latest book update

Book/DRAFT.md

@@ -1,7 +1,6 @@
-This is the latest sequenced writing*
-
 
 # Malthusian Aside
+
 TODO: Relocate this elsewhere
 
 The Malthusian spirit might not be something in all those who share his goals, or even ......
@@ -35,34 +34,208 @@ Themes:
 - Actionable Object
 
 ## Left/Right Paradigm
-At a certain point the certainty of conserving the known world is replaced with the certainty of the centralized point of origin within the perceived object of collective and one's proximity to it. We may have an inherent disposition perhaps inherited genetically, or formed through environment (with decreasing effect along a period, thus being another way of saying that it is formed in the earliest stages of life), but one's cognition of the world informs the scope and target of how one associates the perception of their environment with neurological, psychological, and emotional state.
+In considering the idea of conservatism and the conservation of things.. what do we understand about it as a concept? Is it something which can be understood perfectly in the abstract, or is it something contingent on personality? 
+ 
+There are theories about left/right disposition as per someone's personality, and a few of these that are most well-known are the following:
+1. The Big Five Personality Traits and Political Orientation
+- Mondak, J. J. (2010). Personality and the Foundations of Political Behavior. Cambridge University Press.
+2. Authoritarianism and Right-Wing
+- Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-Wing Authoritarianism.
+3. Moral Foundations Theory
+- Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98-116.
+4. System Justification Theory
+- Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881-919.
+5. Genetics, Personality, and Political Ideology
+- Alford, J. R., Funk, C. L., & Hibbing, J. R. (2005). Are political orientations genetically transmitted? American Political Science Review, 99(2), 153-167.
+6. Psychological Needs and Ideological Differences
+- Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339-375.
+7. The Myth of Left-Wing Authoritarianism
+- https://www.jstor.org/stable/3790998
+
+### Big Five
+This is the best known, the most utilized, and probably the most reliable, not necessarily in terms of understanding people's political affiliations (though there is a lot of good research there), but at least in terms of understanding some emotional dimensions of people and how these might be recognized in personality.
+
+### Authoritarianism and Right-Wing
+A bit hard to stomach, actually, considering that this research came from a well known Marxist, Theodor Adorno, who planted the seeds for postmodernism. No doubt, authoritarians who claim to be on the left will always rationalize any passing authoritarian regime which appears to celebrate philosophies most commonly understood as being to the left will happily claim that they were transformed in the wrong way because of reactionary elements and post-revolutionary thinking, leading to the right wing, all the while demanding changes in their world today which are necessarily authoritarian and totalitarian, lest they ever be implementable or achievable. 
+
+### Moral Foundations Theory
+The work of Jonathan Haidt, which has been interesting to me, in spite of some of his ridiculous TDS tendencies, because he touches upon group behaviours which we recognize, especially people who may have been the right age to have lived through both supposedly differing examples of race-based othering, that old school racism is a form of call-out behaviour which has been replaced with the assigning of the "racist" moniker in a new form of call-out behaviour in which those who perform the othering are still manifesting the same behaviour and likely still have the same racist dispositions.
+
+### Systemic Justification Theory
+An interesting take which claims that people justify the system/status quo or are better able to challenge it.
+
+It's particularly interesting because it's relevant to my work and my claims about how our understanding of the left-right paradigm. That is, this theory, which is that we wrongly assume that someone's political disposition is the party to which they align at least to the extent that they can claim some sort of affiliation. From this point (TODO: look into this), they're observing what sort of personality differences people have with respect to their justification and support of status quo, or the degree to which they will fight against social hierarchies.
+
+There's a few issues here, one of which being that it overlooks the degree to which the concept of a status quo can vary between something popularly understood as a traditional position in discourse, as opposed to the intuition and perspective that a human has about what the social norms happen to be in their immediate environment. It is precisely one's aversion to representing themselves against what is otherwise considered as being the social norm which would provide a more pertinent measure of one's disposition towards the right or right wing thinking and personality. The ideals and pragmatisms of a particular party, and its represented aesthetic vis-a-vis its stated alignment to a political ideology, are an unreliable combination. It's not just about the career politicians whose targets and opinions seem to change in conflicting ways, or their tendency to change parties at opportune times, or even career politicians at all. It's about how we recognize objects capable of affecting and operating on the social environment and how that influences our embodied experience of perceiving. This can mean simply the change in one's mood without any hard focus on the facts, details and logical conclusions of the contribution of that object to the environment, or it can be focusing on what one believes as being the most reasonably comprehensible meaning which can be logically deduced through deep and hopefully unbiased contemplation about the object and its corresponding potential to affect.
+
+How these introduce the potential for either chaos or organization at different levels of scope and whether for particular or universal parties further complicates our situation. It's not even that we can't find people who are willing to give an honest attempt at being open about their beliefs and motivations, but we simply cannot rationally assert that we are ever able to experience what another human has experienced, or model, quantify, serialize, parse, interpret, and reconstruct valid data about human experience sufficient to veritably capture an essence of the occurrence of a human experience, much less understand whether such a thing has an essence. We need to be real about these limitations, and stop playing sophistic games of manipulation (ok, we'll keep doing those, but let's hope we can become less inclined to do that over subjects where it's increasingly absurd).
+
+The status quo can very well be progressive wokeism, and has been quite commonly for many periods in many places. Whether that's a progressive re-imagination of some traditionally understood school of thought, or any established methodology, there comes to be a disconnect in permitting that one's cognizance of a method or domain can be relied upon, or whether it is to be conceptualized as a point on a path which still has not yet composed the core of what the method is based upon. As soon as this becomes a popular view, the inclination to treat the ideas, parlance and constructs pertaining to that domain or methodology can be dismissed through an act of aspirational rectitude towards historically derivable endpoints that have yet to be reached. Nevertheless, this becomes a status quo position so long as it dominates the discourse of a given arena.
+
+With the establishing of a status quo, ones proximity to it, or the manner in which one operates in life such as can be bearing an effect on one's proximity to it, can be fueled by the type of emotion and intuition one has when conceiving of or observing it, as though we understand that these events are cumulative and paint a picture about one's social sphere. If one is going along with what they believe is the default perspective, and the default interest, then they are in fact not operating in a manner which is what we consider as being traditionally left. They're playing it safe, being very conservative, and doing it for the purpose of converting something an their placement against that something in question.
+
+### Genetics, Personality and Political Ideology
+It's a bit ridiculous to think that it's even a question as to whether political orientation is something that can be inherited. As though the party itself comes to be inherited through a type of evolved ape which finally achieves the level of understanding that the conditions of the many affect the conditions of the one, and that choosing a particular political party comes down to one's inherited intellect bestowed upon them by the Gods that wish to see mankind attain some status of deity.
+
+- Twin studies
+- Disadvantaged children studies
+
+There's definitely good reason to assume that genetics influence something like personality, as the development of the human being and its capacity for neurocognition is not a one-and-done process. It's not the difference between having a neuron or not, and obviously we can observe impediments to development and the consequences thereof. The idea that openness is tied to intelligence and that this is influenced by one's neurocognitive capacity doesn't take many research battles to at least consider that it makes sense, as we can observe all sorts of differences of intelligence, and the resource requirements for endeavouring to follow one's cursiosity is costly and must follow a requisite baseline of both development and resource availability.
+
+Woke initiates to collectivist cults, however, who put forward a claim that following their line of reasoning, philosophy, ideology (as a lack of ideology, of course), and so forth is an indication of intelligence and that it, in a sense, delineates a new evolution in the human being (towards the liberation of mankind) are making quite the jump, however. We don't need to sift through examples of people who don't fit the bill of a highly intelligent woke initiate, nor do we even have to go the other route and claim that those who go down this path are unintelligent, or that those who are embracing conservatism or any philosophies or ideologies that are incompatible with woke-ism are doing so because they, in fact, have the upper hand in intelligence. Having intelligence has more to do with following curiosity and having more interest in understanding why and how even when it's costly to one's immediate social environment to do so. If you are surrounded by other woke cult initiates, then agreeing with them, even while espousing a belief about the world wherein one's views are unpopular or contrary to hegemony, is not a sign of intelligence. Perhaps there's a minimal intelligence required to be adamantly stating one's claim and actually believing in it, but that's the same threshold of intelligence required for any number of mundane proclamations regardless of the degree of authenticity present in one's conviction.
+
+It is, again, not the same thing as following curiosity in spite of the social cost it my have.
+
+Yes, a claim can be made that there is a resource cost involved in anything which doesn't necessarily translate to resource acquisition, but we would still need to rid ourselves of the confounders brought on by social environment and, even if we did that, we'd have to deal with the elephant in the room: social justice activism and critical praxis has resulted in a complete overhaul of institutions, especially related to education which most affects young persons who are the height of their potential for setting up their interests and intellectual pursuits and capabilities, and so just to state that a resource cost proves intelligence in the face of one's undertakings is a non-starter. If anything, even in those cases where resources are unavailabile, and where the decision to pursue social justice advocacy with a critical theory bent places one in a situation wherein their income acquisition is little to non-existent, all of it is perfectly in line with the belief that the system is set-up as part of a grand, unconsciously sought and insidiously expounded array of hegemonic structures which monopolize all forms of capital (be it the direct monetary components which yield productive capacity, or culture itself) to corrupt resource distribution and which makes the pursuit of resource acquisition a harmful act which prevents everyone, including oneself, from living a good life.
+There's something to be said about the fact of there being reduced personality differences observed between both fraternal and identical twins, even when they develop in different environments. But we must also consider the environmentally-mediated effects which influence personality development:
+
+### Psychological Needs and Ideological Differences
+This originally looked at the needs associated with certain "ideologies" or political orientations and stated that conservatives tend to want to have more certainty, organization and less cognitive ambiguity or lack of cognitive resolve, while liberals tend to be more open to chaos, complexity and the ambiguous.
+
+There's obviously a huge problem with this body of research, however, in that we can't even really understand how the terms conservative and liberal, as utilized in its related studies (such as "Political conservatism as motivated social cognition" in 2003) translate to terms today, or how the same terms would be defined.
+
+Though this research does stand atop previous work by such critical theorists as Theodor Adorno, when brought into a more temporally-current focus, we need to understand that the notion of not only liberal has changed, in the sense that most far-left ideologies lay the claim that liberalism and liberal humanism are paths leading to "fascism", but that even the domains of what is considered "far-left" and "radicals" (which should be considered synonymous with revolutionaries or those who have concluded that revolution for transformative change is necessary for any sort of progress that they are concerned with) are occupied by a different set of people after decades of activists seeking to capture institutions and popularize the concepts through all ranges of media, entertainment, education and public service. That is to say, there are all sorts of popular entry-points to this way of thinking and they quite often state outrightly that theirs is the majority view, making it a bit of a paradox in claiming that revolutionary change is necessarily to be sought by an interested group which already constitutes a majority in order to change the majority of society. This is not a case of someone thinking outside the box, but a case of many believing they have to conform to the box in order to maintain social salience.
+
+The other aspect of this is that there was a time when the far-left disposition was anti-authoritarian and anti-state in the immediate sense. This alone already has to be consolidated against an understanding of revolutionary thought, stemming from Marx, where a revolution must occur to impose a proletarian dictatorship (though that can be somewhat explained by positing that there is an acceptance of the upheaval which would ensue) and that this new political entity, finally representing the interest of the people and of the evolution of humanity, would assert itself as a ruthless authority until such time that all are liberated from oppression. There were the anti-war perspectives, often associated with punk rock and counter-culture at a time when counter cultures were crafted from outside of institutions and industries, like that of media and entertainment. There was an effort to reject all imperialism and all of the state processes associated with collecting money from people and protecting bloated, monopolistic corporations, such as those which relate to a "military-industrial complex"
