updating to latest

Book/DRAFT.md

@@ -1,32 +1,8 @@
 
-# Malthusian Aside
-
-TODO: Relocate this elsewhere
-
-The Malthusian spirit might not be something in all those who share his goals, or even ......
-
-So the premise is the set of assertions that includes the following:
-- Nature is treacherous
-- We utilize technology to mitigate the danger of nature
-- All transcending of nature is a good thing and contributes as a moral good in that it confers scientific progress
-  - All leads towards man's mastery of the universe and himself
-  - Even if we do not know the appropriate next steps or the ultimate end-state, all scientific progress contributes to realizing these things
-
-Indeed, genital mutilation and creation of hybrid and chimeric organisms can be seen as some form of scientific progress, and what should it lead to?
-- The perfected state of human being
-  - But is this something to be attained by all human beings?
-  - Should every human that has ever existed have the opportunity to exist as perfect being? Should the goal of mankind be to make it such that all humans, past present and future, come to exist as perfect being?
-
-Of course not - it would be, at most, those humans that exist at the moment that perfect human being is attained, or at least feasible. And would it even be desired by any one human for all living humans at the moment where it would become possible? No. If one were to conceive of a perfected human being for all human existence, other conceptions would detract from its attainment if even in muddying up the conception of the most correct manner of existence for human life. So, for the holder of that conception, it becomes a challenge to view. It becomes difficult to picture the vector of perfecting human being as running through the expressions of those who haven't the sensibility to have come into holding the view of those who already see the path to perfection. Those with special knowledge don't necessarily have the glimpse of perfection either, but they know what is excluded from such an image, as well as what particular paths are to be trodden en route to the promised land and who is ready to be on such paths.
-
-Again, this is because of a historical sensibility, which is to say that it's not something in terms of a familiarity with the past events of history, but having the sense to understand the current moment in history and, by extension, the future. It's for this reason that there must be deep-seated intolerance for those who don't appear to be expressing the current historical moment correctly; they are as malfunctioning robots or brainwashed zombies - relieving themselves with their favourite form of activity to source their stupor as they miss the opportunity to provide an intelligent, noble and reasonable nudge in the right direction.
-
-If their expression of being is made to manifest incorrectly, it is at best a latency-inducing frivolity and at worst the regressive and insensible entrapment of the entirety of human kind and human culture into a most stagnant and unnatural form of reality; a falsely-lived life for all others simply because one cannot put to rest their urges and most fallen and simple, animalistic aspects - one's for which it is man's capacity to resist and overcome which is the most basic demonstration of having evolved from mere animal to a thoughtful and conscious being.
-
-We will need to delve into the more classical understanding of Malthusianism in order to make sense of the world today. In particular, we will see how manuscripts of the early Club of Rome analyses - we can see already, even after knowledge of the Soviet Atrocities, the interests of the day were still such as to assume that Marxist Analysis is necessary and that a Marxist objective should be sought.
-
+# Introduction
 
 Themes:
+
 - Cult bent on transforming language
 - Covidism
 - Queer Theory
@@ -34,9 +10,11 @@ Themes:
 - Actionable Object
 
 ## Left/Right Paradigm
-In considering the idea of conservatism and the conservation of things.. what do we understand about it as a concept? Is it something which can be understood perfectly in the abstract, or is it something contingent on personality? 
- 
+
+In considering the idea of conservatism and the conservation of things, what do we understand about it as a concept? Is it something which can be understood perfectly in the abstract, or is it something contingent on personality?
+
 There are theories about left/right disposition as per someone's personality, and a few of these that are most well-known are the following:
+
 1. The Big Five Personality Traits and Political Orientation
 - Mondak, J. J. (2010). Personality and the Foundations of Political Behavior. Cambridge University Press.
 2. Authoritarianism and Right-Wing
@@ -53,15 +31,19 @@ There are theories about left/right disposition as per someone's personality, an
 - https://www.jstor.org/stable/3790998
 
 ### Big Five
+
 This is the best known, the most utilized, and probably the most reliable, not necessarily in terms of understanding people's political affiliations (though there is a lot of good research there), but at least in terms of understanding some emotional dimensions of people and how these might be recognized in personality.
 
 ### Authoritarianism and Right-Wing
+
 A bit hard to stomach, actually, considering that this research came from a well known Marxist, Theodor Adorno, who planted the seeds for postmodernism. No doubt, authoritarians who claim to be on the left will always rationalize any passing authoritarian regime which appears to celebrate philosophies most commonly understood as being to the left will happily claim that they were transformed in the wrong way because of reactionary elements and post-revolutionary thinking, leading to the right wing, all the while demanding changes in their world today which are necessarily authoritarian and totalitarian, lest they ever be implementable or achievable. 
 
 ### Moral Foundations Theory
+
 The work of Jonathan Haidt, which has been interesting to me, in spite of some of his ridiculous TDS tendencies, because he touches upon group behaviours which we recognize, especially people who may have been the right age to have lived through both supposedly differing examples of race-based othering, that old school racism is a form of call-out behaviour which has been replaced with the assigning of the "racist" moniker in a new form of call-out behaviour in which those who perform the othering are still manifesting the same behaviour and likely still have the same racist dispositions.
 
 ### Systemic Justification Theory
+
 An interesting take which claims that people justify the system/status quo or are better able to challenge it.
 
 It's particularly interesting because it's relevant to my work and my claims about how our understanding of the left-right paradigm. That is, this theory, which is that we wrongly assume that someone's political disposition is the party to which they align at least to the extent that they can claim some sort of affiliation. From this point (TODO: look into this), they're observing what sort of personality differences people have with respect to their justification and support of status quo, or the degree to which they will fight against social hierarchies.
@@ -75,21 +57,23 @@ The status quo can very well be progressive wokeism, and has been quite commonly
 With the establishing of a status quo, ones proximity to it, or the manner in which one operates in life such as can be bearing an effect on one's proximity to it, can be fueled by the type of emotion and intuition one has when conceiving of or observing it, as though we understand that these events are cumulative and paint a picture about one's social sphere. If one is going along with what they believe is the default perspective, and the default interest, then they are in fact not operating in a manner which is what we consider as being traditionally left. They're playing it safe, being very conservative, and doing it for the purpose of converting something an their placement against that something in question.
 
 ### Genetics, Personality and Political Ideology
+
 It's a bit ridiculous to think that it's even a question as to whether political orientation is something that can be inherited. As though the party itself comes to be inherited through a type of evolved ape which finally achieves the level of understanding that the conditions of the many affect the conditions of the one, and that choosing a particular political party comes down to one's inherited intellect bestowed upon them by the Gods that wish to see mankind attain some status of deity.
 
