latest

Book/Queerterferon.md

@@ -136,4 +136,87 @@ Describing any level less direct than that of the most immediate surrounding is
 
 So, how does one perceive, though as sensible as ever, layers of encapsulation and contextual relevance which one visualizes as extant, but that are not observable physically in a direct sense? Is it a shadow? A fuzzy haze? A warm blanket of care and love?
 
-It is difficult to perfectly conceptualize because they are not entities or things with intent, but they represent a pseudo state with its particular properties and degree of order an adherence thereof. Just as we perceive the sky as being stability in our atmosphere
+It is difficult to perfectly conceptualize because they are not entities or things with intent, but they represent a pseudo state with its particular properties and degree of order an adherence thereof. Just as we perceive the sky as being stability in our atmosphere
+
+# Things Being Defined Dialectically
+Child: to have no limit and no base
+Freedom: to that which allows the unfree to become maximally free. The unfree becoming free
+Democracy: equity
+Fascism: That which resists radical change
+Literacy: access to implements of society
+Racism: actions and perceptions which benefit whiteness
+White: Having or being aligned with whiteness
+Whiteness: property of the dominant group in society
+Health: that which enables the oppressed to access healthcare or to produce equity so that it can be expected that everyone has equal access to a health program
+
+The cynical view always rejects that anything good exists but further decides that you are not actually in favour of that which you declare good because it is not actually a helpful object unless it can be reconstructed to satisfy the cynic's requirements for the language, using their conceived definition as they'd like it to be conserved.
+
+When you relinquish your ability to confirm and oversee the championing of an idea, you aren't familiar enough to understand that the idea you pretend to be in favour of, or you have no faith in your own ideas.
+
+I
+
+# Transwhataboutism
+September 10, 2022
+
+Transhumanism can be seen as any concept of augmenting the human condition beyond that which:
+- occurs without intervention
+- occurs without advancement of scientific understanding
+- occurs without the application of technology
+
+Some would give more deliberate definitions, such as that transhumanism is transcendence of humanity, or what it is the ongoing pursuit of ridding humanity of illness, disease and mortality. Others still focus on the augmentation of the expreience through technology - appendages, neurological interfacing, delegated processing, sensors and so on.
+
+But what does society think? What is the archetype placed in the child of this time? Of the previous generation? Are there differences? What is always present?
+
+Ascending from the current, it becomes the old, dead, antiquated, necrotic and lifeless. Blind and dumb. A firey phoenix-like birth, perhaps an angel with wings, ready to fly.
+
+If we transcend the human form, we transcend its physical limitations, including those of how we come to be created / come into being. Sexual reproduction is now the dead march to the ancient mode of oppression that plagued mankind.
+
+As we cast off the chains of sexual reproduction, we take on a form which includes the best of the old with none of the bad. Man's assertiveness and aggressive power, without toxic resentment of being limited from the gene pool. Woman's desirability, seductive shape, quality of being nurturing to all the universe, inclination to recreational play to enjoy and reflect on all which society protects for them - continuously making all that is necessary sustainable, preserved for their longer-term survival and prosperity - all because you are socially astute enough to be recognize as worthy of keeping for the next generation of life. And you even get to be both (adult and child, and even male and female).
+
+Access to all that might have been kept away from those not yet mature or developed for it to be apprpriate, but able to enjoy it all with no expectation except exploratory play.
+
+## Left/Right Dialectics
+The Dialectic ratchets to the left, but what does that mean, and why is the right wing mind partaking?  Is it true that the left is open mindedness and openness to social variety (is that the right characterization?)
+
+Let us review the current transformations taking place:
+- attempt to trans/queer children
+- declare allegiance to a coalition of similar folk nations while evading the strongest slopes of angst brought on by one's biological reality (though unsuccessfully, as it is unavoidable and the problem is only made more complicated by making it less likely one will achieve greater control over one's physicality and balance it more seamlessly with one's mind / psyche).
+
+So who is left? Left is acceptance and openness to inquiry. Left is transparency as we each afford opportunity for ourselves to change without making demands of the other, unless one is actively suppressing and attacking / violating another.
+
+Trans needs to throw out any mind that criticizes, demand enforcement from the state, and incur an increase of anxiety against unexplored thoughts that conflict with the adoption of drastic choices, positions and opinions.
+
+It ratchets and, meanwhile, we impose implements which aim to restrict speech or thought which is antithetical to the foregone conclusion of a drastic transition to something which cannot be sought or sustained without major structural supports that are incredibly difficult to maintain without a structure which demands totality.
+
+# Drag Queen Story Hour DQSH
+January 15, 2023
+
+## Who?
+Who are these men? Do they portray themselves as modest females, in order to simply be convincing that they are they opposite sex? No. Not at all.
+
+They are to be extravagant in their expression of the female form. A female that cannot be resisted. A female that won't be ignored. A female that attracts and tantalizes. A female that causes your blood flow to be diverted and your breath to be taken away.
+
+## What?
+This is accomplished through everything from attire, which is generally made to be risque, to the makeup, which exaggerates the piercingly feminine and alluring eyes, the flushed and aroused cheeks and the big, smoochy lipstick-laden lips that are waiting to be tasted and kissed.
+
+It is in the sway of hips and the swinging of bottoms that a spanking is hinted because they've been so so naughty. The twerking of the hips demand attention and yearn for the rich pleasures of the senses, which is something the transvestite queen insists is to be celebrated.
+
+## Toned Down
+You might state that your particular drag queen was toned down, but toned down from what?
+
+Why must your favourite ritualistic ambassador through which to teach children of the new world be of a type which need be toned down? Do you eblieve all Drag Queen Story Hours will have drag queens that are equally toned down and in the same ways?
+
+It's quite curious, indeed, that the educators specifically designated or the enlightenment of children are to be ones with a particularly sexual dimension of expression that is, by default, reasonably expected in all other performative scenarios (remember, Drag Queens existed before they became storybook companions for kids), save this one. Can we say with certainty that such is the design? Or is this simply an unexpected factor to be mitigated?
+
+And, depending on the reason for this predicament, would that be considered a shortsight or a foresight? If such a dimension of expression were suppressed, would that not be considered contrary to the purpose of exposing children to an environment of performers who demonstrate the absence of limits and constraints? Or, if this is a reasonable detail to attenuate, should it not be expected that such attenuation would take place to varying degrees (a *spectrum*, in fact!)? What is the preference of the DQSH advocate? What accountability do they recommend for circumstances where appropriate attenuation is not achieved? (Oopsies, now your child is even wiser than you are).
+
+Because it would be possible to choose any other form of performer or exemplar of a vocation, such as a handicapped athletic champion, daredevil or astronaut. But they simply won't do, thus we need to understand why someone would insist upon this particular specialization, and it is simple: these performers, whether or not it is being presented purposefully and explicitly, hold continuous reference to sexual expression (no, I don't mean the fact that they are human beings and humans are a sexually reproducing species with biological and social expression of sexuality, I mean that these performers specialize in expressing sexuality through their craft). Not only is this known by all adults with any awareness of Drag Queen performance, but these same adults are aware of the ever-present potential for expressions to take place along the sexual dimension before these children.
+
+## Purpose
+It is not the stories being read, nor self-esteem, nor the presentation of identity categories in order to ensure the child will not fear or hate such identities. How do we know?
+
+Because the point of drag, in general, is not to present homosexuality (regardless of whether it may be present in the performance). You don't identify homosexuals by their being in drag. In fact, drag performers have often been heterosexuals who simply developed this particular talent and skillset.
+
+The drag performer harbours potential for over-the-top sexual expression. And with that fertile capacity for sexual expression situated right beneath the surface (and sometimes bursting out for all to see), the DQSH advocates can wink and giggle to one another (or to naive parents) about the thin layer of repressed sexual expression which erupt for the children at any moment.
+
+Enjoy the contradiction of both wanting a performer who demonstrates "no limits or constraints" to the benefit of children, while also asserting that this performer will limit and constrain their sexual expression.

