Before describing the wider world in which humans actually live, it is helpful to approach the way in which a human thinks, from the perspective of a human's own thoughts on the matter. This learning is necessary before greater questions can be asked, and so the seeming organic thought of a human should be considered. For now, social and material factors in this will be ignored or considered to be at a baseline allowing a human being to proceed through life and ask this question on his or her own power, unfettered by values that are alien to their core convictions. There is not, nor can there be, a true "neutral observer" whose legitimacy is greater than any other. We suggested in the prior chapter that such an observer is possible, and such an observer must be hypothesized to pose a question about a real world. If the judgement of reality is purely subjective experience, we are wasting our time and might as well not tell others what the truth is. For truth to be worthwhile, the conditions laid out in the prior chapter must be accepted. While this example will take the life and experience of a human much like anyone who is likely to read this, the same rules would apply in some way to any thinking entity, with sufficient adjustment to consider the different real nature of a non-human entity. Animals do not express any significant knowledge of symbolic language or any ability to connect words to context, such that they express sentences and paragraphs as we would and act accordingly. This is not a biopolitical view of mental development, where I seek to suggest that different humans have essentially different views of the world and that this distinction justifies a political distinction among humans, or even between humans and animals. The rationale for this political and social distinction due to different manners of thinking or communication is considered in a later chapter, and has little to do with any innate or natural reason it should exist. The important subject in this chapter is to trace the development from the initial germ of conscious thought to the construction of what I will call a "world-system", or the total knowledge base and practices a mind builds. This world-system is effectively what the subjective observer knows as their best guess of what the real world is, and their own faculties and secrets which are known to be concealed and whose access is, to its knowledge, limited to other subjective observers.

Therefore, the world-system segregates the material, real or concrete world from the ideal or abstract world of other minds, and suggests how these two worlds relate to each other. The material and ideal are always implied for any conscious process we would consider "thought", even when abstract thinking has yet to lead to a greater awareness and memory as we would know it. The two worlds are separate from a very early stage of development, as the crude beginnings of continuous nervous action coalesce to form the first stirrings of consciousness. They are never as far apart as a political consciousness would desire them to be, and earlier in development, the material and ideal are presumed to be closely linked. Animals and infants do not yet know better, yet there is enough sense in them that they know what they see is not the entirety of the world. A seed of deception is standard in the human race, with very few exceptions. Woe awaits the honest who encounter mankind, and the origins of this are complex and assumed to be inherent. It must be understood from the outset that humans are all liars, and a propensity for lying, cruelty, and sadism is common to the race. This propensity only allows the low cunning of animals, and is often maladaptive, but as humans develop and mature, they learn more effective lies. What follows is a balancing act where the human must maintain intellectual integrity if it wishes to make use of this rational faculty and symbolic language, and elaborate systems of mental cheating and deception which constitute considerable parts of the human experience. We would like to believe that other people, out of expedience or necessity, are basically good and forthright, or at least are willing to work with another person so that cooperation is possible. There is a persistent minority of humanity who do not think like this at all, and they find each other, select each other, and promote each other; their only cooperation is on the basis of a grand deception and game they have played since time immemorial. The trajectory of human history has been that this deceptive, predatory segment have been able to insinuate themselves, finding new methods of control and expanding their influence and the appeal of their philosophy to humans who were less wise to the predatory ethos. New predatory ethics will arise occasionally which necessarily sweep away an older form of predation, or co-opt the old, or encourage the evolution of predation as a thought-form with its own world-historical mission. A low cunning becomes necessary to evade this predation, and the predatory behavior precedes the state or any institution which insisted it would be so. For as long as life has existed, it has known deception and what we may consider "evil", and there was never a "Fall of Man" where humanity was once good or innocent. Humanity was created guilty, and that is something that becomes apparent with any knowledge of human history. It was the idea that it was ever any other way or that "good" was possible that was the abstract conceit that allowed for a more elaborate system of mental cheating and lying, and refined the predatory practices of the race. The moment some human, out of necessity, found what they might consider the good life, the predatory of mankind were Johnny on the spot to vivisect this good and find a way to destroy it. The existence of good, which would always remain hypothetical even if it could be developed, was anathema to the most basic conviction of the predatory, for reasons that will become apparent as we proceed through this book. For now, this concern of predation and deception can be set aside. By whatever means are available to it, we will construct the hypothetical, well-socialized human who is as free as humans can expect to be when thinking about the world they inhabit, and so this human is not going to fret over assumptions or the general fear created in social conditions, and can see that for what it is as many humans of any class do. Presumably, they have the freedom to read a wide variety of literature and can see the world without too much of it being occulted, so they can construct for themselves a reliable world-system that could consider an occult world of elites as what it is, rather than believe what elites insinuate about themselves being far greater than they are, or that there is no elite at all if an elite is very effective at controlling reality and mystifying its mode of operation.

The formation of a world-system begins with the constitution of the thinking entity. The entity's construction may be seen mechanistically, but if we are to judge its mechanisms properly, the interplay of its parts is most relevant to know what it truly does. For a human, it is a life form, beginning its development in the womb and building the first stirrings of consciousness before it leaves. The nature of life itself must be taken into account; but the thinking entity is not reducible to the impulses of life, as if it were an entity that existed to fulfill some world-historical mission intended of all living things and bound eternally and solely to life's imperatives. Living things, even in the womb, interface with the non-living for their sustenance. Outside of the womb, the life-form will encounter many non-living things, which it will appropriate and exist alongside and have an effect on it. Most of the world is not living at all, and it is primarily a non-living world that life encounters and expects. There is an instinctive reaction in life to animate objects, which it may construe as living and not unlike itself, and these are considered differently from inanimate objects or objects which are believed to be mechanical and operate on principles that are easy to observe. The early life of an infant typically involves discovering these mechanical movements, beyond that which are instinctive for the life-form. If there are "inborn" behaviors, they are only the most primitive and from those primitive roots there are many potential expressions of the behavior.

A full accounting of typical infant to childhood development does not need to be recounted here, but most of us are familiar with milestones of typical development. All of these milestones must fit into an overall theory and expectation of development, if we are to assert confidently what "true and proper development" of an organism is. Simply stating blandly the procession of prescribed stages, without any concept of a common thread of why a stage occurs at such a point, is pedagogy of the worst kind which retards genuine understanding of why we develop as we do. There are of course many qualities built into a human, which vary considerably for each example of the human race, but in the main, the faculties of humans are largely similar. The development of language is common for most of the race, as is the development of many motor skills and the adoption of crude learning techniques. Most humans will learn to count in some way, even if not formally instructed. There is a need to pick up language by whatever faculties are available to a child, which most navigate regardless of the damage society and parents inflict on them. Virtually all of this early learning is sink or swim; this is not so much because parents are inherently neglectful, or because human potentials are fixed by some inexorable trend, but because human society has for various reasons encouraged this expectation. A child who does not "automatically" conform to social expectations of development is deemed defective and thrown away, and this is a habit of the human race that is so deeply ingrained that it will not be questioned in any serious way. There is no tolerance, and the models of education humans adopt make this rejection a political requirement to enter society, and then an obligation of all who are granted the title "human". All the effort to nurture a child's development by pedagogical force is doomed to run into an instinct built in humans to attack that which is non-human, and who gets to enter the human family is tightly controlled. What can be done, and this is usually the best course of action, is to protect the environment of a developing infant, so that the worst damage from external forces can be averted, and the infant can discover for itself the best way it can comport with human society. There is in practice a level of nurture expected, but mothers select early which of their children are selected to live and which are selected to die, and if they don't make this choice themselves, human society will impose this choice in one way or another. This is not strictly speaking a eugenic decision, but rather it is the whims of humans who are not in any way obligated to see a child grow nor bound by nature to honor any commitment. Eugenics, and all that will spawn from it, accelerates this tendency and places it at the pinnacle of the state and society, and makes objection to this eugenic mission not just taboo, but the sole taboo and the sole law, overriding all other expectations of law or custom humans have developed. Whatever the child's development, if it is not exposed to the elements and all the predation of the human race from the outset, it will have to make do with whatever faculties it has developed, and those which were assisted with nurture and the early contact it makes with other humans, including humans like itself. The typical pattern of rejection and exposure, if it isn't just to kill on sight the defective, is to begin the cycle of rejection and shame from the age of one year on, and the expectation of failure is set in the infant and becomes the obligation of the entire human race forevermore. Some children overcome this conditioning, but by design, the cycle of rejection and shame is designed to ensure that once rejected, a child is always rejected, and there will be no redemption. This is the first and greatest sin, and no argument can seriously claim that any other sin ever took precedence, no matter how stupid the argument to reject a child at such a young age may be. Whether a child is selected to live and participate in human society, or selected to die yet forced to endure as a living abortion, the child will have to continue on their own power to make sense of the world. It will be assumed from this point on that the child is a living abortion, and so faces the social rejection this author has faced for his entire life, but that the child is also aware enough of the world and can at least read the history of humans as they have allowed it to be distributed, and that the child expects the secret society of humans to conduct the foul business typical of the race, and the child will eventually discover that he or she was never really considered "human", and therefore is not fettered too much by any conceit of humanity or social belonging, beyond that which is necessary to continue living and learning about the world. The particulars of political society are a more complex thing, and it is here where many of the conceits that guide humanity are truly constructed. Those will be revisited later in this book. It is nearly impossible for someone who is free to move around and interface with the world to not see that the mannerisms of humans are largely the product of society and a concept of politics, whether they are a part of that society or not. It has been a constant drive of society to force those who are rejected from society proper into participation. If they cannot themselves take part in politics, then politics will come for them in one way or another and impose obligations. This particular construction of the thought experiment should be sufficient for us to continue as if society and the political are not of concern, and we can thus observe the thinking entity in what may be considered "experimental" conditions that are useful for this thought exercise. We cannot assume the null hypothesis of a total, omnipresent, natural "society" which simply exists, apart from anything the agents of that society do, but we can safely consider the perspective of someone who view society as an alien, because that is the effective life of the typical socialized subject today, in one way or another.

We acquire information about this world, which was once upon a time ours before it was enclosed by an alien society. We occupy a space and move about as free as ever, and we may conclude that there is no great imposition on us by the alien society, and that we have certain friends by this point. In this scenario, all such concerns are not relevant. The hypothetical child is visualizing the world, as we have, as if the objects involved were not social threats, since that has been accounted for in its estimation.

