely other than what it was in principles. The same can be said of all the world religions. Not one can claim they didn't want this or something like this, and the religious tradition saying otherwise was a faint concept that only occasionally could come to the light. To go against the eugenic creed was to be proclaimed "Satan", even as the Satanic ethos of the elites would be advertised and praised in the late 20th century and early 21st century. It was less about anything the dissenters said, because they were a motley bunch and could never organize for long, and more about how they said it. There was no ability to speak against the principle of the Satan which had become absolute once communication was global, and a million points of Satanic light were ready to crush anyone who dared to defend themselves. It was morally incorrect now to speak against the eugenic creed, no matter how much torture it committed or how pointless the entire enterprise was. None of this was really effective for any purpose, not even the purpose of control. It was just sadism for its own sake, because that was calculated to be the most effective moral strategy for the new order. The sadism was the point, more than any goal to the killing. In some sense, it was waged for behavior modification, but someone would think that there are better ways to sell eugenic mate selection than the morass of lies that are spread. It would have been cleaner for the eugenists to come out. It was not just a matter of trepidation. It was about the thrill of seeing the masses twist in the wind as their lives were sucked away, their wealth pooled into the coffers of an elite that loved to see them suffer and bragged the whole way. It was about the flogging of the humiliated, the thrill of every sadistic school authority who won the game, the orgies and drug culture that proliferated and gave that thrill to some members of the lower class. It was about seeing the snark and venality everywhere, because this is aesthetically pleasing to the creed. They love to see people like themselves and join in a gigantic circle. Most of all, it was about seeing the dread of the damned as their hope sunk. The defeat of humanity would be replayed ad nauseum, each time with greater uproar and laughter. That was the moral cause, more than even the behavior modification. The behavior modification was merely a necessary byproduct so that the orgiastic torture could be maximized, and the population in the long term can be culled until the predatory, Satanic behaviors become more and more absolute. Those of a Satanic mind will select each other as partners, locking out anyone else and laughing gleefully as poison injections were imposed on the people. As this happens, so-called euthanasia would be aired on television as a "service". This euthanasia is carried out with a poison that is known to cause maximal suffering upon death, and the knowing grin of the eugenist at announcing "Medical Assistance in Dying" is part of the ritual. These are morally necessary for the creed to continue itself, and more importantly, they are the entire purpose of this enterprise, so long as eugenics remains the ruling idea. There may be those who still see this as a means to an end, but for the venal enablers, who inhabit all classes of society, the torture and thrill was the only thing there ever was. Many of them don't even benefit materially from this torture, and they eventually get got. The cravens accepted that a long time ago, because they know nothing else and are themselves the true life unworthy of life. These people revel in their miserable drug addictions, but when they become alcoholics and destroy their own life in addition to those around them, it's all hunky-dory. Get screened out by this eugenist death cult though, and the shrieking and moral posturing will never stop. This brazen hypocrisy is itself celebrated, and the eugenic creed can do nothing else.