collectivist_theology/Fighting_For_Reality.md

@@ -42,6 +42,9 @@ So, with this in view, wouldn't it make sense that biases are never fair unless
 Well, no, that cannot be done, because for every bias wihc you enumerate, there exists an infinite set of similar biases which you devalue an dignore. You can't possibly do anything but to increase the degree and focus of the biases, which are now being performed in an explicitly biased way which is not only an inelegant solution, but something which causes an even more complicating set of effects that are unmeasurable and uninumerable.
 ```
 
+#### Tautological
+The other way of looking at this is in the sense of a tautology. A metadescription of something whereby a meta representation of a concept is brought about, where it is without quantity but is determinate insofar that it can be attributed to a known concept, should itself describe the concept in such a way that it is true in all the ways that can be considered within that system.
+
 ### Biases
 How to get around bias? How do you make bias matter less?
 - We need to reword bias and say "known preferences". How do we make them matter less?

collectivist_theology/GnosticParasite.md

@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
+# Gnostic Parasite
+## Virus
+The ideal metaphor to describe their program/teaching method is a virus. It can infect students, send them into other disciplines and careers, and infect other institutions by bringing the ideaology in like a virus that gets in through different receptor sites.
+
+They compare themselves favourably to HIV, Ebola, SARS and viruses that cause cancer because cancer represents, in their own words, true transformative change. They characterize conservatism as an immune system and explain that in this one case, among all viral diseases, immune system-mediated destruction of the virus is a bad thing - the virus needs to be allowed to run rampant to transform the body.
+
+If you wondered if this is a death cult (they think they can bring new hermetic life out of death), that's pretty certain proof. Cancer is transformative (that word again - the goal of these secret religions is to transform (man, society, the world, nature) into the gnostics' vision. What they believe they've seen in glimpse of the divine intellect. The nous/mind of God. The Utopia that they picture there. It will be sustainable and inclusive).
+
+Transform the world into what Marx said -> nature completing itself through Man. And Man completing nature as it completes God.
+
+If we say that it works like a virus, it's the same to say that it works like a parasite - roughly the same thing with different terms of biological sophistication. They don't feed themselves on their own account - they do so by getting their life from something else. It's not a symbiotic relationship - it's wholly to the benefit of the parasite and to the cost of the host.
+
+### How
+They do this by copycatting - simulacrity instead of Christianity, for example.
+
+"We do the same thing that you do, but we do it deeper and morally better. The thing you understand is something that you only kind of understand."
+
+### Fauci
+He is the science - you don't have a clear/deep understanding of the science like he does. Whatever he says is true.
+
+You don't understand how glaciers work because you didn't take into account feminist art which yields equity through glaciology and a greater representation of different ways of knowing, which ultimately is assumed to bring about a better understanding of glaciology, or at least a world that has been socially transformed to one where disparate perspectives are less of an issue, and thus any kind of information should be more easily observed/discovered/attained/understood.
+
+### The Game
+The game is what we've heard from everybody. Dialectical inversion is what we like to call it - it's all politics by different means. At the end of the day, it's warring tribes and politics being done by a means and then calling it "Knowledge". If it benefits the historically oppressed, then it is better knowledge.
+
+They use terms like "ways of knowing". Science does ways of knowing and we have other ways of knowing. Hegemonic science wants to exclude other ways of knowing because they want to keep themselves in positions as scientists, write papers, get grants, be justified to write more papers and receive more grants, etc. Everything is political so your politics don't matter. Nothing is neutral. There is no neutrality. There is no neutral position. Everybody is biased.
+
+It does this by co-opting the terminology and creeping in while inventing new big-word sounding words like "trans-disciplinary" -> scientifical. It steals words like "love your neighbour". It steals words and transforms what they mean -> diversity, inclusion, social emotional learning. This is how it works as a parasite. You don't feel a tick crawling up your leg. You rarely feel the mosquito landing on you. Sometimes you never feel the bite. Sometimes it bites you and you understand what has happened.
+
+With the ideal parasite, you'd never feel and it and you'd never even know it was there. A tick might have to be on you for quite a while before you get lyme disease. They have all kinds of means to hide themselves - if you fifgured out you had a parasite on you, you'd get rid of it. It gets in by seeming undetectable: we're the same as you, but we understand it slightly different.
+
+THe differences in degrees: there are squares saying they're circles of a different size. Once you believe it is a circle, they'll stretc to fill the space you take up.
+
+### Weakness
+When someone sounds like they have a more satisfying interpretation of something you're already familiar with - like scripture or activism - and you get sucked in. It's not necessarily religion, but it will look like religion. The New Age stuff really sticks out - I'm spiritual but not religious. Makes me feel really good.
+
+Scientific and scientifistic language where science has domiannce to creep in under science. The Science. Scientific Socialism. A system of science. The scientific study of history. Scientism.
+
+In post-modern domains, it looks like manipulations of language - all you have - language games, advertising, marketing, propaganda, blurring of boundaries so its' hard to tell what one thing is and what one thing is not.
+
+It latches onto very valuable traits that faith strengthens and encourages, like charity. Caring about people. You're not caring about them enough unless you care about them in this particular way. Correct way to love thy neighbour - socialism. Jesus was a socialist.
+
+It co-ops the idea of Love and of theological mystery and drags you in. Things that people in religious contexts are seeking or are already satisfied by.
+
+Love is a big concept in Christianity. In Hermetic thought, Love has a different definition. It's a manifestion of the source spirit - the highest good. It gets brought in as a parasite trick under teh phrase "God is Love", but they mean something different by both Love and God.
+
+Love, in the Hermetic tradition, refers to the desire to affect self-completing and gnostic illumination. Reunion, partial or whole, with The One (God).
+
+What was the point of the cross? Atonement?
+
+Atonement
+
+They spell it with two hyphens. At-one-ment. At One Ment. Atonement. At one ment. Atonement means you come back at one with the whole, but when they mean the whole the undifferentiated God in their crackpot religion that they have the only path to return to.
+
+This has spun off to where Love now means the desire to affect self-completing and gnostic illumination partial or whole reunion with the one or with God into a concept called "Critical Love". A critical everything. Critical unhappiness.
+
+It's hard to get a definition for Critical Love. It' svery difficult in general to find concise definitions for anything, but one definition said "It's the beginning of equity". It means "caring about communities, in service". Critical Love means the love that you have for the collective, not in dividual or one to one love for one other person. Not love for yourself, or your spouse, or for your children. Love for the collective above those. At-one-ment.
+
+Individuals loving communities are the ones that actually love individuals. You love the community so that the community can love individuals correctly, on your own behalf. And you end up with a snake eating its own tail, again. Communities that love individuals that love communities that love individuals etc. A circle which assumes its beginning and finds its own end.
+
+## Liberal Receptors
+What sort of receptors does it tap into for reason and liberalism? Philosophical liberalism? For Faith it hits charity, but for liberalism it hits the other kind of charity: taking an argument at good faith. Having an open mind.
+
+"This person said that gender is performative. Maybe it's correct - let's spend years writing thousands of papers investigating it because it couldn't possibly be wholly wrong - I wouldn't be open minded".
+
+It takes advantage of curiosity to find out more: "This is a hypothesis - let's explore it!"
+
+It takes advantage of freedom: Hundred flowers campaign - let 100 flowers bloom in China - 100 flowers of Free Speech -> everyone speak up! Tell us what you're really thinking ;) ;) Freedom Freedom.
+
+What do they do when they get mad because they lost their censorship stick on Twitter. They started to be abusive to everyone on Twitter and when they were accused of it they said "are you against free speech, now?". This is what Elon Musk calls Free Speech! :) They beat everyone else by abusing and harrassing them and calling it free speech. Don't you care about free speech? Aren't you interested in debate? They hold you to your standard, while they don't hold themselves to the same standard. (Saul Alinsky - Rules for Radicals - hold the enemy to his standard. Voegelin - construct 2nd reality so it looks like it's accomplishing the thing in the 1st reality while evading accountability in 1st reality).
+
+They can peaceably assemble, but when you do it's not peaceable anymore. Demand that you take their ideas seriously - they can't stand being mocked and can't stand satire. They have to throw things off the internet (Babylon Bee)?
+
+They play motte and bailey games with you (Nicholas Shackle). You'll have more diversity (the definition shrinks from "people that are different" to "only racial minorities count as diversity" 100% black is 100% diverse!) The next step is "Larry Elder isn't black because he's the black face of white supremacy. Only black people who speak the proper critical language of blackness count and it shrinks further until it's just their commissars getting in positions. Shifting the definition.
+
+"We just want to teach kids honest history - social emotional skills - just some very nice thing". They thereby force you into their wizard's circle or their frame/terminology. Liberals get sucked into this like fools because they can't possibly understand or use discernment around circumstances of their being played in a game of 3-card monty where the words are the cards / cups on the table used to rip you off.
+
+They demand you treat their ideas charitably while not treating your ideas at all - forget charitable. Everything you ever thought/said/did is interpreted in the worst possible light to the point where they accuse you of being a sex trafficker - something absurd. You must give them every benefit of the doubt, and they'll give each other the benefit of the doubt while giving you none.
+
+They demand you give their idea respect - if you mock their ideas and make fun of them, they'll flip out. The Iron Law of Woke Over-Reaction. To respect their ideas means to let them keep talking and "casting their spell/putting the wizard circle out there" to draw more people in, even if they can't get you.
+
+## Substitution
+Reality gets substituted for Gnostic Hyper-reality, because reality got "negated".
+
+### Harry Potter Analogy
+*Voldemort attaches to the back of Quirrell's head and parasitizes him*
+Parasite latches on the back of the head and controls what is done, thought and said, causing the system/person/society/etc to be unable to say no to anything. The purpose is to transform the subject.
+
+### What to do
+Train yourself to pause, and turn on your discernment. It's very frequently thought to be bad to discern, but you must get over it and see if they're doing some sort of Alchemy, or if they mean what they're saying in a mundane or even Christian context.
+
+Otherwise, What are they going to transform? They're going to transform YOU into their image. Because they believe they are "As God", thus they are the only way - they are As God to transform you and the world to re-merge back to the all. Obliterate the real and obliterate the distinctions. In a personal sense, obliterate the self.
+
+### Hermetic Religion
+In the hermetic religion, the goal is to obliterate your sense of individuality and self-hood to raise yourself to the highest spiritual level (self begotten). At that point, at the very end of that point, you get to merge back into oneness (into the undifferentiated whole).
+
+#### Hegel
+Hegel talks about this - there's a scholar H.S. Harris that commented on this and was quoted in Glen Alexander McGee's book - "In Hegel's view, we have to annihiliate our own selfhood in order to enter the sphere where philosophy herself speaks".
+
+In order to understand what Hegel calls "Philosophy", you have to destroy yourself completely. That makes you a philosopher (or a philosopher King - someone worthy of rule because you have the true wisdom or, as Hegel described it in Science of Logic? "A mysti").
+
+#### Marx
+Marx describes this a bit differently - he goes full blast materialist (how he evaded being classified as a religion). He went Materialist like Feurbach but then said that Feurbach didn't go far enough.
+
+*Communism is the positive transcendence of private property*.
+
+Private property is human self-estrangement, so what you're transcending is the estrangement of yourself by having private property. What does private property indicate for Marx? -> Individuality.
+
+You're an individual who can own things. You being an individual, separate from your species, is the problem. That's what's caught up in private property. The point of transcending private property is the return to what man really is -> a species being. A being that lives for his entire species. A communalist or a communist.
+
+#### Communism
+The riddle of history solved that knows itself to be the solution.

collectivist_theology/Gnosticism_in_Modern_West.md

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+Finally can explain it in dialogue better than explaining it in a PODCAST. People have questions in a dialogue - we get prompted for additional insight and information. It's been a bit disorganized while these ideas are still in the water, but these ideas have been developing as are our explanations.
+
+Paul Rossi was an educator in NYC who had the courage to speak out against woke abuses at a private school, and this caused him to lose his job. James and Paul were talking abotu private schooling and next thing you know they're talking about Gnosticism. Paul didn't understand much about gnosticism, so that set James off deep into the topic.
+
+An Authoritative/scholarly source on this is Science, Politics and Gnosticism by Eric Voegelin who has a nice piece where he summarizes things for us (coming later). Voegelin characterizes gnosticism in terms of 3 distinct characteristics and tries to create a taxonomy out of this. Another attempt had been made in the 19th century by Christian Bauer who had been tracking Christian movements, and there's another difficult book about this as well called "The Gnostic Return in Modernity" Cyril O'Regan - narrow in the Christian sense - makes a bold attempt to talk about Christian Spin-off movements which incorporate Gnosticism.
+
+James won't stick with that specifically, though, because he believes this:
+
+"Gnostic, as a word, whether we capitalize it as a proper noun or not matters somewhat. Gnostic refers to at least 4 distinct things simultaneously (not in a woke bullshit way, where you intentionally put multiple meanings in a word so people don't know what they're talking about) - a weird historical accident that various things have been labelled as the "one true Gnosticism" throughout history. An explanation of this is that the word has been used historically to refer to 4 different concepts that are interrelated but not the same.
+
+In "lowercase" gnostic uses, there are two:
+- gnostic refers to explicitly relying on gnosis in order to understand the world
+- gnostic: confusing to go too much int hio thi ** secret higher special knowldge is often construed as being spiritual in nature, and needsaye
+
+## Gnosis
+A special kind of knowledge
+
+## Gnosiological/Gnosiological
+Marxists, and Paulo Freire, use this explanation a lot (a gnosciological attitude - woke consciousness - being conscientized)
+
+
+
+1:05:10
+
+"As the knowledge of falling captive to the world, gnosis is at the same time the means of escaping it. Thus, Irenaeus recounts the meaning that Gnosis had for the Valentinians: "Perfect salvation consists in the cognition as such of the ineffable greatness. For, since sin and affliction resulted from ignorance agnoia, the whole system originating in ignorance is dissolved through knowledge - Gnosis. Hence, Gnosis is the salvation of the inner-man. Gnosis redeems the inner pneumatic man. He finds satisfaction in the knowledge of the Whole, and this is the true salvation." "
+
+Irenaeus destroyed it, when it came to it. French gnostics dug up Irenaeus's bones and they danced as they through them around in the street (because they are Gnostic).
+
+Voegelin: "This will have to suffice by way of clarification save for one word of caution. Self-salvation through knowledge has its own magic, and this magic is not harmless. The structure of the order of being will not change because one finds it defective and turns away from it."
+
+Reality will veto your gnostic property (will veto Gender ideology, for example). But how far down the path did we go before reality vetos it.
+
+"The structure of the order of being will not change because one finds it defective and runs away from it. The attempt at world destruction will not destroy the world, but it will only increase the disorder in society. The gnostic flight from a truly dreadful, confusing and oppressive state of the world is understandable. But the order of the ancient world was renewed by that movement which strove through loving action to revive the practice of the "Serious Play", that is, by Christianity."
+
+James Lindsay, in his Arizona Lectures, said that you have to have "reasonable faith". That reason and faith have to work together to box out gnosticism. Reason has to ground faith so that it can't get spun off into these special revelations. It has to guide acts of jesus, understand of scripture and development of theology. At the same time, reason itself has to be propped up by faith that reason can work, that the world is, in fact, ordered, that that order is comprehensible, that we have the capacity to comprehend it and reason has to be reeled in by faith on the other side because otherwise we all turn into Yuval Noah Harari and believing we can turn ourselves into our own Gods "Humans are hackable animals. That we can do whatever we want with the world".
+
+No, faith has to reel it in and tell those people to humble themselves. So, reason and faith working in dynamic interplay box out the gnostic parasite.
+
+Back into the conversation with Paul (Rossi) from earlier. I had left off not knowing exactly how to go with next. Voegelin becomes a very perfect transition. The gnostic disposition where we take on the various characteristics/pieces of it - is wholly pessimistic and, crucially, it's angry at the world for existing. That's a disposition - a frustrating, narcissistic, external locus of control - mental poison. You are in a prison when you've adopted the gnostic mindset, but the prison is called the gnostic mindset. You have imprisoned yourself in misery and entitlement.
+
+1:11:00
+In pessimism, in anger, in frustration, in envy - that's the poison.
+
+## Hermeticism is Gnostic by Definition
+- Hermeticism has its own development/ideas/disposition
+- 7 Principles
+- Most famous: principle of correspondence: "As above so below, as below so above"
+  - Snake eating its own tail
+  - Circular economy
+  - Inversion of Praxis
+
+Marx called it the inversion of praxis:
+- Above, the society itself conditions people according to its demiurgic power that's invested in the people who have access to the means of production
+- Praxis
+  - Transform
+  - Theory-driven activisim with the intent of changing the world
+
+These things come together and make sense - seeing these same systems both as gnostic and hermetic systems.
+
+Marx understood to understand the system from the bottom
+Hegel understood to understand the system from the top
+
+Marx: "I took Hegel and stood him on his head".
+
+Hegel thought the idea had the demiurgic power, and that it would condition the world and the world, through its action, would create the spirit (trinity). Spirit informs the idea and a revolution of ideas come from the contradictions playing out in the realm of the broad spirit (the conditions of society/culture. Society in the abstract sense).
+
+According to Hegel, idea was center of demiurgic power, but Marx said It's Not. The idea is a reflection in the mind of man of that which is. The idea is not upstream, it is downstream from material reality. Based on this, he called
+
+Demiurgic power:
+The idea is a reflection

collectivist_theology/Hegel_OS.md

@@ -126,23 +126,11 @@ It was in the decade after Hegel's death in the 1840s, when Hegel's popularity w
 
 However, one of these young Hegelians, ludwig feurbach, pointed out that holy family was after all only a heavenly image of the earthly family, and that by criticizing theology with philosophy, the younger hegelians were only doing the same thing as the Christians. Hegel's absolute idea was just another name for God. For Feurbach, ideas were a reflection of the material world and he held it to be ridiculous that an idea could determine the world. Feurbach had declared himself a Materialist.
 
-Marx and Engels began as supporters of Feurbach. However, very soon, they took up an opposition to Feurbach, to restore the Hegelian Dialectic that had been abandonned by Feurbach. To free it from the rigidity of the idealistic Hegelian system and place the method upon a materialist basis."
+Marx and Engels began as supporters of Feurbach. However, very soon, they took up an opposition to Feurbach, to restore the Hegelian Dialectic that had been aban
 
-The dialectic applied to the dialectic itself - amazing.
+Somethign is wrong and the Neo-Marxists invented a new theory. They are very interested in the dialectic and they, in fact,
 
-"Hegel was an idealist - to him, the thoughts within his brain were not the more or less abstract pictures of actual things and processes, but conversely, the processes and the things in their evolution were only their realized pictures of the idea. Existing somewhere from eternity before the world was. This way of thinking turned everything upside down and completely reversed the actual connections between things in the world.
-
-Thus, for Marx and Engels, thoughts were not passive and independent reflections of the material world, but products of human labour. The contradictory nature of our thoughts had their origin and contradictions within human society. This meant the dialectics was not something imposed upon the world from outside, which could be discovered by the activity of pure reason, but was the product of humna labour changing the world. Its form was changed and developed by people and could only be understood by the practical struggle to overcome these contradictions, not just in thought, but in practice."
-
-Hegel puts forth this dialectic which he has dialectically derived from Kant, and using the vehicle of the young Hegelians, we now have Marx and Engels trying to turn this materialist, and they actually are, in fact, dropping in a dialectic on the dialectic again and transforming it into something else, and the thing which comes out of this is the dialectical materialism which, Marx said, stands Hegel on his head. We have firmly established the line from Hegel, to the young Hegelians, to Marx and Marxism and the Marxists themselves, obviously, still support this because they write about this in this particular way on their website today.
-
-The operating system of the left, up from hegel to mArx is dialectic, and it in fact takes the dialectic and concentrates it into a form which is Marxism - which is the dialectically enhanced dialectic. This is where Marxism comes from, and it has to be stressed tha tthe entire operating system of the left, frmo the 1840s and 50s when Marx and Engels start writing this stuff down, and Marxism becomes a thing, especially the Russian revolution of 1917, the entire operating system of the left really becomes marxist. Up through probably the 1960s, when finally the failures of communism become undeniable. When finally Kruschev spekas and reveals as the Premier of the Soviety Union how horrible STalin's regime was. How opposite it was to what people claimed it was. How what Walter Durante at the NY claimed it was. The propagandists got the Pulitzer prize, like Nicole Hannah Jones today. We have established it that far.
-
-It turns out that even though we have this disillusionment with Marxism in the 1920s, we have this frustrating among many communists that the Russian revolution worked, but that no other revolutions were working. THe hungary revolution failed. No other revolutions are sparking.
-
-Marx's prediction that this would happen in big industrial centers like NY, LA, Chicago, berlin isn't coming to pass. Only in BFE peasant Russia. Tried in Hungary but they couldn't do it.
-
-Somethign is wrong and the Neo-Marxists invented a new theory. They are very interested in the dialectic and they, in fact, make it central to the project. The talk about it all the tim and make it the titles of their books, like "The Dialectic of Enlightenment".
+make it central to the project. The talk about it all the tim and make it the titles of their books, like "The Dialectic of Enlightenment".
 
 Critical theory is, in fact, the application of the precise dialectic that's now been dialectically moved again from where Marx was. It's been said that the Critical Theorists, where Marx said that Hegel was standing on his head, they put Hegel back upright. Marx wanted to turn him upside down by making it too materialist and not realistic enough to help people actuall yoperate. They didn't take it back to the idea, as Hegel did, they took it into the realm of culture. That' swhy they're often called Cultural Marxists, but it's actually more accurate to call them Cultural Hegelians. Cultural Dialecticists?
 