Early in a child's life, queries concerning location (where) and time (when) are necessary to establish distance in time and space, and thus velocity. Queries about an effect seek a cause (why), and queries about a process in action seek to describe it (how). The queries of a cause seeking an effect describe an identifier and associated effect pertaining to its existence. "What" and "Who" are variant in the language because the cause of a person, or social agent, is much different from causes from a non-person, or a cause from a description of a person's role alone. I can illustrate examples of these inquiries by imaginging playing an old role-playing game on a computer. Who is Nerrick the Dwarf? He is the cause that will detonate a rock to build a canal. Objects can be causes and effects, and so "Who built the canal?" seeks the cause, but Nerrick is a Dwarf who could have done many other things, and the canal was built ultimately because Nerrick saw it as his work. Nerrick is not a slave, but does you a favor for fetching him TNT to build said canal, which is what he always wanted to do. It is you the adventurer who obtained that TNT, and went through many steps to attain it, but only in an indirect way did you build the canal. The proximity of events, how you did it, and why you did it, are all relevant to the entire chain that began with your adventure and ended (for now) with Nerrick building a canal. If you are keeping a log of your adventure, all of these things, the fights along the way, and war stories to tell the kids, are part of the model of this adventure. The adventure takes place in a simulated world about which you can ask these queries, and because this is a digital, computerized environment in a video game, you can know the precise number of steps to arrive at each event, the outcome of every battle, the expenditure of money to purchase supplies for this adventure, and how to plan this trip to be more efficient in the future. The human playing this game can relate to the events, which are really just algorithmic processes of no consequence outside of the game, and derive meaning from them that is not evident just from the fact of the computer code and the images presented on the screen. Someone might see the game being played, but only someone engaged with the game would appreciate fully the experience and see it as theirs, a dialogue played with their Nintendo, and indirectly with the game's programmer and development team. There are then others who played the same game, who have their own stories of progression through the quest. The video game is an interesting example because it presents a scenario of dialogue and action without the player associating it with strong social risks. In the game, you can kill things and do things that are certainly forbidden in real engagements, and that are not possible in competitive sports. There is a danger of players associating this obviously fictitious gameplay with the real world. The battles in this game do not resemble any decision-making one would make in a genuine melee, and are designed to be far removed from real action for multiple reasons. Little can be learned about how to fight, and it could give the false impression that you could grow strong by beating up imps repeatedly, and pressing A with your flabby arms and hands to make up for your lack of physical prowess in the real world. On the other hand, the game teaches problem-solving, planning, resource management, risk management, reading to figure out what you do, logic puzzles, familiarity with fantasy tropes, the frustration of old RPG mechanics, and how to craft a story with limited means that might be compelling to a player. All of the things the game offers are for fun. If nothing else, it is a timesink away from a world that is generally terrible, and seeing level increases and new spells produces a sense of accomplishment. If the player is not careful, the conditioning of power leveling and the quest for new stuff is like conditioning in a Skinner box. For the purposes of our example, though, all of the game activities are linked together in a simulation, and knowledge about the game is related in a way the player can remember. A player who knows the game by heart can remember every step and what is best to do, and memorizes the library of monsters. This information was learned not by rote but because the player is engaging with it, and is capable of deciphering meaning and comparing it to other meanings acquired throughout life to put it into context. It is, in the end, just a game, a self-contained world written on 256KB of ROM and played on a console that is incredibly underpowered. To really know who Nerrick is implies a context to know first of all what game we are playing, why the canal is important, where Nerrick can be found, and when the TNT finally can be delivered to him. The fewer the degrees of separation in the game world, the less it will have to do with Nerrick, and all of these relations are understandable if we choose to connect them. The player would not know to go to Nerrick if text to tell you he was building a canal was not available, and the player did not reach a point in the game to read that text, then the player did not do everything necessary to acquire the TNT. The player receives hints about the TNT early but the full chain to reach it requires obtaining a Crown, Crystal, Herb, and Key, the latter of which has many uses besides acquiring the TNT. The former three exist purely to make the player fetch them and accomplish various challenges, in addition to finding who wants them and where to turn them in.

It is the same with much of the knowledge acquired. We play a game to associate letters and words with concepts, then read books which present us with words and give us context for them. Even without a picture to tell us what "giraffe" is, we can learn things of it either from a verbal description handed to us, or by reading into context what we can about it. We always read into the context to know more about what is being written, and in language, the tone of voice and context is highly relevant to piece together any communication. We do this because we have a history of language and a general sense of where things are placed. This need not be a volumnious knowledge, but instead proceeds by general rules we have also worked out from experience. The general rules for assimilating knowledge are necessarily compact, yet effective enough to do what the task requires. Extensive inquiry into language and the world requires those general rules, not just in knowing the intent of "who", "why", and so on, but when to inquire most effectively. If we are always asking "why" or making inquiries, not only do we not arrive at answers but we are not doing anything else to process this information and move on. There are breaks in the inquiry, and even during an inquiry certian knowledge may be processing or under consideration. An inquiry might start, only to be cancelled as irrelevant or reduced in priority compared to more pressing matters. We can develop axioms, rules of thumb, or general knowledge that we accept as a saying because it is useful in a time and place. We might have sayings we tell ourselves to keep some general approach to the world in mind, and here it is possible to inject great folly. A skilled influencer who wants to degrade this process at the stage of teaching people how to think will repeat memes or koans that are intended to terminate any line of questioning inimical to key planks of a dominant idea, or will just teach people lies that they perpetuate in hopes that people will be derailed. For example, many secret societies will themselves release disinformation about their intent and teachings, in order to increase the mystique of their profile, or present to the masses obviously ludicrous claims as if they were serious, so the masses can be hoodwinked when claims of ancient aliens are rehashed ad nauseum. It is highly amusing to such people when the claims are repeated thoughtlessly, as if the poofy haired charlatan on History Channel was there to inform you. At least then, the History Channel was still airing something that could ostensibly be called history.

The exploration of basic mechanics, how to grasp objects, how to walk, and so on, will be a task that continues throughout life. Humans, due to their adoption of language and communication, hone these abilities far more than any other animal, and in ways that are not reproduced by any other type of life. Tool use alone is not unique to humans, and animals can in their own way adopt things in the environment and manipulate them, with varying degrees of success or consistency. The faculties of the body are themselves tools, and symbolic language is another tool. One separation of humans from animals is that, as they develop, human awareness of their faculties as tools, and an ability to learn how to manipulate those faculties, allows behaviors and understandings to emerge that no animal could reproduce. If animals can reproduce them, they haven't told us about them or cared to discuss the matter, which would be impossible without useful language. This faculty is not merely the result of some mental development or the size of a brain, but exists when tools can be used, fire can be built, and humans can interface with other humans. Even humans with marked brain damage in development will, if allowed to live, interface with society and learn some language. The hatred towards such people is so legendary because the damaged are a living reminder that humanity is a farce, and the instinctive hatred says more about the valid than the invalid. The position of the invalid is almost uniform - they learn to despise and distrust everything human, and only identify as human because of an overwhelming fear of what happens once humanity is revoked. Humans will, whatever their faculties, seek to adapt functioning to the world around them as best as they can. If their faculties allow them to exceed normal expectations, there are numerous disincentives for doing so, both political and due to the lack of need to do so. The most intelligent of the race tend to be the most vicious and most lazy, and this trait is selected for and strongly encouraged in eugenic society. Work of any sort is for the slaves and the suckers, and eugenics is anathema to the free society that might be imagined. It may be assumed though that like many humans, our hypothetical person has to at least move their body around to perform tasks and use tools typical of that society, and that will allow them to function in that environment. The relation between a thinking entity and its environment is one of constant feedback. Even while asleep, the sleeping entity will be roused to wakefulness if it senses danger, and only if its state is severely impaired will it lose awareness from fatigue. The cycle of rest and repair is one example of its interface with the world, rather than something that "just so" happens. The development of life once it leaves the womb must gain some ability to know these cycles and form expectations of what it will do, and will do so regardless of any education or pedagogy given to the child. This level of self-organization will develop in most cases out of necessity, and happens even with severe damage to development. If life senses its organic development is being poisoned or stalled; if for example a child were to be injected with poison to stunt its puberty, after a lifetime of being terrorized and living as an abortion with all the degradation expected of that social rank, they are likely to lash out instinctively in an attempt to not be poisoned. Such poisoning is necessary for eugenics to insinuate its necessity, and exists to instill in the general public a loathing of those deemed living abortions, and ensure that the proper moral education is given to the valid. The last thing eugenics would desire is for a living abortion to be healed. What the eugenicists do not tell you is that they consider the vast majority of humanity to be living abortions, each invalid in their own way, and only a small elect are truly selected to live and enter the rolls of the human race. This is an absolute political demand of any eugenics, but is most explicit in the Eugenics of Francis Galton. The use of poison to damage slaves is selectively used not because poisoning makes slaves effectively, but becuase terrible punishments produce moral incentive to induce compliance at the lowest cost for a master. Chattel slavery in America understood this scientifically. Poisoning a productive field hand beyond a level necessary to dull their sense was unproductive, and a favorite of slave masters was to give slaves the carrot of terrorizing a slave. This demonstrates sufficiently the principle of human cruelty as something innate to the whole human race, and decency is the necessary exception. If humans were at core decent creatures, the society we live in would be an impossibility and any suggestion of it would provoke violent purges. It is not an intellectual failure, but a willful choice that must be intellectually understood, to poison people with such deliberation, and then to mandate that poison under threat of extreme punishment when what decency may exist in humanity rejects the sadism inherent in eugenics. Mentioning this here is relevant because suffering will, even at this early stage, be a part of this acquisition of mechanical knowledge that forms a basis for more understanding. Suffering need not be so morally agonizing. Physical pain by itself is not something so great. The greatest pain awaits when psychological abuse is perfected by human society, and the habit of mechanical failure is taught to children who are selected to die through repeated psychological abuse, which becomes mandated and a pseudo-scientific law, and then hardened so that a slave is crippled forever; this serves the eugenic interest most of all, and so a general education of humiliations and fear will be promoted.