+
+But now, instead, we see those advocating for what concepts that are traditionally thought of as "far-left" and "revolutionary" but whose direct implements of concern are all driving for more state authority, less freedom of speech, stronger institutional presence, reinforced requirement for credentialism, uniform public adoption of pharmaceutical products, single conduits for political procedure (vote blue no matter who), and so on. These are authoritarian predilections which are completely committed to enforcing certainty and demanding that, in spite of a dissolution of the processes and behaviours which are foundational to civilizational development (such as open inquiry, challenging status quo, invoking healthy skepticism for the establishment, and so on), are doing so on the basis of argumentation which asserts that the consequence of not doing so will lead to chaos and disorder.
+
+### A Necessary Revelation
+I believe we've reached a point in our speculation of political philosophy and human psychology where we can consider that the certainty of conserving the known world as a means to subdue the potential for chaos is replaced with the certainty of what an individual perceives as the centralized point of origin within the social environment, or a collective of humans, and one's proximity to it. This might also be conceived of as the point of origin of an entity commissioned with exerting force on those who deviate from behaving in accordance with its regulations.
+
+We may have an inherent disposition, perhaps inherited genetically, or formed through the environment (and as this can be argued as being a different understanding of what we normally assume to be a hereditary, we would then consider it as being formed by occurrences which have a decreasing effect along the continued period of one's life, thus being another way of saying that it is formed in the earliest stages of life), but one's cognition of the world informs the scope and target of how one associates the perception of their environment with neurological, psychological, and emotional state.
+
+And should we even be surprised with this description of human behaviour? Isn't it something which comes more intuitively to us as we experience our upbringing, particularly for those of us which developed while going through public schooling? We sometimes see how some of the children whom we were accustomed to seeing as being less inclined towards embracing chaos and the unknown, growing up to associate themselves as very progressive and left-leaning in context of popular political discourse and world events, but whose personality and behaviour itself doesn't appear to be much different from what it has already been. Sure, some people can change in their disposition dramatically, but not only is this the minority, but it tends to be that those who mature and gain experience become more confident, or that they only become more "conservative" in the sense of conscientiousness, which is to say that they become more accountable to themselves and feel liberated by their own sense of agency.
+
+Again, this is highly speculative, but I think it's an important conversation which has long been missing from our political discourse, and it's something which I urge others to consider as something which is not a mere indulgence, but which an approach to analyzing political discourse and philosophy which has become necessary in the face of societies which have evolved technologically and socio-politically to the point that authoritarianism with totalitarian aspirations (or a necessary direction of totalitarianism, should the stated goals of the society ever be seriously approached) isn't just a real possibility, but is something which can be advocated for on the basis of making appeals for freedom and liberty, and traditional left-leaning framings, in a manner which is adopted and repeated in ever more popular scopes and by ever younger citizens.
+
+# Stuck on Definitions
+I've always been stuck on the definitions of just about everything, and I believe you should be too. What's the point in having a discussion about anything at all if we aren't assuming we're to be discussing the same things? Even if we disagree, shouldn't we be curious enough to discuss the topics about which we are so passionate? Coming to a clear understanding about what it is that we're speaking about, and even the range of interpretations that exist for that thing in question, should be the absolute most basic motivation for any discussion unless we are looking to take advantage of someone. The counterargument to that is to say that something about the situation, as it stands, involves one of the two parties involved in the discussion already taking advantage of the other, and that the discussion itself is just an opportunity for the disadvantaged party to reclaim some lost ground and relinquish themselves from their oppressor. And in such a case, it's clear that the potential interlocutor positing such an argument is a Marxist.
+
+But there are no interlocutors here, there is just the content of this book as I'm presenting it, thus I beg you to indulge me as I invite you to take a step back with me and grant me the opportunity to talk about definitions.
+
+In most discussions, and in political discourse in general, we tend not to use the term Marxist or Marxism much at all, but instead focus on the terms Communism or Socialism. No, those aren't synonymous - or, rather, they shouldn't be synonyms if we're speaking about them dispassionately and are driven by a veritable curiosity about them, but in essence most discussions which do involve any one of those terms can actually be addressed through just understanding one of these terms.
+
+And, unfortunately, if one were concerned about these topics and were to find themselves in an argument about them with someone, it'd likely be that the other participant in that discussion would be making the case that he whomsoever is concerned is not simply employing the wrong definition, but is actually unable to define it.
+
+## You Can't Define Anything
+For the past several years, but especially in the past 2, we've enjoyed the incessant occurrence of social justice advocates, gender queer he-hims, associate professors and much more lament about how "rightoids", "fascists", "peasants" and conservatives in general are making criticisms on topics about which they know nothing. 
+
+Most commonly, this has been the assertion that they "don't know what woke is", but it has quite commonly arisen as "you can't even define communism". How, are woke and communism the same thing? Well, no, not necessarily, though I'd suggest that we wouldn't really have conversations about "woke" in 2025 if we didn't also have the topic of communism to contend with, and as the latter is much more historically significant, and remains, in my opinion, evergreen to this day, we're going to delve into this abyss of definitions by focusing on communism for a while.
+
+It's not just that people can't define communism, but that they are told they are unable to define communism by the very people who, in a healthy society, they should be having debates with about whether or not things like communism can be considered either possible or beneficial.
+
+The other aspect of this is that those who assert the "rightoids" aren't able to define communism (or woke, or socialism, or Marxism) don't actually want for any of these things to be defined, be it from the conservatives, themselves or even from any "historical figure" from which they themselves derive their aspirations.
+
+What the critical social justice warriors, or collectivist cult initiates simply want is for you to be in a stupor so you can't be in a position to criticize anything that they advocate for, and in some cases this is because they know that the things they do want would be worthy of criticism by anyone with a thinking mind.
+
+That being said, a true endpoint yielding communism wouldn't even be possible if there were also thinking minds. You wouldn't attain a true commonality if, in fact, everyone was thinking differently from themselves beyond whose turn it is to give the communal handjobs to the scant few comrades whose erectile dysfunction isn't yet too advanced from the lack of nutrition and healthy activity in their collectivist utopia.
+
+It doesn't take a genius to define communism, but it's worth noting that people can provide varying definitions of communism derived from different contexts and, similar to how a woke comrade performs their praxis (in the sense of performing advocacy where they equivocate between esoteric and exoteric definitions of whatever concept they're trying to proliferate), which will all sound believable and can be passable to anyone of any political orientation, including themselves, just so long as its effect on the immediate context is to their satisfaction
+
+This includes composing a definition on the basis of:
+- what political regimes have already existed
+- what those political regimes would have been should some undesirable aspect have been negated
+- the eschatological god-object as described by Marx
+- communal living at a large enough scale
+- the absence of oppression
+- the absence of a state because of there being no conflict between men (sorry, he/hims)
+- a suggested description of what the sociopolitical environment would be if everyone were a "good person"
+
+The only definition of communism which is worthy of discussion is the one which Marx described as being an eventual endpoint at the end of history, and though we can critique what would necessarily be involved in actually achieving that (an existence void of contradiction, oppression and domination - in spite of some very real and unavoidable aspects to the universe which include atomic forces).
+
+If your understanding of communism isn't based on utterances that were made by Marx himself, or compatible with them, then you're just here to cry and jerk off, and no one should feel obligated to help with either of those things. And, certainly, that isn't to say that no one else has espoused the idea of communism, or that such an idea had not been considered prior to Marx's "contributions" to metaphysical and sociopolitical discourse, but he formalized it in a way which specified the precise of ontology of human beings and ontology of the world as a whole which, according to his arguments, makes it the necessary end-goal for every human. Prior to him, the concept already existed as an understanding of common usage of resources, but that remained ambiguous with respect to how to understand just how this is to be implemented, at what scale, and why. Marx took the idea and essentially claimed that no human being could attain the expression of their nature except under the condition of a true communist existence.
+
+Yet another aspect of this is that Marx said that the conditions create man, and that man must become his own creator, thus man can't actually be a communist until he has self-created (and created nature which, in the words of Marx, is his inorganic nature) to the point where the conditions allow for him to be creating the world free of oppression. 
+
+Therefore even the self-proclaimed communists, should they believe in Marx's descriptions about the world, not only can't be real communism but themselves can't be capable of defining communism until man has created the world capable of yielding the first true communist.
+
+But I'm getting ahead of myself, and it'll take some background in order to make these statements relevant and their interpretation more clear, thus we should take even another step back and approach the topic with more rigor.
+
+### What Are We Working Towards?
+It might seem like a waste of time to be trying to define something for which when the vast majority are presented with will agree that it's undesirable and immoral, even if most of those would make a hierarchical judgment in saying that there are some things worse than it but that they're against it nevertheless, but I think that this manner of thinking misses the point and isn't yet considering that these ideas and their corresponding potential constructs don't necessarily need to be brought into existence in an unequivocal form before they're actually generating a problem.
+
+I would like to suggest that the concept of communism, when defined properly, and when understood as per the Marxist metaphysic, is actually the logical conclusion of a manner of thought for which we are all susceptible and that it would actually make sense for any human to consider it plausible and desirable under the right circumstances. 
+
+I can't speak for everyone, but when I look back at various stages of my life and try to speculate as to how I conceived the concept of communism, I come up with a few abstract, intuitive presentations in my mind which may or may not even be compatible with the vision of communism as Karl Marx would likely have himself envisioned, but I believe they are nevertheless reasonable representations of what a human might think insofar as imagination is concerned.
+
+1. A safe community free of need and conflict
+  - That isn't necessarily to say that a human being, as a living organism, would be completely free of any need to sustain itself as per the temporal and environmental requirements which, when fulfilled, allow for the organism to remain alive.
+  - Simply put, some form of environment which includes multiple persons where there is no dimension by which anyone is compelled to do anything in particular, but that the environment maintains itself in spite of this.
+2. Some type of red abstraction which sort of relates to the flags and symbolism that we have seen. It might represent a grace from reality or an entrypoint to another way of living and being where there is some potential for fulfillment or destruction. This is something which is cannot be adequately described, but I know that in my experience the consideration of the word communism leads to some sort of image being presented in my mind's eye which may very well be nothing more than a distorted or some presentation of a communist flag with ambiguous acuity.
+3. A brutal, totalitarian dictatorship with menacing officers distributed ubiquitously and an ever-present threat of death, abuse or other application of force incurred if for no other reason than as an acknowledging of the unquestionably supreme status of the state or the state apparatus.
+4. An agrarian society where everyone is spontaneously performing activity which, on the whole, constitutes some form of organized society wherein everyone is provided for and there is no clear aspect of crime or war.
+
+That's probably enough for now, as I can't even really know for sure if these envisioned presentations which spontaneously occur upon my being presented with the notion of communism can actually be properly described, whether they are discrete from one another, or whether they all sort of meld into the same thing in the brief moment of speculation from which I contemplate their manifestation.
+
+The point isn't to say that these are the true interpretations of communism which occur in very human, or that I have an intuitive interpretation of the idea of communism which should be championed, but simply to say that, regardless of whether an instantiation of communism has, will or can exist, the understanding that a human mind has about ideas, concepts and, in this case, system states or political entities is something which is presented as an intuition or a vision, and that it's worth considering that this is what's happening neurocognitively through the experiences of our friends, foes and interlocutors of any sort in between.
 
