so much

new/Becoming_Sustainable.md

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+# Becoming Sustainable Man
+
+Asserting constantly that the goal of the whole climate consciousness is to help the vulnerable. I suppose that a clear catastrophe hasn't yet been realized and though most of the greatly committed climate activists would like nothing more than for a "biological" incentive to be imposed on the entire populace, until such time comes that an unequivocal circumstance of climate change derived threat comes about, the next thing is to either connect second order effects or to claim that it is merely decency and consideration for the have-nots. This gets sticky, as the have-nots often take vocational opportunities which, at least at the immediate scale, are assumed to be made available to those lacking an associate's degree or higher. Why them? Because there is no intellect necessary - at least not from the perspective of the climate activist (are we yet prepared to term them Climate Marxists?)
+
+## Those Poor Fools (They don't even know)
+The blue collar working class and below are that most vulnerable span of society, yet they rae mostly unaware of the looming threat. The aspects of society which seem just at a superficial level to be functioning are not doing them any real favours, as it is setting them up to incur unexpected catastrophe. Their happiness is incomplete, and is mostly associated with a dulling of their senses, as they'd otherwise hear the world screaming to act immediately. They busy themselves within the contraptions which accelerate the crisis and once it hits it will be too late for them, as they are clearly on the wrong side of history. We look for ways of reaching them as our muppets showcase dialogue about the dimwitted challenge before us. Can they ever even grasp the knowledge necessary to take the challenge head-on?
+
+We have insights, as a blessing of our own standpoint, and for those who haven't the correct standpoint? We must stop them from having the wrong thought before it manifests. They hvaen't the means of defending their minds from false suggestion. Their minds are already littered with all that is false, and it causes them to be a threat to our children and the unfortunates (and, of course, our Great King).
+
+By acting on their behalf, we adjust their environment without them even knowing, and this permits a heightening of their sensibilities, potentiating an awakened consciousness which can lead s to the pinnacle of existence - perfect harmony with my conception of family and conception of self.
+
+## The Social State
+Some like to grovel over distinctions. Socialism is not Communism, yet I think i fail to understand or even trust the implied definitions.
+
+They try to make the distinction on the basis of Communism being an Authoritarian state which lies about being able to lead its citizens to a society where everything is owned by the public, or even a society where everyone does whatever they like whil enjoing the best any society has to offer (from each according to..).
+
+Socialism, on the other hand, is showing attention to social matters. It is simply tending to an issue that would otherwise occur at a faster rate. But what is that matter? Well, any number of phenomena can and will be enumerated. Disease, they will say, because some are too poor to have driven to a vaccine clinic. Crime, because the homeless have nothing better to do. But the tool of socialism is always the same -> rounding. We can't have any lumps or bumps unbefitting of a civilized person of our kind.
+
+But what really is Socialism? Caring for more than most? Is it Marx's conception of social man, who naturally does work and brings about more social man? What would Hegel have imagined? He would have envisioned the sort of men that would feel so inclined as to participate in a German Folk Religion, and who had the mind to utilize or induce a process of speculation. By looking in and reflecting dialectically, one could come to realize one as the absolute idea. The eternal idea, aware of itself. This is not far off from what all other belief systems do and demand. Christian Science uses a logical process to reason man's reflection of God. Chris Langan's CTMU uses logical induction to describe reality as something composed as a self-identifying event for the purpose of identifying and that is there was no purpose, it would be impossible to occur. If everything has meaning implied by its own existence then, at the very least, it could all be aware of that one meta-fact -> bringing awareness to an absolute.
+
+In a sense, we demand reflection much as our nervous systems recognize the potential for our having been observed and, even just acknowledged. But the reflection does something more because if I demand it of you, I am criticizing the incomplete structure of your expression of being, both observed and as it exists through your own perceptual frame. You are, at that moment, the inadequate experience and that questions not only your existence, but existence as a whole. That may be a path, or the path to evil.
+
+We should dwell on that, for we all understand the nature of recognizing injustice, and some might even claim that justice is deducible as per the lines defined by the state, but even such cases suggest the continued implication through indirection that there even is a concept of justice worthy of being addressed, and that it is not, at its most generic leve, something entirely arbitrary. Even if its evaluation might have arbitrary behaviours associated with it as a realized process.
+
+So what then could any 2 agree about its structure (Justice)? About the component or perception of it which is not arbitrary? Unnecessary suffering is not enough, as that appears to occur in neutral circumstances, but even that comes to be considered evil erroneously. Evil, because if there is no obvious reaso nfor it, then why should it ever need to have occurred - begging the question as to whether neutral existence is itself evil, but it is still not enough (and, furthermore, one can come to champion the demand that all should seek to rectify the latent portions of structure producing the suffering, lest they be, at the very least, a neutral part of the neutral structure producing suffering). Naturally having come to cause unnecessary suffering and are thus evil out of inaction - or their participation in evil is voluntary, making them actively evil. These interpretations can never distinguish themselves from the potential for their adoption and use to itself fall under the same standard. Be at least just as evil.
+
+### Structurally-Determined Evil
+The notion that the single most consquently valenced factor worthy of sociological or psychological consideration is itself a demand to negate existence. It proposes that what has been brought into being can be so accurately evaluated that it's sufficient to give more credence t othe structural description of a being rather than the claims from and independent observations of that being.
+
+There are paths towards transforming the determined structure, but it leavs no room to interpret some current frame as oriented to truth and expressing that which is not logically supposed as per the structure. This demands that the other perception that lays outside of or expresses itself incongruous to the predominant superstructure take up the cause of transforming it. Since this can only be perceived as antithetical and hostile by the superstructure, it is no surprise that such ventures are met with hostility, but what can be a real surprise is that, as science, psychology, social science and engineering advance themselves, the capacity for the superstructure to instantiate and refine programs and procedures proclaiming to be critical of the superstructure increases. Furthermore, it such programs cannot be expected to be instantiated for the express purpose of subverting and undermining interest and action-potential which would otherwise critique the structure, but may very well be borne of modes of thought which are themselves intended to critique the structure; that these operations are managed through the structure, however, and that they are executed through assignment and deputization of individual persons whose sense of survival and actualization are now intertwined with the project while it itself is supported by the very structure it purports to critique, yields an environment of interoperating systems of logic and infrastructure whose conformed interfaces and innovated transactions are prone to complexity, contradiction, and, quite simply, cognitive biasing.
+
+It is for this reason that true criticism will be identified with decreased latency and increased weight of condemnation as the systems through which relevant infrastructure is made available advance themselves.
+
+In time, though the original aspiration to allow for some degree of foul play by the underprivileged as a means of balancing odds with corporate greed sporting incalculably immense resources comes to normalize breach of principles within a system where the capacity for each entity to optimize exploitation of such a breach is at least unknown, and quite reasonable most favourable to thoes who are already most calibrated with such a system's implements.
+
+After all the standards are eroded or injected with exceptional and covert additions to the advantage of the same greedy entities, there remains only one mode of pursuit in order to restore hope of emancipation: proficient and faithful commitment to universal standards.
+
+We must heal process and tend to it.