 - Twin studies
 - Disadvantaged children studies
 
-There's definitely good reason to assume that genetics influence something like personality, as the development of the human being and its capacity for neurocognition is not a one-and-done process. It's not the difference between having a neuron or not, and obviously we can observe impediments to development and the consequences thereof. The idea that openness is tied to intelligence and that this is influenced by one's neurocognitive capacity doesn't take many research battles to at least consider that it makes sense, as we can observe all sorts of differences of intelligence, and the resource requirements for endeavouring to follow one's cursiosity is costly and must follow a requisite baseline of both development and resource availability.
+There's definitely good reason to assume that genetics influence something like personality, as the development of the human being and its capacity for neurocognition is not a one-and-done process. It's not the difference between having a neuron or not, and obviously we can observe impediments to development and the consequences thereof. The idea that openness is tied to intelligence and that this is influenced by one's neurocognitive capacity doesn't take many research battles to at least consider that it makes sense, as we can observe all sorts of differences of intelligence, and the resource requirements for endeavouring to follow one's curiosity is costly and must follow a requisite baseline of both development and resource availability.
 
 Woke initiates to collectivist cults, however, who put forward a claim that following their line of reasoning, philosophy, ideology (as a lack of ideology, of course), and so forth is an indication of intelligence and that it, in a sense, delineates a new evolution in the human being (towards the liberation of mankind) are making quite the jump, however. We don't need to sift through examples of people who don't fit the bill of a highly intelligent woke initiate, nor do we even have to go the other route and claim that those who go down this path are unintelligent, or that those who are embracing conservatism or any philosophies or ideologies that are incompatible with woke-ism are doing so because they, in fact, have the upper hand in intelligence. Having intelligence has more to do with following curiosity and having more interest in understanding why and how even when it's costly to one's immediate social environment to do so. If you are surrounded by other woke cult initiates, then agreeing with them, even while espousing a belief about the world wherein one's views are unpopular or contrary to hegemony, is not a sign of intelligence. Perhaps there's a minimal intelligence required to be adamantly stating one's claim and actually believing in it, but that's the same threshold of intelligence required for any number of mundane proclamations regardless of the degree of authenticity present in one's conviction.
 
 It is, again, not the same thing as following curiosity in spite of the social cost it my have.
 
-Yes, a claim can be made that there is a resource cost involved in anything which doesn't necessarily translate to resource acquisition, but we would still need to rid ourselves of the confounders brought on by social environment and, even if we did that, we'd have to deal with the elephant in the room: social justice activism and critical praxis has resulted in a complete overhaul of institutions, especially related to education which most affects young persons who are the height of their potential for setting up their interests and intellectual pursuits and capabilities, and so just to state that a resource cost proves intelligence in the face of one's undertakings is a non-starter. If anything, even in those cases where resources are unavailabile, and where the decision to pursue social justice advocacy with a critical theory bent places one in a situation wherein their income acquisition is little to non-existent, all of it is perfectly in line with the belief that the system is set-up as part of a grand, unconsciously sought and insidiously expounded array of hegemonic structures which monopolize all forms of capital (be it the direct monetary components which yield productive capacity, or culture itself) to corrupt resource distribution and which makes the pursuit of resource acquisition a harmful act which prevents everyone, including oneself, from living a good life.
+Yes, a claim can be made that there is a resource cost involved in anything which doesn't necessarily translate to resource acquisition, but we would still need to rid ourselves of the confounders brought on by social environment and, even if we did that, we'd have to deal with the elephant in the room: social justice activism and critical praxis has resulted in a complete overhaul of institutions, especially related to education which most affects young persons who are the height of their potential for setting up their interests and intellectual pursuits and capabilities, and so just to state that a resource cost proves intelligence in the face of one's undertakings is a non-starter. If anything, even in those cases where resources are unavailable, and where the decision to pursue social justice advocacy with a critical theory bent places one in a situation wherein their income acquisition is little to non-existent, all of it is perfectly in line with the belief that the system is set-up as part of a grand, unconsciously sought and insidiously expounded array of hegemonic structures which monopolize all forms of capital (be it the direct monetary components which yield productive capacity, or culture itself) to corrupt resource distribution and which makes the pursuit of resource acquisition a harmful act which prevents everyone, including oneself, from living a good life.
 There's something to be said about the fact of there being reduced personality differences observed between both fraternal and identical twins, even when they develop in different environments. But we must also consider the environmentally-mediated effects which influence personality development:
 
 ### Psychological Needs and Ideological Differences
+
 This originally looked at the needs associated with certain "ideologies" or political orientations and stated that conservatives tend to want to have more certainty, organization and less cognitive ambiguity or lack of cognitive resolve, while liberals tend to be more open to chaos, complexity and the ambiguous.
 
 There's obviously a huge problem with this body of research, however, in that we can't even really understand how the terms conservative and liberal, as utilized in its related studies (such as "Political conservatism as motivated social cognition" in 2003) translate to terms today, or how the same terms would be defined.
@@ -101,6 +85,7 @@ The other aspect of this is that there was a time when the far-left disposition
 But now, instead, we see those advocating for what concepts that are traditionally thought of as "far-left" and "revolutionary" but whose direct implements of concern are all driving for more state authority, less freedom of speech, stronger institutional presence, reinforced requirement for credentialism, uniform public adoption of pharmaceutical products, single conduits for political procedure (vote blue no matter who), and so on. These are authoritarian predilections which are completely committed to enforcing certainty and demanding that, in spite of a dissolution of the processes and behaviours which are foundational to civilizational development (such as open inquiry, challenging status quo, invoking healthy skepticism for the establishment, and so on), are doing so on the basis of argumentation which asserts that the consequence of not doing so will lead to chaos and disorder.
 
 ### A Necessary Revelation
+
 I believe we've reached a point in our speculation of political philosophy and human psychology where we can consider that the certainty of conserving the known world as a means to subdue the potential for chaos is replaced with the certainty of what an individual perceives as the centralized point of origin within the social environment, or a collective of humans, and one's proximity to it. This might also be conceived of as the point of origin of an entity commissioned with exerting force on those who deviate from behaving in accordance with its regulations.
 
 We may have an inherent disposition, perhaps inherited genetically, or formed through the environment (and as this can be argued as being a different understanding of what we normally assume to be a hereditary, we would then consider it as being formed by occurrences which have a decreasing effect along the continued period of one's life, thus being another way of saying that it is formed in the earliest stages of life), but one's cognition of the world informs the scope and target of how one associates the perception of their environment with neurological, psychological, and emotional state.
@@ -110,6 +95,7 @@ And should we even be surprised with this description of human behaviour? Isn't
 Again, this is highly speculative, but I think it's an important conversation which has long been missing from our political discourse, and it's something which I urge others to consider as something which is not a mere indulgence, but which an approach to analyzing political discourse and philosophy which has become necessary in the face of societies which have evolved technologically and socio-politically to the point that authoritarianism with totalitarian aspirations (or a necessary direction of totalitarianism, should the stated goals of the society ever be seriously approached) isn't just a real possibility, but is something which can be advocated for on the basis of making appeals for freedom and liberty, and traditional left-leaning framings, in a manner which is adopted and repeated in ever more popular scopes and by ever younger citizens.
 