-# Questions
 ## Defining
 *Should we be using the term "Communist" and what is a "Communist"?*
-[Furthermore, who gets to define it? Why are instances of attempts valid? Socialism is to achieve Communism. Eternally ephemeral as it cannot be achieved ]
+[Furthermore, who gets to define it? Why are instances of attempts valid? Socialism is to achieve Communism. Eternally ephemeral as it cannot be achieved]
+
+In all honesty, there shouldn't be any word or concept for which it's forbidden or even inappropriate for anyone to be able to define it. Whether the definition is correct or not is a different matter, but there should be no reason why we shouldn't expect that anyone can define something if it's also to be communicable in society. We're all sick of the example of Ketanji Brown Jackson deferring to an "expert" biologist (instead of Critical Theorist or Queer Theorist) when asked to define what a woman is, and though there's utility and legitimacy in offering to bring in an expert to help with definitions, it's absurd to think that we should take a default position of not allowing anyone to define anything at all except for the terms and concepts within the taxonomy of their expertise, and nothing more. If that were the case, then we'd be well on our way to a totalitarian society void of interesting, meaningful discourse between humans other than in a corporate-controlled manner.
+
+Indeed, just about anyone should be able to define "communist" and there probably was a time when most people in western culture would have been able to do so, although not to the extent of providing a technical definition as we're seeking to do in this book. What's the difference, you might ask? You'd be right to ask such a question, as it's not at all obvious that there needs to be a technical definition for communist or communism simply in order for us to take the definition seriously or to be able to make use of it in our own discourse or casual conversations.
+
+There are two ways to approach this, and they should be used for the appropriate context:
+- They're all just commies and those are all just communism.
+- There has not yet been a true communist and there can only be one truly authentic conception of communism.
+
+Both of these are perfectly valid, depending on the circumstance, so let's go through them briefly so we understand why there should be both a casual and more specialized understanding of what communism is. The trick here is that, in fact, even the casual conception of a "commie" or of something being "commie" does actually lend itself to the more specialized understanding of communism, but only by virtue of considering that the casual understanding would be meaningless if we couldn't also consider it as pertaining to something that could be taken to a logical conclusion, given enough time and if it were allowed to blossom to completion.
+
+### Casual Commie
+
+An acquaintance of mine, and someone whom I'd hope to get an opportunity to get to know as a friend some day, had a habit of rubbing the people the wrong way when discussing things of a political nature because he was quick to invoke the term "commie" in what might come across as a brute-ish, vulgar and ham-fisted manner, but I think that interpreting it as such is the actual premature component of such a dynamic. That is to say, it isn't the fact of him simplifying what seems to be a wide range of terms, behaviours and issues which is premature, but actually the reaction to believe they are incorrect which is itself premature.
+
+Does that sound unreasonable? Well, it should be, because in most cases we have discussions which lack nuance or which present things at a high-enough level where we can conceive of them as they pertain to systems where we aren't having to focus on all of the details all of the time, meaning that there is always more nuance and detail to delve into and, knowing that, we can move forward in having a productive discussion about the thing in question without getting hung up on the details which might cause us to lose scope of the actual discussion at hand.
+
+The problem is that, when discussing politics, we're already talking about things that are affecting everyone personally, and everyone is getting used to having their own affairs or the issues which affect them spoken about in a way which fails to represent the issue as they themselves have been thinking about it.
+
+That's where principles come in. You see, with principles, we have to adhere to the representations of things affected by them such that the principles themselves aren't thrown to the wind simply to maintain the perceived dynamics in how we deal with them.
 
-Many complain about semantics, or even allege a fundamental distinction to be worked out in choosing how to best identify what might be a threat, what the meaning of a term happens to be, and so on.
+Why? Because it's the principles themselves which indicate where things should head, given enough time. Given the nature of what's being discussed in this book, which includes a fair bit on the topic of "historicism", I myself might be accused of summoning-up historicism myself by saying things like "given enough time" or "to their logical conclusions", but that isn't what I'm saying at all. I'm not saying that these things will happen; what I'm saying is that, if we are to talk about some phenomenon or idea in particular, it won't make much sense unless we have an understanding of what the essence of the matter is. If not, and we are leaving it ambiguous to account for some imagined spectrum of all the ways it might be considered by other people, or all the different presentations it might take and how each of those have their own aesthetic which might allow for it to be better referred to using completely different terminology, then we're actually not ever discussing the subject at hand, but are providing an opportunity for people to be mystified and for the negative aspects of the issue to wreak their worst effects before we, or whomsoever is affected, have had their opportunity to understand and control the factors surrounding it.
 
-I contend that we can talk about defining these terms based on what they mean as concepts, but that when we refer to people as being instances of an idea, and whether they are this because of them having identified in this way, we run into unresolvable problems.
+#### These Are All Just Communisms
 
-Communist as definition, Communist as self-described, Communist as deciphered by the onlooker.
-- Communist the { concept, idea, model, theory }
-- Communist the { identification, declaration, social culture }
-- Communist the { observation, allegation, categorization }
+The progressive political science major would be appalled to see someone like my buddy Koest referring to socialism, democratic socialism, the labour party, public ownership, communism, fascism, and so on as simply "communism" and the related participants as mere "commies" (and those polisci majors would do well to read this book).
 
-1. Theory described as a model of what could be
-2. What one might claim themselves to be
-3. What one asserts others to be
+Socialism, for one, or especially something like "democratic socialism", serves as a good example because many would say "look at all the progress we're having where we can consider a better life for those people in society who are worst-off, and here you go derailing it by erasing that a concept for socialism that is actually feasible and which could actually go a long way to make life better", as if that's not something which could be said about the simply adherence to foundational principles (of which, if you have none, it would explain why you need a top-down control system to redistribute things).
 
