update

collectivist_theology/Left-Right_paradigm.md

@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+# Left / Right Paradigm
+
+## Information
+
+### Flow
+#### Change of Scope
+The ultimate right wing representation of change of scope or stipulating of scope might be something like
+- never changing the scope
+- believing that the scope encompasses all
+- ensuring that the scope is the entirety of everything or at least making it that whatever scope is available is equivalent to the entirety of everything by virtue of how anyone else is permitted to speak of it
+This whole tendency to need to control the scope and ensure that it encompasses enough of everything upt o any including everything itself is something that we would normally consider as being Right Wing
+for left wing:
+- the scope can change and that's okay
+- the scope is always changing and we can always adapt to that
+- the scope that is available to be seen by others is to their discretion so long as it doesn't infringe on one's own privacy - one has some degree of flexibility, or perhaps ultimate flexibility in establishing one's own scope or allowing others to make use of scopes and implements which refine or change scope
+
+#### Change of Rate
+- not having a strong reaction towards rate of change
+- being ok with dramatic rises in rate of change
+- feeling ok about activities which threaten to increase rate of change
+(right)
+sorry that's left
+here's right
+- demanding no change in rate fo change
+- demanding a null rate of change
+- (less likely) demanding the maximum rate of change
+and being intolerant to perspectives which do not agree about one's rate of change
+- not recognizing that there is a rate of change, or that change is possible
+
+### Transformation
+#### static
+- treating constructs as though they are static and unchanging
+- treating things as static if they appear to empower you? # nah
+- having a view that the final means of organizing reality is already known
+- having the view that the meaning of reality can be derived through the organized structure for life which provides the basis from which to give sense to being
+
+#### changing
+##### quantity
+a change in quantity is not necessarily easy to assess here.. we could say that the change in quantity in terms of consolidating something would be
+the most right-biased reading of a change in quantity at the generic level
+
+in contrast to this, a change of quantity by which what is known or consolidated in a particular form discoverable by the perception of the entity in question (and the perspective which finds this most acceptable or has the least feeling of aversion to it) would be the left-biased one
+
+the problem with this is that we're not examining the qualitative change which is both intrinsic and always occurring with every change of quantity
+if even it cannot be understood specifically what the qualitative change happens to be, the mere observation of a change of quantity yields an implicit change of quality even just by virtue of the classification of that which is undergoing a change in quantity
+(classification/description/interpretation)
+
+## Personality
+### Structure
+#### norms
+for the right, norms are something which have as long of a lasting traditional head start as possible while still interfacing with the here and now
+they are to be maintained, they express aspects of reality and human life that are static
+the degree to which things are able to be expressed with the norms is the degree to which it remains intelligible and able to assure one of their way of living and manner of being
+
+for the left, the norms are things which are continuously being modulated, aberrated and reformulated
+they are in a continuous process of being established and are things which can completely change such as to seem aesthetically unrelated to a previous iteration
+an interation being a frame of observation
+
+to be truly left, one is not so concerned with being perceived as a particular norm
+whether that happens to be of a form or degree of similarity towards a particular norm, or whether one is setting a norm
+if anything, it's expressed as the absence of desire for one's expression to be reproducing or being perceived as a norm
+existant or not
+that is, whether that norm is extant, or whether it is to be realized by one having a sufficient degree of structural alignment or social empowerment in order to establish a norm through one's affects and state of being
+
+one's effects
+
+
+for the right, one is concerned with being perceived as a norm, is trying to reproduce a norm and is trying to ensure that the norms are continuously extant
+
+#### convention
+The left and right differ also on convention, the concept of it, what they consider to be convention, and how to go about establishing and perpetuating a convention
+
+The right believes that convention is extant, has a tendency to always return to an ever-lasting, proper form which best represents a concept, organization or practice. Convention is something to be upheld because it maintains the integrity and true form of something in particular, and any deviation from that convention is move into a chaotic form which no longer expesses thta which it purports to
+
+For teh left, convention is something contrived which has manifested for a variety of reasons, but which enjoys particularly elevated recognition as the established representation of something because of the social factors which effect the dissemination of information about that for which the convention applies. Conventions are meant to be broken, and must be broken as part of an evolution in all aspects of human life. The longer convention maintains itself the greater the degree to which it is place illegitimtaely and the greater the degree to which it can be difficult to interpret it for what it truly is, as well as it being the greater the degree to which the ability to discern a more appropriate convention or process of replacing convention
+
+#### Hierarchy
+For the right, hierarchy is something established based on eternal principles and might even have an eternal and unchanging form. The hierarchy as it establishes in front of our eyes and in our lives is just a coalescing of objects into their already pre-destined positions and so the natural order, as it arises, is always something that can be seen as something thaedn't be challenged. It must just be adored and recognized for its divine rite of manifestation as was always in the plan of being.
+
+Now, sometimes aspects of life and the environment can get in the way of this, and the order and aesthetic of the hierarchy might come to be looking like something unnatural. That is, there are ways of interrupting the historical reality of the divine and eternal hierarchy, and so the right-biased mind might come to make a criticism of the order of hierarchy on the basis of this. If, for example, there is a historical order of destiny, and something artificial and unbecoming of humanity has tampered with the hierarchy and come to make it look obscene and like an insult to our good sentiments, then and it might the case that the hierarchy needs to be corrected to be brought back to its historical form as per eternal doctrine.
+
+For the left, however, there isn't necessarily a respect for hierarchy. And this becomes tricky as though the right can come to disrespect a hierarchy on the basis that it no longer expresses the true just form of hierarchy which was always intended to be in a particular form, but now needs to be brought back into that form. For teh left, however, this can always be the case. There is nothing holding the hierarchy in a destined or unchanging order. The order itself is subject to change every time the insightful leftist is empowered to make that happen
+
+This can happen in a variety of forms:
+1. TRUE meritocratic influence causes the traditional hierarchy to be arrived and
+2. The abolition of the hierarchy or disrespect for established hierarchy
+3. the overcoming and overriding of hierarchy in order to transform the system to something which is less restrictive. Something which happens naturally and without necessary tension and friction/conflict in order to manifest. It should be the natural way of things to have this hierarchy come apart, int his case, though there can always be the particular exceptional cause
+
+in summary, hierarchy must be respected by the right.. has a natural transcendental order and though it can be made fuzzy and disorganized, it can be restored by respecting traditional authority, so to speak
+
+conversely, hierarchy can be overcome at any time by the left.. the order is always suspect and may very well be holding us back from a better way of doing things which actually brings us within reach of expressing true nature and optimizing our abilities
+
+#### Central Power
+Oh this is going to be a fun one