We will proceed with whatever mechanical knowledge we possess. This leads to spoken language, which we acquire first through mimicry, and then by piecing together connections between words. Eventually we learn words allowing inquiry; who, what, where, when, why, and how. It is here where an independent line of thought can truly begin, asking quickly why syntax is formed in a particular way. If a child is lucky, he or she will learn to read from basic instruction rather than the prescribed school pedagogy. First a crude knowledge of the alphabet and sounds can be learned, and then a more elaborate phonics will refine this knowledge to something that is capable of reading newspaper articles. This is as far as most people realistically progress, for pedagogy prohibits people from reading in a genuine sense unless they are among the favored classes. When the slightly favored are taught "literacy", they are taught instead a reactive and emotional reading, which primes them to accept propaganda and the conditioning of eugenic society. Even the slightest inquiry that is inimical to the ruling ideas is immediately attacked, until an instinct in the subject teaches them which thoughts must be terminated before they even begin. There is a purpose to this stopping of criminal thoughts for any person, even without pedagogy. There are certain lines we learn not to transgress because it violates decencies, and some of these decencies are made clear for a toddler, so they do not face the full brunt of sadistic pedagogy. There is a use, both personally and in socialization, for this feature of how we learn to read and speak. It has been purposed in eugenic society for entirely mal-adaptive ends. There will be more on this feature of language pedagogy in a future chapter. For now, the line of inquiry begun by asking questions is where we can accelerate rapidly out own knowledge base, and we do so almost instinctively when we learn how to speak and read. Usually, this is where parents teach a kid to shut up, because the adults do not like curiosity, especially if they are good eugenic subjects; or they only encourage a limited inquiry that amounts to blowing smoke up the ass of the most favored classes, while shaming anyone of average or lesser ability. We are assuming that a child has the sense to ignore these beatings and humiliations, and decides that books are a better way to learn than humans. Books, once written, do not need to shame you, and if they try, a child can reject the words and laugh at them. This is difficult when all of the books are written to insult and demean or mislead a child, as many books are written to do, but perhaps there is enough literature available that is of a benign nature, and the words a child reads comport with the native sense in development, and the child is encouraged to use their own sense to verify if what is read is real. This is not a very easy process, for a child lacks useful standards of comparison, especially at an early age. Very often, children do not learn to read until the very late age of primary school, where pedagogy disrupts an organic process and teaches children in the most maladaptive way possible, so that again they will be permanently crippled in understanding. Learning early, on your own time, produces certain anomalies as well, but for all practical purposes, schools do not teach reading. They use reading and speaking as their litmus test to judge eugenic quality, and so useful instruction in reading and writing is forbidden in eugenic schooling. Any attempt to do so disrupts the eugenic purpose of the institution, and the eugenic tendency of the standard pedagogue. Even a decent teacher would run against the same cruelty mentioned at the outset of this chapter, which overpowers any desire a teacher might have to see a child grow. The child is on their own, but fortunately the child has an environment that is as free from human pedagogy as it can be, where the words of humans are seen as an alien language to be discovered. It is with the development of vocabulary that we develop ideas we can communicate, and we should be able to illustrate the meaning of that vocabulary rather than utterances of words.[1]

The acquisition of knowledge in subjective experience is best understood not as a theory of still things, but as a method accessing a real world. Included in the real world is the memory of the person who is experiencing consciousness. This memory is not a thing fixed in stone, but a thing built by associations and memories. It is possible for memories to mash together, such that it is not easy to recall something that happened 15 years ago with precision. We can, though, reconstruct memory through familiarity with the present environment, and work backwards. This can be done for something as simple as remembering where some item was lost in your own house, if someone is absent-minded and forgot. Without this ability to reference existing things in order to retrieve an older memory, memory storage could not conform to our expectation of a world where past events happened and can be recorded. Human memory does not contain a sterling record of the past, which could be replayed as if it were a video. It contains references which may have been shunted to some part of the brain where they would be disposed over time, but that might remain if someone asked themselves to retrace their actions in the past. Because we do this for ourselves, with knowledge that we had to be somewhere else at a prior time, it is impossible to easily edit the past so that a false memory can overwrite the true history. If we attempt this, inconsistencies are likely to persist in the record, if the memory involves something we were involved in ourselves and sensed with our native faculties. It is much easier to edit written records, and claim something we read a year ago pertained to a false history, because retrieving the real experiences related to that record would be more distant. We are reading someone else's account in text, and we already know written words are not to be believed uncritically; moreover, there is a social expectation of written records being verified by authority. Only in recent memory would a leader be so brazen to insist that they can tell us what we saw right in front of our eyes, in spite of our senses screaming that the leader is lying. That level of brazen lying would certainly be done on a small scale, but it could not have been reinforced at the level of society as an enduring strategy, unless it concerned a few key truths which were occulted. Only in the past century did such lying become not just normal but expected, as if humanity always spoke to each other in exactly the way we do now. In the early 21st century, memory of times that were in the recent past, that the subjects would recall themselves, would be overwritten, and anyone who claimed that the past they remembered was true would be humiliated and told they are wrong, while an entirely false reality is imposed. It is not that the new reality is convincing. Very often the new reality is designed to be such a brazen lie that no one would believe it by rational argument. It is possible, through sheer force of will and insistence, to break the expectations we have about the past, because the past does not exist in some area where we can retrieve some data from 20 years ago. We only receive data from an older time that has passed through the procession of events, and so if we find some capsule from 20 years ago, we are opening it today and not then, and ask a question about the capsule's authenticity. We can, with anything we see, extrapolate a history based on our own sense, knowledge, and supposition of what would be most likely. Even if we cannot verify the past, we are fully capable of smelling bullshit. The purpose of brazen lying is not so much to persuade, but to make true a false reality as a demonstration of strength, and use this false history to corrode every other memory we might have. In this way, standards of comparison can be destroyed.

Only so much memory is stored in the brain. We can compile through the environment a historical record that comports with our internal memory, reconstructing events in a way that allows our concept of the past to remain intact. We do not readily accept editing of past events, because we are aware of the danger of historical revisionism. Certain conclusions about the past can be set aside, if we possess better information about a thing we know little about. Most editing of history relies on the subject having no personal investment in history, and so a belief that "history is bunk" is the slogan of every slavery lover. Regardless of which paradigm we use to approach history, people are loathe to acknowledge a change in historical fact when it pertains to something they have known through extensive experience and they have a personal stake in the matter. In the long run, editing history is problematic, because inconsistencies occur both in the record and when comparing with the present day situation. Independently, a subject's train of thought continues and constructs its own understanding of events. They may write a record for themselves, or maintain some record in secret in case they suspect someone will punish them for keeping personal records. The ultimate objective of memory control is not to control a global narrative, but to control subjective experiences of the past. The truth of history up to 2020 is widely available, and it is impossible to suppress entirely a large body of historical information to know who many key players were or are. Perhaps the greatest difficulty for a full history is that there is so much data just in the written record that assembling it in one coherent whole is difficult. It would not be too difficult for someone with sufficient information to write a general arc of history from 1990 onward, but it is a taboo to speak of current events as happening in any historical framework. History does not move until a thought leader has declared that it has in fact moved, and from 1989 on, it is as if reality were disconnected from history and the world is locked in the Eternal Now. This is ultimately a declaration of changing subjective memory rather than a genuine historical record. The historical record of the US Civil War is still available as of this writing, and the true motives of participants were documented and known at the time. It is still possible for history nerds to have that discussion, and even people who are disconnected from the full record will ask questions. The point is not to create a singular narrative about the Civil War, but to create a number of narratives for entertainment and consumption, which reduce the history to a crude narrative that divorces the war from any material or historical cause, and eliminiates the political understanding in America at the time, or what the numerous precedents and cases regarding slavery actually entailed. The reason for this is not so much to lie about the origin of the war, as every significant cause of the war was tied to the institution of slavery. What slavery meant had to be obscured. The reasons for this would be due to eugenic slavery being a continuation of chattel slavery, promoted by the same people who encouraged the slave system of the South and their fellow travelers. It is not impossible to draw this comparison. Ordinary workers can see the remnants of slavery every day, to say nothing of the continuing racist legacy that is openly espoused in media and encouraged. The comparison to slavery is obvious enough that it would be difficult to not see it. What is important is to refuse to allow subjects to make this connection in conversations with each other, and act on it as if the same institution would act on them today. Denials are made about things that are thrown right in front of your face. You cannot call obvious Nazis who smile and grin and hoodwink what they are, let alone do anything against them. The purpose is to paralyze action against those who want to maximize torture, and this behavior is entrained. When such fear is perpetuated, historical connections must be overwritten. This is not done by editing records, because the records are there and somewhat taught in school. It is done by maximizing fear and imprinting on the subject a trigger that teaches them to reflexively avoid certain keywords, and does not allow the subordinated subject to acknowledge them. Certain experts, and certain people who are favored, are the only ones permitted to transgress this keyword, and they are invariably the people who are interested in a revival of slavery, the expansion of eugenics, and the maximization of torture and suffering for the underclass. This is their moral philosophy, and the truth of that moral philosophy is not difficult to discover. The subject who is not qualified to speak in technocratic society is not allowed to say what this is, or act as if they are living in a Nazified country, which they are. It would be quite impossible to defend this alternate history intellectually against any scrutiny, even with the resources available to a man of meager education but the time and resources to compile his own record and sense. All that is required for reality control is to make historical truth a political taboo, and then for the political taboo to become a total taboo that invades the mind and short-circuits an ability to form connections. This requires significant social engineering and control of the entire space someone inhabits, and that is what has been built in the past several decades, in fits and starts and never perfect. The reality control only needs to be effective enough to paralyze any action subjects may take against the ruling institutions, so that the predatory can act with a free hand and attacks against them are the strongest taboo.

This process of reconstructing memory is often easy enough that we can do it without significant difficulty or stalling. It is not the perfect, machine-like reflex that is assumed to be "true knowledge" to those who we are entrained to consider correct by reciting verbatim "goodfacts"; that is, we cannot be "duckspeakers" in most cases who utter the correct ideas without thinking about them. Complex recall of memory will take at least a little effort. It is in stumbling that the first invasion of our native process is permitted. Duckspeakers do what they do because by galloping to approved talking points, it does not allow a moment of contemplation, where the crucial memory alteration can be affected. This limits the ability of a duckspeaker to engage in meaningful conversation, and so their record will always be simplistic and disallow any thinking inimical to the ruling ideas. It is used not to convey information, but as a highly aggressive tool to impose imperatives as facts. The same type of thinking goes into the naive belief that if someone "speaks truth to power", power will do as you say. This is retarded thinking. Power laughs at truth in words, because the truth it regards is force and political reality, not what you might think the society is supposed to be. Whether the real world accepts the political situation is not relevant. So long as someone with a mind to do so can impose their will through command of language, and can interrupt memory in the political realm such that no idea is permissible unless it is politically approved, this strategy of disrupting memory in speech, and forcing subjects to speak in this way under threat of punishment, will continue to do what it is intended to do. Eventually the manner of speaking becomes ubiquitous enough that the whole society is filled with an aura that suppresses memory or ideas inimical to the ruling ones, and the purpose is not to uphold this or that fact, but to uphold the principle of power at the center of such an operation. It is not about constructing a false memory, but disallowing memory to be constructed, unless it is done through experts who are given special permission to tell you that history has in fact moved. This is done for the same reason stutterers are beaten and humiliated - to intensify the stutter, so that the defective is broken and becomes a living abortion. This, at least, is the intent of a duckspeaker, and so such people should not be permitted to do what they do. It is only by covering the whole society with such a manner of speaking and reinforcing it constantly that the strategy works. It can never work as a short-term strategy, where people would speak normally most of the time. Normal, proper language and expression must become a precious commodity for those in the know. Those marked as outside of the know must never be spoken to as equals, but must be pandered to and insulted maximally. This is a ritual that must be reproduced ad nauseum to make real the conditions of eugenics. There is no other way. It is a way that has long precedent, but its full practice was not even technologically possible. There were too many places where people could avoid it, and too few mechanisms to enforce such a world's control of the whole space. It could only exist in limited places, in limited ways, and so the strategy of religion - thou shalt not - was preferred for the ruling interest. One contributor to reality control is that the body of scientific and technical knowledge, and the effect of machines on the environment, grew by leaps and bounds; and so, "duckspeak" is often not overtly political in nature, but instead concerns mystification of science and technology. It is the destruction of scientific understanding and its replacement with expert opinion which was the first test of duckspeak, and it was a rousing success. Its political introduction would only be possible after two generations were inculcated with a fear of scientific experts and their trained public relations liars.