Only once this moral core is understood does a proper understanding of the method of eugenics make sense. In order to do this, it is necessary to arrive at some material origin for why we have the moral stance that we do. Whether this is "evil" or "good" may depend on your point of view, but good, bad, and evil are not merely arbitrary words to which we can assign anything interchangeably. The natures of good, bad, and evil point to different tendencies. Good is difficult and mysterious and precious. Bad is ubiquitous and lame. Evil possesses a taint that is necessarily complex. We do not have a true counterpart to "Evil" that is its inverse. We only have "the good", and while some might argue that we can distinguish between good opposing bad and good or holiness opposing evil, I believe these two definitions are necessarily the same, and that the good entails something beyond the question of bad or evil. Good would speak to something in the world that our minds never quite touch, but we infer the existence of good in ways that we don't always appreciate. We find purpose to life in the strangest things, if only out of perseverance against the evil and bad that we see so much of, and if only because the lying and nastiness of humanity has shown us that we may only have small things in this life that we want to live for. We would live for the good, however we understand it, but we are not here to be bad or to indulge in evil. We are not here to suffer or chant like retards for the latest capitalist spectacle. We are not happy with increasingly sick "entertainment" that is little more than recapitualtion of eugenic norms. We are not happy with the admittedly pleasant distractions to keep our brains busy, so we don't think about the evil all around us. We may disagree on whether eugenics is evil, or the ultimate evil. Evil in my view cannot be reduced to a singular bogeyman or a number of bogeyman. Evil to be meaningful must be understood; and again, humanity has always known evil, and did not need some fruit of knowledge to attain this. It was knowledge of the good that opened the question of how to better harness evil and malevolence, and allowed a greater questioning of the nature of evil. It is evil we would examine most of all, and it is precisely evil that moral philosophers of the reactionaries sought to mystify. "Evil" was reduced to a fairytale, because it can't possibly be so bad. I have to wonder what a faggot like Nietzsche thought when he broke down crying over a fucking horse. What a syphilitic retard. Those are the grand philosophers who helped bring us to this shit, and they get even worse in the 20th century. Evil had to be turned entirely into an academic exercise, and then we are told what we are supposed to consider "evil", without any further understanding. We are taught to accept "Hitler is evil" without any understanding of Hitler's actual motives, or the entire Nazi apparatus that had general motives that are well known but omitted in the narrative of evil. We don't accept that at the time, Hitler's opinions were not uncommon in Germany, and many Germans joined happily in atrocities without a second thought, and never looked back. To acknowledge that would be to acknowledge the Nazi faithful that continued to lurk in the woodwork since 1945, and the greater influence of eugenics. Even if the Nazi objectives were not considered evil, it is necessary to consider the moral positions the Nazis did take, which are more complex than a staccato narrative of bashing Jews and ranting like madmen. The morality of political actors will usually include a concept of evil, and there would be things the Nazis feared for their own reasons, however much they wouldn't admit it. That the Nazi positions of eugenics were shared around the world by a global vanguard that pushed the war into existence was not to be acknowledged. Eugenics would be sold, for a time, as a particular evil of Nazism that just sort of happened, but disappeared from the record as the lies and myths began, many of them by socialists living under Nazi occupation who cared not in the slightest about the suffering of the poor. They cared only about themselves, and socialists were perhaps the only people still committted to anti-Bolshevism. The typical conservatives and centrists didn't give a single shit about fighting communists, and it took some doing to convince Americans that they should care about communists. The only way fighting communists made sense was to blame the communists for things eugenics and Nazis did, and conflate them all in a grand conspiracy. It should be noted that Eugene McCarthy is latching onto communism as an explanation of a much deeper conspiracy, if you spend any time listening to Americans who were partisans of his. The argument was not that communism had some magical power, but that there was a conspiracy in the halls of the American government to subvert the United States - and there was very much such a conspiracy, which is why Eugene McCarthy's career goes down in flames. All of this is replaced with a moral narrative that anti-communism was, for a moment, "evil", and it was especially evil to suggest that there was any conspiracy among the best and brightest who were paragons of virtue and told you all the right ideas. The whole thing is so preposterous, and the result of the anti-communist purges was to punish writers, actors, and artists mostly because the CIA had its own agenda for promoting art and culture, and needed to prop up the mass consumer culture so that it was a useful vehicle for social engineering down the line. Too many honest writers would act against that, and often the "communist" artists were only loosely affiliated with communism, at a time where support for socialism broadly was acceptable in American life. They often attended a communist or socialist meeting or knew a few communists who were good people in their mind, and could chat with them about politics or life or the state of the world. It was necessary to insinuate that there was some moral evil in associating with the wrong sort, like anyone who suggested there was anything wrong with eugenics. As this anti-communist purge is happening, another purge, often ignored, is the purge of the weak, as eugenics marks down the first wave of sacrifices, vivisecting them in experiments and looking the other way as they are quietly killed. No one will mourn these sacrifices and it is unlikely a proper death toll will ever be known. A handful of sacrifices are made public, as "a few bad eggs", but anyone who knows eugenics knows that when eugenics is given an inch, they take a mile. Eugenics always downplayed the number of sterilizations, and did not announce its exterminations or the people they willfully pushed to suicide as the only way out. Where they announce perhaps 10,000 sterilizations, all "done properly", there were in actuality hundreds of thousands of sterilizations. The deaths from institutionalization are out of sight and out of mind, not even acknowledged on paper because no one was there to look at the damned nor cared about what was happening. This is what they are, and it was all moral to them. They justified the entire crusade of eugenics on a moral jihad against the weak, and as they do this, they make it illegal to speak "fighting words" specifically against fascists and those who will defend eugenics with the utmost violence. Very little is done to act against this, and the crumbs of sympathy permitted to mollify the masses are emphasized. That none of this really changed anything and just changed the nature of eugenic screening, and that the preparation for mass drugging and brain damage was already at work when these crumbs were permitted, was not to be acknowledged. All of this rested on a belief that moral ideas were among the first technocratic subjects would be forbidden to know, except the moral ideas allowed of them by the experts.

