latestl

Book/DRAFT.md

@@ -974,6 +974,7 @@ This more mystical incarnation of dialectic (and it is precisely that) is not sp
 For Hegel, the state of ideal, or perhaps the final stage before the true realization of ideal, is where all things that are and were are revealed to all be the same thing and that their disparate forms and articulations were most fundamentally all part of the process of working out that they were all, in fact, the same thing.
 
 ## Queer Liberation
+
 >"...dialectical thinking, in which each thing is what it is only by becoming what it is not." - Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno (Dialectic of Enlightenment)
 
 Things are transformed into what they are not in order to become what they really are. To know the identity and essence of something is to know what is not it, thus its existence implicitly holds reference to its negative. It, too, transforms through negation into other; it becomes its negative as all things do.
@@ -1956,8 +1957,8 @@ Queer very much facilitates the premature assumptions that stable aspects of rea
 
 # Transhumanism
 
-Indeed, this is the most obvious tie-in and the logical consequence both in terms of technical proficiency in mastering the functions and figurations of our material. Transhumanism intends to unlock the true divine expression of being, which becomes unburdened by the oppressive subjectivities which arise through observation of the precious material configuration; a structure of matter whose viewing is intrinsically determined through sequences of thought tainted by the hegemonic influence of asymmetrically powerful sociopolitical interests. Under such conditions, there are only two interpretations possible in interpreting Queer as a productive force in pursuit of a transhumanist solution:
-1. You believe one representation is the correct one. In positioning and performing for the right side which is heading down the path of salvation, as opposed to any other path which is at best driven else false consciousness, you have made a safe bet which is reinforced by broadly available popular rhetoric and institutional support. This is the more passive of the two, and might describe a mindset taking a glimpse at the implications of everything within the range of curiosity for gender ambiguity to permanent body modification.
+Indeed, this is the most obvious tie-in and the logical consequence in terms of technical proficiency in mastering the functions and figurations of our material. Transhumanism intends to unlock the true divine expression of being, which becomes unburdened by the oppressive subjectivities which arise through observation of the precious material configuration; a structure of matter whose viewing is intrinsically determined through sequences of thought tainted by the hegemonic influence of asymmetrically powerful sociopolitical interests. Under such conditions, there are only two interpretations possible in interpreting Queer as a productive force in pursuit of a transhumanist solution:
+1. You believe one representation is the correct one. In positioning and performing for the right side which is heading down the path of salvation, as opposed to any other path which is at best driven by false consciousness, you have made a safe bet which is reinforced by broadly available popular rhetoric and institutional support. This is the more passive of the two, and might describe a mindset taking a glimpse at the implications of everything within the range of curiosity for gender ambiguity to permanent body modification.
 
 2. You make the choice which imposes the force of change. Change reality to make it admissible and adequate. Through a mode of self-sacrifice, you are choosing something with hope and faith of becoming a more correct instance of Being, even the perfected instance of Being. This is the more active of the two, and is perfectly exemplified by the transgender initiate bearing a Queer consciousness.
 
@@ -2011,40 +2012,47 @@ A forbidden topic for many, especially if you aren't simply repeating the catch
 
 Certainly, there have been many fun pet names for the recent public health phenomenon such as the Branch Covidians, drawing inspiration from from the Branch Davidians and the Waco tragedy, Covidians, Quarantine Karens and Mask Nazis. But, in general, Covidian has a nice ring to it, and makes it sound like a member of the Cult of Covid. Technically, however, there are etymological ramifications concerning the use of one suffix vs the other.
 
+!TODO: What about "covidience"? Like Consilience of covid and obedience?
+
 A "Covidian" would be one who is "of" Covid; the consequence of having been in a particular milieu or locale, and we might say that children who are raised in an environment where obsession over the threat of commonly transmitted disease symptoms have been the norm might be best described in this way.
 
 Conversely, the "Covidist" would best describe the alarmist, fear-mongering initiate to the "Covid Cult" who leverage broad cognizance of this event in order to advocate for transformation of society, agreement with their Critical description of reality, particularly if it involves a Marxist-style hierarchical analysis, and a general desire for a Collectivist endpoint which they indicate as necessary given the occurrence of a "deadly pandemic" which manifested precisely because not enough had yet been done to drive the world towards their conception of an ideal state of mankind.
 
-
 A very dear one to me, for what it's worth, as this was the first time we traversed past the line from demanding uniformity of verified expressions and entered into uniformity of physical access to the body. This was the first time where embodiment of the state rhetoric became a rule and where everyone could be categorized as an immediate threat. It's where one couldn't fully understand whether their participation was itself an expression of state rhetoric.
 
 For the first time, the state could dictate the movement in everyone's house, the manner in which relations of family members are to be managed and expressed, and a means by which one family member could use state rhetoric, state narrative, and the threat of state enforcement mechanisms to pressure, castigate and designate the moral standing of other family members.
 
 It gave anyone an opportunity to utterly betray their closest relatives while maintaining ample plausible deniability through the continuous publication and distribution of emergency announcements and warnings whose message always provided key declarations which can, in and of themselves, not be proven, thus it and in whatever contentious dialogue arises, we see the following:
-- make dialogue and question themselves beyond the pale?
-- you could simply participate by restating what has been uttered by the state and reinforce the stated goals pertaining to the statements
+- Those who make dialogue and question narrative identify themselves as beyond the pale, according to logically deduced evaluation as per state rhetoric.
+- You could simply participate by restating what has been uttered by the state and reinforce the stated goals pertaining to the statements.
 
 ## Acting on Body is Acting on Mind
-Relinquishing the sanctity and sovereignty of one's body is simultaneously acting on the believe that one should relinquish one's mind. If you can no longer make decisions and act in the best interests of your person, then perhaps you shouldn't be making decisions about anything.
 
-The main issue is how so many men would necessarily come to behave as though their destiny is granted. The creation of one's own destiny is the extent to which one can remain humble while assuming role of creator.
+Relinquishing the sanctity and sovereignty of one's body is simultaneously acting on the belief that one should relinquish one's mind. If you can no longer make decisions and act in the best interests of your person, then perhaps you shouldn't be making decisions about anything.
+
+The main issue is how so many men would necessarily come to behave as though their destiny is granted. (My belief?) The creation of one's own destiny is the extent to which one can remain humble while assuming role of creator.
 
 The primary sub-topics and themes which need to be brought out are:
-- bodily autonomy
-- measuring progress
-- public health praxis
-- supreme concern
-- selfishness
-- inclusion
-- public social health justice
-- collectivism
-- citizenships
+- Bodily autonomy
+- Measuring progress
+- Public health praxis
+- Supreme concern
+- Selfishness
+- Inclusion
+- Public social health justice
+- Collectivism (!NOTE: this is already everywhere)
+- Citizenship
 
 ## Dialectics
-The covid era has been especially potent for transforming people's understanding or confidence in their capacity to understand, as well as imprinting cognitive association or linguistic triggers to completely guide and control their thoughts and emotions seemingly at will - at least for teh most common among us.
+
+The Covid era has been especially potent for transforming people's understanding or confidence in their capacity to understand, as well as imprinting cognitive association or linguistic triggers to completely guide and control their thoughts and emotions seemingly at will, at least for the most common among us.
+!TODO: is it only the "most common"? Isn't it all of us, but perhaps leading to different details in some of the lines of thinking?
 