 # Stuck on Definitions
+
 I've always been stuck on the definitions of just about everything, and I believe you should be too. What's the point in having a discussion about anything at all if we aren't assuming we're to be discussing the same things? Even if we disagree, shouldn't we be curious enough to discuss the topics about which we are so passionate? Coming to a clear understanding about what it is that we're speaking about, and even the range of interpretations that exist for that thing in question, should be the absolute most basic motivation for any discussion unless we are looking to take advantage of someone. The counterargument to that is to say that something about the situation, as it stands, involves one of the two parties involved in the discussion already taking advantage of the other, and that the discussion itself is just an opportunity for the disadvantaged party to reclaim some lost ground and relinquish themselves from their oppressor. And in such a case, it's clear that the potential interlocutor positing such an argument is a Marxist.
 
 But there are no interlocutors here, there is just the content of this book as I'm presenting it, thus I beg you to indulge me as I invite you to take a step back with me and grant me the opportunity to talk about definitions.
@@ -119,6 +105,7 @@ In most discussions, and in political discourse in general, we tend not to use t
 And, unfortunately, if one were concerned about these topics and were to find themselves in an argument about them with someone, it'd likely be that the other participant in that discussion would be making the case that he whomsoever is concerned is not simply employing the wrong definition, but is actually unable to define it.
 
 ## You Can't Define Anything
+
 For the past several years, but especially in the past 2, we've enjoyed the incessant occurrence of social justice advocates, gender queer he-hims, associate professors and much more lament about how "rightoids", "fascists", "peasants" and conservatives in general are making criticisms on topics about which they know nothing. 
 
 Most commonly, this has been the assertion that they "don't know what woke is", but it has quite commonly arisen as "you can't even define communism". How, are woke and communism the same thing? Well, no, not necessarily, though I'd suggest that we wouldn't really have conversations about "woke" in 2025 if we didn't also have the topic of communism to contend with, and as the latter is much more historically significant, and remains, in my opinion, evergreen to this day, we're going to delve into this abyss of definitions by focusing on communism for a while.
@@ -134,6 +121,7 @@ That being said, a true endpoint yielding communism wouldn't even be possible if
 It doesn't take a genius to define communism, but it's worth noting that people can provide varying definitions of communism derived from different contexts and, similar to how a woke comrade performs their praxis (in the sense of performing advocacy where they equivocate between esoteric and exoteric definitions of whatever concept they're trying to proliferate), which will all sound believable and can be passable to anyone of any political orientation, including themselves, just so long as its effect on the immediate context is to their satisfaction
 
 This includes composing a definition on the basis of:
+
 - what political regimes have already existed
 - what those political regimes would have been should some undesirable aspect have been negated
 - the eschatological god-object as described by Marx
@@ -153,6 +141,7 @@ Therefore even the self-proclaimed communists, should they believe in Marx's des
 But I'm getting ahead of myself, and it'll take some background in order to make these statements relevant and their interpretation more clear, thus we should take even another step back and approach the topic with more rigor.
 
 ### What Are We Working Towards?
+
 It might seem like a waste of time to be trying to define something for which when the vast majority are presented with will agree that it's undesirable and immoral, even if most of those would make a hierarchical judgment in saying that there are some things worse than it but that they're against it nevertheless, but I think that this manner of thinking misses the point and isn't yet considering that these ideas and their corresponding potential constructs don't necessarily need to be brought into existence in an unequivocal form before they're actually generating a problem.
 
 I would like to suggest that the concept of communism, when defined properly, and when understood as per the Marxist metaphysic, is actually the logical conclusion of a manner of thought for which we are all susceptible and that it would actually make sense for any human to consider it plausible and desirable under the right circumstances. 
@@ -171,6 +160,7 @@ That's probably enough for now, as I can't even really know for sure if these en
 The point isn't to say that these are the true interpretations of communism which occur in very human, or that I have an intuitive interpretation of the idea of communism which should be championed, but simply to say that, regardless of whether an instantiation of communism has, will or can exist, the understanding that a human mind has about ideas, concepts and, in this case, system states or political entities is something which is presented as an intuition or a vision, and that it's worth considering that this is what's happening neurocognitively through the experiences of our friends, foes and interlocutors of any sort in between.
 
 ## Defining
+
 *Should we be using the term "Communist" and what is a "Communist"?*
 [Furthermore, who gets to define it? Why are instances of attempts valid? Socialism is to achieve Communism. Eternally ephemeral as it cannot be achieved]
 
@@ -179,6 +169,7 @@ In all honesty, there shouldn't be any word or concept for which it's forbidden
 Indeed, just about anyone should be able to define "communist" and there probably was a time when most people in western culture would have been able to do so, although not to the extent of providing a technical definition as we're seeking to do in this book. What's the difference, you might ask? You'd be right to ask such a question, as it's not at all obvious that there needs to be a technical definition for communist or communism simply in order for us to take the definition seriously or to be able to make use of it in our own discourse or casual conversations.
 
 There are two ways to approach this, and they should be used for the appropriate context:
+
 - They're all just commies and those are all just communism.
 - There has not yet been a true communist and there can only be one truly authentic conception of communism.
 
@@ -186,7 +177,7 @@ Both of these are perfectly valid, depending on the circumstance, so let's go th
 
 ### Casual Commie
 
-An acquaintance of mine, and someone whom I'd hope to get an opportunity to get to know as a friend some day, had a habit of rubbing the people the wrong way when discussing things of a political nature because he was quick to invoke the term "commie" in what might come across as a brute-ish, vulgar and ham-fisted manner, but I think that interpreting it as such is the actual premature component of such a dynamic. That is to say, it isn't the fact of him simplifying what seems to be a wide range of terms, behaviours and issues which is premature, but actually the reaction to believe they are incorrect which is itself premature.
+An acquaintance of mine, and someone whom I'd hope to get an opportunity to get to know as a friend some day, had a habit of rubbing the people the wrong way when discussing things of a political nature because he was quick to invoke the term "commie" in what might come across as a brutish, vulgar and ham-fisted manner, but I think that interpreting it as such is the actual premature component of such a dynamic. That is to say, it isn't the fact of him simplifying what seems to be a wide range of terms, behaviours and issues which is premature, but actually the reaction to believe they are incorrect which is itself premature.
 
 Does that sound unreasonable? Well, it should be, because in most cases we have discussions which lack nuance or which present things at a high-enough level where we can conceive of them as they pertain to systems where we aren't having to focus on all of the details all of the time, meaning that there is always more nuance and detail to delve into and, knowing that, we can move forward in having a productive discussion about the thing in question without getting hung up on the details which might cause us to lose scope of the actual discussion at hand.
 
@@ -249,18 +240,25 @@ The life of the species, both in man and in animals, consists physically in the
     - I would have chosen a different action
 
 ## 2. Self-Proclamation
-- my social surroundings expect this of me
-- social surroundings will be affected by this
-- stand in for other identifiers
-  - furries, trans, feminist, queer, decolonialist
+
+- My social surroundings expect this of me
+- Social surroundings will be affected by this
+- Stand in for other identifiers
+  - Furries, trans, feminist, queer, decolonialist
 
 There is an array of initiates who might choose to identify, but this is simply the adoption of initiate language in order to demonstrate salience and congruence necessary to be acknowledged as a candidate to receive the perks and rewards associated with the corresponding social milieu.
 
