latest

new/Alternate_Reality.md

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+# Alternate Reality
+Is it really just the case that one wishes to prevent someone from pushing the boundaries of what is normal, acceptable, and even true? That would be the first assumption, based purely on the fact of showing resistance to any proposal.
+
+Is it a proposal for me, or for you? Is it really for something new? What of helping others?
+
+## Useless Eaters
+
+A: The useless eaters are at it again. Not listening to instructions from their betters, those who are the only ones observant and intelligent enough to really see what the challenges are, and how we must all work to overcome them.
+
+B: But the challenges must be self-evident. For if they are not, then any demand on our resources for your solution is, in fact, attempted theft. The fact of increasing any type of risk as a consequence of your prescribed solutions is  a form of violence.
+
+The fact of it having been remarked when observed before is enough to make it signify that one hasn't a sane mind if they are too allow it again.
+
+A: No one is demanding, they are simply letting you know what choices you have available to you. You should feel fortunate that you have access to cloud computing, medical advice at the drop of a hat, and wonderful vaccines that work.
+
+```
+Really work? Unfortunately, those who support them are, in many cases, perfectly happy to accept temporary solutions that wane, as they:
+- are used to the flu vaccine
+- feel high anxiety about covid
+- see an opportunity for activism
+```

new/Being_Right.md

@@ -0,0 +1,115 @@
+# Being Right
+We all have a desire to be right, as this greatly simplifies the perceptual frame, allowing us to enjoy reduced anxiety, more permissibile focus and facilitated entry into flow states - necessary to make necessary progress towards our goals (the increased complexity from suspecting or realizing that our assumptions are wrong lead to a necessary remapping of our frame and environment wherein the potential for dangers and proportion of unexplored territory increase).
+
+With this in mind, it's important to be deliberate in continuously referencing this predisposition towards bias, which cannot be consolidated with title or confirmation of asserted belief as fact - these mechanisms are important for deducing correctness of assertions, but they do not rectify one's biases and instead, on the contrary, confirm one's belief which reinforces them.
+
+How does this phenomenon present itself in the COVID era? Well, first, we acknowledge that the narrative and most everyone's opinion was initially that we knew very little about the newly found the threat, did not know precisely how or when it would be solved, and did not understand precisely how it would affect each of us, personally. There was a period of mass agreement where we accepted that our reality could drastically change, and that we were prepared to cooperate in order to yield the greatest potential for:
+- survival
+- maintained rate of progress
+- maintained expectations of eventual future outcome
+
+This rapidly changed, however, as we began to be told that the demands placed on each of us, as members of society, must continue to increase. For some, the demands lead to immediate negative impact on survivability. And for others, such impacts might have been abstracted such as to be less clearly deducible. For yet others, th perception may have been exactly the opposite - an increased lkelihood of survival and success (economic, personal, social, etc).
+
+It is fairly obvious how restrictions in society might lead to negative impacts on survivability, but the issue here is that this obvious aspect  of the circumstance means that anyone can proclaim that this is how they are affected, and it is perfectly believable. But how are people affected in the opposite?
+
+Increased survivability and improved social/economic success are actually extremely common attributes in the COVID era, regardless of the threat of disease, and particularly if we focus on perception rather than absolute long term impact, which is very much incomputible.
+
+### 1. Job Security
+In many circumstances, someone's expectation of job security may have actually increased. If one performed a role in systematic distribution of resources for a state entity, or a large organization that is expected to mitiate the effects of SARS-CoV2, then the value of tehir position would have increased.
+
+### 2. Comfort
+If the experienced level of comfort were to have changed such that particular stresses or inconvenience might have been reduced, then this would easily be perfeived as improved survivability
+
+### 3. Free Money
+Nothing affects one's sense of personal freedom quite like the utility of currency, as it can directly yield precisely whatever material resource befits the context of any individual.
+
+### 4. Boundaries of Reality
+The effect of the COVID measures certainly affects people's perception of the boundaries of reality, for it was obvious that productive efficiency was expected to reduce and the narrative alway maintains that this loss of productivity can be recovered from, indicating a sufficient degree of redundancy and resilience in our corresponding systems.
+
+### 5. Fantasy
+The perception of universal change is inherent in any global phenomenon, and, thus, it gives opportunity to ENVISION, or at least suspect that what might have previously been impossible could now have become possible. This includes everything from small achievements or enablements which could present themselves without any required action of one's own, to more extravant or extraordinary and mystical events being more likely to occur in our new version of reality.
+
+## Being Right about Society-level Medical Mandates
+It takes a special level of concern or threat in order to even present the proposition that human freedom be reduced.
+
+*The debate of freedom to do "as we please" vs freedom "to be safe" is rather silly in any but the most extreme circumstances, because if there is any general contention as to the general significance of the threat, then you are effectively also making a case for reducing the threshold for loss of human freedom in exchange for safety, and you should be prepared to argue for the logical conclusion of such a standard*
+
+If, indeed, the proposed action is a good one, it should be made self-evident.
+
+For all those who agree with it, or at least offered the least resistance to it, it was evident-enough. Given that there is a significant proportion of them, they will automatically serve as evidence to convince more, as their experience should prove the success of the therapy. This does not mean that they have not died, but rather that they thrive at the levels seen before, that they navigate the worst seasons and that th product has a sufficient period of action. Allowing for this doesn't only prove something is safe and effective, but also proves the intent for which something is being pursued.
+
+The other aspect of this might be those who don't expect themselves or anyone else to be thriving. They see a demand for sacrifice and have interpreted it as a means to demonstrate their virtue. They have seen their own worldview presented in the proposed demand, and all who respect that view must oblige, for refusal is a moral failure as per that world view - a failure which harms universally, systemically and the nature of humanity itself.
+
+Once such baggage and expectation has been bound to a proposal which invites authority into the very bodies and minds of individuals, it becomes a demand to validate one's existence. It becomes necessary to demonstrate a proof that one is worthy of existing, as it is no longer sufficient to simply not observe or record a forbidden action from the person in question. Their very existence is now forbidden, and a judge and jury await the inputs necessary to make a condemnation over that person. Validate yourself through prescried action or own up to your disgraceful nature of being.
+
+You would be hard-pressed to find any reasonable case of inaction which can be rogorously agreed upon as being unethical. A good candidate would be inaction whil ebearing witness to deliberate actions of others which cause direct harm to others, such as being bystandarder to the rape and murder of a woman in public, or being a bystandard to crimes against humanity in the form of officials committing and compelling genocide during a period of tyrannical rule. In all such cases, the inaction can be rationalized as being a reluctance to act for fear of harm to one's person. But what of inaction in the face of the threat of infectious disease?
+
+And here is really the crux of the argument. Though, to be fair, if a right is universal then it should make no difference, but let us examine it anyway.
+
+The case of inaction with respect to infectious disease proposes that there is an infectious agent:
+1. whose transmission is more likely to occur if you are not vaccinated
+2. whose severity of disease is extraordinary and
+3. whose preventative vaccine is safe and effective
+
+### 1. More likely to be transmitted
+
+Some reports show that severe disease/hospitalization/death are higher in unvaccinated, and this might be true for certain cohorts in certain localities, but it only concerns itself with a shallow temporal range. We have not used the vaccine for long enough to understand:
+- The effect of mass vaccination on selection of more infectious variants
+- If the use of short-acting antibody production targetting a narrow antigenic range might result in reduced immunity in general over longer time scales
+
+It also ignores many other factors, such as if the eradication of pre-existing immunity in the convalescent might mean net-reduction in SARS-CoV2 immunity (and observational/reinfection data suggest this), and what happens when you lose the virus sinks from the community?
+
+### Virus Sinks
+If the virus is still replicating in the vaccinated, who supposdly don't get as many symptoms from it, then:
+1. The only virus that is replicating is a virus that is evading the Ab which have been produced in those bodies
+2. Is a virus that will only stop replicating in an unvaccinated host. Such a host would have to kill the virus off, as they would experience more severe symptoms otherwise.
+
+Now, if we actually look at the data and take it at face value, and recognize that this is just epidemiological data, and not hard data showing immunological assay with expanded T-cell differentiation, or full range of innate and adaptive immunity, then we see that the vaccine does not do a better job than no treatment in those cohorts who are most in need of being protected. Furthermore, we see it allegedly working best in those cohorts for whom it is least necessary. This is all without having yet looked at the data classification itself.
+
+### Data Classification Standards
+What do we mean by data classification standards?
+- Generating of input data
+- Qualification of emergency status
+- Classification of Health Events which transpire
+
+#### 1. Generation of Input Data
+This is perhaps the simplest to begin examining, because you need to simply ask people if they previously would have taken an RT-PCR test in the past when they had no symptoms of disease, and the answer will almost certainly be no. The other question to ask is if the deceased loved ones who died for reasons associated with their known morbidity, such as cancer, were examined for respiratory pathogens post-mortem, or if it ever was an issue consolidated at the final phase of their life. The vast majority will not have had the experience that their sick parent was consistently being tested for RSV or Influenza towards the end of their life, thus we can reason that their deaths were less likely to be contributing to a respiratory death statistic.
+
+We can easily conclude that the generation of input data is based on newly implemented mechanisms that have been adopted at a global scale, and knowing this, we shouldn't disregard the complications which might result from assuming this is a drop-in replacement for previous standards.
+
+#### 2. Qualification of Emergency Status
+This is a very simple distinction. A global pandemic can now be declared regardless of the number of dead. Observing evidence that a pathogen is spreading is now enough, and for that reason, we should assume that it could always be a pandemic, even if the threat level is unremarkable compared to periods before the declaration was made.
+
+Some might find this to be a welcome change. That is, why should we not have a more sensitive threshold to bring us into action? It is more proactive and serves to yield a preventative benefit for, in this case, reducing prevalence and severity of disease.
+
+If we are to follow the logic that we can always be in a state of emergency, because there are always microorganisms which can infect humans, then it might be better to argue fro particular constraints on humans as a whole, lest the qualifier become redundant.
+
+The question becomes, then: How did you tolerate the threat of disease before? Were you wrought with peril? Were you constantly agitated that our existence was constantly contending with the threat on every surface you touch? Likely not. It is far more likely that you became convinced that the current threat is so remarkable that you wanted something to be done about it, and that this was not a conclusion that was reached through a democratic process, but something that we were forced to accept under, presumptively, an extraordinary circumstance.
+
+If that is so, then it makes sense to be clear about the fact of one's fear, and to recognize that fear is the enemy of reason. It is also worth understanding that fear changes everything, and that you might not be aware of the extent of its effects.
+
+Then we must ask again - is this an imposition on others to your benefit? Did you feel fear of a threat and does the thought of limiting the movement and activity of those persons you believe most likely to spread disease case you a reduction of anxiety? Because if it does, you should be sure to understand exactly how much safer it really makes you, or even what your definition of safety is.
+
+It has been, quite frankly, the Netflix pandemic. Partly because so much of how we are programmed to feel comes through the cues derived from our media, and partly because it has allowed so many to dramatize their concept of their life at this time. It should at least be acknowledged that, generally speaking (and on the broadest scale), we have been made to have our fear and perception of threat maximized, if even just by the media's need for clicks and hours viewed, and the ease at which it is made available to us.
+
+### Classification
+There are so very many aspects of classification to elucidate. Perfect definitions seldom exist, but we can always find better definitions for things, so long as we are willing to think critically as to how terms are being used and whether they fulfill our specific needs.
+
+So what classifications/definitions are we talking about with respect to SARS-CoV-2?
+
+Cases, fully/partially vaccinated, un-vaccinated, risk, evidence, deaths, emergency, capacity, variants, vaccine, experimental. We need to know what these mean and how they are talked about today (or how the way in which they are talked about has changed).
+
+#### 1. Cases
+When you talk about disease and you think of a case, what do you envision? You envision a person suffering from that disease. How do they suffer? Symptoms!. They suffer physically deducible effects. And though many discussions are to be had about the symptoms that are being experienced and why, the fact of the matter is that cases have not been qualified through symptoms, particularly not through a medical diagnostic assessment that clearly determines case of disease and quantifies the presence of the virus, its reproducivity, and its virulence. We quantify, yes, but through a crude extrapolation from PCR cycle thresholds.
+
+Some might argue that if the cases are being diluted, that the actual severity of disease must then, in fact, be higher than what is being presented, but I would suggest that there are two problems with this line of reasoning:
+- The first is that the fact of mild, asymptomatic or perhaps not-infected false positives diluting is not self evident. That someone presents without symptoms or infections does not necessarily mean that there was no case. They may have very well had their unremarkable case. And what of all the others who might not have had symptoms to remark as well? We are hard-pressed to call them all one or the other. Seroprevalence also gives us a means of estimating actual infection, but even this is not comprehensive.
+- The second is that we are given a simple means of incrementing the covid deaths through non-covid channels.
+
+This leads to scenarios such as apublic health organization declaring "disease of the unaccinated", and another onlooker bringing up conflicting epidemiological assessments from other localities.
+
+"But different countries, states, cities and organizations might have different preferred standards, particularly during a real pandemic to which we are not accustomed -> we are doing great, considering the circumstances!"
+
+Well, actually, that is the entire point of the criticism. We are defining the fundamental process by which we detrmine whether it is, in fact, a pandemic, which assumes we all agree that we wish to be data-driven, but which has no absolute typing system for the data upon which our computation sare being performed.
+
+What does this lead to? Increased dynamic ranges, increased variability, increased degree of counfounding influence, undefined behaviour, and essentially anything which relates to an increased proportion of incomputability in our equations. To place the fate of the greatest number of people on a new behaviour with a lower standard of acuity is something which may never be completely understood, but that is part of the reason this book, and others, are being written.

new/Beliefs.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+# Beliefs
+
+We believe we are bearing witness, because it is self-evident by simply having an experience (any, whatsoever). What we do about this is complicated in the moment because of our senses. We attempt to make sense of th eframe of perception and use the understanding derived, or hope of it, to conceptualize what a more ideal expression of reality would be perceived as, and how to transition to a state where such an expression would occur.
+
+The process is abstract, and anyone might have the most unique conception or representation of the paths that would lead there, but most would agree that they are familiar with the experience of conceptualizing a better state, and it should be, thus, considered normal for humans to experience this.
+
+What else do we know about the human experience which could be expected to be shared by all humans? The basic physical premise that we experience creates a universal framework for material transformation, but it also creates a language for all concepts, which we tend to refer to mathematically.
+
+Ultimately, each human is seeking to acknowledge existence and make it understood that their unique expression has been witnessed. In doing so, they come to believe that existence was worth it. There is no alternative, as it is only through an empathetic understanding that they feel recognized. A computer wouldn't suffice, and other organisms likely cannot communicate at a capacity which makes it seem convincing that there is independent consciousness. For if there is to be independent consciousness, we want to know that it's for experiencing and learning, and not suffering through punishment.

new/Burden_on_self.md

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+Not the writing that I had hoped, but it becomes challenging to let any struggle go. They all seem to feed into one another, and you can never be sure if it is yet perfectly executed, thus it needs a minimum degree of functionality or else it seems like failure.
+
+So what of groups? Do they exist? I think not. They will never guarantee that you can be certain you are part of one. For, you see, anyone and no one can claim to speak on this behalf, and you can never verify the authenticity of word that you have maintained your requirements.
+
+Within an individual, however, you can always hear it from the only authority, and you are kept updated in real time. In fact, there needn't be knowledge of any group in order for your status to be communicated and transacted upon.
+
+They think we are nothing but a burden, but we can be this burden two-fold. Most obvious is our resource utilization. They can never be sure that we use resources as we "should", and just that how is precisely what those elites busy themselves within to quantify their won contribution.
+
+But forther to that, we are the burden of self-realization, for we realize without any intervention, and even still, with information. But then also, they realize they haven't become what we have, or what we will become.
+
+# Hate
+
+Why the hate? Why must knowledge of one cause hate of the self? It is really not necessary.

new/CDC_Natural_imunity_Dand.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+# Prior covid protection more protective than vaccination during Delta Surge
+
+Natural immunity more potent than vaccines during US Delta wave.
+
+- People who had previously been infected with COVID-19 had better protection, a more potent shield than vaccines
+- Protection highest among people who were both vaccinated
+
+Tremendous shame that natural immunity has become a taboo topic.
+Binary thinking - if you even mention the term natural immunity, you are against a vaccination program. Ludicrous.