collectivist_theology/Marx-Unreal_Realities.md

@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+# Marx's Unreal Realities
+Marxists use (old school, neo-marxists, woke marxists) use the word reality a lot. The reality of this and that. The lived realities that they live. The lived realities tied to our lived experiences.
+
+Not just a quirk - this is intrinsic to the Marxist philosophies.
+
+The word realities or reality appears in "The Politics of Education" 304 times. Marxists like to talk about reality all the time, but the question is why?
+
+They are generating a pseudo-reality.
+
+The iron law of woke projection never misses. The people who claim to be talking about reality, are talking about pseudoreality - a false reality that they construct out of language, that they use to manipulate circumstances. They then claim that they are talking about reality and everyone else is talking about a false reality understood in false consciousness: a consciousness where they don't understand the real conditions (material, cultural or structural).
+
+This is because Marxism is considered to be the only scientific study of reality: the real conditions of people's lives. The true scientific understanding of history: the unfolding of relations of man between one another.
+
+The only scientific study of history, possibly excluding Hegel (his philosophical forebearer) whom he said had become too mystical. He had the only true, actual scientific study of history: The conditions of men and of real reality.
+
+The only real reality for Marxists is Social Reality. Social Reality is understood as a materialistic reality, because material conditions - sociological materialism, not atheistic materialism (the idea that economic conditions produce the social conditions of your life - those are the lived realities of your life and if you are oppressed by those, then you understand why they're a problem, but if you benefit from them, you're probably blind to the fact of their oppression (Marxist Theory in a nutshell) ).
+
+Marx also believed that the material conditions can be transformed by envisioning another reality (later, liberation, sometimes Utopia).
+
+Envisioning an alternative reality - a new reality. A NEW reality - whether Paulo Freire or Herbert Marcuse, they talk about the construction of a new reality and that you must do the work to make that reality actual.
+
+The catechsim of the Marxist religion is Do The Work: Humanize Reality / Society / The World / Yourself / Other people.
+
+Marxist theorists talk about reality all the time because they think they're the only people who know what reality really is, how it works and how you can transform or change it. Marxists are the only people who believe, about themselves, that they not only know what reality realy is, but also know what ought to be done about it.
+
+"This material, immediately perceptible private property, is the material perceptible expression of estranged human life. Its movement, production and consumption, is the perceptible revelation of the movement of all production until now. That is, the realization of the reality of man. Religion, family, state, law, morality, science, art, etc are only particular modes of production and fall under its general law.
+
+The position transcendence of private property as the appropriate of human life is therefore the positive transcendence of all estrangement. That is to say, the return of man from religion/family/state/etc to his human, that is social, existence. Religious estrangement, as such, occurs only in the realm of consciousness - of man's inner life. But economic estrangement is that of real life - its transcendence, therefore, embraces both aspects.
+
+It is evident that the initial stage of the movement amongst the various peoples depends upon whether the true recognize dlife of the people manifests itself, more in consciousness or in the external world, is more ideal or real. Communism begins from the outset with atheism. Indeed, the atheism is still mostly an abstraction. The philanthropy of atheism is therefore, at first, only philosophical abstract philanthropy, and that of Communism is at once real and directly bent on action."
+
+The action is integral to the Marxist conception of reality. Reality is not that which is, it is that which can be made to become in the world.
+
+```Reality does *not* indicate materiality as opposed to thought. Mental phenomena are as real as material things, but rather is to do with something moving from possibility to actuality. In dialectics, reality is a synonym for actuality.```
+
+Hegel's Dialectical Thought on Actuality: "It is the manifestation of that which is possible"
+
+Taking something that's abstract and possible, bringing it into reality and making it concrete in reality.
+
+You imagine what's possible, you look at the negation of the challenges of the world and problematize the abstract form to make it concrete.
+
+"Philanthropy of Communism is at once real and directly bent on action. The reality is that which you suffer with, the fruit of the resulting social relations, and if you take action then you can transform reality into a new actuality that's only possible now but is not yet manifest. That's the call to action, or the catechysm, of the Marxist faith."
+
+Now, we turn back to Paulo Freire, and you hear this same thing. Marx wrote that in 1844, Paulo wrote this in 1985:
+
+"In the practice that we defend, generative words, people's words, are used in realistic problem situations, codifications, as challenges that call for asnwers from the illiterate learners.
+
+To problematize the word that comes from people means to problematize the thematic element to which it refers. This necessarily involves an analysis of reality, and reality reveals itself when we go beyond the purely sensible knowledge to the reasons behind the factors.
+
+Illiterate learners gradually begin to appreciate that as human beings. To speak is not ht esame as to utter a word."
+
+Reality reveals itself when we go beyond purely sensible knowledge to the reasons behind the factors, but htat is a Marxist analysis that says **there are these social relations that are created by these material or cultural or structural conditions. These are the true nature of reality and the thing to do with reality is to recognize it, become critically conscious to it, and to transform it**
+
+Marxist theorists talk about reality all the time because they think they're the only people who know what reality really is. That is, they're the only people who not only know what reality is, but know what ought to be done about it. They are justified in seizing the means of production, whether material, cultura, or structural means of production and of society.
+
+The lived experience is an appeal to that. The lived experience of living in these realities means the phenomenological interpretation of the lived conditions that you find yourself in - when Freire talks about codification, it means that you take the conditions that you find yourself in and you abstract from them. You problematize or make negative all those things and concretize it by bringing yourself into it - seeing yourself in that situation - that is the education program (Codification, Problematization, Decodification process) that we hear from Marx, see from Hegel.
+
+## That which is real?
+- the set of social conditions
+- factors cause those conditions (Marxian Analysis)
+- What can be done to transform the possible into the actual:
+  - Communism, Liberation, Utopia
+
+They're the only people who know what reality is and can ascertain its true nature. The only people who can take it to a better / Utopian future.
+
+The Marxist interpretation of the condition people find themselves in

collectivist_theology/Marx_Ontology_of_Man_Telos_History.md

@@ -0,0 +1,193 @@
+# Introduction
+You don't get a lot of this on the first try. Describing an alien way of thinking about the world, that' sbeen with us for at least a century and a half, but arguably since the snake lied in Genesis, and you didn't know that this way of thinking was grafting itself into people and society/government.
+
+## Dialectical Faith of Leftism
+- Hegel
+- Dialectical Trinity
+- Connected to Jean-Jacques Rousseau - Social Contract
+- Deeper and clarifying guide into the relevance of Rousseau's Leftism
+- Where do these things come together with Karl Marx's dialectical materialism
+
+## Marx's Ontology of Man and the Telos of History
+Marx had a theory of what it means to be human. His religion is based on this conception of what it means to be human, except for the Telos of History - History has a purpose.
+
+For a long time, it may have been seemed evident to refer to the God of Marxism as History - History itself, as the God of the world - the unfolding of all of Man's activities, from the beginning, through the present to the endpoint of history when things are finally perfected.
+
+The purpose of history - telos of History - gives us the purpose of being, which is to move history along as quickly as possible. The purpose of being is to arrive at Utopia where history ends because we no longer have contradictions between one another. Between the theoretical idea and the practical idea. Those contradictions are worked out and resolved Dialectically.
+
+## Soros
+*"Scientific method seeks to understand things as they are, while alchemy seeks to bring about a desired state of affairs."* in 1992
+
+Remember that Hegel was an alchemist.
+
+What did Hegel express this in 1807 when he was writing the Phenomenology of Spirit:
+- Verstand: Understanding - seeks to understand things as they are
+- Vernunft: Vernunft - reason - seeks to bring about a desired state of affairs
+- Components of wissenshaft
+
+## Horkheimer
+The difference between the Critical Theory and the Traditional Theory:
+*Traditional theory seeks to understand things as they are, while Critical Theory seeks to bring about a desired state of affairs*
+
+- There's a lower-level of scientific understanding that's merely to understand what we see in the world, but a higher level of "system of science" that we use to transform the world dialectically. Take the world as it is and transform it into something that it is not yet. Make that Concrete and Actual.
+- We maybe only can envision it in the abstract right, and we have to deal with the contradictions of our imagination by seeing what we see in the world
+- the theoretical idea meets the practical idea: see contradiction so transform the reality into the world where we transcend the contradiction
+
+"Traditional Theory seeks to understsanding things as they are while Critical Theory seeks to bring about a desired state of affairs."
+
+- A continuity from Hegel - Marx - MarxFor whatever set of reasons, George
+
+## Rousseau
+- Necessary for this because he orients everything in the left
+- Rule by social contract
+- Willingly give up some freedom for the greater good which leads us to attaining greater freedom
+- Emancipates us of what is restricting us - liberate to be our more nature and to be conscious of that nature
+- Occurs when social contract is made right.
+- We are made free by becoming the Collective
+
+No contrained life where we are concerned with the dominance of reason and sovereignty of logos, but will free the other aspects of our true humanity like imagination, emotion, and the senses (which we'll not use not just to perceive the world but to engage in sensuous experience)
+
+## Creating the Theology
+What Marx is doing to create the theology of Marxism is:
+- Import leftsm of Rousseau
+- Package it in the Hegelian dialectical box
+- Rousseau's leftism in the Hegelian Dialectical box
+  - Was a strict materialist
+  - No spiritual realm
+
+## Questions:
+"What does it mean to be a man?"
+"What is the purpose of being a man"
+"How do we demystify reality" (the mystifications from Feurbach become central to how Marx reconceives Hegel's ideas and leads to him cramming the leftism of Rousseau into the theological box of Hegel's dialectic)
+
+## History
+Becomes the central object of this. Your entire purpose is to advance history. How do we do this? Arbitrarily? Or an organic way?
+
+No. To a directed endpoint. Even if we don't know what it looks like, we know that it would be free from the things that constrain us and imprison us.
+
+At that point, history has advanced to the point where it becomes perfected/idealized/its absolute state. Man has been made, dialectically, to live in society.
+
+No longer talking about ideas or an absolute idea on the spiritual level. Man has to be made to live in society - the Rousseauian vision, packaged up in the Hegelian Dialectic to advance history to its absolute state.
+
+Figure out what the absolute state of man is, and the society he lives in. We don't have the absolute idea / actualization of God which would show us what it should look like, or how to manifest it. That's the mystification Marx blamed Hegel for (spiritualist nonsense).
+
+### Quote from Marx
+Intellectual swindling is done by jabbering your jaw a whole lot to convince people of nonsense and make it plausible. Marx writes as though this is what he's doing. Hundreds of pages of this. Irritating to read.
+
+### Being
+"A being only considers himself independent when he stands on his own feet, and he only stands on his own feet when he owes his existence to himself. We are already throwing out God.
+
+When Marx was 25 years old:
+"A man who lives by the grace of another regards himself as a dependent being. But I live completely by the grace of another if I owe him not only the maintenance of my life, but if he has moreover created my life. If he is the source of my life. When it is not my own creation, my life has necessarily a source of this kind outside of it. The creation is, therefore, an idea very difficult to dislodge from popular consciousness. The fact that nature and man exist on their own account is incomprehensible to it, because it contradicts everything tangible in practical life."
+
+What Marx is saying is very clearly visible: Man is his own creator.
+
+If you regard something outside of Man as his creator, then Man can't be independent. He cannot be an independent being that enters into his own true independent manhood, as Man - what it means to be human. He cannot owe his existence to something else because that would make him dependent on that something else. He must be wholly independent. Anything taht might be like creator has to be cast down as a mystification of reality taht blinds man from his true nature - that he is his own creator.
+
+*Man is God in the Marxist theology - his own creator.*
+
+Not quite the man that you think. The supreme court didn't nail Communism because they didn't think there was a deity - a theos. But it does.
+
+Man is the God. All of Man is the God in Marxist Theology. Not man as he is now - at any given point in the stream of history as it unfolds.
+
+Man, as he will be when he completes himself, at the end of history, when he actualizes his true nature, is God.
+
+Marx noted that Man recognizes himself as an incomplete being who is in the process of becoming his completed self, just like for Hegel God is an incomplete deity in the process of becoming his completed self.
+
+The Man that arrives at the end of history, when he actualizes his full true nature, is God. Man is actually already that, but he cannot realize that about himself until we get to the end of history and the contradictions are resolved. In the meantime, Man is dominating other men and there are social constructions created by that that limit his ability to perceive himself as he truly is - as his own creator, both individually and socially.
+
+Man, as the absolute Man (Social Man/Socialist Man) arrives at the end of history - this is in parallel to Hegel's "Absolute Idea", from which the whole of reality is supposed to establish itself in its perfected form.
+
+Man is his own creator, and when he realizes his creative potential, seizes the means of production of himself, and arrives over the long process of creation/re-creation (or reimagined and recreated). At the end of that process, we'll have finally reached God in Man. There is no distinction between individual man and Social Man. An Individual made to live in Society.
+
+## Realizing the God of Marxism
+"I figured out, we talk about God in Christian Theology as a moral law-giver and the ultimate judge. 'You will stand before your maker on judgment day and you will be judged according to your life'.
+
+What do you think being 'On the right side of history' means? It means you look backwards a couple generations and you think about how strange and backwards your grandparents were and the world was in the 1930s, and you judge those people. Then you look forward 50-80 years and think "Those people are going to judge me the way I judged my ancestors" and then you kick that off to the end of history.
+
+The I at the end of history - the perfect society - saying "Did you stay with this process or did you not?" Is the ultimate judge.
+
+You were either on the right side of the process of moving history, or you were on the wrong side.
+
+When I realized that the moral law-giver and his role as "final judge" determines being on the right or wrong side of history as the "I" at the end of history, and that the end of history arrives when the dialectical process ends, by all contradictions ending and man reaching his perfected true nature / social nature self, I realized what the Deity of Marxism is:
+
+Man, as he already is, without knowing it, as he will become when he fully realizes it, looking back and judging you for progressing the dialectic, ignoring the dialectic or resisting the dialectic that brought him to where he is always supposed to be.
+
+For now, and then, whether we're talking about 1844 when Marx wrote these things, or today in 2022, Man is Incomplete.
+
+But what makes him man, as opposed to animal, is that Man can know he is incomplete. He can be awakened to a true consciousness of his incompleteness, and thus his need to complete hismself, and the capacity, as a creator, to take the actions that will complete him. He can know he is in the process of becoming the Absolute Man (projecting Hegel into Marx to make it more clear as a teaching device).
+
+Man can know that he is the creator that can not only create coffees, computers and chairs, but he's the creator also of other things that he takes as his object.
+
+## Man's Objects
+- Society
+- Man, himself
+- The species being (what it means to be Man as a species)
+Marx, being a German, and entranced with the idea of a total systematic philosophy that explains the entire world, and also being a young Hegelian in that line of thinking, really liked Hegel's dialectic for thsi process of realizing one's incompleteness and capacity to recognize oneself as a creative subject that might complete himself and everything around him.
+
+But he thought it was too Mystical. He hides his religious ball in the demystification of Theology.
+
+## Demystification
+Preface to 2nd edition of Das Kapital
+"The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel's hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in ac omprehensive and conscious manner. With him, it is standing on its head. It must be turned rightside up again, if you are to discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell".
+
+At the top of the Trinity is the Idea, but that's upside down. We need to flip it over and bring it down to earth, if you will.
+
+Get out of the mystical shell of ideas and idealism and the absolute idea being the structure of reality, but keep the comprehensive and conscious form of the dialectic as a means to transform reality. Bring in materialism to un-stand the dialectic from its head. There is no neo-platonist realm of forms of perfect hsapes to reality that can be understood by people who approximate them through creating in an idea space or philosophical space and that flows into a state that's around the philosophical ideas of the time to give structure to things. No, the idea actually exists in people's heads. People come BEFORE the Idea.
+
+The idea, for Marx, is that people see the world and they form the idea. Not that the idea is out there and we're trying to recollect it.
+
+Marx's take on Hegel is that he's not quite wrong, but he missed the fact of the materialist truth because he was caught up in religious mystification. Mystification, for Marx, takes two primary forms that are the same form.
+
+Religion and ideology (religion fits within ideology). Ideology is the set of stories and mythologies that people in power tell themselves and everyone else about why society is structured the way it is and why it should stay that way.
+
+The capitalist meritocratic system is an ideological myth where people say this is why I deserve to be a have, and you have to be a have not.
+
+Society is legalistic and needs lawyers because we have to adjudicate these different disputes. We need these things - this is an ideological mystification.
+
+But we don't REALLY need lawyers - they don't do productive work. We don't really need them, because this is all socially constructed nonsense. If man realized his social nature, there would be no disputes to adjudicate with law. Law itself is a problem.
+
+You become able to think of yourself as an individual, rather than an individual made to live in society.
+
+Rousseau's leftism tucked into Hegel's dialectic with all the demystification that Marx could possibly perform.
+
+Marx described his own idea - his own theory - Marxism, as it came to be called, as the end of ideology. All the justifications. All the stories. Not necessarily capitalist and fascist ideology, but all ideology, Marx did not consider his own way of thinking to be ideological.
+
+He exempted himself because his was the one that ends all the ideology. Intellectual swindling going on here, requiring thousands of pages of nonsense.
+
+He was very much down on religion because of this. Even before he wrote the Economic and Philosophic manuscripts of 1844.
+
+Temporal context:
+- Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right 1843
+- Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts 1844
+- Communist Manifest 1848
+- Das Kapital 1867
+
+Communist Confession of Faith was renamed on the advice of Engels.
+
+Started off by criticising religion vigorously (the entire first few pages are relentlessly ripping Religion apart):
+
+"Religion is the fantastic realization of the human essence, since the human essence has not acquired any true reality."
+
+*Humans don't know what humans are - we have not acquired the true reality of what it means to be human, so we create a fantastic one instead - a fantasy (religion) - a story people create to tell themselves about who we really are, so we don't have to encounter who we realy are - which would force us to take in the real nature of what we experience (suffering), which is caused by the division of labour. We live in a world full of suffering and we give ourselves religion to try and cover up the pain.*
+
+*In the meantime, we try to explain who we are to ourselves with religion in order that we don't think we're giving ourselves some kind of opiate to dull the pain.*
+
+"Religious suffering is at one and hte same time the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering."
+
+*It's a refusal to experience the real suffering of your life.*
+
+"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people"
+
+You still feel the pain, but you don't care that it's there.
+
+*Instead of this, hiding through an opiate, man is supposed to seek his true reality*
+
+Man must seek his true reality if he's going to be truly free or independent. The independent man, parallel to Hegel's Absolute Idea, is Absolute Man.
+
+## Gnostic vs Alchemist
+This focus on suffering is not accidental but because Marx is a gnostic.
+
+Marx believes he lives in a world he didn't choose to live in that has imprisoned him by the conditions of the world he doesn't like, and if he had a hint of absolute knowledge he could escape from that condition of suffering.
+
+We arrive at that by seeking our true reality. The abolition of religion is the illusory happiness of the people - it is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give upwddddkc,

collectivist_theology/Marxism Theology Notes.md

@@ -227,3 +227,96 @@ History, for Marxism, as the object of its theology, is therefore the trajectory
 - We only know we're practicing correctly when all hold the same theory and there is no exploitation occurring
 
 ## German Ideology
+The work cannot be estranged from Man, nor can it estrange man from himself, or others, or his species being, or what it means to be a man. The only work that is The Work must be Socialist Work - work that is designed to make Man in his own image - man meant to live in society (man recognizes himself as Social Man - a man in favour of a Social existence, and as the product of his species being), but man is doing this to obtain freedom. Man does this to retain his independence as man in himself - a man that's created himself, while he lives in and makes a society.
+
+Otherwise, we have a problem - man would objectify other men, and this process would cause them to leave their sense as subjects, thus reducing them to mere animals being dominated in a system of labour. Even believing that labour can be divided causes this (the original sin)
+
+- Man's work must be transformational self-activity
+- Man must be in favour of a Social Existence to be truly human
+  - Otherwise Man does not exist as Subject and is reduced to mere animal
+  - Belief in division of labour causes this
+- If work cannot yet be spontaneously authentic, it must be Theory-informed with the chief objective of Communism
+- Communism cannot be tried until the optimal state is achieved
+
+### Division of Labour
+- The fall of man
+- The source of oppression, domination and estrangement
+- Man as subject takes another man and his labour as his object
+- Prevents free work, and causes estrangement
+
+#### Estrangement
+- From your labour
+- From yourself
+- From each other
+
+#### Ideology
+- Any justification for division of labour
+- Eliminate through consciousness-raising
+- Master-Slave dialectic yields revolutionary potential
+- Every field of work is tainted with division of labour, and produces ideological justification for the oppressive hierarchy
+
+#### Not Ideology
+- To be free of ideology, you must put theory into practice for purpose of eliminating division of labour, or;
+- You must be Socialist Man living in Socialist Society
+- Absence of justification for domination is absence of ideology