Ethics forms the rational counterpart to morality. Where morality concerns in the end a real world, ethics asks us this question in the abstract and concerns a political logic. Morality without ethics remains little more than an inchoate expression, which can be twisted by the manipulation of psychology and public opinion. Ethics without a moral foundation is the manipulation, and it is towards that end that the ethicist has been deployed. If we are to speak of spiritual authority leading to any moral outcome, the question of morality remains dynamic and cannot be easily reduced to a few sops. We will always seek a path to what we think is good, but to truly arrive at moral or ethical probity requires a reckoning with the conditions we live in. It should only occur when humans are aware of the world and society they live in, and on the presumption that there can be honest dialogue between social participants. This is a luxury that cannot be expected or taken for granted, but the wall of rejection and shame for most of us is explicitly a denial of any morality. The use of this tactic to abolish moral and intellectual understanding must be seen for what it is. A terrible reality dawns on us that it is very easy to eliminate any moral or ethical basis for social order by simply shouting loud and making real by force a whole new system of morality, in which venality and cruelty are good and the decency allowing for moral life is ruthlessly purged. Once done, the degradation of the amoral hedonist begins, first by accelerating the decline of the mind, and then physical agony and deterioration. The particular use of the eugenic creed to accelerate this degeneration must be written on later. Moral and ethical theory, then, cannot rest on their own, absent any further development or interplay with the rest of the world. We are moral or ethical in response to something that is real, whether it is a material world where events occur, or because political truth and social institutions in the end must respond to something we have a reason to believe in. The gratuitous shame and shrieking, the hallmark of every deceiver, cannot be tolerated, if we are to speak of ethics meaning anything. Ethics in a meaningful sense would forestall the posturing that leads to ritual sacrifice, if it is to be an ethics that is anything other than a regression to base conditions. Ethics can be used to protect and enshrine the shriekers and liars, but inevitably, all such ethical and moral systems revert to the same one, the foundational essence which presses the nerve of power. This basic ethos is not truly natural or inherent to the concept of morality, nor is it inherent to all life. It is instead a very particular ethos of the predatory element which seeks to annihilate anything else, and in the end it denies that there is such a thing as morality or ethics at all. All that is moral becomes wholly arbitrary. It is not even the path of least resistance. Life would, on its own power, reject such an ethical system, unless it were supported by a preponderance of violence demanding it. It is by life's own power that such an ethos could be rejected and not impress on everyone its necessity. The ethos of pure predation has always been the domain of a minority that required sacrifices to maintain it, and that sacrifice could only extend so far.