 Each human was classified as both the most precious resource, as well as the primary threat. That is not simply that persons who are ill were the threat and the infirm were precious, no, it was that every single human is to be treated as the primary threat at all times, and this is an aspect which still continues to this day in at least the medical services and private institutions whenever they detect an opportunity to practice their neutral behaviour.
 
+!NOTE: Above: humans were classified into two categories - citizen and threat, with the former further subdivided into essential and non-essential.
+!NOTE: Above: it continues to this day both among public who consume certain media or are of a certain disposition, as well as certain institutions, but this isn't because of them taking an opportunity to practice a neutral behaviour - they are aligning with state and authoritarianism in a manner which reinforces biases and delusions.
+
 Yes, opportunity to do:
 - validate the mechanism
 - rationalize their extra demands
@@ -2053,86 +2061,272 @@ Yes, opportunity to do:
   - proliferate for critical consciousness
 - appropriate as evidence for other issue
 - restructure organizations
-Indeed, the issue becomes your other issue and then an argument is formulated to say they are the same issue, and that your model of it (which includes a new aspect that's been brought in through synthesis which accounts for your identified contradiction is a more intentional and appropriate means of addressing the issue)
 
+!TODO: Rewrite the above in normal language, as there are some good points. Draft below:
+
+Yes, indeed, this gives institutions, particularly those of the medical persuasion, ample opportunity to validate both their mechanisms, and those of those which the state utilized to enforce a new standard of authority and control, and given that these institutions depend so heavily on state funding and legislation, it is a deadly cycle of reciprocation and narrow incentivization. Institutions can rationalize extra demands by continuing to purvey the semblance of the threat, and the institutions and state can piggy back on one another's initiatives in order to enhance their ability to communicate in public to improve public perception and opinion about themselves, and acquire additional resources (rationalize?). It also serves as praxis for collectivist consciousness, as this is always performed as a means of escaping the threat of existence as it currently stands, in its sinful state which begs for cleansing.
+
+Furthermore, any broad threat can always be used as a continuation of poor circumstances, which come to be associated with the issue du jour as it provides an endless stream of evidence. Lastly, it provides a good excuse to claim there is a need to restructure the organization, which is useful for purging undesirable elements or claiming additional power.
+
+Indeed, the issue, when championed and enforced through an authoritarian entity, becomes an extension of your own other favourite issue and then a mystifying argument is formulated to say they are the same issue, and that your model of it, which includes a new aspect that's been brought in through synthesis which accounts for your identified contradiction is a more intentional and appropriate means of addressing the issue.
+
+Some examples of this, over which we've seen an excess of communication over the past few years, might include the following:
 - Covid is actually social justice
 - Covid is sustainability
   - is social justice
 - this is all evidence of transphobia and fascism-creep
 
 ### YT-CoV2
+
+The cult of covid was also expressed as being synonymous, equivalent and interchangeable with whiteness. This was evident quite early on when the there was a sleugh of rushed, ambiguous medical papers which blurred the lines in the sense of using medical and scientific language while being focused and concerned on sociopolitical issues which have been weaponized, such as Social Justice and antiracism.
+
 There are so many ways of making these connections, and they only need some framing of disparity in any capacity so long as it supports collectivism and consolidation of power to central authority:
-- white people are disadvantaged
-  - negated through invoking "historically oppressed"
-- white people are disadvantaged statistically because even the tools of whiteness concentrate power and wealth for a small minority of white people or the white adjacent or otherwise beneficiaries of whiteness (that is to say, those people who somehow benefit from the use of a property or even simply those who do not denounce private property and whiteness as private property)
-  - if you don't see it, you are likely at least biased from the benefits it gave you or those you believe will come to you:
-    - not proven per specific belief
-    - white and yt-adjacent benefit simply by not dealing with conflict (directly)
-      - no conflict, no reason to change the comforting stupor of false consciousness
-- so long as their plight is described as a consequence or lingering symptom of ailment that would otherwise be addressed by the distribution of power and wealth to entities that pursue collectivism, the rationale will be considered valid and legitimate
+- White people are sometimes argued as being disadvantaged, and this is put forward by those who don't know how to engage the discourse correctly as a contradiction which defies the description being put forward by the Critical Theorist.
+  - Negated through invocation of the "historically oppressed" moniker.
+- White people are disadvantaged statistically because even the tools of whiteness concentrate power and wealth for a small minority of white people or the white adjacent or otherwise beneficiaries of whiteness (that is to say, those people who somehow benefit from the use of a property or even simply those who do not denounce private property and whiteness as private property). This is a good example of making argumentation which postures itself such as to be reasonable in fully consolidating the contradictory elements in the analysis, such as the claim that though the fact of being economic disadvantaged seems to be statistically more relevant in terms of indicating problematic outcomes in different demographics, it's still fundamentally caused by the factors which are more central to the lense being applied and, as such, those who don't agree the analysis but who otherwise seem to fall under the description of those who are an exception or contradictory element, are simply suffering from false consciousness.
+  - If you don't see it, you are likely at least biased from the benefits it gave you or those you believe will come to you:
+    - Not proven per specific belief.
+    - White and yt-adjacent benefit simply by not having to directly deal with the conflict. In this way, there needn't be any strong piece of evidence, which is something we've discussed before. Instead, you simply need the absence of any evidence which is itself a form of evidence in the sense that one's disagreement is evidence sans any concrete evidence about why that disagreement might be.
+      - No conflict, no reason to change the comforting stupor of false consciousness.
+- So long as their plight is described as a consequence or lingering symptom of ailment that would otherwise be addressed by the distribution of power and wealth to entities that pursue collectivism, the rationale will be considered valid and legitimate.
 
-Ultimately, only the thing which addresses all effects (and thus the oppression models of the world) will be considered valid. This is, of course, because the ultimate solution is a totalizing and one, and its system for man's life and society is a totalitarian one.
+Ultimately, only the thing which addresses all effects, and thus the oppression models of the world, will be considered valid. This is, of course, because the ultimate solution is a totalizing and one, and its system for man's life and society is a totalitarian one. This is also known as (holism, and many others !TODO: enumerate and disambiguate).
 
 ### Is a Marxism
+
 There have only been a handful of people who have come out and said that covidism is, in effect, another instance of Marxism. Many push back on that idea the moment it is uttered. This needs to be disambiguated like the others to show that this is not necessarily a component of Marx's predicated sequence of historical events en route to his utopia, but it follows the general thought as an evolution of oppressor and oppressed.
 