So to recapitulate, without the digressions concerning things that would be apparent to someone reading this in the early 21st century: The basic mechanical operations of the body and thought form the basis for symbolic communication and language, which allows humans to begin an inquiry of their own. We can communicate with other humans, and historically this happened for most humans, and we can pick up symbolic written language with sufficient instruction. Today, video and audio and various other media are available.[2] We construct our most reliable memory because we develop language and interface with the world, and one use of language is to create a filing system we may use internally, refining any such filing we might have worked out without language. In all of this, the use of symbolic language as a type of technology, that we actively use, has an effect on human animals. It is not becuase others speak words like imperatives to command us, but because we are able to associate meanings with tokens, even if there is no language as such. This ability is far from perfect, but it expands greatly potential, especially since it allows for communciation with humans concerning a wide variety of topics. Even without language as we know it, the capacities of Man allow for this honing of skill, which can be seen in the rare cases of feral humans surviving into adulthood. For now, we accept this faculty as we have commonly experienced it, without asking questions of how it developed. That we can write on briefly in future chapters.

There is a persistent myth, entirely bullshit, that true "abstract" thinking is some sort of essence that only certain humans think. It is called by various pseudoscientific names, but "theory of mind" is one that enters the parlance today. It is assumed that some people possess this, while others utterly lack it. The latter are, therefore, philosophical zombies, who do not feel or think. It becomes a moral obligation of those who possess this essence to reject those who do not. The abstract thought we do possess is not some substance, but a mode of our normal thinking where we consider the ideas of another, and track knowledge that we believe to be particular to us or shared with other people. It is not difficult for any child to sense that they have a subjective experience. The difficulty - and this is why the taboo demands that an invalid be shunned in all communciation, beginning from an early age and zealously enforced if invalidity is detected - is that we have no inherent connection to another mind that tells us what others know. We know that people learn information about us from second-hand sources, and those sources are in society and speak behind our backs. Records are compiled about us that we may or may not be aware of. What is in those records may be real or fictitious, or they may be political versions of ourselves which the institutions will make true by violent assertion. This process will be written on further when education is considered. For now, we know that other people do not possess any direct connection to our subjective experience, but other people would like to know what we are thinking. We would like to know what others are thinking, at least to the extent that we need to in order to know that there is communication. There is in our native thinking a faculty where we read each others' expression and familiarize ourselves with how humans talk. The ruling ethos must short-circuit this and make the invalid utterly alien to the whole of society and the whole of the world, so that the invalid is all alone. The ruling ethos insists that it is both the world and God, and the invalid is nothing at all. This is why the intervention of the "helper" assistance for the invalid lies to the face of the invalid, bragging that the child is too stupid to "know" he is being lied to. The "helper" then makes a point of showing that she will tell the other kids that the invalid is infinitely retarded, and this is an absolute that must be enforced. The point is not to trick the invalid into believing the "helper" is a friend. The invalid usually can see that he is under attack. The point is to tell the invalid that he cannot challenge this, and he dares say this is wrong, humiliations and uproars of laughter are induced so that the invalid is associated with one word and one word only: <b>RETARDED</b>. The more it is asserted, the stronger the power of the assertion. It does not matter what the invalid actually thinks, or if the supposedly valid are better. Usually, those who are closed to "retarded" status are selected for the predatory task of enforcing this edict of the "helpers". If the borderlines refuse to comply, they will eventually be pushed down to "retarded" and subjected to the same humiliations. In any event, the borderlines have already been marked down, for the true benchmark of validity is higher than the official story told to the general public. The borderlines are typically relegated to their rank by the age of ten, while the early invalid is marked by the age of 3 or 5 at the latest. This must become an absolute, and those who are most amenable to this will enforce religiously the shame of the marked. Since this instinct was already present in a significant part of the human race as an absolute, all that was necessary was to encourage those people to act out, while anyone who would protest such a thing would be intimidated into silence. So pervasive is this political myth that it has retarded most understanding of abstract thought. This is deliberate, for the general public as a whole has been declared retarded. The members of the general public who thoughtlessly carry out this predation are the cuckolds of the race, of which there are many. They win nothing but a few baubles which are taken away from them, and when they realize they were just as retarded as the lowest man, they cry like, well, retards, which is what they are. The abusive cycle consumes most of humanity. A minority selected to live are themselves are subjected to a cycle among their own kind, with the threat of retarded status of something tantamount to it held over them. They can always tell themselves they lasted longer in the great game, but the objective is that most people lose by the age of 30, and those that survive have been exhausted by the effort, driven to what would be regarded as senility if we had standards of comparison and meaningful concepts of sanity. A privileged minority are exempted from this struggle, but are obliged by strict taboo to never break ranks and always march in lockstep. This is the world that the invalid sees, and it does not require too much insight to see it. That world is thrown in the invalid's face, because once shamed, the invalid is not politically capable of acting against it, and the obligation of enforcers in society is to ensure the invalid stays in this abject place forever. Any sign of dissent will be crushed repeatedly, and part of the ritual humiliation is to force the invalid to lash out, knowing that the invalid is in a no-win scenario.

It is difficult to speak openly of the abstract because it is so politicized, unless one is able to engage in the conversation within the correct circles, who are tasked with engineering and enforcing this arrangement of society. One of the rules in such a society is that abstract, political consciousness is not to be spoken of as what it is, and the suggestion that abstract thought is not magical or a self-contained island for the rulers is anathema to our beliefs. Yet, every action of the political class has suggested that the abstract thought process of others can be manipulated. It has been the obsession of every ruling interest to control the thoughts of their subjects, from the slaves to their most elite courtiers. The myth of abstract inviolability goes against the vast effort and wealth spent to maintain slavery, police states, bureaucracies, and vast institutions whose entire purpose is to control thought and control behavior. If thought control were truly impossible, as this "theory of mind" insinuates yet imposes violently every day for some inexplicable reason, large sectors of human endeavor would not be spent to tell us what we are supposed to think and how we are supposed to assemble basic knowledge. This process which takes place at the level of society occurs in a smaller way for the individual. The abstractions we create of the world are at odds with the material world we must live in, and we are taught that expense paid to maintain one mode of thought conflicts with the other. As we have seen, though, the most basic abstract thought must begin out of those basic concepts we understand as material. It is impossible to even begin this abstraction without the initial effort of work to learn how to speak and act. They are two different worlds, and there is indeed an expense to maintain abstract and political thought. There is also a good reason why we do utilize this abstract thought, and why humans contend with the political whether they would like to or not. To not do this is to be at the whim of those who wish to be your master. This social and political question will be expounded on throughout this book. For the invividual, simply to manage the mental resources and tools available to them, there is a seeming conflict, where abstract thought is considered the thought to manage the world, and concrete thought is menial and desultory. Because almost every formal system of knowledge we build is highly reliant on abstract thought and symbolic language to be assembled, it is easy to privilege the abstract over the material. The task of us individually is to build our abstractions to best resemble the actual world we interface with, or build abstractions that allow us to navigate a world with other minds who inhabit bodies, much as we do. The total segregation of abstract thought, done in the way described in the prior paragraph, is a slave system through and through, using the same tactics as any other slavery. We would need to be able to understand formally our senses, rather than take for granted that what we see is what we get; but in everyday functioning, we cannot doubt our senses or stumble over the finer meaning of them. We instead refine our sense and make the necessary adjustments as we need to, learning from our mistakes. Eugenic society forbids this and does not want anyone screened out to ever adapt. They do not want us to work, or be seen as productive in any way. That is anathema to their most sacred values. They will encourage indolence and encourage screaming jackals among the working class to attack the honest like slavering dogs, and prime susceptible members of the youth to this.

The only way to break this is for the lower class to take for themselves their own sense of how they think. Existing literature can grant insights, but the ruling ideas forbid the working class to hold their own ideas about abstract, formal thought, beyond a crude level that is considered appropriate for their rank. The permissible ideas workers can make for themselves will shrink with each generation, as new impositions are devised by the ruling institutions. The great question is how to do this, and there is no one prescribed manner to do this; nor is the purpose of this book a call to action or a political treatise. Everyone starts from a distinct position, if not in what they are or their available faculties, then in their position in the world and whatever luck of the draw they may encounter. Crude methods to do this emphasize praxis, or encouraging workers to confine themselves to working and applications of science, while an elite works behind the curtain or overtly to teach the right pedagogy and right ideas, from them to you, with no interference from workers who don't know better. The politically conceited are fond of this idea, and it usually works out to the benefit not of scientists but to political minds who invade the sciences and co-opt them. Science in the sense a worker would appreciate becomes less and less the norm, replaced with "The Science" which is upheld dogmatically. Ultimately, the source for the workers will be to build their own libraries, enjoy their own time, and perpetuate this knowledge among themselves, and the workers would need to streamline and de-bullshit a long history of knowledge as best as they can. This is difficult because human faculties inherited from their biological origins have not changed significantly, nor can they change at any pace that matches technology. It is more difficult because of the immense pressure to retard and destroy the mind of those who were selected to die, which is to say most of us. Those who claimed to champion the workers decided a long time ago that they only wanted the workers who would be loyal to their narrow middle class program, and pissed on the rest of us. A program of knowledge and self-education is not a revolutionary program and would likely be stopped in its tracks if it were put into action; but more than that, a lack of knowledge is not the problem. Workers have known they are lied to, because the lies are thrown in our faces. What is forbidden is any action that would be inimical to the ruling institutions and their ideas, and suitable actions are difficult because it would require the underclass to accept the final segregation that bourgeois society entailed. The workers and those out of bourgeois society would exist in their world, and the inheritors of the bourgeois would exist in theirs, and those two worlds would be forever separate and unequal. The workers will never be equal to the bourgeois because the workers see the bourgeois in their entirety as something highly aggressive. Likewise, the bourgeois have already acted with knowledge that their plan was to liquidate the workers as soon as they had the means to do so. Talking as if there could have ever been an alliance across this division is misunderstanding the nature of the relationship. Today, the bourgeois/worker relationship is a misunderstanding of the true nature of social class in a technocratic society, but the values of the bourgeois were transmitted in various ways to the new aristocracy, and the values of the defeated workers are recreated in the image the bourgeois intended for them. It should be clear that the working class as the working class is defeated, and there is no way for them to win, either as workers or by submitting to some faction in the bourgeois. All potential alliances were severed by 1980, and the final break was from the socialists themselves who saw nothing in the workers they did not desire to keep, and who were not loyal to their middle class political program. I have no interest in that political struggle whatsoever, but it is necessary to call it what it is if we are to proceed. As a member of that group selected to die, I am left asking what I would do now with the rest of my life, and while that is not an appropriate topic for this book, one thing I will not do is waste another iota of effort pretending that there can be an alliance between those selected to live and those selected to die. They belong in two different worlds, and even distant co-existence is unlikely, supposing that the eugenic purges and depopulation were somehow stalled or temporarily weakened. I am seeking this self-education and learning outside of their institutions because there is no other way for us to go on. It is not a political matter. The poisonous psychology given to us by them was designed to destroy even the most basic ability to connect thoughts, and anyone who adopts it is throwing their lives away. The favored classes either succumb to the same disease, or are pulled aside and given the real learning that is denied to those selected to die.