collectivist_theology/Protest.md

@@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ Henry Giroux: The Utopia is actually a set of possibilities for a better, more d
 Marcuse again
 The question cannot be brushed aside by saying that what matters today is the destruction of the old, of the powers that be, making way for the emergence of the new. Such an answer neglects the essential fact that the old is not simply back, that it delivers the goods, and that people have a real stake in it.
 (The system works, and we can't completely abolish it, we have to do something a bit different - too simple to just disrupt and dismantle)
-there can be societies that are much worse, there are such societies today, the system of corporate capitalism has the right to insist that those who work for its replacement justify their action. But the demand to state concrete alternatives is justified for yet another reason. Negative thinking draws whatever force it may have from its empirical basis. The actual human condition in a given society, and the given possibilities to transcend this condition, to enelarge the realm of freedom.
+there can be societies that are much worse, there are such societies today, the system of corporate capitalism has the right to insist that those who work for its replacement justify their action. But the demand to state concrete alternatives is justified for yet another reason. Negative thinking draws whatever force it may have from its empirical basis. The actual human condition in a given society, and the given possibilities to transcend this condition, to enlarge the realm of freedom.
 
 (This is not empirical. This is how Marxists use the words empirical or scientific - you are going to impose your theory on something and call it science. This is what they've done from the beginning. Scientific socialism of Marx. Another negative thinking project - the actual human condition in society as analyzed by marxists and given possibilities to transcend.)
 In this sense, negative thinking by virtue of its own internal concepts positive. (Negative thinkign is positive).

collectivist_theology/post-Evangelical Christians.md

@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
+## post-Evangelical Christians
+- post Christian
+- post modern
+- They're just getting started
+So even the naming convention right away says we are about something revolutionary, because it has to replace something. The concept of Christianity itself is something which has to be sublated into something which serves the liberation of man as a social animal. This is an old game and it spans the entire history of mankind, with its endpoint at the moment of imminentization
+
+Post-anything means that thing has failed and was not what it was supposed to be. Post-Marxists even try to claim that they are not Marxist, for example, though they retain the core.
+
+The core in this case, however, is difficult to maintain, because the core of Christianity is the idea of something being beyond time and matter, but the goals of a post-Christian faith are to focus more intensely on those problems of time and matter.
+
+That they are just getting started means that they don't even know what it is supposed to be, just that it shouldn't be what it was or what it even is right now. It needs to be taken over, its symbols, its artifacts, its history, its concepts, its peoples, and to have all such things consolidated into the process of seeking that which has not yet come to be.
+
+## Sprawling tradition
+- nonsensical
+- Rambling and incoherent
+Christianity itself, at least insofar as it exists in the United States, is something unreasonable and antiquated. You see, over and over in this article, the use of terms like "sprawling" to describe the institutions of Christianity which have thus far existed (and which aren't part of the new synthetic reformation intended as its replacement). Christianity was misguided, unfocused, meandering, guided by the worst aspects of mankind, and corrupt with the ideologies which manifest to enable the fallen to rationalize their depravity.
+
+## Framing
+- white conservatism
+- Christian nationalism
+- male privilege
+- obsession with regulating sexuality
+White means racist because it imposes the distinction of race. Regardless of whether the invocation or the assignment of this term is itself racist, the fact of identifying something as white implies that that thing is racist.
+
+But not only that, we are associating it with Christian Nationalism. That means that it is White Christian Nationalism. It also brings in male privilege, which is another way of saying Patriarchy - so we are bringing in the standpoint epistemology of critical feminist theory, which is a Marxist theory of sex. It steps it up a notch and says "obsession with regulating sexuality", by both cementing the feminist critique of saying that women can't have an identity of their own because it is defined, in this clause, by the regulation of their sexuality, but it also opens the door to making this about queer liberation, which is certainly to come more explicitly in the writing.
+
+Overall, we can see that this all means Fascism. We are placing all of the identifiers which reference the popular view of Nazism, the commonly understood formulation of Fascism (very few people have actually read about Fascism proper). This is done because it is now patriarchal nationalism on principle of race. This means that Christianity itself is represented as Patriarchal Nationalism on principle of race, and this is just the beginning of the article. A controversy is introduced and a dialectical inversion is being formed as a proposal to the reader.
+
+### Who The Real Fascists?
+Of course, what's really happening here is something that has happened before. The idea of humans having beliefs and thoughts of their own - having their own capacity to discern and contemplate in pursuit of truth - this is something which conflicts with a state which makes declarations about what is true. The state can't simply function to an extent of saying that it doesn't know something. It only makes statements in a manner which implies certainty or, at the very least, congruence with the highest authority on a particular matter. The idea that there could be a populace which is performing its evaluations outside of the pool of expertise recognized by the state is offensive and threatening to the state apparatus.
+
+As a state becomes increasingly authoritarian, it needs for its subjects to be perfectly compliant and maintaining a position which does not and cannot challenge the positions held by the state. As the driving factor for pursuit of truth is in man's contemplation of meaning and purpose in the world, it becomes clear that interest should be taken in those activities which allow for man to undertake the most explicit pursuit of truth under a setting without constraint of subject or procedure. Religion, philosophically-driven dissent, activism, psycho-naught i-cal exploration and similar are all activities for which the state isn't necessarily expected to be present, perform audits or provide direction (at least under normal circumstances and as per the precedents of our modern era.
+
+The interfaith effort allows for the truth-seeking aspirations of individuals who happen to be involved with pursuit of an understanding of the world and their faith to be placed in an environment of ambiguity, where the presumption that participants are each in pursuit of the same will lend a false sense of security insofar of accepting declarations in the environment which are purported to be truth-oriented.
+
+## Politics
+- Republican Politics
+- Identifies as post-Evangelical
+- Claims that this is an identity, as a political identity
+- deconstructing "white evangelicalism"
+
+## Maintaining the name
+- Liberation
+- Depicts "who" God is
+- "Saving" Evangelicalism
+- Making a collective
+
+# Page 22
+## Growing power / smaller demographic
+- White Christianity equivocation on basis of politic or demographic
+  - Shrinking demographic - muh replacement theory
+- (25 -> 15% of Americans)
+- used to be liberal
+- mostly applied to white conservatives
+- Donald Trump (zealous enthusiasm)
+- Roe v. Wade
+- Supposes that judges come to their conclusions because they are bought off by religious organizations or because they are practicing for an ideology rather than their expertise in interpreting the law
+
+## Peak Power
+- White evangelicalism currently at peak of political power
+- Internal decline
+- Exodus
+- Older parents and mentors obsessed with culture war and conspiracies
+  - Not praying or talking about bible
+- Evidence of this because they can't tolerate those who speak out against Trump
+  - *Somehow coming to church and speaking about Trump makes you non-political*
+  - Evangelicals are political for not wanting to choose the correct politic for non-political reasons (prove your faith)
+
+## New Understanding of Christianity
+- Progressive concerns to reforge faith
+- "Intellectualism"
+- Do the work of LGBTQ activism
+- Deconstruct patriarchy
+- Eliminate nationalism and militarism because Jesus
+- Leaving "Conservative Whiteness" is Following Jesus
+
+## Gushee's Homonormativity
+https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1271&context=socs_fac
+- "Evangelical ethicist" published book "Changing our Mind"
+- Argues Homonormative depiction of LGBTQ for church inclusion on interpretation of Bible
+- Decries criticism aof progressives and Democrats
+- "Following Jesus out of Am. Evang"
+
+## Keri's being "born again"
+- Again the use of "sprawling"
+- 20 year old partyer
+- Gender discrimination - youth pastor becomes coordinator