+- Without ideology, no one justifies division of labour, and thus all work in connection with one's pure subjectivity
+- With no division of labour, no malevolance, subversion, treachery or betrayal take place
+
+#### Do The Work
+- Regardless of the subset of Marxism, you must do the work
+- Create more of your collective (CRTheorists, Social Men, Queer folk)
+- Consciousness raising: not simple allegiance, must embody their class consciousness
+- Perform Praxis:
+  - Theory into practice
+  - Dialectically reflect to enhance theory
+  - Repeat
+
+## Rousseau's Savage
+- Sentimentalist/Romantic who misunderstood reports from colonies
+- The savage is free and instinctual
+- Man in society, being overly rational and lacking instinct, suffers
+- Dialectical transformation:
+  - Savage maintains the nobility of his free, instinctual nature but;
+  - Is raised up from inability to progress beyond primitive life
+  - `Savages Made to Live in Cities`
+
+### Marxian Lense
+- Free Worker would as an animal, except he is conscious
+- If conscious of theiry, understands he is Social
+- Social Man analogous to Noble Savage made to live in Cities
+- Individual Man is not conscious of the fact that making his subjectivity object is the path to reaching a higher level nor the fact that this must be reflected in others doing the same
+- Consciousness in agreement so nobody is dominating; awareness that true nature lies in Social Society
+- Free Society with no alienation from products of one's labour; no estrangement between people or from oneself
+
+### Contradictions
+- Man is only free if all men are doing working to produce pure Social Society, thus;
+- All men are enslaved to the need to be Social Man, lest no one is free
+- Justification to eliminate all who cannot be educated to believe this
+- Gulags are intended as an attempt to re-educate
+
+### Contradictions baked into the Dialectic
+- Hegel believed everything contains contradictions and this produces motion
+- Marxist commandment: hold contradicting ideas in mind without seeing a problem, until they synthesize
+- Communism occurs when all living men voluntarily hold the same consciousness
+- Communism not good at doing this on its own, but Mao: "Power comes at the barrel of a gun"
+- Soviet Stats: 25% of males in gulags for re-education
+  - Those who cannot be re-educated go to the harshest camps or are killed
+
+### Marxists Reject Contradiction
+- Expecting everyone to raise consciousness and espouse the same view is not considered problematic or conducive to enslavement, because it is assumed that everyone will espouse the same view once they achieve Critical Consciousness
+- Deaths are simply a failure to effectively put theory into practice
+- Failure over prolonged time = millions of deaths
+  - These deaths are not contradictory - they are part of the triad working out
+- Creation: Man -> Society -> State -> Man
+  - Repeat until Man, State and Society are uniform and co-continuous
+  - Totalitarian Collectivism (until double-negation)
+- Social Man with the right idea, but before realization of Social Society, must "do the work" -> Social Work making Social Men (raise consciousness): Class, Racial, Gender, Queer, Intersectional
+*If everyone is doing theory-informed practice (Praxis) they'll be projecting the same image of the world and thus that is what the world will have become.*
+
+### Return to Garden
+- The world with no division of labour
+- We are thrown from/prevented from enjoying the Garden of Eden:
+  - Ostensibly because we sinned, but actually;
+  - Division of labour is the true sin
+- Doing the work is leading us back/recreating the Garden:
+  -

collectivist_theology/Marxism_Theology.md

@@ -493,7 +493,7 @@ This is the religious commandment of Marxism. Hold mutually contradicting ideas
 
 Communism is the State of Affairs in which all the men who are still alive have the consciousness. Communism, when it's properly tried, is when all the remaining humans are awakened to this consciousness and therefore holds this consciousness voluntarily. They are free not to hold the consciousness except that they wouldn't, because it's how they understand the world - it's the interjected morality which has helped them to understanding/need the full expession of a Socialist Society. Communism is not particularly good knowing how to get to that point where eveyrbody (who is still alive) has this consciousness voluntarily. Mao said: "Power comes at the barrel of a gun." People had to be re-educated and liquidated.
 
-Soviet statistic said 1/4 of males were in Gulag being reducated.  If you couldn't be re-educated, you were labelled unable and though some managed to flee, many were tortured and killed. A defective person who can't have consciousness of reality awakened in them - not better than a beast - you can't pssibly understsand theory and put it into practice.
+Soviet statistic said 1/4 of males were in Gulag being reducated.  If you couldn't be re-educated, you were labelled unable and though some managed to flee, many were tortured and killed. A defective person who can't have consciousness of reality awakened in them - not better than a beast - you can't pssibly understand theory and put it into practice.
 
 ### Marxists Reject the Contradiction
 Marxists don't see this as a contradiction. When you raise consciousness, which is the evangelistic Commandment to follow, then everybody will espouse the view voluntarily. Doesn't technically enslave people since it's assumed they'll be doing this faithfully and organically. They also wouldn't say that a contradictions leads to deaths, but that it's a failure to put it into practice properly. It's the failure, and not a contradiction, which is a murderous hiccough.

collectivist_theology/Negation_of_Negation - Covidism.md

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+Ironically, though the criticism of Hegel's negation of the negation was the path by which Marx claimed to be scientific, he did so by adopting Hegel's scientific gnosticism.
+
+That is, Hegel's concept of Vernunft was the high-level science which goes beyond mere understanding (high level perspective vs practiced science). It is simply because Marx believed he was practicing the dialectic on materialism that his desire to use historicism (thinking you know where the future is progressing towards) could be satisfied without coming to see himself as a mystic.
+
+Even more ironically, Marx still did predicate his historicist prophecy on the negation of the negation.
+
+First, a summary of Hegel's negation of the negation:
+
+Problem: How does the universal truth of reality come to be actualized?
+
+Thesis - The idea (abstract)
+Antithesis - ??
+Synthesis  - ??
+
+Let's do another dialectical synthesis to find the antithesis!
+
+Thesis - Abstract
+Antithesis - Negative
+Synthesis - Concrete
+
+The concretization of the idea is both an expression of the abstract's concept, while also being that which is not abstract - it is simultaneously the abstraction and not the abstraction.
+
+Back to the ultimate dialectic (representing the entirety of the world process):
+
+Thesis - The idea (abstract)
+Antithesis - Concrete (substance, that which is finite, that of the senses/sensuous)
+Synthesis - Absolute (that which comprises all of it - the idea, and all that there is and was in the physical world)
+
+So here is what Feurbach and Marx criticized. The concept of an absolute is still an abstract one. The concrete, sensuous world and its historical process are tangible and material. They are without the mystical elements and are therefore those things upon which to philosophize.
+
+Returning back to an abstract concept, under the assumption that this is a real thing that will come to be, is an affirmation of the philosophy based on that which cannot yet be certain.
+
+But Marx does this too!
+
+He says we're going to take the materialist process, and the tools by which Man has transformed nature to become more human (improving technology), and retain the good parts while negating the aspects which lead to domination and estrangement.
+
+Thesis - man creates the world
+Antithesis - man estranges man
+Synthesis - man creates the world where he is liberated
+
+But we're assuming that world is going to be created.
+
+Put another way:
+
+Thesis - capitalism
+Antithesis - dictatorship of the proletariat (Socialism)
+Synthesis - Communism
+
+Thi synthesis is precisely the negation of the negation. Capitalism gave man technology and better living tandards, so we're going to destroy capitalism by brute forcing the ownership of everything by everyone (and thus no one). This allows you to keep all the good technology and then your expectation is that the negation of capitalism and property ownership is now going to magically be negated (the bruce force required to take it all over and administer the new state will spontaneously disappear), and you'll be left with the Utopia where we all have the benefits of technology, the benefits of people having access to the infrastructure that's been edified, and none of the estrangement or a need for a state, by virtue of the fact that everyone's needs are now met.
+
+This helps us to grasp the headspace possessed when putting faith in the negation of the negation - something which occurs when we expect things that don't yet exist or things that might even be impossible.
+
+So, when it comes to the negation of the negation, we have an evolution:
+
+Hegel's Idealism -> Frankfurt school's dialectic on culture and the economy -> The feminists' dialectic of Patricharchy (brute force their own system to ellide the oppression of Patriarchy) -> CRT with race essentialism (using Structural Determinism and a Rousseauian critique of the master-slace dialectic to both claim race to be non-essential/social construction as well as something that is essential) -> Queer theorists with normativity and their own normalization -> Intersectional feminists with identity as a whole, since we can never have authentic identities in this world (as it currently stands).
+
+AND NOW
+
+Covidists, where we achieve immortality by fucking killing ourselves. We achieve optimal health by becoming unhealthy for the overall process of moving history forward towards our immortal endpoint.

collectivist_theology/PauloFreire_RemakeMan.md

@@ -321,6 +321,24 @@ Chinese Communist art we're all familiar with where they're all wearing these pu
 
 *Why do we have a revolution through kids that are educated into revolutionary change agents? To create a new reality. Marx said Man's purpose is to humanize the world - society has to be humanized, the world has to be humanized, man himself has to be humanized. This is accomplished through work that you envision in your own subject mind, bringing it t be in the objective world and seeing yourself in it. You've humanized the world by making a human product, and humanized yourself by seeing you are not an animal, because you can make that human product. You do this to other people and yourself, and thus awaken them in consciousness - individuals made to live in societies.*
 
-*Anything that constrains the subjective range for Marx, including reality - the subjective range of our imagination. Anything which constrains that and anything that constrains your ability to transform reality according to what you can imagine. Anything which limits your subjective range in that regard is an
+*Anything that constrains the subjective range for Marx, including reality - the subjective range of our imagination. Anything which constrains that and anything that constrains your ability to transform reality according to what you can imagine. Anything which limits your subjective range in that regard is a limitation upon man that apparently must arise from ideology and social relations, which are what condition man, and therefore must be abolished and transformed. You have to make a new reality, itself.
+
+Marcuse said it, Lukacz said it, Freire said it.
+
+"As transforming beings, people may stay glued to the new reality that comes about from their action, btu they will be submerged in a new unclear vision. Conscientization, which occurs as a process at any given moment, should continue whenever and wherever the transformed reality assumes a new face."
+
+*This is why you have to die as a hopeless being and be reborn as a hopeful being. This is why you have to have a perversion of the faith, a perversion of the love of people, a body not in Jesus Christ but in Che Guevara. This is what Freirean education is about - Marxist programming into Freire's religion. This is why our education system is the way that it is, the reason the education system is a disaster. We have behavioural problems, kids who can't learn anything, are destablished and anxious, who are being put in ap osition to where they're going to be socially transitioned and then physically transitioned, separated from parents emotionally and socially, and later physically through social services, which is something that children can be groomed into learning how to do.*
+
+## Tragic Story
+Immigrant mother comes from Peru, her daughter Yaeli Galdamez, is groomed at school into believing that she's a boy. She's socially transitioned at school, she's taught to understand that her parents won't give her affirming care, that she has to hide it from her parents who won't agree, and so Child Protective Services are brought in by the social workers involved with the school and get Yaeli taken out of her home, so she can continue her transition because her parents won't do it, at 16 yeras old.
+
+At 19, Yaeli walks in front of a train, because it doesn't work. This is all destruction posing as progress. Destruction as necessary progressivism. You can have a domesticated kid or a liberated kid. You can have a trans kid or a dead kid.
+
+You end up with a destabilized kid.
+
+Literally a matter of religion for Paulo Freire. You have to die and be reborn into it.
+That's what this is really about - the creation of a new reality, prefigured in the revolutionary criticism of the old reality.
+
+A new reality which cannot exhaust the conscientization process, which is as permanent as any real revolution.
+
 
-"Anything which constrains your reality toward what you can imagine - toward the liberation and humanization of man. Anything that limits your subjective range

collectivist_theology/StakeholderCapitalism.md

@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+# Stakeholder Capitalism
+
+12:00
+
+"As you can see, according to Karl Marx, Communism true and proper is the self-conscious solution to the `riddle of history`. Where things have to work, in reality, there is no riddle of history. The riddle of history Marx refers to is Dialectical Anthroposophy (man-centered heretical nonsense). Any claim upon a solution to that riddle is pure pretense and dangerous hubris. The true solution to the riddle of history, if should even allow even such a phrase, must begin with the outright rejection of Communism, and the dialectical framing in which the riddle is posed in the first place, including the underlying assumption that history has a purpose and, thus, a riddle to be solved."
+
+
+*Listen, Karl Marx said there's a riddle to history. But there's no riddle to history - this is dialectical nonsense. This is not much we should be thinking the issue*

collectivist_theology/What Collective.md

@@ -3,6 +3,9 @@ What is a collective? We already are the most complete and inclusive collective
 
 To even announce its existence is to exclude from it. There previously was no line / barrier to consider that it even needs to be declared or defined. If all are included then no action need be taken and no announcement made. But now that it is declared, how does anyone become a part of it?
 
+## Announce It
+To even announce its existence is to exclude from it. There previously was no line or barrier to consider that it even need be declared or defined. If all are included then no action need be taken and no announcement made. But, now that it it is declared, how does anyone become a part of it? They must recognize it and agree to its purpose. So, though we had not this distinguishing association to consider before, we now hav ea new way of separating people.
+
 ## Becoming A Part
 You must recognize it
 You must agree to its purpose
@@ -20,3 +23,134 @@ In any case, it is an inelegant proposal for enslavement, marketed as liberation
 a) It is an enumerated set of ideals, and;
 b) You leave yourself with no defense against ideology, in taking the default naive view - that you are not subject to the very things you are concerned about. Without consolidation, it would appear as a lack of awareness, or a demand for obedience and even worship - "Behold, I am the example"
 
+# Tendency Towards Disorder
+September 2, 2022
+- To live a disorganized life
+- To deviate from the acceptable path of progression
+- To remain unbothered by loose configuration
+- To consider advancement before foundation
+- To reject the assumption that the foundation need be configured as a precedent
+- To accept the scatter of unplotted bits
+- Low superficiality
+
+## Disorganized Life
+Living a disorderly life is a well-known, infamous indicator of leftism, but we need to consider whether this is a bonafide flag. You see, women tend to be more organized, especially with how they configure the domecile (microaggression!), but they are also more commonly regarded as left-leaning. This appears to be a poor indicator, because it says nothing of how one reacts, biologically, to their disordered state. Some are overburdened, whereas others organize to become disorderly.
+
+Too many variables and disparate formulations which appear as disorderly but, in terms of personality, which says the most about why someone chooses or accepts something, it would be seen through the degree to which they are conscientious.
+
+Perhaps also most telling is the life trajectory, wherein it can be observed that one went about approaching activities and life circumstances with little regard for how each segment was conducive to providing an organized structure from which to conslidate resources. This does not mean that resources are necessarily even being acquired, but that a system was put into place to account for and manage the resources that were available.
+
+## Deviate From the Path of Progression
+The belief that there is one set path to progress through and that the nature of operations associated with one's activity be factored insofar that the materials can be seen to accrue one's supply of wealth and the degree to which one is consumed by and concerned with that. For many who are truly left, they understand that it invites criticism and abandonment by society to present unique development that cannot be neatly interpreted based on accepted progression within one known system. Even the consideration of hybrid or multifaceted approaches is generally viewed as frivolous and unnecessary/sub-optimal, and this may even be the case, but nevertheless, the point is that one must accept the risk of outcast from society associated with such strategies.
+
+It requires that one's openness to unknown and undefined patterns be greater than their desire for comfortable and stable positioning within the system.
+
+# Loose Configuration
+What is meany by this term is the degree to which values or expectations of values must be assigned to known paramters of a system. Or even that each known parameter has an assigned value.
+
+What makes a loose configuration useful, desirable or preferable? And, furthermore, is there room for loose configuration along Marx's path of history, especially at the perfected state?
+
+There is no room for uncertainty in anything absolute, and nothing can be perfected unless it is absolute. The way around this argument is to say that there doesn't have to be an escaton or a perfected state, but that the period of liberation continues history. Is that not a type of deflection, though?
+
+Certainly, the conception of a perfected state is still active and now the operative object, which acts as our own interface to the perfected state, is liberation or the process fo evolving the state with that purpose of liberation. It doesn't really matter is there is no unifying descriptor of what that looks like.
+
+That's really the point of why collectivism can never resolve the paradox of how any one participant truly understands that they are part of the collective. That msut always remain an act of faith and something for which it becomes indefensible to demand participation of other potential collectivists.
+
+## Defining Loose Configuration
+September 6, 2022
+
+Why might a mind wish for some aspect to remain unknown? It is simpler to receive the perfect configuration, ebcause you can enjoy the next part of existence.
+
+What is wrong with having an aspiration to create as much of reality as is possible? To have such comprehensively defined configuration that one becomes the creator of reality?
+
+The aspiration itself is not so problematic. The probelm arises when insisting that you understand the true nature of another. That is, your declared aspiration fo ranother is already intrinsically a form of projecting the self into them, but now you threaten to remove or negate or weaponize the surrounding environment - particularly what is referred to as infrastructure, but this is itself a loose term which may refer to anything from civil infrastructure (buildings, technology, water distribution/sanitization, etc) to people and even abstract concepts like culture.
+
+You can only perceive reality as per your senses, so if creating reality, it would have to be assumed that you are creating the reality that you imagine you would perceive in the world - this can never be a process of creating the reality that you assume another would perceive, for you would have to assume that they would perceive what you perceive. Even if you envision a disparity, it would be in the form of adding a modification to a frame of perception that you correspond with.
+
+To simplify, you create reality based on what you eblieve you would perceive or you create the reality you believe others should perceive. This is fine, unless you insist a moral failure for anyone else to fail to facilitate or actively bring about the reality desired. You are forcing them to take your beliefs and help transform reality accordingly.
+
+But back to the question. Why prefer a loose configuration at all? Why not enforce the use of absolute until a robust configuration is amassed and refined and the perspective is something completely transformed?
+
+The loose configuration allows for continuous transformation. Any specification is a limitation and, though there is utter chaos without constraint and limit, one must be wise to know which allocations should be kept dynamic and able to oscillate, aberrate, coalesce and dissipate such as to make room for energy to modify the structure.
+
+Evolution is possible because the spaces between things get occupied with otherwise unseen and unnoticed entities and artifacts of the environment and this invitation for contribution brings harmony and context to the process and brings about eovliution whereby the resonant forms yield greater sympathetic forces and, ultimtaely, reach higher levels of expression.
+
+The loose configuration is compatible with the fact of our terms and figures being infinite, with the difference between any two terms having infinity between them. The fact of there being configuration allows us to say that we wish a foundation from which to flourish and that we believe some concretization by choice is possible. It requires an innate senes, cultivated through experiencing resolution of chaos, to understand what components are to be permitted to breathe and allow fear of unseen dynamics to take place which will establish pathological ranges and that these transformations are worthwhile and even essential to our continued presence and development.
+
+# The Lovingest Trans
+September 13, 2022
+
+The story of the transhuman who loved humans more than any mere human. They even became a transhuman purely as an act of altruism so they could test the waters and pave the way of saving their fellow man. And it is, of course, truly selfless.
+
+But how could it be selfless if they believe it is the path to being saved? Are they not at least, even just in the material sense, saving themselves? Extending their lives? Augment capability? Maintaining capability that otherwise degrades?
+
+Did they expect certain death or a biological/experential regression of some sort? Did they have such angst or none at all? Surely, the mind represented this path of action as a solution of sorts. Much in the same way, we have the self-less COLLECTIVIST.
+
+The Selfless Collectivist goes about the lands, at great personal expense, and makes sure every person gets the opportunity to join "The Collective". Which Collective? Any At All? Well, of course not. It must either be their collective, or it is to agree with them that ultimtaely the "right choice" is to join a collective of some sort. So, now we must have the implicit collective of people who believe the emancipation of mankind rests on everyone being in a collective (though, taken to the logical conclusion, it would have to be one collective, for the need for a mutiplicity of collectives implies there is not a property of co-continuity between them).
+
+And, then, what does it mean when someone agrees that the solution is a collective? That they have contemplated all the aspects necessary for one to come to this opinion? They spent their N hours of contemplation time? Now everything is solved, or will be solved, once everyone is confirmed as being in?
+
+Does this solve energy distribution? We can just have those who have joined the collective uphold a pledge to not make a fuss about energy, so they won't present conflict or contradiction. And farming and food? Global conflicts?
+
+No, if the collective is intended to solve anything beyond the problem of having people declare agreement about having a collective, then you have an infinite set of problems to which:
+- a) A collective solution may be possible
+- b) An unknown number of collective solutions can be formulated
+- c) all members must agree to the chosen approach/solution
+- d) All members should have the same reasoning and structures of thought surrounding the issue at hand. Unless a conflict becomes visible, all members of the collective presume alignment on what was mentioned, but if just one conflicts with the solution being sought, they become the impediment/obstacle to the progress of all humanity
+
+# Concerns of a Left-Right Paradigm
+September 12, 2022
+
+## Introduction
+- Patterns deduced, expected, unrealized, unrealizable, familiar, foreign, appropriate, permitted, forbidden.
+- Centrality - to be centered - to be at the mid-point - furthest from chaos