I mention this now to illustrate the difficulty in making these connections into a more elaborate world-system, since we encounter social and political life simply to construct formal knowledge we would appreciate. Without society and language, we would be very limited in what we could do, and even with society, we are still limited. Societies do not develop easily or out of simple components, and they inherit a history that came before the formation of social organizations we know today. Within a society, many difficulties have been made apparent. Cooperative societies do not arise easily and they are not maintained for free, or out of some natural impulse that can be taken for granted. We can proceed as if we have navigated society and avoided the worst of its cruelties.

There are methods, which are developed to govern particular areas of activity, and these areas are divided further into subareas, where we would have an approach to solving some problem and retrieve the appropriate information to do so. The most basic methods govern the body and toolset, in ways that are not automatic like breathing or reflexive and not entirely in our control. Discipline of the body's reflexes is an overall method that includes our daily habits and a sense of the body we understand. We only adopt so many methods that we become expert in, and we may find commonalities to pick up new methods, or adapt a general knowledge base to multiple fields. A proper formal knowledge system will revolve around a basic method of learning, which picks up the other methods necessary for each discipline, and a concept of which methods are appropriate for problems we face. Executive functioning is another overall method which we imagine to be the master of abstract consciousness. We learn methods for political bullshitting and how to share close moments. These methods involve the material process of thinking, which we perfect for each area we are approaching. There is an approach to formal knowledge and academics, and an approach to applications of that formal knowledge, and to maintaining work decorum. We can only operate with so many methods at any given time when acquiring knowledge or performing tasks, and we will really be switching between different methods when we need to do two different things, or we would find some way to tie elements of other methods to one and make that our "work face", "home face", as if our personality were switched based on the context we find ourselves in. Even if this is less formal, we will have to focus a method on certain areas to be most effective and specialize our actions. Trades or the habits of industrial work may be simple enough that knowing what to do is simple, or require considerable knowledge to become expert. We speak here of how we would fetch the knowledge in that context, rather than the full knowledge. The knowledge base can draw on anything we know, and there are certain activities running in the background that prevent us from being caught up in one method for too long. The methods we use to fetch information for tasks, which tie to material consequences, are much more limited. Out of a few methods the brain and body, and all the tools we access, can do quite a lot. The method for typing and writing, which are two different methods, can produce written documents large and small. We may have methods to search through our specialized knowledge, but we only reference the specialized method if we need to describe in our own understanding how we do this thing, and that is retrieving knowledge rather than activating the skill itself. The filing of knowledge into different disciplines, like biology, chemistry, physics, and so on, is not calling different methods. We have methods in science[3], and we refine them with a philosophy of science that tells us that this method is kosher and we can actually do what we're doing. We would have to be careful with what we consider a "system" as this is a term that is defined in philosophy of science carefully. I do not purport to be writing science or humanities, and again, I would expect readers to decide with their own sense if this conforms to their expectations. If a theory or philosophy of science proves inadequate, we would hone it, rather than dogmatically asserting a theory. Truth, as mentioned, is not solely determined by "science" or its methods, since it does not directly pertain to abstract political truths, and attempts to make hamfisted materialistic explanations for clearly political conceits are not terribly successful. Whether we rigorously follow a theory or not, we are attempting to arrive at truth in the natural world or the humanities or in politics, and we would hopefully refine our method before we investigate some scientific subject. Most of these methods, though, concern some simple things, and we don't even think of it as something special when we sleep. If we find we need to modify how we sleep though, we will have to stop and think about what we do when we sleep.

The methods are best understood as the actual "doing" of deliberate thought, which makes the rest of the world-system possible. Whenever thought must translate to action, we activate methods to move the limbs. The methods for commanding thought deliberately are also a thing we trian and hone, just like methods to use a tool or play a sport. Not included are those methods that are not conscious, or tics within methods that are not particular to methods and suggest something that was not the result of training and may be difficult to remove. Overall maintenance of the body and mannerisms, and attention to presentation, are themselves a thing that is considered, and can never be taken for granted. There is a strain to conform to behavioral expectations, especially when those expectations exist specifically to weed out people who lacked the correct education or social background, which entailed either secret knowledge or manners of upbringing that were acquired early. These social and political requirements, which exist primarily for the sake of others, often conflict with what we would do for our own health, stability, and growth, and many times this is deliberately made into a conflict, when people are forced to conform to ridiculous expectations, like kowtowing specifically to humiliate a subject. We will spend effort maintaining appearances and training mannerisms to adapt to whatever situation we are in, whether it is for social purposes or because we find some habit of ours undesirable.[4]

Among the methods is some filing system, or some way we navigate space to know where things are. This applies to physical space, which we must map in our mind to become familiar with it, and it applies to information we store and references to facts. The filing does not need to be contained within the mind, as we can keep written media with reference, and can check against memory in the way mentioned earlier. While memory recall happens before developing deliberate methods, we develop formal methods to figure out how we sort knowledge and how we can most efficiently retrieve it. We may, for example, develop methods of speed-reading or recognizing patterns quickly that we will encounter often. Pattern recognition as a general talent is one part hardware, depending on the characteristics of the brain and any tool we might use to enhance that filter, and one part honing which can improve.[5] One difficulty in judging this is that maladpative filing systems are encouraged by pedagogy, especially for the lower classes. The lower classes are beaten if they demonstrate self-organization, with the lowest classes trained in indolence and beaten horrifficially for showing any curiosity. Maladaption is rewarded by psychological priming and injection of disruptive students and behaviors, while self-organization among the lower grades is scoffed at. The favored classes are spared this and told how their organization is inherently superior, regardless of demonstrable results. The humiliations then begin to lock in this conditioning. The objective is to teach children in the state school submission to bureaucracy, and to teach children the obfuscation of information and mystification any militarized structure desires towards its enemies - because the general public is declared an enemy by the state school. Those selected to be bureaucrats are still taught maladaptive filing, and must learn this talent on their own time and make it useful. Those who master this talent, naturally, have no incentive to share their methods, since it is in demand and makes them necessary for the continuation of this regime. A small number of children are pulled aside to be taught something sufficient if needed, but the expectation of eugenic education is that bureaucratic organization appropriate to their grade becomes a hereditary status, so that all filing of information is dependent on social rank and grade. The lowest caste will be deprived any filing that allows them to make connections even at a basic level, while only the highest caste will be untainted and allowed to possess a useful filing system.

Filing and organization of information, whether mentally or in media repositories, is necessary as an intermediary to make use of methods. Among the information filed are the objects in the world, though we treat objects we manipulate or people we interact with as things which are not filed in our inventory of knowledge. We do recall the names and positions of these things for future reference, but we do not need to necessarily recall a file to interface with some real object. When acquiring formal knowledge, though, we usually do check our knowledge base, and have some sense of how to assemble this information. This doesn't always apply to all information we receive, but any information we consider stored and retrievable by us would either be filed, or it would be in some sense subconscious and learned. We might know that less retrievable information if we investigate it. This subconscious or instinctive knowledge, or a triggered reflex to some word or sensation, is not suitable for compiling a world-system. The effect of mesmerism or some unconscious conditioning is for now not a concern of ours, but we are always aware that this is being done to us, even if we lack familiarity with the precise methods of manipulation. We know humans are liars and are always looking to cajole and trick, and the predatory specialize in this knowledge and how to trip up any organization of information we may develop. Defenses against these manipulations are very difficult, especially if the manipulations are organized and have political backing. It may be possible, but there is a limit to how much people can resist this cajoling, and it may vary based on the subject and the technology arrayed against the subject. The only true defense is to be in the position where you can do likewise, or that there is enough genuine respect (not eugenic "respect") that no one will attempt such stunts with you, or these stunts are kept to a minimum and you have the security to avoid people who do that bullshit. All such manipulations are irrelevant to our world-system, but the ways in which file retrieval are disrupted should be made known.

How we retrieve information, from memory or media, is a very complicated and interesting problem. We may lock in to certain habits over time, especially after full maturity, and at old age information retrieval can decay for two reasons. One is the decay of the brain and body with age, which cannot be prevented too much. Brain tissue does not regrow after a certain age, and many things in this society affect physically the progression of the brain. Another is that with old age, discordant memories are more likely, and the elderly are not so quick to adopt new technology or the understanding the youth have in a very different world. Social isolation and an expectation that the old are to be tossed aside contributes to disconnection, which means there is less real interaction which can repair memory damage. The same effects can be found after considerable social isolation and shaming, in addition to the humiliations that usually accompany that isolation which are intended to throw subjects into disarray. Finally, there is an expectation with old age that one's own time has passed, and someone might ask what any of it was for, or whether they should participate in social affairs at all. Elder statesmen are an exception until advanced age, but for workers, it is expected that they have little to go for once their body gives out, and have no prestige. Usually the elderly became homeless and starved if their family would not care for them, and the best hope for an elder was filling the role of grandparent and being an extra set of hands in the household, even if enfeebled.