covidism/epidemiological_theory.md

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+
+According to epidemiological theory
+when you infect an area, it's called seeding, the time from which an infected person anters a community until you visibly have a surge of infections, an d death, that time is extremely sensitive to where you do it - the culture, how people behave, how old they are, such that aeverytime you calculate this, you find a time lag that caries by weeks or months or even years. It's going to be copletely different and very sensitive tot he cicumstances

queer/Queer Gnostic Cult.md

@@ -473,7 +473,93 @@ It all comes back to Life is Drag, Drag is Life.
 
 Everything we do is actually drag, and drag is actually what it means to live.
 
-Everything we do, in some sense, is performance of gender - consciously or unconsciously. It's absurd - drag is itnentionally absurd. When we are unconscious of it, we are not Queer Gnostics, and we are absurdly living out our gender and continuing to contribute to the demiurgic power of social constructions of gender and sexuality that constrain, imprison and do violence to people - especially those who are aware that they're having violence done to them.
+Everything we do, in some sense, is performance of gender - consciously or unconsciously. It's absurd - drag is intentionally absurd. When we are unconscious of it, we are not Queer Gnostics, and we are absurdly living out our gender and continuing to contribute to the demiurgic power of social constructions of gender and sexuality that constrain, imprison and do violence to people - especially those who are aware that they're having violence done to them.
 
 If are conscious of the fact that we are all performing drag all the time, then we have queer gnosis. Then can become queer, as Halperin put it, in an oppositional way that ambiguously queers the whole system through these double inversions.
 