-Private property as bourgeois property and the cause of human self-estrangement still remains, but now the risk to health and society is made concrete as an example or even the prescient outcome which, though it shows up as a risk today, is only a slight taste of the horrors to come.
+Private property as bourgeois property and the cause of human self-estrangement still remains, but now the risk to health and society is made more concrete as an example which made previous warnings of grave consequences for our continued behaviour appear to have been remarkably prescient. Furthermore, it is repeatedly stated by academics and throughout the media that though "Covid" was a horrible, once-in-a-lifetime ordeal, it is only a slight taste of the horrors to come.
 
-The modern degrowth movement speaks about Marx's analysis and how it touches upon the environment in terms of the use of land, and the metabolic rift resulting from utilization of resources in a commoditized form, whereby the true cost and value of their use is supplanted by a reified, contrived and inauthentic format which leads to loss of understanding and blindspots or ignorance which potentiate catastrophe.
+The modern degrowth movement, such as those who followed the lineage of thought from the Club of Rome, or those who so easily swoon at the words of Kohe Saito, speaks about Marx's analysis and how it touches upon the environment in terms of the use of land, and the metabolic rift resulting from utilization of resources in a commoditized form, whereby the true cost and value of their use is supplanted by a reified, contrived and inauthentic format which leads to loss of understanding and blindspots or ignorance which potentiate catastrophe.
 
 The true use value of resources are never expressed in spite of the expenditure of resources which, in turn, affect the conditions which cause the weighting of the use value.
 
 ## Early Observations
-- It was such a wide scope of authoritarianism and it was so widely applied, adopted and accepted
-- everything was made as a moral claim, while presupposing things either not known or impossible to know
-  - not yet -> how deadly/dangerous
-  - impossible -> the net benefit of increased authoritarianism as a society
-- our vulnerability towards unquestioning adoption of the practices -> social acceptance for survival
-- new standard from harm -> zero harm of immediate style threat
-  - we transcend/evolve to new standard of "harmless life"
-- be part of this new awakening, otherwise you are one part of the group which brought us these problems in the first place
-- messaging for equity early on
-  - guarantee of easier times if you give up your rights
-- priming of reactionary dispositions classically associated with "far-right", but quickly adopted and expressed by "progressive left"
+
+Early on in the Covid era, even during the period immediately following the official announcement of a global pandemic, a wide scope of authoritarianism was so widely applied, adopted and accepted that it was stunningly remarkable and almost hard to grasp. Everything was being made as an early comprehensible moral claim, while presupposing things that were either not known or impossible to know, and i twas done in such simple terms that were completely void of any consideration to the implications, particularly concerning law, rights, and precedence moving forward. In spite of the rhetoric being disseminated, it was still impossible to know how deadly and dangerous the threat was. It was impossible to know the net benefit of increased authoritarianism as a society.
+
+Our vulnerability towards unquestioning adoption of the practices and social acceptance of changes was built on an assumption not simply that it was for survival, because of the supposed range of risk of the infectious threat, but because of the implications for survival from the standpoint of social acceptance and social salience. That is to say, maybe it was the case that the threat itself was high and that, even if we were against the advanced progression of society towards a more authoritarian formulation, we would need to adjust to that as there was a real possibility that we would come to require access to medical care in order to survive an illness that was almost certainly going to happen and almost certainly going to be the worst one we'd ever experienced. Or, maybe it was the case that even if the threat were overstated or fictitious, we were living through a transformation of society, social norms, legal precedence and standards of governance that were sure to affect all aspects of life from this point onwards, and that if we hoped to not be excluded from society, particularly after having gotten a taste of just how far the state would be willing to take an event that was, as controversial as it might be to say, itself unremarkable in the eyes of a significant proportion of population (who might be overrepresented among those who are inclined to read this book), then we would have to find some limited manner of acting out obedience just to at least figure out what the extent of the subversion was and to understand what risks and benefits we'll be needing to worry about in the near future.
+
+It also seemed quite clear, at least as far as what rhetoric was being disseminated, that the new standard for the acceptability of harm, at least insofar as considering the threat of focused upon by the state and insofar as a means of evaluation was to be posited for recording purposes and to be "scientific" and rigorous, was to be put forward as zero. This isn't to say that the conduct of the state and those who aligned it either by matter of opinion, or by profession, was zero - quite the contrary - but that the aim concerning the threat being focused upon was to work towards a state of affairs wherein the degree to which persons are subjected to a risk of that particular threat must become zero. This was evident almost immediately as it was acceptable to trade away long term resilience at any number of levels of society and human existence, in exchange for the theoretical reduction of risk for this one threat ( !TODO: Zero Covid, school closures, lack of immunological resilience, worsened morbidity risk factors, etc ). This clearly indicates a desire for a transcendence towards a standard of a "harmless life" to be made possible through state intervention and mass conformity.
+
+There were immense social pressures, which still continue to this day to varying degrees, to be part of this new awakening which understands the new acceptable level of exposure to risk, You are either part of this new evolution of society, or you are one part of the group which brought us these problems in the first place.
+
+Also, surprisingly to some, but not to, again, many of the readers of this book, was the messaging proclaiming a desire, a heightened risk against, and an opportunity to champion equity quite early on. In fact, it was present in some of the very early research papers about "Long Covid" even within the first year of the Covid era, as well as rhetoric declaring the predicting of easier times ahead if we were to give up our rights in the immediate. This rhetoric included the priming of reactionary dispositions classically associated with the "Far-Right" which were quickly adopted, expressed and repeated by the "Progressive Left".
 
 ## Dialectic Examples
-- Human adaptation doesn't adapt anymore
-  - state must adapt
-  - must seize the means of production (of adaptation)
-- personal health is public health -> congruence
-- we must separate to be together
-  - eliminate atomizaton
-- consent
-  - we cannot consent to the unknown
-  - consent to science; of becoming
-- no patience for skepticism and feet dragging
-- nature -> illness is unnatural; evolving man is natural
 