-In still other cases, though related, but semantically different in terms of how the material came to be introduce. The initiate is simply adopting the language which demonstrates fluency and familiarity with their subject of interest. This could be a form of hobby or it can even be professional. They are demonstrating competence, commitment, availability, and so forth. In essence, this can easily become an existential or prerequisite for viability and mobility within a particular domain.
+The unfortunate reality is that most initiates are not purposely pursuing a system of governance or social organization beyond just wishing to participate in society or the social environment in some manner as a natural inclination to avoid loneliness. It isn't necessarily the case that they're even doing that purposely, but that they're just responding to what is in their environment and this is, in most cases, just a sensible way of reacting and is in line with what they've been brought up to do in polite society.
+
+One might say that this is naive and innocent, and that the fact of this possibly leading to a collectivist type of philosophy is simply happenstance and that it needn't necessarily be the case that they go off in that direction. That whether they decide to interpret things in this way is actually something that speaks more as to the inclinations of their personality and that anyone could go off in this direction on their own without any prompting and without any specific subject matter or activity; some people are just more socially-oriented, or have a particular value structure and set of moral aspirations which makes them more altruistic and more concerned about those around them who also inhabit the same social environment because we're all affected by the environment therefore it's sensible, intelligent and insightful to have the foresight to understand that improving the conditions for those around them improves the conditions for themselves and improves the odds that they will succeed or benefit from the activities of others.
+
+This is always the type of argument that we encounter by those who seem to naively push collectivist ideals, but what is the source of this rhetoric? Is it just spontaneous for any one of us to suddenly, without prompt, start to consider that redistribution and an altruistic sense extends from their human nature?
+
+In still other cases, though related, but semantically different in terms of how the material came to be introduced. The initiate is simply adopting the language which demonstrates fluency and familiarity with their subject of interest. This could be a form of hobby or it can even be professional. They are demonstrating competence, commitment, availability, and so forth. In essence, this can easily become an existential or prerequisite for viability and mobility within a particular domain.
 
 ### Paradoxical Declaration
 
-It should bother anyone with one iota of sense to see people who call themselves communists and who somehow want to present themselves as though they have some insight into where the world would be headed or where it would end up in their search for ever more pathways by which to proliferate the notion of communism in every facility, in every institution, in ever social environment they enter (and make less enjoyable and tolerable for absolutely everyone else) because in endorsing the ideas of Marx and, often enough, even the words of Marx, they are embracing the contradiction of claiming that something which cannot yet manifest already has manifested.. or that which is yet to become is already here.
+It should bother anyone with one iota of sense to see people who call themselves communists and who somehow want to present themselves as though they have some insight into where the world would be headed or where it would end up in their search for ever more pathways by which to proliferate the notion of communism in every facility, in every institution, in every social environment they enter (and make less enjoyable and tolerable for absolutely everyone else) because in endorsing the ideas of Marx and, often enough, even the words of Marx, they are embracing the contradiction of claiming that something which cannot yet manifest already has manifested or that which is yet to become is already here.
 
 The communist isn't something which simply happens because you decide you want to have communism, or the liberation from the order of being, but it's something which is supposed to be as spontaneous and natural as the condition of communism itself, which is only supposed to have truly been breathed into the world once all contradictions and oppressive aspects about life as a human being have been universally lifted.
 
@@ -268,22 +266,27 @@ If the state only exists because there remain conflicts between men, then there
 
 Here are a selection of quotes from Marx on the fact of his self-estrangement preventing him from attaining his true nature as a social being:
 
-- We have seen how on the assumption of positively annulled private property man produces man –himself and the other man; how the object, being the direct manifestation of his individuality, is simultaneously his own existence for the other man, the existence of the other man, and that existence for him. Likewise, however, both the material of labor and man as the subject, are the point of departure as well as the result of the movement (and precisely in this fact, that they must constitute the point of departure, lies the historical necessity of private property). Thus the social character is the general character of the whole movement: just as society itself produces man as man, so is society produced by him. Activity and enjoyment, both in their content and in their mode of existence, are social: social [This word is crossed out in the manuscript. – Ed.] activity and social enjoyment. The human aspect of nature exists only for social man; for only then does nature exist for him as a bond with man – as his existence for the other and the other’s existence for him – and as the life-element of human reality. Only then does nature exist as the foundation of his own human existence. Only here has what is to him his natural existence become his human existence, and nature become man for him. Thus society is the complete unity of man with nature – the true resurrection of nature – the consistent naturalism of man and the consistent
-humanism of nature.
-- Communism is the positive expression of annulled private property—as human self-estrangement, and hence the real appropriation of the human essence through and for man; communism therefore as the complete and conscious return of man, of his entire substantial being, to himself as a social, i.e., human being
-- The existence of private property is, therefore, the existence of alienated labor... and thus the existence of the estrangement of man from man
-- In the relation of estranged labor, each man regards the other according to the standard and the position in which he finds himself as a worker
-- The community of men, or the manifestation of the nature of men, their mutual complementing the result of which is species-life, truly human life—this community is conceived by political economy in the form of exchange and trade
-- The estrangement of man, and in fact every relationship in which man [himself] is active, is alienated from himself and his own species-being
-- Private property has made us so stupid and one-sided that an object is only ours when we have it, when it exists for us as capital, or when it is directly possessed, eaten, drunk, worn, inhabited, etc., in short, when it is used by us.
-- Communism is the positive supersession of private property as human self-estrangement, and hence the true appropriation of the human essence through and for man.
-- The positive transcendence of private property, as the appropriation 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, i.e., social existence
-- Nature is man’s inorganic body – that is to say, nature insofar as it is not itself human body. Man lives from nature – i.e., nature is his body – and he must maintain a continuing dialogue with it if he is not to die.
-- In his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind.
-- The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and range. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates.
+#### Best Quote Candidate
+
+- "We have seen how on the assumption of positively annulled private property man produces man –himself and the other man; how the object, being the direct manifestation of his individuality, is simultaneously his own existence for the other man, the existence of the other man, and that existence for him. Likewise, however, both the material of labor and man as the subject, are the point of departure as well as the result of the movement (and precisely in this fact, that they must constitute the point of departure, lies the historical necessity of private property). Thus the social character is the general character of the whole movement: just as society itself produces man as man, so is society produced by him. Activity and enjoyment, both in their content and in their mode of existence, are social: social [This word is crossed out in the manuscript. – Ed.] activity and social enjoyment. The human aspect of nature exists only for social man; for only then does nature exist for him as a bond with man – as his existence for the other and the other’s existence for him – and as the life-element of human reality. Only then does nature exist as the foundation of his own human existence. Only here has what is to him his natural existence become his human existence, and nature become man for him. Thus society is the complete unity of man with nature – the true resurrection of nature – the consistent naturalism of man and the consistent humanism of nature."
+
+#### Other Quote Candidates
+
+- "Communism is the positive expression of annulled private property—as human self-estrangement, and hence the real appropriation of the human essence through and for man; communism therefore as the complete and conscious return of man, of his entire substantial being, to himself as a social, i.e., human being."
+- "The existence of private property is, therefore, the existence of alienated labor... and thus the existence of the estrangement of man from man."
+- "In the relation of estranged labor, each man regards the other according to the standard and the position in which he finds himself as a worker."
+- "The community of men, or the manifestation of the nature of men, their mutual complementing the result of which is species-life, truly human life—this community is conceived by political economy in the form of exchange and trade."
+- "The estrangement of man, and in fact every relationship in which man [himself] is active, is alienated from himself and his own species-being."
+- "Private property has made us so stupid and one-sided that an object is only ours when we have it, when it exists for us as capital, or when it is directly possessed, eaten, drunk, worn, inhabited, etc., in short, when it is used by us."
+- "Communism is the positive supersession of private property as human self-estrangement, and hence the true appropriation of the human essence through and for man."
+- "The positive transcendence of private property, as the appropriation 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, i.e., social existence."
+- "Nature is man’s inorganic body – that is to say, nature insofar as it is not itself human body. Man lives from nature – i.e., nature is his body – and he must maintain a continuing dialogue with it if he is not to die."
+- "In his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind."
+- "The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and range. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates."
 