It is helpful for someone retrieving information to know how different methods and different areas of knowledge can relate to each other, so that cross-reference can allow not only for a versatility in methods but an ability to compare specialized knowledge with general knowledge and make sense of new fields of study. This becomes difficult as there arises in society so many areas of knowledge, and the body of knowledge in each is so vast it requires significant study and then time mastering it in practice. The talent of Renaissance men is difficult to cultivate and especially difficult to impart by pedagogy, but could be encouraged if there were helpful methods of relating knowledge. That, however, requires some concept of metaphysics or meta-knowledge that is difficult to master and not something that many will spend time conceiving. Thinking about how we think is an interesting exercise, so long as we do not indulge in it too much... unless we make our specialization the development of this knowledge and find useful ways to impart it to others in a way that is sensical. A sign of a good scientist is an ability to use effective analogies that are apprehensible to a child, without losing the most important meanings and remaining useful even for an adult and for practical purposes. This is not always possible, and always loses the important proof that rigorous science requires, but it is a helpful guide for someone to conceive of the problems in science, so that when they do engage with the topic more thoroughly, they have an idea of what the proof would mean and how to demonstrate it in practice and experiment. Also useful is familiarity with media and the difficulties of expression in language, especially for someone who must work around an impediment of their own or a social difficulty where other people do not regard your expertise. The rule of experts required the veneration of educational titles and pretenses and a love for the superficial markers of intelligence, and a "cult of smart" which is eugenic in purpose. To do this, it required mystifying the purpose of media[2] and then instructing people not to see things that were in front of them, and to fail to make connections across fields or find commonalities. This was especially important for biology, which was enshrined as a highly politicized science, and biology was at the center of the new dominant political idea. It is very strange to me that theories of biology taught in school would be pulled straight from the 19th century, and reduced to the crudest possible form, and no deviation from this dogma would be tolerated. Darwin's writing on evolution is a very fascinating read and its arguments are well within the capabilities of a high school reader, at least in their general form. To acknowledge that knowledge and the basis for Darwin's theory would make clear its origin in political economy and the thought of Malthus, and this connection was not something that could be admitted until the subject was a believer in the eugenic creed and inducted into that class, usually upon entry to college or university. Severing this connection, which would make Darwin's theories apprehensible to a wide audience, is necessary for the political purpose biology served in the state school. They will teach kids about Mendel's original theory as if it were the sole meaning, disregarding that Mendel's theory was by Mendel's own admission only applicable to a few cases, and was merely a preliminary work to consider a more general theory of heredity. Since eugenics became the chief political idea and the sole real political idea of the technocratic period, this discourse was wholly inadmissible, and it would remain the myth at university, until someone were inducted thoroughly into the eugenic creed and announced cheerfully that they would select who will live and who will die, blooding themselves on a few sacrifices and enjoying the thrill of domination. It wouldn't do if ordinary plebs engaged with the origin of Darwin's theory, let alone later critiques of Darwin or the state of science during the 20th century, much of which was available to the public, and some of it - even from the geneticist side - holding some interest in intellectual integrity. The wholesale abandonment of intellectual integrity when it came to eugenics was a marked departure starting with the post-war settlement, a prelude to the mask coming off in the 21st century.

We consider the body of knowledge to be solely dead facts, rather than communications we regard as information relevant to the present, near past, or near future, which require a response. Live communications require a mode of operation which is not something that can be boiled down to any consistent method or body of knowledge we read like books, but an interface appropriate to interaction with live objects, or things we must respond to as if they were as real as we were, in body and in thought. This operation can be considered like playing a game, but unlike game-playing which in many ways hones methods and demonstrates knowledge, the live interface with events takes on the characteristics of "real interaction" that we value and consider meaningful to us. While for our knowledge, we aspire to be honest with ourselves and honest about the world, interactions with other people are much different.

The first alien entities we must contend with is, as you probably know, ourselves. It may sound strange to someone with an intact political mind to see themselves as an alien, but we do this every day simply by representing ourselves as a social person, rather than what we really do. Conversely, what we really do is often something we do not want to be shown in the socially presenting person. Both the person we identify with our names in society and the presumptions we make about our body are aliens to what we actually do, which itself is often alien to what either image of ourselves is most suitable. While the basic maintenance of the body and its functions is a method of doing that is natural to us, as is the execution of manners we adopt, both social awareness and awareness of the environment are themselves an active task we engage with. A large part of the human mind is tasked simply with acting and reacting to events around them, and activating whatever methods we use to accomplish certain goals with regard to those events. The security of both the body, and thus the life functions that make everything else possible, and the security of one's social person and reputation, are of utmost importance. We are overly cautious about ourselves, and this is an instinctive reaction of self-preservation combined with engaging the world as we must. If our own existence must engage with the world, the most evident concerns beyond ourselves are the objects we interact with. We may center around ourselves more or less depending on the situation, and we may meditate which is a method that manipulates this awareness of the world. As with many things, raising awareness and consciousness is something that was seized upon by manipulators and cajolers. In American society, this meant excessive self-indulgence and a peculiar bourgeois habit of identity that is a result of extreme eugenic ethics and thinking. It is this work of respond to the world that our methods and knowledge base primarily concerns, rather than the events around the world feeding into a knowledge base and ideology, or some idea or pedagogy compelling us towards a praxis that is the work of a theory. We make our theories of science and action to serve our aims, rather than our aims being dictated by theories or information. No matter what we may have to believe about economic incentives and thus values assigned by another, the first obligation of life will always be to itself, and if we are to be obligated to something else, it is usually another entity like us, or a sense of something in the world that is truly worth preserving. Obligation to an empty idea or word token, or obligation to the basic mechanical action for its own sake, does not end well for us. We relate most readily to other entities in this way, and we place an especial importance on other creatures like ourselves that we recognize as possessing a mind much like ours. This bias works within the human race too. We tend by instinct to seek out people whose thinking about the world is much like our own, because that will be the easiest to relate to, and when we seek something different from us, it would be best if it were something complimentary rather than adversarial. Seeking adversaries is usually about a drive to challenge others in society, or a wish to attack something in the world pre-emptively out of a sense that doing so will best preserve yourself. This is obviously a crude picture of the interpersonal world and the world of relationships, and no explanation of this can ever be thorough enough, since this not only entails the application of all of our methods and science and knowledge, but relations with a world that changes constantly. We update as best as we can information about this world and store it in memory, and pay especial attention to events that are significant to these interactions.

We will prioritize these events and objects based on their persistence, relevance to life, their mobility, and the threat they pose. Interpersonal relationships take high precedence over other types of objects, as this includes most of our important political thinking, and our estimations of who knows what secrets, and who shares information with whom to our best knowledge. Here is where so many entry points exist for manipulation, and it is the chief manipulation we expect from people; but we are less aware of how much we have been habituated to accept a wholly alien way of speaking, acting, and thinking, as if it were completely normal and natural, and how a skilled liar can manipulate these minute actions to affect profoundly our interpersonal behavior. We are aware of some level that we are manipulated, but to fully analyze the extent of the manipulation would drive any single person mad. One purpose of this book, and this chapter in particular, is to allow readers to sense for themselves the extent of the manipulation, without succumbing to the gorier details, and while being able to acknowledge that those details exist and affect us. Small things repeated many times are the basis for larger things, and nowhere is this more apparent than in our interactions with other people and the things they have brought to the world. Out of necessity, this function of interfacing with the world simplifies our relations to that which our biological faculties allow us to manage. We run a danger of over-simplifying this view of the world, or making it too complicated and elaborate for the task we had in mind. The rise of technology and scientific knowledge of psychology, and the proliferation of so many manipulations that were previously impossible, distorts this function. Now we are tasked with interfacing with a world where propaganda is everywhere, and many of the thoughts considered "common sense" are really social values that are manufactured by a few well-trained men. We are, in the main, humans who interface with other humans, and with objects that are either of similar or lesser size. Social organizations, military formations, the constructs of technology like industrial factories, and large institutions with labyrinthine bureaucracies and buildings designed to entrap and ensnare, were not a thing that occurred naturally, as if we always lived this way. A body which developed to build social units of a few dozen, which only makes close relations with less than that, and cannot personally track more than a few hundred relationships in sufficient detail, has been made to interface in a world where the movement of millions and vast dislocations of wealth, physical energy, and life itself are a normal function in society. There was, of course, this danger inherent in life, and humans adapt to this far more efficiently than any other animal, even the humans who are left out of this technology and see it correctly as an antagonist. We should not lock ourselves into thinking a certain type of sociality or certain faculties are natural or built in. In the past century, the pressures of eugenic society, technocratic society, and all the cults and lurid rituals humanity undertakes, have pushed out of necessity some adaptation of the human body and its tools. Artificial selection, imposed violently by eugenics, certainly would produce a change in the hereditary traits that pass down to the race. Whether those hereditary traits are good, or what the eugenists purport them to be, is a different question. Eugenics has promoted venality and, for the lower classes, eugenics is best understood as what they allude to as "dysgenics". It is in the eugenic interest of an elite to encourage depravity and rot among all of the lower classes, and the elite chose to poison and damage most of humanity rather than improve themselves, as that was economically and politically the smarter play. Eugenics, of course, must be understood as a primarily political movement and a coup, rather than what it purports to be as a "politically neutral" engineering project. If the objective of eugenics was biological engineering to produce smarter men, they have failed spectacularly, including among their own favored classes. The only thing they have engineered is greater rot and an ethos that is designed to kill people. If the goal was to encourage intelligent and capable humans to mate with each other and exclude the venal and small-minded, Galton's eugenics did the exact opposite. The victims of eugenics are those who are honest and actually produce the machines and technology which made the conditions of eugenics possible, and this was forseen.

Only the predatory can survive in Galton's world, and that eugenic interest is dead set on ensuring that no virtue and no honesty exist at all, and that their own class will glorify ultraviolence and the sadism that is only possible with their type of intelligence. The sadism itself becomes the marker of intelligence, rather than anything we would use to actually navigate a real, material world. This, of course, works great if it can cannibalize the labor and genius of the tortured classes, which turns out to be most of humanity in one way or another. More than that, the thrill of torture and suffering of the lowest class is necessary for the conditions of eugenics to continue. It provides the psychological and political motivation that is necessary for any slavery and the sadistic mindset that must perpetuate itself maximally. Eugenics will never actually destroy the residuum in full, and even destroying the residuum at all is unnecessary. It would rather keep the residuum in sufficient numbers so that their torture and humiliation is absolute, and the value of labor is as low as possible. This is a variant of Marx's reserve army of labor, but where the lumpen are a minority, the eugenic reserve army is the majority of its people, with a few of the laboring class put-upon and given false promises that they are favored by the Eugenic College. This never happens and they learn that it was all a lie, while the true favored classes do nothing but indulge in orgies and drugs and all the things we have come to expect. That is the world Galton created, the maximal thrill of torture for torture's sake. The overall plan for Galton's nightmare requires people to be locked in a particular view of how humans must interface with the world, and then manipulate that view as needed and specialize it so that subjects of different castes are locked forever in their position, with no hope and no end. The versatility necessary for basic mental functioning must be destroyed if the conditions of eugenics are to be maintained, with the sole exception of a predatory elite whose dominant attitude towards the world is that they live for thrill and will, out of necessity, maximize the torture of all others. They include each other and themselves, as this is really what they believe and what they are at their core. All life dies screaming, forever. To do this, rigid prescriptions of every social behavior are imposed, and the slightest deviation is correctly violently and with the most vicious regression possible. There will be no growth except for the elite, and the growth of the elite will be locked in to promote ever-more Eugenics, and more torture. That will be life's prime want, and there will never again be anything else. If someone wants to live in that world, there is no argument against it, but I will ask throughout this book if we really want that.

Awareness of real events that we consider relevant to life can never be accomplished with distance from that real world, or with algorithmic precision. We can try to do that, but the human brain and all of our faculties for interfacing with the world are lousy if we adopt this approach. Not only is the brain not designed to function in this way, but the algorithmic, digital approach to information is ill-equipped to handle a rapidly changing environment where pattern recognition and nervous response to material phenomena provides the desired information in a much more compact form, which can be apprehended without any great education. Humans do this out of necessity, even if they are dull and even if their learning and education did not prepare them for the world. A rational, algorithmic approach can calculate certain problems, and may be able to to speculate based on rational principles if artificial intelligence surpassed its present paradigms, but there are always limitations to this rational approach we would use in a computer program, when we must use this approach in the real world and with the machinery available to us. An engineer might consider that building a computer other than the digital electronic type that is common in the early 21st century would be a preferable solution to making the digital computer paradigm work. That is a matter that many engineers can take up, which is much too elaborate to argue here. We use rationality to refine an approach that is to us very natural, and we can use the tools developed in part by rational effort to expand this faculty. What we cannot do is comport ourselves like a computer program and expect to function as we would in a real environment, because the real world is not comprised of information or algorithmic processing, but material causes and effects, and ideas that formed in minds that must themselves contend with a real world rather than an idea or conceit they hold about it. We may build rationally a model of how we rapidly switch between objects when we are executing this function, but part of this function is that we are self-aware and aware that our thinking about the world can be modified and is adaptable. No such model is beyond criticism, because it is not in the interest of any human to be reduced to a model that is handed down by a thought leader to them. We adapt with the knowledge that other people can and have built these models, in an effort to become masters.

So far we have considered the rapid handling of objects that we handle in life, taking each in turn or taking a larger object and treating it, necessarily, as a whole. For example, we can look at a phalanx of soldiers as a phalanx rather than thousands of individual men, even though we know armies are comprised of men rather than the whole construct of a phalanx that is fixed in form forever. The ability to recognize formations of entities as one thing is just a simple shorthand we use. There is, out of necessity, an overall awareness of the environment, which is what allows us to detect the objects we interface with as objects, whether they are individuals or collectives we recognize. This is one part an extension of self-awarenss, and part something different altogether. The subjective experience encounters all that it does not consider itself as an alien, and differentiates itself quickly from the whole of everything around it. This environmental is not a true, total awareness of the world, or the so-called superego. It is not an inherently social awareness - in fact, social awareness interferes with the proper understanding of this function. It is not reducible to a feeling or crude intuition, which is just a feature of us that we adopt. We have both an intuitive sense and a rational capacity to understand the overall sensation around us, including that which we can imply to exist without having firm knowledge of it. For example, we can guess there is someone behind us at an instinctive level without seeing them, by picking up some indicator of footsteps. We can guess there are people around a city, not because of a rational understanding of cities, but because the city itself suggests its existence merely by being and doing the things a city does. The overall experience of a city is something that doesn't make full sense as something approached rationally from afar. We might be able to construct an idea of some environment or gestalt we have not personally encountered, but if we do, we would use language appropriate to that understanding, and the meaning of that language would be understood by us as referring to the gestalt rather than an assembly of events that by themselves comprise the environ. This is something different from encountering a group of things we have associated as one. It is an overall awareness that is tied to our sense of self, and cannot escape that. It is a way we imagine ourselves in the world, without being truly in the world. It is this step which allows people to be people, rather than machines carrying out methods and functions or simply reacting to events like any other animal, but it is not the final step. It is a necessary step, and to some extent it is necessary even for an animal. Humans refine this sense because we have a language to describe it in great detail and relate this sense to others. It can be adapted, and yet we find ourselves beholden to the environment, going along with it even though we know this is a really bad idea. Certain people are inclined to following more than others, while others see themselves leading the flock, whether for some aim or to the slaughter. Reducing this to the "herd instinct" is crass, because this function is necessary for us to comport ourselves in any environment, whether social or if we find ourselves alone. We adjust it based on the overall situation we are in, and can describe each shift we make if we possess awareness of this situation. It is not merely self-awareness and cannot be self-indulgence, or a crude reasoning process reducible to singular ideas. Nor is it a true "godly" awareness, because it is very much of the world.

That "full awareness" is something else entirely. When we posed the question we posed at the outset of this book, we asked a question not of some gestalt, which shifts around us, but of a world that exists outside of us entirely. For us to truly answer questions about the world requires us to imagine a world where we didn't exist. This is very easy for us, but totalizing society forbids most of its subjects from doing this, unless it is done in a prescribed method and for a prescribed class that is permitted to think and act with regards to this. In short, this is a function which regards an objective reality that is not socially mediated or biased by our conceits. We have to do this in order to make useful world-systems for ourselves, and this is precisely why any idea approaching this is forbidden and haram. Those who think like this are deemed "psychopaths", but those who are allowed license to manipulate others are encouraged in this thinking, so long as they serve a political gestalt and a "theory of mind" which I will write a little more on in a moment. Those who are pushed into a degraded caste are forbidden from any thought which steps outside of "total society", or the mediation of thought leaders which violently imposes itself by taboo. Since thinking too much in this way will produce tells in a person, this is how "thoughtcrime is death". For someone to step outside of the mindset of total society and the tyranny of thought leaders and experts requires them to think differently, and sense the danger human society presents. Thinking too much on this level may lead someone to make airy proclamations and behave in ways that would seem strange, because normal behavior is conducted not for truth or purpose but because the human body must do certain things to interface with the world. In closing off any serious investigation that allows science to be depoliticized in theory, science has effectively disappeared for the intent a normal person would have considered it a spiritual authority. There are of course versions of science that are politicized, and acknowledging the political filter is necessary to remove our own biases. The aim of technocratic society is to ensure that no escape from political filters is possible, with the aim of ensuring that thought inimical to the ruling institutions and ideas is unthinkable, or inadmissible as a valid thought. Any such thought, if it exists at all, must be insane or the worst of all possible things, retarded. Once accomplished, the scientific rulers present their political rule as "non-ideological" and above ordinary poliics, and use it to suppress all other political factions. It is only as effective as the technological and physical means it has to perpetuate itself, and must above all forbid any concept that there is any other genuine ruling idea or path to truth. The aforementioned confusion over the very word "science" and bigotries favoring one form over another just complicate what was always a political motive in the scientific mindset. Without an understanding of philosophy of science and a real history, "believe the science" is tantamount to an autistic declaration of truth by words alone. Science to be meaningful relies on spiritual authority, and while we can claim the natural world or the world as a whole has some spiritual authority, part of that world is our own subjective bias. An inability to step outside of our conceits of science, and acknowledge what information actually is for us, is necessary for total society to create the conditions of eugenics, and it always has an undesirable end, with us not arriving closer to any useful truth. After a burst of activity, the ruling ideas did not want technological advance outside of key areas, and all technology was to remain in the hands of an elite, to oppress the majority of humanity. Eugenics, then, went hand in hand with that as an easy explanation. It did not need to take the form that Galtonism took, which was the product of a peculiar view of science and a raging madness and perversion of Francis Galton, but something like it would have came about as a useful political fiction, insinuating itself over any other institutions we might have wanted for ourselves. Science in any sense we would consider good must work through both our sense and reason, and through a connection we have to the world that is not mediated by any thought leader or philosopher or idea. We would have to take that for ourselves, and then act as if we were such creatures, rather than the reduced animals we have been forced to be and socialized to accept as the normal and only acceptable psychological state. Doing this entailed certain dangers to us, for in the present situation we would acknowledge that the human condition is dire and close to hopeless, and there is not a single idea that allows anyone to challenge the dictatorship enclosing and torturing the people of this world.

The flip side of this overall material awareness was awareness of mind and the abstract; which is to say, acknowledgement of subjective experience generally, and rules which it would abide. If it is accepted that thought is nothing special, then it follows that thinkers like yourself will arrive at the same conclusions about the world. It is through communication with others that we have something which may verify our senses, and we suppose the extent of thought may be greater than we initially believed. The difficulty of dealing with other minds is that other people are as capable of deception as we are, if not moreso. A child is not going to know the complexity of lies in human society that adults have told for generations, which have insinuated themselves for so long that the lie has become more true than your own sense and reason. If there is a material world that is held to be real, a crude belief is that the ideal world is the same, and our subjective experience is an error that can be corrected. It is here where humans make their leap to build the world-system proper. While a material basis is acknowledged, humans must concern themselves primarily with ideas they hold about it. Immediate sense and that which is evident through scientific reasoning only allows so much of an inquiry. In theory, science could discover all of these questions, but in practice, we are creatures who interact with other thinking creatures, rather than thinkers interacting with phenomena we would study scientifically or deal with in a crude material sense. That is how we typically interface with the world. We grant to non-living and non-thinking things the qualities of a thinker like ourselves, even when we know this is a fiction we constructed because it is easy for us to think like this. We think interpersonally and, on some level, believe there is a way people will think and act. We have to do this to develop political, spiritual, and moral thought and practice. It is not that this overall awareness trumps all others. It is dependent on the aforementioned to truly be a possibility, even if we are not aware that we are doing this. However we would conceive of the mind, we expect other entities to be at least as capable as ourselves, and if we expect an entity to be far more knowledgeable than us, that will engender a fear and terror that the valid never can know. Inequality in knowledge can be accepted, but to claim that something is of an entirely different essential mind is to make it utterly alien, and usually this is intended to enshrine the bigotry of some person or some group at the expense of all others. Genuine dialogue or contact is precious, but many human apes will bark at each other like slavering dogs and do as they will do, while believing their intercourse to be some genius that is above or at least equal to the gods. Never can the valid truly accept that they are anything less than this, no matter how stupid they know their behavior to be. Stupidity itself becomes a kind of intelligence to survive in such a world. So too does the occulting of information, or the hoodwinking that is carried out instinctively because humans will never stop shitting on those who are outside of the know. You can say until your face is blue that there could be a different way, where we did not treat each other like this, but the "theory of mind" implicit in this view suggests that there is only one "real" way of thinking, and that alien thought-forms can only be accepted as distinctly inferior, or as distinctly superior and thus feared. This animalistic, self-abasing instinct to kick down or supplicate is at the center of nearly all religious practices, is reproduced ad nauseum in human institutions, and is most especially the germ for all known human education. Learning in the genuine sense is an entirely different enterprise, and we are left to our own faculties to learn in a society and theory of mind that is hostile to learning. The typical attitude of idealism is a desire for occult knowledge, and a hypocritical claim of universalism that denies every sense we would possess. The greater purpose of this becomes clearer as we proceed. This view of the world as ideas should not be confused with "ideology", which is a crass slave mentality which is rather the vehicle for propaganda than the actual views people hold about mind and what the ideas actually mean.