-The theoretical concept of what a human being may be -> described fundamentally as an ontology and:
-- the species Being -> Marxist definition/description
-- people advocating for a political system / political party
+What is socialism? It is control of the means of production and enforcement through a central authority under a declaration that the coordination is for the public good. It is nothing more and nothing less than this. That people describe all state redistribution as a sliding scale of socialism actually proves this point, and the fact that so many are who support and align themselves with authoritative redistribution without openly stating that they are also in favour of the logical conclusion of the completion of such a reconfiguration demonstrates that humans will never be willing to be accountable to any negative consequences of empowering a totalitarian state.
+
+It is based entirely on the metaphysical question of what it is to be a human and what the nature of the human experience truly is, which is the entire basis for Marx's argument for the necessary endpoint of his historical materialism:
+
+"This is why the debate between the individualist and the collectivist is at heart a metaphysical debate: What is the nature of the human being?)" 
+- Tibor Machan - Individuals and Their Rights, 1989, Open Court Books, p. 47
+
+Try speaking to any "normie" championing socialism as a moral good, and you'll find that they're completely unable to articulate any of the fundamental concepts, related metaphysical principles, definitions or logical endpoints for these ideas, but will instead refer to the same social programs that have been financed through taxation that could have only been made possible through the free enterprise which preceded it. They are not serious people, but their banter and the manner in which they influence their peers in society can have serious consequences.
+
+Whether those consequences lead to one form of authoritarian rule or another is of little consequence, as the continued support of such social transformation will always be vouched for by describing some type of social deliverance which could only ever be defined in non-ambiguous terms by describing a communistic result.
+
+So, yes, these are "commie" ideas, and the open advocates for such idea are mere "commies" for all intents and purposes.
+
+### Specialized (Technical) Communism 
+
+For the curious thinker, however, and for the theoretician who wants to compare models of possibilities as an intellectual pursuit, we can choose a more technical approach. In some cases that might be the thinker who is composing the means of evoking tyranny upon all of humanity, but fortunately such things don't need to be limited to such grotesque individuals; on the contrary, those persons who are willing to be accountable to their individual lives, and who have the aptitude and concern which would drive them to help other potential champions of individualism and true liberal principles better understand the dynamics of the political processes utilized for social change, will be well-served by having a clear understanding of what the endpoint of these ideas is and a repertoire for describing them in a fluent manner which provides an accessible suite of cognitive interfaces by which to proliferate the understanding to their corresponding entourages.
+
+I wish to contend that we can talk about defining the parent of these terms based on what it mean as a concept, but that it's also worth thinking about the definitions used when we refer to people as being instances of an idea, and whether they are this because of them having identified in this way, we run into unresolvable problems.
+
+TODO: We must resolve the fact that there are those who champion communism, who call themselves communists, but that Marx also claims there can be no true communist until we live in the state of reality characterized by communism:
+- Communist as definition: the { concept, idea, model and theory }
+  - Theory described as a model of what could be
+    - The theoretical concept of what a human being may be -> described fundamentally as an ontology and:
+    - The species Being -> Marxist definition/description
+    - People advocating for a political system / political party
+- Communist as self-described: { identification, declaration, and social culture }
+  - What one might claim themselves to be
+- Communist as deciphered by the onlooker: { observation, allegation, categorization }
+  - What one asserts others to be
 
 # First Principles Investigation of Communism
-July 18, 2024
 
 ## 1. The Species Being
+
 "Man is a species-being, not only because in practice and in theory he adopts the species (his own as well as those of other things) as his object, but – and this is only another way of expressing it – also because he treats himself as the actual, living species; because he treats himself as a universal and therefore a free being.
 
 The life of the species, both in man and in animals, consists physically in the fact that man (like the animal) lives on organic nature; and the more universal man (or the animal) is, the more universal is the sphere of inorganic nature on which he lives. Just as plants, animals, stones, air, light, etc., constitute theoretically a part of human consciousness, partly as objects of natural science, partly as objects of art – his spiritual inorganic nature, spiritual nourishment which he must first prepare to make palatable and digestible – so also in the realm of practice they constitute a part of human life and human activity. Physically man lives only on these products of nature, whether they appear in the form of food, heating, clothes, a dwelling, etc. The universality of man appears in practice precisely in the universality which makes all nature his inorganic body – both inasmuch as nature is (1) his direct means of life, and (2) the material, the object, and the instrument of his life activity. Nature is man’s inorganic body – nature, that is, insofar as it is not itself human body. Man lives on nature – means that nature is his body, with which he must remain in continuous interchange if he is not to die. That man’s physical and spiritual life is linked to nature means simply that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of nature."
@@ -85,6 +258,30 @@ There is an array of initiates who might choose to identify, but this is simply
 
 In still other cases, though related, but semantically different in terms of how the material came to be introduce. The initiate is simply adopting the language which demonstrates fluency and familiarity with their subject of interest. This could be a form of hobby or it can even be professional. They are demonstrating competence, commitment, availability, and so forth. In essence, this can easily become an existential or prerequisite for viability and mobility within a particular domain.
 
+### Paradoxical Declaration
+
+It should bother anyone with one iota of sense to see people who call themselves communists and who somehow want to present themselves as though they have some insight into where the world would be headed or where it would end up in their search for ever more pathways by which to proliferate the notion of communism in every facility, in every institution, in ever social environment they enter (and make less enjoyable and tolerable for absolutely everyone else) because in endorsing the ideas of Marx and, often enough, even the words of Marx, they are embracing the contradiction of claiming that something which cannot yet manifest already has manifested.. or that which is yet to become is already here.
+
+The communist isn't something which simply happens because you decide you want to have communism, or the liberation from the order of being, but it's something which is supposed to be as spontaneous and natural as the condition of communism itself, which is only supposed to have truly been breathed into the world once all contradictions and oppressive aspects about life as a human being have been universally lifted.
+
+If the state only exists because there remain conflicts between men, then there should not yet be even an understanding of what it is to be a communist, and the fact of the conditions not yet permitting the realizations and the behaviours which the so-called communists crave is actually supposed to be the very thing which is fueling their resentment and discontent with the world as it exists today.
+
+Here are a selection of quotes from Marx on the fact of his self-estrangement preventing him from attaining his true nature as a social being:
+
+- We have seen how on the assumption of positively annulled private property man produces man –himself and the other man; how the object, being the direct manifestation of his individuality, is simultaneously his own existence for the other man, the existence of the other man, and that existence for him. Likewise, however, both the material of labor and man as the subject, are the point of departure as well as the result of the movement (and precisely in this fact, that they must constitute the point of departure, lies the historical necessity of private property). Thus the social character is the general character of the whole movement: just as society itself produces man as man, so is society produced by him. Activity and enjoyment, both in their content and in their mode of existence, are social: social [This word is crossed out in the manuscript. – Ed.] activity and social enjoyment. The human aspect of nature exists only for social man; for only then does nature exist for him as a bond with man – as his existence for the other and the other’s existence for him – and as the life-element of human reality. Only then does nature exist as the foundation of his own human existence. Only here has what is to him his natural existence become his human existence, and nature become man for him. Thus society is the complete unity of man with nature – the true resurrection of nature – the consistent naturalism of man and the consistent
+humanism of nature.
+- Communism is the positive expression of annulled private property—as human self-estrangement, and hence the real appropriation of the human essence through and for man; communism therefore as the complete and conscious return of man, of his entire substantial being, to himself as a social, i.e., human being
+- The existence of private property is, therefore, the existence of alienated labor... and thus the existence of the estrangement of man from man
+- In the relation of estranged labor, each man regards the other according to the standard and the position in which he finds himself as a worker
+- The community of men, or the manifestation of the nature of men, their mutual complementing the result of which is species-life, truly human life—this community is conceived by political economy in the form of exchange and trade
+- The estrangement of man, and in fact every relationship in which man [himself] is active, is alienated from himself and his own species-being
+- Private property has made us so stupid and one-sided that an object is only ours when we have it, when it exists for us as capital, or when it is directly possessed, eaten, drunk, worn, inhabited, etc., in short, when it is used by us.
+- Communism is the positive supersession of private property as human self-estrangement, and hence the true appropriation of the human essence through and for man.
+- The positive transcendence of private property, as the appropriation of human life, is therefore the positive transcendence of all estrangement – that is to say, the return of man from religion, family, state, etc., to his human, i.e., social existence
+- Nature is man’s inorganic body – that is to say, nature insofar as it is not itself human body. Man lives from nature – i.e., nature is his body – and he must maintain a continuing dialogue with it if he is not to die.
+- In his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind.
+- The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and range. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates.
+
 ## 3. Political System
 This is the normie's informal qualifier which allows the masses to believe they have some workable form of understanding, ad this further embeds the fact of their complete lack of education on this subject behind a mute and dumb wall of ignorance (ok I'm being hyperbolic, because they never really had a reason to be mute and dumb about it - there just was nothing on the radar and no common discourse which really took it into consideration)
 
@@ -216,7 +413,7 @@ Unfortunately, such a view must be placed against the queer Marxists and modern
 
 This is always the recurring programming coming from the cultists: identify a vulnerable person and suggest that their very whim must be met so long as food can be prepared.
 