 ## 3. Political System
-This is the normie's informal qualifier which allows the masses to believe they have some workable form of understanding, ad this further embeds the fact of their complete lack of education on this subject behind a mute and dumb wall of ignorance (ok I'm being hyperbolic, because they never really had a reason to be mute and dumb about it - there just was nothing on the radar and no common discourse which really took it into consideration)
+
+This is the normie's informal qualifier which allows the masses to believe they have some workable form of understanding, and this further embeds the fact of their complete lack of education on this subject behind a mute and dumb wall of ignorance (ok I'm being hyperbolic, because they never really had a reason to be mute and dumb about it - there just was nothing on the radar and no common discourse which really took it into consideration)
 
 A political system might seem to make sense, given that particular infamous governments have been formed along political parties who name and describe themselves as communist, and who get referred to continuously by all sorts of demographics, cultures, professions (polisci), political affiliations, and so on, but there are a few good reasons to disregard this and to take a different approach to defining the communist term.
 
@@ -297,9 +300,15 @@ This makes a lot of sense of you have spent sometime examining revolutionary the
 
 These are, in my opinion, perfectly helping to reify the sense of historical progression which has been presented as confirmation that what we are ultimately dealing with is a metaphysic.
 
+### The Case for the Communist System
+
+There still remains one good case for agreeing that the word communism refers to the political systems and state governments which have come into emerged to date that declared themselves as being an instance of this type of political formulation by name, or at least parties which espoused the principles and goals that are otherwise considered as being those of Marx or Neo-Marxist thinkers, even if they didn't specifically invoke the terminology which would make the association unequivocal. The reasoning behind it is precisely the same angle one should take in addressing those who like to claim "real communism" or "real socialism" hasn't been tried, bro. And that's because, given that the perfect instantiation has not yet taken place, and given that Marx's formulation essentially states that we cannot know what it is and it cannot be brought into being until such time that a spontaneous occurrence befalls a world in the sense of there being no conflict and no need to even advocate politically or participate in revolution: in absence of the perfect example which everyone reasonably agrees represents the thing in question, those who advocate for it need to concede that if any effort to bring it about has taken place, that whatever the result of that happens to be is, until present, the actual instantiation of that thing.
+
+This means that, at bare minimum, we have some examples of what we would get and, in spite of their failures, or in spite of the atrocities which transpired as a result, those who brought them about would allow for it to occur again or perhaps even much worse, as they are not yet satisfied with either what took place or the costly failure of it not having taken place yet. They would unrelentingly push for atrocities if only for the chance to keep the continued pursuit of a different outcome open.
+
 ## Psychological Dispositions
 
-There are some interesting discussions re: the cause of adopting the communist perspective which contend that communism is principally a disposition borne out of existential despair.
+There are some interesting discussions re: the cause of adopting the communist perspective which contend that communism is principally a disposition borne out of existential despair. More specifically it is to say that those who are drawn into it, which we like to call the initiates, do so because of existential despair.
 
 It is a viable hypothesis as we clearly see a correlation between those who identify as communist and such a personality - the highly neurotic, manipulative type who seeks constant acknowledgment while insisting that all must be in agreement to have any moral standing (cluster B personality).
 
@@ -317,6 +326,59 @@ Going back to the conflict of competing explications between psychopathology as
 
 Moreover, we might say that there is a weakness of character which facilitates such choices and outcomes, but the susceptibility which fulfills the conditions is one common and universal, after all, and which will be made more clear in the following section.
 