new/ExistingStateOfBeing.md

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+# Existing State of Being
+
+The stereotypical conception of the physical vs spiritual lends to imagine the physical as our currently lived mortal life in a human body, and the spiritual as that which is associated with an eternal life, which is fully realized after the mortal life has ended. That is, living in the mortal form doesn't necessarily preclude one from engaging with or incurring consequence to the spiritual world, but one does not exist as an expression of being that is exclusively spiritual except when there is no expression of being that is not spiritual, thus the spiritual and the physical are clearly separated in that way.
+
+The Christian Science way of looking at things has tended to declare stories of the Bible as allegory, and to claim that the afterlife could not be known to be something realizable through mortal thinking. That there is no reason to believe it exists or that it doesn't exist. In that sense, it stands to reason that any separation of physical and spiritual cannot really be understood to be real or relevant except on the basis of a synthetic conception as to the nature and composition of the spiritual.
+
+The physical may very well be a spiritual expression which fulfills any or all or none of the known frameworks for spiritual understanding. So where does that leave one's understanding of matter? Some spiritual framworks of thought (SFT))

new/GGeert_Symposium_March2022.md

@@ -56,9 +56,14 @@ So when it comes to binding to the spike protein, of course the specific antibod
 
 Specific antibodies induced by vaccnation or infection - these are going to bind very strongly to the original virus. The original viral strain? The kind of strain that was initially responsiblef or the pandemic at the beginning. If now you have a variant - changes in the spike protein - doesn't look any longer exactly as the spike protein on the original virus - because these antibodies are very specific - they can no longer recognize the variants as well as they recognize the original virus. But, nevertheless, they still have a relatively high affinity for this virus because they are still directed to the S protein. And, even though they have lowe raffinity to the variants, they will still be able to out-compete the natural antibodies for binding to the very same virus.
 
-So, what is important to notice here is that the natura lantibodies, and this is key, they have a broad binding capacity. They can bind as well without any difference to the original virus, as to the variants. They recognize aptterns on the surface of the virus. Those molecular patterns are conserved. BUt their binding strenght is always lower for the spike protein than antibodies that are specifically directed against the spike protein, no matter whether they are directed against the original or the variants.
+So, what is important to notice here is that the natural antibodies, and this is key, they have a broad binding capacity. They can bind as well without any difference to the original virus, as to the variants. They recognize aptterns on the surface of the virus. Those molecular patterns are conserved. BUt their binding strenght is always lower for the spike protein than antibodies that are specifically directed against the spike protein, no matter whether they are directed against the original or the variants.
 
-What does that mean? Well the spike protein is so important - it is responsible for the interaction with the receptor. THe spike protein is responsibel for the infectiousness of the virus.
+What does that mean? Well the spike protein is so important - it is responsible for the interaction with the receptor. The spike protein is responsible for the infectiousness of the virus.
 So variants have a higher binding strength tot he receptor than the original virus, hence why these variants have higher infectiousness.
 
-So what counts, interms of antibodies is always the binding strength fo the spike protein, because that matters in therms of infectivity.
+So what counts, in terms of antibodies is always the binding strength of the spike protein, because that matters in terms of infectiousness of the virus. If you have specific antibodies, they will, in terms of binding, out-compete the natural antibodies. So I was just saying that the natural antibodies are enable protection against all those variants.
+
+Now, we will recapitulate a little bit because I was talking abotu 2 waves in a natural course of the pandemic.
+In the 2nd wave, The people who had good innate immunity - what happen s- they get infected, they go tinfected during the first wave no problem no disease - but they started to develop a short-lived surge in antibodies with relatively low affinity, short-lived, not high concentrations. Normally that isn't a problem unless, at that moment where they have the surge, they get re-infected - because at that moment with these short-lived antibodies, they will be facing a suppression of their natural antibodies - they are outcompeted/bypassed. When the natural immunity is disapperas, the youngsters become susceptible. Because they cannot rely on these antibodies - certainly not if there are variants - because of the low affinity. They bind to teh spike, but this binding does not prevent variants from binding to the receptor on susceptible cells. This is because the binding is very strong. These are highly infectious with a changed S protein so that they can bind more strongly to the epithelial cells.
+
+FIrst way - people get infected, spreading, infectivity rate in the population is increasing - more virus. The likelihood that somebody who happens to have a short-lived surge of antibodies becomes re-infected. So they suppress their own natural innate immune response - increasing infectivity. At moment of infection - surge in antibodies - causing them to be open for re-infection.

new/Groomers2_notes.md

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+# Groomers 2
+
+## Intro
+- Grooming mentality
+- Destabilizing identity in a politically actionable away
+- Lead to transhumanism in the sense of Donnah Harroway's conception of a genderless, raceless, collectivist cyborg manufactured and programmed to have particular affinities which replace identities. Thus allowing a cohesive, political affinity which applies universally to all entities.
+
+## WEF
+- Use hi-tech medicine and infrastructure to plug humans into a semi-digital world
+
+## Groomers 2
+- Problematize innocence to destroy it
+- Contemporary for mof the sexual liberation movement
+- Comprehensive Sex Education and Social Emotional Learning
+- Destabilize and disregard structure of reality if it supports supposed power dynamics and hegemony
+
+## Lukach
+- Destabilize through sexualization to make manipulable
+- Young will hate the old generation
+- The revolution proceeds off the back of destabilized identities
+- No expectation for normal behaviour - achieve authentic expression
+
+## Interrogating Innocence (2018 Julie C Garland)
+- Exclusionary practice
+
+## Queer Futurity and Childhood Innocence
+- Assuming asexuality and proto-heterosexuality yield contradictions
+- Emphasize sexuality within children's education
+- Asexual children (presexual) is heteronormative thinking
+- Counter this by emphasizing sexuality
+
+### Queer Childhood
+*Eve Sedgwick*
+- Bringing up your kids gay at odds with childhood innocence
+- Suggests that colonialism and slavery have corrupted our theories about childhood development
+- Our ideas about childhood innocence are interwoven with white privilege i.e. Childhood innocence is racial innocence and naivety, which demonstrates one's privilege
+
+## Queer Futurity 1
+- References Eve's work as initiating consideration of childhood as a site of heteronormative intervention
+- Cisheteronormativity is their bourgeois property or white privilege
+- Assumes that heterosexuality is being artificially impressed upon the children to indoctrinate them (Iron Law of Woke Projection)
+
+### Standard M.O.
+- Conflate normativity with morality
+- The more unique and distant an identity is from normal, the greater the capacity for moral judgment
+- Assumes variation is morally relevant
+
+#### Limitations
+- Denies broad acceptance of homosexuality
+- Marcusian lamentation that acceptance nullifies propensity for change
+- Empowered by the fuel of catastrophisized minorities who demand revolution
+- Target children to have them believe that mere inauthentic acceptance has been insufficient
+- Exacerbate alienation as a revolutionary force
+"It's always open season on gay kids" - Eve Sedgwick