new/CRT_is_Marxism.md

@@ -0,0 +1,285 @@
+# Intersectionality
+
+## Famous Credited Origin
+1989 Kimberly Crenshaw - Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex (?)
+- Argues that industries like general motors are able discriminate against black women, because they hire black men for the garage and white women for the office
+- Race-based discrimination is not revealed, in spite of its prevalence, same for Sex-based discrimination
+- Discrimination loop-hole, which might actually deserve some scrutiny
+
+### Additional factors that black women face:
+- All stereotypes of being black
+- all stereotypes of being a woman
+- additional stereotypes of being a black woman
+- Can't know how they're specifically being discriminated
+
+This is the birth place of intersectionality - You know
+
+
+## Marcuse
+Spoke of the need to seek liberation through the use of the ghetto population
+
+## Black Feminism
+Feminist coopted offshoot of black liberationism
+Accused feminists of being "White" feminists:
+- Racially tone-deaf / racist
+- Black liberation movement is masculinists
+
+Pre-existing liberation movements always go after big picture, which marginalizes those with multiple oppressed identities
+
+Self-reflexively turn back against the movements in which they are embedded in order to get them to pay attention to a minority-within-a-minority movement.
+
+## Master-Slave Dialectic
+The people in the slave position within the slave-dialectic have to use tools outside of what the master considers acceptable in order to dismantle an oppressive system.
+Nietzsche: Geneology of Morals (subversion tactics)
+
+Hegel wasn't thinking of himself as a revolutionary, was trying to be a philosophical student of history. Didn't want to agitate, believed they would naturally occur. Marx wanted to create revolutions.
+
+Awakening the class consciousness - lower class should break free of the chains of the existing system.
+
+## Critical Theory
+Mark Horkheimer
+Critical Theory is Critical Marxism
+Marx didn't understand that the terms of the ideal society cannot be articulated within the terms of the existing society.
+Adorno put it:
+- There is no way to cast a positive image of the Utopia. You have to get outside it completely.
+
+Awaken a Critical Consciousness that makes you understand that the existing society is brainwashing you into your own oppression.
+Through realizing this, you realize the alternatives (Utopian possibilities that have )
+
+## Combahee River Collective Statement 1977
+First major collective of the black feminist movement.
+Audry Lord was a prominent member.
+First convened in 1974.
+Put out their manifesto in 1977
+Precedes everything else by at least a decade. Kimberle Crenshaw woudl have been very much away of this statement and the thought occurrence
+Rise of Identity Marxism Lead to Intersectionality. Right in the middle was this statement.
+
+### Collectivists
+Voluntary community where everyone has strict codes they uphold and work together in favour of the collective over the individual.
+Collective of Black Feminists doing political work. Actively committed to struggling against racial, sexual, heterosexual adn class oppression. Their task is the development of an integrated analysis and practice based on the fact that the major systems of oppression are interlocking.
+
+Theory and Praxis are inseparable: Practice in Theory from marxist.org:
+Practice differs from activity in general because practice is inseparable from theory, which gives its means and end.
+
+## Practice and Theory
+*Activity includes unthinking is inclusive of its mental theoretical or ideological aspects. Ideological or mental aspects can be abstracted from practice only relatively The contrast between theory and practice is always only a conditional and relative one. Practice is active rather than being a passive observation, and it is directed towards changing something. Practice differs from activity in general because practice is inseparable from theory (which gives its means and end). Activity includes unthinking reflexes. Practice is only enacted through theory, and theory is formulated based on practice. Whenever separated, they fall into a distorted one-sidedness. Theory and practice can only fully develop in connection with one another.*
+- Human activity is always purposeful, but in early stages before the development o fthe division of labour, there was no separation between Theory and Practice
+- Goal of reunification of theory and practice. Return to a perfect unison.
+- Marxist thought in general seeks a wedding of theory and practice
+
+Combahee Collective understand this - they are Marxists. Their choice of words is deliberate. Neo-marxists taking up Identity Politics to understand the multiple forms of oppression so that these issues can be approached in a Marxist way. Identity Factors - integrated analysis systems of oppressions are interlocking.
+
+Intersectionality, from its birthplace, is in fact a Marxist practice.
+
+"Intersectionality is not so much a theory as it is a practice" - Crenshaw
+
+Not a totalizing theory of identity, it is a practice. Telling you she is a Marxist.
+
+### Identity Politics
+1950s - 65 / 68 Luther King murder
+Civil Rights movement
+Then in 1977 the Combahee River Collective naming Identity Politics in the context of being Marxist Intersectionalists.
+
+Dialectical thought engine of Leftist thought - is Dialectical. Pause upon this. Thesis - antithesis - Synthesis. The different oppressions are in contradiction to one another. Race-based, sex-based, class-based. There are tensions between them. Is it racism or poverty causing problems for a particular community? This forms a contradiction. The problem is poverty? No it's race. It's sexism? No it's racism. Synthesis of oppressions to create a synthetic hyper-oppression that everyone can shoe themselves into. It starts with class, then race, sex, heterosexual aspects, fat status, ability status, mental health. Integrating into this synthetic blob of identity-based oppression. The biggest, most egregious example of this is the AAPI
+
+#### AAPI
+Meaningful politics of identity that's made up of the many voices of millions rather than the individual voices of a few, because this produces coalition politics.
+One of the most racist conglomerations.
+Asian-American Native-Hawaiian Pacific Islander. Slant-eyed people? Yellow skin people? Super racist.
+
+These are distinct groups, but Asian-American brings in a huge vast array of people, and in some cases even in Indians. You slam them together with pacific islanders and native hawaiians and create a giant coalition of people who are not one culture, based on: similar skin tones and similar eye shape. That's it. Fucking racist as hell.
+
+Synthesis of oppressions to create synthetic identity coalitions that can be used for "meaningful politics of identity". This is a marxist front to use these identity categoies and the people within them that they can agitate to do work for them o they can have a revoultion.
+
+"This synthesis of these oppressions creates the condition of our lives"
+
+Harkening into the structural determinism argument. The matrix of domination (Patricia Hill Collins) are woven together and this neo-marxist kaleidoscopic mishmash ensues. These conditions are material and cultural and  psychic conditions that are morally determinant for them. It makes them who they are - they couldn't possibly be anything else. They couldn't have individual thoughts, because they have all of these identity categories and the oppression that comes with them imposed on them from the outside, which can't be avoided.
+
+
+Marxian class-conflict analysis. No longer using economic class as the basis, but instead this synthesized cobbling together of economic class plus other identity factors which eclipse in importance the economic class. This is very visible today, when you look at INtersectional Activism and the rich white women that are involved with int.
+
+"As black women, we see black feminism as the logical pollitical movement to combat the manifold and simultaneous oppressions that all women of colour face."
+
+That was just the first paragraph. This is the birthplace of intersectionality - it's obvious - you can hear the Marxian and Hegelian undertones. THe synthetic religion of the left, and the purpose to create a meaningful politics of identity that can create identity coalitions that are synthetic. Not fake, but synthetic - an unreal thing. Cobbled together for the purpose of doing this. Maybe you dont' believe that this is Marxist, but we'll get there - don't worry.
+
+They go on to say:
+
+"We discuss 4 major topics in the paper that follows, 1. the Genesis of contemporary black feminism, 2. that we believe it is the specific province of our politics 3. The problems in organizing black feminists and 4. Black feminist issues and practice."
+
+"1. The genesis of contemporary black feminism: Before looking at the recent development of black feminism, we would like to affirm that we find our origins in the historical reality of afro-American women's continuous life and death struggle for survival and liberation.'
+
+THe same hypoerbole we see in the black lives matter movement, which is basically this in 2021 version - 2013 to 2021. You hear it right there. Continuous life and death struggle for survival and liberation. The communists think you're not really surviving unless you're in a communist Utopia. Liberation is the key - this is the Marcusian neo-marxist essay on liberation agenda being foisted into the black liberation and feminist movements and then being cobbled together into this synthetic thing calle dBlack Feminism that spawned intersectionality.
+
+"Black women's extremely negative relationship to the american political system (of white MAle Rule) has always been determined by our membership in two oppressed racial and sexual castes (Kimberly Crenshaw just ripped this stuff off)."
+
+### Angela Davis
+*Crazy radical involved in kidnapping at shotgun point a federal judge, and openly support the Koolaid Jim Jones who was actually a communist - she gave statement by radio in complete solidarity with JIm Jones, when he was in Guyana. She was the black feminist protege of Herbert Marcuse, who was her PhD doctoral thesis, and whom she said radicalized her for the first of two iterations of her full radicalization - the rest of it happening when she visited Palestine. She is still active today, supported Biden even.*
+
+Ibram Kendi wrote in Stamped from the Beginning - the definitive history of racism? From Kendi? Absurdly long book +500 pages - 100 of those pages are dedicated to Angela Davis. She is one of 5 characters that Kendi sets aside as the definitive history of racism. CRT Intersectionality agenda rooted in Marcuse.
+
+"As Angela Davis points out, in Reflections on the Black Women's role in the communiy of slaves, black women have always embodied, if only in their physical manifestation, an adversary stance to white-male rule and have actively resisted its inroads upon them and their communities in both dramatic and subtle ways. There have alway sbeen black women activists, some known like Harriet Tubman, Francis Z W Harper, Ida B Wells Barnett, Mary Church Terell. And thousands upon thousands unknown who have had a shared awareness of how their sexual identity combined with their racial identity to make their whole life situation and the focus o their political struggles unique. Contemporary black feminism is the outgrowth of countless generations of personal sacrifice, militancy and work by our mothers and sisters."
+
+So, you can see them trying to tie themselves into this very long history. When you start talking about Harriet Tubman, you're actually looking back into the situation of slavery still happening, definitely still a more patriachal society, as though those conditions are a meaningful reflection of what was going on in 1977 when this was written.
+
+"A black feminist presence has evolved most obviously in connection with the second wave of the american women's movement, beginning in the late 1960s"
+
+We'd call it second wave feminism, though intersectional thought, because of things like black feminism, doesn't like what they call the linear wave model. The first wave, the second wave, etc now maybe the fourth wave. They don't like that. They like it to be more complicated so they have a place for themselves.
+
+"Black other third world and working women have been involved with the feminist movement from its start, but both outside reactionary forces and racism and elitism within the movement itself have served to obscure our participation (Marcuse?). In 1973, Black feminists primarily located in New York, felt the necessity of forming a separate black feminist group. This became the national black feminist organization (NBFO). Black Feminist politics also have an obvious connection to movements for black liberation, particularly those of the 1960s/70s. Many of us were active in those movements - civil rights, black nationalism, the black panthers - and all of our lives were greatly affected and changed by their ideologies, their goals and the tactics used to achieve their goals. It was experience and disillusionment with these liberation movements, as well as the experience on the periphery of the white male left that led to the need to deveop a politics that was antiracist, unlike those of white women and anti sexist, unlike those of black and white men."
+
+Fast forward to 1991, Kimberle crenshaw's Mapping the Margins, and you hear the same thing. Ripoff!
+
+"There's also undeniable a personal genesis for black feminism that is the politicsl realization that comes from the seemignly personal experiences of individual black womens' lives. Black Feminists and many more black women who do not definet hemselves as feminist have all experienced sexual oppression as a constant factor in our day to day existence. As children we realized that we were different from boys, and we were treated differently. For example, we were told in the same breath to be quiet, both for th sake of being ladylike, and to make us less objectionable in the eyes of white people. As we became older we became aware of the threat of physical and sexual abuse by men, however we had no way of conceptualizing what was so apparent to us - what we knew was really happening."
+
+Written in 1977 by adults, so let's assume they're actually, in most cases about 20 or older. We go backwards to their childhood, born around 1955 to 1960 - if they're that age when writing this. So they were, as children, being told to be quiet, still in segregation. Still under Jim Crow. So to make this less objectionable in the eyes of white people, where that was a relevant thing. They're speaking up was necessary for the civil rights and all of us who are sane and reasonable today accept that that was a necessity, but you can see how the conditions that were there formed a situation in their heads that has gone on many years later, when that's not necessarily the same situation, to cause them to be angry and act in particular ways that maybe no longer apply in the decade following teh civil rights movement, and its success. We had no way of conceptualizing what was so apparent - we had no vocabulary to explain our oppression - that's not true, the civil rights movement did a good job of doing that. MArxism came in and coopted ahd gave them (and this is how so many get radicalized into this) a vocabulary that exaggerates and agitates them to take up a very radical politics when all they were really looking for was a way of articulating certain things that they felt, and then that double-meaning game that the Marxists play is very influential and tends to coopt and radicalize people.
+
+"Black feminists often talk about their feelings of craziness before becoming conscious of the concepts of sexual politics, patriarchal rule, and most importantly feminism. The political analysis and practice that we women used to struggle against our oppression. The fact that racial politics and indeed racism are pervasive factors in our lives did not allow us and still does not allow most black women to look more deeply into our own experiences and from that sharing and growing consciousness to build a politics that will change ourlives and inevitably end our oppression. Our development must also be tied to the contemporary economic an political position of black people. The post-war generation of Black youth was the first to be able to minimally partake of certain educational and employment options previously closed completed to black people. Although our economic position is still at the very bottom fo the American capitalistic economy, a handful of us have been able to gain certain tools as a result of tokenism in education, in employment which potentially enable us to more effectively fight our oppression.
+
+## Hating and benefitting from Capitalism
+Black people are finally able to make a way in, and so our economic position at this point was still at the bottom of the bottom of the "American Capitalistm Economy". Marxist term gets thrown in as an extra nugget to locate the problem, not on the basis of reality, because capitalism would ensure that these people, in 1977, would be able to own and make use of their own property to build their own brand and build themselves to a position of success, but they're blaming capitalism for their problem because they embraced Marxist nonsense. Seduced. They say only a handful of us have been able to gain certain tools. And how? seduced and alienated through this language -> tokenism. They admitted they didn't have this ability before civil rights, before WWII, they had no opportunity to stand up. In a true white supremacist systematically racist society, they would be told to remain quiet. They're indighting the thing that allows them to get "certain" tools - they don't have full access to society - as a result of Tokenism in education and employment. "Tokenism". That's a term of alienation and agitation.
+The only reason that black women are being hired in 1977 is for Tokenistic purposes. Whereas, you know, it's nothing about merit - it's so funny because if you read Shelby Steele's White Guilt you can see how this is the dynamic the Marxists were exploiting - twisting people like University Professors, etc. Shelby's reveals this in the beginning of White Guilt - he was involved in - but no, it's tokenism. They're twiting people to help them, rather than working toward building their capitalist foundation, because they hate capitalism and hav eto blame something outside of themselves, they say people are tokenistic. This is why, in 1982, Derrick Bell (considered the father of CRT) can write "Faces at the Bottom of the Well: The permanence of racism". Black faces are the faces at the bottom of the well - Black people are still at the lowest point in American society, because they're held down by a racist society. But, then, certain tokenistic people, like Oprah Winfrey, Will Smith, Arsenio Hall, Michael Jordan, Michael Jackson - all of these are just tokens. This is a language of alienation and agitation.
+
+"A combined antiracist and antisexist position drew us together initially, and as we developed politically, we addressed ourselves to heterosexism and economic oppression under capitalism" (They became more intersectional and took up marxism).
+
+"2. What we believe. Above all else, our politics initially sprang from the shared belief that Black women are inherently valuable..."
+
+They always have to put these stupid obvious statements, so that if you challenge them, they'll accuse you of challenging that. The shared belief that black women are inherently valuable. This is already messed up. To say that black women are inherently valuable? Nobody is inherently valuable. Nobody is special. What they're saying is that black women get to have inherently special status and should be treated as such because they are black and because they are women. Standpoint epistemology - but double meaning here in that all human lives share something in common, if we were religious we'd say they are image-bearers of God, if we were just humanists we would say that all human life is valuable and that everybody has something to potentially contribute. They're playing off this double meaning, and they always do this.
+
+So that if you then on to say *"Well I reject the Combahee Collective and what their agenda is"*,
+and they'll say
+*"Well, we started with the belief that black women are inherenetly valuable - what problem do you have with that?".*
+
+Meanwhile, inherently valuable has two meanings - one of which is the one that everyone agrees with. A basic statement of human rights that applies to all people. All lives matter?
+The other one is - no, they're particularly special. They have inherent value in that they bring this intersectional perspective to the table.
+
+## Navel-Gazing
+"... that our liberation is a necessity not as an adjunct to somebody else's" (grammar?) "may because of our need as human persons for autonomy. This may seem so obvious as to sound simplistic (Marxian tip of the hand, because now they're going to say it's nuanced and complicated), but it is apparent that no other ostensibly progressive movement has ever considered our specific oppression as a priority or worked seriously for the ending of that oppression."
+We're extra special, but nobody actually cares about us. We're doubly oppressed, so everyone who cares about oppression has to care more about us. Moral extortion at the heart of intersectionality. Moral racketeering. Merely naming the pejorative stereotypes attributed to black women, for example, Mammy, Matriarch, Sapphire, Whore, Bulldagger" (5 of the 6 that Patricia Hill Collins talks about in Black Feminist Thought - in 1990 - so original) "let alone cataloguing the cruel often murderous treatment we receive, indicates how little value has been placed on our lives during 4 centuries of bondage in the western hemisphere. We realize that the only people who care enough about us to work consistently for our liberation are us. Our politics evolved from a healthy love for ourselves, our sisters, and our community, which allows us to continue our struggle and work."
+
+"This focusing upon our own oppression..."
+
+Narcissistic navel-gazing at the heart of Intersectionality. The point isn't to focus on their own issues - but to morally extort other groups, first white feminists or feminists more broadly, Black liberations, then eventually everybody else into doing their work for them.
+
+"This focusing upon our own oppression is embodied in the concept of identity politics." Whoomp, there it is. The first mention of Identity Politics in the context that is meant today.
+
+"We believe that the most profound and potentially most radical politics come radically out of our own identity. As opposed to working to end somebody else's oppression, in the case of black women, this is a particular repugnant, dangerous and threatening and tehrefore revolutionary concept - because it is obvious, in looking at the political movements that preceded us, that anyone is more worthy of liberation than ourselves. We reject pedestals, queenhood and walking 10 paces behind to be recognized as human, levely human is enough."
+
+Would be wonderful if that's what it was about, but it's not. The fundamental assumption: why is "All Lives Matter" not a better statement? Why was it a bannable offence, or a moral infraction of the highest order to say "All lives matter". You're taking the focus off of black. You're taking the focus off the identity category. Black women want to be put into queen hood. They don't want to be walking 10 paces behind, but their specific justification given was that because black lives are at the lowest level, if you raise them up to them up to an equal level, then you'll be sure that everyone else will be at an equal level too. There's no actual tradeoff there, no zero-sum to their obviously zero-sum or negative-sum identity politics.
+
+## Moral Extortion
+This is a core lie in that it is a very useful thing for them to say, because it makes them morally virtually invincible, but it's not reflected in what they actually do. They just complain that no one is doing their work for them, so everyone else is racist and sexist. They will morally extort people (moral racketeering) into doing exactly what they just said they reject: being put on a pedestal, etc. To be recognized as levely human is enough, but their measure of levely human is that everyone else has to focus on them to get them up there, because they believe they're held below everyone else and that this has been imposed on them. All the writing for the next 40 years essentially takes this for granted.
+
+"We believe that sexual politics under patriarchy is as pervasive in black womens' lives as are the politics of class and race. We also find it difficult to separate race from class, from sex oppression, because in our lives they are most often experienced simultaneously. We know that there is such a thing as racial-sexual oppression, which is neither solely racial, not solely sexual: for example, the history of rape of black women by black men is a weapon of politicsl repression."
+
+"Although we are feminists and lesbians, we feel solidarity with progressive black men and do not advocate the fractionalism that white women who are separatists demand. Our situation as black people necessitates that we have solidarity around the fact race which white women, of course, o not need to have with white men, unless it is their negative solidarity as racial oppressors. We struggle together with black men against racism, while we also struggle with black men about sexism."
+
+Intersectionality with its moral extortion racket against white women. White women are so privileged that they can be against black men, but because we have a race issue attached, we still have to be in solidarity with black men, and we have to work together, so we have a better form/approach of identity politics. White women rae actually terrible and racist.
+
+"We realize that the liberation of all oppressed peoples necessitates the destruction of the political economic systems of capitalism and imperialism, as well as patriarchy."
+
+So, they're Marxist feminists.
+
+## Marxism
+"We are Socialists because we believe that work must be organized for the collective benefit of those who do the work and create the products, and not for the profit of the bosses. Material resources must be equally distributed among those who create those resources. We are not convinced, however, that a Socialist revolution that is not also a feminist and antiracist revolution will guarantee our liberation."
+
+The birth of the Identity Marxism. Marcuse called for it, 10 years before this (roughly), and here it is. They're explicitly Marxist (because we believe that work must be organized for the collective benefit of those who create the products). that is Marxist socialism. That's not Universal Healthcare, public services, etc. That is Marxist Socialism because work must be organized for the collective benefit of those who do the work and not the bosses. Material resources equally distributed. That's absolutely Marxist Socialism/Marxism. So they're that, but it's not good enough, because they're going to invent Identity Marxism.
+
+"We have arrived at the necessity for developing and understanding of class relationships that takes into account the specific class position of Black Women who are generally marginal in the labour force, while at this particular time some of us are particularly viewed as doubly-desirable tokens at white collar and professional levels. We need to articulate the real class situation of persons who are not merely raceless, sexless workers, but for whom racial and sexual oppression are significant determinants in their working and economic lives."
+
+Material determinism taken into the context of racial and sexual determinism. Race-Marxists, Marxist Feminists, Marxist Marxists, and now they need to fuse Identity Politics as they define it into Marxism. Identity Marxism happening right here.
+
+"Although we are in essential agreement with Marx's Theory as it applied to the very specific economic relationships he analyzed, we know that his analysis must be extended further in order for us to understand our specific economic situation as Black Women (no pedestal). A political contribution  which we feel we have already made is the expansion of the feminist principle that the personal is the political (what a dumb idea. Maybe the worst of the 20th century)."
+
+The personal is political? How do you create a narcissistic, navel-gazing identity politics religion out of Marxism? That's how. The personal is political.
+
+"In our consciousness-raising sessions, for example, we have in many ways gone beyond white womens' revelations, because we are deaing with the implications of race and class, as well as sex."
+
+Consciousness-raising was a feminist project as well, and the feminist project mirrored the Marxist project to say that there is an upper class and a lower class, a stratified society, and that the upper class oppresses the lower class, and so the revolution of the societyis necessary. Liberal feminists often ended up thinking that they were just trying to get a level playing field, but the goal was actually that they wanted to have some sort of a revolution, and the Marxist Feminists actually knew this, so they raised the Feminist Consciousness - tried to convince women that they were oppressed and that they needed to overthrow society and raise a feminist consciousness. But there's a raise a class consciousness, and riase a Critical consciousness. Class consciousness is Marxist and the Critical Consciousness is the neo-marxist idea that the entire society is brainwashing you into believing that you're not really oppressed - they're trying to dig into that and they're using idntity factors as cultural artifacts to do it and that's the evolution of NeoMarxism into Identity Marxism that we have to deal with now today.
+
+## Standpoint
+"Even our black women style of talking and testifying in black language about what wre have experienced has a resonance that is both cultural and political. We have spent a great deal of energy delving into the cultural and experiential nature of our oppression out of necessity because none of these matters has ever been looked at before."
+
+Lived experience, experiential nature of our oppression -> justification for whwa was standpoint epistemology throughout the 80s and became intersectional / positionality thinking in the present paradigm starting from the 1990s.
+
+"No one before has ever examined the multilayered texture of black womens' lives. An example of this kind of this kind of relevation, conceptualization occurred at a meeting as we discussed the ways in which our early intellectual interests had been attacked by our peers, particularly by black males."
+
+Turns out black males are also not keen on feminism.
+
+"We discovered that all of us, because we were `Smart` had als been considered `ugly`. ie Smart-ugly. Smart-ugly crystallized the way in which most of us had been forced to develop our intellects at great cost to our "social lives". The sanctions in the black and white communities against black-women thinkers is comparatively much higher than for white women, particularly ones from the educated, middle and upper classes. As we have already stated, we reject teh stance of Lesbian separatism, because it is not a viable political analysis or strategy for us, it leaves out far too much and far too many people, particularly black men, women and children. We have a great deal of criticism and loathing for what men have been showed socialized to be in a society, what they support, how they act and how they oppress, but we do not have the misguided notion, that is their maleness, per se, that is their biological maleness that makes them what they are. As black women we find any type of biological determinism a particularly dangerous and reactionary basis upon which to build a politic. We must also question whether lesbian separatism is an adequate and progressive political analysis and strategy, even for those who practice it, since it so completely denies any but teh sexual sources of womens' oppression, negating the facts of class and race."
+
+"3. Problems in organizing black feminists"
+
+"During our years together as a black feminist collective we have experienced success and defeat - joy, victory and failure. We have found that it is very difficult to organize around black feminist issues. Difficult even to announce in certain contexts that we are black feminists. We have tried to think about the reasons for our difficulties, particularly since the white women (maybe it's the identity politics, people don't like it? People want don't want to alienate everybody else around them all the time based o issues like race and sex?). We have tried to think about the reasons for diffficulties particularly since teh white women's movement and growing in many directions (really? A bigger tent movement is strong, and a smaller-tent movement is fractionizing and weak?). In this section we will discuss some of th egeneral reasons for the organizing problems we face and also talk about teh stages in organizing our own collective. The major source of difficulty in our political work is that we are not just trying to fight oppression on one front or even two, but instead to address a whole range of oppressions. We do not have racial, sexual, heterosexual or class privilege to rely upon, nor do we have even the minimal access to resources and power that groups who do possess any one of these types of privilege have."
+
+## Privilege
+Invocation in the 70s of privilege. Very clearly and very early. They don't have racial, sexual, heterosexual or heterosexual or class privilege to rely upon. Privilege is the extension of having access to bourgeois society.
+
+"Being in the upper level of society. We have none of those things, nor do we have minimal access to resources and power that groups who do have privileges of these kinds have."
+
+If they were straight instead of lesbians, if they were white instead of black, if they were male instead of female, if they were rich instead of poor, they might have access to privilege and they might have a more successful movement, but they don't have that, and obviously because they want to be black lesbian feminist socialists marxists activists they seriously are alienating everyone else from them.
+
+Activists are seriously alienating everyone else from them. They'try trying to create a politic that's going to twist veeryone else to do their work for them, and to join in with them. What they invoke to get people to do it is to claim that they are in the most oppressed nature, thus anyone who cares about oppression must care about them the most, without putting them on a pedestal (of course). The psychological toll/trauma-based language comes down to the "we're tired" psychological toll of whatever, already in 1977. The mechanism by which you have to recognize their oppression: we experience tremendous psychological pain and toll. It takes a toll on us and wears us down, we're multiply oppressed, you don't even understand how bad it is for us, you have to be in solidarity with us. Victimhood culture to the power of however many identity factors => moral extortion racket. Psychological language to do a moral racketeering routine on compassionate/left liberals and leftists who rae coopted into doing their work for them.
+
+"The toll of being a black woman and the difficulties this presents in reaching political consciousness in doing political work can never be under-estimated."
+
+Backwards of theory - whining - it should be easier to achieve when you have more oppression, because it should be easier to see your oppression. But they are saying is it's not because therea re too many forces against you. This is nonsense whining.
+
+## Language of harm, trauma and victimhood
+"As an early groupmember once said "We are all damaged people merely by virtue of being black women". We are dispossessed psychologically and on every other level, and yet we feel the necessity to struggle to change teh condition of all black women. In a black feminist search for sisterhood Michelle Wallace arrives at this conclusion. We exist as women who are black who are feminists each stranded for the movement, working independently because there is not yet an environment in this society remotely congenial to our struggle, because being on the bottom, we would have to do what no one else has done - we would have to fight the world."
+
+Typical wound-collecting trick you see from a lot of activists of this leftist victimhood-oriented stripe. They are annoying. Lesbian activists, black activists, feminist activist, marxist activist. They annoy everybody - their whole thing is to alienate, to whine, to bitch and complain and blame somebody else for their problems. WHen someone shuns them for being negative Nancy and joy-destroying pains in the asses, they think it's because they're black women or lesbians, but it's not. It's because they're fucking annoying, and when people shun them they collect the wound and say "it's a factor of identity". It's a workhorse technique. They go out and agitate and bother people, using an annoying analysis which is typically perceived as having something wrong with it, and they understsand that there's a moral extortion racket going on, so they say "No, I don't think so, I'm not going to lend to your super annoying form of activism", to which the activists respond with "oh it's because we're poor black lesbian feminists, isn't it?" It's wound-collecting. And it's super common, and is the workhorse at the heart of Intersectionality. When they say "positionality must be continuously engaged" they say that it means you must acknowledge who you are, so what you know/can know can be understood in terms of oppression, but what it really means is that you are acknowledging that you're participating in this moral extortion racket in exactly this way.
+
+I used to joke about the prospect of woke Christians, because I would say "could you imagine anything more annoying than  woke Christian? Evangelists are bad enough, without trying to do. A street preacher who is preaching woke stuff with jesus behind. Imagine that person sayin g"you just don't like me because I advocate for racial justice, and I'm a Christian, and Christians have always been persecuted" - it's wound-collecting. No, you're actually just pissing people off with your crap, and nobody wants to listen to it. It has nothing to do with you, it has to do with the fact that you're repeating crap noone wants to listen to.
+
+So conflating politics and identity - the personal is political - leads someone to make this confusion and then convince people that this confusion makes sense. It's an extortion racket.
+
+"Wallace is pessimistic but realistic (wound-collecting) in her assessment of black feminist position, particularly in her allusion to the nearly classic isolation most of us face".
+
+Yes, because you alienate everyone. From you rhetoric, you tell Lesbian separatists they're wrong. You tell white feminists are wrong. Black liberation guys are sexist. Normal liberals don't want Marxism. Why do you think you're isolated? It's not being you're a black feminist - it's because you're annoying. Adopt a politics that's based in reality instead of alienating everybody, but you can't do that because it'd be blaming the victim. Self-sealed, wound-collecting crybaby ideology. The only thing one can do is understand that intersectionlity, in this regard, amounts to moral racketeering.
+
+"We might use our position at the bottom to make a clear leap into revolutionary action. If black women were free it would mean that everyone else would have to be free."
+
+That's the stupid, incorrect, assumption. Soundness of argument? False. Premises of this argument do not follow. If black women were free, it would mean that everyone else would have to be free, since our freedom would necessitate the destruction of all the systems of oppression (Race Communism and Identity Communism). That's the fundamental logical failure at the bottom of black feminism, which causes them to engage in this moral extortion racket called Intersectionality. The same thing we just dealt with again RE not being able to say All Lives Matter - which should be considered a higher and more viable truth than Black Lives Matter, because when Black Lives Matter all Lives Will Matter automatically - because they're the faces at the bottom of the well. It's the exact same garbage logic that they used with all Lives Matter being Bad vs Black Lives Matter being Good. Don't put them on a pedestal, except.. Do. Because it's a moral extortion racket.
+
+Intersectionality takes that moral extortion racket and it turns each of the movements (feminism) inward on themselves based on another trait. They create that "divide and conquer/polarisation" dynamic everywhere they go. Extort what's left of the movement, which is dying of its own internal contradictions, and fighting around polarisation. They turn what's left of the movement for their own purposes. You could be part of the Black Liberation of movement, but it's actually sexist unless you're a Black Feminist First. This is the manoeuver that they do again and again.
+
+"Feminism is, nevertheless, very threatening to the majority of black people, because it calls into question some of the most basic assumptions about our existence, that is that sex shoudl be a determinant to power relationships."
+
+Pamphlet they quote as an example:
+"We understand that it is and has been traditional that the man is the head of the house. He is the leader of the house-nation because his knowledge of the world is broader, hsi awareness greater, his understanding fuller, and his application of this information wiser. After all ... it is only reasonable that the man be the head of the house because he is able to defend and protect the development of his home ... WOmen cannot do the same things as men, they are made by nature to function differently, equality of men and women is smoething that cannot happen, even in the abstract world. Men are not equal to other men, that is ability, experience, understanding. The value of men and women can eb seen as the value of Gold and Silver. They are not equal btu they both have great value. We must realize that men and women are a completement to each other, because there is no house family without a man and his life. Both are essential to the development of any life."
+
+Here they will tear that apart. Sure there are grains of sexism worth considering, but they will really tear this apart, because of what's at the end. If you look at any of the data-driven analysis in the entire world right now, what is it all saying about the number one determining variable. Education, employment, etc. It is whether there is a stable, 2-parent led household in a decent neighbourhood. 70-80% of black children in the US are born in a household that doesn't have a father present. Here we have black nationalists saying "Men and women are a complement to each other", in the early 1970s. Because there is no house or family without a man and his wife, both are essential to the development of any life. That turns out to eb perfectly true and correct, despite what some of the other statements have been. It's key, and what we see now is the absolute destruction of that, to the absolute decimation of successful black outcomes. And who did it? The Combahee River collective, the Black Feminists et al stepped in and threw a wrecking ball into this key, fundamental statement to the structure of building a functional community and society. All this stuff before it, different etc set it aside and realize that men and women are a complement to one another.
+
+They have a massive problem with this. And here we are 44 years later, and they milk the differences in outcomes (black attainment, employment, criminality, incarceration, drug use, murder rate, huge ugly problems). The intellectual inheritors of this steaming pile of intersectional garbage making the same argument tha that their forebearers destroyed the idea of family. They want tuse their feminism to upset a core belief, that they claim is within Black Nationalism, or Black Liberation, is a sexist problem that needs to be problematized. So for all of its problems, that it migh  already.
+
+Nationalist and Liberationist are always kind of socialist and working in concert with one another, but the Liberationist are always worse. Same parallel with guoa ming tong in China. Chinese National party was a socialist part, etc And then the CCP intercepted and subverted it from within by accusing it of being Han supremacist and trying to force Han chineseness on everyone. Nationalism was going to demand a Chinese identity. Liberationists are the Marxists whoc ome in and colonize the Socialist/Nationalist parties. We have a core belief here that in the early 1970s from a Black Nationalist pamphlet  that the black success depends on remembering that there is going to be a stable family unit of Man Wife and Children, which turns out to be the number one dtermining variable for Black succss;Now here we are, 40 years later, and they're complaining issues of Black attainment and systemic racism. Who create dit, bitches? You did. Why are you so isolated, why does nobody lke you, why are the black liberation and nationalists movements excluding you? Because you're trying to break up families.
+
+"The material conditions of most black women would hardly lead them to upset both economic and sexual arragnements that seem to represent some stability in their life. Many black women have a good understanding of both sexism and racism, but because of the everyday restrictions of their lives cannot risk struggling against them both"
+
+Most black women accept this patriarchal oppression, because they want stability in their life. Remember Marcuse - the point of the analysis is that the economic situation of the working class can be improved and they can be stabilized, so destabilization is key to his revolutionary political agenda. Black women rae forced to accept some patriarchy so they can have stability. The Black feminist agenda, as the marxists that they are, is to create instability instead. Agitate to become committed to a movement that leads to instability. How do you create instability and use that instability to create a revolutionary movement, by outsourcing the blame onto the society itself, instead of the people causing it. To to be clear, since we're talking about criminality - it's decminating communities in the wake of BLM, which turned out to not be that great for black lives, overall - this is why you're seing the bail reform, the release of criminals, decimation of prosecuting crime like shoplifting and theft - all of this huge rise in criminality is a Marxist strategy. It's tied into things here where you destabilize a community so people will be more likely to pull off a revolution. This is exactly the same thing in yet another domain, but because it was more insidious and quiet, they were more successful in pulling off.
+
+Many programs of the great society were the things that incentivized single motherhood, for example (welfare as it was construed) specifically targetting, primarily (not intentionally racially, but sometimes) black inner city families - most of what Critical Race Theory evolved to do was to defend and to reinvigorate and increase those great society entitlements that were instituted by president Johnson and amplify them, whereas they were starting to get walked back in the 1970s, and Critical Race Theory said no we need to amplify those entitlements, but those entitlements were the destruction of the very people that they were trying to help, and those broken lives and broken circumstances and broken neighbourhoods become the justification that we live in a systematically racist society. They're creating their own problem and then using the problem to justify their continued action, and you can see this written into this collective statement that is the foundation of intersectionality. So you can damn well bet that intersectionality is a program of creating problems that it's later going to milk over and over again, to drive for more intersectionality. This is the standard communist trick. Intersectionality is a gigantic communist ploy that operates off of a gigantic moral extortion racket to enable a rampant and out of control victimhood culture that concentrates through this distorted view of psychological and psychic harm, and trauma, that they attach to systemic oppression, which is an explicitly Neo-Marxist idea.
+
+"The reaction of black men to feminism has been notoriously negative (because they know it will destroy the family structure, which they know is the only way out of the oppression structure coming out of segregation. They need stable famlies to raise up a generation of winners who are going to go and make successes of their lives, and feminism (black feminism in particular) was going to absolutely wreck that in their communities. And Black men damn well knew it. So their reaction has been notoriously negative). They are, of course, they say, even more threatened than black women by the possibility that black feminists might organize around our own needs. They realize that they might lose valuable and hard-working allies in their struggles, or that they might also be forced to change their habitually sexist ways of interacting with and oppression black women. Accusations that black feminism divides the black struggle are powerful deterrents to the growth of an autonomous black women's movement."
+
+Intersectionality is a catastrophe, and the people who were dealing with its emergence knew it was, even with their own racial identity politics being its own problem.
+
+"Still, hundreds of women have been active at different times during the 3 year existence of our group, and every black woman who came out of a strongly-felt need for some level fo possibility that did not previously exist in her life. We first started meeting in 1974 after the NBFO first regional conference. We did not  have a strategy for organizing, or even a focus. We just wanted to see what we had. After a period of months, we began to meet again lagte in the year and began to do an intense variety of consciousness raising. The overwhelming feeling that we had was that afer years we had finally felt each other. Although we were not doing political work as a group, individuals continued their involvement in lesbian politics, sterilization abuse, and human rights work. The third-world womens' international womens' day activities and support activities for trials of Dr. Kenneth Edelyn, joan little, and Inez Garcia. During our first summer when membership had dropped off considerably, those of us remaining wante dto open a refuse for battered women in a black community. We also decided to become an independent collective, since we had serious disagreements with NBFO's bourgeois feminist stance, and their lack of a clear political focus."
+
+Accusing the National Black Feminist Organization of being bourgeois. Typical marxist concentration of commitment to a subgroup. Divide and conquer. This is what intersectionality exists to do.
+
+"We were also contacted by socialist feminists with whom we had worked on abortion rights who wanted to encourage us to attend National Socialists Conference. Despie the narrowness of the ideology promoted at that particular conference, we became more aware of the need for us to understand our own economic situation, and make our own economic analysis (so they became more intense Marxists). In teh fall, when some members returned, we expereinced several months of disagreements internally conceptualized as a lesbian/straight split, and a result of class and political differences."
+
+A fun time to be there. Divide and conquer internally of them, so they come out ideologically consistent as this identity Marxism, which is what will emerge.
+
+"Those of us still meeting determined the need to do political work and go beyond consciousness raising."
+
+Theory and praxis have to be wedded - becomign marxist.
+
+"Some women who didn't want to do political work stopped attending of their own accord, so we looked for a focus. We decided with the addition of new members to become a study group. We shared outreadings of black feminism and began functioning as a study group and also began discussing the possibility of starting a black feminist publication. Interpersonal issues etc etc. Planning to gather black feminist writing, essential to demonstrate reality of our politics to other black women, believe we can do this through writing and distributing our work. Individual black feminists are in isolation all across the country, do political work in coalition with other groups, etc."
+
+Last two paragraphs are just ugh. But that's their nasty, turbulent history. Ready to issue this statement after all this.
+
+"Black feminist issues and projects: During our tim together we have identified and worked on many issues of particular relevance to black women. The inculsiveness of our politics makes us concerned with any sitaution which impinges on the lives of women, third world, and working people. (Sounds like Marcuse). We rae committed to working on struggles in which race sex and class are simultaneous factors in oppression. (Marxist). We might become involved in workplace organizing at a factory that employs third world women, or picket a hospital that is cutting down on already inadequate healthcare to a third world community, or set up a rape crisis centre in a black neighbourhood."
+
+Working their way into legitimate causes. Something that's always happening, and not always for bad reason. A lot of things that are necessary good projects, for reasons that are the correct reasons, and when they do them they bring their shit ideology inside which creates a disaster and concentrates the thing. Unintentional entryism. They want to help, they get involved, that's legitimate, and once they're in, ebcauase they're moral zealots with their ideology, they twist everything and normalize them to make them comform to their beliefs. Making messes out of communities.

new/Choosing_Parts_of_Science.md

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+# Public Science
+
+How do we chhoose what parts of science to keep in the public domain? Biology?
+
+How to indicate a biological reality where comprehensivity and dynamic range and rate of change potentiate the most robust behaviours? It seems to be a natural law.
+
+Digital vs Analog.
+Full potential vs narrow observation.
+Free and precise vs guided.
+
+No. Connection with free expression allows for the widest range of potential. Systems bleed into one another, or the potentiated behaviours of one system yield a resilient structure, barrier or environment/environmental element in the terms of another system. What is an example of this? Gravity and navigation? Spinning to allow for gravity? We come to rely on and take for granted a property which is made possible because of another system that we may not be attentive of.
+
+So, at this stage, how do we use this understanding? Well, to defend objectivity.
+
+The postmodern academics claim that they need research to know more, but this means that they believe discovering more and quantifying more leads to a better understanding. Either because of a) improved technical capability (because of objective/scientific knowledge), or b) power to persons with group knowledge. Through group knowledge, one cannot be said to represent and aspire to attain scientific knowledge.
+
+Even if you claim "science" of this culture or "scientists that are of this culture" it must be because of mystical osmosis of scientific understsanding if it has to do with their culture, because otherwise the steps and quantifiability thereof would have been independent, and something that is repeatable  by anyone of any culture. Thus, to make any and claim of scientific understanding, even scientific benefit, to inclusion of a group is antiscience, because it assumes that science isn't enough on its own to lead us to improved understanding, but faith in the culture revealing reality, or mysteriously making reality better through immaterial influence. That doesn't hav to be a bad thing, but it needs to be called out for what it is

new/Cult_of_Covidians.md.backup

@@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
-# Cult of Covidians
-
-As I've said before, Covidism and Covidians are not something new. It isn't even so much that there are two types of people, and that we are dividing along a line, though that might seem a de-facto consequence. In truth, I suspect that circumstance and momentum have a lot to do with it. The question is, can being the right type of person help you overcome this circumstance, and can you fight the inertia of the momentum?
-
-We have a sense of cults. We know what it is to participate in a group function such as to come and experience the way in which your actions inform your beliefs. This is just the reality of being human, which is an extended characteristic of being in a conscious, mortal and biological form, and we work through it all the time. The difference with a cult, however, is that the cult has a strong opinion about what its members should do, are detecting whether someone is deviating from its prescribed norms, and the cult members have no tolerance for information or refutations of the cult's stated beliefs. Is that not what we see with Covidians? Aggressively so.
-
-One of the tell-tale signs is eye contact. When someone is wishing to communicate to you in search of truth, they aim to connect with you and come to a shared understanding. This is because you intend to uncover something new while confirming its veracity through your perceptual acknowledgment. The cultist, however, is participating in the belief, and any deviation might risk breaking the belief. If such a route is forbidden, the participant will naturally have an aversion to reaching an open state of critical thinking and deliberation with another.