+### Framing for Bias
+
+The initiates who are taken into collectivist cult organization might be doing so because their immediate circumstances already cause them great existential despair, thus having put them in a state where they are susceptible to desiring some sort of stability in their lives. It might simply be the case that they need to associate with some other people because that provides the modicum of stability that improves the moment beyond their current level of angst.
+
+For those who already deal with a high level of negative emotion from which they rarely enjoy respite, it's not simply a case of them actively looking for environments or opportunities to join with politically focused or politically motivated organizations, but they may very well be looking for opportunities to socialize with others out of a need to subdue loneliness. Even in cases where one is deemed anti-social or even considers themselves as such, they may very well still have avenues through which to explore the opportunity for socialization, and this is especially true since the advent of gaming culture, social media, and communication over the internet in general, or even bulletin board systems (BBS) which were common enough before the internet became a widely accessed phenomenon (in fact, I was much more anti-social than those of my age and in my surroundings as I grew up, and I gravitated very much towards bulletin board systems (BBS) before ever having a chance to use the internet).
+
+With my own experience, I find myself always empathizing and contemplating in detail what it must be like to be presented with the vernacular of a new social environment and how its utilization has the power to sculpt and mould my perspective of the world, people and myself, and that's just in consideration of a social environment that one enters into voluntarily, which is bad enough, but the reality is that children are also dealing with having to adopt what I will argue as being problematic vernacular which is being presented to them as authoritative, morally justified, ethically necessary and logically or scientifically accurate.
+
+And this circumstance is worthy of consideration for all those who consider that the threat to their children of such endeavours such as public schooling is based primarily upon curriculum, course instruction and what are considered as being the correct responses to questions which explicitly delve into subject matter that the parent is concerned about. It's far from the problem and is, in fact, probably much less of a risk than the other aspects of public schooling which condition and program children to think in a certain way.
+
+It isn't the course material and the correct answers to questions, as it's far easier for children to be skeptical about what they are being "forced" to learn. It's also far easier for parents to see what is being taught through the course material and as per the performance of the student, the details of the answers given and the grading and commentary or feedback provided for those answers. What is far more difficult to sort through, identify and understand the effects of are simply the manner in which language is chosen for general communication in those environments, and the degree to which an educator has themselves been conditioned to harbour particular biases, especially when those biases have been programmed into them through a certification process as those perspectives are now intrinsically bound to their effort to have distinguished themselves professionally, meaning that it is connected to their pride of effort and duty, as well as to a representation of their capabilities as a developed individual.
+
+This is because what appears as dispassionately presented, neutral information which takes place as a professional communication can yield different effects. Neutrally-presented, circumstantially present information affects the degree to which it is less scrutinized and the potential consequence of that is that it conditions a worldview without the subject having given it explicit thought which might have otherwise provided them with an opportunity to employ faculties of critical reasoning.
+
+#### References to Framing and Bias
+- [Framing Bias sage](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00218863221104864)
+- [Framing Bias wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_%28social_sciences%29)
+- [Framing Bias pubmed](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8345362/)
+- [Framing Bias CBS](https://research-api.cbs.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/101442939/faith_hatani_framing_biases_and_language_choices_acceptedversion.pdf)
+- [Framing Bias pubmed](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8345362/)
+- [Framing Bias pubmed](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9031119/)
+- [Framing Bias Deib Dict](https://developdiverse.com/deib_dictionary/framing-effect/)
+- [Framing Bias U Pitts](https://sites.pitt.edu/~mitnick/BPweb/HallahanSevenModelsFramingJPubRelRes.pdf)
+- [Framing Bias U Texas](https://journalism.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/sites/journalism.utexas.edu/files/attachments/reese/baresch-hsu-reese-chapter.pdf)
+
+### Inducing vs Attracting Despair
+
+It's important to elaborate on a very concerning aspect of introducing cult-initiate language in social environments which is that it doesn't just attract vulnerable people who already suffer from existential despair, but that the fact of the language having many implications which challenge one's notions of reality can be a implement by which to induce existential despair in someone not already suffering from it, and that this serves the very praxis which has been used to embed the vernacular extending from the cult praxis in whatever respective domain for which the social environment in question is intended.
+
+TODO: major editing for next part
+Think about how it feels to be suddenly thrust in a situation where you are being asked to consider yourself as being immoral or to have to second guess all your thoughts and actions as being expressions and things bearing significance in a moral framework which speaks about the degree to which your existence is justified or the degree to which you make other people's existence intolerable.
+
+To cause you to consider constantly, at least in that setting, that everything you've done throughout your life has been actually harmful to someone else because they have a different body than yours and that the true meaning of your bodies, as per a system surround you that you weren't ever able to decode until now (and only because you're being afforded the privilege of learning how to do it, out of the virtue of those with bodies whose significance makes them morally superior and deeply more insightful than you are) has been something that you weren't able to pick up on, and that now from here on out you are in the company of those who can actually read those things and who will be scrutinizing you to make sure you're able to show progress in understanding this (just one aspect of the struggle sessions which will need to become regular, and which may very well be so subtle that you aren't actively aware of the fact that you are being struggled), but that you have to demonstrate these things without disclosing that you actually have insight because part of your demonstration needs to be the affirming that you don't have knowledge and insight and that you rely on those others, who are other to you (and by the way, the fact of their being other to you is your moral failure and the moral failing of your ancestry which has set up the world such as to cause you to be developed in a way where you are lacking knowledge and insight) to give you the insight.
+
+You need to walk that sharp and narrow and jagged and treacherous line between having knowledge and not making mistakes and also showing that you have no knowledge and everything you do is a mistake of some form.
+
+It's constantly demanding the impossible, constantly accepting that you are immoral, and constantly showing that you are capable of handling it while having to prove your humility by showing that you are incapable.
+
+And at the same time, because you are to recognize alternate systems of knowledge, you are given an ambiguous means of rationalizing why the paradox can be ignored since the paradox is only on the basis of utilizing traditional critical reasoning faculties which are themselves an artifact of the unjust and immoral way of thinking and doing.
+
+The degree to which your experience must be laden with paradoxes and contradictions while being given the tools and the rhetoric such as to help you ignore that things are unresolved and not worked out is astonishing, and furthermore the fact that yo will now keep these things unresolved and ignore them will just give you psychological damage and abuse you - causing you to have an ever-expanding and intensifying source of existential despair.
+
+### Contradictions For Productive Despair
+
+The fact of the matter is that paradoxes and tension of contradiction are not just tolerated or welcome, but they're actually precisely what the enforcements are intended to yield. That's the design of the structures or the systems which are consequent to the theory being employed. We're not supposed to have a world free of contradiction and tension because such a word would mean we've already transcended and allowed main to attain the level of being "man in himself". To contextualize that statement of "man in himself" we can look at the following quote:
+
+"...fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself."
+- Karl Marx (A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right)
+
+Just as Lenin had espoused both in his demand to accelerate the contradictions, as well in his description of state and the process of history as being founded upon the notion that the state exists to resolve the conflict of man and that the cessation of conflict would be synonymous and synchronous with he disillusion of the state, the purpose of the environment, particularly if it is declared as geared towards the express purpose of allowing an oppressed identity to be reified in its true form in a manner where it belongs and where it is brought to the center, is to collide conflicting entities and produce conflict with the faith that the energy and tension borne of the event will power the type of transformative change being sought for social justice (in keeping with the more modern nomenclature). As the true effect of man in society as a phenomenon is as a component which fuels historical change, and to the end that the qualitative aspect of history is such that man can and will be discarded, the regard for the health of psyche in any individual human (component) of that environment, by the social justice practitioner whose faith lies in critical praxis, is secondary at best and, more realistically, non-existent. Instead, that regard is supplanted by an analysis of whether the contribution of that component is yielding as a capacity for transformative change, under a presumption that it is the new conditions which will determine the psyche, and not the treatment or comportment of any humans en route to that change.
+
+This passage seems a bit contradictory in its own rite, in that on the one hand it alleges that man should throw off the chains of religion, but in the next it's saying that man should revolve around himself as the center of the system which, in essence, is very religious. It would seem that the actual criticism is to replace all religion with the one true religion of a materialist perfecting of man until he has imminentized the perfected structure of reality in his being as man in himself, man of himself and man for himself. For those who have done the appropriate study, this appears strikingly similar and conceptually congruent to satanism, with the perfection of reality being the intellectual pursuit of man and the goal of a self-centered existence which embraces the material as the foundation of what will become divine.
+
 ## Categorical Descriptions
 The real category
 
@@ -370,21 +432,24 @@ A phrase to help us remember this acronym is:
 #### Time
 
 ### Cheating Death
+
 Something especially crucial to highlight amongst that set is that the capacity for abstraction / speculation and the knowledge of death means the fulfilling of the requirements sufficient to cause one to believe that death can be evaded.
 
 Some might call it a hope to overcome death which rests in us all, with death itself sometimes being perceived as the means to overcome death - as in a  rite of passage, mastery of the challenge (if even the psychological aspects of it), insight into the question of whether there is something more, the final silencing of the pain which leads to death (life as this pain).
 
-Another might say that this hope to overcome death, in the sense of divine transcendance or material (mastery to the extent of extended or eternal life is something only feasible through a religious metaphysic which focuses on a supernatural or all-powerful deity, but that is already disproven with secular discourse exploring the potential to achieve these things scientifically, ranging from conceptions for achieving never-ending life as well as remarks explaining any known precedent of health advancement as being some form of this).
+Another might say that this hope to overcome death, in the sense of divine transcendence or material (mastery to the extent of extended or eternal life is something only feasible through a religious metaphysic which focuses on a supernatural or all-powerful deity, but that is already disproven with secular discourse exploring the potential to achieve these things scientifically, ranging from conceptions for achieving never-ending life as well as remarks explaining any known precedent of health advancement as being some form of this).
 
 ### Basic Framework to Imagine This
-If examining the pre-scientific, pre-enlightenment, pre-naturalist, pre-civlizational, etc, then surely one could even imagine, as experiment, a condition of life with few or only one living being, and a state of no formal conception of deity in lieu of scientific knowledge, and these beings, having no verified explanation for phenomena, conceiving of pain and witnessing the death of other organisms, coming into having speculation of one's evasion of pain or death, and then this leading to imaginations about one's special path towards its achievement.
+
+If examining the pre-scientific, pre-enlightenment, pre-naturalist, pre-civilizational, etc, then surely one could even imagine, as experiment, a condition of life with few or only one living being, and a state of no formal conception of deity in lieu of scientific knowledge, and these beings, having no verified explanation for phenomena, conceiving of pain and witnessing the death of other organisms, coming into having speculation of one's evasion of pain or death, and then this leading to imaginations about one's special path towards its achievement.
 
 That should cover all circumstances of human life - it is not possible to conceive of a human life that both conceives of death yet has no capacity or disposition to conceive of the overcoming of death.
 
 ### Verification of Truth
+
 *How do we approach this informally? How do formal methods get affected?*
 
-Might it be that we simply don't ask the right questions? In academic and developmental pursuits as a whole, we quickly become rewarded along the path of engaging the question and answer process which takes place at a very low level, regarldess of whether we utilize a formal process to address a specific higher level question, or conversely if only reacting in short temporal portions to one's perception of the surrounding environment.
+Might it be that we simply don't ask the right questions? In academic and developmental pursuits as a whole, we quickly become rewarded along the path of engaging the question and answer process which takes place at a very low level, regardless of whether we utilize a formal process to address a specific higher level question, or conversely if only reacting in short temporal portions to one's perception of the surrounding environment.
 
 Any intentional, voluntary action is, at minimum, fulfilling the choice between rest or action out of action potential, and being that a human's neurocognitive and neuromuscular capacities are intrinsically yielding from behaviour borne of neurochemically rewarding patterns of actions undertaken by the human person, there will always be some degree of rewarded response or, better stated, answering of a question.
 
@@ -393,6 +458,7 @@ A scientific approach is, at minimum, asking some higher level questions, but th
 So then, obviously, we need to take from this that our hesitation should always err on the side of skepticism which, though uttered, is never really drilled down to its lowest level interpretation, but is instead applied insofar as things are classified in the social environment as being either accepted views or those which are already pressured towards exclusion.
 
 # Professionals Led Astray
+
 *Examining Lawrence Krauss*
 I shall take as a case study one Lawrence Krauss, a Theoretical physicist who always fashions himself as a progressive, yet still wants to eat the cake he wishes to keep by crying about the destruction of his precious academia and the erasure and mockery of the scientific method as it is applied in his field and those surrounding him.
 
@@ -402,19 +468,55 @@ It is not so much the keeping of company that is the problem but the fact that k
 
 My only previous experience with Laurence has been seeing him participate in a 3 on 3 debate on the topic of Climate Change against some very competent skeptics, such as William Happer and Richard Lindzen, where Laurence' loss of temper, tendency to utilize ad hominem attacks, and refusal to respond to the technical aspects of the arguments put forward by his interlocutors did some of the most remarkable damage to the credibility of climate alarmists, at least for my own view.
 
+For more insight into that debate, it can be viewed [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZsnAdGaxkY).
+
 But this is the perfect example in some ways, as he is clearly willing to expose himself to some scrutiny by (or on the behalf) of the holy by taking an anti-woke stance, albeit a limited one, and standing up for at least some form of principles. It just so happens that his own woke programming allows him to treat the state as divine when it comes to supporting a political party - which comes in the form of seeing science as divine and, thus, beyond reproach, as well as the form of repressive violence where, unless you are caught up in the unconventional view, you are essentially demanding for the pre-emptive censorship and violence.
 
 ## Exclusion
+
 The threat of exclusion is a constantly wielded scalpel with which to make social and psychological modifications and it is nearly impossible to conceive of the fine line whereupon a balance is discovered between useful stressor and destructive disabler. How do we know that shame and the threat of lonely starvation induces healthy, desirable behaviour supporting an incontestably desirable form of development for any human? Both the liberal view and the idealized view of the communist (at least insofar as Marx himself had fantasized about) is that a human should be able to pursue their affairs without coercion (at least to the extent that they are not causing violence to others -> first order physical violence) or oppression and domination through the advantage of one's access to capital (communists).
 
 Certainly any reasonable person can see that constraints and impositions are a normal part of the child-rearing process and that care and consideration are used to ensure that no child is engaging in activities and circumstances that are developmentally inappropriate, as this hinders development and introduces or worsens psychopathology, even with activities which may be harmless for an adult of sound-mind.
 
 Unfortunately, such a view must be placed against the queer Marxists and modern wokes who insist that any form of mitigating, preventing or censoring material of any kind on the basis of a belief that a child cannot yet be exposed to it itself a form of bigotry and oppression over children, as it infringes on the child either by reproducing oppression, keeping them from identity, prevent them from riding or disdain to liberation, and so on.
 
-This is always the recurring programming coming from the cultists: identify a vulnerable person and suggest that their very whim must be met so long as food can be prepared.
+## Professionals Permit Absurdities
+
+Yes, this will be a play on the useless idiots argument, which proves itself time and time again and which remains a huge threat in the sense that we do need professionals, and we could benefit tremendously by having some sort of publicly-coordinated research facilities, which is what universities fulfill in some capacity, or have at least done so traditionally, even if it's come to be a situation where even those who apologized for their many missteps years ago have now come to wonder if they do more harm than good. In fact, when I refer to the broad pursuit of collectivism as though it were a cult (and yes it is). That is not to be argued in the sense of there being some formally declared membership to a specific organization, but the fact of this functioning as a cult and, because of the congruence that various domains bear towards one another, like heads of a hydra, because of their logical pursuit of the same end impossible end result, they relate to one another in a manner wherein one head supports the adoption of the proliferation and interfacing with another head.
+
+This is always the recurring programming coming from the cultists: identify a vulnerable person and suggest that their very whim must be met so long as food can be prepared. That is to say, so long as the absolute destruction of all of civilization hasn't yet resulted, the consequence of not meeting the whim of any vulnerable person whose identity can be posited as being a description of the great plight of the future existence of mankind, then it can be assumed that we'll suffer an eventual civilizational collapse, alluded to perhaps simply by saying that we are failing to evolve in our historical environment which includes such and such calamity, such as the loss of a species of fauna, or a change in the expected pattern in some particular locale.
 