new/Grooming_Pedagogy_2.md

@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ Dwelling on the contradiction that results from the synchronous assumptions of t
 
 ``` In the service of my interest in the renewal of thought concerning children's psychosexual development, I offer a critical reading of the "it gets better" social media campaign - particularly its consequent critiques and revisions. I begin with engagement of Eve Sedgwick's 1991 seminal essay on Queer Childood: How to bring your kids up gay, and from there trace contemporary queery theory's use of the figure of the child in consideration of the impact of "innocence" on childhood.```
 
-Eve Sedgwick was a fairy godmother of Queery theory. She's going to begin with engagement on the "seminal piece of work" about Queer Childhood and then use it to problematize the idea that we consider children sexually innocent. She's going to call into question and "queer" the entire narrative about childhood innocent (queering means the sublate (alphaven) to abolish but to keep certain essential elements while lifting up to a higher ideological level. To keep the thing and infiltrate it and transmogrify it into a Marxian ideological framework). She never mentions any of this specifically, this is why it's so hard to go through it. You have to understand many things to understand what they're talking about. there are professionals reproducing and referencing this without understanding what they're reproducing - just going along with the front end of the ideology. (Marcuse, for example, is felt in this paper but is not referenced).
+Eve Sedgwick was a fairy godmother of Queery theory. She's going to begin with engagement on the "seminal piece of work" about Queer Childhood and then use it to problematize the idea that we consider children sexually innocent. She's going to call into question and "queer" the entire narrative about childhood innocence (queering means the sublate (aufheben) to abolish but to keep certain essential elements while lifting up to a higher ideological level. To keep the thing and infiltrate it and transmogrify it into a Marxian ideological framework). She never mentions any of this specifically, this is why it's so hard to go through it. You have to understand many things to understand what they're talking about. There are professionals reproducing and referencing this without understanding what they're reproducing - just going along with the front end of the ideology. (Marcuse, for example, is felt in this paper but is not referenced).
 
 
 The truth is that most congregants are not paastors, and most pastors are not theologians, and if you don't understand how that works, you don't understand what's going on. A lot of theologians don't even know where religion came from (or their religion, at least).
@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ The truth is that most congregants are not paastors, and most pastors are not th
 
 We have to attach colonialism and slavery to queer theory and, as mentioned in previous essay, that's part of the project. Deconstruct national innocence - the idea that it's okay to be a member of a particular nation, or history, or culture, or part of the world, unless you're in a dominant one - challenge it in a Marxian Way - Post colonial theory - and take apart the idea of race - racial innocence - children shouldn't be allowed to be racially innocent or politically innocent. Geopolitically innocence. This has to be obliterated. Childhood sexuality LGBTQ and nation state are the keywords of the paper.
 
-``` In 1991 Eve Sedgewick published an essay that made be said to have initiated contemporary queer theory's consideration of childhood as a site of heteronormative intervention.
+``` In 1991 Eve Sedgewick published an essay that may be said to have initiated contemporary queer theory's consideration of childhood as a site of heteronormative intervention.
 ```
 
 They believe there is an over arching power dynamic called heteronormativity. It's been expanded to cisheteronormativity to include the T within the LGBTQ, or even the Q. Both run into cisheteronormativity, cisnormativity aspects, and so she says:

new/Hegel_OS.md

@@ -766,4 +766,152 @@ Dialectics, on the other hand, understand that cause and effect are just one and
 
 "Dialectic has its origins in ancient society, both among the Chinese and the Greeks, where thinkers sought to understand nature as a whole, and saw that everything is fluid, constantly chnaging, comign into being and passing away. It was only in the peicemeal of observing nature and bits and pieces practiced in western thinking in the 17th-18th century had accumulated enough positive knowledge for the interconnections, transitions and genesis of things to become comprehensible that the conditions became ripe for modern dialectics to make its apperance. It was Hegel who was able to sum up this picture of universal interconnection and mutability of all things in a system of logic which is a foundation of what we call, today, dialectics".
 