+### James' Description
+Imagine a dramatic skill at Christmastime - Tiny Tim Scrooge etc. The actors can't just do whatever they want to do. They are scripted into the drama, they have to do what the script says - and someone else wrote the lines, arranged the scenes etc. There's some flexibility in the performance, but it's ultimately heavily constrained by the characters the setting the plot, the director, the lines, the set, the playwright, the producer all become demiurges over the production of the, the actors are the characters in the play, and thus their performances are limited by those demiurgic forces that are imposed on them.
+
+They cease being their true selves, and become the characters. Through performing those roles, for a time, they become the role - they become the character if they play it well. But we know it's a performance, and so do they.
+
+Imagine if nobody knew it was a performance. That's life as drag. That's what Judith Butler says is going on with Gender.
+
+Only the gender gnostics realize that everything gender is performance and, thus, they don't necessarily become what they're being inscribed to become. They know the're performing so they can act, they can ham it up and go crazy. Even right around the edges of the boundaries of the script and the director. If they didn't know, they would have to do exactly what the script said or what the intention of playwright indicated.
+
+Gender gnostics, by being queer, can invert the system and achieve self-begetting. To achieve true agency and autonomy, so they can be fully human.
+
+#### JL Austin
+Outlined the idea of performativity. When someone dons professional garb and manner, the person becomes their professional role. A little bit of performance associated with having that role - say certain lines (by the power invested in me), make use of certain presentations and do certain activities - those things communicate
+
+...
+
+Just like a cop - he puts on his uniform and becomes a jackass or a tough guy. When people ask "waht do you do" he says "I am a cop!". He thinks and speaks and adopts a language and manner - same thing with sex and gender.
+
+You are told you have to act a certain way to be that thing - to signify that thing - to tell people that you're taht thing that gets inscribed on your body with the expectations of what it means to be that thing and you accept that and become that. Or, you wake up and become a gender-fucking queer. Someone who si intentionally fucking with gender (technical term).
+
+You become these thigns - you get to pick - just like Simone de Beauvoir. Are you going to become a woman on patriarchal male terms as an object to men, or are you going to become a woman as a woman. Same thing.
+
+By becoming those things you reify the spirit or oppose the spirit in that social-spiritual way - the social constructions which define the role in the first place. So either you perpetuate the carceral, demiurgic cycle - the demiurgic power flows through you and is enforced by you accepting it, or you decide to queer it to reject it.
+
+That's what queer theory is about.
+
+And that's why they value these stupid transgressive performances all the time, like a black velma Lesbian in Scooby Doo.It pains a picture that there's so much more that one could be than what the stupid demiurgic playwrights actually wrote. This is why everything has to be queered. This is why trans people must be sacred. Because everything must transgress the script that has to be destroyed to set people free. In Gender Trouble Judith Butler explains some more:
+
+Where feminist analysis takes the category of sex and, thus, according to him, the binary restriction on gender, as its part of departure, Foucault understands his project to be an inquiry into how the category of sex and sexual difference are constructed within discourse as necessary features of bodily identity. The juridical model of law which structures the feminist emancipatory model presumes, in his view, that the subject of emancipation, the "sexed body", in some sense is not itself in need of critical deconstruction.
+
+As Foucault reminds about some humanist efforts at prison reform, the criminal subject who gets emancipated may be even more deeply shackled than the humanist originally thought.
+
+"To be sexed, for Foucault, is to be subjected to a set of social regulations.
+
+To have the law that directs those regulations reside both as the formative principle of one's sex gender pleasure and desires and as the hermeneutical principle of self-interpretation.
+
+The category of sex is, thus, inevitably regulative and any analysis which makes that category pre-suppositional uncritically extends and further legitimizes that regulative strategy as a power-knowledge regime."
+
+THis is why feminists can't stop Queer Theory. They accept that hermeneutical principle of self-interpretation in genders being a social construct and, thus, once you accept sex as a category, it is inevitably regulatory. If you accept it uncritically, you're already accepting the regime that's scripting bodies and imprisoning them.
+
+What this results in is that queer theory is an awakening to an explicitly hermetic transformation program that starts with and is motived by understanding a queer gnostic
+
+## Reification
+You change yourself (as below) and you force society to accept you (as above) through moral extortion rackets, blackmail, bullying, threatening to kill yourself, etc. You force society to accept you and, when it does, you've changed the social constructions that will now inscribe on bodies differently.
+
+## Inversion of Praxis
+Now, the social constructions change so as above we have a new view of sexuality, gender and sex which is liberated of the previous constraints that will inscribe differently on bodies of people who will be more liberated.
+
+Trans becomes real when people accept that trans is real and reify it. You never finish transition really.
+
+No matter how many surgeries, how many hormones, no matter how many puberty blockers, no matter how much sterilization damage, mutilation and wahtever you do to yourself, you will never change sex.
+
+Your goal isn't to change sex - the body doesn't matter - the goal is to change society so it accepts that you have transitioned and if everybody lies to themselves and believes that you transitioned - then you did.
+
+Transition completes not through more intervention, btu through forcing society to affirm you.
+
+## Judith echoing back to Gayle
+Thinking sex said something similar in 1984.
+
+"A radical theory of sex must identify, describe, explain and denounce erotic injustice and sexual oppression. Such a theory needs refined conceptual tools which can grasp the subject and hold it in view. It must build rich descriptions of sexuality as it exists in society and history. It requires a convincing, critical language that can convey the barbarity of sexual persecution. Several persistent features of thought about sex inhibit the development of such a theory. These assumptions are so pervasive in western culture that they are rarely questioned, thus they tend to re-appear in different political contexts, acquiring new rhetorical expressions but reproducing fundamental axioms.
+
+One such axiom is sexual essentialism - the idea that sex is a natural force that exists prior to social life and shapes institutions."
+
+Nature is the basis for concepts about sex - that's the thing that has to be brought to accusation. That you believe that sex precedes social forces, and that there is something essential about being male or female (sex).
+
+"Sexual essentialism is embedded in the folk wisdoms of western societies which considers sex to be eternally unchanging, asocial, transhistorical."
+
+She is locating sex-essentialism and humanities wrong beliefs about nature as she sees it in what nature implies. She's treating nature in the same way as the gnostics treated nature as the creation of evil demiurgic forces. Biological science is downstream from social forces so when somebody says they are biologist and that they understand science, they're discredited by Queer theory already - they have bought into the system and are using these tools that they consider scientific to re-assert the system.
+
+"Dominated for over a century by medicine, psychiatry and psychology, the academic study of sex has reproduced essentialism".
+
+There is nothing essential to your sex it doesn't come from your body, it comes from society telling your body what it has to be. We've got it all backwards and all the so-called sciences that claim to study nature are just power-laden tools that the people who have access to power use to justify their claims. The claim to scientific authority is just a claim to maintain power and the queer theorists are seeing through that lie. Science is just politics by other means. Truth is not a real thing - there's only strategy and power. What people call truth is only a function of power and that power is wittingly or unwittingly demiurgic, carceral and desiring control over that which it sees as inferior in teh other and is external to itself.
+
+If you were to combine gnosticism and hermeticism, the hermetic god creates the material world in order to know itself but then it doesn't want to know itself. It represses that, in some sense.
+
+"These fields classify sex as a property of individuals. It may reside in their hormones or their psyches. It may be construed as physiological or psychological. But within these ethno-scientific categories, sexuality has no history and no significant historical determinants."
+
+It's a social phenomenon and she cites Foucault as the person who breaks us free from that.
+
+"Michel Foucault's The History of Sexuality from 1978 has been the most influential and emblematic text of this new scholarship on sex."
+
+Foucault named as the grand wizard breaking us free of the prison of being with his queer gnosticism (the new scholarship on sex). Scholarship means scholars have hte secret knowloedge that's higher than the boring scientific truth.
+
+"Foucault criticizes the traditional understanding of sexuality as natural libido yearning to break free of social constraint. He argues that desires are not pre-existing biological entities (you're not born tht way, kids), but rather that tyhey are constituted in the course of historically-specific social practices."
+
+This is the modernist and postmodernist gnostic view of that social-spiritual realm. The progression of historically-specific social practices. That includes, through the revolutions that transform and sublate them over time (history progressing through the hermetic process). Queer consciousness, then, includes the idea that sex and the underlying desires are only comprehensible as a social-spiritual phenomenon that are subjec tto dialectic evolution through hermetic alchemy - people discovering the greaetr higher truth through the dialectical process - by removing distinctions. They are something that is becomnig - progressing toward what it always should have been. They are thus cut free of the connection to physical reality entirely and queer gnosis is coming to understand this belief. Biology doesn't matter to what or who you actually are - just like you see on the ground. Furthermore, queer gnosis is realizing yourself to be a historical agent. That's so important with Marxism part of adopting a critical consciousness is awakening to the fact that you are a historical agent that changes history. You are a being wo is a sexual subject. Which is to say, some

queer/double_negation.md

@@ -316,11 +316,17 @@ Allow me to offer this greatly shortened summary which can't capture the depth o
 
 He has been criticized for using this term to describe what he believes to be a fitting abstraction which has prevailed until the present time. This is because those who don't want to be described in this way will suggest that it can only refer to a Heretical Christian religion from the 2nd century AD, and those who do wish to comment on rampant 20th/21st century collectivist philosophies don't want to use a descriptor that can be so easily dismissed out of hand.
 