-Though it may seem to be tangential, "aff..tepin", or even a diversion in order to go all into such matters as a preamble to categorical description, we need to be closer to understand what manner of definition is sought by the true believer -> one which rests upon not just an ontologically-driven assumption about man, but one which demands the acknowledgment of the capacity to define man -> to insist on a belief that not only is the true nature and meaning of humanity and human life knowable, assertable, and these things on the basis of an imposable morality which must be followed by any who participates in the discussion, but that it is ultimately the purpose fo man to attain the capacity to arbitrarily define itself until no possibility of encountering constraint can occur.
+Though it may seem to be tangential, "aff..tepin", or even a diversion in order to go all into such matters as a preamble to categorical description, we need to be closer to understand what manner of definition is sought by the true believer -> one which rests upon not just an ontologically-driven assumption about man, but one which demands the acknowledgment of the capacity to define man -> to insist on a belief that not only is the true nature and meaning of humanity and human life knowable, assertable, and these things on the basis of an imposable morality which must be followed by any who participates in the discussion, but that it is ultimately the purpose of man to attain the capacity to arbitrarily define itself until no possibility of encountering constraint can occur.
 
 So, now, to our categorical definition, which is bound by imminence in that it is an object which relates to every man and, thus, is ontologically consistent with man as a process of engaging in his self-definition. It is not man himself and not necessarily the aggregate of him, nor his geist. It is the object relating all then and serving in such a capacity that, upon its imminent attainment, marks the phase whereupon evidence of man's nature finally manifests by virtue of the conditions which were now made palatable by man's own hand, such as to make him "man in himself".
 
@@ -246,7 +443,7 @@ For the purist, active under the assumption of a world and reality which are fun
 That is because this tendency towards idealism isn't an artificial programming yielding from one's having encountered the ideas of Plato or Hegel, even if they give such ideas a seemingly robust structure. On the contrary, the disposition of idealism is a very human one which begins in every human's early phase of life.
 
 # Perceptual frame
-The perceptual frame is the first phenomenon, as phenomenon in itself (to borrow some Hegelian terminology) that we each experience, and it is nto an aspect of our experience from which we ever depart, lest we depart from experience altogether.
+The perceptual frame is the first phenomenon, as phenomenon in itself (to borrow some Hegelian terminology) that we each experience, and it is not an aspect of our experience from which we ever depart, lest we depart from experience altogether.
 
 This means that we begin with something at least approximating an idealist view, not in the sense of having some advanced opinion as to how all things should be, but in the sense that we can reasonably agree that the entirety of what can be scientifically observed as the perception, interpretation, and sustainment of the sense apparatus of a human person is tantamount to being some or all of what we describe as human mind, human consciousness, and, especially, something which extends from a human having thoughts.
 
@@ -291,7 +488,7 @@ For Hegel, this comes about through all manner of dialectical thought as the und
 
 Another aspect of this which I haven't yet mentioned which is essential to this view is that of double negation. This conception of a future endpoint is essentially one of accepting a certain degree of mystification in the adoption of the process of absolution under an overarching expectation that the mystification will be resolved once the process has ended.
 
-It is through this expectation that one is not simply in the circumstance of making a claim without substance or without the positing of something concrete (such as providing the solution, or describing the logical conclusion of a logic or line of reasoning that has been put forward), but is the manner through which ne holds onto a belief without they themselves having witnessed the substance of it.
+It is through this expectation that one is not simply in the circumstance of making a claim without substance or without the positing of something concrete (such as providing the solution, or describing the logical conclusion of a logic or line of reasoning that has been put forward), but is the manner through which one holds onto a belief without they themselves having witnessed the substance of it.
 
 For Hegel, it is the manner by which abstraction holds reference to the actual and which comes to be informed by forms more closely approximating an ideal form - like a NeoPlatonic process of realizing the realm of ideals. His abstract is made concrete through the process of negation, be it the negating of finite into infinite, Being into Nothing (or Being into Pure Being or Pure Immediacy). It is the expectation that through submission and faith, and an orchestration of congruently oriented perceptions reflecting the subject at hand, the desired result will be found and that this will correct the state of Being for all humanity and, by extension, all existence (nod to former Secretary General of the UN Robert Mueller).
 
@@ -344,7 +541,7 @@ Now that you are beginning to get a little annoyed, it's a good time to provide
 
 Queer is opposition to being as a means to transform Being. Some might call it a political position / standpoint and I suppose we should be clear that we are defining it insofar as it can be associated with a person -> identifying as queer or someone who practices queer. One might have become accustomed to thinking that someone is "a" queer, but we must then first consolidate the most important definition in queer literature which claims that Queer is completely void of its own content, has no essence, and exists only as the process of opposing anything legitimate and normal.
 
-I contend that the desire to implement and wield a capacity to reject and destroy anything on the basis that it be considered a normal part of relaity is, at heart, the desire to replace reality itself (or at least dissolve it into nothingness as a protest against the order of Being itself, and in order to allow for the immediate potential of all that is kept inadmissible in the face of the otherwise undissolved distinctions).
+I contend that the desire to implement and wield a capacity to reject and destroy anything on the basis that it be considered a normal part of reality is, at heart, the desire to replace reality itself (or at least dissolve it into nothingness as a protest against the order of Being itself, and in order to allow for the immediate potential of all that is kept inadmissible in the face of the otherwise undissolved distinctions).
 
 The only positive endpoint which would satisfy the process of dissolving anything considered normal would be a state of liberation wherein no distinction can be discerned, and that this would exist as one of the following permutations:
 - undifferentiated many
@@ -359,7 +556,7 @@ Marx's conception of Man as a Species Being, and the ontological claims about ma
 Why? Because the conditions of human life would have to suffice to not drive humans to oppress one another, and we would need some way of understanding that our subjective perception of ourselves and each other was resolved - that, at least insofar as it remains subjective perception, it would need to reach a level of process which is free of contradiction and interspersed friction (the appearance of it).
 
 ### Appearance
-An appearance of the absence of something is a requirement whose means of satisfaction becomes ever more sophisticated. What might have been satisfied with T period of temporality wherein no date of interest was observed might now require proactive measures such as well-designed and appropriately timed testing, but eventually a representation of perception can be modeled and evaluated, and such a model might be so minimal as the test, or biometric data with one's heart rate, or ever-more inputs of data ranging from biometric sensors to thorough scanning of brain and organs and measure of neurochemical signifiers (by presence or proportion), all of which are simply an expectation of what's possible at a tim when the level of technology is both present and also something being thoroughly investigated and refined with much interest behind it.
+An appearance of the absence of something is a requirement whose means of satisfaction becomes ever more sophisticated. What might have been satisfied with T period of temporality wherein no date of interest was observed might now require proactive measures such as well-designed and appropriately timed testing, but eventually a representation of perception can be modeled and evaluated, and such a model might be so minimal as the test, or biometric data with one's heart rate, or ever-more inputs of data ranging from biometric sensors to thorough scanning of brain and organs and measure of neurochemical signifiers (by presence or proportion), all of which are simply an expectation of what's possible at a time when the level of technology is both present and also something being thoroughly investigated and refined with much interest behind it.
 
 There is much contention as to defining terms and in deciding whether something is to be construed as one vs the other.
 
@@ -413,7 +610,7 @@ Some may disagree that such a superfluous endpoint could be sought, even in time
 - We have posited a means of evaluating truth claims on the rejection of universally applicable logic and reason
 - we have declared that we can pursue things that do not yet exist and we can utilize things which we expect will come into existence
 
-We can do a few more examples, but they all follow the same logic with the same arrangement of entities, with each a distinct aesthetic and dimension of value and evaluation of morality, resonance, and ultimately one's capacity to live one's life according to their true, natural, uncoloured and incorrupted state of being.
+We can do a few more examples, but they all follow the same logic with the same arrangement of entities, with each a distinct aesthetic and dimension of value and evaluation of morality, resonance, and ultimately one's capacity to live one's life according to their true, natural, uncoloured and uncorrupted state of being.
 
 ### Race Enums
 The first is a conception of racial injustice where the identity borne of race, and the identification with racial identities (as a cognizable object of reference) are only possibly asserted as no longer needed because they are no longer enumerable. This is always the manner in which something contrived and synthetic, whose addition into a way of life is criticized as the superordinate oppression of the world (and the ability for it to be referenced serves as the evidence of all things broken and erroneous -> as well as the causative factor which is established through circular reasoning).
@@ -451,7 +648,7 @@ It is dialectical because it functions by continuously adopting new understandin
 
 The drive towards eliminating the factors which prevent humans from beginning their true existence comes through a sense that the human being, and humanity, will come to be completed, and that this sense of completion would only be arrived at once we no longer fear a threat of succumbing to the limitations of human existence.
 
-Obviously, such a thing cannot be attained, and we are essentially programming the rest of the populace into seeing the issue in those terms. THe refinement of the populace into something which makes no sense except in theory.
+Obviously, such a thing cannot be attained, and we are essentially programming the rest of the populace into seeing the issue in those terms. The refinement of the populace into something which makes no sense except in theory.
 
 #### Completing Man
 The vision of the completed human being is one formulated and delivered by the state. A man who sits in perfect harmony within the collective and who, because of this, enjoys his most perfect personal life as well. If all resources are perfectly directed towards an objective as identified by the state, then no objective becomes too difficult nor too absurd to promise to the citizens.
@@ -505,11 +702,11 @@ The difference between those who believe this and those that don't is tantamount
 This historicism is paired with the notion of praxis which drives to the same goal relentlessly while ensuring that any contradiction or obscene manifestations can be dismissed out of hand.
 
 ### Praxis
-Praxis means we know the objective but don't ever need to provide a complete understanding of how and why. In fact, the objective itself can remain unspecified except as a vector. You are to have faith in the endpoint and understand that there's no need to find ways to express or portray the composition of that endpoint, as it can be expected that such an endpoint will become realized in tandem with the elimination of the drive or tension towards it. It promises both everything and nothing at all. It assigns final judgment to even those who rae most difficult to judge.
+Praxis means we know the objective but don't ever need to provide a complete understanding of how and why. In fact, the objective itself can remain unspecified except as a vector. You are to have faith in the endpoint and understand that there's no need to find ways to express or portray the composition of that endpoint, as it can be expected that such an endpoint will become realized in tandem with the elimination of the drive or tension towards it. It promises both everything and nothing at all. It assigns final judgment to even those who are most difficult to judge.
 
 Through praxis, I peer into the soul you never even knew. The model and theory of your mind, body and soul are something beyond you, but which reveal to me your essence and true nature. Only I can understand precisely the way in which you cheat, lie to, and estrange everyone and even yourself.
 
-With praxis, we remind the world that no theory of knowledge will be sufficient until we reorder the world. The theory is that the world must be reordered until knowledge is feasible, comprehendible and communicable. At the moment, forces of a hegemonic nature (which we know to exist as there remains oppression and inequities) are the aspect of social existence which rob people of their capacity to discern and cognize thing such as they are.
+With praxis, we remind the world that no theory of knowledge will be sufficient until we reorder the world. The theory is that the world must be reordered until knowledge is feasible, comprehensible and communicable. At the moment, forces of a hegemonic nature (which we know to exist as there remains oppression and inequities) are the aspect of social existence which rob people of their capacity to discern and cognize thing such as they are.
 
 With no universally applicable base of understanding and method for sense-making, the oppressor must bow to the oppressed, and those with special insight into these truths must be given the means of enforcing the transformative changes otherwise resisted by the masses.
 
@@ -545,14 +742,14 @@ Communism is the God-object at the end of the transformation of man and nature,
 
 Marxism is the means of understanding the here and now in the context of oppression.
 
-Marxism is the belief system which puts faith in that process. It explains the true nature of man based on what it means to be human, and how man and mankind can come to be fulfilled in their existence. It also requires faithto believe that something will come to be automagically through removing known things as barriers or sources of corruption but without laying even the first brick of whatever future edifice you expect should come to be potentiated and come to fruition by your participation in acts of negation.
+Marxism is the belief system which puts faith in that process. It explains the true nature of man based on what it means to be human, and how man and mankind can come to be fulfilled in their existence. It also requires faith to believe that something will come to be automagically through removing known things as barriers or sources of corruption but without laying even the first brick of whatever future edifice you expect should come to be potentiated and come to fruition by your participation in acts of negation.
 
 One last thing will have to be touched on before we get more in-depth with Queer and Covidism - a refreshed context on the biological connection.
 
 ## We Aren't Like That (Historical Faith)
 When the cult says "historical", it means "historicist". Is there a difference? Yes, of course, but not specifically because history only came to be studied and carefully considered later, but because of the way it was used and I argue that the way it was used, though a certain misuse was not fundamentally a choice to misuse something so much as the manner in which humans are disposed to think and approach something based on its use as is provisioned by virtue of:
 - a) the manner in which it interfaces with the body, and;
-- b) what this something represented (what abstraction was cognized at the high level by the mind upon undertaking the operation of observing, imagining, an dappropriating the conceptual object at moment of cognition (TODO: theory: especially the first moment, as it is the only reasonable universality we can examine given the difficulty of finding consistent parametrization of subsequent events of congition (though, to be fair, this sholud be met with peering into research about a sweet spot for cognizing objects wherein the composition of the major aspect of the conceptual object is made into its most crystallized form.)))
+- b) what this something represented (what abstraction was cognized at the high level by the mind upon undertaking the operation of observing, imagining, and appropriating the conceptual object at moment of cognition (TODO: theory: especially the first moment, as it is the only reasonable universality we can examine given the difficulty of finding consistent parametrization of subsequent events of cognition (though, to be fair, this should be met with peering into research about a sweet spot for cognizing objects wherein the composition of the major aspect of the conceptual object is made into its most crystallized form.)))
 
 ## They Don't Even Know
 People pushing for Communism will, of course, not be aware of historicism, yet they are quite clearly thinking dialectically in terms that are ..... never fully formed.
@@ -571,7 +768,7 @@ Unless it is something fringe and outside of most people's lives, the crux of co
 
 Another thing that we've witnessed with our own eyes (and increasingly so) is that the policies presented as leftist which are purported to yield rights and freedom to all (though, through focusing on the few, or at least always a subset, rather than the degree to which the law is universally stated and universally applied) must (and that is in the absolute sense) be applied in a way which denies the possibility of universally applied and universally administered law, and that these regions and political locales become increasingly authoritarian all the while attempting to produce an ever more constrained and detailed arrangement of human classification which is composed entirely of a defined separation of human life, human thinking, human morality, and human guilt.
 
-We compose a conceptual encampment of historical effects and the specification for the inner workings of people's minds, which goes so far as to lay claim to what knowledge can be expressed, known or learned by any specific individual human by eliminating any analysis of their individually disseminated report or stream of thought, any of their creations and productions, and any communication of any kind, and instead by making such things inadmissible in the place of a critical assessment using the lense of Marxist analysis as it relates to the prospect of engaging in critical praxis for the purpose of liberation consistent with revolutionary theory on the basis fo a particular or combination of dimensions of social critique bearing significance in the realm of thinkers extending from Marxist analysis, critical constructivist analysis, and critical theory analysis and their contemporaries.
+We compose a conceptual encampment of historical effects and the specification for the inner workings of people's minds, which goes so far as to lay claim to what knowledge can be expressed, known or learned by any specific individual human by eliminating any analysis of their individually disseminated report or stream of thought, any of their creations and productions, and any communication of any kind, and instead by making such things inadmissible in the place of a critical assessment using the lense of Marxist analysis as it relates to the prospect of engaging in critical praxis for the purpose of liberation consistent with revolutionary theory on the basis of a particular or combination of dimensions of social critique bearing significance in the realm of thinkers extending from Marxist analysis, critical constructivist analysis, and critical theory analysis and their contemporaries.
 
 In this way, we appear to already have an extremely radical left wing political milieu from which to frame all perspective, but I beg you to consider that this is merely an aesthetic of theory which doesn't even begin to consider the manner in which human mind meets with these concepts, much less their concretization in legislation and policy, nor the patterns of behaviour which extend from their implementation and logic and structure of organization, governance and systems of inquiry which come to be affected, erected or in the same way inspired by these expressions and edifications.
 
@@ -594,7 +791,7 @@ While many can clash and grovel over whether or not some nation or government wa
 ### Draft 1
 What we are drawing attention to, then, is that it is presented as the manner in which it interfaces with each individual (the only perception, experience, and mode of perception which is intelligent to conceive of at all (or which makes any kind of sense)). Everything else is speed where belief is suspended in order to allow for descriptive syntax which is unable to invoke such a collective consciousness, or even a collective.
 
-What does one even envision when confronted with the notion of a collective? Collection of objects in a space (like a jar)? A society? A collective of people? In what arrangement? In what context? Is it perhaps more likely tha tone is envisioning the containment of something? Items and object of some sort? One's containment inside or outside of some barrier or enclosure? A collective conveys a few ideas nearly immediately.
+What does one even envision when confronted with the notion of a collective? Collection of objects in a space (like a jar)? A society? A collective of people? In what arrangement? In what context? Is it perhaps more likely that one is envisioning the containment of something? Items and object of some sort? One's containment inside or outside of some barrier or enclosure? A collective conveys a few ideas nearly immediately.
 
 Perhaps one envisions their own exclusion or rejection by the force which is itself greater than any single individual or interest, and that this easily poses one sort of challenge that is necessarily difficult.
 
@@ -621,9 +818,9 @@ In order to maintain or instantiate some aspect of perceived reality, such as to
 ## Hegel's Concretization
 It is more than a configuration of existence. The other existence is the actual existence in its proudest form, while ours is a false existence except for the parts of it which lead to the attempt to transform it for the purpose of the desired existence. That is, we can have faith that that which evoked an effect in the world was true application and if it was done with a theory informed purpose, then it is the expression of truth in practice informed by theory. This is a truth that one can have faith in while becoming convinced of it simply by seeing any effect of its application. The point where the application of theory through practice is occurring is the part where the tension of what is and what becomes is composing, feeding and directing the moment of determinate actualization. It is the point at which things are immediately expressing what they are while undergoing the process of continuous change. // TODO: Hegel's essence and shine
 
-But here is where we observe that whatever reality is is not something other than the desire to change it; its rejection an insistence to reorder whatever structure of reality has been observed as frame of existence. This is not teh putting forward of a creative expression but one of destruction.
+But here is where we observe that whatever reality is is not something other than the desire to change it; its rejection an insistence to reorder whatever structure of reality has been observed as frame of existence. This is not the putting forward of a creative expression but one of destruction.
 
-THis is Hegel's concretization of Being through negation against the abstract. That is, what you think you understand or perceive of the world has, against it, a contradiction and a criticism which replaces the abstract concept of reality as you saw it and present a tension demanding transformation. You also transform with it, lest ye be obliterated.
+This is Hegel's concretization of Being through negation against the abstract. That is, what you think you understand or perceive of the world has, against it, a contradiction and a criticism which replaces the abstract concept of reality as you saw it and present a tension demanding transformation. You also transform with it, lest ye be obliterated.
 