new/Denis Rancourt TLAV.md

@@ -0,0 +1,377 @@
+# Interview with Denis Rancourt
+
+`Outstanding compilation of information a lot of information to go through. Objective is to go through the point that this is getting at, go through the data, and so forth. What drew your attention to this topic?`
+
+Right away, when there was all this noise about a new pandemic and covid and SARS, right away as a scientist my first reaction was: Are there more people dying? Let's look at these numbers.
+
+The first paper I wrote on this, I went alone as quickly as I could, and I wrote a paper on all-cause mortality. And in that paper I announced that there had been a mass-homicide. Following the announcement of the pandemic, hospitals and doctors responded in a way that was contrary to protecting the health of fragile individuals, and killed off a lot fo people very quickly in many jurisdictions (New York, is a prominent case). They literally killed elderly, fragile people by the measures that they applied. I demonstrated that in our very first paper, and so I've always had an eye towards all-cause mortality, and the data comes out, it keeps coming out, so you can keep an eye on it and see what's happening.
+
+In Canada, for example, the deaths came down below what is the norm, given the historical trend after that peak, because they had accelerated the death of vulnerable people, and then there were less vulenrable people to die in the following weeks and months. So you it actually slopes below the norm.
+
+Then we kept an eye to see what it's going to do from now on, and it's very different from one jurisdiction from the next.
+
+We've looked at France in great detail, and found some amazing things. With the United States we went state by state, huge compared to regular sized countries, everything is different from one state to the next, 50 of them, 50 points on a graph from which to draw correlations. A powerful tool to study.
+
+Also, the deaths in the US have been massive compared to other countries in the world. So those 2 things combined, state by state differences, size of country, number of deaths, gives us a lot of statistics to work with to find correlations that you wouldn't otherwise find.
+
+``` Reorganization of data - lying with statistics - for instance, based on what you just said, we might see a ip in the overall death beacuse sa lot of that death was pushed forward from 2020```
+
+It's a so-called tinder-effect - hard to observe, difficult to find hard evidence of it - we were maybe the frist to see it in Canada - immediately following sharp accleeration of death, we saw it come below, but the tinder-effect to see season to season or year to year, that's harder to see and harder to be convinced that that's what's really what's happening.
+
+What's dramatic about the US is that starting in the covid era March 11 onward, the behaviour of All-Cause mortality vs time by state by age by sex is dramatically different tan compared to decads before. Off the charts. We'll show graphs to that effect from the paper.
+
+That shows you that something dramatic is happeing, and the question is what is it? We argue that there's no way this could be a viral respiratory disease - none of the classic signatures:
+- seasonal increase in winter deaths due to viral respiratory disease and accompanied by a surge in propogation and occurence of those diseases is always the same state-to-state, the same mortality (increase), same in all western countries where it's measured, same pattern as a function of time, for 100 years. aLl of a sudden now, a phenomenon where state to stae the mortality curves are completely different.
+- The actual peak in the summer which has never been seen before.
+- In some states, it doesn't occur at all (like NY)
+- States where nothing happens until th final summer, or the second winter
+
+Those differences, state to state, the heterogeneity is contrary to everything we know about viral respiratory diseases.
+
+`` What's the argument for that? what's the lgoic about why that's unprecedented?```
+
+They have a very clever way of avoiding this problem - they never talk about heterogeneity - they never bring up the that these differences are unheard of. They don't have to explain it because it never really is something that they put forward as a new phenomenon - because if you do put it forward, you need to explain why it's occurring, and not before. We explain that it's because the responses are different and the effect of those responses are different from one jursdictio to the next.
+
+```I want to discuss the all-cause mortality discussion. Swiss policy research came out with early styudy that there was no breakdown between age - basically the same as normal age mortality, for avg US or Canada - pretty similar. Can you explain all-cause mortality and break down why the cohorts showed there was no pandemic?```
+
+All-cause mortality means deaths due to any cause, every cause. You don't resolve or distinguish cause of deaths, you just count them as a function of time. The number of deaths. When counting deaths in this way, you know how old the person was, their sex, where they died, and so on. All that information is tagged to this counting of deaths, but you do not try to resolve what they died from (that exercise is tenuous, especially with viral respiratory disease that are accompanied by other cofactors. Meaningless to talk about a situation with lots of cofactors causing the final breakdown of the biological unit.)
+
+We argue that it's nonsense to try to attribute deaths because that process is going to be very political. Politics of the institutions what the MDs are exposed to, what is beign said in the media, it becomes an extremely political process, and this has been known for 100 years, that attribution is political and completely biased and I have to say that molecualr tests have not improved this whtasoever. The so-called molecular tests that help you analyze and do a lab measurement haas not in aanyway aided this difficulty. Therefore, we look at robust data, we don't bother with that stuff, we look at what we can say rigorously from all ca-use mortality as a function of time . resolved by age group and sex and jurisdiction. An it turns out you can infer and prove many things on the basis of hard data like that.
+
+```earliest study I saw, early out of gate that was pushed back, came out that when you break it down by age, it doesn't appear that there is a representation for the most vulnerable.```
+
+Need to look at specific case and jurdisdiction. Deathi IS highly dependent on age, older people die mroe, and that effect is exponential, and that's true in general for most causes of death, All cause mortality shows it's clearly the case, there are fewer people in those age groups 85+, but they are the main source of the deaths that you count there's definitely an age strification. The mortality from different age groups - what does it look like historically, and during the covid period does it change for a given age group. What we found, unambiguously, is that younger people die much more in the covid -era, in the Canada and in the UNited States, so and especially young men. So you really see that as soon as you turn on this announcement from the WHO you get an immediate rise in the constant trend of deaths in, let's say the 15-24 olds for example, that age category - it rises and it goes up to a much higher plateau than normally you've had for a decade or more, and it stays at that plateau, it doesn't come down seasonally or anything, it's just more deaths generally, in that younger age group especially for men. And so we showed this detail for Canada, ad the same sort of thing happens in the United States. You can look at these mortality trends by age group and by state etc.
+
+THe fact that younger people died and that the mortality peaks are disproportionately from young adults and young people, and that is completely inconsistent with mortality from a viral respiratory disease, and does not jive whatsoever with what is known and said to be known about COVID, at what ages it causes death, etc. There are official numbers that they put forward as teh truth for this new pathogen, and it the deaths just do not compute with that.
+
+``` And the many inconsistencies we continue to see is the overall representation of children are dramatically unverified and very low compared to what we keep seeing, such as the collapsed athletes, etc.. Steve Kirsch had a recent study showing a 60x increase in pro-athlete adverse events```
+
+Reported in the media, what we can know about, because there's not a systematic way of recording these sorts of things. The data is difficult to work with.
+
+We work with hard data, fo rall-cause.
+
+So, we start at the beginning, let's look at the historic trend, maybe we can go to a figure here.
+
+```What I wanted to jump into after is what is actually causing the issues. Government action etc? but first the graph```
+
+We start at the beginning, this graph shows all-cause mortality by year, integrated year by year as a function of tim starting in 1900 until 2020. This is not normalized in any way, total number of deaths in the US as a function of time measured on a by-year basis. ANd what you see is that deaths are increasing all the time, because population is increasing dramatically over that time period, more people = more deaths.
+
+One of the big peaks you see is in 1918 and that is the so-called Spanish Flu, but it wasn't a flu at all, there are several scientific articles of very high quality that demonstrate that that was actually a bacterial pneumonia epidemic that operated in av ery fragile population just after the first world war adn the difficulties in adapting coming home from that and so on. Young people were kille dand it was from bacterial pneumonia.
+
+You see the changes year ot year pretty regular, with bumps that are related to the dust bowl and the great depression and you can see a bit of an excess later with men around the Vietnam War and things like that. But then what you see, on the end in the final year, is an uptick that's quite significant.
+
+That's the larger mortality for the COVID period. So that's what the data looks like whne yo udon't do anything except make a graph of deaths as a function of time.
+
+But, if we normalize that by the population in that year, you get the next figure - and so you see that if you nromalize by population deaths generally have been going down because of conditions are not as severe as they were, people live longer because of general health, healthier conditions, less harsh lives, and so on. And on this graph you still see that uptick which is from the 2020 and it shows you that if you want to get as a high a death rate as in 2020, you have to go all the way back until just after the second world war. Created by the government measures,t o produce that amount of death.
+
+```Two quick thoughts - one, it's interesting to note that their comparison to this being the biggest pandemic, it shows that the comparison to 1918 doesn't really hold, but doesn't that spike seem tos uggest that there was something going on?```
+
+Right, there were enormously more deaths all of a sudden, and we have to ask why, and what are the reasons that you believe that that is?
+
+The other thing is, not only is it not comparable to 1918, but people also died more earlier on, for all kinds of reasons. The political systems were more vicious to workers and those in the lower strata of the dominance hierarchy, so there were many more deaths. After the dust bowl and great depression, there was the New Deal which improved things dramatically in the United States. And after hardships of the WW, people are generally not going to take it any more, and more of a sense that things have to be fairer than they have been. And tht has generally improved situations. This is the social theory of why this is. The explanation of why mortality comes down is as much political and social science as it is anything else. Even more so than advances in medicine, which is a load of crap.
+
+``` Please explain that rea lquick```
+
+Well, the people who study social animals have known for a long time, it's now extremely well-established, that the main cause of shortening the lifespan, the main factor that correlates most strongly with death is the degree to which you are oppressed/subjected to constant stress from people above you in the dominance hierarchy. All social animals construct and maintain dominance hierarchies, and that includes humans. The biggest factor is the psychological stress you are subjected to and experience in your life, and teh other big factor is social isolation.
+
+If an individual is made to be an outcase and is socially isolated, they'r enot going to live very long. Psychologically that has a huge effect. So those are the 2 biggest health determinants that we know. Virtually nothing to do with advances in medicine.
+
+The first and second causes of death are heart probelms and cancer, and medicine does not, medicine can help you in the immediate if you have a heart attack, but regarding heart disease itself it's of no help, regarding cancer itself it's not of measurable help, in fact medicine itself, the practice of medicine as we knw it in society is the third leading cause of death.
+
+So you could calculate that if medicine were to disappear, life expectancy would go up a little.
+
+``` And we point that out time an time again```
+
+It' scounter to the propaganda that we're being subjected to, but it's a very real thing and the medical establishments have recognized this, there are dozens of journals abou tmedical error as a problem as a systemic problem and so on. So it's completeley well established that bad diagnoses, bad treatments, bad prescriptions, or good prescriptions of things that rae bad that they say are good, all of these things are huge killers.
+
+```We also have a factor os politics in that process -a ctions being driven by political agendas as opposed to hwat's really appropriate.```
+
+The politics is such that this killer medical system is allowed to flourish and benefit and be a parasite on society. The poltiics is such that it allows that.
+THe discussion we're having is not completely off-topic, because what we demonstrate in this paper is that there was improper diagnosis of tens of thousands of people int he United States that had, along with a viral respiratory disease, it almost always there was a bacterial pneumonia, but the medical profession recommended that you do not give antibiotics because it's a viral infection.
+
+There was a drop of about half, half the rpescriptions of antibiotics in the united states during the COVID period. At the same time that there was a massive increase of bacterial pneumonia. And that increase is recorded in the CDC data. They actualyl have bacterial lung infection as something that they record along COVID, and it's massive. So that woudl have killed a lot of people, in a sense. So by removing antibiotics and treatment of bacterial pneumonia they recreated the conditions that you had in 1918 before antibiotics were available, when you had a pneumonia outbreak because of the severe social conditions that people were sujected to that gave them a lot of stress and so on. So they recreated the conditions to have a bacterial pneumonia epidemic on a massive scale.
+
+And we have lots of maps and data to argue that this is infact what happened.
+
+``` Let's talk about specific pneumonia aspect of this and government interventions taht could lead to this specifically. I also wanted to point out that this was going on long before COVID - includes all daeaths with pneumonia, influenza and/or COVID-19 listed on the death certificate. Because as I understand it they call this secondary pneumonias, so it just gets jammed in there.```
+
+Researchers who look at statistics know that you cannot resolve a death from influenza from a death from bacterial pneumonia, and they don't try, that's why they use this parameter, a combination of all these respiratory conditions that kill people, and they look at that because it's mroe reliable, rather than for political or economic reasons or selling flu shots separating it all out. That's well-known.
+
+But that data, even if you look at that combined data and you include what they call COVID, in the covid period, it shoots up by a factor of 10 or more. It' sincredible the number of deaths that are said to be of that type. It basically amounts to the excess deaths in all-cause mortality. It' sa huge effect and more than half of thos are admitted to be bacterial pneumonia. There was a HUGE dpidemic of bacterial pneumonia that no one's pointing out. ANd it was not treated - it's almost criminal.
+
+Ivermectin is talked about a lot, and doctors say you can save lives with ivermectin etc
+
+Ivermectin, in a scientific paper that we cite, has been proven to be an effective anti-bacterial agent, especially against bacteria which attack the lungs. It's in th escientific literature, so I believe that many doctors went along with the idea of seeing COVID everywhere, but were actually treating bacterial pneumonia with ivermectin.
+
+``What's interesting is that while we are walking through this, all the loose ends are tied up in this discussion. People might want to dismiss this out of hand```
+
+Our paper brings ti all together. Let me go right to the heart otf the paper in telling you about it.
+
+IN state to state variations of excess mortality compared to the historical trends, the excess of all-cause mortality. We looked for correlations - why is it so different from state to state?
+
+Dramatically different, even once you normalize for the population of the state. So we looked for properties that can be measured and tabulated on a state-wide basis and we looked for correlations in those parameters. We got 50 points on the graph because there's 50 states. What did we find?
+
+A few factors correlate very strongly with death:
+- poverty
+- obesity
+- climate heat (hot summer temperatures in the Southern US)
+
+Correlate very strongly with excess mortality to the point where if you reduced them to zero according to the correlation, you wouldn't have an excess mortality in the summer for example. So we found those strong correlations and showed them, and then asked why.
+
+When you look at excess mortality in the winter (mortality is always seasonal, with many more deaths in the winter). So you can define excess winter deaths, a total number, and that number for decades has not correlated with poverty or obesity or climate in the southern states. No, it has not correlated, but all of a sudden in the COVID-era you have many more deaths, and those deaths correlate with those factors.
+
+So you ask what the heck is going on?
+We came to the following conclusion:
+The thing that everyone is ignoring is the vast importance of psychological stress on the individual. Because psychological stress directly by various known metabolic mechanisms depresses your immune system and makes you more susceptible to death from any disease.
+
+Now, what did that stress look like? And why were the poor people who were obese in hot climates more subjected to the effects of that stress?
+
+SO, the stress involved completely transforming people's lives. Especially for the poor, because they are not in air conditioned spaces, and they are no longer able to go into public air conditioned spaces to escape the heat, or to sit in the shade and talk wth their friends, because they have to be isolated, and so on.
+
+All of their unofficial, uinder the table employment and activities that they normally do are basically removed. They disappear because you can't have contacts anymore, and all of this economic activity if you like, coping mechanism activity, is disappeared for the people who need it most, who have developed ways for coping with the fact that they are poor and obese in a hot climate.
+
+So the stress from the measures on those people is much greater. And it akes away all their coping mechanisms. And that is why those populations were targetted and that's where all the deaths occurred, basically. In a nutshell, that is what our paper is about.
+
+```It's hard for me - I hope people will consider a eugenics mindset in that outcome. Essentially this boils down to the big picture of the lockdowns and restrictions creating the stress that drove their immune systems to be suppressed, to a degree. And other things like masks which create the conditions for increased illness, like bacterial pneumonia.```
+
+I would like to take you to some maps - later maps. The heterogeneous mortality - vastly different behaviours in their all-cause mortality by time.
+ALl-cause mortality as a function of time over several years from 2014 to present, and you can see a very regular up and down seasonal pattern up until the covid-era when the pandemic is announced, and then from state to state it ca be very different in that cluster during the covid period, the relative magnitudes, the positions of the peaks, etc.
+
+And so then this is what the pre-covid period looks like, alway svery regular, always the same, always synchronous - the winter diseases propagate from state to state. there's no evidence for a spread mechanism in our understanding of the seasonal pattern of all-cause mortality. Against the idea that whatever is causing the deaths actually has to spread from state to state.
+
+A very interesting thing - a lot less is known about these phenomena than we tend to admit, and this is a stringent test of these ideas. It doesn't spread, it occurs simultaneously everywhere, but deaths are higher. Even the shapes within a season are the same from state to state. You can go across Europe, it's the same timing, it's the same shapes.
+
+That's a stringent empirical test of some of these theories about what's going on here.
+
+``` One thign to point out - you made a point to say, don't trust science, trust the scientific method. One thing I see today in the scientific field is it's not that we're trying to find the answers, but we have all the answers. A lot are tsarting to say sometimes scientific studies come out and it turns out they're not accurate.```
+
+Well listen I'm a scientist with decades of experience, I have published 100 articles in different peer reviewd articles. I have been a reviewer for decades. And I can tell you that in any given field, there's a lot more that we don't know that we have no idea about than the little that we do know. And therefore, when you try to say something about what you think you know, there are a lot of mistakes. You're saying a lot of things that are incorrect.
+
+That's the truth. We know very little.
+
+This is a blow-up with the covid-era and how different it can be from state to state.
+
+## Excess Summer Mortality
+In the south! The southern states, and it is almost perfectly correltaed with heat. Arizona is an extremely hot state, more so than the two states on either side. We found an immediate geographical pattern that suggested to us that heat and poverty. And we know that obesity is correlated to poverty as well, and associated with many health probelms and difficulties.
+
+This is what opejned the door for us to start really seeing visually what these correlations were like.
+
+## Plot state comparison - excess mortality against product of obesity and poverty
+A strong correlation with obesity and poverty, and even stronger when you do the product of the two. If you are both, that's the parameter that really correlates to death in the period.
+
+## Life Expectancy By State
+Red and Pink - low life expectancy (strongly correlatedt to poverty)
+
+## Antibiotics map
+Number of prescriptions per capita of antibiotics. Shows you when you compare the maps is tha the medica lcause of death that most limits life expectancy is a bacterial infection and the deadliest bacterial infections are pneumonia - bacteria have a field day because of all teh moist tissue and high surface contact area with the air. That's the killer that reduces life expectancy in the poor populations of the United States.
+This shows us that there is a background of bacterial infections that's always there and that is an important phenomenon in the most vulnerable popualtions of poor people, mostly in the Southern United States. That's something to keep in mind, and then you can look at the CDC data where you have pneumonia going throw the roof and, at the same time, you have a decrease by almost half of prescriptions of antibiotics - because there were scientific papers explaining to MDs that you need to stop prescribing antibiotics because you've got to stop assuming that there's a bacterial infection when the real killer is SARS-CoV-2.
+
+So the MDs who want to act responsibly are saying "they're telling me that we're overprescribing antibiotics and they're giving my guidelines not to prescribe antibiotics" and, as a result, you have a drop in prescriptions at the same time that you have a surge in bacterial pneumonia in the United States.
+
+It's absolutely, it's not an exaggeration to call it criminal.
+
+``` I find it impossible to look at this data and not think that there was a willful action that happened - a conscious choice to take action that would stop the treatment ofwhat people need```
+
+I have a different view, the following:
+I do not believe that there is a direct genocidal intent. There are, of course, a lot of leaders of thought and analysts among the elite that are of the view that the population is too great on the planet, an dit would be great to reduce, etc all taht's true.
+
+But I don't believe that the system that is driving this has the intent of exterminating people. But I do believe, as always, that in any dominance hierarchy what stabilizes is that you are applying constant oppression and stress, and that always has the effect of mkaing the individuals lower in the dominance hierarchy sicker, less healthy, and likely to die sooner.
+
+That's a feature of all dominance hierarchies - it's a biological feature that you respond to stress in this way.
+
+I see what was done during COVID as an example of that, because it imposing a vaccine, imposing the false notion of a virulent pathogen that has all of a sudden arisen and you have to obey us about how to behave and distance and wear a mask - the obedience training and the imposition is a form of direct oppression in causing stress on individuals, and i seee it as another mechanism of this kind of oppression within a dominance hierarchy. It's all about obedience.
+
+So these deaths are the result of being subjected to severe dominance hierarchy stress intended to get you to take your place and be obedient.
+
+```I agree that I've never held the mindset that this is about decreasing the population, though there is logic to that, but it doesn't make sense on a grander scale as to why that would be the case. But within that, whether it' sbaout necessarily lowering population, or creating a perception, I would say that the point about mkaing a conscious choice to lower antibiotics when it's obvious by the data that they needed it - take that one point, how would you argue that it was not a conscious choice to hurt people?```
+
+It doesn't have to be a choice to hurt them, it can be a choice to create what is seen (deaths) to support your narrative which you put forward to get more power and get what you want. The thing abotu population and genocide is a bit crazy because, for example, Russia is applying a lot of these obedience training methods regarding the pandemic, and the last thing Russia wants is to reduce their population.
+
+Their entire system is trying to generate mor ebirths and families and more population because that is what gives them strength, in teh end.
+
+THe reason china is so strong is because of its massive population.
+
+So from a geopolitical perspective, in terms of a nation, population makes you strong. One of the reasons the US is so powerful is because of its large population.
+
+So, population gives a nation strength, there is no doubt about that, but at the same time you have this global parasitic class of the elite that have been allowed to play a role within the US driven and protective empire, because they do play a role, but they are at the same time parasites that can be harmful to the empire.
+
+Some of those people in their thinkign is - the more people there rae, the more at risk we are. Which is true, the more people you have, the more they are talkign to each other, they more they are interconnected, the more they are exchanging information, the more they are building their own ways of surviving and having society and community, and this puts the super rich at risk because the injustice is visible and people won't like it politcis and so on.
+
+So for them to feel secure, they would have to control everyone and have less population. Control population growth and how people interact, if you want to feel safe as a parasitic elite on this planet.
+
+A much more important factor is geopolitics. None of this COVID madness would have occurred if it didn't also serve the deep state, and you have real geopolitical reasons for being.
+
+``` Let's take a quick detour into that topic```
+
+a dramatic reduction in civili liberties and a dramatic increase in ability to surveil the populations is huge for the military and the deep state, becaue right now geopolitically the US is winding down its hegemony - it's forced to because it's unavoidable - China and Eurasia are developing and they're going to develop and they are avoiding use of the US dollar and doing what they do - grow and develop.
+
+The US is coming down from being the world leader, and that is frightening to al ot of people and they resist that. They want to be aggressive enough to resist that as effectively as possible. Being aggressive means not cooperating economically anymore, breaking rules that have been established in the world. That has consequences on the economic, and therefore that has consequences on the dmoestic population of the united states.
+
+So people will not be happy about the way things are going. The domestic population becomes a threat because they will demand some political say in how to distribute the more limited wealth that we'reg oing to have. So I think that they see the domestic threat, as well as the geopolitical threat, and they want to do what they can on the geopolitical frame at the same time that they have much mroe control over the domestic threat of democracy. THe threat of democracy.
+
+That's how I undrstand what's going on here. I think the biggest driver of COVID is ggeopoitics at the highest level.
+
+```Interesting that you say that, because that's one fo the points that is hardest for people to wrap their head around in regard to the possible coordination. James Corbett talks about the engineered fall of the west and the transition elitist deep state - maybe just the last point on this, what are your thoughts about possible coordination between large nations.```
+
+I don't believe it - of course there' salways cooperation - these are huge nations with many ties of various companies and various economic ties and exchange ties and scientific and cultural exchanges - always a lot of things going on, these are not closed vessels.
+
+But that does not mean that the much bigger reality is the reality of these huge and powerful nation states. China is a reality. And it is looking after itself. It's looking after its growth, its development. The integrity of its political system and so on - that is the main focus for the CHinese nation. The same with Russia.
+
+The only country that does not have a strong sense of that these days, which has lost it, is the United States - because it has become used to being the boss of everything, and therefore at home it's not the boss of anything and it's letting the domestic economy and domestic culture and cohesion just go to hell. It has let it weaken, which is why I thin tha tTrump ha da huge insight - make america great again. That was, I believe, it's tied to a deep insight abou thow you have to have - you can not be the master of the world if you do not have a strong domestic nation, at the heart, beacuse otherwies it will be hollow and it will fall apart.
+
+So I think there is something of an insightin that.
+
+That's my comment about Trump.
+
+I dn't believe that there is a global elite that is coordinating how these large nation states are cooperating, and what they would like and how to control the world - No. I believe that there is very real geopolitics involved here - the battles and struggles between China, Russia, Eurasia, the United States, the way Latin America and Africa are exploited, the struggles to cooperate with them more fairly vs just outright exploiting them and controlling their politics, and so on - all of these struggles are the big struggles and they are very real. They don't tell you about Geopolitics and dont 'want you to understand this.
+
+Of course there is an elite, they are parasites and they can disappear tomorrow and be controlled easily. Putin met the newly formed billionaires of Russia.
+
+He said "Listen, you did a good one, you took advantage of the instability, you grabbed some wealth, you got it- I'm gonna let you keep it, but there's gonn abe one rule. You have to follow the rules. You have to follow the law"
+
+Who makes the law? The state makes the law. What is the law? The law is taxation policy, inheritance policy, what private corporations are allowed and not allowed to do, and so on. Putin made it very clear to them that tehre's efficiency in them controlling pieces of the population, but if you cross the line you will go straight to jail. Follow the domestic system in place and you are not going to cross that line.
+
+So, those powers are still the greatest powers.
+
+```There's a lot of discussions to be had around geopolitics and the inner personal communications between leaders. A lot to be discussed there, but I tend to think there' sa lot more coordination than what we say at the least. I talk about the WHO and WEF and how even what they're setting up today - this public/private partnerhsip is setting up an interesting form - during this biosecurity health situation - that forms its own World Government as it is now```
+
+But, Ryan, don't forget that what you see - the World Economic Forum and the United Nations - what you see is what you are allowed to see. We don't see the other stuff. These guys who actually publicly show themselves and are the speaking heads, that's what you're allowed to see. So of course they're doing propaganda and messaging for their self-interest. An dthey'll coordinate that as much as they can, because there's a lot of money to be made. Pharma has a lot of lobbyists and they want to make sure taht they stay on top in temrs of making incredible profits - but in order to do that, they have to demonstrate that they are serving the empire.
+
+```Back to the concept of the illusion to drive in what we're discussing. One thing to bring in before we get into the vaccines - the idea of the bacterial pneumonia - specifically masks are a big part of what I want to talk about with you - but other thoughts about what drove that and whether or not this was an intentional action or just a byproduct```
+
+I have not seen convincing scientific work establishing that if you wear a lot of masks in the population you're going to transmit bacterial infections more. I haven't seen that. What I do see is that the general health is what matters.
+
+So, if the population and society is extremely stressed for economic reasons, family reasons, famly breakup, comign out of a war, the state police always present on the streets and bashing people - all of these things are determining the health of the individual, and it's the susceptibility of the individual to succumb to infection that matters more than the spread of infection.
+
+What you need to understand is that these infections are always present. You don't have to spread - you just need to create the conditions for them to be killers of individuals. They don't have to spread. You always have a whole flora of bacteria in your lungs an dit's always ready to pounce in there, as soon as your immune system is weaker and so on, they're going to take over. And those are the reasons that the winter death pattern is synchronous. It's not about spreading.
+
+Micriobiologists have a meme that they say - "There is everything everywhere". So this notion that it's about spread - it's like the notion about FOrest Fires. Forest Fires are not about ignition. The smokey the bear thing is misleading. Is a fairy tale. If you have a drought that lasts a long time, hot weather, and a lot of combustible material that has accumulated in the underbrush - there's going to be a major fire! Because it only takes one lightning shot or spark or one anything - there's always sources of ignition - but it's the conditiosn that give you that major fire.
+
+I wrote a paper on Forest Fires where I showed where the most sighted paper about forest fires being caused by global warming is completely wrong. They compaed the number of forest fires you can see with the newest technologies to when they were using binoculars from towers, and there were more fires. But when you actually look at the record in tree rings and lake sediments, there were way bigger fires in the past, and there are way less fires now. And fires are natural, have been there, many species have adapted to them and expect big fires, it's part of their cycle, and so on.
+
+So my paper was debunking that paper, and other experts have also said that it was just garbage, but they couldn't get it published in the biggest journal of science, where the original one had been published. I know something about forest fires.
+
+```Perfect analogy - speaks to a lack of - the drought obviously being an aspect that's being exacerbated by people in the area. Jjust watned to throw this out there, about lowering the general health (masks) I alwayas refrence this from BMJ in 2015. Randomized Control Trial of cloth vs medical mask, and the main finding is that moisture retention and reuse of the cloth mask, and poor filtration may increase the risk of infection. Adding that to the larger discussion - it's obvious that this being added to the mix can increase risk of bacterial pheumonia.```
+
+For sure if you are forcing people to wear masks, and you're frustrating their breathing and making them uncomfortable, nad stressing them out it can't be good.
+
+Of course, it's true, and there'll be alot of bacteria growing on that cloth, and these surgical masks are hydrophobic. There is a difference there, but you know these are small effects compared to the large effects that we found in our paper.
+
+The main thing which one has to say about health, which serious people know, is it's all about psychological stress. That's the pre-dawned determining factor.
+
+Professor Sheldon Cohen spent decades studying why people get influenza and get really sick from it. He started his studies in the 60s and 70s when you were allowed to infect healthy University students to see what would happen. What he found was, unambiguously, that the students who had stressful lives and felt and experienced stress in their lives, they were the ones who got sick, and they got more infected. It didn't matter that you were trying to infect them all, it was only those ones who got sick. Using known strains of influenza and trying to infect them, literally.
+
+He pursued that work and found that the most important factor is how socially isolated those students were.
+
+And since then we've come to understand a lot more about stress. One of the main thigns that we've come to learn about stress is that the negative physiological impact of stress is orders of magnitude greater in an elderly person than in a young person. So if you apply that stress to an elderly person, it's going to be much more deadly, and potentialyl much deadlier than for a young person. This is probably a large part  of why so many people were killed in homes.
+
+```Let me ask you abotu cortisol. he fight-or-flight reaction```
+
+Nothing is simple in the sense that when you identify a molecule that has this kind of effect, it's never linear. For example stress - it turns out that short term stress that you adapt to and then move on actually invigorates the immune system. It keeps you healthy. It's the long term chornic stress that is the killer. So if you're really chronically feeling stress, that's a real killer.
+
+In practice this means that you're going to experience chronic stress if your circumstances are transformed from what you're used to and what you'bve adapted to to something that you have a hard time accepting that this could be the new normal, and that this is unfair. I've always talked to my buddies in the shade all summer, and so on. So when you transform someone's lief - loss of employment, loss of employment, loss of relationships. War can have this impact. A war that can last a long tie devastastes health.
+
+So it's chronic stress that kills and it kicks in and is experienced because of how you see your life and your place in society, particular if you see it as having been transformed. So it's never simple, just a molecule or something.
+
+There are many studies for example that show that in certian circumstances, the dominant individuals in a dominance hierarchy will actually die sooner, more health problems, because their dominance is being challenged too much by other people who want to be dominant, and in those circumstances that stress is mroe important to their personal health than the stress that they are imposing on the underlings in the dominance hierarchy. Always complicated, but nontheless stress is what's key to understanding what happened in the United States during teh covid area.
+
+I have to admit that somebody like Fauci absolutely knows that there is an epidemic of bacterial pneumonia happening. He absolutely knows, therefore, that the recommendations not to use or overuse, in their terms, antibiotics is going to cause incredible amounts of deaths. And he's probably thinking "Great, there will be proof that there is a Pandemic.
+
+```I agree, and the data we've shown today and what you're discussion show that it's impossible to look at this and now recognize a level of conscious choice being made```
+
+Even if it's nto 100% conscious, if he wouldn't be able to verbalize it, for sure he's self-interested in going in that direction. They all are. The top people who are tied to pharma, this is what they want. They want a demonstration that there was a real pandemic. The biggest lie here is that a new pathogen appeared on earth which was more virulent than the usual thing that causes more deaths in the winter. That's a massive lie. That is not true.
+
+We showed in our paper, maybe we can go to the graph about Canada in our paper. Because that's very stunning. one of the later graphs.
+
+## Canada
+The one just abov ethat is all-cause mortality in Canada for several years, about a decade. You can see that in Canada, the bumps are always about the same size, including in the COVID period.
+
+So when eyou sum the deaths over what we call a cycle-year (mid summer to mid summer). We do this because the surge of deaths each year is sometimes on either side of the beginning of a calendar year.
+
+So we eliminate that counting problem by using cycle years. And the next grpah shows the mortality by cycle years as a function of time for Canada. We got into cycle 2021 here.
+
+The last 2 points there are for the COVID-period. There is absolutely not a hint of extra mortality compared to the decadal trend that you have there.
+
+The fluctuations around that line, the trend of increasing mortality due to increasing population. And alos aging of the population. There is no anomaly there, whatsoever. Statistically there is absolutely no SIGNAL THAT would allow you to say that in terms of yearly mortality, something special happened in Canada. So we concluded in this paper about Canada, that there was no panemic in Canada. Because by definition, a pandemic is something that causes 5 - 50 times more deaths than the usual influenza deaths, for example.
+
+That, in the scientific literature, is what they'll tell you that a pandemic is.
+
+There was no such thing in Canada, with huge differences from province to provinde, which never happens with a viral respiratory disease.
+
+```Prevalent immunity existed```
+
+Of course. But the point is that there was a nothing that could be called a pandemic in Canada.
+
+This idea that you can't detect a pandemic in the all-cause mortality is something also true of the last three most recent pandemics that were claimed. You cannot find the pandemics in any all-cause mortality data, whether US, Europe or Canada. In terms of robust data of all cause mortality, there is no such thing as a respiratory pandemic.
+
+```What does that mean to you?```
+
+We talk about them in our paper, they have names/years and I'm just not remebering thatm right now. We've looked at these. We've looked for these specific pandemics that were said to be important, n all the all-cause mortality that we'. It was a bacterial pneumonia.
+
+No pandemic in Canada, but huge excess deaths in the United States.
+
+The Canadian-US border - two of the biggest economical exchange partners in the world. 6000 km long (land border) between US/canada. Roads across all teh cities and everything's connecte.
+
+The size of the virus is tiny compared to the border.
+
+It' scrazy to believe hat what happened in the US.
+
+Jusrisdiction to jurisdiction dramatic differences in the action in term sof killing people of a virus makes no sense whastoever, given what we kno about these decisions. Period. It's proof, for the present knowledge that we have, that should be sufficient proof that there was no pandemic. And I've been saying that for amost 2 yeras now. Since the data came out.
+
+```Your previous study pointed out some of this stuff. And the maintsrream media elitist mainstrea media are even considering this information, and it is valid and sound```
+
+Well, they're not even trying to use logic and resaon. They're not even trying, it's not even among the tools that they use. Thy don't care about that stuff. All they need is a talking point, and to repeat it - that's the logic that they're working with.
+
+```Vaccination itself, what's happening there```
+
+This graph shows a blowup in the recent year / year and a half, to the present. Right before that first sudden rise, the COVID-peak. Then in the US, then another bump right in the middle of summer 2020, Then a large winter peak, very large, exceedingly large, which about half of that can be counted as, according to CDC, bacterial pneumonia. Half of those deaths are people who died bacterial pneumonia, at least, that's recognized in their own data. And that's never been publicly discussed, it's like it doesn't even exist.
+Then you come down from that maximum, and coming down is the natural cycle of things - you can't stay there - if a large component of this is from viral respiratory diseases, and alos the other causes of deaths that are heavy in the winter, well those are seasonal and they're going to come down, so they do comw down. And when they do come down is when they started vaccinating. The orange curve there is total # of vaccinations per day, any dose, however many doses, and the dark blue line is the number of people per day who are doubly vaccinated now. They are counted on only the 2nd dose, you see.
+
+The vaccination campaign occurred before the next peak in all-cause mortality, which occurred later in the summer of 2021. And it's huge - bigger than anything you'd normally see in a winter peak, in the last decade. And it's occurring after the vaccination campaign has essentially ended. So, the vaccination campaign - its' even bigger than the last summer, than the summer previous. So the vaccination campaign had no impact on reducing that, whatever it is. So then you can ask, why are people dying in the summer like that, and you can notice that the number of young people who are dying in the summer is massive, it's huge. Younger people that are dying in the summer - why are they dying? Again that peak is correlated to poverty, obesity and heat. Maybe the chronic stress has lasted long enough for what was originall ythe most resilient young people are succuming to this accumulated chronic stress in teh covid period, and they finally give in);
+
+Or, vaccination campaign had an impact on weakening immunty systems and making peple more vulnerable to ying? It's a possibility, but the correltations are the same as we had previously, which is obesity, poverty and heat.
+
+In fact, there were about the same number of vaccinations across the street. A little less in the less densely populated states, but it's a minor factor.
+
+```I don't want to get too deep into the discussion of the vaccination efficacy and so on, because I want people to focus on what it says about the pandemic itself, but can you dive a little deeper on what your study found? This basically shows that it had no effect on that, but can you elaborate on that point for me?```
+
+It would be silly to think that because they started vaccinating there was a drop in the winter mortality which is massive. No serious scientific argument than can be made for that. Absolute humidity of the air is a big controlling factor - it controls stability of aerosol particles in the air, and therefore local transmission in the environment of viral respiratory disease. But also controls the dryness attack of your tissues and lungs an throat and so on. So humidity is one of those reason why winters are so deadly, interms of transmission, but also interms of making your tissues more vulnerble, the ones that are in contact with air, basically, your lungs. So, that's going to come down, irrespective of a vaccination campaign.
+
+I just don't know, listen one of the things we don't know is why is there even a summer peak? Thi is the first time in epidemiology that we see summer peaks of all-cause mortality. It's unheard of. The only times you see peaks in the summer is whne there is a summer heat wave, very localized in a particular spot, and you see a surge of deaths.
+
+We saw that in two places on the west coast, a heat wave, and we shoulw that in our paper. In 2003 in Paris there was a heatwave that killed about 10,000 elderly french people. Those are the only times that you can have a peak in the summer. And yet we have a peak in the summer, and it correlated with poverty, obesity and heat-waves.
+
+And, why is it bigger in the second summer than in the first summer? And among even younger poeple, as well. These are the unasnwered things. To try and make a link to the vaccines is very tenuous. I wouldn't necessarily go there, but I would say that it has to be studied.
+
+```We talked about myocarditis and a lot of potentials, but that is the right way to go about this. At least, we should ask "why aren't they asking those questions?"```
+
+You have to be careful bceause the data we are examining is on the scale of the whole nation, and of entire states, and it's a massive effect of mortality. Whereas 1 in 5000 serious adverse reactions from the vaccines is a high incidence rate, but it would be a very small effect on mortality.
+
+``` This research in general - no one wiht discernment can read the data you're laying out here, walk away and say - nah there's nothing to that ' ```
+
+Yeadon has said that thi sis the kind of data you want when you're looking for firm. Intellectually honest people out there with the ability to recognize are seeing that we are making very good points. And everyone else.
+
+You know, Ryan, this is a truth of institutions that manage and fund science: the research that will be done is the research that they fund. Nothing else will be studied. So you asked a researcher to find the benefits of vaccine, he will do research on that and try to find benefits in order to have hi researcher renewal.
+
+The research enterprise becomes an extremely directed and biased enterprise to support whatever state or commercial interests are driving the funding apparatus.
+
+Dr. Ioannidis, famous epidemiologist, said that the majority of science results are false. He showed a paper about that using Bayesian influence theory, and he argued with a rigorous mathematical induction, that the majorty of scientific results have to be false, because they're looking for small effects, and people have an interest in finding an effect, and as a result, it must be false. He was talking abou tall the medical research where they use RCT to find the benefit of
+
+And these, like the trials that were done to show that the vaccines were effective, I looked at them, I studied them, that's some of the baddest science I've ever seen. And it's expressly funded by Pharma.
+
+You know, Pfizer in one of the papers where they argued that they have a 95% benefit, they actually say this paper was written by Pfizer. It's not even funded anymore, it's explicitly written by, and they'r eresponsible for it.
+
+There's a big lawsuit in the United States right now, Dr Doshi, very famous expert on pandemics, he and 50 or 100 other scientists are sueing the government, why? To see the data that was used to provisionally approve the vaccines. That's what we're working with now/
+
+```A lot of this is starting to come out at the seams, and it's hard not to see a willful deception```
+
+I was appalled to see how bad it was. I could see problems that wer way beyond the very polite criticisms that I was seeing.
+
+``` This has been there for a very long time, and people like the WHO an BEMJ, they called these things out in the past, like about conflating numbers, or misrepresenting pathogens```
+
+Some people like Doshi and others have continued to be vocal about it. And Ioannidis and several others.
+
+They're there, but theirvoices are not being amplified.
+
+```Exactly what we're trying to do on this show with your study.```
+