-At a certain point, one wishes to know that there is a familial loyalty whereby we are willing to take on what might be an increase of risk in order to maintain proximity and compatibility with family - if even just the nuclear family. This, of course, is a great oversimplification, as it goes without saying that familial interaction establishes the base of physical, cognitive and social development in almost all humans (perhaps some feral children ?) and that there are risks with any environment and any interaction while also being a range of innumerable benefits which also result.
+*Though it may not have been obvious to as many of those interested in the reading of this book, at least at the times being indicated or being pointed to in this deconstruction and reflection, there strategies and rhetorical conflicts beginning quite early on from which the employment of the dialectic can be logically deduced.*
+
+### Dialectic of Human Adaptation
+
+The dialectic of human adaptation, particularly in the sense of immunological adaptation, but not strictly limited to just that. Our ability to adapt no longer functions, both at the level of immunological adaptation to infectious agents like a coronavirus, but also at a higher level in the way that our behaviour, as has been the case, is what lead to our current circumstance and the introduction of this specific infectious pathogen. On the topic of the virus itself, we cannot adapt to it as both undertaking the process of adaptation is too costly and a non-starter, but also in that our reaction as the adaptation to it is so deleterious and toxic from head to toe that the very act of adapting to it, in the way that we are meant to, is also synonymously our destruction. This has been expressed in different ways, often utilizing a good measure of ambiguity, such as whether the adaptation itself is insufficient, the adaptation is somehow incorrectly coordinated resulting in a permutation of immunological state which is somehow harmful, or simply that the condition of having to react as one is expected to react to the live virus in the wild is, though part of the adaptation, too strong of a stimulus.
+
+Though there's infinite depth of consideration to wade through in order to consolidate all the weeds, details and semantics related to understanding immunological adaptation and all the factors that go into it, it's the very premise of taking the concept of human immunological adaptation and saying that it is itself something incorrect but also correct, because it serves as the means by which to understand how adaptation should occur. Extending from this, the dialectic goes deeper in proposing that any immunological solution which is being put forward by corporations in coordination with the state and its public health apparatus is somehow not to the exclusion of human adaptation, but is itself merely this human adaptation being understood, leveraged and conveniently (and safely) provided to persons who can choose to make use of it, should they desire. Somehow, the capacity for human adaptation is itself both insufficient and the precise thing which is being provided, both in a way which is different but also the same, depending on the context wherein it is being discussed.
+
+In a sense, the state must seize the means of production of immunological adaptation so that it is done to yield the conditions which make existence for humans palatable, admissible and sufficient for flourishing. When rhetoric indicating this also utilizes argumentation on the basis of reified oppressed identities who will be affected asymmetrically by this strategy, then we can see that it is a dialectic demanding the seizing of the means of immunological production for the purpose of liberating the proletarian class, and that those who understand this innately do so because they are of a particular consciousness which is in line with the current historical moment in the development of our species.
+
+These ideas came to be embodied in academics and medical professionals to the extent that many of them began to make the claim that even a single infection of one cell in a human body by a virus is something unhealthy and detrimental, as though there is some perfect state of net-zero viral infection, even on the order of single cells, whereby the reality of us being continuously exposed to pathogenic particles, which is a continuously extant phenomenon, is itself something unnatural and to be solved. This flies in the face of many complexities about the nature of biological life, ecology, evolution, and infers the need to delve into such questions as whether we might best live in a vacuum, rather than be exposed to environments with the hopes that any consequent adaptation might better prepare our systems for unknown threats in the future.
+
+### Dialectic of Personal and Public Health
+
+There is no personal health without public health. There is no public health until each individual's personal health is expressed as a coordinated effort to perfect the conditions which allow for public health to be possible. This is why the desire for "natural immunity" is a form of blasphemy in that it functions as a contradiction towards completing the sanitized and immunologically perfected being that could only come to fruition through public health.
+
+A wonderful example of how public health progresses mostly through conformity can be found in analyzing the discourse surrounding masking. There are a range of pre-existing studies of various levels of quality that could have been drawn from at the outset of the Covid era, but debating the costs and benefits of masking quickly became forbidden, and it was from that point only acceptable to put forward the notion that masking is going to be helpful in any capacity. As time went on, the scientific debates, or whatever was left of them, became much more focused and finally culminated in the most relevant and well-accredited voices who promoted masking proclaiming that it may very well be completely useless, and even downright harmful, to wear cloth and surgical masks, but that the holy grail of high-quality masks that are still sufficiently feasible for everyday use, the N95 mask, were helping to protect you and your neighbours, and should continue being used, and even enforced (depending on the time and details of the discussion).
+
+There was, of course, a [meta analysis of RCTs on masking put out by Cochrane](https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full) which should have put the issue to rest, but this was largely ignored, villainized, and refuted on the basis of a discrepancy between the statements of the authors of the study and the editor which emerged after the publication (and in response to the massive criticism it had received by pro-masking medical professionals, activists, and collectivists of all stripes).
+
+But that aside, even if we were to assume that the critics were correct in maintaining that N95 is a necessary and helpful intervention that should be partaken in by all who have the means to, you would still widely observe, since long before and continuing ever since, that even in environments where Mask-Nazis are present, or where masking is enforced, people are accepted into the environment so long as they wear any mask at all - N95s, surgical masks, cotton masks, polyester/spandex masks, and I'm sure people could even get away with more ridiculous arrangements, such as undergarments placed over the mouth. You would also find that professionals and activists are, at least in most cases, no likely to utter a single peep of protestation about people wearing a chin-diaper (a mask over the chin), just so long as they are participating in the ritual.
+
+Georg Lukács might offer some insight into how collectivists feel about the errors of proletarians:
+
+> "proletariat always aspires towards the truth even in its ‘false’ consciousness and in its substantive errors." - Georg Lukács (History and Class Consciousness)
+
+The belief in the validity of one's health as an individual is a form of false consciousness, much in the way that a Marxist views false consciousness as that which excuses the material conditions of bourgeois society. Covidism always asserts that those who do not conform to the new collective with a totalized vision of society are doing so because of ideology, which can be enumerated in various forms ranging from "Far-Right fitness culture", to "toxic masculinity", to capitalism, and many more.
+
+> "Ideology is a system of concepts and views which serves to make sense of the world while obscuring the social interests that are expressed therein, and by its completeness and relative internal consistency tends to form a closed system and maintain itself in the face of contradictory or inconsistent experience.
+...
+Marxists seek to subject all ideology to critique, uncovering the internal contradictions in an ideology and exposing the social interests expressed by it."
+
+> "Marxism itself is frequently described as ideology, in the sense in which a negative connotation is attached to the word; that is, that Marxism is a closed system of ideas which maintains itself in the face of contrary experience. Any social view must contain an element of ideology, since an entirely objective and supra-historical view of the world is unattainable. Further, by its very scope and strength, Marxism lends itself to transformation into a closed and self-justifying system of assertions."
+
+> "However, such a development of Marxism is contrary to its spirit which is relentlessly critical and self-critical and draws sustenance from the unceasing creation of new material for reflection in the progress of culture and social life." - Marxists.org (https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/d.htm#ideology)
+
+### The Dialectic of Togetherness
+
+This one was especially treacherous and seems to have had an effect which remains to this day. We had to be apart in order to be together for if we were apart when it was necessary we could be..come to be together in a manner which is closer than ever before, both because we'll have a new understanding and appreciation for how precious it is to be together, but also because we'll have each contributed to transforming the conditions to make togetherness possible again (not to mention, absence makes the heart grow fonder!). By being apart, we show that we care about each other's well-being and that we understand the historical process of achieving what is necessary for the benefit of one another.
+
+We also show that we are willing to make sacrifices as individuals. We can quell the desires of our immediate wants and come to understand that everyone's success is potentiated in the greater collective. Making decisions to prioritize one another's health and safety shows and sets the example of empathy which, in due course, allows us to reach a higher level of togetherness.
+
+Conversely, seeing one another during the high risk period will have the opposing effect. In choosing to be together at that time, we'd be ignoring the risks and consequences of the situation, and this would lead to cognitive dissonance which disrupts the flow and precludes us from having a complete and fulfilling interaction. Being together when it's potentially harmful and being aware of the associated risks reinforces the practice of selfishness which isolates us and makes us unsympathetic to the real needs of our fellow humans.
+
+After having gone through this great intellectual, physical, metaphysical and spiritual challenge, we'll transcend the limitations which had rendered us so dull and callous before, and overcome the atomization of our technologically preoccupied lives.
+
+### The Dialectic of Consent
+
+This is probably one of the most egregious manipulations on all humans as it attempts to directly redefine the ethics and morality of what right one has to their own barriers of privacy and autonomy concerning their own body.
+
+The very concept of consent and, as such, the sanctity, autonomy and sovereignty of one's own personhood is put into disarray by supposing that the default state of reality is one to which one cannot consent to. This is reminiscent of the thrownness that was referred to earlier.
+
+One cannot consent to the unknown, which is nature as it currently stands. This is particularly because it is not the correct nature, due to the tampering consequent to man's selfish needs. As such, nothing about the state of reality can be known until such time that science has completed its task, which is akin to a historical process completing the specification of man and world, man and nature which are, as Marx put it, one and the same but also in a configuration whereby man is not actually expressing his true nature until such time that the process which his to say man's ontological journey through history, is complete.
+
+You were always given a choice to be a part of appropriately-assigned, institutionally-supported effort which is intelligently formulating the specification for the adaptation and as such you can consent to an intelligent solution for the problem that not only you're faced with but that you modulate as a problem for others through your actions. You were given consent because the knowledge you have the choice to receive is being guaranteed as the most intelligent option available, specifically-suited to your and everyone else's needs.
+
+Since the dialectic involves a default state of nature to which one cannot consent, and a process of composing the intentional solution with specificity, any hesitancy or dragging of feet is portrayed as the denying of other people's consent.
+
+Not only that, but the sate keeps the process of knowledge-construction and, by extension, consent, free of contamination by the elements that you are otherwise most susceptible to such that you would otherwise have the worst capacity for consent. In fact, the process of contaminating knowledge production is itself a phenomenon which is like a viral threat, demonstrating the multiple levels of complexity at which this issue is having to be dealt with. The whole ordeal of infectious disease is so complicated beyond even those areas of discourse that you are aware of that you would otherwise be completely overwhelmed with the complexity of it all. The state helps to fix the process of dialogue which otherwise eliminates opportunity for consent.
+
+Of course, this is all hocus-pocus dialectical nonsense whereby your consent has been demolished through a specious and sophistic faculty of aufheben. Not only is your fundamental capacity for consent being overlooked, supplanted and destroyed, but the censorship, corrupt incentives and threats to professionals through totalizing entryism makes it so that even the information generated to be salient with the institutional narratives is itself corrupt and something which, when presented to you at face value, impossible to give intelligent and reasonable consent to.
+
+### Dialectic of Fascism
+
+To remember what the Dialectic is, especially in modern times, it's worth looking again at that quote by our seminal Critical Theorists, Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno:
+
+> "...dialectical thinking, in which each thing is what it is only by becoming what it is not." - Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno (Dialectic of Enlightenment)
+
+In the sense of Fascism it is being redefined both by the state and activists who are actively engaged in their disposition towards collectivism, as those things which are actually antithetical to Fascism (with Fascism being the concept put forward by Giovanni Gentile and Benito Mussolini, whose work "The Doctrine of Fascism" helps to explicate what everyone already has a sense of as being Fascism, but what can be more simply summarized with the following:
+
+> "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." - Benito Mussolini
+
+Indeed, the acts and aspirations of individual humans towards freedom and liberty are truly antithetical to Fascism, but such acts have come to be labeled by Fascism by the statists and collectivists of our time who are seeking to create a superstate through authoritarianism which promises to provide us with medical treatments en route to a situation where viral infections simply would no longer occur.
+
+All resistance to the state is now labeled as "Fascism", while actual Fascism is synthesized with the superficial portrayal of freedom and liberation in a contrived sense whereby it is deemed that the conditions for freedom will be made possible through submission to the state and the relinquishing of one's desires for personal or individual liberty. Those who benefit from an empowered structure will label themselves as liberatory and congruent to equity, and those who criticize them for having facilitated the merger of private and public into an increasingly authoritarian state come to be labeled as Fascists. Fascists is now any resistance to the transformative progress of encroaching Totalitarianism.
 