 Though it may seem to be tangential, "aff..tepin", or even a diversion in order to go all into such matters as a preamble to categorical description, we need to be closer to understand what manner of definition is sought by the true believer -> one which rests upon not just an ontologically-driven assumption about man, but one which demands the acknowledgment of the capacity to define man -> to insist on a belief that not only is the true nature and meaning of humanity and human life knowable, assertable, and these things on the basis of an imposable morality which must be followed by any who participates in the discussion, but that it is ultimately the purpose of man to attain the capacity to arbitrarily define itself until no possibility of encountering constraint can occur.
 
+## Cults and Totalism
+
+TODO: put in the description of a cult and cite references which probably should include James Lindsay and Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism by Robert Jay Lifton.
+
+
+## Neo-Malthusianism
+
+The Malthusian spirit might not be something in all those who share his goals, or even ......
+
+So the premise is the set of assertions that includes the following:
+- Nature is treacherous
+- We utilize technology to mitigate the danger of nature
+- All transcending of nature is a good thing and contributes as a moral good in that it confers scientific progress
+  - All leads towards man's mastery of the universe and himself
+  - Even if we do not know the appropriate next steps or the ultimate end-state, all scientific progress contributes to realizing these things
+
+Indeed, genital mutilation and creation of hybrid and chimeric organisms can be seen as some form of scientific progress, and what should it lead to?
+- The perfected state of human being
+  - But is this something to be attained by all human beings?
+  - Should every human that has ever existed have the opportunity to exist as perfect being? Should the goal of mankind be to make it such that all humans, past present and future, come to exist as perfect being?
+
+Of course not - it would be, at most, those humans that exist at the moment that perfect human being is attained, or at least feasible. And would it even be desired by any one human for all living humans at the moment where it would become possible? No. If one were to conceive of a perfected human being for all human existence, other conceptions would detract from its attainment if even in muddying up the conception of the most correct manner of existence for human life. So, for the holder of that conception, it becomes a challenge to view. It becomes difficult to picture the vector of perfecting human being as running through the expressions of those who haven't the sensibility to have come into holding the view of those who already see the path to perfection. Those with special knowledge don't necessarily have the glimpse of perfection either, but they know what is excluded from such an image, as well as what particular paths are to be trodden en route to the promised land and who is ready to be on such paths.
+
+Again, this is because of a historical sensibility, which is to say that it's not something in terms of a familiarity with the past events of history, but having the sense to understand the current moment in history and, by extension, the future. It's for this reason that there must be deep-seated intolerance for those who don't appear to be expressing the current historical moment correctly; they are as malfunctioning robots or brainwashed zombies - relieving themselves with their favourite form of activity to source their stupor as they miss the opportunity to provide an intelligent, noble and reasonable nudge in the right direction.
+
+If their expression of being is made to manifest incorrectly, it is at best a latency-inducing frivolity and at worst the regressive and insensible entrapment of the entirety of human kind and human culture into a most stagnant and unnatural form of reality; a falsely-lived life for all others simply because one cannot put to rest their urges and most fallen and simple, animalistic aspects - one's for which it is man's capacity to resist and overcome which is the most basic demonstration of having evolved from mere animal to a thoughtful and conscious being.
+
+We will need to delve into the more classical understanding of Malthusianism in order to make sense of the world today. In particular, we will see how manuscripts of the early Club of Rome analyses - we can see already, even after knowledge of the Soviet Atrocities, the interests of the day were still such as to assume that Marxist Analysis is necessary and that a Marxist objective should be sought.
+
 So, now, to our categorical definition, which is bound by imminence in that it is an object which relates to every man and, thus, is ontologically consistent with man as a process of engaging in his self-definition. It is not man himself and not necessarily the aggregate of him, nor his geist. It is the object relating all then and serving in such a capacity that, upon its imminent attainment, marks the phase whereupon evidence of man's nature finally manifests by virtue of the conditions which were now made palatable by man's own hand, such as to make him "man in himself".
 
 Its definition is then the promise that man can and, by virtue of logical extension of such an assumption, should bring about the moment of his true reality. It is the binding of all men to this imminence but it also requires one last contextual element in order to make this understanding complete.
@@ -424,9 +526,11 @@ Its definition is then the promise that man can and, by virtue of logical extens
 How does this proceed? Through conflict and struggle
 
 ## Still Struggle
+
 Whether old or new, we always see the descriptions of class struggle, regardless of whether one believes the word class to be archaic. It is always the elucidating of dialectical tension driving history as teleological foundation, that this is occurring through critique of world and society, and always within a short handful of hops of Marx himself, neo-Marxists and even newer contemporaries who still keep the Hegelian view of reality. A dialectic examining contradiction and yielding tension. Even if many do it, not as a conscious and intentionally advocated metaphysic, but simply as intuition delivered through cultural critique and moralizing on the juxtaposition of humans grouped and classified on their appearance, reproductive strategy, association, sexual interests or preoccupation, or any other dimension of oppression and social division.
 
 ## Remark
+
 And another note on the Hegelian view may be necessary to illustrate why these observations and the noted aspects of the methodologies being utilized are not simply chosen for their vulnerability in social critique.
 
 TODO: this is the right content, but it needs to be refactored
@@ -443,6 +547,7 @@ For the purist, active under the assumption of a world and reality which are fun
 That is because this tendency towards idealism isn't an artificial programming yielding from one's having encountered the ideas of Plato or Hegel, even if they give such ideas a seemingly robust structure. On the contrary, the disposition of idealism is a very human one which begins in every human's early phase of life.
 
 # Perceptual frame
+
 The perceptual frame is the first phenomenon, as phenomenon in itself (to borrow some Hegelian terminology) that we each experience, and it is not an aspect of our experience from which we ever depart, lest we depart from experience altogether.
 
 This means that we begin with something at least approximating an idealist view, not in the sense of having some advanced opinion as to how all things should be, but in the sense that we can reasonably agree that the entirety of what can be scientifically observed as the perception, interpretation, and sustainment of the sense apparatus of a human person is tantamount to being some or all of what we describe as human mind, human consciousness, and, especially, something which extends from a human having thoughts.
@@ -1999,6 +2104,8 @@ Universalism is in consideration of how things can be applied and considered for
 
 Transformationalism concerns the rejection of the current construct, whether explicitly as society, the human body, reality, our understanding of knowledge, or that the conditions of world and society permit all humans to utilize logic and reason for pursuit of knowledge in much the same way as one another.
 
+Transformationalism also bears significance in the domain of understanding globalism for which critiques linking it to Neo-Malthusianism and Neo-Marxism already exist. Some of those critiques can be sought through [this resource](https://chatgpt.com/share/67944e32-3c94-8011-8764-fb70fc7b40f8).
+
 Paramount to universalism is one's own assumption that others could attain their knowledge, and that people are to be regarded as individuals because precisely anyone benefits from developing themselves.
 
 It's not necessarily that we expect everyone to "get it" and comprehend things in precisely the same way that we ourselves do, lest they be liars or cretins, but that we don't hold as a point of pride and virtue some notion that we are infallible, or uniquely superior through some mechanism which allows one a unique path to knowledge that others cannot attain.