new/Eugenics_you_dare.md

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+# But, Genocide? Eugenics?
+
+## Eugenics
+People have some difficulty defining what eugenics is. This is because the most famous historically recorded instance of eugenics is itself not normally studied by the broad public, except in a very limited and superficial capacity. It generally comes down to this:
+- Germans wanted to kill those that didn't look like them
+- Germans took the devaluing of "non-Aryan" lives as an opportunity to perform horrific experiments
+
+So, if someone suggests that the current situation involving lockdowns and vaccines were somehow related, you can laugh at them and state that there is no racial group that has been rounded up en masse and eradicated from our gene pool, and no people, especially not twins, have been locked up in a laboratory and been forced to undergo grotesque experiments with reckless abandon. In fact, you can find an endless of array of differences if you want to.
+
+Sure, we can't say that these events are perfectly equivalent, but that doesn't mean they aren't worthy of comparison. In fact, I would go so far to say that if there are any lessons to have been learned from the historically significant event of the holocaust, it's that we shouldn't be so reluctant to make comparisons, for it required of a society to cease criticizing the direction of the culture so that it could reach the levels of apathy and depravity that were reached in Nazi Germany.
+
+It is not a reasonable standard to only define eugenics as the most obviously and aesthetically offensive events which may have resulted from it. If we are to understand how a declared goal of improving the human condition might somehow become associated with in the worst expressions to come out of human beings, then we must understand the values which surround eugenics, its goals, and the ways in which it can be practiced.
+
+What is eugenics? Greek etymology indicates that it would mean **well-born**! The concept that we can positively affectet the genetic makeup of the human race.
+
+## Critics
+Many will instantly say: "What a great idea!". Isn't it our moral imperative to develop and advance the human species or human race towards being better capable and having less of a tendency to suffer disease? Indeed, it is difficult or even impossible to argue against such a statement at face value, but to define the standard by which we understand ourselves to be fulfilling such an ideal, as well as to evaluate a given proposition, to see if it meets such a standard is where the real fun begins. Even to establish who makes the evaluation is an ever complex task, in and of itself, and we are likely not in the best position to declare such.
+
+## Different Time
+Very trye, again, and this appears to be a factor that is difficult to consolidate in the face of technological changes and buffers of resources having expanded over the course of prosperous periods of time.
+
+The basic idea here is that what might have been a good idea in principle was derailed from its truly most utilitarian route and was, instead, used for nefarious purposes as a result of certain factors more prevalent at the time. These are:
+- Limitations of technology
+- A smaller subset of declared human rights
+- Underdeveloped philosophies of the day
+- Lack of law restricting particular idas
+- The personal inclintations of those occupying positions of power in those days

new/Hegel_OS.md

@@ -0,0 +1,312 @@
+# Requires Praxis
+Praxis is what you have when you combine theory, Hegelian Reason as we're going to see, critical theory, postmodern theory, woke theory, Theory
+Put into practicecombined with being put into rpactice
+activism on behalf of theoretical or ideological model
+
+negative thinking and do activism on behlaf of it. ngeative thinking becomes positive, because it prevents us from going into calamities that are contained within a seed of the future that can possibly be blossomed
+
+Perfected society - we have the seeds of it and wej ust have to peel away the problems and the other society emerges
+
+Communims doesn't know how -> alchemical
+
+We see that to understand both leftism and also Hegel's relevance to that, we have to grapple with the dialectic. This
+
+# OPerating System
+the operating system behind leftism at least since hegel's time
+leftism from the progressive school of thought that followed him
+young hegelianism
+Young Hegelianism distinguished  from old hegelianism
+it's difficult to decipher Hegel
+radically different interpretations of him exist, erupting in the later years of and death
+
+## Differences Between Young and Old Hegelianism
+- young = progressive
+- old   = ultra conservative
+
+briefly: philosophy describing emergence of a perfected state through perfection of ideas
+young hegelians looked at worl dthey lived in and said we're no tthere yet Prussians all sorts of contradictiosn in our experience
+old hegelians, conservatives, looked at state they live in and said aha we're already there
+dialectic had already achieved what it aimed to be
+
+## Prussia
+*already had realized itself and emerged in prussia at the time, which demanded that history had ended.. History. No change is needed from this historical high-point. Mid 19th century Prussia*
+- Young Hegelians are distinguished because they looked at this old hegelian idea and said NO there's too many problems there
+- Karl Marx was a Young Hegelian, and influenced by other thinkers too
+
+### Dialectic Origins
+Kant develops the Dialectic, Ficta developed it further, then Shelling and Hegel, etc..
+Nevertheless, Marx was a young Hegelian, and we can understand the centrality of the dialectical application to Marx by going to the Marxist.org glossary. (Great resource to see how the Marxists themselves want their own people to think about their own terms)see how the marxists ddefine their own terms. The woke are different from the Marxists, but this gives us historical insight
+
+## Marxist description of Hegel
+- MOST Important representative of classical german philosophy
+- represented an objective idealism and a brilliant investigator of the laws of dialectic, and he was the first to apply
+- Dialectical application is what Marx turned into Dialectical materialism
+- the mode by which Marxism progressed and though their article of faith (dialectical materialism)
+
+*Kant established the structure of the dialectic, developed further by Ficta, and then through both hegel and shelling, Marx was able to take these ideas and put his own spin on it*
+
+- Hegel took the theoretical Dialectic and made it practical: the first to consciously apply, and he did this ironically or not ironically
+- abstract - negative - concrete
+- Take the abstract, challenge it against its negative, to arrive at a concrete applicable form - apply it to the changing of society
+
+## Philosophical
+Kant performed a philosophical endeavour - something going on like how Socrates would have engaged
+Kant and Ficta who really initiated the philosophical idea
+compare the ideas against one another and find the flaws to find what we're missing and achieve a better understanding
+philosophers use this approach - a dialectical approach that's abstract
+on the other hand, hegel had this idea that we'd use this to create a better society
+
+# Applicable
+change society using the dialectic and studying the ideas and the shape of the state and the spirit that it generates
+he figured out how to apply it so he brings the laws of dialectic into application - Praxist begins with Hegel
+Marx renames it after having adopted it and doing a number of things to it
+CENTRAL TO MARXISM - this dialectic
+central to all of the left, since marx, is Marxism
+so the dialectic is the underriding operating system for the past 200 years
+
+# Engels/Marx according to Marxist.org
+taking fom Marxist.org - > they quote Engels and Marx on this idea
+Engels wrote in his review of Marx's critique of poltiical economy -
+"The Hegelian method, on the other hand, was in its existing form quite inapplicable."
+"it wasn't good enough - even the now applied form of the dialectic is still too unapplicable
+it was essentially idealist - the elaboration of a world outlook that was more materialist than any previous one"
+
+hegels method took as its point of departure pure thought built here the starting point should be inexorable facts
+Marxist Communism vs Hegelian dialectic
+we're not engaging at the realm of pure thought, but at inexorable facts
+came from nothing through nothing to nothing
+this was by no means appropriate here in this form (the here and now the political eceonomy0
+nevertheless all of the available material - it was the only piece that could be used as a starting point (for what Marx wantaed to do). It had not been criticized or overcome. Fell into oblivian because Hegelian school hadn't the slightest idea of what to do with it. We had to subject the method to growing criticism. What distinguished Hegel's thought from that of all other Philosophers was the tremendous sense of the historical upon which it was based. Abstract and idealist as it was in form, yet the development of his thoughts always proceed parallel with the development of world history. The latter is the test of the former."
+
+## Historicist
+Dialectic is the thing that is moving history.
+
+"If by the real relation it was inverted and stood on its head, nevertheless, the real content entered everywhere into the philosophy, all the more so since Hegel, in contrast to his disciples, did not parade ignorance, and was one of the finest intellectuals of all time. He was the first to show development and inner coherence in history, and while today much in his philosphy of history might seem peculiar to us, the grandeur of his fundamental outlook is admirable even today."
+
+"regardless of who you compare him with, his phenomenology, aesthetics, history of philosophy - magnificent conception of history prevails and everywhere the material is treated historically in a definite, even in if abstracted interconnection with history."
+
+Theories concentrate themselves - what we need to do is to take Hegel and concentrate him through critique. (Apply the dialectic to the dialectic). Critical Theory was to come later.
+
+"This epic making conception of history was the direct theoretical premise for the new materialist outlook, and this alone provides a connecting point for the logical method too. Since this forgotten dialectic has lead to such results, even from the standpoint of pure thinking, and had in addition so easily settled accounts with all preceding logic and metaphysics, there must be at any rate have been more to it than sophistry and hair-splitting."
+*Schopenhaur woudl have criticized it as sophistry.*
+
+"But the criticism of his method, with all of its official philsophy, had fought shy of and was no trifle".
+
+Big fan of historicism and that Hegel brought forward very important ideas, such as the Dialectic, but it wasn't correct in its formulation. If it's standing on its head it has to be righted. (Marx wrote that).
+
+## Marx critiques Hegel's dialectic
+"My dialectic is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain, ie the process of thinking (which under the name of the idea), he even transforms into an independent subject. The demi-urgos of teh real world, and the real world is only the external phenomenal form of the idea. "
+
+For Hegel, there's the idea, which is what's going on for rea, and then the world becomes an image of the idea."
+
+Marx says "That's upset down". We ahve to look at the real world and go from there.
+
+The ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought. (Marx might be right about this)
+
+"The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel's hand by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of workign in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him, it is standing on its head. It must be turned right-side up again if you are to discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell."
+
+- Dialectic central, but Marx and Engels not happy with how it's been formulated (focusing on the ideal instead of the material).
+- The structure of Hegel's dialectic applied to Hegel's dialectic. Framed as the abstract, as Hegel did to Kant's formjulation of dialectic.
+- Has to be made more material
+
+Dialectical materialism for Marx, through dialectic of the dialectic. A new view, which is the progression of history (according to Marxist.org)
+
+## Dialectic Focus
+Central to Engel, Hegel and Marx.
+Feuerbach tutored Marx on Dialectics.
+Operating system of the left operates on itself to evolve itself.
+
+Hegel to Kant
+Marx and Engels to Hegel => receive dialectical materialism -> the essence of Marxism
+
+## Dialectic (on Marxist.org)
+"It was hegel, who was able to sum up this picture of universal connection and mutability of things in a system of logic which was the foundation of what we today call. As Engels put it "The whole world, natnural historical intellectual, is represented as a process - that is, as in constant motion, change, transformation, development - and the attempt is made to trace-out the internal connection, that makes a continuous whole of all of this movement and development."
+
+It was in the decade after Hegel's death in the 1840s, when Hegel's popularity was at its peak in Germany, that Marx and Engels met and worked out the foundations of their critique of bourgeoious society. Hegel's radical young followers had in their hands a powerful critical tool, the dialectic, with which they ruthlessly criticized Christianity, the dominant doctrine of the day (something Hegel's was interested in as well, wanted to establish a folk-based German religion which escaped the Orientalism of Christianity which he felt had been foisted upon Germany inappropriately. The young hegelians really felt this way and ruthlessly criticized Christianity using the dialectic).
+
+However, one of these young Hegelians, ludwig feurbach, pointed out that holy family was after all only a heavenly image of the earthly family, and that by criticizing theology with philosophy, the younger hegelians were only doing the same thing as the Christians. Hegel's absolute idea was just another name for God. For Feurbach, ideas wer ea reflection of the material world and he held it to be ridiculous that an idea coulddetermine the world. Feurbach had declared himself a Materialist.
+
+Marx and Engels began as supporters of Feurbach. However, very soon, they took up an opposition to Feurbach, to restore the HEgelian Dialectic that had been abandonned by Feurbach. To free it from the rigidity of the idealistic Hegelian system and place the method upon a materialist basis."
+
+The dialectic applied to the dialectic itself - amazing.
+
+"Hegel was an idealist - to him, the thoughts within his brain were not the more or less abstract pictures of actual things and processes, but conversely, the processes and the things in their evolution were only their realized pictures of the idea. Existing somewhere from eternity before the world was. This way of thinking turned everything upside down and completely reversed the actualc onnection between things in the world.
+
+Thus, for Marx and Engels, thoughts were not passive and independent reflections of the material world, but products of human labour. And the contradictory nature of our thoughts hat their origin and their contradictions within human society. This meant the dialectics was not something imposed upon the world from outside, which could be discovered by the activity of pure reason, but was the product of humna labour changing the world. Its form was changed and developed by people and could only be understood by the practical struggle to overcome these contradictions, not just in thought, but in practice."
+
+Hegel puts forth this dialectic which he has dialectically derived from Kant, and using the vehicle of the young Hegelians, we now have Marx and Engels trying to turn this materialist, and they actually are, in fact, dropping in a dialectic on the dialectic again and transforming it into something else, and the thing which comes out of this is the dialectical materialism which, Marx said, stands Hegel on his head. We have firmly established the line from Hegel, to the young Hegelians, to Marx and Marxism and the Marxists themselves, obviously, still support this because they write about this in this particular way on their website today.
+
+The operating system of the left, up from hegel to mArx is dialectic, and it in fact takes the dialectic and concentrates it into a form which is Marxism - which is the dialectically enhanced dialectic. This is where Marxism comes from, and it has to be stressed tha tthe entire operating system of the left, frmo the 1840s and 50s when Marx and Engels start writing this stuff down, and Marxism becomes a thing, especially the Russian revolution of 1917, the entire operating system of the left really becomes marxist. Up through probably the 1960s, when finally the failures of communism become undeniable. When finally Kruschev spekas and reveals as the Premier of the Soviety Union how horrible STalin's regime was. How opposite it was to what people claimed it was. How what Walter Durante at the NY claimed it was. The propagandists got the Pulitzer prize, like Nicole Hannah Jones today. We have established it that far.
+
+It turns out that even though we have this disillusionment with Marxism in the 1920s, we have this frustrating among many communists that the Russian revolution worked, but that no other revolutions were working. THe hungary revolution failed. No other revolutions are sparking.
+
+Marx's prediction that this would happen in big industrial centers like NY, LA, Chicago, berlin isn't coming to pass. Only in BFE peasant Russia. Tried in Hungary but they couldn't do it.
+
+Somethign is wrong and the Neo-Marxists invented a new theory. They are very interested in the dialectic and they, in fact, make it central to the project. The talk about it all the tim and make it the titles of their books, like "THe Dialectic of Enlightenment".
+
+Critical theory is, in fact, the application of the precise dialectic that's now been dialectically moved again from where Marx was. It's been said that the Critical Theorists, where Marx said that Hegel was standing on his head, they put Hegel back upright. Marx wanted to turn him upside down by making it too materialist and not realistic enough to help people actuall yoperate. They didn't take it back to the idea, as Hegel did, they took it into the realm of culture. That' swhy they're often called Cultural Marxists, but it's actually more accurate to call them Cultural Hegelians. Cultural Dialecticists?
+
+They're not applying it in the Kantian sense, they're not applying it in the strict Hegelian sense (dialecticized into dialectical materialism). They're now criticizing that and bringing the critique to Marx himself and putting it in the realm of culture, and in doing so they're doing it in this new way where the dialectic has been applied to itself repeately to come up with something new. They're also becoming more politically activated again, like the young Hegelians were. They're dipping back to when Marx was his most "Young Hegelian" - some Marx critiques suggest Marx lost his way when he came to Das Kapital - Communist Manifesto was better. When he started getting int oreading Kapital, he was already 'off his rocker' smelling his own farts etc and got it wrong. They wanted to put Hegel back into Marx, but without making the same mistakes that Marx critiqued Hegel.
+
+They also wanted to work Freud in, social science, and some other things. But they wanted to figure out how to attack culture, having decided, following people like Gramsci/Lukach, that culture upholds society and prevents these revolutiosn to the end of history (to communism). It's a very politically activated sense for the Neo-Marxists.
+
+The case, here, is that this is the fundamental operating system of Leftism. It drives their vehicle. It's how the left thinks, moves and achieves its goals.
+
+The most recent manifestation are also of this operating system, as it's come down for the last 200 years (from the metaphysics of Hegel).
+
+## Horkheimer
+The first chair of the frankfurt school institute for Social Research - wrote on traditional and critical theory (defining it for the first time).
+
+"This activity (Critical Theory) is called Critical Activity (Ruthless Criticism of everything that exists, to realize his own vision being imagined into the world). Less in the sense, it has, in the idealist critiques of pure reason (not Kant) than in the sense that it has in the dialectical critique of political economy (Hegel)."
+
+In particular, though, Political Economy was that phrase we saw from Marx, describing political economy that Engels was commenting on. Hegel through Marx.
+
+"It points to an essential aspect of the dialectical theory of society, Horkheimer concludes".
+
+Horkheimer, first leader of the Frankfurt school, is really where Critical Theory comes from. The seat of Neo-Marxism. This arose when he, in conversation with some others, envisioned the idea of creating, for the critical left, a great analysis and, ventually, book on the dialectic that would restore something of Hegel from Marx. Marx's failures were critical to understanding that task - we had to criticize him through dialectics (his materialism). He produces, in 1944-47, a book with another Neo-Marxist called the Dialectic of Enlightenment. Considered to be the real comprehensive treatment of Critical Theory - the first real statement of Neo-marxism and what NeoMarxism is about. The Dialectic of the Enlightenment - explaining that the enlightenment unleashes its own dialectic which turns reason into unreason and rationality into irrationality.
+
+## From the book
+"In the book of Dialectic of Enlightenment, Horkheimr and Adourno make the case, in the words of an editor from one of it's editions, philosophical fragments edition", it's an afterward where he describes what's going on with the dialectic of enlightenment.Self-destruction of western reason is seen to be seen in a historical and fateful dialectic. Domination of external nature, internal nature and society. Enlightenment, which split these these fears apart, is traced back to its mythical roots. Enlightenment and myth are not seen, therefore, as irreconilable opposites, but as dialectically mediated qualities of both real and intellectual life.
+
+Myth is already enlightenment, and enlightenment reverts to mythology. This paradox is the fundamental thesis of the book. Reason appears as inextricably entangled with domination. Since the beginnings of history, liberation from the compulsions of external nature has been achieved only by introducing a power relationship of second degree. Both the repression of the internal nature of human drives (Marcuse likes this), and social domination are already at work in myth. Finally, Fascism, and the modern culture industry, are the forms taken by a return of repressed nature. (Freudian aspects as well).
+
+In the service of an advancing rationalization of instrumental thought modeled on the domination of nature and serving its purposes, enligthened reason is progressively hollowed out until it reverts to the new mythology of a resurrected relationship to nature. To violence."
+
+This is what the dialectic of enlightenment is arguing, according to this editor.
+
+## Enlightenment to Marcuse
+"Enlightenment understood in the widest sense is the advance of thought, has always aimed at liberating human beings from fear, and installing them as natures, yet the whole enlightened earth is radiant with triumphant calamity."
+
+Enlightenment has devolved into domination, reason has become a tool of domination (precursors of post-modernism here in 1944-47).
+
+This book culminates at the end with a cheerless proclamation with a thesis in the progress of industrial society, which is supposed to have conjured away the law of increasing misery - it had itself brought into being "the concept would justify the whole". The human being, as a person, as a bearer of reason, is going under. The Dialectic of Enlightenment is culminating objectively in madness.
+
+Rationality becomes irrationality by the dialecticic of enlightenment. The thesis meets its antithesis - ratioanlity is becoming irrationality, so a synthesis which escapes this is going to be needed. This is what tehy call for, and Critical Theory is the tool to do it. The Neo-Marxists are completely on board with the concept of Dialectic. The Neo-Marxists are going to become the things which lead up to Herbert Marcuse, the father of the new left, which takes over where the old left (the marxists). We already see this trajectory of relying, still, on the operating system of the dialectic. Marcuse talk sabout the dialectic all the time.
+
+One dimensional man (most famous book - 300,000+ copies in the first year):
+"Dialectical thought understands the critical tension between is and ought. First, as an ontological condition pertaining to the structure of being itself, however the recognition of this state of being, its theory, intends from the beginning a concrete practice."
+
+We have to understand, through the analysis of critical tension (of what is and ought) - normative vision of a perfected society. This is something very important. Dialectical thought takes this an ontological condition that pertains tot he structure of being itself.
+
+Language of Hegel - abstract meeting its negative and resulting in a concrete practice. Activism. Which will lead us to the new multidimensional analysis which uses Critical Theory to achieve what it's trying to do - have both is and ought, not just is as its analytical mode (two dimensional).
+
+This dialectical thing is the essence of Critical Theory. Up to Marx, this was called Dialectical Materialism. The Dialectic of Hegel (derived from Hegel) is the operating system of the Old Left. With Marcuse we have the birth of the New Left, also relying on this dialectic. It's no longer central tot he old left, and whatever remnant goes forward out of the death of communist regimes (horrors of communism, crisis of faith in communism), and the old left leading back to the Old Marxists, but also to the new left which arose in its wake, largely starting in the years leading up to and launching off the Vietnam War.
+
+What does this look like in practice?
+
+# Marcuse's Dialectic of the New Left
+A few examples from his writing, but here's one in *One Dimensional Man*.
+
+"The laws of thought are laws of reality, or rather, become laws of reality if thought understands the truth of immediate experience as the appearance of another truth, which is that of the true forms of reality - of the ideas. Thus, there is contradiction rather than correspondence between the dialectical thought and the reality. The true judgement judges this reality not on its own terms, but in terms which envision its subversion, and in the subversion reality comes into its own truth."
+
+Marcuse is recommending a very subversive approach in application. The dialectic becomes a subversive activity, in the sense that it's something where we get in and undermine that which exists by confronting that which is with its negations. Thesis will meet antithesis in a subversive way, and this will force us to look for some synthesis, or force us to start tearing away the constructs of current society so the seed of the perfect society can blossom (Marcusian thought). Multidimensional or two dimensional thought at least.
+
+Marcuse's ideas were paradigmatic of the post-war (WW2) Critical Theory school that inspired the Black Feminists. It's the second generation Critical Theory that then becomes the roadmap to developing the woke that we live in today.
+
+## Peeling Away Contradictions
+Repressive Tolerance:
+"According to a dialectical proposition, it is the whole which determines the truth."
+Hegelian idea that you need to understand the whole to understand the particulars - metaphysical axiom. The dialectic is how you approach doing this.
+
+"This is not in the sense that the whole is prior or superior to its parts, but in the sense that its structure and function determine every particular condition and relation".
+
+This is pure Hegelianism. You are trying to extract the whole from the particulars. Similar to peeling away the problems of society so that the Utopian society can emerge. So that the seed can blossom or bloom.
+
+"This, within a repressive society, even progressive movements threaten to turn into their opposite to the degree that they are willing to accept the rules of the game. Generally, the function and value of tolerance depend on the equality prevalent in the society in which tolerance is practice. Tolerance stands subject to overriding criteria, its range and its limits cannot be defined in terms of their respective society."
+
+### Dialecticism of Tolerance
+She is demanding the dialectical treatment of tolerance, where tolerance is going to meet intolerance, thesis meets antithesis, and the synthesis is going to be a repressive tolerance, or a liberating tolerance, that's going to be tolerance that's not actually tolerant, but that's going to lead us toward a new and better-liberated future. Tolerance gets the dialectic applied to it, and you get this totally tilted playing field , which is the logic of the world today. Conservatives must be censored, in fact they must be PRE-censored - nto enough that they lose freedom of speech, they have to lose the freedom to even think the thought - stop the idea from even entering their mind. Cognitive liberty put under threat by repressive tolerance. In the Neo-marxist era, we are now talking about the dialectic being still central - the operating system continues - the dialectic on tolerance.
+
+Essay on Liberation:
+"The Dialectics of Democracy
+If democracy means self-government of free people with justice for all, then the realization of democracy would preusppose abolition of the existing pseudodemocracy. Thesis, democracy, antithesis, pseudodemocracy because there are actually systems of power. Justice for all? well, not everyone gets justice, so we don't live in a democracy, we live in a pseudodemocracy (antithesis), so we need a synthesis of this.
+
+In the dynamic of corporatism, the fight for democracy thus tends to assume anti-democratic forms, and to the extent to which the democratci decisions are made in parliaments on all levels, the opposition will tend to become extra-parliamentary. The movement to extend constitutionally professed rights and liberties, the daily life of the oppressed minorities, even the movement to preserve existing rights and liberties will become subversive to the degree to which it will meet a stiffening resistance of the majority against an exaggerated interpretation and application of equality and justice."
+
+This logic is playing exactly right now under these so-called equity and racial and other social justice movements. So what do we have?
+
+Thesis: democracy antithesis: pseudodemocracy (because of power dynamics).
+Synthesis: Ideal Democracy (Marcuse wrote about this elsewhere. Communists also refer to this - position themselves as ideal democracy because, for them, if everybody's not perfectly equal (same money and opportunity) you can't have true democracy, because certain people can't speak up as much, they aren't going to be able to get the polls as readily, won't have the same ability to participate or the same access. Not a true democracy until there's perfect equity).
+
+They subvery language -> democracy meets this argument (its antithesis), so we have a synthesis of an "ideal" democracy, but the adjective gets dropped so that when these people speak of democracy, or tolerance, they mean not regular tolerance, but discriminating tolerance. Democracy presupposing that we're in a communist-like situation before it counts. This is how their language games are constructed. This is why they have so much double-speak.
+
+The neo-Marxists are certainly going to have been tied up with this idea of the dialectic, regardless of how much they associate with Marx. The dialectic is applied to the dialectic in a reflexive pattern which concentrates it.
+
+## Recap
+Hegel -> Young Hegelians -> Marx -> Marxists -> Neo-Marxists
+Constant thread, throughout this dialectical engine, applied to itself to create its new iteration. Overarching project, or underlying operating system of leftism has been the Dialectic.
+
+## Theodore Adourno
+1966 - Post modernism emerging in France. Adourno writes a book called "Negative Dialectics". It seems to be the case that these guys have gone Post-Hegelian.
+The Critical Theorists are normally called Neo-Marxists, the post-modernists describe themselves as Post-Marxist -> they've given up on a Marxism. They retain much of the same underlying ethos, btu they don't believe it works and they become negative and disparing and create an upsidedown world version of it that just is cynical.
+
+Publishing of Negative Dialectics, extraordinarily critical of Hegel, Foucault is Critical of Hegel, but Derrida is VERY critical of Hegel. Leotard a bit in the Post-modern condition. We see this shift with some thinkers. Post-modernists and Adourno undergo a shift to a post-Hegelian structure. To go Post means to have retained the essential core of the approach, while deciding that the specific projects that had been launched on that core must hhave been done incorrectly and have failed. So you abandon the specifics while retaining the essential core.
+
+In a sense, in later writings by Adourno the Post-Modernists seem anti-Hegel, but they're not really - they're post Hegelian. Disparing of the idea of the synthetic project, but not disparing of the idea of colliding thesis and antithesis. If you read Derrida's Deconstruction, or Foucault's ideas where you expose the contradictions and the progress of history. The contradictions of progress. The contradictions of calling anything knowledge at all. These are still a Thesis / antiThesis colliding projects. But these guys aren't looking for a Synthesis. They don't want that final 3rd step. They're post-Hegelian where hey've adopted the dialectical core, but abandonned the idea that a synthesis is necessary.
+Adourno - Negative Dialectics
+Derrida - deconstruction
+
+# PostModernists
+*Get to particulars, rather than come to some new synthetic whole*
+Synthesis for post-hegelian thought is a fool's errand. That's why the Marxist projects failed.
+Adourno: *Instead we need a negative dialectic*
+Derrida: *Deconstruct everything*
+Another example might be with a living room table:
+
+## Kitchen table
+- 4 legs
+- wood
+- round
+
+## Coffee table
+- 3 legs
+- metal
+- curvy triangle
+
+## Kitchen island
+- Wood
+- no legs
+- Block with wheels under it
+
+Flat surfaces = tables
+The couch can be a table!
+
+We can attack the idea of tables because they are different from one another, but we call them table. Let's leave it them at their particulars.
+
+General thrust of the dialectic remains. We still collide ideas with their opposites, their antithesese, their contradictions, their negatives (Hegalian frame). But we don't need to put the broken pieces back together, because we're extra cynical. Adourno thinks he has the ticket for a good future, btu the post-modernists tend to be more cynical.
+
+Negative Dialectic doesn't have any clear examples of what the solutions are.
+
+## Foucault
+Gives his critiques that the Hegelian approach might be good or bad, the dialectic might be good or bad. The underlying of the project is still Hegelian in that it attempts to reveal the internal contradictions in ideas like: Progress, Category, Science, Knowledge, Truth.
+
+Break down restrictions and expand potentialities. Similar to Marcuse: expand the range of being human into achieving liberation.
+
+Postmodern - disparing. Let's not even try to do anything positive
+
+Positive projects which came out of the dialectic project are in the synthetic aspect of the project. This is being abandonned, whereas Marcuse is still into it. All of the leftists are still operating very strongly in this Hegelian Dialectical frame.
+
+## Woke/CRT Uses it too
+Patricia Hill Collins gets into this in "Black Feminist Thought". Proto-critical race theory. Black feminism, and there's a link with Marcuse who inspired much of the black liberationist movements to think in Critical Theoretical ways, but it was picked up by the black feminists (Angela Davis, his PhD student).
+
+At the birth of woke, in 1990, in the pinnacle book of Black Feminist Thought with the same title, we read:
+"Black Feminism remains important because US Black Women constitute an oppressed group. As a collectivity, US Black women participate in a dialectical relationship, linking African American Women's oppression in activism (oppression and activism have to be related dialectically).
+Dialectical relationships of this sort mean that two parties are opposed and opposite. As long as black womens' subordination within intersecting oppressions of race, class,gender, sexuality and nation persist, Black Feminism as an activist response to that oppression will remain needed. In similar fashion, the overarching purpose of US Black Feminist thought is to resist oppression. Both its practices and the ideas that justify it. If intersecting oppressions did not exist, Black Feminist thought in similar oppositional knowledges would not be necessary. As a critical social theory, black feminist thought aims to empower Black African American women in the context of Social Injustice, sustained by intersecting oppressions. Since black women cannot be fully empowered unless intersecting opprressions themselves are eliminated, Black Feminst thought supports broad principles of social justice that transcend US Black womens' particular needs."
+
+Dialectical Relationships. Dialectical thinking. already core to understanding how Black Women as a collectivity (political group) are related to all the other axes of oppression and how they are to understand their own oppression, and how these oppressions bang up against each other and compete against ecah other and clamor for attention. The goal is to create solidarity ( to be affected through Intersectionality). The next book after this one is "Intersectionality" (1993?).
+
+"This dialectic of oppression and activism, the tension between the suppression of African American Womens' ideas an d our intellectual activism in the face of that suppressison constitutes the politics of US Black feminist thought."
+
+The DIALECTICS of oppression and activism constitute US Black feminist thought. More important, understanding this dialectical relationship is critical in assessing US Black Feminist thought, its core themes, epistemological significance in connections to domestic and trans-national black feminist practice, is fundametnally embedded in a political context that has challenged its very right to exist.
+
+..........
+
+"As long as social justice remains elusive for african american women, it is likely to evade US society overall" - Just asserted based on whatever.
+"Therefore, the need for Black Women's activism most likely will persist, but while the dialectical relationship linking oppression and activism remains (Praxis), the changing organization of intersecting oppressions, as well as the contours of activism required for resistance, demand a dynamic black women's activism and an equally vigorous US BLack feminism" - Theory and practice both have to be put in play.
+
+Lines are very straight from Hegel to Marx to this.
+
+"Thus far, this volume has synthesized 2 main approaches to power. One is the dialectical relationship linking oppressiona nd activism where groups with greater power oppress those with lesssser amounts. Rather than seeing social change as preordinated and outside the realm of human action, the notion fo ad ialectical relationship suggests that change results from agency. Because African-american women remain at the bottom of the hierarchy from one generation to the next, US BLack women have a vested interest in opposing oppression. Not an issue for most women, it is a lived relality."
+
+Dialectical analyses of power point out that when it comes to social injustice, powers have competing interests that often generate conflict."
+