-This begins with interaction between mother and child which, in our context, we can touch upon on the basis of immunological adaptation. It is necessarily the case that the mother is exposed to, and has been exposed to, a wider and more dynamic range of biological phenomena informing her immunological capacities, and that this extends to opportunities for both exposure and adaptation by her offspring by virtue of her child-rearing activities. Though we may focus, in discussion on the prospect of a mother providing mature and differentiated antibodies to her child through mother's milk, it should be noted that a baby's immunological capabilities come most extensively from their innate immune system, such as that brought on by T-cells. They differentiate both CD8+ (helper) and CD4+ (killer) cells from exposure to discarded nucleoside sequences and DNA fragments present in exosomes delivered via skin, sweat, exhalation, breast milk, urine and feces. This is a rich exposure to real phenomena in the shared environment and it allows adaptation to occur precisely in the manner sought by vaccination.
+The Freedom Convoy and those who advocated for freedom and liberty during the Covid era were denounced as being those who destroy freedom by inconveniencing through their protest, desire for dialogue (both with the state, which was never granted to them, or simply with any whomsoever wished to speak, dance, eat and play with them in their bouncy castles), as well as with their pestilence and unclean bodies which serve as vectors for disease and contamination, as was described by the state's supportive witnesses who claimed, without evidence, that the truckers who had come into Ottawa, Canada to protest were defecating on the streets.
 
-Surely people either learn this or come to have some intuition about it on the basis of learning about breast milk providing antibodies, which is more widely communicated across the popular landscape than most other health factoids (because pregnant women will be incentivized to produce antibodies in response to a commercially available immune-inducing agents, and there arise incentives around such a practice in its own rite).
+A state who completely refused to communicate with protestors but instead stamped them out, literally, at gunpoint with the boots and hooves of its heavily armed and armoured security forces is the opposite of Fascism, while those who asked for nothing more than dialogue were the epitome of Fascism for daring to desire freedom and liberty. They were a horrible inconvenience and a stain on our otherwise pristine and beautiful nation state. An inconvenience that is completely the result of the vile conspiratorial villainy by these unwashed truckers, and was not in any way maximized by the government who intervened immediately as the truckers came into the city and instead of allowing them to set up camp in various parts of the city that were not necessarily going to block traffic, such as along the canal and in Confederation Park, had forced them to amass themselves in a concentrated permutation along the busiest streets of downtown Ottawa in a manner which would maximize the inconvenience to the city. Yes, these truckers were the embodiment of Fascism and were given their just desserts by the helmets and batons of freedom, courtesy of our magnanimously empathetic and generously charitable government.
 