-In other words, scientific understanding of things can be considered stupid
+In other words, scientific understanding of things can be considered stupid. Formal thinking and traditional theory is "verstand" and people make stupid mistakes like turning their farmland into desert because of a lack of understanding from the higher level. But we have vernunft, the dialectic, Hegel's systematic philosophy. So he names his philosophy "Logic", and "Reason" as a systematic philosophy that is the higher way of thinking.
+
+This is his metaphysic and it ties into the thread that the operating system is the Dialectic. You can follow Marx who said Hegel had this thing right, but that it was standing on its head, so he turned it back upright. Then the Neo-Marxists said Marx had it backwards and had to turn Hegel back upright again. It might be more accurate to analyze these three groups in a different, more dialectical frame.
+
+More accurate to say:
+
+- Hegel focused on the Ideas (God, the Absolute)
+- Marx focused on the State, and thus the Materialist world (the Son)
+- The Neo-Maxists focused on the Culture (Spirit, Geist)
+
+That makes a solid through-line that these people - the woke inheritors - are all talking about the same thing, with different aspects being what they believe as the relevant part where you do the alchemical process.
+
+For Hegel, if you want to change the world, you focus on the ideas. For Marx, if you want to change the world, you focus on the state and the material conditions. For the Neo-Marxists, if you want to change the world, you focus on the culture (this translates into the woke as well).
+
+Recoil in horror that it implies under Marxism that the philosophy treats the state like it's Jesus, and provides salvation and life, but also an ideal model for how to live an ethical life. The truth and the life become the state - this is how Hegel thought about the state.
+
+#### Summing up Metaphysics
+Hegel remains speculative (Mystical) trying to apply the dialectic to ideas. Marx frees him from his mystical shell, makes the dialectic into dialectical materialism and seeks to exploit the contradictions of material life by raising class consciousness in the people who experience it. And the Neo-Marxists shift that whole project to Aufheben der Kultur - the dialectic abolishment or transfer of culture.
+
+The current woke project is primarily an effort of constant, multidimensional aufheben der kultur - cultural warfare of the dialectical, leftist motif. Thus it is no surprise that we are currently embroiled in a totalizing, international culture war, and it's easy to see who the antagonists are, and how they proceed (through the culture war - tear down the existing culture and cause problems). It's also easy to see this project, and all of its forms, as 3-4 denominations of a religion.
+
+The Judeo-Christian model is not a terrible metaphor, but don't take it literally. It's just a good comparison to get people to think. We are not comparing the ethics of each of these.
+
+In this sense, you can also think of Hegel as being Judaic - establishing and making convenant with or documenting this Absolute Deity.
+
+Marx falls into the role of the early pre-Pauline Christians who have brought this faith into a new era of practicality, but whose reach is relatively limited.
+
+And then the Neo-Marxists, by turning to Aufheben der kultur, are like the Pauline Evangelists whose reach is virtually unlimited. That's sort of the structure of this religion in terms of how it comes out "practically".
+
+The Judaic faith is very exclusive, the pre-Pauline Christian approach is also quite limited in terms of its reach, but Evanglistic Christianity is billions, global and rapidly expansive. This demand to evangelize is indicative of what you see in the Neo-Marxists and the Evanglists by moving the whole project into the site of Geist. So rather than working within the idea, as the deity, or working within the material world, as the son, they instead turn to the Geist. They are working through what Hegel would conceive of as the Holy Spirit and the Spirit is what moves the world. And goodness are they ever succeeding at moving the world with it.
+
+In all three cases, the basic underlying faith is identical, present, largely constant, and based on Hegel's metaphysics which is ultimately a metaphysic based on societal alchemy - meant to create some new world that's Perfected and Utopian. This leaves it open to megalomaniacs who, throughout history, have come up and picked up these ideas, whether Hitler / Stalin / Lenin / Mao - who pick up these ideas and think that their vision of the right side of history can be implemented under their rule. The woke, even though they don't have this charismatic man-of-action behind them right now, as it's phrased in Hegel, are doing the same thing - Leninism 4.0?
+
+## Wrap-Up
+### Consequences
+Necessity and urgency to the dilectic. If you believe that the Utopia is brought about faster by the process of the dialectic, you have to do this as hard and fast as possible. The more vigorously it is applied, the faster we get to the Utopia at the end of history, therefore anyone who resists must be evil, because they resist the idea of utopia, and they drag history's feet whil emaintaining the oppressions of the imperfected society.
+
+Demand for conformity and collectivism which causes, in terms, demands for statism. Hegel was a statist, so it's no surprise that Marxism is statis and that Neo-marxism is totalitarian. The wokeism inherits both statism and totalitarianism. Hegel's philosophy is profoundly statist - the state is the divine idea as expressed on earth.
+
+Hegel writes:
+
+"The state is absolutely rational in as much as it is the actuality of the substantial will which it possesses in the particular subconsciousness once that consciousness has been raised to consciousness of its universality." Once consciousness becomes critically aware, then you have the state being absolutely rational as a perfected state.
+
+"This substantial unity is an absolute unmoved end in itself in which freedom comes into its supreme rite. On the other hand, this final end has supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of this state"
+
+Philosophy of Right:
+
+"The state is the actuality of the ethical idea. It is the ethical mind qua the substantial will manifest and revealed to itself knowing and thinking itself accomplishing what it knows and insofar that it knows it."
+
+"For truth is the unity of the universal and subjective will, and the universal is to be found in the state - in its laws, its universal and rational arguments. The state is the divine idea as it exists on earth. We have in it, therefore, the object of history in a more definite shape than before, and in which freedom obtains objectively and lives in the enjoyment of the subjectivity".
+
+This is why they think freedom comes from the state in Hegelian Leftism. The state has th supreme right against the individual whose supreme duty is to be a member of the state.
+
+All of his theosophy and metaphysic aside, all of this has political consequences. In free societies like the States which proceeds from a Lachian or Jeffersonian framework, we believe that rights precede the states. Endowed by a creator. Inalienable. In a Hegelian framework, this is not how it works. The individual has a complete duty to the state - total statism and collectivism.
+
+Rights are replaced by prpvileges to be granted by the state. A different political model. Rights endowed by the creator meets the antithesis of privileges granted from the state.
+
+The connection to what's going on in the woke ideology cannot be missed, especially in the declaration in Critical Race an Introduction Page 23:
+
+"Critical Theorists are highly suspicious of another liberal mainstay, namely: rights."
+
+They are simultaneously obsessed with privilege and how the system, which is a manifestation of the idea state in the culture or geist, creates and thus bestows privilege. Privilege is granted by the state. They are obsessed with who has privilege nad how that's unfair, ebcaues the state itself is unfair because the entire structure of the idea, state nad culture are incorrect, and so they agitate culture knowing that that's where you have the most drive to change the entire thing and reorganize who has privilege. That's why they're so obsesse dwith privilege, want people to check privilege, because privlege comes down from the state and they want to reorganize everything so that everything operates according to their ideology.
+
+Another consequence of the HEgelian thought is collectivism because when the ideas are perfected, everybody must have the same ideas, because they are perfect. All the different ideas which lead to contradictions must have been synthesized. If anyone has different ideas, that's a site of contradictions - if your idea and my ide aare different, we now have a dialectic between us. It has to be synthesized.
+
+We don't have th eperfect idea, therefore the absolute has not recognized itself unless we all have the same idea. There can be no cognitive libert y in the perfected state. We have to have total collectivism and all think the same - and this will happen by all subsuming our will to the state - giving over our will and duty to the state entirely. Hegelian thought is a massive amplification to a dramatic degree of the powerful collectivist metaphysic underneath it. Collectivism leads people who take it up to try and force a situation because they believe that when there's total conformity to their totalizing ideology, collectively maintained, then we are now near or at the point of the absolute realizing itself. The perfected point where Utopia is imminent. We are all part of the dialectical process moving history forward and we are all in it together.
+
+Anybody who has a different idea is both a problem and proof that the absolute hasn't realized itself. So that person becomes a site where the dialectic continues to play out. That means it's nt done playing out, thust he Utopia isn't here. Somebody with different thoughts is preventing the emergence of the Utopia, and they're probably just being stubborn.
+
+People who don't want to get on board with this, especially when a megalomaniacal man of action have taken control and power - which is totally a weakness of this ideology, because this man of action is always being looked for. That's going to be perceived from within this logic as being against the realization of Utopia, problematic, and in need of elimination/excommunication/marginalization. That's what we see in Cancel Culture, and what we saw under horrific manifestations under people like Stalin and Mao.
+
+This is another thing: these kind of a mentality (Hegelian magic) is wide open to psychopaths and megalomaniacs who think that they have vision, the ruthlessness, and the capacity to decide what the right side of history actually is (it will conform to their pathologies), and the will install a pathocracy (pathological government). They have the ability to usher this in at any cost. This happens again and again under Hegelian frameworks, and it has lead to a catastrophic movement.
+
+Hegel's man of action is meant to come in, in the attempt to fulfill history. History is using him (he doesn't even have his own agency), the man of action, to progress the dialectic and progress history. CRT: "And so the dialectic progresses".
+
+If he fails in his mission to fulfill history, it still fits into the same mold. History still progresess. He doesn't fulfillhistory, but it progresses. So it's easy to get support from the dialectical left who eblieve in this faith, but it leads into mentalities and tropes such as: Real Communism has never been tried. Because every attempt so far was just a case that wasn't real communism - people forwarded some new synthesis tha wasn't the perfectly synthesized idea, and the contradictions in their attempt were revealed to the unfolding process of history - 10s or millions of dead people? Hitler was a result of this. Communism and its failures. Hitler is a rsult of a Hegelian dialectic being taken up as a faith.
+
+So they say real Communism has not been tried because it will only have occurred after the absolute realizes itself, not before. Everything up until that point, whether good or bad, was just the part of the process of making our way there.
+
+Furthermore, all of the mas deaths through these Hegelian rpojects - these people are just martyrs of history. They aren't a tragedy, they're a victory. 100 million dead? History used them to reveal the contradictions and the ideas that were being ported in that age, so they're not really a loss. History used and discarded them, just as it does to Men of Action. The dead are a benefit under this world view. History, under Hegel's historcism, uses people for its purpose and then discards them. It's just a part of the process. The ends justify the means.
+
+As Hegel had it then, the spirit of the time commanded movement, the absolute marches through history by good roads and bad ones. It's all progress, no matter how bad it is.
+
+##### Last Example
+People wouldn't expect another consequence of the Hegelian faith is the Interfaith movement. Another aspect of Hegel's philosophy. The prisca theologia and the philosophia perennis that's after - Interfaith is the attempt to bring all the various faiths and philosophies together and extract from them that which was originally there - that Prisca Theologia, before it became corrupted and worldly. Or to identify within them, the different aspects reflected of the philosophia perennis - the perennial philosophy that all of them are just badly simulating in the simulacran sense of Jean Beaudriard. So for Marx, state atheism and his view of materialism would do, and our present incarnation of this nonsense, which is woke (as with the others before it) a highly refined, mostly non-sensical vision of social justice is something to do with the philosophia perennis. Equity becomes the updated vision of communism under this social justice model. Public-private partnerships become the vehicle, a super-national super-state that replaces the state as nation state.
+
+So we have our Equity Geist, our supernational state in public-private partnerships, and the faith traditions of the world all cheer this on by subverting their own beliefs to the synthetic idea of social justice. The Christians, the Muslims, the Buddhists - and everyone's not preaching their own or talking about their own faith, philosophy or tradition. They're just being used parasitically to forward one faith which is social justice. A socially-just word is the new name for the project that will lead the absolute to realize itself and actualize. This is all still Hegelian metaphysical faith.
+
+I hope I've now established my two big takeaways and we can turn to what we might do with this information.
+
+1. We should understand that the Operating System of the left is, in fact, the Hegelian Dialectic. It comes in different forms and with different focuses largely because the Dialectic applies to itself to concentrate and change it. Hegel's idealism -> Marx's materialism -> Neo Marxists culturalism -> Woke identity politics. In that that sense, what we see is an underlying metaphysics and tool that's ultimately religious and is being driven by this dialectical process which is ultimately alchemical in nature.
+
+Understanding this thing is crucial to understanding what's going on no win the currents of leftist thought. It should be seen as a religious movement.
+
+I've also mentioned the Dialectic with the tool of Aufheben at its core is ultimately what drives this whole thing. Dialectic driven by aufheben - absolish, destroy, undermine. While trying to pull out and let blossom the seed of gold within it.
+
+One thing we can take away from this mentality is that liberals and conservatives in our societies form a natural and sensible allyship for maintaining friendship than do leftists and liberals.  Liberals should be allying with conservatives on the maintenance of a World order that is not this insane Hegelian leftism. Alchemy is not real and you can't build a positive thing out of constant negation.
+
+The west could be said to have 3 Gods, in some broad sense these would be the JudeoChristian God for the Conservatives, a Secularized Spinozan Lachian God for the Liberals, The Hegelian Absolute for the Leftists.
+
+Liberals and Conservatives, in that sense, have something deeply in common whereas the Hegelian leftists deeply different. There is a natural allyship between the liberals and conservatives.
+
+Theologically:
+The 3 Gods of the west. the JudeoChristian God and Jeffersonian Liberal God have a God that is - alpha omega I am the I am. Whereas Leftists have a God that becomes through their activism.
+
+Summarizing that idea again, Liberalsa nd Conservatives with their 2 deities approach the divine with humility - Humble before something bigger than we are which is incomprehensible to us. Leftists don't have this with their Hegelian Deity - the faith is fueled up in praxis, thus they approach the divine with arrogance, as their goal is to brign their own vision into being and make it Lord through their machinations and activism. It's for thi reason that a lot of far-right conservatives identify it with luciferianism or satanism. It's a very arrogant belief to bring about actualization of God through your activism and, compared to the humility of God the Father, or the World as it is beyond and bigger than us, with all that humanity, it's a complete departure.
+
+That's one thing to understand. Ultimately my goal has beent o make clear what's been going on with the Left for the past 200 years - Old Left, New left, Woke Left - which exists in a single current in which Marx is just one species.
+
+Lenin, Stalin, Mao - these are woke precursors. Wokeness is Leninism 4.0. Bio-Leninism - taking a page out of Foucault by saying that when you have scientific technocracy involved where it's bio-something and it's Leninism in being driven through technocratic means - so BioLeninism. These are all threads on the same line of thought. All one religion and it's a religion taht is comprehensible, and it's defeasible when it's understood because it's intrinsically weak - it consistently fails to have the evidence, it doesn't have the argument, and it completely lacks the moral highground once yoyu understand what it is. And faith is ultimtaely the Hegelian Dialectical Faith - which is ultimately alchemical in nature.
+
+# What We Can Do
+To beat the dialectical left requires understanding that it is dialectical and not getting dragged into the dialectic. It seeks to make something out of nothing, so you don't play along with it. You don't go along and believe that you can make something out of nothing or that you can create positive or success out of negation (ridiculous where you have Marcuse arguing that the negative thinking leads to positive). They literally think that the golden era is inside a shell of oppression if we just rip off all the oppression, the golden era will blossom out. So what you have to do as an individual or institution - you have to avoid the dialectic. I did a whole podcast on my other podcast - private contributors only - where I compared it to alligators or crocodiles that drag you into the water and roll you. They throw out a dialectical bid - you need to leran to recognize these and learn to not participate. If you cave in, bend the knee, given in, grant their presuppositions, you try to argue back - they drag you into the mud. Your options, then, are to mock it, if that's appropriate, and to get funny about it. Or to engage their mott and bailey rhetorical strategy - you steal their mott - make the core of their argument, the kernel/truth of their argument better than they can - and then bomb the bailey, which is to say "destroy their activist agenda". You're going to go in and say "ok you're right it turned out there really is a little nugget of Gold, and Im going i'm going to take out the gold for you - that'll be mine - and I'll point out why everything else you have is lead.
+
+Steal the mott, bomb the bailey. Those are the only things you can do. You have to find other modes of engagement, like mockery or this very savvy steal mott bomb bailey, or you have to stand on your principles - a little chauvinism won't hurt too much. Refusing to bend the knee, refusing to participate. Forcing them to play on neutral terms - make them define their terms, etc, so you can stay out of their dialectic word games. Also, you have to learn to start seeing and anticipating their moves and manipulations, which you can do once you understand that they are operating frmom a Dialectical frame and under the belief that they're saving the world by bringing about a Utopia through their actions.
+
+Their negative, aufheben, demolish, deconstruct, disrupt dismantle process cannot create. It can only destroy or spend. Harvard U provides a great example. 40% of its professors are worried that their brand is losing status. 400 year old University has burned through 380 years of excellent, top-grade branding in just a few years by taking all this woke crap on. It really took the last year, where a few people were allowed to grift and a few ideas to get pushed out that will cause it to collapse under its own weight. Communists, NeoMarxists, infiltrate an institution, spend as much as possible, and then burn it to the ground because they don't produce anything. You can't create through a negation process. Aufheben doesn't make. Critical Theory doesn't build. Critical Theory doesn't even understand. It doesn't have to understand, it just has an obligation to aufheben der kulture (tear down).
+
+If you are thinking about participating in an institution that goes woke, don't bet on it. Don't consider taking it up in an effort to maintain career viability or in order to keep up with the trends of the workplace environment. Advancing its interests to grift a little bit and end up burning all your hard-earned credibility. Cocoa Cola had to back off after saying "be less white". The Fed government of the US is a laughing stock for trying to force CRT and Trans stuff. It will burn you to the ground so fast and use you to advance its interests and grift.
+
+Constant negativity in pursuit of the magical emergence of the good or great after all the negative is "destroyed" doesn't create good. Building hte good takes actual work. You have to know what you're doing and be willing to take risks. Good must be built up and then it must be maintained and defended, and the dialectic cannot do this -> it is a process of negating, not building. It can only destroy and spend. Its central article of faith that things will purify.
+
+Its objective is not understanding, it's operational success. Its goal is not to create or build, it is to win to seize power and to foist as much of its agenda on the world before it burns out.
+
+## Closing
+Quote from George Soros in "The Alchemy of Success":
+
+"The scientific method seeks to understand things as they are while alchemy seeks to bring about a desired state of affairs. To put it another way, to primary objective of science is truth, that of alchemy operational success."
+
+A book about finance where he explains how he was able to crash and short the British Pound Sterling. Alchemy is the process. His tool is called reflexivity.
+
+This is the fundamental difference between Hegelian alchemy and liberalism or even conservativsm. The same difference that you see in the Neo-Marxists with Critical Theory vs Traditional Theory.
+
+Traditional Theory seeks to understand things as they are, whereas the Critical Theory seeks to bring about a desired state of affairs. The primary objective of Traditional Theory is truth and that of Critical Theory is Operational Success.
+
+Verstand seeks to understand things as they are, Vernunft seeks to bring about a desired state of affairs. Truth vs Operational Success.
+
+This is the same thing that Marx dragged up in the difference between Vischenschaft and Socialismus. Critical Philosophy - Science seeks to understand things as they are, while Critical Philosophy seeks to bring about a desired state of affairs.
+
+Verstand and Vernunft. Understanding and Reason. The application of a systematic philosophy to perfect the ideas of the world according to his own program and thought.
+
+## The Claim
+The Woke is ultimately a hermetic (Alchemical) religion based in Hegelian philosophy, rooted in the dialectical process, proceeding by the Neo-Marxist objective of aufheben der kultur. We have a 200 year long trajectory of this line of thought stretching back to the Young Hegelians or Hegel. It has caused nothing but calamity everywhere it attempts to obtain power. It's attempting to obtain power through wokeness in the USA today, we should not let that happen. People who identify themselves as Liberal or Conservative should form an alliance to push out these people from positions of power which they abuse and waste.
+
+The roots of a huge reilgious movement that has been going for 200 years. The woke are the most evangelist and puritannical eruption. Many of them are, in fact, coming from a tradition of lapsed calvinism, where puritanism comes out of, with this woke ideology - the new operating system of a Hegelian faith. If you are a Christian, this line of thought is heretical to the Christian faith. You do not believe in a God that is becoming and actualized through the activities of human beings. You believe in a God that is and is transcendant. You don't believe in a Trinity where one part feeds into another and creates a spiral to the Utopia at the end of the world. In a God that created the world, 3 pieces are co-eternal and perfect. Only he knows the hour of the escaton. It's a heresy to believe that you can combine these, but it's a dialectical process to come to believe that it's possible:
+
+Christian faith as it is - bring in CRT as an anthithesis - find a Synthesis. Anything with a Hegelian aspect becomes Hegelian. Heretical frame of Christianity on the basis of CRT or Queer Theory leads to a Hegelian hijacking of the religion.
+
+Society was premised on the fact that rights are granted by the creator - endowed by the creator with inalienable rights, not privileges to be granted by a state to which we are completely subverted. Reject statism and collectivism and defend the values that have made everything work in the west for longer than these centuries of Hegelian religion.

new/Hegel_OS_notes.md

@@ -359,4 +359,21 @@ Hegel -> Y Hegel -> Marxists -> Neo-Marxists -> Black Feminism
 
 ## Corroboration
 - Gramsci: "Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity"
-- Bella Dodd: "Communism is like a religion" without a God. "It is your duty to bring it into every phase of your life, it becomes a part of you, it affects your entire thinking."
+- Bella Dodd: "Communism is like a religion" without a God. "It is your duty to bring it into every phase of your life, it becomes a part of you, it affects your entire thinking."
+- Marx seemingly rejected Hegel's mysticism, but had unrealistic expectations about historicism and consciousness awakening to revolution which imposes socialism and then undoes the state through a dialectic process.
+
+### Intoxicating
+- Marxists.org speaks of thought transforms to a "a vision of harmony that awaits us at the end of the whole process." and calls it intoxicating.
+- Neomarxists/woke abandon the material and seek that vision of harmony through culture
+
+### Folk Faith
+- Hegel was pro-Germany and wanted a folk faith system
+- Prussia as incarnation of Holy Spirit
+- National identity bound to system of metaphysics
+
+### Speculative Idealism
+- Ideas shape society thus refine ideas through speculative process
+- Must reach the Absolute Idea
+
+#### Absolute Idea
+- All stages of logic

new/Iliberal_Verification.md

@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+# Iliberal Verification
+They claim to adhere to democratic processes to come to the right solutions, but it is not a process for discovering and accurately verifying. The process that is used is instead of a process for setting up a system to account for some metric and then having a democratic process insofar that multiple people will consider the means of generating teh metric and deciding what should be done about it. But that is nto the same thing as truly verifying by scrutinizing what system or metric would be most verifiable and then focusing on how to meet the highest standard for verification. That would be an engineering task with unlimited resources and an application which reveals its failures at every iteration. Instead, we the policy-minded who build a career out of public policy are more liable to evaluate the correctness of their proposal based on the number of or ease at which minds are brought to support their cause. Perhaps the ability to use the idea in a debate. It is not that a debate uncovers the most accurate information, however. That, again, would be an engineering task, and it might be something uncovered through a developmental cycle. A debate fills the requirement of having scrutinized something and having a victor chosen or discovered through reputation / response, or just purely by how one feels from the encounter and exchange. It feels progressive, and it is a necessary part of the social order, but it cannot supplant real technical analysis.
+
+# Moving Forward
+It might seem that we disagree on very much, but since we often talk past one another, we never bother to define our terms. In actuality, defining terms is often all that is needed to come to an agreement, as it gives that opportunity for each side to broaden perspective and realize that there is yet more complexity in the matter; at least, that that we suspect that at least our own side doesn't get to have its truy complexity or sophistication revealed.
+
+Ultimately, if we can define our terms, we will likely move the scope and level of analysis and agree that we are both talking about the same haves and have nots, though it would do us well to forego the need to proclaim that concern for the have nots is somehow evidence of one's superior morality or heightened sensibility.
+
+In any case, there is always good reason for being concerned about the have nots, as they form, for better or worse, our environment and our compatriots. Their health extends ours and feeds back into us, protecting us, sustaining us and dictating what sort of barriers exist.
+
+So it is never going to be difficult to establish that we need a better distribution of resources as we do not have the time to be busy busying ourselves with each type of resource. The question is how do we distribute those resources?
+
+Malthusians don't like too much analysis assuming we can improve distribution of resouces.
+
+# Saying No
+We reject their cynicism. There is no reason to expect that things are not improving. We attain our basal metabolic requirements with less effort than ever before. They claim that some have not been privileged, but there are fewer under such circumstances than before.
+
+We reject their distaste for incrementalism. Assuming the disaster monster is afoot with a pace exceeding any incremental change, making us blind from realizing the problem, they come to believe we can be recruited to their cause through the erosion of our way of life and fall into despair. They don't believe in incrementalism because their vocation is one of deconstructing as a means to gain control. Any consequent synthesis is the implementation of ideals, and these take the form of the criticisms more than the structure which needs transformation or repair.
+
+They don't understand that when you research and learn to create something, it all occurs incrementally, or that mos tincrements seem hopeless and pointless until a key increment is incurred. This is how it is realized o reminded that a zero sum and linear path of progress is not self-evident, but is the natural way to view progress in moments where the progress cannot be so easily discerned.
+
+We reject a culture of conformity, particularly one which represents conformity not as an intolerant demand to adopt a practice without question, but instead as whatever can be regarded as normal, usual and expected. And then, without even the slightest pause to feed self-awareness, declares that one must adhere to the masses. The real conformity occurs in the mind. It begins with the realization of having an idea which is at odds with that of the social sphere, and then being compelled to discontinue any material application which extends, maintains or develops or can yield the detection of that idea. A conformity which assumes a moral dimension is traversed on the basis of adherence to uniformity. One which assumes that since it is put forward for the masses, ti is already unqestionable, and that the intent behind any questioning can be presupposed, and that this alone is sufficient to not allot the question any mind.
+
+We reject the belief that any one man or woman can declare that they understand the belief of another, and can use this ascertainment to dictate terms of material and moral consequence.
+
+We reject the suggestion to question one's own declaration of faith and to subject them to an evaluation which rejects the veracity that they believe what they clai. For who can prove that oen truly ever adheres to the testamint of a belief system. What of those who advance and evolve the ideas and sematnics of that system? Are they non-believers? Or is there belief an even deeper expression of that system's ideas, advancing them and strengthening them, or making them into a more viable form to evolve with time.
+
+We reject the notion that a rejection of oen's faith can be used to assert a position of morality, that one might suyggest that they failed to prove taht they believe the approprifate belief or the belief that they claim, or that an aesthetic can be used to qualify whether they sufficiently believe a doctrine, belief system, or acknowledgment of metaphysics.
+
+We reject the notion that we can ascertain the purpose for one's blief, or the purpose for believing a system of belief. Limiting the possible logic and rationale for adhering or participating in abelief system to some parameter or interpretation which best serves another's abilit yto lay judgment upon you.
+
+How do we unearth the better reality from the one we see?
+
+Do we convince them and ourselves that it's even ebtter than ever, or do we loathe and despise until all join up with our discontent and revolt.
+
+Finally, one can rationalize the short sight of all mortal men and forgive it. There is no expectation to serve that which lies beyond, therefore we can all choose to add the degree of flair or depth of style and symbolism that one so esires, but it makes no more difference thant he lightest of dust in the wind, thus no one need hear judgment of the faux holy - or is that something we can never do away with, no matter how deep we conquer? If taht is the doom of the flesh then surely I hope we can each say that they've tried.
+
+And what of the eternal - if matter brings it still? Could I still have my rest? Could I, perhaps, have my essence laid to rest at an even interval - perhaps a modest proposal to return ever million years? Tastes. sights and sounds once more. Let me gander at its greatest delight and if it suits and serves I will decide to stay, bt only until I begin to weep and then I will plan another slumber, perhaps for 2 million. Then things will be improved, and those who only loved will now have time, patience, and most of all - mastery in all things enjoyed but not succumbed.
+
+And then, what do we yearn to resolve? Do we wish to communicate oru disparate understandings? I think that there are minds who expect a good world because they see it being promised to them but that it is more subject to impairment on the basis of bad luck, drama, deplorables, conflicts of entites beyond our control, and so on. That is, they have suffffered much, and they deserve to have a good life brought back to them, so they hope it will be something which is delivered.
+
+For others, they expect that anything being delivered to them will be, at best, a massively deprciated and devaluaed circumstance and, at worse, and most likely, a manipulative trap. They also know that abiding to the status quo will mean that their goals, plans and dreams will be unattainable.
+
+They do believe, however, that something can be done about all of it. it might just be taht everything has to be started from a new more basic instantioant, where the patterns necessitating mutability are more readily observable, and some of the previous pitfalls can be removed and avoided.
+
+How do we begin to understand the personal differences leading to having one form of expectations to the other? Personality, emplyoment? Fmaily beliefs politics age life trajectory?
+
+Are these differnces borne of chance and moemntum? A weathering withint he system? Or is it the fundamental structure of one's being? Their very nature and purpose to contribute an idea as a force of nature? How would we best understand the conception of a balanced system? One in which components of harmony are brougth in as per their purpose, or one wherein the forces ta play etch out components and their properties across time? Our understanding of evolution would suggest an adaptation on the basis of a circumstance, but an understanding of elegant purpose and balance would suggest that there is no difference between instantiated components bearing qualities of design vs their having been wrought into their particular form.
+
+This brings us back to the question of the simulation. Do we exist because there is a simulation, or do simulations exist because of a need for anything to exist at all? The very notion for there to be a state is, in and of itself, the order for a system of explicit forms to be brought into being. It is itself for something to be simulated.
+
+# Delayed Reactions
+
+I suppose it's better late than never. I have long been disappointed at the lack of presence from certain figures, including JP, GS, JR, LF, DM, and on and on. Some of them even virtue signalled about it, which goes to show you just how susceptible we are to the programming. The world's foremost expert on Totalitarianism belief systems and clinical pschology, and he couldn't manage to keep a clear and discerning mind about the whole affair.
+
+But now that they are coming around, parking discussion amongst their fans, and demonstrating to other media personalities that it is appropriate to risk being heard, we might be seeing the beginning of a mass awakening to counter the mass psychosis. What could be a better time than now? Can I blame myself for having been an early skeptic in this whole ordeal? It becomes difficult to understand just how much effort one ust be applying at every possile opportunity, as each mind is thre difference, but there are always more minds, and then still one's own.

new/MindConversionTherapy.md

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+# Mind Conversion Therapy
+January 4, 2022
+
+Wherever you go, the conflict remains the same: There appears a complex phenomenon that you must assess, learn, master and deconstruct before you can have the competence and weight of word to speak, but what you always find is that you are still left working through the same challenges that are instantly and eternally before you.
+
+Do you believe in the mind, or are you falling into material thinking? Is this not the natural conflict of consciousness? Can you have conscious ness without constantly working through this problem? And, if not, what happens to those who believe it doesn't apply to them? Better yet, what of those who believe that they are working through it - are they even more susceptible to unreason and fallacy?
+
+All the Critical disciplines invite material thinking and the suggestion to discredit and disbelieve the mind. Queer Theory wishes for you to choose its preferred identities on the basis that it prevents adopting of an identity it believes to follow or reinforce as a societal norm. Norms are cisheternormative, which reinforce oppressive and violent hierarchies, the existence of which dictates the proposition that you cannot understand the language you use, nor can anyone. This easily inferred moral dimension is established and must be grappled by the theorist with their every social interaction. If someone is supporting oppression, and even unwittingly, it becomes the theorist's job to educate, and help people understand a way forward.
+
+How does this challenge play out with jabs? Belief in mind is what allowed the idea of a vaccine solution to come to fruition, in the form of the offerings we have today. Why not embrace mind by taking advantage of what is being offered?
+Well, if you put it that way...
+
+Is it really so simply? Is not every human action and endeavour the product of an idea originating from a mind? By the same logic, anything should be desired and accepted by virtue of it having begun as an idea.
+
+This proposition still must play out as a proposition to be received by, considered, and decided upon by a mind. It is the reasoning of that mind which must be engaged by another, not a presupposed representation of that mind, or mind as a whole. The assertion is not even necessarily contingent on the utility or safety of that offering. How are we even evaulating the offering? On the basis of whether it harms you at the moment of its administration? Why is that even self-evident? Is that the only predicate for determining whether or not you must unquestioningly provide your body to another entity?
+
+I have always held my attention on the concept of a baseline. The idea that there are moving sets of values bound to a process, and that the perceived behaviours of the variables suggests a change in range of expression both in terms of limitations (lowest low) and the top limit.
+
+# Seeking Trans
+January 7, 2022
+
+Limitations of being are inevitably overcome. We specify all aspects of the flesh, and even the mind itself.
+
+The obvious is mortality and disease. Why is it fair that anyone should suffer cancer? And if, indeed, it is genetic, then what are the implications of such a curse? Is it my failure in some respect for not overcoming my materially determined fate? Is it the mistake of my ancestors which lead to my genetic defects? Why should I, who just came into being by mere chance, have to accept that my future is painful?
+
+If I came into being by chance, and tehre is no God to answer to, then surely there is no consequence and meaning to my actions. The meaning is, in fact, how I feel and how I feel about the life I look back on. I can imagine myself looking back on my whole life - the good and the bad - the shameful and the disgraceful mistakes I made - and then imagine features of a clean state of mind, where there is no real moral consequence except how anyon feels. If I had a successful life, then I look upon it and say "it was a stepping stone to greatness". And for others? Well, if they don't know, then they couldn't possibly feel anything about it.
+
+And why shouldn't I participate in something which contributes to development and discovery? Even if it is for something seemingly arbitrary, or even negative, I can be rest assured, by the seemingly relevant news, that progress only ever moves forward.
+
+# Absolute State
+Matter. All is composed of it, except dark matter/antimatter. What of the void?
+
+What of that perfect vacuum without matter, bceause of it all having been sucked into black holes? That is when we get the cycle of Hawking radiation emitted to the point that a new Universe can begin, possibly at the point of each Black hole, giving us a nice never-ending array of dimensions through which all that is possible can become realized. Is thre an absolute state? Would it come to pass in anyone of these Universes, or is the absolute state the idea that we have every possibly manifestation of being given potential, having its events potentiated, etc. Is the absolute state the form when all matter is concentrated and then BANGS outt into being?
+
+How does the Christian Science mindset follow the Interfaith initiative? How does it begin? Well, they are probably approached, or the Mother Church was, which disseminated the idea outwards. But what of the mind of the practitioner? They attempt to believe that their understanding of reality, or conception of what is to understand reality, is the ultimate one which could all eventually attain. But how is taht different from Hegelian Faith, which suggests history is moving towards the absolute state, and that any seeming disparity is just indication that further synthesis is yet to come? An expectation that one's conception of understanding wins out as an eventuality. Does a Christian Science practitioner see themselves as being able to win? The moral aspect permits one to assume it without realizing it, as they assume ego is in check.
+
+# Christian Science Ego
+They have one of the best organized belief systems with which to sidestep away from angles of observation which would otherwise allow them to note an drealize their ego and bias.
+
+Surely, in a sense, they must be aware of their bias and agree with it, as they are not expecting to ever be in a position wherein they desire to replace their belief system, and thus their entire conception of the world, particularly as a means of ascending one self in a manner independent of the church and Christian Science thought.
+
+Understanding a concept such as Christian Science Ego is worthwhile, because my experience has been that, generally speaking, Christian Scientists tend to have much less ego/ are less dominated by their egos than your average human, but even if you identify the one Chrsitian Scientist who appears to have the least ego of them all, you would be hard-pressed to agree that it is not there. Would such by the case with Jesus? Could any intentional being conduct themselves effectively without ego? If the answer were no, how could we determine the ideal balance? It would remain infinitely complex to determine those cases where just enough ego was present to affect a desirable outcome. And what if more ego always seems to be better, at least as far as success rate for a desired outcome -> would we swallow a bitter sense of ourselves in order to take advantage, or are we already consistently enjoying a maximally-exposed ego with individuals continuously able to increase their capacity for ego -> a scarce resource, particularly when circumstances would suddenly benefit from its inclusion.
+
+# Zee Germans
+It's a German thing. Perhaps it is deply embedded in the culture (der kultur), or is it something genetic (selection)?
+
+Whatever the reason, there appears to be a penchant for strict obedience, rigid order, collectivism, schadenfraude, and the adoption of that intolerant state of mind (often referred to as "tolerance"), which declares "Ah, yes, I know what you wish to say, but you are either attempting to mislead me, or you have already misled yourself. There is no new information of consequence that you can possibly offer me, and your judgment has long passed".
+
+# Told Who So
+January 13, 2022
+
+Many are trying to decide what is now beginning to occur. Is the narrative crumbling, or is it a perfect orchestration? Given the effective division of culture and society, it can easily be any of these things as any narrative can serve the division and manipulation of the populace. The question remains: What does everyone want it to be?
+
+If you are of the mind which must position yourself in the center of culture, then you likely believe the most easily discovered, aesthetically complete depiction of the state of affairs. As the story becomes less believable for some, the narrative must grow in complexity and absurdity in order for it to be maintained. One might think that the increase of complexity produces real risks of its own
+

new/OpeningOurselves.md

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+# We Open Ourselves
+Something is changing. People are looking for answers and becoming dissatisfied with the current narrative. They do, however, keep repeating the narrative. It might be because it's their only way to open up the topic for discussion.
+
+# How Well Do They Know?
+It might be best to understand their decision as being nothing more than a biological reflex. It could just be the only thing that is relevant, current and on their mind.
+
+But such circumstances aside, there must bexist someone with sensemaking abilities who has simply become so intimidated with the topic from a narrow scope of eprception, whose good sense is simply trying to initiate the entry into a new information base. In such an instance, how do we best verify the propensity for acquiring new perspective gracefully?
+
+# Grace and Fear
+There can be a delicate line to tow between these two, if one is to be having a coherent and substantial journey of movement through conceptions fom which one can acquire insight into their own life-circumstance. Too insignificant, an one hasn't need to give serious and attentive thought to the matter. Too consequential, and likely to become catastrophic, and one's own body overwhelms them with angst and confusion. The issue is being honest in the face of delivering what might be seen as bad news.
+
+# Purpose
+Ah, yes, you cannot dwell too far from it. The truth of the matter is that you can never change the past, so the news is already somethign that you are living with. So, rather than understandign what the purpose is, you must realize that the purpose might as well be interpreted through the decision to be purposeful. That is to say, there are always reason as to why one might consider one's conduct and action to affect the world. Given that the world is your environment, one can logically come to ascertain that the health and harmony of the environment bears the capacity to extend our own health.
+
+The next is the reverberation of our actions at more distal frames of perception, but who bear importance to you (such as your future grand children). Surely, being aware of that consciously can help align one towards acquiring new perception within a geuinely open outlook.

new/RyanCole_Steve_Kirsch.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+# Clots
+
+Dr. Ryan Cole pathologist
+Here to talk about blood clots - in particular, embalmers have been reporting clots found in vaccinated patients. Able to tell which patients have the particular form of clot.
+
+Ryan got samples of these blood clots. If you have these clots, is that something that can be lived with?
+
+## Response
+The interesting thing in a lot of these patients, there are blood tests that can be done in the lab which say "there's a clot present" - pulmonologists will often check for larger clots, and come up with nothing. Where are they clotting? Well is it microclots?
+Ryan Cole says he sees it in the skin. Spoke with a GI pathologist, who said he was seeing lots of microclots in the biopsies.
+
+You can live with microclots and even medium-sized clots - at least for a while. You can live with a clot, but the tissues around it or upstream can become compromised, because they don't receive adequate oxygen.
+
+The clot keeps on coming forming in that it causes a snowballing effect. Anchored to the wall of the vessel and it begins as a flappy valve, but eventually blocks off.
+
+## Tissue Samples
+Morticians will normally put a dissolving agent in to make it easier to work around the clots.
+First heard reports a few months back.
+
+`But they've been around for a year or more, why are we only hearing these reports now?
+
+Fear factory. Morticians might not have been wanting to speak up, but it might also be that they didn't see the large clots until the 2nd shot, or the boosters.
+
+Stanford study shows that the mRNA persists for a long time in the lymph nodes and can still generate spike.
+
+## Clotting pathway
+Normally you have a waterfall of factors triggering in order for a clot to form. But with the spike protein, and check the paper from a few weeks ago from Dr. Patorius from South Africa - she measures the elasticity of platelets - flow studies within tubes of normal blood, which will form a little clot on the side wall - but when they put spike protein in, abnormal clots began to form. But she found that plasma with no platelets, but was able to cause clots with the spike protein.
+
+Rather than only having clots forming from platelets + thrombin + fibrin + fibrinogen => patelet and fibrin clot. But in this case, just plasma and spike caused the fibrin to lattice together without platelets.
+
+## Confidence level that this is caused by the vaccine?
+80-90% confidence, based on the papers that have come across thus far and the mechanisms explained by them.
+
+## What Causes the Clots?
+There are plenty of conditions, infections, bacteria, disseminated intravascular coagulation. Lots of infections can trigger clotting processes. But a septic infection leading to clotting is somewhat rare. But 2-3 foot long clots, are not something that you see.
+
+We have no theory as to what else could be causing these sorts of clots. It must be from the spike protein.
+
+## Slides
+Instant clumping from the vaccine stops the movement in the samples.
+
+Normal clots look like a few cells being trapped in stained samples with little blue cells trapped in the clot.
+
+These clots have a much higher concentration of trapped cells and the cells themselves seem to be expressing factors which clump protein as well. The body doesn't break these down as easily as it does normal clots, because the spike can bypass many of the steps involved in a normal clot.

new/Threats.md

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+# Threats
+Just as has been the norm for years with the woke movement, everything begins with pre-empted threats - one after the next, and always with a thin veil of plausible deniability (Just enough so that those who share the ideology will stay apathetic and claim to notice nothing).
+
+From demanding uniform opinion on trivial nosense lest ye be called a racist or sexist, inviting challenge and violence from dark corners of the community. Now our leaders, against the expectations and sense one might derive from understanding of immunolology (infectious), repeat precast expressions of loathing and othering as they tell us we will be dead if we don't obey and permit entry into our bodies and our minds. All the while, those who have been compliant, particular those with just an interest in bringing about collectivism to see through their  own plans, echo the threat of deaths and are all too willing to judge you as an unloving, uncaring, incompetent danger to yourself and others.
+
+They couldn't be bothered to speak of your concerns with any good faith, but they see an opportunity for you to emonstrate that you are ready to comply for the benefit of their projects, and that you have failed it because of your incompatibility to their belief, their focus for today and their grand plans for the future. In fact, your failure to demonstrate compatibility is a failure to demonstrate humanity.
+