 That whole proposition to progress through change predicated on that tension is a proposal to negate in order to give rise to the actual. This is done in search of something better (if we are to be charitable in language, but no -> we can reference TODO: Critical Constructivism and the need to induce crises which is creating an angrier world where enforcement of thought may be potentiated).
 
@@ -682,21 +879,21 @@ Some might say that, prior to the most pronounced proliferation of Queer Theory,
 
 But why do we avoid considering that as significant in many areas of popular and academic discourse?
 
-Because of the goals of feminism, or any view which utilizes Marxist Critical Analysis -> it an't stop at universal application of liberal principles. No, it stands against Liberalism and it does so as its fundamental position. That is to say, that which defines it fundamentally makes it opposed to Liberalism.
+Because of the goals of feminism, or any view which utilizes Marxist Critical Analysis -> it can't stop at universal application of liberal principles. No, it stands against Liberalism and it does so as its fundamental position. That is to say, that which defines it fundamentally makes it opposed to Liberalism.
 
 ### All Collectivism is Anti-Liberal
 That should be elaborated upon, because it is quite a statement to say that the goal of something is the destruction of liberalism, but I find it difficult to not reach this conclusion for the same reason I gave in my criticism of every other form of collectivism that I have commented on.
 
 The work of collectivism is never done.
 
-Even if every law written and every policy enacted is done in such a way as to not permit the preferred treatment of any person classified along some identifiable trait (other than, say, being a criminal with a history of murder and pedophilia - and even such people have laws they can refer to in order to avoid being discriminated gainst), it can still never be enough and any lingering discontent about anything in the life and experience of any person who has found a culturally familiar (or even obscure) stereotype that they believe they can plausibly declare themselves as being associated with as part or the whole of their identity can be used as fodder to decry their having been oppressed by a villain or group of villains whose identity they can perceive as their other.
+Even if every law written and every policy enacted is done in such a way as to not permit the preferred treatment of any person classified along some identifiable trait (other than, say, being a criminal with a history of murder and pedophilia - and even such people have laws they can refer to in order to avoid being discriminated against), it can still never be enough and any lingering discontent about anything in the life and experience of any person who has found a culturally familiar (or even obscure) stereotype that they believe they can plausibly declare themselves as being associated with as part or the whole of their identity can be used as fodder to decry their having been oppressed by a villain or group of villains whose identity they can perceive as their other.
 
 And since they have a path to invoking the force of the state, even as a general understanding before even having had their own instance of alleged oppression evaluated by the state's apparatuses which were provisioned to serve as infrastructure dedicated for this very situation, they will always have the comfort of knowing they could remove any doubt about their conduct or placement and find a credible piece of universally accepted evidence in the form of the state's own participation and declarations.
 
 With rule by law by a state which presents as the manifestation of divinity in the concrete form tangible to us, and as our superordinate entity which grants us life, rights, nobility and morality, those who chose to reify a mythos by proclaiming an identity which proves the mythology and legitimacy of not just the stated goal, but the understanding that the goal has not been reached (or else I wouldn't have this identity, and we wouldn't even know what that identity is).
 
 #### It's Feminism When We Want
-If it's the lense of feminism then it's the implicit understanding that, and this has been stated so many times before (but it will always be the issue, because this pertains to the essence of this way of thinking), the outcome will always be unsatisfactory and will always prove that oppression exists in teh exact form described by Critical Theorists. (in this case, critical feminist theorists), and the moment this is championed by a state government in the moment the state begins, if even only slowly, its march to totalitarianism.
+If it's the lense of feminism then it's the implicit understanding that, and this has been stated so many times before (but it will always be the issue, because this pertains to the essence of this way of thinking), the outcome will always be unsatisfactory and will always prove that oppression exists in the exact form described by Critical Theorists. (in this case, critical feminist theorists), and the moment this is championed by a state government in the moment the state begins, if even only slowly, its march to totalitarianism.
 
 Any promise or claim of liberalism premised under the need for social transformation is always a lie because transformation is always a demand for radical revolution, and radical revolutionary means the laws don't work. It means that processes addressing and solutions to certain problems haven't been working and need to be replaced or eliminated.
 
@@ -704,7 +901,7 @@ What are some things which feminism finds have not been addressed?
 - Wage Gap (in ever more confined forms of quantification which ignore so much to the contrary)
 - Violence against women (any number of things beyond physical violence by man vs woman are construed as this, and it has even expanded to mean violence of men against men)
 - Hegemonic imposition of any kind
-  - women can be not women - whaT IS a woman?
+  - women can be not women - what IS a woman?
   - expectations about how to live, feel, present and behave
 
 As we can see, these scopes can include all sorts of phenomena, such as stating that wars causing death to men are ultimately violence against women. A nation's inadequate GDP growth or high inflation, male suicide, and so on are against women. Yet more obvious, still, how some of these new concerns are actually queer theory, but which get presented as that of feminism, or intersectionality. Tracing the lineage of queer theory to feminism is also not very hard, as we can look towards any number of seminal works of queer scholarship and see that they came from people who considered and still consider themselves to be feminists.
@@ -1780,12 +1977,12 @@ It is inded effective because its methods rest entirely in cultivating a sense o
 Creating conflict between generations is also useful in increasing degree of adaptation of a new way of seeing the world from an external source (exterior to the family).
 
 ### 8. Religion
-It is religious because it involves having faith in what cannot be known and then asserting with divine authority in requiring that the world view predicated on that faith is adhered to. It puts forward a declaration of liberation that will be made possible once the world is made holy. It puts forward a desire and promise for the role of man as world maker with the task of creatign the world where all the demons of reality have been destroyed. What are these? The differences between us - the fact of there beign any difference of note eventually becomes oppression for each of us as that separation and differentiation will play a fundamental part in one's having an undesirable perceptual frame of reality which is not universally experienced by all men or all of existence.
+It is religious because it involves having faith in what cannot be known and then asserting with divine authority in requiring that the world view predicated on that faith is adhered to. It puts forward a declaration of liberation that will be made possible once the world is made holy. It puts forward a desire and promise for the role of man as world maker with the task of creating the world where all the demons of reality have been destroyed. What are these? The differences between us - the fact of there being any difference of note eventually becomes oppression for each of us as that separation and differentiation will play a fundamental part in one's having an undesirable perceptual frame of reality which is not universally experienced by all men or all of existence.
 
 Be it coveting and jealousy, or the fact of one's person specifically undergoing a trying or fatal experience. Once one is faced with the discomfort of human embodiment, there is little keeping one from noting and being reminded of the lonely isolation which comes from that embodiment.
 
 ### Freirean Paradox
-All of the woke assertions for power are made on teh basis of assuming reality cannot be escribed within the terms of the current conception of the world, as systems of oppression cause presentation of information and formality of knowledge to be composed in such a way as to prioritize the maintenance and reproduction of the current system, and all the while implying that there could be a better system if only we reorder it such as to make realization and cognition of the better system possible.
+All of the woke assertions for power are made on the basis of assuming reality cannot be described within the terms of the current conception of the world, as systems of oppression cause presentation of information and formality of knowledge to be composed in such a way as to prioritize the maintenance and reproduction of the current system, and all the while implying that there could be a better system if only we reorder it such as to make realization and cognition of the better system possible.
 
 Is the promise of the endpoint removed because the entire reality must be supplanted? If the source of oppression and domination is borne of all the capacity for oppression through domination, then we are left with only a few options:
 - Perpetual revolution as itself the designated endpoint
@@ -1796,19 +1993,19 @@ Is the promise of the endpoint removed because the entire reality must be suppla
 The truth is that once you accept a collectivist ordering of world and society, the details begin to matter less and less. The most important thing is already behind us, and that's a clear decision about how we organize society, our values, our priorities, our body politic, and so forth. Then, the immediate presumption becomes the idea that individual capacities, such as that of a fair, happy and worthwhile life, occur because of the collective. This means that, regardless of whether the details make sense, one cannot question the legitimacy of the collective, such as whether it makes sense to have a declared endpoint, or whether our disharmony is apparent, or whether our prized and cherished collective is itself the endpoint, or simply an embrace of the worse aspects of human or animal tendency.
 
 ## Universalism and Transformationalism (meant to be related to Universities?)
-That might not be the right tiel for it, but this can be expressed through other terms that are placed in all sorts of dialectical conflict, and are after made to seem as tough the approach to the other through the transcending of them and their conflict, is the correct type of normal thinking which aligns with secular humanism and intelligent thinking.
+That might not be the right title for it, but this can be expressed through other terms that are placed in all sorts of dialectical conflict, and are after made to seem as though the approach to the other through the transcending of them and their conflict, is the correct type of normal thinking which aligns with secular humanism and intelligent thinking.
 
-Universalism is in consideration of how things can be applied and considered for every human ebing (such as the presumption of tehir having a perceptual frame, equal opportunity, the capacity to use logic and reason, and the sovereignty of their personhood).
+Universalism is in consideration of how things can be applied and considered for every human being (such as the presumption of their having a perceptual frame, equal opportunity, the capacity to use logic and reason, and the sovereignty of their personhood).
 
 Transformationalism concerns the rejection of the current construct, whether explicitly as society, the human body, reality, our understanding of knowledge, or that the conditions of world and society permit all humans to utilize logic and reason for pursuit of knowledge in much the same way as one another.
 
 Paramount to universalism is one's own assumption that others could attain their knowledge, and that people are to be regarded as individuals because precisely anyone benefits from developing themselves.
 
-It's not necessarily that we expect everyone to "get it" and comprehend things in precisely the same way that we ourselves do, test they be liars or cretins, but that we don't hold as a point of pride and virtue some notion that we are infallible, or uniquely superior through some mechanism which allows one a unique path to knowledge that others cannot attain.
+It's not necessarily that we expect everyone to "get it" and comprehend things in precisely the same way that we ourselves do, lest they be liars or cretins, but that we don't hold as a point of pride and virtue some notion that we are infallible, or uniquely superior through some mechanism which allows one a unique path to knowledge that others cannot attain.
 
-The expectation that others are able to attain your achievements and understanding is exactly what allows one to believe it possible fo roneself to have attained good, better or even something approaching a veritable understanding of the world.
+The expectation that others are able to attain your achievements and understanding is exactly what allows one to believe it possible for oneself to have attained good, better or even something approaching a veritable understanding of the world.
 
-If the construct of reality still seems unready for one to live their true life where all things are beholden to the state of existence, and you can feel accountable to yourself for your every moment, then there is a rift in the form of your imagined, elevated existence, be that as a God r a superman - be it only relatively so in the direction of a God. The important point to note i not that one does or does not attain God-level ability, or whether one explicitly believes in these terms, but that their attitude of dissatisfaction with the current construct intuitively gives reason to subdue one's sense of accountability, and the ambiguity of both the endpoint as well as the system-level entity of hehemony indicate that the implied requirement is tantamount to a supplantation of the construct in that whether it is an optimization, correction of the current system tate, or its replacement by a completely alien state, in each case it is an entire rejection being changed to a complete acceptance (if only in theory).
+If the construct of reality still seems unready for one to live their true life where all things are beholden to the state of existence, and you can feel accountable to yourself for your every moment, then there is a rift in the form of your imagined, elevated existence, be that as a God or a superman - be it only relatively so in the direction of a God. The important point to note is not that one does or does not attain God-level ability, or whether one explicitly believes in these terms, but that their attitude of dissatisfaction with the current construct intuitively gives reason to subdue one's sense of accountability, and the ambiguity of both the endpoint as well as the system-level entity of hegemony indicate that the implied requirement is tantamount to a supplantation of the construct in that whether it is an optimization, correction of the current system state, or its replacement by a completely alien state, in each case it is an entire rejection being changed to a complete acceptance (if only in theory).
 
 ## World Planning
 
@@ -1907,15 +2104,15 @@ In fact, the purpose of this section isn't to enumerate and detail all of Israel
 - I consider all policies, activities, and operations which potentiate global governance as exampels of precisely what I am suspicious of, particularly as technology becomes more advanced.
 
 ## Potentiating Globalism and Global Governance
-- We are being mae to commit to international conflicts in whatever terms they are presented to us as 
+- We are being made to commit to international conflicts in whatever terms they are presented to us as 
 - Instability and mass migration are a win for those whose aspirations demand greater state control and reduction of human freedom 
-- Why shouldn't we consider everything in this way, given that technology already baises us towards such an outcome, and with ever increased likelihood of its successful deployment 
+- Why shouldn't we consider everything in this way, given that technology already biases us towards such an outcome, and with ever increased likelihood of its successful deployment 
 
-We must give serious thought about the permutation of society and the corresponding human conformations which arise from ever-expanding states which are increasingly restrictive and suspicious of the rights and freedom of individual human beings which are ultimately the only real, conscious and experiencing entities. The only entities capable of compassion and empathy, and the very things which can inspire people. It is a frame of experience which humans aspire for, imitate, embody, and come to be shaped by, and such things are only experienced by individual humans. The only reason the idea of a human experiencing anything can make sense to any person is because of the idnividual's capacity to imagine experiencing it themselves, and this is always an expression of universal belief in the existence of individual perception - the only perception.
+We must give serious thought about the permutation of society and the corresponding human conformations which arise from ever-expanding states which are increasingly restrictive and suspicious of the rights and freedom of individual human beings which are ultimately the only real, conscious and experiencing entities. The only entities capable of compassion and empathy, and the very things which can inspire people. It is a frame of experience which humans aspire for, imitate, embody, and come to be shaped by, and such things are only experienced by individual humans. The only reason the idea of a human experiencing anything can make sense to any person is because of the individual's capacity to imagine experiencing it themselves, and this is always an expression of universal belief in the existence of individual perception - the only perception.
 
-We must think about whta happens as an authoritarian state becomes increasingly adapted towards ensuring it can both measure every aspect of human life as well as becoming able to accurately predict the results of such measurements.
+We must think about what happens as an authoritarian state becomes increasingly adapted towards ensuring it can both measure every aspect of human life as well as becoming able to accurately predict the results of such measurements.
 
-Trying to construct the frame of mind possessed by one who not ust sits idle as the progression of state absolution takes place in a manner to which they are personally able to witness and discern, without recoiling in horror and denouncing, or better still, who comes to be found making excuses for it, constructing rationales, and creatively imagining the wonders that might be unlocked through this warrants deep suspicion and scrutiny. This is not because they are "in on it", but because their reaction to support a view (and especially if they seem to gravitate towards it).
+Trying to construct the frame of mind possessed by one who not just sits idle as the progression of state absolution takes place in a manner to which they are personally able to witness and discern, without recoiling in horror and denouncing, or better still, who comes to be found making excuses for it, constructing rationales, and creatively imagining the wonders that might be unlocked through this warrants deep suspicion and scrutiny. This is not because they are "in on it", but because their reaction to support a view (and especially if they seem to gravitate towards it).
 
 It may seem facile to limit conception of such a frame of mind to what appears as a false dichotomy (and especially in a book which purports to critique misapplication of the dialectic spiral); simultaneously, this concern shouldn't preclude us from making an effort to conceive of what a frame of mind presents as, as this would even be the natural consequence of attempting to apply a modicum of empathy to the circumstance. Surely, even a most empathetic view should serve to reveal some reasonable description of the behaviour adn set of opinions which accompany such phenomena, so long as such empathy is not ostensible and, as matter of fact, in service of some other need or faculty. With consideration to these factors, we will attempt an enumeration:
 - "Perceiving Imminent Authoritarian Collectivism"
@@ -1948,11 +2145,16 @@ Why is this important? Because, unlike something like a vulgar marxist descripti
 Again, with the eternal designations, as though your composition and you socialization are lost in an endless feedback loop of your ever intensifying depravity. The more pure you become insofar as decentering, allyship, self flagellation, humiliation rituals, and representing all identities correctly, the more hidden secret and insidious your corruption, always bound to your flesh.
 
 #### Lamentation:
-" Decolonization and purification you aren't adequate you aren't original you aren't something unique or significant you're just an empty patchwork of superficiality which pretends to be som
-ething important and meaningful but you're actually what brings down th emeaning of all the rest of teh world your existence makes it impossible for people to see the real value which woul
-d otherwise bring meaning to their own lives
-you are worse than a parasite you don't even have anything unique and interesting of your own.. you are a wraith of stolen dreams and pathetic mimicry and somehow you have come into undese
-rved and unearned resources which sustain your abominable existence while repressing and suffocating noble existence which has a real purpose in demonstrating the real reason for existence
-.. the real use of having a human life.. the hope of a universe which was well worth having come into being
+" Decolonization and purification you aren't adequate you aren't original you aren't something unique or significant you're just an empty patchwork of superficiality which pretends to be something important and meaningful but you're actually what brings down th emeaning of all the rest of teh world your existence makes it impossible for people to see the real value which would otherwise bring meaning to their own lives
+you are worse than a parasite you don't even have anything unique and interesting of your own.. you are a wraith of stolen dreams and pathetic mimicry and somehow you have come into undeserved and unearned resources which sustain your abominable existence while repressing and suffocating noble existence which has a real purpose in demonstrating the real reason for existence.. the real use of having a human life.. the hope of a universe which was well worth having come into being
 how depraved and awful to have to witness your continued existence which is a proverbial spitting in the face of things whose existence actually fulfills the hopes, desires and aspirations
  tied to it"
+
+ #### Additional
+ ##### What is the Cult?
+ It's worth putting into words why I'm referring to these things as "the cult", what ultimately that means, beacuse we can talk about the cults and cult memberships, and we can talk about Marxism, different collectivist systems, fascism, national socialism, we can talk about more modern cults like the Jonestown suicides, but ultimately I'm trying to indicate that collectivism and the disposition and capacity to to pursue it, when formalized, is basically a cult because it always requires membership, and it always requires the upholding of a reality to be constructed, if the collectivist project were the succeed and be the mainstay of how social reality is edified, manager, maintained, constructed, etc. Someone will say "well, you're doing what the Marxists are doing because they're saying that ideology is basically the excuses for us not having a socialist worldview, not wanting to return to the garden", but what I am saying is different. What I'm saying is:
+ - You only exist as an individual so anything that causes you to believe that there is a collective way of seeing reality which corrects the way in that we are seeing things as an individual, because we are otherwise prone to ideologies -> that's the court, in whatever form it ends up being.
+
+##### Political Nature
+They say that our political nature is the consequence of indoctrination or programming. It's not that, although sure that stuff all happens, and affects everyone, but we can't say that it's the overarching factor. It's actually that we have the capacity for advanced syntax in our descriptions of our perceptions and we have a visual cortex and what that means -> having a visual cortex means that you are generating an image into something intangible. So that ends up having to be something that corresponds symbolically with things. The meaning is the meaning of the symbol, rather than the thing the symbol represents, and that's where the subjectivism can run astray.
+