-But the general premise of the abstraction holds quite well, actually. If we think about those being referred to with this term, they clearly demonstrate a complete refusal of the terms at present. That is, the means of having dialogue and discussion about the state of the world - there is no dialogue for them, because they don't believe it's possible for anyone who disagrees with their view of being capable of making reasonable observations about the world or reality. That is, what they believe as an understanding of the world is so powerful that the only logical position one can take after is to agree that the order of being must be undone, and such self-descriptions are not only deprecating and self-defeating, but they // TODO: here
+But the general premise of the abstraction holds quite well, actually. If we think about those being referred to with this term, they clearly demonstrate a complete refusal of the terms at present. That is, the means of having dialogue and discussion about the state of the world - there is no dialogue for them, because they don't believe it's possible for anyone who disagrees with their view of being capable of making reasonable observations about the world or reality.
+
+That is, what they believe as an understanding of the world is so powerful that the only logical position one can take after is to agree that the order of being must be undone. And we see this because not simply is it just a matter of having to find common ground, nor is it about coming to some sort of compromise. The repulsion to compromise is quickly apparent as it becomes impossible to have any coherent exchange. The very act of coming to a sustained process of communication necessarily requires the suspension of thought, or at least the suspension of acting on an impetus to clarify details or resolve contradictions for any attempt to act in either of those ways is not going to be met as a genuine attempt to improve understanding, or even as simply having interest in the content, or the concerns of the "initiate". It's simply not something that can even be approached, as the standpoint of the initiate is that things are either no longer bearable for them, or that they are a proxy to those for whom it must be understood that it is no longer bearable.
+
+It's literally, in a sense, a form of war. It can be war with you, or it can be a matter of joining up in arms with them for war against the world. Against the very fabric of reality, and yes though I keep dwelling on that and repeating it and trying to make it more apparent, I understand very well that it is broadly rejected by most who find it ridiculous to even consider framing it in those terms. But the framing in those terms is because it's necessary to characterize the extent of the deception and to allow the opportunity for people to understand the extent to which the threat exists - whether that's the threat of a specific side effect or simply the threat of the primary objectives of the initiate.
 
 ### Motivation
 The gnostic mindset might be described as the ***motivation***, whereas there process by which the gnostic corrects the world is hermetic.
 
+That motivation is the sense of one being
+
 By
 We will go about describing the gnostic mindset as it affects our world today.
 
@@ -1301,3 +1307,307 @@ Many are thankfully waking from their own brushes with Totalitarianism, but we f
     - Accepting anything in place of its removal and replacement
   - Something abou tthe current mode of being is imprisonment
 