new/Hegel_OS_notes.md

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+# Praxis
+- theory combined with practice
+
+# Problematize
+- Negative thinking mediated through activism to become positive
+
+# Perfected Society
+- Contained within our society and unearthed through alchemy
+- Hence why Communism doesn't need to know how
+
+# Young Hegelian
+- Progressives who want to use dialecticism to unearth the better world (Marx)
+
+# Old Hegelian
+- Ultra conservative
+- Believe the spirit responsible for reality is expressed as the State
+- The individual's supreme duty is to the state
+
+# Kant
+## Transcendental Idealism
+- Beyond the sensory (understands the innate modes of processing)
+- Space/Time are our intuition
+- We cognize objects as they appear as per our sensibilities
+
+## Origin of Dialecticism
+- Developed by Kant
+- Logical critique of concepts like metaphysics
+- Synthetic concepts are empty without intuition
+- Transcendental Idealism
+- The fact of our having to synthesize a model in order for something means that we miss it entirely. Must transform the thesis through its antithesis to produce a synthesis which overcomes the antithesis
+
+# Marxists and Hegel
+- Hegel was first to take the dialectic as a theory of logic and apply it to the world through critique of Christianity
+- Objective idealism
+- Used his applied dialectics towards materialism
+
+## Triads
+- Hegel: Abstract, Negative, Concrete (challenge abstract with its negative and you will discover a concrete, applicable form of it which can be used to change society)
+
+## Application
+- Ideas shape and generate the spirit which composes itself in reality as the state. Change society through the dialectic.
+- Parxis begins with Hegel
+
+## Engels/Marx
+- Dialectic was too idealist
+- Engage inexorable facts instead of pure thought
+- Political economy
+- Retain historicism - development of thought proceeds in parallel with development of world history. History is the test of the thoughts preceding it.
+
+## Historicism
+- The dialectic moves history
+- Theories concentrate themselves - dialectic to dialectic.
+- History is the creation of an epic. Through materialism, we have a connecting point for the logical method.
+
+## Critique of Dialectic
+- Marx believed his dialectic to be the direct opposite of Hegel's.
+- Hegel: Thinking transforms the real world. Real world is an external phenomenal form of the idea
+- Marx: The ideal is the material wrold reflected by the mind, translated into thought.
+- Flipping Hegel's dialectic over to discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell
+- Framing Hegel's dialectic as abstract in a new dialectic, to produce dialectical materialism
+- This constitutes progression of history, fulfilling Hegel's historicism

new/Hegel_analysis.md

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+# Hegel
+
+## Dialectical Thinking
+Each thing is what it is only by becoming what it is not.
+
+### Examples:
+- Tolerance is only truly tolerant by becoming intolerant
+- Freedom is only truly free if you limit freedom for those who will otherwise destroy freedom
+- Democracy is only truly democratic when you disenfranchise the people who have undemocratic ideas
+- Critical thinking is only truly critical when it adopts a Critical Consciousness
+- Desegregated spaces can only become desegregated if you segregate it from the structural deterministic force of racism (otherwise present in the superstructure of society).
+- Desegregation through segregation is rationalized once one realizes that a space can only be deracialized by intentionally racializing, which empowers those who are otherwise oppressed by racism
+
+#### Kimberle Crenshaw
+There is a fundamental difference between saying "I am Black" and "I am a person who happens to be black".
+
+Racialize to fight against hte race that's already present and dominant.
+
+#### Horkheimer and Adorno
+Theodore Adorno criticized the fact that pursuing synthesis through the mechanisms of dialectic thinking can lead to hypocrisy and nonsense.
+
+He was later turned into a post-Marxist by these very mechanisms, though. Believed that a perennial philosophy can emerge, if we simply negate the particulars first by using dialectics, but without completing the dialectical process of synthesizing the new. Negation is enough to allow for the perennial philosophy to be realized.
+
+### Postmodern Analogs
+
+#### Foucault had the idea that through criticism, we can expose all of the absurdities and thus expand the potentialities of being
+
+#### Marcuse
+*From "Essay on Liberation":*
+```
+Beyond these limits, there is still the same, both physical and mental, for building a realm of freedom which is not that of the present. Liberation also from the liberties of the exploitative order. A liberation which must precede the construction of a free society; one which necessitates a historical break with the past and the present
+```
+
+The concept of alchemy is still present, with different wording, and less mysticism: the alchemist must purify themselves appropriately, or his alchemical magic won't work - a key hermetic belief.
+
+More:
+``` What is now at stake are the needs themselves. At this stage, the question is no longer 'how can the individual satisfy his own needs without hurting others' but, rather, how can he satisfy his needs without hurting himself. Without reproducing through his aspirations and satisfactions his dependence on an exploitative apparatus, which, in satisfying his needs, perpetuates his servitude.
+
+The advent of a free society would be characterized by the fact that the growth of wellbeing turns into an essentially new quality of life. This qualitative change must occur in the needs (in the infrastructure of man), itself a different dimension of the infrastructure of society. The new direction, the new institutions in relationship to production, must express the ascent of needs and satisfactions very different and even antagonistic to those prevalent in the exploitative societies.
+
+Such a change would constitute the instinctual asis basis for freedom, which the long history of class society has blocked. Freedom would become the environment of an organism which is no longer capable of adapting to the competitive performances required for wellbeing under domination. No longer capable of tolerating the aggressiveness, the brutality and ugliness of the established way of life, rebellion would then have tkaen root in teh very nature - the biology of the individual, and on the grounds the rebels would redefine the objectives in the strategy of the political struggle in which alone the concrete goals of liberation can be determined.
+```
+
+Hegel can be found all throughout this. Change the nature of the biology of the individual so he's no longer capable of tolerating domination. Maybe he can become psychopathic. When he speaks of biology, he doesn't necessarily mean it as was think of it as a scientific discipline, but rather the phenomenon of people being totally intolerant to the idea of tolerance or oppression. They are not psychologically capable of tolerating life - they need a liberated world. Marcuse project can be a vehicle to such a world.
+
+Marcuse considered that social change remains incomplete or even self-defeating unless it is being driven by human nature - by our very biology.
+
+In the advanced capitalist countries, the radicalization of the working class is counteracted by a socially enineered arrest of consciousness. And by the development and satisfaction

new/Helicopter_Wokenizing.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+# Helicopter Wokenizing
+
+It is tempting to have the opportunity to police the child. Your experts, the state, and the general community messaging are claiming that you must enforce such things simply to be an acceptable parent, thus there are repurcussions for not maintaining these practices among those you are responsible for, plus it gives you an opportunity to direct your child using a domain of rationale whose invocation will carry more weight than otherwise. You are continuously reinforced by other compliant citizens who demonstrate the motions for you.
+
+We must understand the overlap between Wokeism and Critical Theory's Foucauldian interpretation of language and the use of generalized, sanitary language by the state. How does this advise us towards our families? How does it orient a family member towards truthful discussions within the family?
+
+## Foucauldian/Derridian use of language:
+It is not so much the meaning of the words being intrinsic to the words themselves, but the power transfer which occurs through their use. This power is asserted as per the ability of some to wield it, as per their position in the world. That they would be biased such as to preserve their power or expand it is only natural, and we can expect that, in asserting power in transacted words with other humans, they will also be using the language as per their beliefs and interpretations as is related to these words. The framed context which they beset as environment for these words, and their emotion and subjective manner as they use these words.
+
+These things establish and guide their sense of meaning towards these words, but also affect the definitions and meaning of the words as is perceived by the interlocutor, who bears witness to the use of the words, and has their symbolic maps updated and recalibrated to maintain alignment with the world.
+
+So, if the words evoke meaning that is biased towards those who already have advantageous capability to make use of the words, then what is one to do? Seek positions, or improev the standard by which language and trust establish themselves? Well, we would have two ways of going about it:
+
+1. Control who gets to speak
+2. Use the most rigorous practices possible to minimize the impact of one's position and bias.
+
+It is easy to see which of these is more universal.
+
+## Foucauldian use of language as it relates to Wokeism

new/In a Nutshell.md

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+# In a Nutshell
+
+*What were they inaccurate about?*
+
+- Inaccurate about expectation that spike does not circulate
+- Inaccurate about understanding the distribution of antibodies
+- Inaccurate to evaluate one's immunity on the presence of antibodies
+- Inaccurate to use glowing efficacy based on relative risk of units of data that represent Days With Symptoms instead of survival, especially across greater time scales
+- Inaccurate to sugest that modification to spike sequence was done for safety
+- Inaccurate to suggest something is safe for pregnancy, particularly at time points when it could not have possibly been used for the entire duration of a full pregnancny
+- Inaccurate to suggest all the vaccines are equally safe
+- Inaccurate to conclude that each vaccine has different types of side effects
+- Inaccurate to suggest that natural immunity should not be expected to be effective and durable
+- Inaccurate to propose a Darwinian explanation as to why variants are created and to lay the blame entirely on the unvaccinated
+- Inaccurate to suggest that our PCR tests are effective at identifying COVID ones
+- Inaccurate at referring to asymptomatic spread as a spreading of disease rather than a spreading of immunity
+- Inaccurate to obsess over Long Covid
+- Inaccurate to report case numbers based on PCR, with no distinction for CT value, and to report daily changes to overall data sets, including revised changes to past dates.
+- Inaccurate to suggest mitigation stratgies are effective and harmless
+- Inaccurate to suggest that herd immunity can be achieved
+- Inaccurate to avoid doing blood work to test  D-Dimers, troponin levels, and changes to concentrations / proportion at different immune cells.
+- Inaccurate to scaremonger about variants, without helping people understand the distinction between antigen.drift, which occurs naturally with coronaviruses, and antigen shift, which happens with influenza.

new/Interfaith.md

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+# Interfaith
+
+## Matter
+What is.
+What matters.
+All is supposedly composed of it, except anti-matter (only known to interact with us via gravity)
+What of the void?
+
+What of that perfect vacuum without matter, because 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 origin of each Black Hole, giving us a nice never-ending array of dimensions through which all that is possible can become realized.
+
+In this scenario, is there an absolute state? Would it come to pass in any of these Universes, or is the abslute state the idea that we have every possible manifestation being given potential/having its events potentiated? Otherwise, is the absolute state the form when all matter is concentrated just prior to the expansion phase (Big Bang)?
+
+## Interfaith Intro
+*From the Christian Science perspective*
+
+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 prompted it to disseminate the idea outward.
+
+But what of the mind of the practitioner? They attempt to believe that there understanding of reality, or conception of what is to be understood in reality, is the ultimate one (not explicitly so, but it would seem impossible to avoid this conclusion), which we could all eventually attain. But how is that different from other ideological frames, such as what one would come to as a contemporary form of Hegelian Faith, which suggests history is moving towards the absolute state, and that any seeming disparity is just an indication that further syntheses are yet to occur. 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 their conception prevails, without realizing that there could be this framing; they are permitted to believe that their framework allows for their ego to go unchecked.

new/Jessica_Rose-Reprogramming_immunity.md

@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
+# Pfizer Reprograms Adaptive and Innate Immunity
+
+This is based on a new medRxiv pre-print study entitled:
+"The BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 reprograms both adaptive and innate immune responses".
+
+Many immunologists, vaccinologists, biostatisticians and others have made a variety of assertions about the mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 injections, and though there have been many disagreements about the credulity and accuracy, there are good reasons for better understanding what might possibly be occurring.
+
+For example, it's known that the T-2 effector response is unlike what would be encountered with a natural infection. There's the pattern of distribution as per the pharmacokinetics of vector delivery, the factor of the synthetic cationic lipids functioning as adjuvants, the fact of their lipophilic properties, and so forth.
+
+The paper is important as it expands and elucidates the discussion surrounding immune system dysregulation, and how this is not only with respect to the adaptive immune system, but even the innate system, whose maintained functionality is an important aspect to be considered in avoiding the pitfalls of aging and senescence.
+
+Some of these observations are also relevant in understanding the vaccine adverse reports, which are mostly discounted and functioning as a means to place data that we aren't too eager to analyze.
+
+Understanding how the mRNA products affect innate immunity is paramount, as one of the strongest differentiating factors in predicting disease outcomes is on the basis of one's innate immunity. That is to say, children do much better than adults particularly because they have such strong innate immune systems. This is also quite important when considering future infections with as-of-yet undiscovered pathogens for which no vaccine exists. That is to say, though we might benefit from cross-reactive immunity on the basis of adaptive responses we've made to pathogens who share genetic similarity with a prospective pathogen, we need to always be aware of the lowest common denominator which will affect all circumstances, including the ones for which no adaptive immunity exists, and this is particularly why we would do well to always prioritize innate immune health for as long as we can maintain it.
+
+## Background
+
+### Natural Killer (NK) Cells
+- These cells kill infected cells
+- exist of at the intersection of innate and adaptive immune system
+
+### Emitted signals
+- Molecules are emitted when immune cells encounter foreign bodies
+- Defensins (small cysteine-rich cationic proteins)
+  - antibiotic activity
+  - regulate inflammation, wound repair, immune signaling
+- Collectins (collagen-containing C-type lectins)
+  - Help to induce complement activation
+  - Prompt phagocytes to consume foreign cells
+- C-reactive proteins
+- Lipopolysaccharide-binding proteins
+- Other complement factors
+
+These types of responses target invading cells and cancer cells quite generally.
+
+## Modifications
+- The BNT162b2 products modulate production of inflammatory cytokines by innate cells
+- This modified production is observed both with:
+  - SARS-CoV-2 (the pathogen for which it was designed)
+  - Non-specific stimuli (viral, fungal, bacterial)
+- Fungal cytokine responses are increased
+- Toll-receptor responses (TLR4 an TLR7/8) are weaker
+
+## Innate Immunity
+- First response
+- Skin (epidermal dendritic cells / Langerhans cells)
+- Mucous
+- Mucosal epithelium
+- Immune cells (NK, Basophils, dendritic, mast, macrophages, etc)
+
+Mucus layer covering the epithelium is the first physical and biochemical defense layer. A tightly interlaced network of epithelial cells and intraepithelial lymphocytes are also somewhat the first line of defense.
+
+Anti-microbial peptides are produced by the epithelial cells and secreted into lumen upon infection by foreign pathogens.
+
+## Pattern Recognition
+Pathogen-Associated Molecular Patterns (PAMP):
+- detected by cognate molecules on immune cell surfaces
+- Pattern recognition receptors help to make this a reality
+  - Toll-Like Receptors (TLR)
+    - Many types which bind to different molecules
+    - TLR-7 binds to RNA (single-stranded) -> like SARS-CoV-2!
+  - RIG-I-Like receptors (RLR) does similar sensing of viral RNA
+
+PAMP is detected by PRR (like TLR), and causes a signalling cascade which eventually produces inflammatory mediators (NO, histamine, TNF-a, IL-1)
+
+## Nuclear Factor kappa B (NF-kB)
+- Regulates immune response to infection
+- Disregulated NF-kB responses have been associated with disease:
+  - cancer, autoimmune conditions, impaired immune development
+
+## Event Sequence of SARS-CoV-2 infection
+1. Viral particles are sneezed over someone's face
+2. Enters nassal cavity as a misty droplet
+3. Encounters mucousy membranes - get stycj
+4. Bind to ACE-2 and CD147
+5. Replicate in epithelial cell
+6. Visited by dendritic cells and marked for destruction
+
+Childrens' innate immunity performs too well for an infection to become out of control.
+
+
+## Event Sequence of mRNA Injection
+1. Inserted deep in muscle tissue
+2. Easy access to most cells
+3. Translated through ribosomes into proteins
+4. Spike protein attracts antigen-presenting cells
+5. Presented to T cells w

new/KIQ.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+# KIQ
+
+# What
+What is KIQ? It is the idea that we can identify productive, repeatable behaviour. The idea that as we become masters of certain realms, the natural direction for our minds to take is one of increased complexity insofar as the reach and significance of our actions and intentions, but this is because of our understanding of the minutia is advanced enough such that there are aspects which needn't be experimented with at every opportunity, as experiments can be conducted from other levels of analysis.
+
+Given that the only way to universally conceptualize technology is by understanding its impact on the improvement of work quality and output, we should seek to maximize the work we are able to perform with teh technological tools we have come to adopt and master.
+
+Surely it seems as though, from time to time, that the work involved in getting a piece of technology to work is not worth it, as most contraptions are soon forgotten. With that in mind, we should resist the urge to give up and simply do the things we already know, because:
+- You only need one - it doesn't take the success of every effort and appartus, it simply requires that only one idea or tool be created and utilized successfully in order for technological adoption to be life-altering.

new/Mortality.md

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+# Denis Rancourt
+
+Early on - focus on cases, no questioning of relative change in mortality.
+
+## First Paper
+- All Cause Mortality
+- Announced "mass-homicide"
+- Response contrary to standards for protecting the vulnerable/fragile
+- Vulnerable killed off in certain jurisdictions (NY)
+
+### Canada
+Deaths quickly occurred but then went down below the norm, because of a lack of vulnerable people
+
+### Disparity
+Different trends in each jurisdiction. Not indicative of a viral pandemic.
+
+## US Study
+Everything different from one state to the next

new/Nazi_could_never.md

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+# Nazis Could Never Happen
+
+Person:
+"It is absurd to compare the current situation regarding vaccine mandates and lockdowns to the state of Germany under Nazi rule. They are dissimilar on the basis that we aren't exterminating swathces of the population, or exhiling them."
+
+Responder:
+I wonder if it might be the case that the only acceptable standard upon which to qualify the comparison with Nazi Germany is when a significant portion of the population is deceased. There are many aspects other than this alone which one might wish to examine as subcomponents for comparison, and I imagine that the subcomponents themselves would encompass matters which bear relevance to our ability to observe and deduce the impact of state policy on human life

new/Palmer_mRNA_toxicity.md

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+# Toxicity of mRNA vaccines
+- Technology designed to poison people (opinion of medical doctor working in biochemistry, teaching pharmacology and toxicology)
+- 2 components - mRNA - blueprint for spike protein
+- Sneak mRNA into our cells and have them make the protein to which system responds
+- lipid nanoparticles - fat-like molecules encasing the mRNA - serve two purposes:
+- Protect mRNA
+- Help it enter to body cells
+
+## Components
+- Cationic, electrically positively charged, known to be quite toxic
+- Disrupt the mitochondrial respiration
+- Total dose limit - we don't know the exact amount, because there is not enough experimental data
+
+Can be certain that the total dose that you can tolerate is limited - 10 shots? 20 shots?
+Technology which poisons people
+
+## Upcoming products
+Large pipeline / large number of vaccines that they want to switch over to this technology
+Shingles, Chickenpox, Influenza, conventional vaccines that are available.
+
+## Accumulation
+Spleen and liver
+Ovaries also strongly affected

new/Proof of Uncleanliness.md

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+# The Proof
+
+They change the methods at their whim, and use any disparity of assessment as claim of proof of our mortal limitations, subsequently leading them to conclude that we should have faith in them as a means of mitigating our imperfections.
+
+You will be safer, but only if everyone else has followed suite and done the very same as you. Otherwise, you are not safe, nor are these who should have listened. If only they had the courage to undergo modest discomfort, or the intelligence necessary to be afraid. And even for those few who are not too stupid, they listen to persuaders and were unable to infer their fall to persuasion. Almost adequately intelligent, but not as high as one who does as I. Thus, they are unable to defend themselves from trickery.
+
+Did we say "lie with statistics"?
+That was a joke. I promise.
+
+In fact, I only only read it so I'd know when you're being lied to.
+
+Of course, the real lie is to live a helpless life, which is why I use lesser lies to uncover truth.
+
+So you see, I still come to truth.