-What explains this drive to prevent a child's robust development and the imposing of a supreme concern of evading the particles of this one classification can be chalked up to the public health messaging, but I don't think that really begins to explain it.
+### Dialectic of Family
 
-The offering up of one's child to the administration of new innovations and subjecting them to social conditioning that necessarily isolates them is many things, including the conforming to social expectations, but it is also:
-- rite of passage
-  - your child must undergo initiation to be accepted into the next stage or evolution of society
-- sacrifice
-  - there is something to be understood in the sense that people felt some impetus to allow certain harm to be incurred (even as a risk of harm that was interpreted as being low, but simultaneously being one which can be catastrophic, as immune-related issues can sometimes become)
-    - proves a world-view to their child and social milieu
-    - state will understand you as having honoured its bidding and a more restricted future necessarily makes you more dependent on the state
+At a certain point, every human wishes to fall back on the assurance that there is a source of familial loyalty in their lives whereby oneself and one's family members would be willing to take on what might be an increase of risk, even in the form of modest exclusion or reduction of salience with respect to the surrounding social sphere, in order to maintain proximity and compatibility with family, such as with even just the nuclear family. This is because, whatever our disagreements and problems, there will always remain the greatest potential for empathy, understanding, patience and intuitive symbioticism for one's family members, if even simply out of a respectful regard to the contributions of one's shared genetic antedecents. The symbioticism in particular, for example, might be seen as well-wishing and social support for one's success as an organism surviving in a broader environment, but it also includes such things as developmental influence as aligned and similar genetics, learning, nurturing and, furthermore, immunological maturation. This, of course, is a great oversimplification, as it goes without saying that familial interaction, for better or worse, establishes the base of physical, cognitive and social development in almost all humans, save some feral children, and that though there are risks and benefits in any social environment, one's lowest level scope of familial structure is the environment bearing the greatest impact on a child's development.
 
-## Drive
-TODO: this is nonsense
-What is the drive towards the idea of a society which must be free of the threat of infection? Do we know that an infection-free society would be a good thing?
+Though it barely needs to be stated, as there is ample evidence of this and it shouldn't even be controversial to state the proportionally more significant influence of family, as such, we can easily reference works that are commonly known, even outside of academic circles, such as Attachment Theory, Ecological Systems Theory and the better-known Hierarchy of Needs, which all reinforce these assumptions.
 
-For some, it's easy to dismiss the severity of something if all our children become critically conscious and so on. If even the children are being made to participate with and be subjected to something, then surely it must be safe. And even if it were not safe, it would be a sacrifice that all would be committing to together, thus we have good reason to feel encouraged??
+!NOTE: Bibliographical references for developmental hierarchy
+1. Attachment Theory
+- Bowlby, Ainsworth - Attachment and Loss, Volume 1: Attachment (1969)
+
+2. Ecological Systems Theory
+- Urie Bronfenbrenner - The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design (1979)
+
+3. Hierarchy of Needs
+- Abraham Maslow - Motivation and Personality (1954)
+
+Familial support begins with interaction between mother and child which, in our context, we can touch upon contextually by indicating it as part of the fundamental basis of immunological development. It is necessarily the case that the mother is exposed to, and has been exposed to, a wider and more dynamic range of biological phenomena informing her immunological capacities, and that this extends to opportunities for both exposure and adaptation by her offspring by virtue of her child-rearing activities. Though we may focus, in discussion on the prospect of a mother providing mature and differentiated antibodies to her child through mother's milk, it should be noted that a baby's immunological capabilities come most extensively from their innate immune system, such as that provided by T-cells. They differentiate as both CD8+ (helper) and CD4+ (killer) cells through many forms of exposure which includes discarded nucleoside sequences and DNA fragments present in exosomes delivered via skin, sweat, exhalation, breast milk, urine and feces. This is a rich form of exposure to real phenomena in the shared environment and it allows adaptation to occur precisely in the manner sought by the administration of vaccines.
+
+Surely people either learn this or come to have some intuition about it on the basis of learning about breast milk providing antibodies, which is more widely communicated across the popular landscape than most other health factoids because pregnant women will be incentivized to produce antibodies in response to a commercially available immune-inducing agents, and there rightly arise incentives around such a practice in its own rite.
+
+What explains this drive to prevent a child's robust development and the imposing of a supreme concern of evading the particles of this one classification seems that it can be chalked up to public health messaging, but I don't think that really begins to explain it.
+
+The offering up of one's child to the administration of new innovations and subjecting them to social conditioning that necessarily isolates them is many things, including the conforming to social expectations, but we should consider that it is a rite of passage, in that your child must undergo initiation to be accepted into the next stage or evolution of society. Perhaps more controversially, though, is that to pursue the administration of substances to one's child which are beyond one's comprehension is also intrinsically going to symbolize some form of sacrifice. There is something to be understood in the sense that people felt some impetus to allow certain harm to be incurred, even only as a modest, and even perhaps insignificant, risk of harm that was interpreted as being low, but simultaneously being one which can be catastrophic, as immune-related issues can sometimes become. To accept, choose or promote the administration of a substance which is beyond one's understanding also proves a world-view both to one's child and one's social milieu, and possible leads to some comfort that the state will understand you as having honoured its bidding which, as undertaken in the Covid era, indicates acceptance of and a more restricted future necessarily makes you more dependent on the state
+
+#### Beyond the Child
+
+It gets more broad, still: !TODO: snitch culture, questioning beliefs, masking, exclusion, paranoia about family events, state messaging over family communication.
+Whenever examining stories of Totalitarianism, whether fictitious as in 1984, or in the real-life retelling of events by escapees of North Korea, or the scholars having dug into documented events from Soviet Russia and Communist China, one thing phenomenon which demonstrates the absolutely devastating degree by which cult mentality has taken over the mind of those aligned with the state is that of family betrayal. Perhaps what's most disconcerting, however, is the degree to which these may occur as developments that are incremental and insidious. That is to say, it is not a conscious and planned betrayal but a slow adoption of state-approved belief of which one is continuously prompted to signal alignment through their professional and recreational environments, and that this supplants familial loyalty as the first order set of socially-relevant principles by which one is expected to be well-versed.
+
+Though this is always playing out to varying degrees, the manner is unsurprisingly predictable.
+
+##### Familial Negation
+
+!TODO: I hesitate to call it the state-approved sets of "thought" actual philosophies, of which they rarely are - especially when disseminated by the state.
+
+The primary mode of imposition is the tension brought about through the denial of one's beliefs which isn't necessarily on the basis of refuting the content of the description of any said belief, but through making the rationale of any non-approved belief inadmissible. The family member who is initiated into the state-congruent collectivist *philosophy*.
+
+###### State Enforcement
+
+A lot of what takes place after the dismissing of one's attempts to proclaim their beliefs or present their rationale for said belies is an numeration of properly palatable options which serve as an affordance trap ( !NOTE: citation needed ). These state approved options are presented before the articulation of one's thoughts can take place in order to prevent thoughts from being fully formed and digested. If the articulation does take place, however, it is to be disregarded and is often met with the discontinuation of the interaction which is often prompted by the declaration of a wound having been identified or collected by the initiated member. Thought termination is necessary in order to proclaim the acceptable beliefs which must be absorbed wholesale without deconstruction, disambiguation or critique. This process must always take place to satisfy the initiate's baseline conditions for acceptable family bonding.
+
+The result of this practice is atomization which, though already occurring broadly in the society at large, is now also occurring in real time in the environments that are otherwise most resistant to it.
+
+###### Delegation of Reason
+
+In having an approved set of resources to draw from and which, as per their origin, present a morally-implicated rationale for their imposition, the state-enforcer in the familial environment no longer has to undertake the work of articulating their reasons in real time, particularly if any supplemental requirement is demanded of them. The authoritative characteristics of their source provide endless means of asserting in a manner bears plausible deniability, at least as per discourse which complies with "polite society".
+
+In the case of the covid-era, this means that one's conduct which may previously have been considered to be threatening as per the rhetoric surrounding the level and structure of the threat to which we are subjected can be dismissed out of hand, even when being contradicted by new behaviour which is qualitatively different, simply on the basis that recommendations have changed and that they are to be believed wholesale without any process of comprehension having to take place, unless as a sort of intellectual luxury extending from already having proclaimed agreement with the new state-provided description.
+
+###### Supplanted
+
+As the basis of the rationale for the denial of rationale is indicated through the proposition that the domains of knowledge available to persons are made as such through identity, the logically consequent proposition is that there are now a set of pre-approved identities which will serve as the foundation of family and that, if these are not fulfilled in the environment of an enclave of members with shared heredity, that they will be supplanted, at least from the perspective of the initiates, with persons presenting identities from other domains. In all cases you will find that those who are of the mind to have accepted the initiate language and external loyalty to entities outside of the family of shared heredity, that there are also going to be sources of communion and socialization from which they hope to mediate the threat of atomization and exclusion, and that this is presented to them through profession, other friendships and, in many cases, celebrities. You will find, almost faithfully, that these initiates are heavily interested in pop culture and will attend many pop events almost as a source of ritual for psychological and even spiritual fulfillment.
+
+
+## Drive Towards Infection-Free Environments
+
+One of the consequences of the priming of fear towards the threat of infection, both prior to Covid with Hollywood films like "Contagion", and then through the early phases of the Covid-era, was the emergence of rhetoric which presupposed that any amount of infection by any pathogen at all was something that was should strive to eliminate as a species. That this particular pathogen was harbouring such an inexplicable degree of harm that it's time to consider that humans and human society should evolve such as to eradicate the threat of even incidental, nominal and miniscule occurrences of infection which aren't accompanied with noticeable symptoms.
+
+Though there were voices describing the phenomenon of viral infection in precisely this way, including ones from academia, the movement of "zero-Covid", though likely buttressed and portrayed as larger than it may have been by social media campaigns, public health advocacy and private interest groups, grew to sizeable proportions and was, in effect, the logical conclusion of rhetoric which had been composed to maximize fear and interest in unquestionable uptake of the primary treatment sought by state governments across the globe (the one which starts with "V"). It didn't really make sense to think about the threat of coronaviruses, or any virus, in any manner except one with an eventual goal to make infection impossible. This was because of the unchanging goal of the Covid-era always being the neutralizing of infection. Vaccination was always described as yielding humans as being the final endpoint for the coronavirus as it wouldn't be able to transmit from that point onwards, which stayed in line with the original public health enforcements whose rationale always centered on the fact of there being vulnerable for whom a risk of infection was unacceptable; all of the demands for force and coercion centered on the premise that the only manner in which a safe environment could be achieved for the particularly vulnerable would be to ensure that every individual in that environment had received a "full immunization". Additionally, the rhetoric of fear maintained its intensity regardless of changes to the relative profile being found in sequenced viral specimens of various regions as time went on (which took on names such as Omicron, for example). If the conversation surrounding the evolution of viruses has been made such as to exclude the concept of its diminishing virulence across time, then it stands to reason that all viral infection should be avoided and, if possible, neutralized from taking place using whatever technological means are available to mankind.
+
+!TODO: Disambiguate the above.
+
+What is the drive towards the idea of a society which must be free of the threat of infection? Do we know that an infection-free society would be a good thing? Some possibilities include:
+- [x] Survival instinct
+- [] Fear of contamination
+- [] Control freaks
+- [] Perfectionism
+- [] Cultural conditioning towards hygiene
+- [] Purity as aesthetic
+- [] Moral of cleanliness
+- [] Transcendence
+
+The drive towards the idea of a society which is completely free of the threat of infection has many aspects, and much historical precedent. Certainly, there are factors worthy of consideration, at least insofar as the motivations are concerned, which indicate, at some level, positive characteristics about human beings. But, when seeking an absolute outcome which is not only outside the reasonable conception of reality, but also an outcome which cannot be reliable ascertained as a positive or net-good for our species and which is, more likely, a net-negative and possibly even catastrophic outcome, we can begin to hypothesize how best to frame these motivations.