When I refer to "ethos" in my writing, I refer to particular tenets in line with a spiritual authority which are put into practice every day and in every way. In their core ethics, humans do not make errors, however much they claim to be ignorant of morality and ethics. Usually, humans attempting to be ethical are merely importing an ethos that is alien to them, and they follow that ethos not out of true conviction but because they have been compelled to by society. It should not be a surprise that there are few humans who are true believers in ethics, as it often requires both formal study and a stake they are defending. The ethos of most people, in any era, is primitive, as it should be. A simple desire to hold what is theirs and retain themselves against an alien society has worked better for them and for those around them than every institutional ethos humanity ever devised. If this were respected, and the people had the thing they wanted from the start, it is unlikely the entire course of human history turns out as it did. Intruigers and a persistent predatory element have been able to exploit the decency in people because they have allowed to, protected and enabled by institutions. Attempts to make imperialism or predation good fail because there is an objective reality where those practices lead to consequences. Attempts to abolish Empire or abolish ruling institutions do not work because those institutions existed for very clear historical reasons. The typical pretense of empires in competition with the dominant empire in a given age is that they are not empires at all, even going so far as to proclaim they are anti-imperialist, but this is only ever a sop told to losers, and it is always taught in the most insulting and demeaning way possible. Empire, for reasons that will be clearer, is the only way in which the state proper can constitute itself over a large space, and every nation-state that existed is either an empire or a tributary to an empire that is utterly beholden to the hegemon. The anti-imperialists and anarchists are only ever useful as tools of one empire or another, offering a simplistic sop that if someone just claps their hand and believes in the narrative, the magical unicorn land without empires will materialize and everyone will live happily ever after.[2] An embrace of immorality, a denial of spiritual authority as something outside of men and their conceits, and a way to twist ethics with wordplay so that anything could be anything, made it possible for empires to entertain social formations and initiatives that were previously impossible. In doing so, many paths available for humanity were foreclosed, and would be violently attacked even if the current path of eugenics were clearly undesirable for the majority of people.

This could only be possible because it became ethical to embrace ignorance and depravity; and this was a rational, ethical choice rather than a moral one. Morality could not embrace immediately the depraved values of the predatory, but ethical tricks would short-circuit every practice that was decent while granting to wickedness a rational legitimacy. It must be understood that the truth of the world has no moral or ethical stake in humanity, and if humanity really chooses eugenics, then that will be that and we might as well just end the project forever and speak no more of it. Since that leaves us damned with nothing to do except suffer and die, and I don't intend to kill myself at this point and certainly won't die for the sake of those Satanic assholes, none of us have any reason to accept this curious "ethics". When the ethical failures of the liberal order became too much, every depravity would be glorified and every decency would be violently suppressed, and all the while, it was forbidden to call this the genocidal program what it is. None of this program accomplished anything good, but was intended to glorify cruelty for its own sake and declare anything against it is "retarded", which would be the sole bad and evil to be purged. The resulting "smart" moral position would reward superficial apperances and every bourgeois stupidity imaginable, because it does not require great intelligence to see that this program is futile, and that the institutions of eugenics favored predatory schemers. More importantly, the institutions of eugenics abhorred anything productive or anything that would give to the people the thing they wanted, which would have allowed them to resist eugenic encroachment into their lives. It was not just that the dysgenic and retarded were to be excluded from high society. The losers would find their world shrink and be subjected to humiliations, tortures, poisoning of their food, and forced medical interventions, and then they would be in the late 1990s processed in school-prisons that habituate them to permanent torture. The goal is an existence so abject that, after it perpetuates enough, the offer of total and permanent slavery will be given to the lucky survivors, and they will gladly accept it. This slavery will then feed the predatory who won and were enshrined by the eugenic creed, and history will be truly arrested. The torture will only be maximized, taken for granted, and that becomes the new and permanent moral and ethical position forevermore. To do this, it was necessary to emphasize ethics over morality, and then turn ethics into nothing more than a thought exercise in which the positions of the eugenic creed were holy and the foundation for law and the purpose of the human project. It is here where "human" is stripped of its spiritual connotation and reduced to a purely biological claim to legitimacy, and common self-deprecation would refer to humanity as flawed, failed, a title of humiliation. The eugenists believe, in their own ethos, that they are superior to biological humans. In reality, the eugenists claimed for themselves the spiritual meaning humanity once suggested, so that the subordinated castes live in abject squalor and maximal humiliation, stamped with the word "retarded" on every cell of their bodies. It's bad enough that Orwell's vision of a boot stamping on a human face forever seems like a charmed existence. Ingsoc at least waited until adulthood to do its dirtiest work, while the eugenic creed's vision for the future is children reduced to Satanic screamers, devoid of any curiosity and marching like true retards while believing themselves brilliant. The slightest ugliness begins the shrieking of the eugenic creed, pronouncing a new ritual sacrifice, which bloods every child and every imperial subject, and participation in the creed's sacrifices must become an ethical obligation of the highest reason. That this only leads to the same depraved people ruling, and doesn't produce anything else, does not matter. Only the creed matters, because it has cleaved ethical thinking from any material basis or any spiritual authority except the will to power and the principle of the Satan. This is why I continue to refer to the eugenic ethos as a Satanic ethos, and that meaning will be explained further in a chapter describing the principle of the Satan.