+# Define Through Negation
+- identities that problematize, emphasize stereotypes, position and present as opposing a particular stereotype
+- eliminate whiteness -> define blackness as identity opposite to whiteness
+- decolonizers eliminate colonialism and imperialism
+- proletariat exist becaues, and in order to, negate capitalism
+- eliminate biological obscenity which has been allowed to manifest through pursuit of false wealth
+  - natural chaos, adopting disease, not curing
+- abundance is not from things produced or resources available, but that there are no resources or products that are used by or produced by private business / capitalism
+  - land used for production must be owned by "the people" and administered through the state
+  - dekulakization and control of all assets by vanguard stakeholders
+- democracy through negation of participants whose choices would not be in the best interest of the people
+- Hegel claimed that all things are their negation, though that is a step away from what we are observing here: above, we are seing how a definition is formulated through description of something being negated. Here, however, he is saying that those which can be determined also determine their absence or the specification of the state in which something is said to not exist. Since pure, absolute being is said to be equivalent to nothing, here Hegel attempts to claim that there is no distinction between finite and infinite.
+
+# Historicism
+*Dialectical Leftism and the Refutation of Mysticism*
+
+Telos of history is irrelevant -> potential for other outcomes is immaterial
+- randomness need not be concerned with
+- single instance of performing a traversal of the path of history, vs:
+- concerns with the means of traversal
+  - it is actual - it is how it has been traversed
+
+The reality is that there is no randomness in history if history is the history of man changing himself and having developed. If there is a telos of man, he seeks...
+
+Either the endpoint is random or what lead to it cannot be neglected as random noise. One might say that it is random, but the fact of human existence insists that we should strive towards our most positive endpoint. But how can we believe this assessment? Because those who deny it have false consciousness -> theory of knowledge -> then this affects knowledge of time, matter, history...
+
+The historicism proves the mysticism in many cases, as the materialist claim is interpreted as a perspective which otherwise insists that it quantifies things or that it wishes to bring things into consideration that are otherwise left out of an incomplete equation. That the equation is always made more complete by listening to them.
+
+In spite of all of this, however, is the overarching component of history which carries forward wisdom not in the minds and lives of humans and whose trajectory is in line with the development and emancipation at the level of totality.
+
+We get a further sense of this with sustainability, as it frames the historical progression as
+a) causing oppression, rather than raising all ships => a mix? No, ultimately doom for everyone
+b) heading to the imminent endpoint fo complete circular state (at the scale of the world) - lossless, entropyless, static and pure
+c) not having a solution which comes through an end unforetold => tech discovery through working while having resources to operate robustly
+
+# Restless
+November 21, 2023
+
+Still, they are restless for not having fully silenced what they deem as the chaotic and more primitive portions of the human population. We must be careful to be specific in who is indicated by chaotic or primitive:
+- Chaotic is not merely erratic, potentially energetic or expression which potential for increased energy dynamic, nor that which is lacking structure, order, form and the qualities necessary for it to be predicted. Chaos means something of behaviour of which it's unknown whether the consequences or side effects could be detrimental, at least not insofar as what influence or effect it comes to bear.
+
+There are many forms of perception which come to embody a feeling of assured content through interpretation of control. Sometimes it is puritannical in communicating one's high moral standing as part of an attempt to not have others rise to the occasion, but first to have them feel shame or envy, as this can validate the communicator's model/assessment/metric, as well as also being to assert one's eternal status; they are not now at your level, not just if there is disagreement, but also to the extent that if there is agreement, it may be suggested that they are one step ahead and higher in standing. Why?
+
+Because you chose the discipline - the organization. You initiated them and are seeking to go higher.
+
+# Gnostic Erasure of Distinction
+The distinctions are only invoked to silence criticism to a process eliminating distinction. It appears paradoxical but it makes sense when you see that sidestepping criticism is also achieved through an elimination of yet other distinction.
+
+- They assert gnosis while denying that others do the same -> their gnosis is simple possession and false consciousness, our gnosis is true because of a blurred context and higher moral standing
+
+We see these things play out time and time again and wonder if it was meant to be - if it was a product of your failed actions, if it is evidence that the system has been ordered to trap one in incessant misery, or if the challenge was perfectly crafted and waited upon to provide you precisely with that which you most need.
+
+Of course one can meet the question with the attitude and through taking the position taht one assumes is the most utilitarian to take. How can I best adapt to my environment to yield the best outcome?
+
+This seems to work, at least to calm the mind, but what if the only acceptable adaptation is perceived to be one which requires action and participation of others? How can one respond to the environment which optimizes participation of others, especially when the matter might otherwise be avoided and ignored?
+
+What can be done to make it unignorable? How to ensure it won't be gnored? It must be fed into discomfort.
+
+# Pacifiers
+What good comes through docile pacifism?
+
+Can we expect improvement without the brash and rough breaking of the veil of serenity, which otherwise appears present through man's desire for calm? Even if there cannot be calm, one has not been, one might say that the drudging forward at times frantically and relentlessly is something which itself is sought and was begun for the desire or even hope of serenity. For even the possibility of it.
+
+The time appear near, once again, to fight for one's person, for one's family and, perhaps, even simply for the ability to declare that reality exists and that one is actually part of the experience, and not an automation or some lifeless, soulless, animated contraption placed purely as an aesthetic element within the environment - or even better -> a coinciding structure of material formation whose instantiation is nothing more than a happenstance occurrence with no intelligent aspect to its formulation other than its appearance which otherwise yields no bearing.
+
+The flow always reigns supreme: synovial, hemo, neurology, neurons unimpeded by dead matter, digestive surface, antigen presentation. Thoughts and ideas -> flow necessary to have examination and placement.
+We can find examples of flow in ancient eastern forms, sa well as in descriptions of modern day systems. Systems can only maintain meaningful structure if the potential for communicatin itself is not eroded. Flow is the viability and practice of communication between components of a system. If there is no communication, then you have no life and no activity - you have the juxtaposing of dead, calcified, decrepit, disintegrating forms and all downdstream from there will be affected such as to potentiate their entropic destruction.
+
+The very premise that we can have intelligent life supporting systems through a philosophy which forbids questions and negates rather than investigates uncertainty through naive inquiry is absurd, and not even a fantasy, for any fantasy borne of such an orientation must fantasize over what is prevented and destroyed, since that is the path of articulation being conceived. The edification of structure, the elaboration of expression and the development of conception occur precisely through naive inquiry and discovery and never without. even if it appears t occur without it is through, at best,  unrealized allusion/implicit abstraction and, at worst, the destruction of dreams/conquest of the dreamer/expropriation of that which cannot be utilized by the appropriator. To have a result which produces anything of genuine value which may extend as an expression of one's good sentiments and conception of a better world requires for the suppression of any such desirs to silence and destroy and their supplantation by naive, open and inquisitive focus -> this is the engine for your flowstates that are truly needed by every neighbour ever encountered.
+
+# Programme for Progress: Biology
+December 17, 2023
+
+Seek to understand the direction of logic extending from supposing a base reality of human living on this planet with other life.
+
+The base condition of an ecosystem is something that you cannot consent to. That is, if we are to agree that an ecosystem, having formed on this planet, includes creations that humans understand as being pathogenic, regardless of whether their pathogenicity is changed by the existence of human beings. That there are organisms, or biological constructs, existing on this planet and bearing relatoinships to other biological constructs also on this planet and that some of these relationships constitute or include a sequence of events leading to challenge and conflicts insofar of the continued existence of an organism.
+
+Though one might contend that all relations can be described in this way, or that all constructs have, between them, relations that can be described in this way, but that we are, in particular, discussing organisms and relations which accord with pathogenicity.
+
