latest

collectivist_theology/Marxism Theology Notes.md

@@ -164,4 +164,17 @@ History, for Marxism, as the object of its theology, is therefore the trajectory
 - Life of species is supposed to be the Sacred Work, which cannot be done if individual labour is performed for individual needs
 
 ### Consciousness and Estrangement
--
+- Animals are one with life activity, but man must mitigate his will.
+- Conscious life activity makes him a species being (and vice versa)
+- Estranged labour reverses free activity and transforms it into mere means to existence
+- Neither you nor your employer are doing work productive to authentic free conscious activity which realizes the species character.
+- Wasted existence as enslavement
+- Man produces universally by practical activity upon inorgainc nature and treats the species as essential and himself as a species being.
+- Man produces freely even when free of physical need to produce
+- Man reproduces the whole of nature
+- Man produces in accordance with every species
+- Man forms objects in accordance with beauty
+- His work upon the objective proves himself to be a conscious being
+- The object of labour is the objectification of man's species life, duplicating himself in consciousness and actively in reality, seeing himself in the world he created
+- His own advantage over animals is used to disadvantage him by removing his inorganic body (no longer free)
+- Consciousness of his species views it as a means, causing estrangement

collectivist_theology/PauloFreire_RemakeMan.md

@@ -63,6 +63,116 @@ Role of Social Worker is to raise a Critical Consciousness in those they interve
 - Marxified version of education to push Marxist theory
 