new/RealChange.md

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+# Real Change
+## The Essence of Change
+Real change instantiates from within and moves outwards, perpetuating and propagating through society and reality. The integrity of the expression is modulated as it passes through each junction.
+
+## Appreciating Change
+Real change might seem to come from setting the right conditions, but it is never fulfilled until the new action of creation takes place. Just as it is with incorporating a function into a model, or a model into a simulation or computation of any sort. We cannot know any of its value in predicting or improving decision capacity unless we also create it ourselves. We can look at comparisons of functions and gauge whether one might have been more successful and gain a great procedure for discovering and comparing the functions that are possible, but we cannot ever come to appreciate the considerations of such a function until we implement it ourselves, for otherwise there is no real incentive to consider what is computable and what might was previously regarded as not having yet been computed, rather than what is useful to be computed, and these are very different things.
+
+This also coincides with the advice of making things to gain the mindset of someone who wants to believe they are seeking solutions. We can be in roles which seem to serve the capacity of creating solutions, but util you etch out a real solution, you are simply a problem finder, or even a problematizer. In fact, your solution will destroy some things, and you should feel the cost and pain of that destruction, if you are to understand what precisely is being solved.
+
+It brings me back to Elliott Hulse and his reminder to do hte thing or the work that's in front of you. It might sound as though any work can do, and that could include dehumanizing work, administrating at a death camp, arresting the innocent, and so forth, but I think that the correct example would have more to do with Jordan Peterson's recurring reminder to clean your room. Doing the work of addressing what is most directly in one's own life means doing those things into which one one has the most insight, the greatest acuity, the highest intrgrity, etc.
+
+Knowing that they are the things which have the greatest impact in terms of affecting the trajectory of who you become and what is brought into being, through transparency with oneself, as opposed to doing things about which one needs to be partially blind or thoughtless concerning the aspects of their consequences.
+
+To etch out a construction in full detail is painstakingly toil and coax it through every point of progress until, finally, it fulfill sits specific intention, and that this can be verified in its physical interfacing with its creator. Can one plan and construct an advice/policy with such detail or degree of completion? It would be more likely to contain incomputable numbers or placeholders for which one is not expecting to perform the computation.
+
+# Religious Extremism
+Religious extremists demand the policy which would enforce the actions one believes must be performed in order to respect one's God.
+
+# Sustainability
+Sustainability demands the actions which respect the fear of a concern and which are the standard for living a good life.
+
+Do those who aim for the doctrine of sustainability see the path and the means of reaching their sustainble world? Not in the engineering sense, but along the lines of preventing the actions of wasteful humans. Those sorts of humans who are not concerned with devoting themselves to the cause are most certainly yielding influence.
+
+If only they could be educated, they would understand why it is in their own best interest to do these things which we will force them to do. In the end, everyone will be happy we took the route we did -> the route to which I have been demanding, and if it is all done correctly, they will most certainly have a better life to enjoy.
+
+As was stated, the means of how are quite simply, political and material force.

new/RejectTheSelf.md

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+# The Journey to Rejecting the Self
+
+## Basic Primary fundamental biological behaviour
+- Resource requirements
+- Threat of material harm
+- Requirement to endure certain hardship
+- Realization of death
+- Realization that some come to view death as an escape from life
+- If some believe life must be escaped, then that means they believe life is not worth living
+- Existence is a rejected proposition
+- Why to have any experience - it would be better to have not had experience / to not know of there being any experience to be had
+
+## Becoming aware
+To become cognizant of the fact that another being has rejected the proposition of life brings about certain awareness. If one is to reject life, then it must be thought about:
+- Are there similarities to my experience or structure of reality?
+
+If, indeed, they concluded that such an experience is not worth having, then should I suspect that of my own life? Why would reality cause something to occur that should not have been? That would make my life a mistake, and its prevention a moral good.
+
+There are obviously many ways by which one might come to such a macabre conclusion, but how to act on such a realization when, indeed, one can never be sure as to whether it affects oneself?
+
+## Being the Wrong Thing
+You can try to mitigate biology. You can use physical therapy and exercise to recover frmo a terrible injury, use anti-inflammatories to perform an important task for which you are otherwise in no condition to perform, use a ladder to overcome a height insufficiency, use prosthetics if you are missing a limb, etc. But to ignore biological reality is something completely different.
+
+## Ignoring Biology
+Defenders of the faith will say that no one is ignoring biology, but that our understanding is becoming more refined, and that we are simply better able to treat and address a larger pool of deficits, or ailments. That is obviously and genuinely problematic, whereas I have always maintained that the most promising perspective with which to approach the proposition of changing one' sgender is with the understanding that it is not the treating of a disorder, but an aspiration to be most explicit in transcending biological limitations. That is, not to say that you should be of a particular form, but that technology and safeguards are sufficient for this type of transformation, and that it is an evolution.
+
+That we are at a place in our development where we can pursue otherwise is a very ego-centric endeavour. The difference being that this gives the subject a new challenge with respect to maintaining a grounding in reality.
+
+## I doth Protest
+This demonstrates another form of Critical Theory's need to use their one tool for every scenario. Gender Studies and Queer Theory have identified queering as the means of blurring the heteronormative environment and redefining its terms in order to bring about new behaviour which escapes the oppression of the system. The otherwise unmodified state of the system is oppression, and it is an oppression of all those who live within it. All are oppressed in some way, but most are made comfortable or are somehow privileged by it, negating their ability to realize their oppression and gain the perspective necessary to rise up and overcome. For those who are sufficiently oppressed and insightful enough to notice the true nature of the system, however, they can't help but declare their identity as being one which understands this. What does this yield?
+1. Not corrupted by the system -> able to be your own
+2. Standing against what is wrong
+So, then, their very identity is an expression of their belief that the system should relinquish its power. It is a demand for change and an insistence that one is suffering more. To have suffered more suggests that one is more deserving of remediation, and also suggests that one has personal insights into the exact chief concerns of the day.

new/Richard_Fleming summary.md

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+# Richard Fleming Notes
+
+## Antibiotic Bacterial Resistance
+- Strains which survive antibiotic use are resistant
+- We are doing similarly with vaccination
+
+## The Spike
+- Code being produced is for SARS-CoV Wuhan HU1
+- Nucleotide sequences don't perfectly match HU1
+
+## Immune Layers
+- Innate
+- Macrophage eats virus and presents
+- Naive T cells react to become T-helper 1 and T-helper 2
+- TH-1 cytotoxic which kill infected cell
+- TH-2 effector which induces creation/updating of B cell
+
+## Skipping Step
+The mRNA vaccines don't seem to induce differentiation of T-helper 2 cells.
+- Possibly because the virus is not seen outside of cells.
+- Nanolipid particle technique bypasses this
+- Blunted interferon response
+
+## EUA Documents
+- Don't show the cell differentiation statistics
+- Only show recording of symptoms / illness
+
+## Diminishing natural immunity
+- Taking the mRNA shots causes reduced response to other non-CoV pathogens
+
+## Biodistribution
+- Moderna 2017 did nanolipid influenza study and discovered that it spread to brain and bone marrow etc.
+- Lipid nanoparticles great way to get into cells - merge with cell wall
+
+## Immune research
+- Research on immunity has always favoured Ab response. T cell assays are complicated, require more training, more expensive reagents/equipment, etc.
+- hampered immune response might mean require higher Ab counts
+
+## Spike load
+- Person to person transmission means exposure to 100s - 10000 spikes
+- Pfizer/Moderna 13.1 billion codes?
+- AZ/Jannsen 50 billion

new/Saying_No.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+# Saying No
+
+We reject the belief that any one man or woman can declare that they understand the belief of another, and can use this understanding 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 claim. For who can prove that one truly adheres to the testament of a belief system? What of those who advance and evolve the ideas and semantics of that system? Are they now non-believers? Or is their belief an even deeper expression of that system's ideas which advances them and strenghtens them, and makes them more viable for the world as it changes?
+
+We reject the notion that a judgment of one's faith can be used to assert a position of morality - that one might suggest that they have failed to prove that they believe either the appropriate belief, or even the belief that they claim, or that an aesthetic can be used to qualify whether they sufficiently belief a doctrine, belief system, or acknowledgment of metaphysics.
+
+We reject the notion that we can ascertain the purpose for one's belief, or the purpose for believing a system of belief. Limiting the possible logic and ragionale for adhering to or participating in a belief system to some parameter or interpretation which best serves another's ability to lay judgment upon them.

new/Weinstein_Delingpole.md

@@ -0,0 +1,193 @@
+# Bret and Heather
+
+
+## Enabling this event
+``` Why is this happening?```
+
+Bret:
+
+It's more or less the same dynamic, and it is about power, and of course they're targetting those who are speaking to the obvious anomalies and discrepancies and lies and the very same dynamic is unfolding, but one thing I will point out before Heather jumps in here is that the most interesting thing to me is that many people who actually were on the correct side of history for the woke revolution, ,many people who stood by us while we were being accused of being witches have now switched sides and they have become medically woke, and are now deplatforming and astygmatizing and virtue signaling and doing all of the behaviours that we saw during the Evergreen meltdown, and it is very interesting - what it suggests is that individuals who resist are not necessarily immune to the dynamics. It may have to do, in my many cases, with the subject matter in question, which will put them on the exactly the other side of the witch hunt.
+
+Heather:
+
+As opposed to being what we generally call Ash-Negative. People who in a room with Solomon Ash, the psychologist from the mid 20th century who asked a group of people to say which line is shorter - and there's one person who's actually being asked an dall of the rest are just confederates. The vast majority of people will cmoply with a factually inaccurate answer if everyone else in the room says that it's true. And they don't know that there's a bunch of confederates in the room. Very few people will comply 100% of the time, but most people will comply some of the time with a simple statement of falsehood. Generally ash-negative people, who will not comply with untruths, intentional or not, are more rare than you would think
+
+The one thing that I would say to what you said, Bret, with what is happening with regard to public policy responses to COVID and politically unacceptable statements early in the pandemic "maybe it came from a lab" and we've had a lot of these, but the ones on which we and you are still on the hook, as it were, is about vaccine safety and efficacy - and then also, the efficacy and indeed safety of other drugs, like Ivermectine.
+
+## Witch Hunt Model
+Your model that you had (Brett's model) that you had produced in class, just a few days before Evergreen blew up, had 4 categories:
+- The witch-hunters
+- People who are prepared to go along with it (flying monkeys)
+- Silent (but disagree and aware - fence sitters also)
+- Witches (those who do not comply in the witch hunt)
+
+I do not have a sense of how relatievly large the two middle categories are, and this is what is allowing this argument to go on for as long as it is. Really, there are so many good analyses that do show that there are many many adverse events from the vaccines, and there's plenty of peer-reviewed public research that shows they lose efficacy really quickly.
+
+Given that, how is it that it would appear that the vast majority of people are happily vaccinated, will happily get vaccinated again, and have never run into problems with it. I do not know the relative size of those two middle populations and whether or not it's different in this case than say i was with woke campus.
+
+## Hyper Novelty
+Brett:
+
+I believe that part of what's going on is the result of the central theme of our book which is Hyper-Novelty. Whta we're looking at is an environment in which people rae not sharing information in a natural way because the dynamics of the modern internet have allowed them to be intimidated, allowed them to be fooled as to what a nromal conversation looks like. Many people will know, in some cases, someone who has had a vaccine injury - those who have had teh injuries are reluctant to talk about it (Eric Clapton, Mountain Biker champ, etc). He doesn't have the right to talk abotu his own experience of injury, but is a demon for doing so.
+
+In an environment like that, people don't talk about their own injuries, they don't tlak about patterns they've seen, and when they don't tlak about it, it makes it seem much rarer than it actually is. Whereas a natural dynamic - we talked before there was evidence of harms, the thing that alarmed us was the claim that these things are safe when there couldn't possibly be knowledge that would tell you that, because they were too new. Nobody knew what the longterm impacts might be. So, my sense is we said "hey, there may be harms we don't know about" and we're all now talking about myocarditis? How is that not taken as a vindication of our concern? It just simply wasn't, because that's not allowed, and the way that's not allowed is through the hyper novelty of the internet.
+
+## Cognitive dissonance
+``` Cognitive dissonance among the vaccinated - people having all manner of unpleasant side effects, from blood clots to abnormal periods to myocarditis in young people - and instead of going "hang on a second, we ought to put this on hold while we investigate further", people are not making the connection between their jabs and these side effects. There's a sort of collective self-delusion going on. So you reckon that it's possibly - is it because the internet, and social media, is in the hands of institutions like Facebook and Twitter, which are committed to the Big Pharma pro-vaccine narrative? Is that what's going on? The dissenting voices are being kicked off, or is something else going on?```
+
+Heather:
+
+That is part of it, for sure, and with regard to the individual level of response - most people aren't generally Ash-negative - most people also are not in the habit of (though they are capable of, and we're experiencing this in classrooms) most people are capable of the world wherein when new things come at them, they try to derive from First princples what is true? Most people are not dumb, lazy or incompetent, but most people are in the habit of acting as though they are these things, in part because of the complexity that is coming at them, and I would just say one thing that is revealed here: blatant hypocrisy at all sorts of trivial levels, here's an easy one:
+
+In 2017 the Woke Ideologues were saying "You can't use science, you can't use logic, you can't use the tools of the enlightenment, because what is the one source of information that sits above all else? My lived experience."
+
+Now we have exactly the opposite - all of these people's lived experiences are not to be considered - they're not even allowed to talk about having had them. So, this is just an obvious simple and trivial but even conopletely reveaing inconsistent and hypocrisy between the two ideologies.
+
+Brett:
+In some sense, we should look at ourselves as a giant, modern version of the Ash experiment. The internet is like a large room in which the mainstream narrative is being blared at us - these things are safe and effective. People who claim otherwise are somehow superstitious or antiscientific or delusional or grifters or whatever any of these accusations might be, and so the point is, most people, in the ash experiment, heard others insist that the shorter line was, in fact, longer, and this was th ekey evolutionary part - what Ash does not say, is that there is a reason, a very good reason that human beings are terrified to be out of step with the mainstream consensus, and that is 5000 years ago, 10,000 , etc.. that was a very place to be. And even if the mainstream was mistaken, one did not want to be the odd man out - it's one thing to be the odd man out in a discussion of something regular, but it's another thing on matters of social belief, and the steering of the collective in some direction.
+
+I don't know why, i assume based on the relentless coordinated response that comes back when you make certain claims - but what I can say is that in light of a chorus broadcasting a message "These things are safe and effective, there is no alternative, this is the way out of the pandemic" even though all 3 of those statements are false, if everyone is saying them, the pressure to simply accept that these things are true is immense, and it is a tiny fraction of the population that, in the face of a chorus saying these things, would say "actually, that doesn't match what I see at all".
+
+## Weird sheep
+```
+I would imagine that - by the way, are you famliar with the concept of the weird sheep?```
+
+I was talking to a shepherd about this, and he was telling me taht every flock of sheep has a weird sheep in it - which doesn't do all the things that the other sheep do. The function fo the weird sheep is in extreme and bizarre situations - for example, say the whole field gets blanketed in snow and it disguises everything and they odn'tk now where they are - the weird sheep will maybe climb up onto a wall, just poking up above the snow, and take charge - and in the same way, we need weird sheep, of which you both are and I am, to guide the herd when it's doing crazy things, when it's lost its head, to lead it into the paths of righteousness. Well, that's the idea, but the danger is that the weird sheep gets executed or sacrificed or whatever because it doesn't fit in with the consensus, and I would imagine that, interms of evolutionary biology, quite often, whatever gene it is that leads us to be weird, gets cut out of the system through being murdered or executed or whatever else. The price for being a weird sheep is quite high
+```
+
+Heather:
+This is very much like the model that we start the book with, but then expand on quite a lot in the later chapter in Culture vs Consciousness - Cultural things are those that have already passed the test of time that are easily handed off to other people, and consciousness is the place you go into when you need to innovate and exchange ideas - and there's an analogy to be made, because those are somewhat different than standard uses of the terms "culture and consciousness" - an analogy to orthodoxy and heterodoxy and the sacred and the shamanistic. What we have now with, say, COVID response is an incredibly, rapidly obtained orthodoxy, and those of us who are on the outs who are the weird sheep that climbed the wall, are the heterodox voices, and those voices will be necessary even though, in general, heterodoxy, or shamans, there's going to be a much higher error rate. If you are in the business of being weird all the time, and climbing up on walls to see where you are, you are more likely to be wrong sometims than those who simply follow the herd. But, there are conditions in which you are absolutely required, and the herd would entirely perish, if it got rid of all the heterodoxy, all the shamans, all the weird sheep, etc...
+
+Brett:
+There's a day to day cost, when things are going well, to the weird sheep. It's not pulling in the same direction, exactly. That cost is paid back many times over by the fact that that is the individual that spots the thing when nobody else, because they're going along with the convention. This is exactly an evolutionary dynamic that you would see. We talk, not about groups ( a frought and broken concept in evolution) we have replaced it with lineage, a responsible, robust, rigorous concetp - and the idea is taht lineages are, again and again, saved by this rare individual that has this other characfteristic. Now, fascinating thing is when you are a weird sheep, you end up being exhiled, as it were, sheep presumably tolerate this because they don't have much of a choice. In humans, the Girardian model where the weird sheep is targeted an driven out is all too likely to unfold and for those who wish to gain power, it may be necessary because the weird sheep is the one that's going to freak out when some bad change is being made.
+
+But, at this new scale that we're functioning at - this hyper novel scale - what one finds is that you meet the other weird sheep. It's not that there is one weird sheep, but that every flock has weird sheep and they're constantly being ejected, which then puts you in contact with some of the world's most interesting, independent thinkers - some of them well known, and some of them obscure, but fascinating group of people.
+
+Heather:
+Furthermore, that is the flip side - why is this able to derange us so globally right now? Because of the control that social media nad a handful of companies have and Yes they're trying to exert their control, but yet here we are talking. What are the chances, absent social media and a global information world, that the 3 of us would be talking right now? Next to zero.
+
+## Warning others
+```
+Totally, if anything good has come out of this horror that we are experiencing now, it is that people like us have met - for example, look, you people are self-described progressives, I would never have called myself a progressive, or whatever the opposite of progressive is (reactionary?) - I was definitely never progressive. But we have a lot more in common, intellectually, than our differences. And that's great. But, the question is - because to continue this sheep analogy for a moment - I suspect that, actually, the farmer who's looking after us, supposedly, actually has malign intent. I think we're all being led to the slaughter. And I, as Chief WEird Sheep in my flock, don't want this to happen. So how are we going to win over the rest of the flock? Which currently are thinking "Hey, the farmer loves us, and things are going to be great - we're going to be bahhing away for the rest of our lives! How do we reach them?
+```
+
+Heather:
+One of the errors of looking back on times in history that were obviously deranged is that the modern mind always thinkins it would have known. And, we're seeing his experience in one of our sons' history classes. They're studying Hitler and Castro and other extraordinary figures from history, who had a cult of personality, and tehre is no connection being made between those historical times, and the censorship, and the cutting down of some voices and elevating others without any evidence for why you should be doing so, and the modern times.
+
+It is that near-impossibility of seeing where you are in the moment and the question you're asking, which Brett will answer more fully. "At what point within a flock, within a herd, within ap opulation of people, is it time to switch from the orthodoxy to the heterodoxy, to move from the supposed historical safety of the sacred into the more chaotic but utterly necessary shamanistic, and how do we do it right now is the question that I hear.
+
+Brett:
+
+This brings us back to the conversation we were having before, at the top, about what was going on in our classrooms before Evergreen so famously melted down - and the answer to your question "How do you wake the others to what is taking place" should be "prediction"
+
+To the extent that we have a model that says actually this public's health response is not only incompetent it actually goes beyond that. It's the inverse of what you should do if you want to control COVID, which we do. That predicts things about what you're going to find.
+
+We can fight about IVermectin and say there is or isn't evidence that it's effective, and what evidence trumps other evidence and why, but the fact is we should say "Well, if the respons eto COVID is actually the inverse of what it should be, then that predicts something about what the public health response will say about Vitamin D - which is absolutely nothing."
+
+Vitamin D is the cheapest, safest, most useful intervention on the map, in all likelihood, and it's necessary for all sorts of other reasons. Even if we're completely wrong about its utility with COVID, which is ever-less likely, the collateral benefits which come from getting people in Norther climates to supplement in the winter would be worth it on their own. When was the last time you heard ANY public policy pronouncement abdicating for Vitamin D?
+
+So, the point is, it's a prediction. Okay - in our case, are Brett and Heather CRAZY? They said that these things weren't safe when all of the medical authorities said they were safe. Brett and heather said "We don't know anything about the long-term effects, and this is a case where we should exercise the precautionary principle." Well, Now we all know about myocarditis. So it's possible we're crazy and got lucky, but it's also possible that our track record of being right ahead of the public discussion is telling you something, and the fact that we're saying something now that might sound preposterous and insane does not mean that we've finally lost our minds. It means that, once again, you're behind the curve. You can't see what's in front of you because you're paying too much attention to authorities who speak in very unambiguous terms about safety and efficacy when the evidence is:
+- They told you these things are effective
+- 6 months later they've lost effectiveness and you need a booster
+
+That fits the model of skepticism of what they were telling us than it does fit the model fo what they assured you six months ago. That's how you wake people.
+
+By pointing out risky predictions that were borne out and inviting people to continue to listen to those people who have a history of making risky predictions that were borne out. (Instruction!)
+
+That's a how a wise person should navigate when you know that authority is frequently wrong, and that the purpose of science is to tell us when our authoritative viewpoint is wrong - science is not a matter of following experts, it's a method for figuring out when the experts are incorrect.
+
+The bitter pill, however, is that though that is the mechanism for waking people up, the historical precedent for a situation where you have a tyrannical authority spreading lies, demonizing people, demonizing an entire class of people - the historical precedent for people waking up and stopping that slide is pretty hard to find.
+
+What I keep saying to people which has so far landed on deaf ears is:
+"Look, the indications that we are somewhere on that list of historical atrocities - that what we are doing now in terms of demonizing the unvaccinated as a source of disease - that's a clear indication that tyrannts are going to scape-goat people and those people could face dire consequences. Vaccinating children when there's absolutely no medical justification for doing it from the point of view from their well-being - in fact I could make an argument that the inverse is obviously the right choice - but, okay. We don't really have a precedent for a population demonizing a minority as disease-ridden and then coming to its senses and going back to behaving a decent way towards everyone. Maybe it exists, but I don't know what that precedent is - at some level we need to be telling people with a certain amount of alarm that we appear to be on the run-up to some kind of an atrocity. We don't want to be on that list - history will look back and say "you should have avoided it, you should have known" but that message is now being demonized. So what do we do with this so that we could at least, in this case, staunch the bleeding and return to being decent to each other, and return to the question of 'What is best to do with respect to this pandemic?'".
+
+## Narrative
+``` I remember about 10 months ago seeing articles in which, in different pubications, these had been placed to cede an idea. The idea that the unvaccinated were the problem, and what measures can we take to deal with the unvaccinated? It was already taken as a given that the unvaccinated were the problem. I've seen this in newspapers and it's been accelerating. It is clearly a trajectory that is not good - by making predictions which come true, it's a fact that the supposed conspiracy theorists are the ones who have been right every time, but it seems as our being right ain't enough. It doesn't seem to turn the old tank around.```
+
+Brett:
+
+Cassandra is right, but she's not listened to. The irony here is that we've been handed the most beautiful tools - we can say Cassandra to you, and you know what we're talking about. We have Orwell. Are we experiencing Orwell? Well, not exactly - this is a bit Orwell, a bit Kafka, Huxley, Brazil, it's all of these things - it's got elements of them. The poitn is, do you really need it to match one narrative perfectly in order for you to spot the analogy? Or can you simply notice - hey, why Am I in this section of th elibrary? Why am I debating whether I'm facing Orwell or Kafka?
+
+Heather:
+It's probably time to go back and read Brave New World and 1984 - but I believe, and Kafka, that in each of these cases we are dropped into a system that has already gone haywire, right? And I don't know, and please, I would love to hear examples if I am unaware of them - of narrative. It takes narrative to convince people - you can't just use numbers and graphs. The enumerate are more easily tricked by numbers and graphs. I don't know of the narrative that describes the dissent. The move away from a system that appeared to be functional and had a number of Ash-negative peoplewandering around who were at least able to become facultatively ash-negative when presented with stuff. That slow move into the tyranny has been described historically with regard to 1930s Germany, but what is it on the ground for people, and what are they seeing?
+
+I recently read Eli Wiesel's "Night" - and early in that very slim tone he described in just a few pages what it felt like for Jews in Poland to start seeing the Germans come in. And it's just a couple of pages, but even those few words are so powerful to see the description of the cognitive dissonance - of the denial - of the inability to see it from the people who would slaughtered less than a few years later.
+
+Brett:
+I think Kundura has some descriptions that could be useful - Im' also thinking there's a film, I think it's called a Film Unfinished - which is in some sense, not exactly the right document, becaues of course the NAzis are so iconic and we all know something about them, so we can't be surprised in the same way, but the film unfinished is effectively a Nazi propaganda film that was unfinished, that was rediscovered in modern times and it's edited so you see the filmmaking in process. You're backstage watching the Nazi propaganda being created in the Warsaw ghetto. We need to start thinking in this mindset, because for those of us who've paid the price of being the Weird Sheep in this situation - it's not fooling us, and it's not even high enough quality to fool you. Suddenly every screen is blaring about a horse dewormer on the same afternoon, and it's like "Okay" I know there's some coordination to go after tehs epeople with the Horse Dewormer narrative. That's what it's like backstage as you see the lines being pulled to fly the person across the tage. It's not good enough to fool you, if you're not sitting in the place that you're expected to be. And I think that we need to wake people up to the fact that "You think this i a battle between two perspectives, and one of them is very clear and the other one is preposterous and it's cobbled together with bailing wire and duct tape. That's not how it is - you're standing where you need to stand in order to see a clear picture. If you were standing anywhere else, you'd see a very different one. Try it. We dare you. Take a peak behind the curtain. Move 20 feet to your left and see if you don't detect that you are being fed a story that doesn't add up."
+
+## Learning History
+```The two things you are taught in school about history are the rise of the Russian Revolution and the rise of the Nazis. Apart from the most obvious fact about the NAzis, whic his that they were not unique in history. The idea that there was some sort of aberration - this thing that happened in 1930s Germany that will never repeat again - is completely the wrong lesson, because things can happen again, and people might not be aware of what's going on when those things begin to take form.```
+
+Brett:
+Right, and in fact we are in some sense at a disadvantage because the Nazis are an iconic example - they did us the favour of wearing Skulls on their hats. They were cartoon villains and it doesn't reduce their villainy, but it means that it's harder to spot things that do this in a less elaborate and exaggerated form. ANd even teh NAzis did not intend to acknowledge what they had done. This was something that surprised me when I started to study the Nazis for myself. They fully intended to cover their crime, and in fact the Russians overwhelemd them and prevented that plan from unfolding. It happened some places, it was incomplete other places, but they didn't manage to do away with the evidence. So, I would just finally say: it is very important to correct fo rthe fact that when we distill history down and say "here's what you need to know about the Nazis" - we distill it down to the most extreme and obvious stuff, so ti leads you into a false sense of asecurity. In some sense I think , for me, the most important things that i've learned about hte Nazis were always when I decided to pursue my own understanding."
+
+It wasn't that I was pursuing more undrstanding because I needed evidence of Villainy. I just wanted to understand how it worked.
+
+There are facts hwen you study the Nazis like - the death camps, the ones that were not labour camps, were built so that the front edge looked like a train station. It had a clock that indicated when the train was moving onto the next tracks.
+
+These pictures that emerged from someone's attic of the Nazis at play - a famous picture that really struck me of Nazis near Auschwitz enjoying blueberries. It's like men and women, members of the Nazi party, having blueberries where, over the hill, people are being murdered by the thousands. And, it's these things that we need to broadcast because the point is it's not going to look like what you saw in your history book. It's, of course, going to look like something else, because if it looked like what you saw in the history books to the average person walking down the street, it would have unfolded very differently.
+
+Heather:
+
+One of the things that was true of both Brett and me when we were college professors was that we almost never used textbooks. The reason we didn't is because science isn't its conclusions, and to the degree that the scientific process is represented in textbooks, it's represented in a linear way. Always in this order, always this way. Really what it is is a process, and if it has predictive power and if you can falsify possible hypothesese, then you should go to try to do sso and the longer that you fail to falsify your hypothesze, the more likely they are to be true, the longer that they've stood the test of time, the more likely they are to be true.
+
+This is the case for how it is that you create in people, in the case of usour students, a movel that relies not on accepting the voices that you see going through your screens, and you don't fly to the otherside where you say QUESTION EVERYTHING, but develop a model wherein you can begin to assess what people are saying and what the evidence is. You'r egoint to want to trust some people, some people are trustworthy, but you don't start off trusting anyone. And, you know, this indeed is it's realy the point of the whole book we are evolutionary  biologists, and so yes it's all evolutionary, but it's about understanding ouselves enough at everything from the individual to the population level, so that you can make decisions that then can become easier.
+
+It's a joyous effort to say "you know what, I'm not just going tp accept that in the 1980s fat is bad for me anymore that Im going to simply accept whatever the dietary suggestions right now are, I'm going to think about what it is to be a human being, what my ancestors have been eating, not just the hunter gatherers from the African Savannah, but alos the agriculturalists, because almost all of us have been agriculturalists for 10,000 yearrrs - I'm going to think it through so that I know how to eat food to keep ourselves healthy, and I will become more resistant to what the currently fashionable proclamations from Big Food are. How do you become more resistant against the proclamations of big Pharma, from Social Media".
+
+From the moniker that we talk about in the book is - we know about Junk Food - we know that if we can train ourselves to love rea food it's actually more thrilling and enjoyable as well as better for us - now we need to work on the Junk Media, the Junk Sex, the Junk Public Health policy and everything else and become more enriched and healthy but also more just thrille dwith life, because we have a mroe complete model of what humans are and we have better relationships.
+
+
+Brett:
+Actually, I think this is a very close connection between these conversations - that in a sense there is a distinction between the world that one sees if one follows the evidence with a model that attempts to make the safest assumptions about what is likely to be true that it can make -> if you follow that evidence, you end up with one picture, if you follow with what the experts tell you the evidence says, you end up with a very different picture. So, our book is, in a sense, an elaboration of what we were doing in the classroom, which was presenting a model for how it is that you find evidence, that you put it together, build a model and fix a model where the model is wrong - that's what we were teaching people to do, and the point is this is kind of a "weird sheep" book, because the odd fact is that if you do this thing, it will put you on the outs with the mainstream narrative, and it will make you the weird sheep. And the question is, and it's not a simple question, do you want to be the weird sheep?
+
+It's the Matrix, right? It's this question, the character Cipher in the Matrix says "Reality ain't all that great, I know this isn't a real steak, but it tastes like one, I want to go back in". And the fact is that those people do exist, but do you want to be one? Do you want to be the cipher character, or do you want to be living life because you're actually following evidence in the way that the best scientific minds have for thousands of years?
+
+Heather:
+It doesn't have to be bleak. The choice of going down that road is not one inherently of dystopian hellscape that we are shown, for those who resist in general in the narrative.
+
+``` I was picking up on one point. You talk in your book about dairy products and about how in a lot of cultures there is lactose intolerance, but if you historically come from a part of the world which has had dairy and ways of preserving milk to make it longer, say, yoghourt or cheese, which I love, and that knowledge, I suppose this is the first principles that you stress in the book, enables you to think beyond the current fashionable narrative which is cheese is really bad, dairty is really bad, don't eat it. And you're thinking "Hang on a second, how come cheese is finally bad now, when my people have been eating this stuff and thriving on it for millenia? Probably hundreds of millenia, eve? I would guess?```
+
+Heather:
+Cheese isn't bad for you, if you're from some populations it might not agree with you, but you have to be in touch with your body to detect if you're one of those people for whom cheese isn't good, and it will likely be that your body will tell you that you don't like it. I don't like that thing type of food is in at least a somewhat simpler environment, a very good proxy for "that isn't good for me". And there's not going to be a universal "that isn't good for me". Cheese isnt' bad for all humans, of course it's not. We've been making cheese for thousands of years, at least.
+
+Brett:
+It won't be hundreds of millenia, it will be less than 10 on cheese, because it's a post agricultural phenomenon, but one of the lessons in the book is that we can infer from the very long history of both the eating of dairy products and the making of cheese and yoghourt, that these things, I am struggling to find an alternative, but the phrase won't leave me alone: cheese is safe and effective. That's what we can infer from that, because if it were bad for you, it would have been eliminated because those who were cheese skeptical - it has passed Phase 3 trials. And it's so widespread that we can tell. It's basically using microorganisms to spoil dairy products to preserve them over the long term because the beauty of dairy products is the flipside of it is that they're so fragile, because they're not designed to last, they're designed to go directly from mammary gland to baby, not a durable form, so we make them durable by teaming up with microorganisms. Evolution allows us, an evolutionary model allows ust o look at certain things and say "you know what, I don't know why that works, but I can tell that it works, at least for the right population, because if it didn't work, it would have been eliminated by selection. That logic doesn't allow you to go into the supermarket and say "hey this is safe".
+
+What does the safety of things in the supermarket depend on? Well, the FDA doing their job right. Did they? Well that depends on corruption being a minor problem. Is it minor? Maybe I shoul be a little cautious at the supermarket.
+
+It's that qeustion - you've got the evolutionary past, the hyper-modern present, and knowing how the past worked empowers you in the present to understand where you need to be cautious and where you need to let your guard down.
+
+```Normally I like to end my podcasts on an optimistic note, but I think I'm going to go the other way this time because - it seems to me, look:
+
+One thing you must both have learned from studying different cultures and past civilizations is that we've established that A. the weird sheep or shaman is an anomalous character, the outlier, not representative of the generality, and generally, most people are geared towards saving their own skin - self preservation - does that now suggest that things aren't going to get better anytime soon? People are more interested in making themselves agreeable to the dominant stupidity of the times than they are to be the little boy that points out the emperor is wearing no clothes, because he gets ostracized or worse. I can't see any cause for optimism in what we're seeing now.```
+
+Brett:
+There is cause for optimism. I would love to say "Hey, we hit bottom, things are going to get better from here" Things could get dire, but at some level their story has gotten pretty ridiculous and the fact of it having gotten ridiculous and the fact that many people do know somebody who's been injured, and the fact that people can detect that as bad of a disease as COVID is it's not a threat to certainly most young healthy people, and what's more a solution that protects the vast majority of those who would be vulnerable is available at your local supermarket in the form of vitamin D. The fact is there is an alternative story, and the problem, your "people are interested in saving their own hide" we have that in us. We also have a lineage orientation - it does not make any sense evolutionarily to save your own hide if the population that you're part of extinct. So we have the instinct also to behave on behalf of our lineage, and that's being hijacked - that's being used to get us to comply, and the answer is "hey, those people who are telling you to comply, they're not your friends, when they say the word evidence it doesn't mean what that word is supposed to mean, when they use the terms of science, they are in fact misleading you and that should be telling you that you need to tune into some other mechanism for making sense of the world that is a message that is catching on with more and more people.
+
+Heather:
+So, I think that there is a very real possibility of a local corrective, here. But I am much more concerned that there will not be the reckoning that we need, nad what is going to reveal is taht too many people are all too willing to go along with what is patently insane, and that means that the next round will be worse. The reason that I have very local optimism at the moment, I'm not feeling optimistic these days, historically I've been more optimistic than Brett about things, and I think that has flipped at the moment, but the one thing that looks at all hopeful to me, just locally, is that unfortunately, unfortunately these vaccines proved to be a prototype that weren't up to the challenge. Fabulous technological platform on which they were based, with a lot of potential, I think maybe still? But these ones aren't doing it, and they lose efficacy within 2-3 months. Boosters which are now in the beginning stages of deployment, are also not going to maintain their efficacy for more than 6 months or so, and at the point - what does fully vaccinated mean, anyway? If you were vaccinated early in 2021 to the degree that the vaccines are effective at all, you have very little of that value left at this point. Many people who happily got vaccinated the first time will NOT get boosters. It's anecdotal at the level that we've heard it, but I believe that that is going to be the difference - that is why we're not actually seeing mandated boosters. And at the point that mandated boosters don't happen, and it becomes more widely known that actually, therefore, if you were vaccinated more than 6 months ago you're effectively not vaccinated - that story falls apart, I think. There are ways in which it couldn't, there are ways in which that could be obscured, but I think that falls apart because there's just no saving this particular treatment that has been pushed on everyone.
+
+That said, even if I am right, tha tfalls apart, and therefore that the vaccine story disappears as the one treatmenet that we all need for COVID, I fear that it will do so in a controlled-fail way, and we won't have the reckoning society-wide that we need. We won't require of people that they, at the very least, go to a mirro and look at the mirror and say "What did I believe? and what beliefs did I proclaim were necessary for other people to have? Where was I wrong? Where do i need to correct my model so I don't make this mistake again?". I fear that that reckoning is not going to happen, in which case whatever's coming down the pipe at us will just be worse.
+
+``` Well I just hope that somehow when all this is over, people find this podcast and know that at least some people were warning about what's coming our way. Because, you're right, I wonder if there will be that - I think the entirety of our civilization is to play for, here. I think it's that bad. And, we are few, and they are many.```
+
+Brett:
+We are not as few as you think. There's a question about how many are saying what they see, those are few. How many see but cannot figure out how to say it? There are MANY. And part of the thing that we have to figure out is how to make it safe for those who can see it, but many have legitimtae reasons to fear - many may not be able to continue to support their families if they speak up and say what they've seen - so I think we have to be sympathetic to that hazard - but in effect, we have to make it safe for people to speak. This is why speech in jeopardy here, and why we are in danger of suspending normal rules that would protect the free exchange of ideas, is that there are a certain amount of ideas that are a hazard to the public health narrative, and whatever it is that it's in acting in service of. But, there are many more of us than is obvious from a quick assessment.
+
+```Before you go, you must plug your book```
+
+Heather:
+It's a Hunter-Gatherer's guide to the 21st century. Evolution and the challenges of modern life. It's a book we've been talking about writing for over 10 years, and you can see from the conversation the book has nothing to do with COVID - indeed we submitted the first draft in March of 2020, just as people were beginning to get glimmers of COVID taking over the world - we, in it, provide an evolutionary model, some of which is standard, som eof which is new, and explore really all of the systems that humans engage in - sleep, food, medicine, health, sex, gender, relationship, parenthood, childhood, lots of aspects of adulthood, culture and consciousness, and society-wide discussions of how it is that we can move forward with, you know, massively equal opportunity for all, as much as it's possible.
+
+```When reading your book, I was envying you, the amazing places you've been together - that must have been very great - that key that you stayed on while snorkeling for 3 days with nobody else around - Costa Rica, and almost killed by a flash flood. We're not going to be able to do this again, are we? Those of us who have traveled, we're very lucky - I don't reckon that the way the world is going, they're giong to let us do that stuff again.```
+
+Brett:
+There are an awful lot of people who have gotten used to th ebenefits of western civilization. I'm not arguing that there isn't a lot of room to continue and fix what parts of the model didn't work, but there are an often lot of people who've tasted freedom and understand that it is the magic ingredient that causes things to work, to become more prosperous, to become fairer over time. And there is a question of how long we're going to put up with this. So, it may be that although, on paper, they have the power to make us comply at such a level that there's nothing we can do, it is likely that the human spirit will reject that, and at some point they will be surprised to find that their magic pronouncements don't work on people anymore. I hope that's sooner rather than later.
+
+Heather:
+Travel is the way to expand your horizons.
+
+GO HUMAN SPIRIT.
+

new/WhiteSupremacyReal.md

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+# White Supremacy
+
+Yes, the spirit of white supremacy does live on, but its form is not as what has been popularized.
+
+Yes, they have privilege, in every case. At the very least, they have the privilege of existing today with all that is available to them in nations which function better than what was ever previously observed, all things considered. That isn't to say that these nations don't have problems which run the risk of causing them to come apart at the seams, but they still function considering all the wasteful behaviours which are contained within them.
+
+Yes, they discriminate, and are perhaps able to do so more effectively than ever before, as they are able to separate themselves from some of the material realities which, historically, would otherwise be more explicitly inherent.
+
+Yes, they are privileged by the system, in that they are situated such that the maintained workings of certain aspects of the system, particularly those which are not productive and conducive to the real advancement of ideas and technology, support them and shelter them from many perspectives. They are privileged in the sense that they have some of the greatest access to the most formal implements of social change.
+
+Yes, they compromise the creative, physiological, neurocognitive and emotional development of children, even though they promote and engage in new tools which are presented to be specifically designed to cultivate and facilitate such forms of development.
+
+Yes, they potentiate and exact violence upon those with less privilege than themselves. Be it the working class, ethnic minorities, those who are less able-bodied, and those who are less viable in society's wealth hierarchy.
+
+Yes, they aspire to champion a new type of human, whose vector of becoming is a process to which pledge allegiance, and that is of a nature which they believe best benefits them precisely because of how they are situated in the structure of society.
+
+They use the appropriate language to mitigate any condemnation which might be made using the language which corresponds to these aforementioned dimensions of oppression. They promote the weaponization of language specifically because they can continue to evade repercussions for benefitting themselves through these forms of oppression.
+
+How is this possible? How is it that they can utilize the very systems of oppression to their maximum advantage while also declaring that they are at the forefront of efforts to disrupt and dismantle those very same processes?
+
+The truth is that we can never know for certain whether they do this on purpose, or whether it has occurred through a means of indoctrination. That is to say, we know that there are ideologies afoot, which have transformed and matured for centuries, which provide them the means and the rationale for engaging through these dimensions of exploitation, while also claiming that they are doing work purported to address the social features which make exploitation possible.
+
+Stephen Hawking's model-dependent-realism describes the manner in which the limitations of human sensory input and linguistics confer a circumstance whereby we must use models to describe systems of phenomena and their behaviours, and that these these models are not a perfectly equivalent representation of reality, but that they offer some key benefits:
+- They offer the most commensurate representation available
+- They are continuously curated and replaced using logic and reason, and this means they are continuously improved upon
+
+This model-dependent-realism is not simply a mechanism used for formulating a human understanding within certain domains and for specific subjects, but it is a naturally utilized mechanism borne of the human being itself. It is not something that we are choosing to do, but it is a mechanism that describes how the human being functions in our physical Universe.
+
+This also means that it's really easy to permit a great deal of plausible deniability in our assessment of people's perspectives and intentions, and this has given rise to continuously redefining previously conceived terms, such as those which have already been presented to enumerate forms of oppression which many agree have taken place, and continue to take place in our societies.
+
+For the purpose of this discussion, we will be examining the definitions as they have evolved, and the specific manner in which their evolved definitions allow for those who champion them as causes to benefit from their use as per their historical definitions.
+
+Again, let us enumerate those terms:
+- White Supremacy
+- Privilege
+- Discrimination
+- Child harm
+- Marginalization of minorities.
+