+That is to say, causing illness/disease in the host through a consequence of first-order biological effects/mediations (not as a consequence of effects on the conditions of the organism in terms of its environment).
+
+The only other rebuttle tot his is to contend that we already live in a circumstance which has perverted ecology. But this falls apart when considering a few simple contradictions. The first is that we have already heard enough history lessons from public health enthusiasts to know that they
+
+# On Death
+Could it be an experssion of pure elegance, to have the entirety of reality accounted for without complexity? Human life overwhelms, like the breath.
+
+It is far too much to bear and can only be prepared for almost artificially, and not seamlessly as it is with every other animal - only humans are cursed.
+
+What could an all-powerful structure of mankind allow, enable and provide? It seems that there's an infinite set of trials and tribulations - can we ever be free from it?
+
+Even now, the state promises a soft end to the journey where one need not even know the nature of one's death.
+
+
+# Distinct Mysticism
+*Defending human distinction not because we are so different but because the pain of having an independent, embodied existence as a human having life is the universal and canonical feature of humanity that all understand and can bear in mind in order to better prepare us for our interactions.*
+
+The system's mystical aspect cannot be proven on the basis of its self-critique of theory, but on the basis of whether it grants the right for criticism through logic and reason, for otherwise there are countless human motivations for believing without evidence. Most especially, however, is the aversion to questions which it forbids on the supposing that logic and reason, or attempts to critique which declare intent to make use of logic and reason, are simply attempts to maintain or acquire power and dominance.
+
+All effort goes towards dictating what is to be considered reasonable and scientific, not in terms of one's mastery of science and reason, but to assume arbitrary control, power over others, and the means of defusing the risk of any truly scientific analysis/critique of teh activist/cultist/critical theorist and their ideas.
+
+They present their view as a higher level of curiosity, but it is only high level in the sesne that it is an abstract presentation concealing deceptive operations, which serve the interests of the critical theorist to th eexclusion of the possibility of enumerating truth.
+
+*Another note on high level and abstraction: they claim that it is concrete, not abstract, but what makes it concrete in their eyes is not that it is concretized in terms of the evidence of its invocation or effect in the world - that which can be validated on concrete terms - but because it includes all the elements which are enumerated in their theory. This means that it is actually more complex, more abstract, and less verifiable than a simpler model or a directly quantifiable means of evaluation. That is to say, their definition for concrete is less concrete in critical thinking or scientific terms, and more abstract, but it is by that very standard that it satisfies the requirements which they suppose belong to their higher level science (social science)*
+
+A universal truth that all readily accept as a condition for open transaction becomes the enemy of those presenting the mystification therefore truth must be supplanted by the manipulative positing of the activist. This is the extent of their curiosity -> to declare admiration for universality but to make oneself the only one able to wield tools which can be assumed to make discovery.
+
+# Queer Normativity and Gnostic Paradoxes
+November 7, 2023
+
+- Normalizing without normalcy.
+- Defying norms by supercharging stereotypes.
+- Enumerating identity because oppression comes from enumerating identity at all.
+- We remember the thesis as being that we cannot express our rightful state of being because the declared state of being is false and serves to prevent expression of true being.
+- The antithesis to this conundrum is to enumerate every state of being, particularly those which, through definition or implication, negate the false, declared state of being.
+
+You can't normalize while declaring normalcy the cause of oppression and domination unless you communicate a desire and intent to dominate and oppression - to gain the exact power you decry. You have the knowledge to be intentional and maximize the degree to which you can hold sway over others.
+
+Choosing to override the meaning of body such as to remove any notion that we are responsible for our bodies or that there can be more benefit from our mastery of them, especially how one's mastery becomes instructive to another in the manner which is most useful towards solving the angst of the world.
+
+having enough mastery makes one understand the manner in which the human can abstract and this helps reduce the desire for engaging in all things keeping them from focus.
+
+So how shall we focus? The contradictions are fuel to the fire but for those unfamiliar, they serve to embed a reminder to question what you're told and make decisions consiously / intentionally.
+
+They seek the end of flesh through an accelerated passage of utilization and exploitation of one's flesh. Why? Is this them doing the work? Sacred work? Useful work?
+
+It is sacred in that it takes a metaphysic to its logical conclusion. What are these? (simple completion elevates one's standing as they are able to submit or even imply the submitting of a solution)
+
+# Gnostic Comparisons
+## 1. Christian
+Gnostic:
+- rejection of transcendant truth -> must be actualized first
+- eat of the tree of knowledge to complete understanding
+  - Queer fulfills this through making the consideration and instantiating of counter mundane ieas in the souls of man, but through the flesh
+  - everyone is being a Jesus to attain the mind of God
+
+## 2. Atheist
+Materialist, at least by implication by not being able to contemplate non-matter for duties of conscience.
+
+Determinism through matter for complete construction of material reality.
+
+In this view, in consideration of the necessity for human embodiment for conscious experience, it must become the case that the experience be worth the pain, and pain is always considered through constraint:
+- end of life
+- loss of function
+- limit of focus
+- negation of interaction
+
+Constraints in potential experience should be removed or avoided without a consequence of additional constraints, if possible.
+
+We could also consider the minimum necessities for healthy human life, such as food and shelter, but the fact of their necessity is itself a constraint best avoided, whereas the constraint of wanting everything for yourself to the exclusion of everyone else is a massive additional constraint.
+
+We must, then, have both a base of experience with few necessities, and a breadth of activity which mustn't constrain others in order to progress the human experience in line with making the pain of experience as minimal as possible. This will be sought through taking any natural proclivity of human behaviour that already occurs, and potentiating circumstances such as to optimize the outcome in line with our goal -> the natural goal of any atheistic world view which speaks of progress for human life, society and the human condition (if you want to be a punk nihilist, I am not talking about you).
+
+Queering makes negative impact of sex dimension seen as minimal or the means of harnessing eros, and transhumanism solves the base line of human embodied experience.
+
+Atheism must seek out a human experience where arbitrary activities can be unertaken without harming the process of current behaviour (recursively, the current behaviour (whch must apply to the level of species) is only accepted if it doesn't interfere with progressing towards that immortal baseline). The first step is declaring unanimous agreement.
+
+We could expand 1 (Christian) to describe any theistic worldview which also considers it a viable strategy to enumerate and perform identities for the purpose of struggling against cisheteronormativity and whiteness, or one which desires transhumanism.
+
+# Diefenbaker
+Delegation from Legislature, Deference from Court
+
+GOvernment has no power except what is granted to it via consent
+
+- Can we agree on:
+  - Power
+  - Definitions
+  - Some fundamental aspect ab out the world from which to begin dialogue that isn't contrived to subvert the other?
+    - Phenomenological human life
+    - Everyone deserves to breathe
+    - Everyone wants to breathe
+    - Everyone is a subject through conscious experience
+
+They ask: where do we proceed from here, as in "what does this do for us" without realizing that it does quite a bit!
+
+We are constantly entering into transaction with the environment and this implicitly puts us into transactions with other humans / vice versa in tha twe share space and resources. We know from evolutionary work that we evolved to prefer socializing in place of complete solitude and that we do this because it offers us survival advantages, so we know there is a bio-essentialist argument as to why even the most annoying socializing is a form of this (even dysfunctional behaviour is a form of this)
+
+So, how to have people meet at a startign point? How do we come to an open moment where the participants have a genuine curiosity about some object, circumstance, shared concern, etc?
+
+- There has to be potential for action, at least in the visual cortex
+  - It needs to be imaginable
+  - It needs to be placed into a ready-state for immediate, simple, unambiguous action
+  - Participation in an idea
+
+It needn't be complete and unequivocal agreement, it simply needs to be a reset of consciousness, awareness and, momentarily, one's ego or as we perceive of it. Attention to the body and b reath are one hopeful outlook for one's embodied experience:
+- genuine, not out of spite or irony
+