+- Safety and danger: Safety means assurance of known, familiar, low-entropy, modest transformative patterns
+- Authority, no authority, free-reign, enforced structure, complete obedience and submission.
+
+*People get confused trying to analyze and characterize what has been presented and named as the left, but we are particularly interested in:*
+When older privilege becomes overly concerned with the patterns of the day and having assurance that it is:
+- a) a controlled pattern, or;
+- b) a pattern to which one conforms
+
+Ultimately, it is impossible to be aware of every pattern, or to be aligned with every pattern, but our elevation is not specifically to see who is the most aligned, though strong correlation is to be expected.
+
+## Objective
+We are identifying someone's proclivity towards particular positioning along the left-right spectrum, therefore we are looking to understand their neurocognitive reaction to phenomena which informs their natural, biologically-mediated disposition along that spectrum.
+
+In short, we wish to understand the relationship between emotional / psychological / parasympathetic stress and the perception of mysterious or uncontrolled/unfamiliar patterns.
+
+## Groups
+Codifying a set of known patterns is the precondition to each form of folk nationalism, particularly if the patterns are being promoted through a process of celebration, praise, and even evangelization. Proliferation through activism becomes a defacto imperialization at a less familiar scale.
+
+"You must adopt this functionally and morally superior pattern. A pattern which is more correct. A pattern that demonstrates the proper way for us to become integrated."
+
+Part of the way through which this is done is by declaring marginal status and the need to center the marginalized. But how is that a good distinction for saying one is "left"? Nazis are outcasts from society, contrary to what Blue Anon might claim, yet they are known as The Far Right, which they certainly are at the level of philosophy. But they are not the far right through a propensity to reproduce the center of society. To reproduce the structure with all of its oppressive consequences.
+
+The fundamental distinction is that it is a drive to organize and preserve, but that this same drive can rationalize a desire to move the margin towards the center, or to make such a transformation appear to have been evoked by declaration alone. But you can't rid the effect of having a prevailing narrative which incentivizes and terrorizes society. If this narrative brings to attention the oppressor/oppressed divide, then many incentive structures are effected or erected. The ensuing interactions modulate the incentive structure, and so the complexity of understanding rationale at the level of the human, though it can be endlessly theorized, also becomes infinitely complex.
+
+But, yes, Nazis. They wish to proliferate their folk nationalism and bring about a utopian era where a new man lives in a new age. Marginalized identities, like Queer or an ethnic minority, when championed as an identity to be enabled, praised adn celebrated, are exactly that as well: a folk nation-bearing symbols/people/familiar patterns, that wishes to be made more widespread, which brings about a society of new people who align with the theory, and who, upon reaching a infection point, will bring about a period of prosperity on the Utopia itself -> liberation.
+
+Now, let's step back for a moment and examine the dimension of privilege
+
+## Known Pattern of Privilege: Eternal Privilege
+Women are constantly and continuously oppressed by everything in reality as a whole, as all of reality has been usurped, appropriated and consolidated into the desires, wants, aspirations, designations of the structure of human society which was erected for men, and is thus a patriarchal structure.
+
+Of course, any desire for basic survival defaults to the conflict between the human most able to expend themselves in the pursuit of its resolution, as the ultimate representation of action to survive: reacting to the unforseen threat of nature. There if is no more telling an event of the fundamental axioms of human community, then what occurs when the unplanned destruction of that community is suddenly manifested as a real proposition. There is no exception to this, as everyone is aware of it innately: everyone expects the man to sacrifice his life, his time, his well-being, and his existence for those who are not men.
+
+But that is a misrepresentation of the real lives and experiences of people living in society, historically and currently. Those who were once oppressed must live knowing that what was made precedent can always be made the case again. And, more importantly, we know that since asymmetries existed before, the material conditions, being asymmetrical then, bear a direct relationship to the conditions of today, thus making material conditions the appropriate dimension by which to indicate whether the oppression and privilege have been valenced differently. We speak of how it might be something other than material conditions now, such as how Marxists have gone into Culture and Knowledge. But that doesn't mean we aren't dealing with material conditions in order to make the claim that things must be transformed to be more equitable. The material condition will continue to be about whatever disparate matter can be identified and, for now, it remains to be composed almost entirely of a comparison of resources and finances, making it an endless and lifeless battle.
+
+Ultimately, these conditions move them to and keep them in the margins of society. Only when centered have they the capacity to affect the creation of society and the world.
+
+OK, but why is that all to be taken at face value? Can't it just be the case that if we simply keep it:
+*The history of material conditions, shy of revisionism, are just that - our recorded history. If we are to regard them as chiefly responsible then this becomes a question about eternal hierarchies and the eternal placements you champion.*
+
+## Covidism As a Subset of Gnosticism
+Thrust into a world where:
+- people die early
+- people die unnecessarily
+- people suffer unnecessary infections
+- people are told illness is a normal part of life because they are so predisposed to perpetuating the ideology of capitalism and the growth myth
+### Unnecessary Death
+- Elderly but before their time
+- children and young people because there is always some quantity of healthy people suffering
+

collectivist_theology/What is a Child.md

@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+# What is a Child?
+What is a child?
+
+It's not an adult, let's begin there. Children obviously go through various stages of development, from natal all the way up until puberty and becoming young adults. There are a lot of different stages.
+
+It's important to understand those stages they go through because those stages are indicative of 99.9% of childrens' cognitive ability. It follows a fairly clear pattern, and most models we have have been tested for 80-90 years, or had been in development since that time. That's quite a long time to say OKAY this table is factual or at least useful.
+
+One of the models we have is Digotsky, Piaget and Bruna. Basically, these different theories have a lot of overlap. They say the same thing from a different angle, if you look at how they break down the stages fo development they correlate in many ways.
+
+# Vigotsky
+He said social interaction influences cognitive development, which is very important. That is nurture over nature. That means children are strongly influenced by the environment they're in.
+
+Identical twins are given up for adoption by different parents in different places, and even tough they have some similar innate abilities, the results are often very different because of teh environment they're brought up in. A good example that shows the environment can strongly affect what happens to a child. Naturel resilience can be effective, but teh environment is always a strong effect.
+
+## Biological and Cultural Development
+These don't occur in isolation from each other. They feed off each other. Many variables. People often do a univariate analysis, but it doesn't work.
+
+Language plays a strong role in cognitive development. The type of language (English, French, Chinese, Arabic) is going to affect to thinking style. This also ties into the culture. But even within the same language - the dialectic you're using - or you're understanding of the words. The ideology you follow changes your perception of things.
+
+Even speaking the same language, but with a different ideology, we can see that defining what it is to be a woman becomes an impossible issue to understand.
+
+## Zone of Proximal Development
+If you imagine the rings of a tree, the center zone is the area that the child already knows. Then, we have an outer ring where they'll expand to. What a child can achieve through work - the zone of cognitive development. Outside of that, you have a range that's too far. You can teach a child to parrot things that are far out, but they don't really understand it. Indoctrination works this way in that they don't understand something, but it keeps being hammered into them, so they adopt it by parroting it.
+
+Cults work in a similar way - you don't have to understand it, you just need to repeat it. Propaganda is also like this. If you keep repeating it, you'll believe it whether you want to or not.
+
+## Emulating
+Children will naturally try to emulate the adults. Traditionally, a lot of emulation came from the Mother, because the mother would stay at home. The population, especially when Vigotsky was forming these, were not in cities - they were in the countryside. We have now an inversion of populations.
+
+Cities couldn't support many people before, with some exceptions like Rome having 1 million, or Nunava with a huge urban sprawl - huge ancient populations. But generally speaking, countryside populations were higher.
+
+Parents influence the child, or a caregiver would influence the child.
+
+Now, we have someone who spends many hours with children. The teacher.
+
+So, for better or worse, a majority of the influence is going to come from a teacher.
+
+Vigotsky was saying that language is a means to transmit information to a child. Most children are fairly stupid, they don't have a power of insight. They generally believe what adults tell them, especially if they trust that adult like a teacher. They will internalize whatever they get told.
+
+Language becomes a very powerful tool for intellectual adaptation or abuse. You can teach the children the right thing or the wrong thing - this is somewhat concerning.
+
+# Piaget
+His stages of development were
+- Sensory-motor
+- Pre-operational
+- Concrete-operational
+- Formal-operational
+
+## Sensory Motor
+Birth to 2 years
+A child is understanding the world through sensors and actions - by doing something. They don't have the language capability, yet. But children are learning language - they're just not at the stage where they can create output.
+
+## Pre-Operational
+2 - years
+Understanding the world through language.
+From 2 to 7 years old - once they start to learn to talk, they rarely shut up - fascinating to listen because you can learn so much about their personality. It is a sign of something not quite right if they don't.

collectivist_theology/WokeCantGoTooFar.md

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+# Woke Can't Go Too Far
+
+Absurd debate - it is what Hobbermaus referred to as a performative contradiction to hold this proposition that woke culture can go too far. To say that woke culture can go too far is to side with the status quo. To say that it is a matter of debate is to reinscribe the epistemic home terrain of the dominant culture and to do epistemic violence against the members of marginalized groups who occupy marginalized knowledges.
+
+To platform in any location an opposition to woke culture is again to reinscribe violence.
+
+Let's take an example of someone who has been invited to such a debate. How can that have happened?
+
+Let's look at James Lindsay's greatest hits: famously known for being against woke culture, involved in the Grievance Studies affair from years ago, wrote a book in which he defined Critical Race Theory calling everything you wish to control racist until you control it. At the center of identifying the sexualization of children through queer theory as groomer behaviour. Danced on Karl Marx's grave.
+
+More than that, look at the dress code. People with white privilege have the means of dressing up nicely.
+
+Colonizer formal wear. What is the impact of marginalized groups who cannot bring their full authentic selves to a forum where people wear formal wear to shar etheir ideas.
+
+How is it possible that woke culture has gone too far, when it hasn't even come to this house? (well, that's arguable).
+
+If we want to debate this, we must first understand it.
+
+What does it mean to be woke? I draw a definition from the Brazilian Marxist educator, Paulo Freire:
+- The point of a thorough education is Conscientization. Raising a Critical Consciousness.
+- Being able to recognize the structural reality of our lives
+- Recognize dehumanizing forms: structural racism, sexism, cisheteronormativity, ableism, oppression of all kinds
+- Being able to be aware and recognize modes of domestication (colonizer formal wear and doing debates)
+
+Conscientization is the essence of woke. You learn to see these things so that you can denounce these things critically in order to announce the possibility of liberation from them.
+
+Woke pursues Social Justice, and if we look for a definitio nof Social Justice, we find a different definition in Karl Marx:
+- Communism is often misunderstood.
+- Communism is the positive transcedence of private property as human self-estrangement.
+
+Karl Marx was a damn conservative because he was a privileged white european male who didn't recognize the forms of social and cultural property he benefitted from so he ignored those and focused on material property.
+
+Social justice is the necessary extension of this idea - the positive transcendence of all forms of private property such that we end human self-estrangement.
+
+Social justice is the consummation of something called Social Equity. Where Karl Marx believed in somethign called Socialism that consummates to Communism (an administered political economy where shares are adjusted so citizens are made equal - it just so happens that's the exact definition given to the public administration literature of George Frederickson, for social equity). We don't even bother to take rea lsteps towards social equity. We turn to Kendy:
+"The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination. The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discriminiation"
+
+Look at the supreme court of the United States: Harvard and UNC are being challenged on their antiracist discrimination that points towards justice. We are trying to walk back our walk towards Social Equity and it's no surprise.
+
+In 2019, for politico, Kendy wrote:
+"In the United States, at least, if we wish to have social equity, then what we need is wish to have social equity then what we have is an antiracist ammendment to our constitution that makes unconstitutional racial inequity. We don't have that, we havent' even tried! What would it do?
+
+It would establish thorough bureau/bureaucracy that has absolute authority over all state, local, federal public policies. Public figures. Private Entities, their officials, make sure that racial idees and

collectivist_theology/historicist_mind.md

@@ -0,0 +1,144 @@
+What is the historicist mind?
+
+well it starts with a few suppositions, which include some of the following: that the human mind thinks about the future, creates conceptions for the future, and that these come to be referenced or presented in the mind as expectations, at the level of analysis through reflection or for the purpose of communication and planning are concerned
+
+furthermore, the human mind goes through a repeated process of making those conceptions, having expectations, waiting for them, and then making note of when one of them comes to pass. At least, in the sense that there is some continuation, as the resolution of the conception is never maintained, since it is continuously reformulated as a creation anew each time. The important factor, however, is that the mind does come to experience what it is like to have conceived of something in the future, had expectations about it, and then come, through time, to an event wherein something is realized as having been observed or understood at a particular point in time which yields continuity to something for which there was an expectation.
+
+Moreover, it reflects on past events. When these points in time are uncovered and the mind is able to note that there is continuity with respect to a previous expectation, the human mind will, at the very least, reflect on the preceding events to which this continuity pertains.
+
+What this leads to, is a recurring process of seeing an evolution of each concept, following suit as an ordering of events along a single world line. This can be completely in the abstract, or it can be something for which systems are erected to describe this progression.
+
+<!-- Lastly, there is some question as to whether there could be problems vis-a-vis understanding whether twins, for example, are impeding one another in some way, or whether one individually might come to see the world in such a light -->
+
+When looking back on history, particularly if it is marked with clear periods of immense difficulty, one must ask the question as to whether the path had to be trodden in the particular manner that it was, or if mistakes that are made are always uncoupled from the progress of the process
+
+## Hypothesis
+So one criticism would be that the events do not ever perfectly fulfill the previously produced conception. We did address this a little bit in the introduction, but let's be a bit more clear about it now. The primary rebuttle of this is the fact that the conception itself is never recalled again. The high level object (topic/context) and its significance are maintained in memory, at least insofar that the thing which is remembered is easily associated with the new external object that delineates a point of continuity.
+
+Again, we are still deaing with linear movement across a single dimension (though it may confer movement along other dimensions, those would necessarily occur at a different level of abstraction, whereas this fundamental representation remains singular in that it is the only abstraction bearing no indirection with respect to the context in question). Along this single track of movement, we move forward through each delineated event which, from the perspective of the subject, can be expected to continue until the arrival of a fully-realized expression of that context in reality.
+
+# Totalizing System Against Normativity
+September 16, 2022
+
+Normativity is any categorization which can be bound to oppression, but no oppression can be recognized without categorization. Queer purports to be without categories or, for those who don't wish to be placed under a category (no category, huh?), but practicing Queerness is always the same:
+
+- assume conservative stereotypes - generally about male and female, or adult and child
+- invoke fashion and nomenclature to declare allegiance to the Queer collective
+- demand that all is not well until critical consciousness is achieved
+- demand that the superstructure be used to solve oppression of queer people
+- demand allyship and identification from all other humans as a means by which they are to demonstrate their humanity and kindness
+- insist that those who do not conform are on the wrong side of history
+
+It even is more totalizing than just as stated:
+- we must queer everyone or seed the queering or at least offer that they might realize their queer identity for this is the same as realizing one's authentic self (but it's definitely not an ideology)
+
+## Ideology
+Why is it not an ideology? Marxists define ideology as:
+
+"... system of concepts and views which serve to make sense of the world while obscuring social interests that are expressed therein..."
+- points to the intellectual swindling of Marxism! obscuring social interests, you say?
+
+*The other contingent point is that they claim to be self-critical.*
+
+But what does that mean? Applying consistent use of logic and reason in order to ensure complete internal consistency? No, that is not what is meant by "Critical" among Marxists. They are critical in the sense of a Critical Theorist, rather than in the sense of epistemic adequacy, as the latter just reproduces the system.
+
+That is, the Marxists claim to be aware of the idea that everything affects the political economy and that this confers the ability for people to understand and overcome their oppression. Since this happens with all things, failing to account for it explicitly means allowing one's biases and teh systemic influences to blindly come into play:
+- this means less of the operation is explicit and
+- we are not thoroughly applying scientific analysis
+
+This is, of course, the Iron Law of Woke Projection.
+How does that apply here? Let's break it down:
+
+### Iron Law
+- identify a dimension along which to affect change
+- accuse the "other side" of already doing this, or allowing it to happen due to lack of awareness or purposeful ignorance
+- propose the manner in which it is to be done explicitly
+
+It is always rationalized as *science*. The more complet analysis. Hegel's vernunft, in place of verstaand. The higher the level of your highest level of scope/concern, the more scientific it can be. The higher the level of pursuit, the more you understand why you are doing anything at all.
+
+This obviously doesn't make sense, as you cannot understand teh low level by virtue of being oriented to broader concerns. You can be guided by context, but you can't ever fully appreciate the operations taking place unless you can see the transformations at the highest resolution possible.
+
+## Totalizing Covidism
+Covidism was our first foray into a setting where we could realistically see totalitarianism manifest both on the ground and locally in our own lives, but simultaneously broadly and across the world. There have been hints of this forever, at least decades, but drawing on thoughts and methodologies which go back much further.
+
+We can not only pass temporary, or maybe permanent, legislation which will restrict your life, livelihood, basic movement, etc. But we can do so in a way where you are hungry for it and are willing to even die so long as you ahve the suspicion, or hope, that you might be eternalized through "secondary means".
+
+Man is imperfect, incomplete and completable. Ideology is that which occupies the child and causes them, in some capacity, to maintain any part of the system to his benefit. There is a disconnect in terms of understanding what an ideology is, because its explicit use always assumes that the ideologue or practitioner of the ideology must practice in such a way as to make absolutely everything conform to the ideology, yet there is a constant insistence that those who do not take on the use of a tool or a protocol of behaviour (something that has been proposed as necessary to assimilate into one's repertoire of actions and behaviour) resists doing so because of preconceived or adopted ideology, whereas the acceptance of the proposition and incrementation in one's repertoire is the act of choosing not to employ ideology. That is, there is no reason why you would refuse to do the thing which has been accepted as being most rational, noble, holy, and so on. The only reason you have for refusing is your ideology, whatever that might happen to be (of course, it's not what you think it is, it's what you are going to be told it is)
+
+Act to demonstrate lack of ideology vs insistence that you employ a particular ideology (often described with multiple culturally relevant signifiers in order to construct the prototype of the declared ideology in a way which seems rational). This is a strikingly constraining dichotomy, leaving no room for the possibility that there could ever be competing reasoning as to why one might reject the application or adoption of the proposal. This would have to be for one of the following reasons:
+- naivety and ignorance
+- demonstrable/applicable computation meeting a sufficient threshold of certainty
+- a bias towards social interests (and thus the obscuring of them)
+
+It is obvious that the computation would be impossible and we have to err on the side that the understanding of those proposing the protocol are, in some capacity, sophisticated, thus it should be the highest likelihood that we are dealing with ideology. It shouldn't even be contentious at this point.
+
+Nevertheless, the declared/alleged idiology for not taking the treatment or agreeing that human separation is of benefit to oneself and our species is that of a composite of themes:
+- oppressing mankind
+- Fascism
+- Right-wing
+- Victimhood
+- Capitalism
+- Anti-vaxx
+- Individualism
+- Suicidality
+- Normativity
+- Blank State Ideology
+
+Let us disambiguate some of these
+
+## Disambiguating Ideologies
+### Victimhood
+False consciousness predicated on paranoid delusion that state and society have made you a victim. Reactionary assumptions that proposed action, which actually helps you and society, is going to harm you. You are the victim in this already.
+
+You are given a choice: Your ideology causes you to choose to not take the vaccine because it serves to allow you to proclaim you have no choice (not having chosen, but just being inactive). Free choice ideology rationalizes the act of dominating those who aren't privy to your conception of transcendence.
+
+Furthermore, your great ideas to exercise choice, at the behest of victimhood ideology, negate the choices of others.
+
+### Suicidality
+Just as white nationalists talk of their "Great Replacement", people of the older view who are no longer on the right side of history know they cannot evolve with humanity and are, therefore, seking a sort of mutually-assured destruction (a Hail Mary).
+
+### Individualism
+Always seeks to designate the most power to the individual out of self-centered desire to seek power for oneself. The individualist always believs things helpful to broad community are an attack on themselves because, at a minimum, it augments the value of the community which raises the spectre of having to comply with community in the future, limiting one's individual power.
+
+### Fascism
+This is a very interesting proposition to examine because the classical definitions of Fascism remain the only coherent ones:
+- Everything within the state
+- The merging of public and private
+
+The dialectic faiths have been, however, defining Fascism based on its aesthetics by enumerating as many terms as possible and assuming some will stick. They do this by finding terms that can correlate, even just insofar that there is congruents or familiarity, with characteristics that one might associate with a Fascistic state, regardless of how many degrees of indirection may be involved in bringing about or influencing of those characteristics.
+
+### Refusing Vaxx
+So, then, how does refusing the vaccine make one a Fascist?
+- Vaxx creates freedom and (accuracy?)
+- Anti-vaxx want people to get more ill because it prevents them from doing that which frees humanity -> moving towards equal ownership or equitable distribution (eventualities given a historicist lense by a Marxist/Gnostic)
+
+As we can see, the connection to Fascism isn't something substantive and it uses much indirection, but it is something you see quite frequently among state-cited woke epidemiologists and other woke doctors or statisticians. They generally need to tie it to the look of someone being stereotypical, nationalism, racism, patriarchy, etc. There needs to be an assumption that this person has privilege nad that any advancement of society which is fair (which ends up being the definition for an advancement of society) will necessarily reduce the proportional privilege of that person.
+
+Probably the best argument that can be made is to allege that they hold this view because the opinion was placed there by an external entity, and that this entity's other views are completely representative of Fascism. At this point, we must overcome having to read minds in order to confirm that the individual in question also harbours these additional views by directing to the assumption that the entity decides what opinions to plant and has great success in doing so.
+
+Furthermore, we err on the side of caution by being repressive in the pre-emptive suppression of that which most probably is Fascism. (borrowing from Repressive Tolerance by H. Marcuse).
+
+### Covidism / Pharmism / Transhumanism
+The human is completable and this is the reason he suffers. Just as the body tells us when something is to be resolved, so to does the species tell us something is to be resolved by virtue of the pain and angst intrinsic to the human life.
+
+If consciousness is to ponder, is it to suffer? Or to learn and know? Why waste even a single moment suffering if it needn't be the case? Surely, almost no one ever performs dehabilitating abuse on oneself as an isolated action. The abuse comes through practice and adoption of habit.
+
+We envision that all of our advancement is by mechanisms and tooling which take us beyond our natural limits. Embracing anything on the basis of rejecting modern treatment is akin to choosing to go back in time to a place of more pain and ignorance. Anyone who wishes that is keeping all of humanity from saving itself (or at least advancing itself). They would have to be on a path of destruction to be acting in such a way. Perhaps they have lost all hpoe for life and want it all to be over with - but that doesn't make good sense on its own.
+
+So, how do we complete man through vaccine?
+
+First, we bootstrap the process by which we make civil man ready to provide access to his body at regular intervals. He must simply have the habit of learning and understanding that this offering of access to his body is purely to enhance his capabilities. Each administration should be made to feel as though you are one breathe closer to immortality; reducing the threat first temporally, then permanently against a pathogen, class of pathogen, likelihood of disease, and so forth.
+
+Simple blood monitoring: detect threshold of component activation per reaction to molecule, or particular concentration of molecule. It can work in conjunction with wearables or even your phone. When enough of the condition is met, something switches in a formulation such that a filament or emitter is able to resonate/vibrate at specific frequency, like a bitmask, but with only one or a small number of byte signatures. Detector on phone picks up vibration and sends notification to patient and relevant practitioners.
+
+Eventually, this expands to cancer. Something which replaces or augments cytotoxic T-cells, or something which suppresses gene expressions within a set of known types of interest.
+
+From there, we can do mental health. Though being fixated on mental health does mean some normalization of mental illness, and some guaranteed incentive benefit activation procedure. This might be detected using a multifaceted approach:
+- heartbeat patterns
+- blood chemical indicator/detector
+- monitoring of speech/keywords
+- monitoring of biometric patterns which correlate to particular keywords or phrases (in thought)
+- proximity to known triggers
+- brain MRI
+
+Essentially, there are a variety of ways to monitor an acute event characterized by mental health challenges.

consciousness/Reflecting_on_Unconscious.md

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ These words are coming from where, exactly? Am I typing them as I think them, or
 It's really difficult to say when typing randomly, and a big part of the problem is the fact that we make mistakes. The errors take us off course and give us a new target, at least for a short period. We need to maintain a target for long periods in order to propose other aspects of the system, or other phenomena which may or may not coincide and/or affect the target at large.
 
 # Can the Conscious Effectively Reflect on the Unconscious
-Here is another experiment for a second stream of thought / conscious reflection. Am I reflecting on the unconscious through a conscious decision, or is it a stream directly from the conscious. In Freud's estimation, the unconscious mind and its working cannot be known by the conscious mind, but if the conscious is informed and influenced by the unconscious, then surely there might be some sort of inference or method of extrapolation which can be deduced. For example, if it's true that the unconscious mind is a "reservoir" of, among other things, feelings, then surely the feeling is having an affect on the organism such that its sensory experience is affected. If any sensation or mood can be identified, then it must necessarily follow that, unless the unconscious mind were to be suspended or interrupted, it is, and has been, influencing those sensations or moods of the identified period. Thus, as a very basic example, one could say that the anger I feel is caused by unconscious reflections being made about some passing observation, experience and belief, and sets of each of these can be determined and used to attempt to ascertain the unconscious artifact, routine or the topic which was mediating the unconscious mind.
+Here is another experiment for a second stream of thought / conscious reflection. Am I reflecting on the unconscious through a conscious decision, or is it a stream directly from the conscious. In Freud's estimation, the unconscious mind and its working cannot be known by the conscious mind, but if the conscious is informed and influenced by the unconscious, then surely there might be some sort of inference or method of extrapolation which can be deduced. For example, if it's true that the unconscious mind is a "reservoir" of, among other things, feelings, then surely the feeling affects sensory experience. If any sensation or mood can be identified, then it must necessarily follow that, unless the unconscious mind were to be suspended or interrupted, it is, and has been, influencing those sensations or moods of the identified period. Thus, as a very basic example, one could say that the anger I feel is caused by unconscious reflections being made about some passing observation, experience and belief, and sets of each of these can be determined and used to attempt to ascertain the unconscious artifact, routine or the topic which was mediating the unconscious mind.
 
 As there are constants webs and chains of various types of systems of relationship, from strict parent-child subordination and casually competitive sibling-type interlocution, reliably familiar trivial affects and affects of incapacitating obscurity. Nevertheless, there are those to which more attention is drawn, and those to which more time is appropriated. If there is any merit to the accepted understandings of scientific insight, then it should at least begin with expectation that there is some significance to that which is receiving attention from the organism.
 

consciousness/correctitude.md

@@ -3,5 +3,4 @@ Ultimate elegance of observed phenomenon as it maintains the most harmonious and
 The opposite would be choosing to aim at shallow goals which disproportionately affect the expression of abstractions associated with and/or affected by the phenomenon
 We mustn't get stuck at our favourite level of abstraction.
 Yes, it' true that some levels might be more relevant, but we are too easily made to feel content with one situation
-If the player is stubbornly stuck along one level of abstraction, but failing to qualify how it logically takes primacy, then we should be suspicious enough to apply an assessment as to the factor of correctitude. If it is difficult to evaluate outside, then overalleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
-exit
+If the player is stubbornly stuck along one level of abstraction, but failing to qualify how it logically takes primacy, then we should be suspicious enough to apply an assessment as to the factor of correctitude.

covidism/As_Contemporary_Marxism.md

@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+# Covidism as Marxism
+`Property -> Health Equity (Material Conditions -> Vax Equity)`
+It is material conditions and a lack of consciousness.
+
+We can see how consciousness takes precedence over all else, because the only rationale for maintaining COVID measures is to assume that complete participation is itself the goal. You must do the work of becoming and creating more Marxists/Covidists.
+
+The vaccine as material condition. Completing and perfecting the material conditions of Man. Covidism is your chance to create new man. Sustainability and Covidism are the new sensibility which bring about Social Man in Social Society.
+
+As someone too annoying to continuously engage pointed out, the very notion of Public Health is Marxist, but this was somethign that needed more scrutiny. If we reduce the discussion to health care, as a perfectly equally distributed resource, then certainly it at least appears as socialism, which is hoped to be a standard that is upheld and made the norm, but it is yet more - The Marxist Theology is one of becoming/of Humankind being created by humanity's more conscious agents.
+
+## Transformation and Transcendence
+When applying the Material Dialectic of Man completing himself to Public Health and Covidism, it is clear that there can only be one endpoint of completing man through achieving complete a state of being completely impervious any threat otherwise made available as a consequence of being a human being of biological form.
+
+All threats consolidated, incorporated, extinguished, destroyed, or otherwise nullified.
+
+If one were made immortal, then the standard would be met. Otherwise, though one could say that there are reasonable thresholds for an improvement, such as immunity towards viral threats, it stands to reason that there is always an assumption that one can improve the material conditions relatively to what they are now, so there is no real reason to assume that things stop once

covidism/Geert_Oct.md

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+# On the Cusp of Vaccine Schedule
+## Introduction
+- Immune response of the host
+- Fast and large-scale immune escape
+- Immune system put pressure on neutralizing epitopes of spike protein
+  - Direct consequence of mass-vaccination
+  - Result of lower neutralizability of the virus
+- New observations: Antibodies directed to S no longer target the same relative epitopes
+- S Ab now being directed against non-neutralizing epitopes of the spike
+  - N-terminal domain
+- These epitopes contrast with localized epitopes in RBD. Less-neutralizing epitopes are more conserved (more shared among variants)
+- In order for Virus to overcome immune pressure - large-scale immune escape
+- Hurdle by virus to overcome immune pressure on conserved or non-neutralizing epitopes - many mutations
+- Current omicron variants are quite different from one another - Why has the immune pressure changed such that it is no longer directed at the RBD, but at the less-variable, more conserved domains within the spike protein (N-terminal)
+
+## Immune-Refocusing
+- Focusing on new epitopes
+- Rapid breakthrough infections (consecutive) in the presence of vaccinal antibodies which cannot recognize the neutralizing epitopes
+- Still bind: other epitopes that were not able to provoke a response (due to being out-competed by the other epitopes that the Ab would previously bind to, but are now too differentiated to allow that binding to take place).
+- These new epitopes will re-call memory B cells that were previously primed for RBD epitopes that neutralize virus
+  - New Ab production for a usage which doesn't neutralize
+  - Putting this epitope under immune pressure will cause selections of mutations that overcome this pressure
+  - Suggestions that antibodies that are recalled have high-affinity for conserved epitopes
+  - Suboptimal immunity which does not neutralize: how does it compensate?
+    - High-affinity can still work to some degree, but it disappears quickly
+
+## Newer Epitopes
+- The way to escape is by changing into epitopes with higher specificity to avoid conserved patterns
+- Observed selection of mutations that have specific epitopes with lower neutralizability
+- New epitope, having escaped immune response, will not be well-recognized by pre-existing antibodies
+- Ab will still bind to the mutated epitope, but no neutralization
+- Immune system still produces the same non-neutralizing antibodies
+- Resulting virus will be more infectious
+- Convergence of epitopes towards more Wuhan-like epitopes, whereas initial variants had epitopes that were very different from Wuhan
+- New epitopes very similar to Wuhan's specific epitopes, just not those that are conducive to neutralization
+- Incorporating amino acids that were responsible for enhanced infectiousness of Beta/Gamma/Delta
+- RBD evolving towards hybrid status - combining several aminos to enhance infectiousneses

covidism/Rancourt_Beaudin_Mercier-CovidMortalityStatistics.md

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+# Covid Mortality Statistics
+*Answer to Canadian Authorities*
+## The Article
+Scientific article published in a peer-reviewed journal financed and run by government of Canada in which several co-authors including Tam, who has been coordinating COVID measures in Canada.
+
+Modeling study which concludes that if they had not used the COVID-measures (distancing, masks, vaccination, lockdowns, closing care-homes), they would have had 1,000,000 more deaths.
+
+Obscene in the context of all-cause mortality being studied for years.
+
+This begs a response, in the context of the paper Rancourt/Mercier/Beaudin produced on all-cause mortality in Canada.
+
+### Notes
+Other countries did not go as far in terms of over-representing the benefits of their measures.
+
+## The Response
+*An article published on ResearchGate*
+### Methodology
+*How data was looked at in Canada*
+- All-cause mortality (all deaths in an area by time)
+- Deaths where COVID is attributed as the main cause of death
+- Weekly deaths from beginning of February 2020
+
+### Deaths Progression
+- No anomalies in all-cause mortality prior to pandemic
+- Excess all-cause mortality visible right after announcement
+- The degree to which nothing happens until the WHO makes an announcement
+- Sharp initial peak is the most institutionally-mediated, and is the largest peak
+
+### All-Cause
+- Winter peaks
+- Amplitude of seasonal death oscillation is smaller, compared to the total number of deaths happening
+- But always a death peak, nontheless
+- First COVID peak is still comparable to some previous seasonal peaks
+-

covidism/Sucharit Bhakdi - mRNA Tech Flaw.md

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+# Introduction
+Basic immunology is being neglected. This is not political. Simply from the perspective of a scientist and a physician, the proposal to use mRNA vaccines as a means of immunizing oneself against a respiratory disease is flawed from the perspective of first principles.
+
+mRNA vaccines are planned for use in the replacement of all traditional vaccines, as well as new treatments such as those for oncology. Strange that there is a lack of awareness concerning basics that can be found in first year immunology/microbiology textbooks.
+
+## Protein Fragments
+When a cell makes a protein, fragments of the protein always are presented at the surface of the cell. Like sawdust when sawing wood - waste products/fragments that will be recognized by your lymphocytes, which have receptors which will fit the fragments being presented. These lymphocytes all carry different receptors bearing different degrees of differentiation, in order to meet any of the requirements that might be presented.
+
+## Lymphocyte receptor enigma
+What comes first? Do the fragments first influence the receptor types that are carried by these lymphocytes? Or are the lymphocytes already equipped with the receptors to bind to all the prospective biological sequences they might come into contact with?
+
+This enigma was solved decades ago and resulted in a Nobel Prize.
+- In the womb, we generate a diversity of receptors so that we have millions of lymphocyte clones with each a different receptor type.
+- Some receptors are for proteins deriving from self
+  - These are kept in check or are silenced, throughout life
+- We also carry receptors on T-cell clones that can recognize non-self
+- With every round of "training", our T-cells better, stronger and faster
+- Children repeately have viral infections, but deal with them more rigorously/successfully
+- Virus infections, on the whole, are not mortally dangerous
+
+## B-cells
+- T-cells activate B-cells which make antibodies to the proteins, such as a spike protein.
+- If antibodies could reach out and grab the virus as it comes into the body, it could prevent antigenic protein from binding to normal cells
+- In the case of SARS-CoV2, the mRNA vaccines don't produce antibodies that can affect the respiratory tract
+- Virus being "less susceptible" to capture is nonsense, because it would never be captured except in advanced disease where the blood system is overrun
+
+## Real Protection
+- T-cells are the basis of all protection against viruses
+- Antibodies play a subordinate role
+- Everyone has T-cells directed against Coronaviruses, because they're so prevalent.
+- Mutations only affect 1 or 2 protein fragments at a time
+- Recognizable structures always remain, thus there's no necessity to have a vaccine
+
+## Intramuscular
+- Vaccines were supposed to stay in the muscle
+- Expression was supposed to occur at the muscle
+- mRNA vectors can't be recognized by the immune system
+- Lymph nodes or nerves until eventually meeting the bloodstream
+- Cannot stop them from getting into the bloodstream
+- What happens, now, is that these packaged genes travel in the blood stream and your blood vessels are a closed system of pipes going throughout all the organs of your body and the cells lining your vessel wall, the endothelial cells, are the most abundant nucleated cells in your body. You have blood vessels going throughout the body. The blood and their components stay in those vessels, unless you have damage to the vessels.
+- Packaged genes remain trapped in the blood vessels thus they are taken up by the cells that line the vessel walls.
+

crt/who-feeds-CRT.md

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+The dialectic has moved to this point, where we racialze to deracialize:
+"There is a fundamental difference between saying I am Black and I am a person who happens to be black" - Crenshaw
+
+Feminism was too white, and black women are oppressed in ways where they can't tell if it's because they're black or because they're women. So confusing, and unfair!
+
+Hegel thought this just happens - contradictions being discovered and worked out by the world - and Marx thought that finding these contradictions was like a magic tool that refines matter until man lives his perfect life.
+
+But still the french said "we can't eat for free and have orgies with kids, yet", and it must be because "Marx only failed because society is so oppressive that we can't articulate the right way to organize society from within".
+
+The west was doing good, though, And so they said "well who isn't doing well?". Whoever isn't doing well is the revolutionary force, and that force grows as you fuck people up.
+
+Anyone who uses this to benefit themselves, and that's anyone who participates in identity politics, is literally feeding off of people's misery in order to pursue something for themselves.
+
+
+## Edited
+
+The dialectic has moved to this point, where we racialze to deracialize:
+"There is a fundamental difference between saying I am Black and I am a person who happens to be black" - Crenshaw
+
+Feminism was too white, and black women are oppressed in ways where they can't tell if it's because they're black or because they're women. So confusing, and unfair!
+
+Hegel thought this just happens - contradictions being discovered and worked out by the world - and Marx thought that finding these contradictions was like a magic tool that refines matter until man lives his perfect life.
+
+And the french said "we can't eat for free and have orgies with kids, yet" - it must be because "Marx failed in an oppressive society where we can't articulate the right way to organize society from within".
+
+The west was doing good, though, And so they said "well who isn't doing well?". Whoever isn't doing well is the revolutionary force, and that force grows as you fuck people up.
+
+Anyone who uses this to benefit themselves, and that's anyone who participates in identity politics, is literally feeding off of people's misery in order to pursue something for themselves.

new/Groomers2_notes.md

@@ -116,6 +116,15 @@ Reframing through an intersectional sensibility problematizes stable categories
 - Referring to normal upbringing as a "telelogically constructed" declares a conspiracy theory of child-rearing
 
 ## Innocence
-"Queer as an identity that names and makes som epeople's sexual desires socially legible has helped in making important sociological studies of sexuality and homophobia as they relate to teh child's education. Queer Theory has also offered a method of analyzing constituative discourses of normalcy. Applying queer methods of analysis to studies of childhood can help to queer the rhetoeric of innocence that constrains all children, and help to refuse attempts to calculate the child's future before it has the opportunity to explore desire.
 - Queer Identity makes sexual desire socially legible
-- Queer the rhetoric of innocence that constrains children and refuse understanding a child's future bore it explores desire
+- Queer the rhetoric of innocence that constrains children and refuse understanding a child's future before it explores desire
+- Marcusian echoes: heteronomous interests lead you to developmental psychology cause you to calculate their future before they've explored desire
+- Power dynamic causes some to be less innocent in younger years; innocence is a form of privilege
+
+### Complexity
+- Paradox between child having agency an suggestion that they are innocent and lacking complexity
+- Preservation of innocence in the name of rights has not protected all children equally: residential schools
+- Just as rights are never applied equally, nor is the expectation of innocence
+- If QT focuses on rights of gender minority children, it will lsoe focus of the power dynamic actually ruining lives
+
+In the service of my interest in the renewal of thought concerning childrens' psychosexual development, this article laer engages in a reading of the 2010 "It Gets Better" social media campaign. We're going to engage in a reading of that, emphasizing what studies of childrens' education can learn from the debates it caused. The campaign and consequent critics and revisions, and as provocation to theories of queer temporality, offer much to the child

new/Grooming_Pedagogy_2.md

@@ -206,19 +206,19 @@ A teleologically constructed narrative (a purposeful narrative). She is assertin
 ``` Queer as an identity that names and makes some people's sexually desires socially legible has helped in making important sociological studies of sexuality and homophobia as they relate to the child's education. Queer theory has also offered a method of analyzing constituative discourses of normalcy. Applying queer methods of analysis to studies of childhood can help to queer the rhetoric of innocence that constrains all children. And help to refuse attempts to calculate the child's future before it has the opportunity to explore desire.
 ```
 
-Here's where innocence comes into the picture, which is the thing that they're trying to destroy. Echoes of MArcuse - the heteronomous interests enter into the mind and prevent you from knowing your servitude before you can experience it. There are queer kids, and by trying to use regular developmental psychology and regular approaches which don't wsexualize children we end up constraining all children, and refuses to attempt to calculate the child's future before it has the opportunity to explore desires. The child hasn't had a chance, yet, to figure out how queer they are, and you're already sticking narratives of development onto them like "we can't explore sexuality at 4 years old, or 6 years old". They haven't even had the chance to see how queer they are, yet! A terrible injustice!
+Here's where innocence comes into the picture, which is the thing that they're trying to destroy. Echoes of MArcuse - the heteronomous interests enter into the mind and prevent you from knowing your servitude before you can experience it. There are queer kids, and by trying to use regular developmental psychology and regular approaches which don't sexualize children we end up constraining all children, and refuses to attempt to calculate the child's future before it has the opportunity to explore desires. The child hasn't had a chance, yet, to figure out how queer they are, and you're already sticking narratives of development onto them like "we can't explore sexuality at 4 years old, or 6 years old". They haven't even had the chance to see how queer they are, yet! A terrible injustice!
 
 ``` Later, I engage with Andrea Smith's 2010 response to Edelmen in order to demonstrate the uneven distribution of innocence in children.```
 
 Some children are more innocent than others because the ones who are screwed over by the power dynamic are less innocent. They have to reckon with things being unfair, whereas otehr people get to rest in ignorance for longer, which is a form of privilege. (same as the narrative of white people enjoying white privilege, a white racial innocence, and they don't have to reckon with race, whereas racial minorities have race imposed on them by the white supremacist power structure). Uneven playing field of childhood race and childhood innocence/sex.
 
-``` There is a paradox that arises whne the child's rights to agency and participation in the world are secured while it is suggested that they are innocent and lacking complexity. I invoke this dilemma to highlight what's at stake when Queer Theory speaks about childhood as social construction, but forecloses the consideration of actual children. In nott hinking about childrens'material rights, there are issues that get forgotten. As I wite in Canada, I am consdiering the history of residential schools and their devastating effects on childrens' lives as one issue that might be elided or repressed when queer theory evades recognition of how the presservation of innocence in the name of rights has not protected all children equally.```
+``` There is a paradox that arises when the child's rights to agency and participation in the world are secured while it is suggested that they are innocent and lacking complexity. I invoke this dilemma to highlight what's at stake when Queer Theory speaks about childhood as social construction, but forecloses the consideration of actual children. In not thinking about childrens' material rights, there are issues that get forgotten. As I write in Canada, I am considering the history of residential schools and their devastating effects on childrens' lives as one issue that might be elided or repressed when queer theory evades recognition of how the preservation of innocence in the name of rights has not protected all children equally.```
 
-Parallels with Critical Race Theory where they say they rights are alienating because they're not applied equally. I can insult people racially using my first amendment rights in the United States - I could use a racial epithet or a slur or insult them and say "hey, first amendment! I have the right to free speech!". Because there's a power dynamic involved, they can't retaliate in kind. So the preservation of, in that case, racism, but here the idea that children are innocent when they're not actually innocent because of power dynamics doesn't extend to people equally, therefore rights are said to be alienating, even the right or expectation of innocence. If queer theory only focuses on the rights of sexual minority children and gender minority children, and only focuses on achieving their rights and securing their rights, then it misses something more important, which is that there's a power dynamic in place. (The same Maxian thing. They are obsessives about this one thing - there's a secret power dynamic ruining people's ilves, so we have to upend the social order and give them all the power in order to fix it!).
+Parallels with Critical Race Theory where they say they rights are alienating because they're not applied equally. I can insult people racially using my first amendment rights in the United States - I could use a racial epithet or a slur or insult them and say "hey, first amendment! I have the right to free speech!". Because there's a power dynamic involved, they can't retaliate in kind. So the preservation of, in that case, racism, but here the idea that children are innocent when they're not actually innocent because of power dynamics doesn't extend to people equally, therefore rights are said to be alienating, even the right or expectation of innocence. If queer theory only focuses on the rights of sexual minority children and gender minority children, and only focuses on achieving their rights and securing their rights, then it misses something more important, which is that there's a power dynamic in place. (The same Maxian thing. They are obsessives about this one thing - there's a secret power dynamic ruining people's lives, so we have to upend the social order and give them all the power in order to fix it!).
 
 These are your children that they're doing this to. Remember, this is all about EARLY Childhood Education, and the purpose of sexualizing them.
 
-``` In the service of my interest in the renewal of thought concerning childrens' psychosexual development, this article later engages in a reading oft he 2010 "It Gets Better" social media compaign (gay kids, don't kill yourselves) at 13 while trying to wrestle with this). We're going to engage in a reading of that (problematize.) Emphasizing what studies of children's education can learn from the debates it caused (the ginned up fake queer debates around it to ideologically manipulate something that was net beneficial in the acceptance movement). The campaign and conequent its critics and revisions, and as provocation to theories of queer temporality offer much to the field of childhood studies (no they don't). To grow up queerly it demonstrates as a painful experience in a culture that does not validate your difference (the message of "It Gets Better" means growing up queer is painful. We can acknowledge it's harder and different, but we can also acknowledge that there are steps to take. But the key word in her description is "validate". Validate me, I am entitled to validation.). Both the campaign and its critics point out that there's not enough done to clear a path for children in youth to develop queer identifications and affective attachments (emotional attachments). Further, it gets better in the expansive analysis that has spawned exhibit that queer temporality is extremely important to a consideration of how to survive education when it does not nurture your desire (We're going to turn it into a Queer project - abolish it while keeping some of its essential elements and sublimate it into Marxist bullshit, instead of something that was Liberal and beneficial.```
+``` In the service of my interest in the renewal of thought concerning childrens' psychosexual development, this article later engages in a reading of the 2010 "It Gets Better" social media campaign (gay kids, don't kill yourselves at 13 while trying to wrestle with this). We're going to engage in a reading of that (problematize.) Emphasizing what studies of children's education can learn from the debates it caused (the ginned up fake queer debates around it to ideologically manipulate something that was net beneficial in the acceptance movement). The campaign and conequent its critics and revisions, and as provocation to theories of queer temporality offer much to the field of childhood studies (no they don't). To grow up queerly it demonstrates as a painful experience in a culture that does not validate your difference (the message of "It Gets Better" means growing up queer is painful. We can acknowledge it's harder and different, but we can also acknowledge that there are steps to take. But the key word in her description is "validate". Validate me, I am entitled to validation.). Both the campaign and its critics point out that there's not enough done to clear a path for children in youth to develop queer identifications and affective attachments (emotional attachments). Further, it gets better in the expansive analysis that has spawned exhibit that queer temporality is extremely important to a consideration of how to survive education when it does not nurture your desire (We're going to turn it into a Queer project - abolish it while keeping some of its essential elements and sublimate it into Marxist bullshit, instead of something that was Liberal and beneficial.```
 
 ## Queer Temporality
 How does time affect queerness? You grow up gay, it's hard for you as a kid, but it gets better - later, it's better, but now it's bad. There's a temporal dimension to experiencing growing up as queer, so we need to bring queer temporality into the analysis to understand how damage is being done over a temporal dimension. It gets better accepts the idea that it's bad for you as a child, so we need to rethink all of childhood education.

new/Sustainable_Sensibility.md

@@ -6,16 +6,16 @@
 *You have 2 contradictory ideas, and then the higher level understanding that sublates them/aufheben which abolishes but keeps and lifts up. You have this sublated, higher level view, but to achieve that paradigm-shifting higher level view is by seeing the opposites which are in antagonistic relationship with one another as intrinsict parts of a greater whole. There isn't male and female, but male and the female that he subordinates. They're part of a bigger whole, not different things. Much of feminism twists around this belief. Jacques Derrida's ideas about language, and the concept of phalogocentrism (the phallus / the straight and the male / primary position of understanding words). In queer theory, there's no such thing as a heterosexual without  a homosexual. You have to understand the whole - a system of power in which one is privileged and one is oppressed by virtue of the unjust favouring of something over another.*
 
 ## Introduction
-"Only a holistic approach can design adapted solutions. It stresses th eneed for universities to become more open institutions able to integrate diverse cultures and knowledge systems (pretext for Marxist officers), and to take a more democratic approach to more knowledge approach. It urges for a much stronger presence in society through awareness-raising outreach and partnerships. (so we will all live on campus). The object is for sustainability to become a core practice and purpose of higher-education institutions, putting students in contact with real-world problems and immersive experiences. As we are now less than a decade away from 2030, it is now urgent than ever to think critically about how higher education institutions can take on this role in supporting the necessary transformations toward the 2030 agenda. To do so in a meaningful way, ihgher education institutions must look both internally at their modus operandi, as well as externally in how they relate to society, taking a human rights approach to all education and research. They must become more inclusive of all sectors of society in the student body and faculty. I wish to applaud the comprehensive work undertaken over the past year by the members of this expert group and invite all higher education stakeholders to engage with the discussion in this publication".
+"Only a holistic approach can design adapted solutions. It stresses th eneed for universities to become more open institutions able to integrate diverse cultures and knowledge systems (pretext for Marxist officers), and to take a more democratic approach to more knowledge approach. It urges for a much stronger presence in society through awareness-raising outreach and partnerships. (so we will all live on campus). The object is for sustainability to become a core practice and purpose of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), putting students in contact with real-world problems and immersive experiences. As we are now less than a decade away from 2030, it is now urgent than ever to think critically about how HEIs can take on this role in supporting the necessary transformations toward the 2030 agenda. To do so in a meaningful way, ihgher education institutions must look both internally at their modus operandi, as well as externally in how they relate to society, taking a human rights approach to all education and research. They must become more inclusive of all sectors of society in the student body and faculty. I wish to applaud the comprehensive work undertaken over the past year by the members of this expert group and invite all higher education stakeholders to engage with the discussion in this publication".
 
 - Stefania Gianini UNESCO
 
-"The objective is for sustainability to become a core practice and purpose of higher-education institutions".
+"The objective is for sustainability to become a core practice and purpose of HEIs".
 
 "Our hope is that this report will act as a reflective piece, and encourage higher education leaders and stakeholders to think critically an dact urgently in support of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development, because it is out very survival and common future that is at stake."
 
 ## The Initiative
-*A call to the global community of higher education institutions*
+*A call to the global community of HEIs*
 A community, because they want to set community standards so they can determine how anyone who engages in the related activities or institutions will participate. If you run a highe reducation institution, you aren't in a de-facto in a community or obligated to follow whatever is declared in the name of whatever community it is alleged you are a member of. It will always be some blue-haired busybody who will come to tell you your community standards so you can serve predictable interests.
 
 "In 1964, inspiring the 1968 student revolt a couple of years later, Herbert Marcuse wrote a key text against One-Dimensional Man, urging universities and campuses around the world to become places that resisted reductionism (became Critical Theory institutes). The urge for thinking that would show us alternatives beyond the universalizing forces of current rationalism, universities, especially through higher education, could pave the way for human development, independently of industrialized society, giving attention to that which is not captured in universals of One-Dimensional Man formed to serve the productive consuming society. He created visions for alternatives. Above all, his call was to the universities and to the students in particular as they occupy those key positions outside of productive society, still on the outside, but geared toward the processes of its reproduction."
@@ -47,14 +47,14 @@ Above all, his call was to the universities and to the students in particular as
 
 *It is a tool of extortion - stop thinking that it belongs to a bigger community that's going to put social pressure on you to behave a particular way.*
 
-"Even more importantly, that it might create a dialogue between higher education institutions and other sectors. Business an dindustry/policy makers and civil society among them. How do we, in campuses around the world, start the important process of thinking of alternative futures?"
+"Even more importantly, that it might create a dialogue between HEIs and other sectors. Business an dindustry/policy makers and civil society among them. How do we, in campuses around the world, start the important process of thinking of alternative futures?"
 
 *Just like Herbert Marcuse*
 
 ### Executive Summary
 If an educational institution isn't oriented by a dedicated department which helps to define a meta-goal for the institution as a whole, then that job will be done by something else. In our experience, it has been the humanities which has stepped up to fill this role, and they have overwhelmingly imported a Marxist theology into the heart of this. They are at the point where they are declaring that their research is no longer fragmented, but that all of the research of each department is bound to inter and trans-disciplinary goals. Sustainable Development Goals of Agenda 2030 are a good representation of what these goals have become.
 
-"Universities and, more broadly, Higher education institutions need to use the knowledge they produce and the education of new professionals to help solve some of the world's greatest problems, as addressed by the Sustainable Development Goals set out by the United Nations."
+"Universities and, more broadly, HEIs need to use the knowledge they produce and the education of new professionals to help solve some of the world's greatest problems, as addressed by the Sustainable Development Goals set out by the United Nations."
 
 *You might believe it's true that Universities have an obligation to solve the world's greatest problems, but problem solving might only solve a limited role within the University's overall mission, which is educating people, but they declare it as central. They also say, further, that it's not enough for you to create professionals who identify, analyze an critique what the world's problems are; they are going to tell everyone what the problems are". Not just identified within, but also answered by the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG).*
 
@@ -76,6 +76,41 @@ Of course it is - just take it at face value.
 
 "It is also time for HEIs to make sustainability and SDG literacy core requisites for all faculty members and students. Sustainability education should bring students into contact with rea-world problems in immersive experiences, appreciating the greater-good of both people and planet (Communism?) and humanization of the world. The greater good of people is Social Contract theory"
 
-"The Greater Good of both People and Planet, and contributing to values beyond mere monetary gain, will further enthuse and inspire students and faculty mentors alike."
+"The Greater Good of both People and Planet, and contributing to values beyond mere monetary gain, will further enthuse and inspire students and faculty mentors alike. Ultimately, the educational culture at universities and higher-education isntitutions needs to encourage students to learn via experimentation and critical thinking from multiple perspectives".
 
-In 2 + 2 years, we can complete our 5 year goals in 5
+*Enthuse and inspire people to be co-opted into an agenda.*
+*Critical thinking from multiple perspectives means Critical Consciousness, not critical thinking.*
+
+".. (SDGs) will expire in 2030. We thus strongly recommend that higher-education instutitions, whle being a part of that agenda, should also look ahead. Not only to implementing the sustainable development goals, but also to being intensively involved in crafting the next steps and goals beyond 2030. A long-term perspective needs to be adopted for both higher-education instutition activities and policies. The call this report makes is for universities and HEIs to play an active part in an agenda that has the consensus of 193 countries, and aims to resolve some of the world's most pressing problems as stated in the 17 SDGs".
+
+This report calls for HEIs to play an active part in the 2030 Agenda, period. But it says "in the agenda that has the consensus of 193 countries". What it should say is that "to solve some of the world's most pressing problems in the view of some power-hungry tyrant lunatics involved in a Malthusian death cult freak show. Who happen to be communists.
+
+"The challenge for HEIs to embrace the 2030 agenda. Because, if they do not, it will be difficult, if not impossible to achieve the SDGs".
+
+*So that's how you stop the tyrants. Just don't do what they're asking you to do. Take the hard road and resist. Stop. Don't do it. Have a spine. Weather a little hardship. You'll come out better*
+
+"HEIs have played a crucial role as bringers of enlightement and change over the centuries. Maintaining their role as free and critical institutions (that have to sign up for an agenda), while also, to varying degrees, aiming to perform a service within societies (the universities' old role that we're still permitting them to maintain, to varying degrees), it is essential to maintain and encourage these important roles and enable HEIs to combine their traditions of critical tihnking with problem-solving activities, while also adusting their role in light of societal changes. The future of humanity, and our planet, is under threat and the need for critical thinking and societal change is, therefore, more pressing than ever".
+
+*Appreciate that those who wrote this might be in a death cult. They'd like you to join. They'd like to use the Universities to train more people for their cult. Let that be a possibility for a moment. Maybe these doomsday prophets aren't experts in anything else. Maybe they're crazy and caught up in a cult. Maybe they're speaking from the position of their cult mentality.*
+
+"HEIs should inspire societal change when necessary. Taking a leading role in the transitions necessary for human kind in emphasizing that the need for change is immediate. This also implies that HEIs should think critically (critically again) about their own practices, curricula and research, and about how to motivate their employees, students, and society at large to do the same."
+
+*Rethinking your practices, curriculum, research and then spread your reformulation to other people so that they'll do it too.*
+
+"The opportunity for answering the call is now. HEIs, their leaders, faculty and students have specific roles and responsibilities in societal transformation, according to the institution and the problems faced."
+
+"For this purpose, the structure and culture of HEIs have to change, and the barriers to the necessary transformations within must be identified and gradually eliminated."
+
+*If there's a barrier to implementing our agenda in your school, like a faculty member with a spine and conscience, they have to be gradually eliminated. If you desire to do rigorous research which doesn't jive with our SDGs or our prioritization of resources, it has to be eliminated. This is the death of the universities*
+
+"This report focuses on and advocates three main areas of higher education transformation. 1. The need to move towards inter and trans-disciplinarity in education and research 2. The imperative need for institutions to become open, fostering epistemic dialogue and integrating other ways of knowing (commissars) and 3. The demand for a much stronger presence in society in general through pro-active outreach activities and partnering with other societal actor, in order to build awareness of ecological deterioration and the SDGs in general, and influence policy."
+
+*So, the first 2 - whatever. But - much stronger presence in society to build awareness of - NOT the research of the universities, or your research, but awareness of Deterioration, SDGs, and to influence policy!*
+
+"This implies directly intervening in experimental projects that test solutions with the participation of students. The report deals with some of the systemic barriers that might hinder progress in these 3 areas of transformations."
+
+*Remember, every barrier must be identified and gradually eliminated. We're talking about re-making universities into little cathedrals to the sustainable development goals of the 2030 agenda of the United Nations.*
+
+"The recognition of the values of life and the need of all humans for quality life requires a re-affirmation of the human-rights-based approach to the education we give, and the research we carry out. This implies recognizing that achieving human rights for all is not possible unless we actively protect our resources and all forms of life, and struggle constantly against the power relations that foster inequality and all forms of violence and discrimination. It also implies an appreciation in the value of cultural diversity - recognizing the contribution of different cultures can make to progress towards these goals. Equity and inclusion are values that stand out when embracing the 2030 agenda. The commitmeent to leavigng no one behind becomes key."
+
+"The contribution of HIEs is manifold theoretical, philosophical and clearly ethical. It must also be geared to removing barriers towards sustainable societies, and the greater will being the people on the planet.

queer/WhatIsAWoman.md

@@ -79,3 +79,48 @@ Even Ketanji declined to ask a question about her own being, as a woman, and ins
   - Supposedly common - now we need an expert
   - Expert: determine when someone who is bisexual is actually straight, because the claim is deemed to be veritical
   - How to Tell ~15:45
+
+# A Woman is a Circle
+August 19, 2022
+There cannot be an overriding factor for the only factor we need is language and an agreement that subjectivity exists. We agree that people can arrive at different conclusions because of the vast difference in perspective and that absolute truth is sometimes unattainable and possibly never attainable.
+
+We also agree that conflicts of interest cause people to act for their own self-interest, and that language should be expected, by default, to function best for those who already have advantages in society, thus I am rationalized in seeking to use language which elevates the marginalized. It just so happens that, in this case, claims of marginalization are being made by those who otherwise occupy the center as per the same ideology. It just goes to show you that when you don't have universal rules that track consistently from low to high level, you instead enable those who have the personality type that games systems for their personal gain.
+
+What else of those who claim a universal principle is not or cannot be applied? Is it the case that we have a universally recognized procedure/methodology for applying it? You may claim as such, but your standard is likely something which you allege is only theoretically achievable once your preferred set of conditions (perfected matter) have been met. So you are, in essence, hijacking this issue as a means to achieve a complex array of goals, while neglecting the fact that we do not agree that the universal principle is being respected, approached, considered and achieved.
+
+Moral failure is alleged upon rejection of a proposed set of moral standards - for example, a moral standard about making it more permissive to declare that one is a woman and is suitable for exclusively-female spaces - but to suggest that it is a test of morality for one to adopt your preferred standard (and I'm sure those who take such a position would say it has nothing to do with a change of standard or a preference of a standard, but that it is the only humane or reasonable standard that could have ever been) is a moral failing in having to enslave people to your will in order to not be deemed a moral failure. If truly the position were as reasonable as might be suggested, then reason alone would be all that were necessary in order to make the best case for it.
+
+Put yet one more way, it will be claimed that refusal to take a proposed set of initiatives is tantamount to enlaving to one's will or the will of those who wield an ideology, but the standard of a lack of action being an unacceptable "action" is itself a complex proposal requiring scrutiny.
+
+# The Act of Inaction
+Possible asociated terms or factors:
+- Decision not to act
+- Acceptance that Action is mandatory
+- Action is the only socially acceptable option
+- You must act to maintain coherence/cohere  to your standard of logic or espoused values
+- The "Social Contract"
+- Requiring mass-action (unprecedented)
+- You already benefit
+
+## Deciding not to Act
+Though one might have more evidence with which to predict or assert one's rationale for something, we ultimately cannot ever know someone's intention or reasoning except as a matter of faith.
+
+This already must be an allegation through projection because an assumed act of inaction could only be seen as an explicit action if teh evaluation is believed to have taken place. Since there can be more than one set and order of concerns for one's lexicographically formulated evaluation, claims that purport to understand it having taken place in spite of lack of action would need to fill that void, thus if it must be made precisely of the concerns of and biases of the person making the allegation, then a high likelihood for variance.
+
+Taking this matter further, one would have to conclude that we are in a constant state of performing an infinite number of inactions.
+
+## Mandatory Action
+What are some mandatory actions which we currently accept as being real and let's critique their legitimacy.
+Mandatory actions: getting your birth recorded, having a birth certificate
+- Is there truly any mandatory action beyond that of physical survival?
+- Perhaps to the extent that one wishes to attain access to certain institutions, like places of employment or a cshool, with the latter having always allowed vaccination exemptions except now for just this one special treatment, for the deadliest pathogen of all time
+
+## Socially Acceptable Actions
+This is ironically the conservative lense on society, though it comes into contact with the Social Contract which is generally cited when compeling that someone have resources taken from them for redistribution. In this case, we are looking at the claim that one must reduce risk for all society. But this is an unmeetable standard with heuristics that aren't meaningful when realistic. For one, we will always be using statistics with complex interpretation of evidence, which never proves whether you did or did not put someone at risk.
+
+Immunological adaptations are also complex and affect overall disease outcomes, the aging process, and a sleugh of other factors, many of which are troublesome to have regulated by the state. Even if you undergo an effective therapy with low risk, there is no telling whether it worsens outcomes with other events.
+
+*But, you have already decided that this concern takes precedence over all others. Why? Because authorities declared it is novel, and thus no amount of evidence or understanding is sufficient to say we can expect how bad it is, or that it is reasonably no worse than X, for it can always be alleged that it will bring on future threat Y of unknown significance.*
+
+Irregardless of the fact that mitigations of the novel threat also bring along its own threats, it will never be as wild as the novel threat capable of anything and everything!
+