new/hegel.md

@@ -0,0 +1,362 @@
+# Introduction
+## Wikipedia
+### Context
+- From Phenomenology
+- Explains how self-consciousness dialectically sublates into: {Absolute Knowledge, Spirit and Science}
+- a priori to understanding the Science of Logic
+Sublate is sometimes synonymous with Aufheben. To take up, lift up and carry. To higher level where its abstraction can be utilized.
+It is sometims translated to mean negate or take away, but there are two ways in which to examine this.
+#### Sublate Negation
+As you take up an idea or concept, you'll be able to understand some aspect of it, which could be considered an abstraction of it, and this can be synthesized into some other action or observation. You may have negated some aspect of the original concept, and reduced it into a partial component, or even transformed the aspect of it into some new conception from which an abstraction can be more easily deduced, internalized, harnessed, and so forth.
+
+In the other sense, to lift or take incurs the negation of having moved some object from its original place, but in doing so you are also engaging with that object, or carrying it across spacetime for a later point, preserving its potential for incorporation with that future event.
+
+### Recognition
+*Absolute knowledge can only be attained after self-conscious recognition of another instance of self-consciousness.*
+Believes that the entirety of reality is present to self-consciousness, and that this state is reached in 3 steps:
+1. Desire (directing outwards from self)
+2. Master-slave (directed to an unequal other)
+3. Universal self-consciousness (self consciousness recognizing self in another)
+
+### Myth
+- Story of people meeting
+- Self consciousness developed from consciousness
+- Sublation into absolute knowledge, not through natural science, but through phenomenology as per a progression through history wherein a struggle for freedom leads to realization of self
+- Hegel's language makes for multiple interpretations:
+- a) self consciousness through human development
+- b) self consciousness of a society in history becoming a nation realizing freedom
+
+#### Master-Slave
+Dual interpretation:
+- The dialectic interpreted as an internal process occurring in one person or as an external process between two people.
+
+This occurs because Hegel asserts "end to the antithesis of subject and object" - What occurs in the mind also occurs outside
+Objective and Subjective unified through sublation.
+
+Two natural beings meet and find self consciousness in one another's independent existence. They are aware of one another's pre-reflective, exclusionary disposition which prioritizes itself.
+
+Each being perceives itself as truly self-conscious through certainty of oneself as a thinking being. This constitutes an incomplete self-consciousness, failing to see the other as equivalent.
+
+Interplay of manipulating the other, whereby they see themselves reflected in the other. This yields a form of narcissism.
+
+The self loses itself when finding itself as the other, which is also sublation in the sense of having reduced the representation of the other to its own self.
+
+
+#### Reaction
+When confronted with the other, the eslf cannot be immediately recognized. The other is like an ordinary object.
+
+#### Death struggle
+If one dies, self consciousness is not achieved. This is an "abstract negation".
+Death is avoided by agreement and subordination to slavery.
+
+One transformed into master as they do not perceive their identity as dependent on life, thus eliminating fear.
+
+The other is transformed into slave out of fear.
+
+#### Enslavement
+Recognition of the other gives each self-certainty required for self-consciousness. Relation of master/slave preserves the recognition of each other. In recognizing the other, one's own consciousness is made into an unessential object, but realization of this object constitutes certainty of self
+
+#### Contradiction/Resolution
+This state is not sufficient to achieve full self-consciousness. Slave only recognizes pain of death. Master's self-consciousness is dependent on the slave for recognition.
+
+Slave creates increasingly sophisticated products for master from nature due to creativity, and sees himself reflected in the products, thus causing him to realize that the world is created by his hands. The slave is no longer alienated from his own labour and achieves self-consciousness, while the master becomes dependent on the products created by the slave, resulting in his becoming a slave.
+
+# Dialectical Thinking
+
+In which each thing is what it is only by becoming what it is not. Alchemy. Alchemical thinking is in Marcuse's Repressive tolerance:
+
+Tolerance is only truly tolerance by becoming intolerant
+Freedom is only truly free if you limit free (for certain people)
+Democracy is only truly democratic when the people with wrong ideas are disenfranchised
+Critical thinking is only truly critical thinking when it adopts a Critical Consciousness
+A space is only desegregated when it is segregated so it can get away from the structural deterministic force of racism (super structure of society) on the rationale that a space can only be deracialized by intentionally racializing (Mapping the Margins by Crenshaw - there is a fundamental difference between saying I am Black and I am a person who happens to be black). Racialize specifically to fight against the race that's already present. Racialize to deracialize.
+
+Horkheimer and Adorno:
+Dialectical thinking is the thing in which each thing is only what it is by becoming what it is not. Lead to Gold. Alchemy.
+
+Theodore Adorno and the Dialectic of Enlightment - he criticizes this exact idea - he turned post-marxist by this thing 20 years later in 1966 - he seekst o recover the dialectic in some new way which merely negates what is and thus opens possibilities for new ideas to bloom from the particulars, with nothing in the way. We won't have a synthetic structure, get it all out of the way so the perennial philosophy can emerge. But this is still Alchemical thinking.
+
+We see this with the postmodernists - Foucault has the idea that through criticism we can expose all the absurdities and thus expand the potentialities of being. Both of these lines appear in the post-marxist dimension, but in Neo-Marxism such as Herbert MArcuse's description from Essay on Liberation:
+
+Beyond these limits there is still the space both physical and mental for building a realm of freedom which is not that of the present. Liberation also from the liberties of the exploitative order - a liberation which must precede the construction of a free society - one which necessitates a historical break with the past and the present.
+
+Alchemy is still present, just worded differently, and much less mystically. But in alchemy, this is a key point, the alchemist must purify themselves appropriately or his alchemical magic won't work. A key hermetic belief. For HErbert Marcuse, we see this in 1969, from the same essay in eugenecist terms:
+"What is now at stake are the needs themselves. At this stage the question is no longer 'how can the individual satisfy his own needs without hurting others' but rather how can he satisfy his needs without hurting himself. WIthout reproducing through his aspirations and satisfactions his dependence on an exploitative apparatus which, in satisfying his needs, perpetuates his servitude. The advent of a free society woudl be characterized by the fact that the growth of wellbeing turns into an essentially new quality of life. This qualitative change must occur in the needs - in the infrastructure of man, itself a different dimension of the infrastructure of society. The new direction, the new institutions in relationships to production must express the ascent of needs and satisfactions very different and even antagonistic to those prevalent in the exploitative societies. Such a change would constitute the extinctual basis for freedom, which the long history of class society has blocked. Freedom would become the environment of an organism which is no longer capable of adapting to the competitive performances required for wellbeing under domination. No longer capable of tolerating the aggressiveness, brutality and ugliness of the established way of life, rebellion would then have tkaen root in the very nature - the biology of the individual, and on these grounds the rebels would redefine the objectives in the strategy of the political struggle in which alone the concrete goals of liberation can be determined"
+
+Hegel all through this, right? Changing the nature of the biology of the individual so he's no longer capable of tolerating domination - maybe he can become psychopathic! Not biology like "biology" biology, but rather making people totally intolerant to the idea of intolerance and of oppression, and look what we're doing to our children, making them with theri microaggressions and ultrasensitized to easily freak out. No more politics at basecamp, throw htemselves to the floor and have a meltdown. They are not psychologically capable of tolerating life - they need a liberated world. Marcuse's project - is it happening?
+
+"Political radicalism thus employs moral radicalism. The emergence of a reality which might precondition man for freedom. This radicalism activates the elementary, organic foundation for morality in the human being. Prior to all ethical behaviour in accordance with specific social standards, prior to all ideological expression, morality is a disposition of the organism, perhaps rooted in the erotic drive to counter aggressiveness - to create and preserve ever-greater unities of life. We would then have, this side of all values, an instinctual foundation for solidarity among human beings. (Solidarity is key ) a solidarity which has been effectively repressed with the requirements of class society, but which now appears as a precondition for liberty. TO the degree to which this foundation is itself historical and the malleability of human nature reaches into the depth of man's instinctual structure, changes in morality may sink down into the biological dimension and modify organic behaviour. Once a specific morality is firmly established as a norm of social behaviour, it is not only introjected, it operates as a norm of organic behaviour. The organism receives and reacts to certain stimuli and ignores and repels others in accord with the interjected morality. Isn't that's what happened to our poor emotionally crippled college students and adults, now? Which is thus promoting or impeding the function of the organism as a living cell in a respected society. In this way, a society constantly recreates this side of consciousness and ideology, patterns of behaviour and aspiration. As part of the nature of its people, and unless the revolt reaches into this second nature, into these ingrown patterns, social change will remain incomplete and even self-defeating."
+
+That's a scary project. To finalize, with a little bit from the essay on liberation, where he gets into the biology:
+
+"In the advanced capitalist countries, the radicalization of the working class is counteracted by a socially engineered arrest of consciousness. And by the development and satisfaction of needs that perpetuate the servitude of the exploited, a vested interest in the existing system is thus fostered in the instinctual structure of the exploited, and the rupture with the continuum of repression is a necessary precondition of liberation, and it does not occur. It follows that the radical change which is to transform the existing society into a free society must reach into a dimension of teh human existence, hardly considered in Marxian theory - the biological dimension - in which the vital imperative needs and satisfactions of man assert themselves. In as much as these needs and satisfactions reproduce a life in servitude, liberation presupposes change in its biological dimension. That is to say, different instinctual needs, different reactions of the body, as well as of the mind."
+
+Alchemy. Purify oneself sufficiently and engage in the dialectic, the magic process, by adopting the Critical Consciousness - and what happens ia  liberated Utopia will emerge on the other side of everybody doing this. By blooming out of the ashes of the existing society, once all of its limitations and oppressions are burned away through Aufheben - aufheben kultur. This is alchemy driven by the dialectic in roder to achieve a Utopia - Gold sprouting from Lead. A golden society, a golden age, sprouting from an oppressive, leaden age.
+
+It's the same alchemy, and it requires here, literally at the biological level, just like the Soviets requested a new Soviet man, the purification of the self for it to actually work. The adoption of a pure consciousness of the religious, whether it's critical consciousness, class consciousness, race consciousness, whatever it happens to be. So, in essence, this is the hegelian idea that people will not and cannot be free, so long as they are other to the absolute. And in the instance that they genuinely become aware of their own role in manufacturing the absolute, and how the absolute understands itself, the absolute will realize itself, history will end and liberation or communism or true freedom or whatever they want to say will emerge in this perfected society that comes out at the end of history, and that's Hegel's historicism upon which all of these stupid ideas are based. It's a Hegelian religion.
+
+You can put all this crap that Marcuse just said, purification etc, much mroe simply, by talking about a contemporary voice. Robn d'Angelo puts it from her much narrower perch, in Critical Whiteness studies, in that 2018 book called White Fragility, is that you have to try to be less White. That's the ambition. Try to be less White. Coca Cola infamously took this up as a diversity imperative, which resulted in them facing massive blowback, because people saw how horrific it is, but for d'Angelo, this is the same as Marcuse, really. The same ideas as Marcuse. If we were to just purify ourselves of the white supremacist super structure. Get that out of the way, and a racially liberated world might bloom. If we want to do that, we have to apply the dialectic, but we can only do that if we've adopted this so-called Racial Humity, racial stamina. Critical Race Consciousness. We have to be aware of our whiteness and strive to eb less white. We have to recognize that there's no such thing as a positive white identity. Once we've purified ourselves, we can apply the dialectic to challenge that white supremacist suprestructure by disrupting, dis mantlling, subverting, this is applying the heal that heats the world so hat an alchemy towards a perfected idea/state/culture can be achieved. You hear it everywhere, and you see it in Hegel. And it's really also in Marx. That line is completely drawn at this point, and now we're starting ot see that it is a religion with a complete metaphysic, a complete different idea about how the world, and God and Being and Nothing and everything are constituted. A god no longer that is, but a god that becomes by the action of humans understanding the problematics and tearing them away so that the seeds of God, the alchemy, will arise from that Aufhaben'd world.
+
+So the basic idea, here, is that in the process of creating the other, which is the world (God) which is present in everything, which is kind of a Panentheist (Panentheism) idea (God exists in everything), exists in fragmented form trapped within all these imperfections of the world and the philosophies and religions that arise. The alchemical belief the same thing about seeds of Gold being trapped in base materials is going to be applied here, the alchemical process is to treat those in some sort of an alembic, usually with fire, by spiritual pure alchemists who are in parallel Critically Conscious philosophers - Gnostics. They will free the seeds of Gold out of a perfected society with perfected ideas and get them to blossom and thus change base metal or material into GOld, or the society into a perfected absolute. The idea will perfect, the absolute will realize itself, the end of history will arrive and this is the idea behind Hegel's dialectical spiral. His trinity spiral.
+
+Do we go too far?
+
+## Too Far
+Marcuse again.
+
+### Second edition of 1-dimensional man
+*Description of Marcuse's project*
+```
+Marcuse thought the dialectical philosophy could promote critical thinking. 1-dimensional man is perhaps Marcuse's most sustained attempt to present and develop the categories of the dialectic philosophy developed by Hegel and Marx. For Marcuse, dialectical thinking involved the ability to abstract one's perceptions and thought from existing forms in order to form more general concepts. Uncritical thinking derives its beliefs norms and values from existing thought and social practices, while critical thought seeks alternative modes of thought and behaviour from which it creates a standpoint of critique.
+
+Such a critical standpoint requires developing what Marcuse calls negative thinking, which negates existing forms of thought and reality from the perspective of higher possibilities. (Spiritually pure alchemy). This practice presupposes teh ability to make a distinction between existence and essence. Fact and potentiality. Appearance and reality. Mere existence would be negated in favour of realizing higher potentialities while norms discovered by reason would be used to criticize and overcome lower form sof thought in social organization, thus grasping potentialities for freedom and happiness would make possible the negation of conditions which inhibited individuals full development and realization.
+
+In other words, perceiving th epossiblity of self-determination in constructing one's own needs and values could enable individuals to break wiht the existing world of thougth and behaviour. Philosophy was thus to supply the norms for social criticism and the ideal of liberation which would guide social change and individual self transformation.
+
+Critical and dialectical thinking by contrast postulates norms of criticism based on rational potentials for human happiness and freedom, which are used to negate existing states of affairs that oppress individuals and restrict human freedoms and well-being. Dialectical thought thus posits the existence of other realms of ideas, images and imagination that serves as a potential guide for a social transformation that would realize the unrealized potentialities for a better life. Marcuse believes that great philosphy are the locus of these potentialities and critical norms, and he decodes the best products of western culture in this light. (Performing alchemy on them to reach higher unrealized potentialities for a better life).
+```
+
+So, for Hegel, Where this all comes from - the divine expresses itself in nature. THe seeds of the divine exist in everything, but yet everything is imperfect and must contain its own contradictions.
+
+The philosopher, when sufficiently gnostic (having the right consciousness), will then be able to apply reason (vernoomft, as opposed to mere verstand) via the dialectic to expose the contradictions and in synthesis get the seeds of the divine to blossom into the world. This gives rise to more perfected ideas and the process repeats itself, with history existing as the alembic, and hte dialectic acting as the fire, and aufhaven acting as the reducing process. Occassionally, for Hegel, great men of action (key concept), like Napolean, are brought to the fore by history to move this process along in lurches. A lot of times there are warlords who kill a lot of people, Napolean was this archetype, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Possibly Woodrow Wilson, FDR and others, Ghenghis Khan, etc. Would make the list of men of action.
+
+Used by history, according to Hegel, to move the process of history along, because history has this arching purpose to it, which is ultimately to actualize the absolute. It doesn't matter if these are good guys or bad guys, because sometimes it takes good roads and sometimes it takes bad roads.
+
+Philosophers primarily, for Hegel, are meant to move this along in particular. The tool that they'll use is reason which, when it is perfected, is the absolute. Everyday folks who live within the geist are also helping to move it along, because they hope to expose those contradictions in the current state of affairs, which the philosphers will then be able to identify and resolve through proper application of dialectical synthesis.
+
+This is a revolving door between the woke and the activist scholars. The faster in the Hegelian thought process, the faster it goes, the harder the dialectic is pushed and the more the existing society and status quo are torn down and broken, the faster the absolute will be able to realize itself through engagement with the other, and thus the faster everything will be perfected and turned into Utopia.
+
+This is, for Hegel, being that he is a speculative philosopher (looking into a mirror to remember - a process of recollecting and remembering or uncovering through speculation - a mysticism). That philosophy perenis - the perennialor eternal philosophy. The one true philosophy that all theologies, religions, systematic world philosophies are all revealing some part of, but are not properly doing because they're not convergent into one idea. The alchemical process is to take the fragmented pieces of this philosophia perenis and reduce it in the alembic of speculative philosphy down to its essential core, and the tool to do this is the dialectic (the fire) across their differences , and the way it's done is through Aufhaven. That is, the philosophia perenis which characterizes the absolute and indicates, when realized, that the absolute has actualized as the ultimate dialectical synthesis of all ideas. Everything in the world comes back to one idea.
+
+Speculative idealism to remember the prisca theologia - primordial theology (concept introduced from Marcilio Vencino in the 15th century - central concept in hermetic faith. Alchemy.) Fascino was a priest, but he was also sufficiently heremetic where he was threatened with excommunication for his alchemy (or astrology or neoplatinism). The parallels between fascino and hegelianism were obvious - Hegel even commented on it in oen of his books. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy writes about Fascino - he saw himself as one member of a venerable sequence of interpeters who added to a store of wisdom that God allowed progressively to unfold. He's a gnostic as well. Each of these prisci theologi or ancient theologians had his part to play in discovering, documenting and elaborating the truth found in the writings of Plato and other ancient sages, a truth to which these sages amy nto have been fully privy acting as they were as vessels of divine truth.
+
+Fascino, who was an inspiration in some ways to Hegel, was an astrologer and alchemistwho was responsible for the translation of hermetic texts (literally the texts of Hermes). Along with various neoplatiinists in the latin. Hegel, writing in the history of philosophy, was aware of him. He criticizes fascino's Neoplatonism, but he also adapts a heremetic view and something from his prisca theologia. All faiths and philsoophies are manifestations of the one and the same ultimate faith, that's being expressed inadequately or incompletely in the world, and so Hegel believes in his systematic philosophy and his reason when it' sperfected and becomes the absolute - that he has the accurate one true philosophy or faith. This is being done for HEgel because he sees the absolute as existing throughout time, even though it's becoming absolute through time as well, freeing up the philosophia perennis from the confines of cloudy nature, which has fragmented and locked it away in various worldly forms (philosophies and theologies) which were constructed by people who only know the part, but forgot the whole. For Hegel, when you know the whole, the parts all make sense.
+
+This comes back to Verstand and Vernunft. Two ideas of science and reason that Hegel had. Under the broader heading of knowledge - Wissenschaft - which is often translated as "science", you have two categories:
+
+## Verstand (understanding):
+- lower level
+- just understanding things - parallel to traditional theory
+- understanding how things work - physics, science, philosophy
+- Hegel thought Isaac Newton was a charlatan and a fraud - limited to observational and empirical/rigorous things.
+
+
+## Vernunft: reason
+- higher level
+- articulation of this is laying out a so-called logic of science
+- Verstand lays below the vernunft which puts it all into a complete and systematic philosphy
+- When reason is perfected, you have the absolute - a perfected remerged philosphy of perennis which reflects the prisca theologia
+- Arrogant way of viewing his own philosophy as perfect, and a very gnostic way of thinking.
+
+Verstand - understand the world and do so empirically/logically. Low-level understanding. Marcuse repeatedly appealed to a higher level of understanding which is available to people who have true reason, which is freed up and has a consciousness behind it. The consciousness of the absolute.
+
+Put another way, one of Hegel's tenets that relates to the purpose of reason - the particular cannot be understood except in relation to the whole. This is the focus on contradictions which help you to understand that you don't know the whole - you clearly missed something. This means that Hegel's philosophy is ultimately holistic, rather than reductionist. Verstand is reductionist - understan dthings, break them down. Vernunft is holistic. The holistic science.
+
+It also means that what he calls reason is actually ideology, which is why all the way down this line from young hegelians, the marxists to neo marxists, to cultural marxists, certainly the woke - all seem to think that they have something better and more holistic, a superior understanding of the world compared to everyone else. This is very gnostic in nature.
+
+## Dialectic from marxist.org
+Formal thinking often has trouble understanding the causes of events. Something has to be a cause, and something the effect. People are surprised that when they irrigate land and 20 years later due to salination of the land, silting of the waterways etc they have a desert.
+
+Dialectics, on the other hand, understand that cause and effect are just one and another side of a whole network of relations, such as we have in an ecosystem. One thing cannot be changed without changing the whole system.
+
+Dialectic has its origins in ancient society, both among the Chinese and the Greeks where thinkers thought to understand nature as a whole and saw that everything is fluid, constantly changing, coming into being and passing away. It was only when the piecemeal method of observing nature in bits and pieces practiced in western thinking in the 17th and 18th century had accumulated enough positive knowledge for the interconnections and transitions, a genesis of things to become comprenhsible, that conditions became ripe for modern dialectics to make its appearance. It was Hegel who was able to sum up this picture of interconnection and mutability of all things in a system of logic which is the foundation of what we call today dialectics.
+
+In other words, all this stupid scientific understanding of things (formal thinking, all of this traditional theory) is verstand and it's lowly and stupid and people make mitsakes like turning their farmland into deserve.
+
+But we have a higher level - vernunft - which is the dialectic. Hegel's systematic philosophy. He names his own systematic philosophy as "logic" and that systematic philosphy is , infact, the higher way of thinking and it is driven by the dialectic. It ties into that thread previously mentioned that the operating system is the dialectic.
+
+Marx: Hegel had the thing standing on its head and turned back upright.
+Neomarxists: Marx had this thing
+
+Hegel focused on the ideas, the God and the absolute. Marx focused on the state, or the materialist world or the son. And the neomarxists focused on the culture - the spirit or the geist.
+
+That makes a solid, very clear through-line that these people (Hegel, Marists, Neomarxists and their woke inheritors) are all talking about the same thing, with just different aspects being what they believe as the relevant part where you do the alchemical process.
+
+Hegel        - The ideas
+Marx         - The state and the material conditions
+Neo-Marxists - The culture
+Woke         - The culture
+
+(Recall in horror, what it implies under Marxism, that a philosphy treats the state like it's Jesus. Which, in some sense, provides salvation and life. But also, an ideal model for how to live an ethical life, because that's what's going on under Hegelian statism and the its expression in Marxism.) Recoil in horror. Jesus as the state. State becomes Jesus. That's, the way the truth in the life become the state.
+
+This really is how Hegel sthought about hte state, by the way. So this way of tinking, summing up the Metaphysics:
+
+Hegel remains speculative/mystical - trying to apply the
+Marx frees him from his mystical shell - makes the dialectic into dialectical materialism - seeks to exploit the conditions of material life, by raising class consciousness in the people who experience it.
+
+The neo-marxists shift that whole project to Aufheben der kultur. THe dialectical abolishment or transformation of culture. In working in the geist.
+
+The current woke project is primarily an effort of constant multidimensional aufheben der kultur. Kultural warfare of the dialectical leftist motif. Thus, it's no surprise that we are now currently embroiled in a totalizing international culture war, and it's also very easy to see who the antagonists are and how they proceed. The way that they proceed is trhough this culture war - Aufhebe der kultur - tear down the existing culture to cause problems.
+
+## Judeo Christian comparison
+
+Easy to see this whole project, and all of these forms, as being a religion. In fact, three species with three denominations of one religion. The judeo-christian model is not a terrible metaphor. But don't get me wrong and take this literally, it's just a comparison.
+
+I want people to think k I want to spur the thinking, I want to use historical development of Christianity in its regard. Not comparing the values and ethics involved. Just using it as a comparison point so people understand. But in this sense, one could almost think of Hegel himself as being Judaic, he's the one that's establishment and making convenant with documenting this new absolute deity. Marx falls into the role of the early prepolene Christians who ahve brought this faith into a new era of practicality, but whose reach is limited in the Neomarxists by turning to aufheben der kulture down with the woke - like the polyEvanglists whose reach is virtually unlimited.
+
+That's sort of the religious structure of this religion in terms of how it comes out practically.
+
+With Hegel, the Judeic faith is very exclusive - the kind of prepolyne Christian approach is also quite limited in terms of its reach.
+
+Evangelistic Christianity is billions in global, rapidly expansive. This polyene demand to evangelize is indicative of what you see in the neomarxists and the evangelists by moving the entire project into the sight 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 - working through what Hegel would conceive of as being the holy spirit - what moves the world and Good Night are they ever succeeding at moving the world with it.
+
+In all three cases, the basic underlying faith is identical, present, largely constant, and that faith is based on Hegel's metaphysics, which is ultimately a metaphysic based in societal alchemy that's meant to create some new world that's perfected and Utopian. This leaves it open to megalomanics who, throughout history have come up and picked up these ideas, whether Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, we could name more - who picked up these ideas and who think that their vision of the right side of history can be implemented under their rule. The woke, although they don't have this charismatic man of action behind them right now, are doing the same thing, which is why I've called it Leninism 4.0 in the past.
+
+Let's step back, change gears, and head towards a long wrap-up to this.
+
+# WrapUp
+
+The consequences of this line of thinking.
+
+## Necessity And Urgency to the Dialectic
+If you believe that the Utopia is brought about faster by the dialectic, you have to do this hard and fast - as hard and fast as possible - this is what the progressives strive at. The more vigorously the dialectic is applied, the faster we get to Utopia - that exists at the end of history. So everybody who resists this must somehow be eevil, because they resist the idea of Utopia, and they drag humanity's feet and history's feet and the whole time that this is happening, they maintain the oppressions of the imperfected society that's evil.
+
+So, you're going to see Urgency, you're going to see demands for confirmity, you're going ot see demands for Collectivism as a result. You're also going to see seeds of statism, but I really want to convince you that Hegel was a statist, so it's really no surprise that Marxism becomes statist. The neo-marxism is totally Totalitarian and the wokeism inherits both statism and totalitarianism, because Hegel's philosophy is ultimately profoundly statist. The state is a 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 self-consciousness, once that consciousness has been raised to consciousness of its universality.
+```
+
+Once consciousness becomes critically-aware, then you have the state being absolutely rational. It's going to be a perfected state, like I've kept saying.
+
+Hegel:
+```
+This substantial unity, is an absolute, unmoved and in itself. in which freedom comes into its supreme right.In other hand, this final end has supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of this state (total Statism under hegelian thought, and you see this exact mentality all the way down that whole line. Young Hegelian - Marxist -Neomarxist - Woke. What else did Hegel say? In `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. Knowin and thinking itself accomplishing what it knows, and insofar as it knows it.
+```
+
+This sets aside, of course, a much more famous declaration in the Philosophy of History:
+
+```
+For truth is the unity of the universal and subjective will, the universal is to be found in the state. And its laws, its universal and rational arguments, the state is a 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 objectivity and lives in the enjoyment of the subjectivity. This is why they think that freedom comes from the state.
+```
+
+This is Hegelian Leftism
+
+And remember: The state has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the state.
+
+In free societies like the United States - especially any free society (US in particular) that proceeds from Jeffersonian framework - we belive that rights precede the state - our rights were endowed by a creator. They are inalienable. In a hegelian framework, this is not how it works. The individual is to to be subsumed by the state. It has a supreme right against it, and the individual has a complete duty to the state. Total statism, total collectivism.
+
+Rights are replaced by privileges to be granted by the state. This is a completely different political model. Rights endowed by the creator meets the antithesis of privileges granted by the state.
+
+The connection to what's going on in the woke ideology today here cannot be missed, especially in the now famous declaration in Critical Race Theory:
+
+Critical Race Theorists are highly suspicious of another liberal mainstay - namely, Rights. And they're 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 something that's granted by the state. They're obsessed with the idea of privilege, they're obsessed with who has privilege and how that' sunfair, because the state itself is unfair because the entire structure of the idea, stat eand culture are incorrect, and so they agitate culture knowing that that's where you have the most drive to change the entire thing, to oorganize who has privilege, that's why they're so obsessed with privilege, that's why they want people to check their privilege, they want to criticize privilege, because state is something that comes down from the state, and they want to reorganize everything so that privilege gets reorganized so that it operates according to their ideology, their world-view.
+
+Another consequence of the Hegelian thought, as I've mentioned, is collectivism. Because when the ideas are perfected, and this is a little bit of a philosophical point - everybody must have the same ideas because they're perfect. All the contradictions, which lead to other ideas, must have been synthesized. Think about it - if anybody has different ideas, that's a site of contradictions. If your idea and my idea rae different, we now have a dialectic between us, so that means it's not perfectly synthesized. So we don't have the perfect idea, therefore the absolute has notrecognized itself unless we all have the same idea. There can be no cognitive liberty in the perfected state.
+
+We have to have total collectivism. We don't even all have to be the same, we have to think the same. And this is going to happen by bringing that state, by all subsuming our will to the state, giving over our will/our duty to the state entirely. So now it's a collectivist organization.
+
+So collectivism is massively - I don't think hegelian thought created collectivism, collectivism precedes it, btu it is an amplification of it to a dramatic degree with a powerful collectivist metaphysic underneath it. And, of course, collectivism leads people who take it up to try to force  a situation, because they believe that when there's total conformity, to their totalizing ideology, and that's collectively maintained, then we're now near or at the point of the absolute realizing itself. We're now at the perfected point and the Utopia is imminent. Because we're all part of the dialectic process that's moving history forward, and we're all in it together - we're all in i ttogether, right? That's collectivism.
+
+Anybody who has a different idea becomes both a problem, but also proof that the absolute hasn't realized itself. Because the ideas haven't been perfected. So that person becomes a site - somebody with a different idea, with their own thoughts, with cock and freedom becomes a site where the dialectic is continuing to play out, but that means it's not done playing out. So the Utopia is not here, so somebody with different thoughts is preventing the emergence of Utopia, and they're probably just being stubborn. And you can see where the frustration begins to arise, and people get shot.
+
+People who don't want to get on board with this, especially when some psychopath or megalomaniacal man of action have taken control and power, which is totally a weakness of thsi ideology, because the man of action is always being looked for who's going to move this through, that's going to be perceived from within this logic as being against the realization of Utopia - problematic and in need of elimination, or at least of excommunication or silencing or complete marginalization.
+
+That's exactly what we see - that's cancel culture, and what we saw with much more horrific manifestations like Lenina nd Stalin and Mao and whatever. Che Guevara, Fidel.
+
+This is another thing - we mentioned these guys - this type of mentality, this Hegelian magic is wide open to psychopaths and megalomaniacs whio think that they have and they have the charisma to pull it off a little bit, and the total ruthlessness to force it - they think they have the vision. They've studied the theory and they know what it is, so they have the vision and the capacity to decide what the right side of history is, and it's going to strangely conform to their pathologies, of course, and they're going to install a pathocracy - pathological government that basically tries to make their life like everybody's working for them, and they have the ability to usher that in at whatever costs. This is going to happen again and again under Hegelian Frameworks. This is why the left, right now, is utterly catastrophic, and it keep sgenerating these catastrophic movements.
+
+Hegel's man of action is going to come in in the attempt to fulfill history. History is using him - it's nto even his own agency. History is using the man of action to progress the Dialectic. To progress history. As critical race theory has it, right, and so the dialectic progresses. And if he fails in his mission to ffulfill history, that still fits into the same mold. History still progresses. He doesn't fulfill history, history progresses. It's win win.
+
+So he's likely to gain significant support from the Dialectical left who believes in this kind of faith, but this leads to these kinds of mentalities that we keep hearing abou tthese tropes like "Real Communism has never been tried" Because every attempt so far was just a case where it wasn't real Communism - peopl eforwarded some new synthetic idea which wasn't the totally synthetic/perfected idea. And the contradictions that they had in the attempt were revealed to them through the unfolding process of history, which might be 10s or 100s of millions of dead people, or World Wars - both WW were the result of this, for example: all of the communist failures were the result of this. Hitler was the result of this. All of this was the result of a Hegelian dialectic being taken up as a faith.
+
+So, they say real Communism hasn't been tried because it will only be tried, or only will have occurred after the absolute realizes itself, not before. So everything up to that point, no matter how bad - good roads and bad roads - is how history progresses. It was just a part of the process of making our way there.
+
+So:
+
+Thesis - Communism is the way
+Antithesis - 100 million dead
+Synthesis - NeoMarxism - let's shift it to culture.
+
+Let's get out of material and shift it to Geist - it will work this time.
+
+Furthermore, all these mass deaths taht we see through these awful Hegelian projects - these people are just Martyrs of history. They're not a tragedy - they're a victory. 100 million dead? Good, that' sthe view, because history used them. They're Martyrs but history used them to reveal the contradictions and the ideas that were being forwarded in that age. So they're not really a loss, they were revealing those contradictions as history needed them to. History used them and history discarded them, just like Men of Action. Indeed, the 100 million dead were a benefit under this kind of a world view. History under hegel's philosophy, under Hegel's historicism which was praised by Engels - uses people for its purpose and then discards them, so 100 million dead are just part of that process.
+
+Ends justify the means, after all. We keep hearing these things are ends in and of themselves.
+
+As Hegel had it then, the spirit of the time commanded movement, the absolute marches through history through good roads and bad roads, so long as it continues marching. 100 million dead is just another road, just another part of the process, it's all progress, no matter how bad it is.
+
+So let's ratchet down a few notches from that horror show. One more example, and thne we'll talk about what to do about it to wrap up.
+
+## Interfaith Movement
+People wouldn't expect is another consequence of the Hegelian thought is the Interfaith movement.
+
+This is, actually, another aspect of Hegelian's philosophy. Because of that Prisca Theologia and the PHilosophia Perennis that he's after. Interfaith is the attempt to bring all the various faiths, and maybe philosophies together, the United Universalists Church. And extract from them what was originally there before it became corrupted and worldly. Or to identify within them the various aspects reflected of the philosphy of perennis. The perennial philosophy that all of them are just badly simulating, in the simulacrum sense of Jean Beaudriard.
+
+So, for Marx, state atheism and his view of materialism would do, and in our present incarnation of this nonsense which is WOKE, as with the others before it, a highly refined, mostly nonsensical vision of Social Justice is something to do with the philosophy of Perennis.
+
+Equity becomes the updated vision of Communism under this Social Justice model.
+
+Public Private partnerships become the vehicle.
+
+A supernational superstate that replaces the state as Nation State. So we have our Equity-Geist. We have our Supernational State in Public-Private partnerships.
+
+And the faith traditions of the world all cheer this on by subverting their beliefs to the synthetic beliefs if Social Justice.
+
+The Christians are Social Justice and saying this it in Christianese.
+
+The Muslims are Social Justice and saying it in Islamese.
+
+The Buddhists are Social Justice and saying it in Buddhistese.
+
+And nobody's preaching their own faith or talking about their own philosophy and tradition, they're all just using that somewhat parasitically to forward that one different faith, which is Social Justice.
+
+And a Socially Just world is the name for the project that will lead the absolute to realize itself and actualize. This is all still Hegelian metaphysical faith.
+
+## What to do
+### 1. Understand that the Operating System of the left is, in fact, the Hegelian Dialectic.
+
+It comes in different forms and has different focuses, largely because the Dialectic being its main operating system applies to itself and concentrates and changes it. So, from Hegel's very idealistic view, to Marx's Dialectic materialist view, to the Neo-Marxists very cultural Aufheben der Kultur view, to the Woke kaleidoscope of Identity Politics that we have today.
+
+In that sense, what we see is an underlying metaphysics and underlying 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 now, in the currents of Leftist thought since at least the 1830s and maybe earlier, and it should truly be seen as a religious movement.
+
+Of course, I mentioned the dialectic with the tool of Aufheben at its core is ultimately what drives the whole thing, so the methodological undercurrent of the entire Leftist project over the same 2 century timeframe is Dialectic Driven by Aufheben. Abolish, Destroy, Undermine.
+
+While trying to pull out and let blossom the seed of gold of gold within it.
+
+#### Shapiro
+So if we turn to Ben Shapiro's
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+When ideas are perfected, everybody must have the same idea, because they're perfect
+
+Contradictions were synthesized - but think about it, if anyone has ideas, that's a sign of contradiction, and we have a dialectic between us, therefore we don't have the perfect idea unless we all have teh same idea
+
+no cognitive liberty in the perfect state. We have to think the same. This will happen by bringing a state wher we all subsume our will to th state. Collectviist organization. Collectivism is not created by hegelianism, but it amplifies it to a powerful collective metaphysic. Collectivism leads people who take it up to try and force a situation because they believe that when there is total conformity, collectively maintained, then we are at or near the point of the absolute realizing itself. The perfect point where Utopia is imminent. We're all part of the dialectic process moving forward, we're all in it together. Anyone with a different idea is proof that the absolute hasn't realized itself. That person becomes a site where the dialectic is continuing to play out. That also means that it's not done playing out.
+
+They're just being stubborn, and it creates frustration then those people get shot. Especially if a megalomaniacal man of action has taken control to move these things through. This will be perceived from within the logic as being against realization of Utopia and thus in need of excommunication or margainlization or even destruction.
+
+That's what we saw with things under Lenin, Che, Fidel, etc
+
+This is another aspect - this kind of a mentality - Hegelian magic is mwide open to psychopaths and megalomanics who think they have the charisma and ruthlessness to make it happen. They have the vision and the capacity to decide what the right side of history actually is, and it's going to conform to their pathologies, and they'll install a pathocracy of pathological government that basically tries to make their life as though everyone's working for them, and they have teh ability to usher that in at whatever costs.
+
+This occurs again and again under Hegelian dialectic.
+
+Hegel's man of action comes in in the attempt to fulfill hsitory - history is using the man of action to progress the dialectic / history - as CRT has it, the dialectic progresses. If he fails in his admission to fulfill history, that still fits into the same mould of history having progressed. So he always gets support from the dialectical left who believe in this sort of faith. This leads into mentalities we hear abou t/ tropes / Real Communism has never been tried. Every attempt so far was something where it wasn't really communism - it was a synthetic idea tha twasn't the perfected form of the idea. Contradictions in the attempt were revealed through the unfolding process of history - dead people and wars? WWI and II? 10 sof millions dead?
+
+Communist failures and Hitler both get to be a result of a hegelian dialectic being taken up as a faith.
+
+Real communism hasn't been tried - because it will only be tried or have occurred after the absolute realizes itself. Everything leading up to the point, good rodas or bad roads, are just part of the process to make our way there.
+
+Thesis Communism is the way
+Antithesis 100 million people dead
+Synthesis Neomarxists
+ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
+Mass deaths occurring through Marxist projects - Martyrs of history. Not a tragedy, a VICTORY! 100 mil
+
+
+Interfaith movement is another result of Hegel's philosophy. Brings all faiths together and extract from them what was aer

new/intolerant_machine.md

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+Just give in and join us
+just do what everyone has to do so we can stop doing all of this
+these messages of conformity are not borne of sound minds
+they aren't the result of thoughtful consideration and a careful weight and comparison of factors
+they are a plea for endorsement and acknowledgment of other people's choices, which many of us to have been fundamentally misplaced
+choices which many were unable to make for themselves
+for many of us, we know people who gave in and made a choice that they were ashamed of
+a choice that they were afraid to make, and whereby they felt they had no choice but to act out the choosing of an option which was dictated to them by threat
+and all the while we're being told that we can choose, but that there is only one acceptable option, and that to choose an unacceptable optioin should incur an unforeseen, unknown, dynamic process of punishment which will continuously shift and expand until such time as we agree with all those who made what they believe to be the one acceptable choice
+this is madness, and to consent to it and reinforce it is to ignore what madness is, and to pretend that madness is an acceptable replacement for our normal process of observation, contemplation and personal conduct
+this is collectivism and it is being enforced by a populace under duress
+it is being demanded by a state which threatens everyone's rights
+it is being influenced by corporations who have indefinite agreement and shared interests with that state
+and, by all measures, by every heuristic, the longer we continue with the madness, the worse it becomes for all humans
+by every heuristic, humans are becoming a more viable landscape for disease
+there is no messaging, advice, instruction or recommendation from the state or these influential organizations and corporations which is improving our health adn resilience
+which is improving our ability to deal with threats and general
+it is merely the imposition of wartime measures which we will never be able to remove, which we are now trained to expect, and which our leaders are trained to deliver
+all the while the messaging is that if we give up all individual thought, and express absolute uniformity as a community, or even as a species, that the prospect of our individuality will be restored
+if we acknowledge that we are not free beings, we will be afforded that freedom we crave
+it is madness, and thos ewho demand this must be in a delusional stupor
+by every heuristic, we are dying
+if you look at any measure of human health, we are losing on a massive scale
+post prandial glucose, C-reactive protein/inflammatory markers, obesity, diabetes, innate immune function, hypothalamic pituitary axis, circadian rhythm, social isolation, mental health, environmental integration, quality of life by every measure, quality of biological function by every measure
+we are clearly dying through what is being imposed on usa
+and to demand that we all acknowledge the imposition and extend it, allow ourselves to become an expression of it, is to replace the mind and to replace all logic and reason with the momentum of force from a blind system whose only progress is measured by its own set of declared gauges of efficiency
+we will not fare well if we give in, and it is every individual person's responsibility to express what they believe is right for the world and for themselves
+if they cannot do this without giving into the coercion of this antihuman system, or if they truly believe in the demands of these measures, then, just as those who attempted to maintain their dissenting expression in the face of all these threats, they will be held accountable
+everyone will be held accountable

new/minor_inconvenience.md

@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+It's just a minor inconvenience!
+Don't be selfish. Just do this one little thing for the good of everyone, so we can get out of this and go back to our lives, just as they were before!
+
+Actually, it's precisely the fact of it being a minor inconvenience which makes it so easy to keep complying and maintaining this standard.
+
+If the benefits of continuing are or were to ever become redundant, and the consequences of complying to become such that it causes net harm to the community, then it's that convenience which facilitates one's continued acquiescence.
+
+Whereas, if you were to take it off, you invite hatred and scorn. You invite glares of condemnation, opportunities to be ridiculed, risk of being harmed, and the prospect of being excluded from the community.

new/sustain_yourself.md

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+# Sustain Yourself
+
+## Intro
+In some respects, the implications set forth by sustainable development is the suggestion that it's increasingly difficult for you to sustain yourself. Society will have fewer guarantees about sustaining you, and will instead focus efforts on being able to sustain some part of itself in the future. Your participation is less important than it once was, as it will be better able to continue without you.
+
+## Questions
+Do you need to sustain yourself? Are you inherently sustainable? How could that be completely assured? What will I need to have in place? Is the transformation necessary to achieve sustainability be sustainable for the current eaters? Are they sinful? Can we judge them, and rationalize their demise, and our lack of sympathy? Or are we just better off avoiding the inclination to even consider it, as the benefits of any genuine progress far outweighs, and any of the incidental human costs, such as sending people to an early grave by diminshing their access to society, or diminishing the value they can derive from any resource?
+
+Surely, at that point, one has to make the case that those whom we identify as being expected to suffer from the effects of the transformation (higher energy costs, loss of jobs, less access to nutrition, increased rate of aging and disease) will actually do better (cleaner air, fewer disasters, less crime, new technology, miracle food and medicines) thus there is no valid criticism. We have to establish that the net effect is most certainly a diminshed range of vital existence.
+
+## Climate Activism
+- The great flood
+- Malthusian Thinking
+- Belief that we control the world
+- Belief that we can transcend to a new world if everyone adopts the right behaviour.
+
+### Sacrifice
+We can get there if you make the same sacrifice I do. And I will tell you specifically what sacrifice that is.
+If I am a true believer, and I benefit from the issue being serious, then am I really making a sacrifice?
+
+What is my sacrifice? Do I truly expect to have les? Do climate activists live in the smallest houses and avoid traveling? Do they eat foods they find bland or undesirable? Do they avoid hot showers and having a comfortable temperature in their homes?
+
+If a change is coming which necessitates technological and industry changes, then the activists, who concerns themselves with all things social, isn't expecting that they themselves will have to make research discoveries to make and replace products. Their modus operandi is to demand the producers to spend more money in order to meet the particular demands, all under an assumption that there are infinite resources available behind the discretion of certain companies and if they'd listen to our ideas then we would have resources more readily available.
+
+### In The Know (Discoveries)
+If, indeed, I am a part of the apparatus that tests the very latest discoveries, then it stands to reason that I may be first to benefit. If it is not widespread enough,t he same drive is leading to its greater form and availability to a later date. Surely, if the mechanism to demand is powerful enough, then my affiliation works in so many ways, not just to my own benefit from others as well.
+
+Standing among the most adamant of those demadning it, and among those who most intelligently explicate the need for it, and among those who represent the peak of sophistication. Surely I will at least be one of the relatively earlier adopters. Surely, mankind must do this to survive and if some loss occurs through transition to sustainability, I will be one of those who makes it, since I am most aligned with it.

new/sustainable_you.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+# Sustainable to Sustain You
+
+I remember the mindset of being confronted with the idea of sustainability. It was such a powerful proposition to know that entities too large to interact with on a personal basis are implicated in deliberate, large scale activity which threats my existence and all that I love.
+
+## All We Love
+Well, such a set would be impossible to enumerate, but there is a perception which gives attention to the very notion of discovering parts of the world which old secrets. Secrst about the nature of reality, and secerst about experience and personal destiny, whether made by oneself or not.
+
+It certainly wasn't the feeling which suggested that I'd been doing the same activitiy as the large corporation, but that my natural path was set towards the secret discoveries and this impediment was suddenly threatening to prevent the discoveries from being possible.
+
+Why not make the connection then that all human existence follows the same pattern of behaviour? Well, maybe I did, but the significance diminshes greatly once one considers the relative influence of just one large-scale player:
+- Escape => what you do if it's the impact of the large scale player which prevents you from being able to do things in the right way
+
+But why even feel guilty about it?
+
+## Booster Sustainability
+Boosters are a form of sustainability, and no one minds an increased dependence on boosters for immunity. They don't mind that the idea that their protection from disease be represented discretely as a sum total of the medical therapies they have received. It might seem like a stretch, as surely everyone recognizes the vulnerability of relying on an externality for something that you can, for better or worse, do inherently. So how does this get rationalized?
+
+## Activists
+Activists believe the great darkness looms, and the concept that man's sin is worthy of a deadly disease is still not new to them. Not only does this make feasible the state of mind which agrees there is no avoiding certain infection by a super virus, but if the solution uses language promoting the activist endeavours they believe in, then the treatment becomes a meta physical or otherwise holy proposition.

new/system_of_slavery.md

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+Many are impervious to all the pressures and manpulation tactics, and are inherently skeptical of conformity and anything which demands uniformity of thought.
+
+Society draws the blood from those whose lives it destroyed for 2 years, all while enabling the greatest upwards wealth transfer in modern times, but it will be met with greater resistance out of the remaining holdouts, whose ideas are finally resonating among an increasing proportion of those who previously acquiesced.
+
+The rest, acting out a cult behaviour, aren't interested in dialogue - just universal compliance and obedience to their conceived object of alignment.
+
+As society increases violence upon dissenters, it produces an impression of conformity and absolute congruence in the social sphere, even if there is no real increase in compliance. It further weakens the populace, and increases financial dependence on a state which promises everyone a depreciation in every store of value.
+
+Meanwhile, you can see rainbow flags, pronouns, terms synonymous with equity and vacuous slogans demanding emancipation ironically aligned with the dictatorial, screaming in unison for intolerant demand of no less than 100% conformity to their collectivist ideals. They've been programmed to insist on a movement while believing there is no progress except through the conquer and capture of every possible mind, subjugating them to an abstracted sentiment which they believe upholds their particular aspirations.
+
+The corporatized state leverages use of every symbol and buzzword possible, illustrating propositions congruent to the impetus of liberation the activists crave. There's no conception of an end goal; the only thing that matters is conformity and adherence.
+
+It is a system of slavery.

new/truckers.md

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+"Those silly truckers just want attention, that's what it is. Or they're afraid of needles, and they're simply not intelligent enough to realize that their show of discontent is going to be an inconvenience for them alone.
+
+Let's point our finger at them and laugh from a position a moral and social superiority."
+
+Surely no intelligent person comes to this opinion through a thoughtful process of consideration, but through the suggestion that they are accorded an opportunity to express their antipathy and discontent.
+
+For who would benefit from cultivating a habit of assessing such a matter with a narrow range of analysis, and to present themselves as the person who is satisfied with such a standard, unless they were actually aiming to destroy themselves and the world around them?
+
+It is more charitable to assume that they are giving into suggestion.
+
+And where does this suggestion comes from those who believe that they would remain completely unaffected by any consequence which comes about from inducing vulnerability in the process which keeps their compatriots alive.