+Transitioning, excuse the pun, into an auditorily perceptible pattern is something which also achieves this, though it's not immediately obvious that this would somehow exclude corresponding activity in the visual cortex, and whether any observations concerning one's action potential and participation could not still be explained purely on the visual cortex priming an interface to activity (though we could remove the aural component and the reverse would not be true).
+
+- Humility witout humiliation.
+- The considering that one has shared in their conception with another
+
+In some respects, the approaches seem endless but what we need are ones which can recur, prolong and continuously invite re-entry into an unguarded tate, not for rendering one vulnerable but because it builds resilience and reinforces a useful cognitive motif for which, through practice, the participant becomes more competent and selectively guarded where appropriate.
+
+# Defining Through Negation
+
+- identities that problematize, emphasize stereotype or an anti-stereotype
+- eliminate whiteness:
+  - define blackness as identity in opposition to it
+- decolonizers eliinate colonialism and imperialism
+- proletariat exist for and exist in order to negate capitalism
+- eliminate biological obscenity which has been allowed to manifest through pursuit of false wealth
+  - nature is chaos
+  - adopting disease rather than curing them
+- abundance
+  - not from things produced or resources available
+  - when there are no resources or products that are used by or produced by private businesses/capitalism
+  - land used for production must be owned by "the people" and administered through the state
+  - dekulakization and control of all assets by vanguard stakeholders
+- democracy through negation of participants whose choices would not be in the best interest of the people
+- Hegel claimed that all things are also their negation, though that is a step away from what we are observing here
+  - Above, we are seeing out a definition is formulated through description of something being negated. Here, however, he is saying that those things which can be determined also determine their absence, or the specification of the state in which something is said to not exist or, at least, not be present. Since pure, absolute being is said to be equivalent to nothing, here Hegel attempts to claim there is no distinction between finite and infinite
+
+# Historicism / Dialectical Leftism
+November 12, 2023
+*Refutation of Mysticism*
+
+Telos of history is irrelevant -> potential for other outcomes is immaterial
+- randomness need not be concerned with
+- single instance of performing a traversal of the path of history vs concern with the means of traversal
+- it is actual -> it is how it has been traversed
+
+The reality is that there is no randomness in history if history is that of man changing himself and having developed. Either the endpoint is random or what lead to it cannot be neglected as random noise. One might say that it is random, but the fact of human existence insisting that we should strive toward our most positive endpoint -> But how can we believe the assessment? Because those who deny it have false consciousness -> theory of knowledge -> then this affects knowledge of time, matter, history.
+
+The historicism proves the mysticism in many cases, as the materials
+
+# Stealing Reality
+*June 8, 2024*
+
+When collectivists talk about History and the historical process as it relates to the creation of nature, they link these things - they say that Man is of nature, man is nature, you don't know where the dividing line is
+
+You don't know when we changed from inert matter to living cell, from animal with instinct to being that is intelligent and self-conscious and having a decisive autonomy.
+
+That blurring between Man and Nature also blurs, on the other side, between Nature and Reality.
+
+The natural world is what exists and Reality exists. Reality has been composed in such a way that it gives rise to Nature, but we don't know the separation between what is Nature insofar as we see the capacity for life on planet Earth, and geological formations, and then that brings us to planets, and celestial objects and systems, and so on.
+
+And so in all of this you don't really see where the ends are because we can't conceive of something at such massive scales.
+
+Nature -> Man -> Reality - are all the same.
+
+If we are to be Man in himself, each as a man in himself and as the species of Man in itself, then we are also Reality as it is - as it truly is - actualized by Man - because Nature in itself is Man the creator of all - not just of man and your life, not just of nature, but reality itself.
+
+# Attaining Freedom
+July 23, 2023
+
+How to attain greater freedom? To bes tpotentiate value and protection of human capacity for free, creative thought.
+
+Some would say that capacity for free thought is opitimized under certain circumstances or at particular periods in teh evaluation of free human thought or human and social development. But, now indirection is introduced, and we presuppose that extra or additional work must be performed if ever just at the level of configuration (to be charitable).
+
+These are not merely actions to be considered arbitrary and comparable to background unknown, arguably infinite actions, but action of a desired structure affecting target behaviours at particular moments in time. Even one would say that any action becomes arbitrary at the largest scale, and I would remind them taht they are defengint their view of the potential for freedom, and that they would otherwise be admitting that they hold their position arbitrarily by sheer volume of extant actions in the universe and that surely they have to consider context before any sense can be made, thus stop pretending that a specific action can be reasoned as necessary based on the seeming arbitrariness of an action against the massive scale of astronomical/infinite actions of other types.
+
+Defending with context means making intelligent arguments to demand the addition of the new set of actions, and given taht there had to be a preceding circumstance of human action which involved the least number of historical actions against which to compare, as well as the least number of concurrent actions.
+
+# White Antiracists
+July 28, 2023
+*White antiracists are racist*
+- Believe the system accurately decsribes POC
+- POC will never achieve equity or comparable outcomes, except through white enablement
+- Secretly fear POC and those who appear different
+- See the movement as control mechanism to survive the backlash of POC against whites for racism harboured even unconsciously by whites
+- Can only explain dissenting POC through their having been subverted by whiteness
+- Entire existence of POC is as white's other
+- Casual ones too
+  - They invite simplistic representation of of POC with no elucidation necessary
+- See benefit in collective process which has set roles for POC
+- Ability to anticipate POC
+- Robin D was right!
+- POC must be centered because they are left behind without intervention
+  - They never recovered from the degree to which Euro had dominated the entire world -
+  - Even if they each had successful periods, the last period of success for euro was too dominant, essentially achieving eternal dominance through imposing a lie at the level of reality
+
+  # What The Cult Knows
+  July 29, 2023
+
+  *Activists and cult initiates don't have to know what they are talking about. They just have to collect every soul*
+
+  They demand your soul. There should be no expression of your being which indicates genuine belief in a truth beyond the constraints and specifications as provided/defined/insisted upn by the cult.
+
+  You couldn't possibly believe all the nonsense of themselves unless you had also ceased any expression to the contrary; by ceasing your contradictions, you will come to believe.
+
+  In a sense, what that means is that they demand evidence of the reality they believe and desire. They need you to bear witness to them and their alternate reality and to consent to anything which follows by virtue of their utterances and the pathos which it ignites or with which it aligns.
+
+  Evidence that reality might be what you desire it to be and that you can cause others to agree as to what reality should be. Especially if it requires that many work together to amass the attention and resources that cause everone to become deeply invested.
+
+  Making them invested causes them to have spent time and become dialogically engaged and this transforms them to the worldview and perception the gnostic believes underlies all of humanity.
+
+  A reflexive process for changing the world is always a process of mystification because it's an admission of a perception over a fundamental reality.
+
+  Yes, we perceive real reality, but the only true measure of reality has come to become based on the delta of perception and the delta of what is believed to be perceptible as per conditions, be they material or cultural.
+
+  # Cenk Rocket Nye
+  August 1, 2023
+
+  Women have officially been reduced to make-up or simply the desire for social satisfaction.
+
+  Reducing woman to the phenomenon of signaling the desire to be noticed. The desire to feel as though one's aesthetic is so outstanding that it demands attention.
+
+  Gender certainly does not exist.
+
+  Gender is what you express about what you  believe it feels like to have a body, and is thus limited by nothing except your imagination and vocabulary. There is no reason to continue using it as though it refers to anything concrete whatsoever. If anything, it simply declares your desire that you wish for others to agree to describe reality based not on their perception of their environment, but based on your ?? and command. It is the epitome of selfishness to proclaim that others' perception and expression be made inadmissible if it conflicts with your demand.
+
+  At best, gender is merely your whimsical description of embodiment, your attempt to put words to a completely subjective and unverifiable personal experience which could just as easily be assumed  to be so completely unique that limiting it to your linguistic description causes only mystification.
+
+  Description of a gender identity serves no purpose except to destroy the notion that you have a unique identityiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii