latest

Book/Manuscript.md

@@ -2090,31 +2090,37 @@ If you don't see the racism in medicine, it's likely you are biased from the ben
 There needn't be any strong piece of evidence. The evidence is simply your lack of criticism. That you aren't suffering in conflict means you have no reason to leave the comforting stupor of false consciousness. So long as the proletarian plight is described as a symptom of ailment otherwise addressed by distribution of power and wealth to entities that pursue collectivism, the rationale will be considered valid and legitimate.
 
 Ultimately, only the promise to address all effects, and thus the oppression models of the world, will be considered valid. The ultimate solution is totalizing and its system for man's life and society is totalitarian. This is also known as holism.
-!TODO: HERE!!!! 
+
 ### Is a Marxism
 
-There have only been a handful of people who have come out and said that covidism is, in effect, another instance of Marxism. Many push back on that idea the moment it is uttered. This needs to be disambiguated like the others to show that this is not necessarily a component of Marx's predicated sequence of historical events en route to his utopia, but it follows the general thought as an evolution of oppressor and oppressed.
+Though the collectivist disposition among humans goes back to the advent of the human form, Marxism is the best specification of its essence in modern times. It formalizes the plight of human personhood against the constraints of existence, impels one to recruit others to reinforce belief in delusion, and yield a cult which insists on initiation and participation to prove one humanity. 
+
+Only a handful of people have said that covidism is an instance of Marxism, and those who push back on the idea at its utterance aren't just Covidists themselves, but even romanticizing Marxists who stood against Covid tyranny. I contend it follows Marx core reasoning for man as Social Man and his explications of the means of effecting gnostic escape.
 
-Private property as bourgeois property and the cause of human self-estrangement still remains, but now the risk to health and society is made more concrete as an example which made previous warnings of grave consequences for our continued behaviour appear to have been remarkably prescient. Furthermore, it is repeatedly stated by academics and throughout the media that though "Covid" was a horrible, once-in-a-lifetime ordeal, it is only a slight taste of the horrors to come.
+Bourgeois property as cause of human estrangement still remains, but broadens to all factors affecting disparate conditions of health. All risk serves as concrete example making previous warnings of grave consequences for group behaviour appear remarkably prescient, with media and academics stating that "Covid" was a horrible, once-in-a-lifetime ordeal, yet only a taste of the horrors to come.
 
-The modern degrowth movement, such as those who followed the lineage of thought from the Club of Rome, or those who so easily swoon at the words of Kohe Saito, speaks about Marx's analysis and how it touches upon the environment in terms of the use of land, and the metabolic rift resulting from utilization of resources in a commoditized form, whereby the true cost and value of their use is supplanted by a reified, contrived and inauthentic format which leads to loss of understanding and blindspots or ignorance which potentiate catastrophe.
+The modern degrowth movement, like those who followed the thought lineage from the Club of Rome and swoon at the words of Kohe Saito, speaks of how Marx's analysis touches the environment in terms of the use of land, and the metabolic rift resulting from utilization of resources in commoditized form. Conversely, cost and value of use is supplanted by a reified and contrived format leading to loss of understanding and ignorance which risk catastrophe.
 
-The true use value of resources are never expressed in spite of the expenditure of resources which, in turn, affect the conditions which cause the weighting of the use value.
+Perverted resource values have led, according to them, not just to inarable land, but a scourge of demonic creations responding to the mayhem of end-stage capitalism.
 
 ## Early Observations
 
-Early on in the Covid era, even during the period immediately following the official announcement of a global pandemic, a wide scope of authoritarianism was so widely applied, adopted and accepted that it was stunningly remarkable and almost hard to grasp. Everything was being made as an early comprehensible moral claim, while presupposing things that were either not known or impossible to know, and i twas done in such simple terms that were completely void of any consideration to the implications, particularly concerning law, rights, and precedence moving forward. In spite of the rhetoric being disseminated, it was still impossible to know how deadly and dangerous the threat was. It was impossible to know the net benefit of increased authoritarianism as a society.
+From the outset of the Covid era, even immediately following its official commencement, a scope of authoritarianism began not only to be applied, but widely accepted with such remarkable ease that it was hard to grasp. Moral claims were made as though much was readily comprehensible, or at least as though all would be understood by the authorities in time. Very little regard was given to the possible implications concerning law, rights and the precedent that would be set for our future. In spite of the rhetoric being disseminated, it was impossible to know how deadly or dangerous the threat was, though it should have been possible to suspect the net detriment of increasing authoritarianism as a society.
 