+
+I would suggest that the motivations themselves are echoing some of our darker proclivities and that these have already manifested in some of the more extreme outcomes of our recorded history.
+
+### Survival Instincts
+
+To be fair, there is of course a survival instinct that most of us felt in touch with early on in the Covid-era, if even just before the official announcement when the fearful discourse was fresh and unfamiliar. This gives a good base for empathy to work from, but the fact remains that many who did fear for their lives and health early on overcame that fear and were in many cases putting themselves in situations that they believed to be of elevated risk if even just for the principle of how their behaviour would contribute to the potential of an increasingly totalitarian society. For example, many who believed that the threat was elevated, or who were at least affected by the continuous messaging from all angles and sources, whether authoritative, entertainment, workplace or one's own personal friends such that it gets in your head to keep thinking about the possibility that you are within spitting distance of the most uncomfortable week of your life, or even death, would still refuse to wear a mask or avoid seeing certain people face-to-face, simply to push back on the process of conformity which was unfolding all around us. So survival instinct is not a sufficient rationale on its own, especially not in the case of rationalizing one's drive towards desiring an infection-free society.
+
+### Contamination
+
+Now we're getting somewhere, because the fear of contamination and heightened disgust sensitivity was palpable among those who were most ardent in their insistence that measures be followed and that a perfect endpoint was hopefully around the corner. What was most notable was an unquestionable desire to follow authority and even take up the opportunity to report and snitch on strangers, friends, colleagues, and even family members. In fact, it was explicitly encouraged in some circumstances, and given the atomization that our society has witnessed over the past few years, it's not far-fetched to recognize how quickly society can change towards engaging such practices.
+
+In fact, the threat of infection can override people's self-narrative about what standards they consider acceptable for society not just during the moment of extraordinary circumstance but in general, leading to advocating dehumanization, exclusion of those who believe, behave or appear differently, and the erecting of authoritarian policies which would be difficult or even impossible to overturn, at least in theory should the system of governance and corresponding society sustain itself.
+
+We saw this first hand with inflammatory language describing the unvaccinated, vaccine-hesitant, and unmasked as unclean disease vectors, unevolved and deeply immoral subhumans. The comparison to vermin was reminiscent of Nazi-era rhetoric where such comparisons were a central feature of public messaging.
+
+#### Moral Purity
+
+Along with the obsession with contamination and the categorizing of people as being members of the disease ridden and unclean was a sense of moral purity which was both intrinsically bound to this phenomenon and prevalent in the language used by public officials.
+
+From the rhetoric that was being disseminated and the response by those who seemed to acknowledge its rationale and who abided by it on a seemingly religious basis, it was clear that the decrees would be adopted and followed regardless of level of threat, just so long as the central authority was broadcasting the demand. What's clear is that, when taken to their logical conclusions, the rationales being disseminated were ones which, regardless of the efficacy of the measures prescribed, (for which) the conditions always serve as a sufficient predicate.
+
+That is to say, if there is always a portion of the population which is too vulnerable to adapt to the ever-differentiating threats of the environment, and if erecting barriers between us and making use of implements which supposedly prevent us from being infected with an antigen while also preventing us from transmitting it to others, then it stands to reason that it's always a good idea to apply measures, particularly when considering that there is no private health without public health; that is to say, there is no way of guaranteeing the best possible conditions from which your personal health can be influenced except through a public health apparatus which is functioning such as to affect those conditions in the first place.
+
+That these modes of thought completely abstain from considering the degree to which other factors of resilience are developed in a social environment, such as the fact of healthy persons developing the means of acting as sinks for pathogens while distributing safer fragments and signals about the threats to which we may all be subjected, or the fact of how isolation, reduced activity and reduced exposure might lead to less general vitality, tells you not only about the degree to which many may be unaware of the complexity of the issue, but also that the phenomenon of people adopting societally-enforced measures on the basis of collective safety who might actually be aware of some of these complexities would necessarily be incentivized by the perception that there is an immediate risk of health on themselves, and that the degree to which the frail and infirm might be made even more fragile under the circumstance of increased isolation, and the degree to which families relying on businesses that were deemed non-essential might be impacted negatively in a way which imposes a non-null effect on health and well-being, tells us that these motivations of survivability towards an aesthetic of cleanliness and moral purity are motivations of individuals wishing for an improved level in terms of the risk of disease that they themselves are being subjected to, and that this motivation would continue regardless of the ill effect that might develop long term for society as a whole, just so long as one maintained a belief either that their immediate threat is being reduced, or that the enforcement mechanisms are from a centralized entity to which they are maintaining some form of alignment.
+
+Furthermore, as the mind becomes more preoccupied with the threat of infection, there is a greater desire for control and order versus freedom and chaos, which coincides with what we said earlier about the effect of a risk of infection on predisposition towards traditionally "far-right", but best understood as authoritarian or totalitarian systems.
+
+!TODO: disgust sensitivity and personality
+!TODO: disgust sensitivity and societal transformation
+
+### Control
+
+!TODO: Below needs redrafting
+
+Whenever there is a lever by which authoritarian implements can be wielded to compel, coerce or manipulate people, those with a disposition towards power and control will not be able to resist wielding it. During the Covid-era, this means that those who gravitate towards taking up positions which play a role in the administration or oversight of power as per the need for new safety measure are likely to find their moment to do as such.
+
+We saw it in immersive, overbearing and exorbitant abundance during the Covid-era as so many in leadership roles spoke in such inflexible terms and unwavering demeanour about the new standards with clearly deducible implications for human freedom and liberty. They did this for such a long portion of the Covid-era, with many more continuing to this day, without even so much as a tentative comment revealing the tiniest bit of concern about the short or long term consequences on human freedom. This is in no small part related to the phenomenon of person seeking political power with a collectivist conception of an assumed social contract whose understanding of freedom and liberty is predicated on a collective trajectory towards improving the conditions of the world as they perceive them and with such a prospect of traversal serving as the precondition from which any notion of freedom can be considered.
+
+When the very notion of freedom changes from something universally applicable as a default modality of human life, if even as something to be valued in theory, to that which extends from the fulfillment of objectives as indicated by someone who necessarily perceives their social surroundings as one in which the powers of state enforcement are available at their fingertips, it shouldn't be considered intelligent to expect anything other than an ongoing transition of society towards something which is always more tyrannical. To add the element of the threat of disease, if even as just part of the rhetoric, then the expectation should be for such an approach of tyranny to be accelerated.
+
+#### Pathologizing
+
+We've given people a huge chance to control their environments, peer groups, workplaces, communities, organizations, friends, partners, families and essentially anyone with whom they have disagreements, particularly of how this topic became embedded in every moment and aspect of everyone's lives and because of how propaganda, social media and an interdisciplinary-focused academia that was inebriated with Social Justice.
+
+When everything is predicated on a greater good and the risk of the destruction of all thing sand the risk of you harming me or me harming you, you can have it every way you like a whatever moment you like and anything you assert can be implied as being supported by the authorities because you align on a higher level objective and since the weeds can't all be known and perfectly understood at high resolution, as everything is in a process of discovery (but anyone who is aligned with the same outcome is doing the science whereas everyone who is against it is anti-scientific), then we have a never ending means of rationalizing on the basis of authority just about anything that the control freak wants
+
+And, what's even worse, is that they get validated and find a form of toxic community to support them in all of this at a time when people are most divided and isolated, both figuratively and literally, and so everyone is a bit more on edge and ready to embrace these opportunities if they have the necessary proclivities. It worsens the pathological tendencies and hides the worst of the outbursts which aren't as public as they once were. People are isolated for longer, crazier for longer, and more tolerant of a lower expectation for human freedom, liberty and open aired reasoning (or open air anything, as it was)
+
+This reinforcing of dubious behaviour combined with the state providing cover for one's linguistic manipulations on concepts like freedom and liberty, which are now contingent on the achieving of these other goals of sanitation and conformity, means that we are initiating, rewarding and exacerbating pathological habituation.
+
+### Perfectionism
+
+For some, it's easy to dismiss the severity of something if all our children become critically conscious and so on. If even the children are being made to participate with and be subjected to something, then surely it must be safe. And even if it were not safe, it would be a sacrifice that all would be committing to together, thus we have good reason to feel encouraged en route to a perfection which, if it were ever attained, would likely be something developed, supported or at least maintained by the state and, as such, it would stand to reason that protections for unknown threats become easier to ignore under the prospect of a perfect way to live as administered by the state.
 
 TODO: Need to complete this
 
 ## History
+
 For the Covidist, the event of a pandemic of international concern is seen in its historical context. It is an event preceded by the struggle, historical conditions and tension which led to this event unfolding. The fact of its sociopolitical, human and biological significance is clearly indicative that its human and social precedents gave rise to it, informed it, and so on. All this logically confers that it must be seen as relevant and a stage en route to a better world, if any sort of better life were ever to be made a possible reality (history is what makes a reality possible).
 
 Our hopes and dreams both have been prevented from being realized through this, yet our hopes and dreams are being imagined because of this event. If even we could be liberated, we will find that this event, whether now considered as making such liberation more difficult or more possible, is an aspect of the liberatory process and is something which shaped, formed and etched out the shape of that liberated structure.