 # Culturally-Relevant Education
-- We are now using Identity-based cultural theory of education to push Culturally-based Identify Marxist Theory. Race Marxist theory of education pushing CRT. Same exact model - borderline plagiarism (Freirean object put into a Race box).
+- We are now using Identity-based cultural theory of education to push Culturally-based Identify Marxist Theory. Race Marxist theory of education pushing CRT. Same exact model (Glorida Ladson Billings) - borderline plagiarism (Freirean object put into a Race box).
 - The real point of social & education: Awaken the Marxist
-- Generative Words/Concepti ppdd
+- Generative Words/Concepts: Codification/Problematization/Decodification (Chapter 6)
+- For Freire and Billings, the point of education is to awaken Critical Consciousness
+- Induce cultural competence: political literacy (Identity Politics - you are politically Black instead of just Racially Black)
+- All at the expense of genuine literacy and mastery (why learn disconnected sentences and syllables when we can use the class to teach political literacy)
+
+# Generative Concepts
+- The vocabulary word choices should be things that help to bring about liberation.
+- No longer talking about teaching people to do things, because academic mastery would be used for the "banking model" of education, where the child is seen as an empty vessel where knowledge can be put so they can choose to capitalize or not.
+- Learning allows you to capitalize in a knowledge-based economy
+- Switch this to the Marxification of education in order to bring literacy (Codification/Problemitization/Decodification - repackaging of Hegel)
+- Kant: Thesis - Anthithesis - Synthesis (encapsulates broader whole and stands up to greater scrutiny)
+- Hegel: Birth of Scientific Gnosticism - Make it about Negative thinking. Abstract, then negate, and you arrive at the concrete understanding
+- Freirean Dialectic from Hegel: Codify the make the abstract. Problematize to negate it (say why it's problematic) and do politics. Then De-codify to make it concrete for your particular understanding
+- Hegel's Scientific Gnosticism is still cult nonsense and it doesn't work, an will eventually lead to catastrophes
+- Marx made it so much worse by mkin it wholly material and fundamentally evil (putting man)
+
+# Grooming
+- Education turned into Cult Grooming
+- There is sexual grooming, and grooming into sexuality-based concepts (Hannah Dyer - point of early childhood grooming into Queer theory is to ensure childrens' identities stay fluid - don't stabilize)
+- Despite the ratio of
+- Catholic church grooming is continuously presented as being a secret scandal, but it's a scandal that everyone and their dog knows about and has joked about
+- Cult grooming (Marxist) occurs using the Freirean techniques (into Identity Marxism)
+- Simple methodology (trichotomy):
+  - Induce vulnerability (initiation)
+  - Offer resolution through cult doctrine (indoctrination)
+  - Cut people off from outside sources (programming)
+
+## Freire's Prophetic Vision
+- In practice, identify vulnerable kids: give them surveys. Ask them if they engage in suicidal ideation.
+- Ask them how the changes in their body make them feel
+- Ask them if they sometimes with they feel like a boy or a girl
+- Identify who is vulnerable/stressed
+- Shuttle them into programs in curriculum or after-school clubs
+- Make them vulnerable about identity
+- Employ cult doctrine while love-bombing them
+- Be attentive to their trauma
+- "Here's the reason why everything is bad, here's what you can do about it"
+- Cycle of commitment ensues
+- Parents don't understand, they are a difficult culture
+- Literal cult grooming posing as education
+- Freire talks about his goal of a prophetic vision for education; begins with prelude to his original essay. New book is a preliminary prelude
+
+"When I began to write this chapter, I looked upon this theme as a challenge. Indeed, seeing this as a challenge forces me to respond critically rather than anively. My critical attitude in itself presupposes a deep and intimate understanding of the theme in the sense of unveiling it more and more. This essay, then, answers the challenge by becoming yet another challenge for its readers. My critical attitude towards this theme leads me to an act of knowledge and this requries not only knowing objects but only a knowing subject, like me."
+*Frames this whole thing as a challenge he has had and an even bigger challenge for you. This challenge is answered by another bigger challenge. Who is a knowing subject? He is! Himself.
+- Freire describes everything as a process
+- In Marxism, everything is incomplete (man, society, world)
+- Hegel put forward a Hermetic and gnostic religion in  mould of Christianity
+- Remember that with this manner of thinking, nothing ever "Is". Everything is always becoming.
+
+## Heremetic Belief
+Hermeticism is Alchemy of a particular type (parallel to Gnosticism)
+- Hegel put forward a Gnostic AND Hermetic religion, modelled after Christianity.
+- Synthesized things for his speculative philosophy
+- The absolute (God/Deity/Infinite) cannot know itself as divine without something mundane to compare itself to.
+- Creates the World to know what it is
+- Alchemical processes analogous to Dialectical processes
+- Metaphor of Alchemy: picture the Fire as the Dialectic (transmute things in the alembic)
+- Seeds of Gold of Trapped within the Mundane
+- Free and blossom through the process of becoming perfect
+- The state gives rise to the practical form of the idea
+- Cultural alchemy and leads to revolution with a new idea, so the Theoretical Idea can advance (which in turn updates the Practice. Praxis until absolution)
+- The Deity realizes itself it is Deity - the Deity that doesn't realize itself as deity
+- Thinking agents of the world do the thinking and synthesizing - Concretizing
+- Dialectical Faith of Leftism
+
+## Freirean Revolution
+- Remake education so that children become perpetual change agents
+- Stopping revolution stops progress of history
+- Constant change is the necessity
+- Frustrated Neo-Marxists can't abide
+- Constant destabilization until absolution
+
+"Since it always a process, knowing presumes a Dialectical situation. Not strictly an I think, but a We Think."
+*We think, therefore we are.*
+"It is not the I think that constitutes the We Think, but rather the We Think that makes it possible for Me to Think. We think, therefore I think, therefore I am. We think, that makes it possible for me to think."