Individually, we have this conceit about the world that is largely ideas. Those ideas encounter society, which in the first instance is a material reality. We cannot deny that other people exist, no matter what theory of mind or similar such bullshit we invent. Whether we regard them as inferiors, equals, or above us, the ideas we encounter in other entities have some way or reaching us through the actions of those entities. We can, if we retain will, exert whatever we can on the other entities and the world. Here begins an interplay which consumes considerable effort. We are not always engaged in society, but as mentioned, social interaction and the threat posed by it is one of the things which can be drawn on for our own understanding of the world. In society, the values we hold are always challenged by others, most of whom are hostile and do not want us to have a single thing of our own. We might insist that we could have nice things, if only others tried. Most other people do not think like this, and the ruling interest never for a second thinks like this. Most people just think about following strength or whatever impression they have been conditioned to follow, and would be crazy to do otherwise. That is why for most people, religion entails nothing more than the fear of this or that God, which is obviously a proxy for some very temporal authority. Shameless hypocrisy about the divine is de rigeur for dealing with humans. We will see great hypocrisy in everything humans do in society, only setting it aside out of necessity. Even when cooperation would have made far more sense, and more than a few people ask if any of this was a good idea, certain predatory people insinuate their world-historical mission, and with no one to tell them no, this is the world we have sadly inherited.

What has been written here is not a whole model, but illustrates some of the considerations we make when constructing our own sense of the world. We are, of course, only able to make models of the world in subjective experience, however much we may be connected to reality and however much it may be impossible to deny the truth. I do not write this as a full theory, but as a starting point for readers to begin their own investigation, considering the perspective of someone who does not have any particular bias towards humanity or "theory of mind" or the conceits of this monstrous society we live in during the 21st century. If anyone is convinced that the present society is not monstrous, then they really are beyond hope, and almost certainly desire to take part in the grand lie and masquerade. Human cruelty is too commonplace to sell that lie ever again. Those who were fool enough to accept it have been consigned to the greatest humiliation of all, and this was the intent drilled into those selected to die in the 20th century. To coexist with this demonic death cult has been more horrific than any other suffering I could imagine, and at this point, even the mere sight of those who enable the rot that defines eugenic society makes me sick to my stomach. This, though, is only a sense in my bones telling me that this is wrong. I am certain others have thought this way, but sadly, for much of humanity, there is no shame and not even a first thought that they would be anything other than followers of this sadistic creed. I have nothing to say to such people and only wish them to be exposed so that the damned of the Earth, who are many, work around them. Never again should those who are under attack accept the lies of those who revel in predation. That is the true alienation, and by now it is a permanent break in humanity. There can only be those selected to live, who will never work against that because they know the consequences of stepping out of line, and those selected to die, who persist out of spite against the entire human project and what it has become. A decent human might ask if there was a better way, but it is my conclusion and the conclusion of history that there was not. There was only ever a dim hope that something better might be possible, in some world where we didn't do this. The world of eugenics and depopulation is destined to arrest history so long as it remains the ruling idea, and that has been chosen. There is no going back, and to refuse to recognize the centrality of eugenics is to not engage with the world as it is. Anyone still insisting on mystification to deny the centrality of eugenics, and its true meaning, is an enemy and should not be engaged with as anything else. If, however, we are to see correctly the centrality of eugenics, we would have to ask where it came from and why it could exist as it did; that is to say, what is its praxis of modus operandi? That is the interesting question, because eugenics has been clever in insisting that the crimes of the eugenic creed are caused by some other bogeyman. Sometimes it is capitalism, others say it is communism, others say it is liberalism, others say it is some vague "fascism" which they refuse to define. Sometimes it is the specter of technology as some inexorable force of historical progress, which itself was essential to the true fascist construct. These are all questions I can only partially answer. I can only spend so long on what is a very rough introduction to the concept of a world-system, and I have no need to recapitulate the theory of ideology and why it is a farce if someone thinks about ideology for five minutes. Ideology as a theory belongs to the 19th and 20th centuries, and was never truly the engine of political reform it was claimed to be. Ideology really only came to the forefront with fascism and the eugenic creed, and the first use of ideology was to mystify and provide cover for the meaningful transformation that had taken place during modernity. Until the Nazis, no one really indulged in ideology as their central understanding of the political, and even with the Nazis, the concept of the political concerned identity and a struggle for life and the biological, rather than a belief that the fascist ideology and virtue signaling about nationalism was real. Those who were the most fervent Nazis either wanted the Nazis for eugenics, or were willful supplicants of the eugenic creed who looked for the first ideological excuse that felt good. Ideology is a false understanding of the world-system and the gap between subjective experience and reality that was exploited. I used this chapter to describe the experience first of the individual. Next I wish to describe that individual in a society which must be construed, for lack of better communicable examples, as a world of information.

[1] The author would like to mention a common way in which state schools damage the development of children deemed retarded. It is well known that language develops throughout life, reaching full maturity around the age of 20 to 25. Humans continue to learn words here and there, and have the ability to construct new words or adopt new words that may enter the lexicon. By the age of six, a child may expect to speak about 10,000 words, and understand around 20,000. There is in actuality considerable variance, because six year old children are not expected to speak complex language, and those who attempt to overstep those boundaries are ruthlessly attacked. This vocabulary may differ and how much of the vocabulary is "understood" may be debatable. This vocabulary will be tied together by a general understanding of what things are, such that when a child encounters new words, it is not difficult to incorporate them, or learn from context what meaning is intended by them. The finer meaning of words may be difficult to apprehend even when considering simple words, if we want to really evaluate what a thing is. By adulthood, most people will have learned about 200,000 words that they would recall if heard or needed for writing, and would be able to adjust this vocabulary based on developments of the language. It should be known to the reader that humans did not talk exactly as they did in 2020 back in 1960, and so what this knowledge is should be understood with a holistic model. The big whopper I was told in 6th grade is that a child learns "90% of their vocabulary" by the age of 6. This bald-faced lie is one of the great ways in which teachers infantilize and prepare children for a slave education. It is Nazi education, but this became the standard during the blackest reaction that was the 1990s. These people have always been at work, and by destroying all standards of comparison and then repeating these discordant concepts of human language, it is possible to convince the lower classes that their stupidity is normal. It's evil, and another example of eugenic poisoning. More stories of this poisoning will be repeated throughout this book, and I can only include so many examples.

[2] The peculiarities of newer media are something English-speaking readers are familiar with. This is where most people cite Marshall McLuhan's work on media technology, which is something that is recommended for the reader. Media and the tools we use to derive meaning from it are really a kind of technology. It is less that certain media have an effect just by being video or audio, and more about how we interface with that media, and how we choose to interface with that media. This works for the creator of media as well as those who watch media. In McLuhan's time, new media would be in the hands of the ruling oligarchy and the expert class, and this is still the case as of this writing. The nature of this information monopoly, and of information technology generally, is different, and that is more the cause of divergence in how people speak, than any inherent quality of the global internet or the "meme".

[3] It should be noted that different languages have multiple words for "science", which don't conform to the British English concept of science, which is colored by peculiar British attitudes towards the practice. The German <i>Wissenschaft</i>, for instance, concerns more the institutional practice of science and its habits than science as a method ordinary people adopt, and it concerns what are called the humanities in English academia as well as science, fusing the two very often and treating them in the same manner. English renderings of the concept are colored by the manipulation of the English language itself, undertaken by English rulers, in which humanities are degraded as a distinctly inferior or "soft" science, which is not a necessary reputation of the humanities. The British "science" often fuses conceits of science as some sort of magic and the British and American tendency for the occult, while claiming that this occultism is super-scientific yet empirical. German science often engages in occultism - this will be a trend with science - but does not even make the pretense of empiricism, especially when empirical thought is antithetical to something the German-thinking scientist is doing. A competent scientist, who understands that there is a real world any of this relates to, can usually navigate science in some sensical manner. Ideologues, for whom science is a political posture, will use and abuse any philosophy of science to produce things which are not at all scientific, and they find ways to deliberately twist the methods of science to produce falsehoods. One need only look at the product of the American academy today, which has more to do with feeding from the trough of oligarchic grant money and providing pseudo-intellectual cover for the eugenic program. Americans have the misfortune of fusing the worst of British and German concepts of science and education, while the Americans' own nascent traditions in this regard were suppressed, while Americans held to a peculiar view of history and their society, which European attitudes constantly dismiss. This is accelerated further because kicking Americans and abusing them psychologically became the standard of American society during the 20th century, and we have unfortunately lived in that worst of all worlds ever since.

[4] It should not surprise the reader that the dogma that addicts are doomed to always be addicts and must succumb to their addiction is another one of those ways in which basic thought as a method is deliberately disrupted, so that those selected to die are encouraged to rot in their crapulence. At the same time, a level of self-punishment that would not be destructive, that is balanced with reward and success, is not allowed, except for the favored classes who throw their addictions in our faces and revel in them. There is a special sort of depravity where self-abasement and indulgence in humiliation is encouraged in certain contexts, either to drain the wealth of a bourgeois and laugh at the paypig, or to throw rot and degeneration in the face of a social inferior, so that elites can brag that all the effort of the social inferior is futile and the venal shall rule over the honest.

[5] Pattern recognition is the second entry point for declaring someone retarded, when the obvious linguistic faculty is not suitable to declare someone retarded. This ability is more likely to be tied to native intelligence, but it is politicized and rigged to such an extent, and used as little more than a pretext to teach favored children the method beforehand. Parents whose families are aware of the testing methodology train their children to the test, while the disadvantaged walk into the test blind and fearful. Perverse incentives encourage a parent to accept "retarded" status, because once the threats start, they never will stop for the entirety of a child's life. Almost never is pattern recognition considered a useful indicator of genius. The entire business of Galton's intelligence testing should be understood as one filter after another, to justify sadism and brutality, rather than a useful understanding of intelligence and its capacities. Incredulous fools who are good at twitch reflexes are rewarded, mostly because this behavior indicates their supplication to the eugenic creed more than any adaptability. The political judgement of intelligence quotient is made into a self-fulfilling prophecy, almost entirely through degradations of the lower class and repeated reminders of the inferiority of lower castes. Whatever these measurements point to is dubious, and their intent - explicitly stated - is to mark retardation only. It just so happens that the general public was declared retarded by the eugenic creed, and would be told generation after generation that they are, and always were, slaves, and must obey Galton's sadism, cruelty, and perversion.