Where moral judgements are always substantive, ethical judgements do not have to be so unless there is a rational treatment of that substance. It is possible to build an ethical system without a moral foundation as such, but it will lead to some conclusions that are less than idea, and its purpose would depend on the germ around which the ethos is created. In the case of Eugenics, the germ is a belief in hereditary intelligence, and then numerous statements that are intended to short-circuit any rational understanding of that intelligence, with the implication that the sheer audacity of the eugenic coup will overpower any resistance. There was never a version of eugenics which was considerate of a possibility that eugenics could be wrong. If it can be insinuated that once retarded, always retarded, then the eugenist will always be a eugenist once they are convinced of the creed. There can be no turning back. Once the eugenist bloods themselves on the ritual sacrifice, they will be with the creed for life. There is not even the shred of remorse you could find among mafiosi. While mafiosi will acknowledge that they're bastards and the nature of sin, the eugenic creed has no such doubt in them, for they are a ruling conspiracy which must be an absolute. The moment a eugenist makes any concession to the enemy is the moment their entire system is exposed as a castle of lies and barbaric outrages against logic and decency. While the dream of any mafia man is to escape the evil life and legitimize himself, the eugenist insists on the most depraved mafia behavior as an absolute. It is not so much that the eugenist is truly amoral, but that the eugenist has stripped ethics away from any substantive outcome, because the ethos of eugenics insists on flagrant violation of any evidence presented against it. If this idea were adopted by an mafiosi, they would not last long, because it takes a sick man to enjoy the depravity of the criminal underworld. The eugenist revels in depravity and doesn't bother to hide his criminality. Rather than do that, the eugenist invades any court or any institution that would suggest that the eugenic creed could be wrong. The eugenists sterilized women who were innocent of any "crime of Being", and recapituated by brute force the belief that the eugenic interest did not need to be held to any standard. The precedent to uphold the eugenic creed is an absolute that will sterilize innocents and must, as a rule, expand the definition of who is retarded, insane, or otherwise deemed evil. If there is no one fitting the criteria for eugenic extermination, the eugenic creed requires such a class to be created and tortured. If one is familiar with the beliefs held by Francis Galton and his ilk, this is not merely something they believe in because it is convenient. That is what they are, through and through. The Galtonites do not want to and do not have to ever justify themselves. Endless shrieking and instinct are the moral and ethical cause, and the rationalizations are only an excuse to cover up their relentless disregard for any law. The moral code of the Galtonite is that their will is the only extent of the law, true to the Satanic creeds that were revealed to the world through Crowley and his ilk, which were part of a greater program of advancing the eugenic creed. Extending moral or ethical treatment to such people was the mistake. Crowley and his ilk could have been put down like dogs, and we would be in the right to do so. "But," the ethicists say, "there are laws protecting him!" This is rich, considering the millions consigned to torture and humiliation in the workhouse or prison, who would be killed for peanuts and given no further thought. To acknowledge that would require some consistency, and it raises the unanswered question of moral equivalence. A Satanic is not morally equivalent to a dispossessed lumpen of the residuum, and cannot be. Ethical excuses grant to the Satanic "equality under the law", which is always parodic. Mystifiers claim that this is inherent to the liberal thinking, but it does not require any philosophy to see that brazen, in-your-face hypocrisy leads to predictable results. That would be obvious to a liberal, but mystifiers were playing their part to enable this spectacle. The entire trial is a show to demonstrate a political truth to the empire: Satanics will be coddled and protected, and it is open season on the honest and dutiful. The obvious solution to this is to cut the Gordian knot, form lynch mobs, stop making excuses, and then press the creed until they are no longer a threat. It was not material necessity which truly protected the eugenists, but a great fear that would be reproduced, so that the people terminated their resistance before it began. Otherwise, it would have required remarkably few deaths among the creed's faithful to put the Satanics back where they belonged. Hitler's street faggots could have been killed on sight and little would be lost, but the ethical argument claims that Hitler's rise was inevitable due to spooky forces. That the "spooky forces" were an endless funding stream for the eugenic creed is of course not mentionable, since eugenics was and had to be a global movement. Stripping ethics for moral or material foundations or any fidelity to truth allows such perversions to be promoted, while the honest are cowed and told that they cannot have basic things. There are of course some deeper problems. The pious Christians had no problem with enabling Satanics, because in the final analysis, there was no genuine disagreement in belief, particularly when it came to eugenics. The ethical case against eugenics would never be allowed to exist, and it is unlikely that a full explanation could be widely propagated in that time. Too much would have had to be known and developed, and the only class interested in such a mission would be the residuum who were dismissed by all.

It should be clear that there is no way to present morality or ethics as something eternal and unchanging, which can arrest history. Only the amoral and hedonistic order of the predatory can do this. That is what the End of History can only mean - that a predatory mindset becomes absolute, calls itself God, and does what it will. There is a question of whether "history" itself is a true understanding of the past, since history refers solely to books and writings deemed important for some topic. For history in this sense to end implies an end to the basis for historical events, which implies a society controlled and cajoled to be what a few thought leaders wish it to be. So long as there is struggle, there will be history, a past, and a future, even if the struggle is hopeless and the people are fed to the slaughter in a ritualistic pseudo-war. The end of struggle will not be the end of history, nor will it necessitate a new struggle. There would be a struggle of sorts in living creatures, but the only way the present struggle could end is if the philosophy of eternal struggle itself were questioned. We could easily see a world in which the intercine struggle no longer consumes the majority of wealth and resources, but if such a world existed, it would require humans to be something they are not, and to accept a mindset that is alien to everything we have known; and this mindset is most alien to the current ruling interest, who do not want to hear of any idea that not just overrules the predatory ethos, but that sees no value in the predatory ethos and rejects it without needing to think. The moral and ethical stance of any resistance, by now, would abandon the conceits of humanity as they have existed, and would out of necessity find the entire eugenic enterprise to be greater than merely evil or bad. Eugenics is the first true historical example of pure, unmitigated <b>abomination</b> in mankind, outstripping all prior forms and suggesting that eugenics is only the start of this abomination's hold on the world. A full understanding of abomination is beyond the scope of this book, but it must be clear that the eugenic creed cannot be reasoned with, and looking for a moral or ethical crusade is missing the purpose of what any struggle would mean. If we are unwilling to do that, then we might as well accept that it is lost, because if there were a clear moral or ethical case that would allow the damned to take the supposed high road, someone would have figured it out by now.

Ethics, to be meaningful, cannot simply stand on its own, with the sciences stripped of moral character. The ethicist must be able to judge the moral and ethical meaning of science, and must be informed by science in making these judgements. So too does ethics draw on spiritual authority other than science, and seeks to synthesize all of these approaches as best as it can. It is true that not every behavior is moral or ethical, or should be subdued to the interests of ethics however construed. There is nothing moral about playing a game or choosing one sexual mate over another. Every action will have moral implications, but we can ask ourselves which moral positions are more important, and if we are not obsessive about some antiseptic utopia, we can see the full implications of actions without moral paralysis, or a reasonable approximation that would guide our behavior. It is quite impossible to have any coherent ethics under a technocratic society, where a minority hold the sole scientific legitimacy and occult science behind a veil of mystification. It is only possible to have "ethics" which enshrines the tyranny of one republic, held by a limited group, against a majority who are utterly alien and oppressed by it, not just on a temporary basis but until the technocratic arrangement of society ends. That development is far in the future, and I can only write briefly on such a world; nor do I think such a world could be any sort of goal to hold now, or even reliable as a dream. It could only be a thought exercise of what might be possible on the road not taken, since by now eugenics and technocracy have permanently marred the entire human project. For us to speak of a moral society when science is a spiritual authority would require not just a popularization of knowledge and free flow of information for reference, but an entire ethos which promoted engagement and dialogue of a sort that is inimical to the eugenic creed. People would, out of necessity, express themselves in ways that would make them a target for eugenic screening, while the degraded duckspeak of the eugenic creed is elevated as a marker of intellect. There is also a problem that the elevated elites will be able to use tricks and cajoling to brainwash and mesmerize anyone, so that any dissent is derailed and herded back into the slave pen. A disgust towards abomination in the true sense of the word would be required at the least. I only have so much space to write on moral and ethical philosophy, and it is a great topic that has been completely abandoned during the rule of the eugenic creed. Hopefully, this chapter has been a useful starting point for readers to make their own investigation into moral or ethical history, and suggest to them a way out. Again, I am no guru and do not have all the answers, but I certainly know abomination, having seen plenty of it from my earliest memory and knowing others who have seen worse than I have. If it weren't for the many people in this society who violate the eugenic creed any day by speaking with me honestly, to the extent that such things are possible, I would not be here and the state of the world would be much worse. It is only because of a deep understanding that the eugenic creed is Satanic and disgusting that we still have any world worth living in, and whether I write or not, too many in this world have no reason to give the eugenic creed a single inch more, and know now to make this fight bitter. If the eugenists want to glorify struggle, they will have to bear the price forevermore, and I will curse them with every fiber of my being and take pride when another eugenist faces their god and learns, as so many of us have, "it was all a lie."

[1] It is a note of interest that "heterosexuality" enters the English language not to describe relations that were considered normal during the late 19th century, but to a disordered attachment to the opposite sex that was considered to interfere with what were then considered proper sexual morals and thoughts. The older orientation that was considered moral was not reducible to a single concept, but instead concerned a complex moral consideration and probity of a man or woman, who was presumed to have the competence to make his or her own decisions when mating, and where restraint and control was of great importance to the entire act of sex. Homosexuality was not considered bad or disordered because of an essence of the act, but because of its consequences that were attested to throughout history, and homosexuality in all of modernity has always been considered a pathology with very well known characteristics, none of which would be flattering. It is interesting that in all of the acceptable orientations, there are two which are utterly unacceptable. The first is this normal, virtuous orientation where men and women can decide for themselves how they will act and seek sex not for ulterior motives of politics or social values imposed from above, but because the act itself and its consequences were seen as good or potentially good, and it was seen as socially valuable to protect this freedom of procreation and a healthy environment to foster relationships and raise children. This has remained at the forefront of concerns over sexual moral depravity, and eugenists have made a habit of abusing everyone's good nature to advance a very alien agenda. The second that is absolutely forbidden is an anti-sexual stance which finds the entire construct of sex philosophically and morally abominable, usually with the belief that today's moral depravity is an inevitable result of sexualism and was always there in human society. In the second case, antisexuals may insist on total rejection of the practice or its limitation to procreation for legitimate social purposes only, or an antisexual is more disgusted by the excesses of sexual politics and would seek to abolish the entire construct of "sexual orientation", which was always a nonsensical construct if the nature