+*I can only think because collectively we are thinking*
+
+This is why mathematics is being transformed to stop focusing on individual achievement, and instead focus on collective achievement. It is not the I think that matters, but the We think. It is not the I think that constitutes the We Think.
+The process of knowing is a dialectical situation. The individual and collective are opposites that need to be dialectically synhtesized into Individuals made to live in a Society (Socialist Man).
+
+*Marx says the goal is to become socialist man that lives in social society so that they become co-continuous.*
+
+*Russeau said Savages made to live in Cities (original Master Slave Dialectic) inspiring Hegel.*
+
+*Marcuse wants outsiders that are insiders. The margin made to be at the center. Individuals meant to live in society. Individuals who have subordinated themselves to the collective and through a Dialectical process you are made free. You are choosing to become part of the collective because of your interjected morals and values. Become a collectivist who believes themselves to be more free because the Collective does things for you, you don't have to do things you don't want to do. Entitlement complex.*
+
+"In epistemological terms, the object of knowledge isn't a term of knowledge for the knowing subject, but a mediation of knowledge."
+*The object of knowledge is the thing that you study, know, or want to know. It is not a term of knowledge for the conscious, it is a mediator/tool for learning. Math isn't math on its own, but a tool for learning something else. So it can be retooled to be the tool which teaches that which we must know - how to liberate ourselves*
+
+If you want to get religious, your sermon has a lesson. It's not even a sermon about God, but a Politics lesson dressed up as a sermon. Your mom is political.
+
+## Different Human Knowledges
+So the process of coming to know things isn't really one where the thing that you're learning matters. The thing you are learning is a mediator or vehicle of actual knowledge, which is political knowledge - Freirean education will hijack every other subject to deliver political literacy lessons. Your child becomes a tool for proliferation of Marxism.
+
+"Like any active study, reading is not just a passtime, but a serious task, in which readers attempt to clarify the opaque dimensions of their study. To read is to rewrite, not memorize, the ocntents of what is being read. We need to dispense with the naive idea of consuming what we read, like Sartre, we might call this artificial notion the nutritionist concept of knowledge, according to which those who read and study become fat intellectuals. This might justify such expressions as "hungry for knowledge", "thirst for knowledge", and to have or not have an "appetite" for understanding."
+
+*Reading has to be a serious task in which you rewrite what you're reading -> codification, problematization, decodification. The dumb smart person who repeats things is an annoying and worth of criticism, but being a Marxist isn't the distinction which makes you smart.*
+
+"This same artificial concept currently informs educational practice, in which knowledge is na act of transference. Educators are the possessors of knowledge, whereas learners are empty vessels to be filled by the educators deposits (switched frmo nutrition to bank analogy). Hence, learners don't have to ask questions or offer any challenge since their position cannot be anything other than to receive passively the knowledge their educators deposit. If knowledge were static and consciousness empty, merely occupying a a space in the body, this kind of educational practice would be valid, but this is not the case. Knowledge is not someting that is made and fininshed, and consciousness is an intention towards the world."
+
+*Two meanings here: knowledge is not something that is made and finished (no kidding), but what's being implied here. What he's saying is something that sound sperfectly reasonable, but Marxists think knowledge is contingent and relative. Knowledge and truth is a matter of a social formation.*
+
+*France in the 18th century and America in the 20th century have completely different knowledges. And it's not geographical - there is knowledge today, tomorrow, the next day, and none of these are the same, because for Marxists the knowlege is knowledge of how to turn the revolution one more turn. How to be Critically Conscious in the present circumstances, so that when you have your revolution and come to a new set of circumstances, you need more Critical Consciousness to have another revolution to come to the next set of circumstances. Before, now and later have different knwoledges, because knowledge is a matter of truth, and truth is a matter of a social formation.*
+
+"Knowledge must be relative, as Goerthe said, because everything withers away". And so the dialectic progresses. Knowledge is not something made and finished, and you think he's talking about the fact that we're still learning, but what it means is directly insofar that it enables revolution.
+
+*Consciousness is an intention toward the world - to create a revolution. It's all to setup the dialogical model where the educator learns about oppression from the learner, who doesn't have empty consciousness, and then grooms that learner into Marxist consciousness (the intention toward the world) - to transform the world (disrupt and dismantle - build back better!).*
+
+*Human is the conscious subject who knows he is the conscious subject taht can envision what he wants to create in the world and thus by creating the thing he puts some of himself in the world and then sees himself in the world. He brought his humanness into that thing (a tree into a picnic table - humanized wood / useful to humans / value to humans by envisioning what the human process is). You see yourself and humanize yourself.*
+
+*Remember the difference between animalizing and humanizing - you can't animalize the world because they don't have a subjective capacity. Humans are different - we need to exist to prove we are not animals through the Marxist ontology of Man. We are human because we envision as a concept subject who humanizes the world, make it fit for humans and then see ourselves and understand that we ar the kind of animal that can change the world, rather than adapting to the world. We adapt the world to ourselves, and not just the object as the world, but man is his own object. Society is his object as well. Other men are man's object, and we do this with ourselves and each other.*

covidism/Activating_Biases.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Activating Biases
 
-Just as the order of words or the order of operations in an information strea maffect cognitive behaviour and predisposition towards particular biases, so too are the orders of relevant topics and learnings preceding an event or proposition.
+Just as the order of words or the order of operations in an information stream affect cognitive behaviour and predisposition towards particular biases, so too are the orders of relevant topics and learnings preceding an event or proposition.
 
 The proposition in question is the jab and the activists, socialists and pronoun people having all had theirs. The only BLMers who haven't are some of the street dwelling grass roots variety of which none of you whiney, middle-class he/hims comprise.
 
@@ -30,4 +30,39 @@ Implications of this is not necessarily anything good at all.
 4. It normalizes death of citizens
 5. It reinforces obedience by all those who are genuinely afraid of the virus
 
-It just seems like the narrative needs to be maintained. It will be interesting to see if all other western nations make the same statements to the press.w
+It just seems like the narrative needs to be maintained. It will be interesting to see if all other western nations make the same statements to the press.w
+
+
+//******************* 2nd Draft
+
+# Covid Revisited
+- Collectivist bias towards receiving the COVAX jab
+- Only exception being those who, in the realm of ideals, consider their group as being eternally separate
+- Visible element in mainstream black culture to show them as favouring jabs that are "withheld" from them - this narrative appeals to younger, politically aware cohorts
+- Activists like acting out group participation, because it is their fundamental goal
+## Survival to Murderous
+There appears to be some deeply-seeded contempt hidden amongst the veil of acceptance and togetherness. Theirs is a togetherness which, when presented, is a special offering -  a gracious offering. They expect, however, that whenever a proposal must be accepted or agreed to by others, that whatever precludes the others from accepting it is due to selfishness and belief about positional advantage. If they aren't to fullfill a duty that would otherwise be an act or gesture of togetherness and acceptance, then it was, in the best case, a misunderstanding on your part, or it is evidence of your malevolence. You cannot be reasoned with unless you accept a new goal. You cannot expect to be permitted into others' inner circles because you don't meet the requirements of: supporting ideology, praising symbols, playing the right games, blending in aesthetically, submitting to proposed delusions (because you posit that they are such), avoiding the invocation of cognitive dissonance and anxiety in others, and lastly not having done things in the past for which you haven't adequately repented by taking on the new goal.
+
+Whatever the case may be, their club of togetherness is exclusive in that you must prove that you eblieve in togetherness. The principle itself isn't evident, because we have hijacked the language and erected complex requirements as a consequence. Since you aren't able to meet them, we will apply the genuine definitions of the language, but only in use towards expressing your failure. Never to confirm or clarify our use of that same language.
+
+And then it becomes murderous. "I warned you all of the Great Flood and informed you perfectly as to waht one must do to prepare. I told you of the Great Plague that was upon my people, including you, but you mocked me and let my people suffer, thus you are no longer one of them. You have never listened and your continued failure brings to the world a destructive transformation that, upon bearing witness to, is adapted to constitute support for our own faith in our righteousness. That we see you suffer in agony in a universally harmful manner informs us that we must do what we can to save the world from such a fate, igniting our righteousness.
+
+# Bad News Counts
+We could see so perfectly through the exchanges of scientific advisors to the government that good projections are always left out of reports. Why? Because neutral or mundane risks don't need to be addressed and resolved through explicit action. If we act in tandem with more Critical possibilities, the better outcomes will be achieved. In fact, failing to achieve the better outcomes is always evidence that our methodologies haven't been properly executed.
+
+# Escalating Language
+*Winter of Death!*
+- Incredulous, because there are so many factors which make predictions of this type unreliable, such as the expectation that ecosystems normalize. One could rationalize by saying "They're just using effective messaging", and I would say that anyone who thinks this way either doesn't appreciate the complexity of the situation, or wishes wishes to apply force and fear to those with whom there is disagreement.
+- They know something, such as a coming loss of life, and are hoping to:
+  a) genuinely warn people
+  b) cover the deaths of the jabbed by creating a narrative
+  c) maintain a state of fear (the most plausible of the goals)
+
+Implications of this not necessarily good
+1. Doesn't increase uptake
+2. Increases division
+3. Reduces trust
+4. Normalizes death of citizens
+5. Reinforces obedience by all those who are genuinely afraid
+
+It seems the narrative needs to be maintained.

covidism/adaptation.md

@@ -5,7 +5,23 @@ There is some misunderstanding as to why some might reject a particular therapy.
 - The side effects are nul or comparable -> measured as symptoms or toxic load on metabolism.
 - The literature and consensus agree that the adaptation falls within a range which is understood to be significant and beneficial.
 
--> In spit of what seems like 100% benefit, the missing element is an agreed specification describing the optimal desired adaptation, as well as a proposed methodology to assess the degree of success for achieving that outcome.
+-> In spite of what seems like 100% benefit, the missing element is an agreed specification describing the optimal desired adaptation, as well as a proposed methodology to assess the degree of success for achieving that outcome.
 -> a set of possible side effects as well as a proposed range of verifiability for each.
 
-Understanding of many phemonena seem to suggest a universal principle about physics and reality; our systems adapt to stimuli and the nuance of these adaptations does not have a limit of resolution, but a limit as to how well they can be perceived.
+Understanding of many phemonena seem to suggest a universal principle about physics and reality; our systems adapt to stimuli and the nuance of these adaptations does not have a limit of resolution, but a limit as to how well they can be perceived.
+
+When we talk about a proposed methodology of assessing the degree of success, and the agreed specification to describe the optimal desired outcome, a mandated solution is focused entirely on one concern, with a temporal period for which to mitigate that concern. In some cases, that mandated period becomes separate from whether the pathogen is currently affecting society such as to cause an epidemic of infection.
+
+With SARS-CoV2, for example, we began with a period where we were anticipating a means of anulling its ability to transmit and infect in the population, and all of the dialogue, public health messaging, public relations from pharmaceutical companies and news in general was predicated on the assumption that this was the goal.
+
+This has obviously changed, as it is now well known that infection cannot be stopped, and the dialogue has changed to become more ambiguous in the sense that some of it clearly claims that the desired effect is to temporarily reduce the potential for severe disease, whereas other claims, particularly ones made by public health officials and government representatives in general, imply that the treatment stops infection.
+
+The ambiguity does not help to consolidate the issue of whether or not established goals and targeted outcomes are something that can be agreed upon, as it seems that the goal can be implied to be something which is itself not possible.
+
+Citizens deserve to be able to set goals for themselves that are possible.
+
+Further to this, we can't expect that all targeted goals and mitigated concerns are to be encapsulated without making room to consider the range of effects and period of effect brought on by the administration of a pharmaceutical product or medical treatment. That is, even in the case of a theoretical product which entirely stops infection and transmission, a human being should be able to consider what effect this treatment has on other circumstances that they may possibly find themselves in in the future.
+
+For example, if one is to repeatedly use an mRNA vaccine which has been shown to modify interferon type 1 response, and to use this vaccine in to produce circulatory IgG antibodies against the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 specification sometimes referred to as WUHAN-HU-1, then a prospective vaccinee may wish to consider what the effect of this treatments will be on future infections from unknown pathogens, particularly ones which are novel, more transmissible than SARS-CoV-2, and more virulant than SARS-CoV-2.
+
+That is to say, if one is to explicitly perform an action which potentially has a detrimental effect on a future circumstance, one must weigh the pros and cons of the risks they are currently seeking to consolidate, against benefits which must be proven to be viable and are to be considered applicable to a temporal period, as well as against the detriments that are possible over a longer range of time. This is not just limited to neurodegeneration, auto-immunity disorders, or dangerous acute reactions to a treatment, but even simply to the different ways in which future infections both to known and unknown pathogens can be affected. One could consider, for example, that the speed at which one yields a T-Lymphocyte response against a pathogen might be hindered, delayed, reduced and otherwise changed in a way which the vaccinee might find to be worthy of attention.