of sexual attraction and acts is considered and someone thinks about how a man or woman judges all things sexual and what they would want. Usually the latter case still implies a personal disgust towards the act, but does not consider it morally necessary for everyone to share his or her disgust, or can accept antisexualism as normative and sexual proclivities as a tolerable deviance within certain boundaries. It is this author's theory that as the moral depravity of eugenics continues, antisexual attitudes will increasingly become the only sane response to such a world, since there will increasingly be no argument that sexual relations can return to being a nonpolitical matter, or a matter where the political settlement is favorable at all to individuals. In eugenic society, the implication is that all sexual acts and all offspring are subject to the eugenic creed, and their entire life is sacrificed to the creed. The implication of this moral attitude of the eugenists is obvious and inherent to the entire eugenic project. Only the favored castes in eugenic society will be allowed to reproduce, with the punishment for lower castes and disfavored races being unlimited torture, rejection, shame, ridicule, and denial of basic privileges of freedom. In short, eugenic society implies total, natural, permanent, abject slavery for any caste that the Eugenic College does not speficically grant freedom, and that the behavior of the free castes is policed by the College. This includes the behavior of members of the Eugenic College themselves, who police each other like wary hawks and will screech at each other. Even for the favored castes, in all considerations including a secret world where eugenics doesn't apply for an elite, life in such a world would be too terrible to contemplate. This is one reason antinatalism is advanced by the eugenic creed, which retains the use of sexualism for moral and behavioral control and psychological conditioning appropriate for the creed's degeneracy, but suggests antisexualism while denying it as an acceptable position. The antisexuals are in the main averse to eugenics though often infected by its philosophy. The real objection has been to the sexual morality that eugenics imposed violently and against all prior sense and decency people ever had, and sought to maximize sadism.

[2] Marxism understood this narrative, told it to the losers who did not engage with history so they would be mollified, while the Marxist approach to capture the state was designed to establish anew the imperial logic for a new world. It was a particular approach to imperialism, and there were many imperial theories of what the world could be; and Marxism was not confined to a singular approach to Empire, but asked the deeper question to those who understood Marx's method of how we can even ask questions about history and society, and thus how to build empires as a general rule. The Marxist communist program was a particular program for the era it was active, rather than a simplistic rubric that was intended to stand forever and arrest history. The methods of Marx would be inherited by or apporpriated by far more feeble minds, who only saw in ideology a tool they could use and discounted what was really implied by socialism as a project. In the end, the inheritors decided the proletariat never did have anything worth saving in them, and the dodging on the eugenics question became so in-your-face that it boggles the mind of this author to think that any of this was ever for the workers. The workers were to be sorted, and the Left parties in practice have always been more amenable to depopulation rhetoric and stories of grand and bloody revolution. The failure of a popular base to take from this opportunity what was there to be had was aided by leftist parties who were more than happy to collaborate with their rightist counterparts, once their position in the ruling system was secured. There were the inheritors of Marx who did not like what was done with their system, but there would be intellectuals who knew what they really had and decided they could be mystifiers, in league with the growing eugenic interest that decided what humanity was really meant to be. The more honest of the left could only circle around technocratic institutions that were designed to fail, and that has been the great story of the past century. The necessary philosophical break from the past would not be allowed to happen, because the eugenic idea first and foremost would be injected everywhere and stalled anything else, and then eliminated the idea of any mass politics being possible. To do this would require breaking the poliitcal logic Marx's system relied on, and widespread understanding of the psychological, moral, ethical, and spiritual motives of the actual enemies of the people. That would never be allowed to happen, and only the desperate classes and those on the front lines for the eugenic creed knew what this was really about. The actually existing communist states had to, out of necessity, adopt some measure of defense against the eugenic creed, since the eugenist regime in Germany waged a war to rape and enslave the world, and then eugenics would be at the forefront of the post-war order. After the reactionary wave of the 1950s to lock down anything truly dangerous, it was too late, and what had been set in motion would have been difficult to stop. It is at that point where Marx's method breaks down as a useful explanation, even if it were applied honestly. Those who did understand this method figured out that it could not apply to the world of the late 20th century, and if they had a mind to change the world, they understood immediately that a new method and approach was necessary to even begin a project to defeat this. By isolating anyone who saw something wrong with eugenics and repeatedly humiliating them, it would be possible for the creed to begin its death march in the 21st century, as we are living through now.