-Our vulnerability towards unquestioning adoption of the practices and social acceptance of changes was built on an assumption not simply that it was for survival, because of the supposed range of risk of the infectious threat, but because of the implications for survival from the standpoint of social acceptance and social salience. That is to say, maybe it was the case that the threat itself was high and that, even if we were against the advanced progression of society towards a more authoritarian formulation, we would need to adjust to that as there was a real possibility that we would come to require access to medical care in order to survive an illness that was almost certainly going to happen and almost certainly going to be the worst one we'd ever experienced. Or, maybe it was the case that even if the threat were overstated or fictitious, we were living through a transformation of society, social norms, legal precedence and standards of governance that were sure to affect all aspects of life from this point onwards, and that if we hoped to not be excluded from society, particularly after having gotten a taste of just how far the state would be willing to take an event that was, as controversial as it might be to say, itself unremarkable in the eyes of a significant proportion of population (who might be overrepresented among those who are inclined to read this book), then we would have to find some limited manner of acting out obedience just to at least figure out what the extent of the subversion was and to understand what risks and benefits we'll be needing to worry about in the near future.
+Our vulnerability towards the unquestioning adoption of the changes was built on an assumption not simply of it being for survival, because of the supposed infectious risk, but of the implications for survival from the standpoint of social salience. That is, maybe it was the case that the threat was high and that, even if we were against the advanced progression of society towards a more authoritarian formulation, we would need to adjust to that as there was a real possibility that we would come to require access to medical care in order to survive an illness. Many viewed the illness as something the inevitably worst one to be experienced. For others, if the threat were overstated, we were living through a transformation of society and standards of governance that would affect all aspects of life. If we hoped to not be exclude from society, particularly after seeing ho w far the state would be willing to take an event, as controversial as it is to say, unremarkable in the eyes of a significant portion of population, then we would have to find some limited manner of acting out obedience just to figure out the extent of the subversion and to understand what risks and benefits we'll be needing to worry about in the future.
 
-It also seemed quite clear, at least as far as what rhetoric was being disseminated, that the new standard for the acceptability of harm, at least insofar as considering the threat of focused upon by the state and insofar as a means of evaluation was to be posited for recording purposes and to be "scientific" and rigorous, was to be put forward as zero. This isn't to say that the conduct of the state and those who aligned it either by matter of opinion, or by profession, was zero - quite the contrary - but that the aim concerning the threat being focused upon was to work towards a state of affairs wherein the degree to which persons are subjected to a risk of that particular threat must become zero. This was evident almost immediately as it was acceptable to trade away long term resilience at any number of levels of society and human existence, in exchange for the theoretical reduction of risk for this one threat ( !TODO: Zero Covid, school closures, lack of immunological resilience, worsened morbidity risk factors, etc ). This clearly indicates a desire for a transcendence towards a standard of a "harmless life" to be made possible through state intervention and mass conformity.
+It seemed clear, as far as the rhetoric being disseminated, that the new standard for acceptability of harm, insofar as considering the threat focused upon by state and as to be "scientific" and rigorous, was towards a theory of zero harm. This isn't to say that they proceeded while incurring minimal harm. Quite the contrary, unrealistic and impossible aims arguably increased or maximized harm, but the aim was to work towards a degree to which persons are subjected to a threat of zero concerning the risk focused upon.
 
-There were immense social pressures, which still continue to this day to varying degrees, to be part of this new awakening which understands the new acceptable level of exposure to risk, You are either part of this new evolution of society, or you are one part of the group which brought us these problems in the first place.
+This was evident almost immediately as no consideration was given as to whether we would trade away long term resilience throughout society in exchange for the theoretical reduction of risk for this one threat. This early hint indicated a desire for transcendence towards a standard of "harmless life" made possible through state intervention and conformity.
 
-Also, surprisingly to some, but not to, again, many of the readers of this book, was the messaging proclaiming a desire, a heightened risk against, and an opportunity to champion equity quite early on. In fact, it was present in some of the very early research papers about "Long Covid" even within the first year of the Covid era, as well as rhetoric declaring the predicting of easier times ahead if we were to give up our rights in the immediate. This rhetoric included the priming of reactionary dispositions classically associated with the "Far-Right" which were quickly adopted, expressed and repeated by the "Progressive Left".
+!TODO: Zero Covid, school closures, lack of immunological resilience, worsened morbidity risk factors, etc
 
-## Dialectic Examples
+There were immense social pressures, still continuing to this day in some form, to be awakened to knowledge of the acceptable level of exposure to risk. You are either part of this new evolution of society, or you are of the group which wrought this menace upon humanity.
 
+Also, surprisingly to some was the messaging proclaiming a desire, heightened risk against, and opportunity to champion equity. Present in some early research papers on "Long Covid", even within the first year of the era, rhetoric predicted easier times ahead if we give up rights in the immediate. This rhetoric included the priming of reactionary dispositions classically associated as "Far-Right" which were quickly adopted, expressed and repeated by the "Progressive Left".
+
+## Dialectic Examples
+!TODO: HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 *Though it may not have been obvious to as many of those interested in the reading of this book, at least at the times being indicated or being pointed to in this deconstruction and reflection, there strategies and rhetorical conflicts beginning quite early on from which the employment of the dialectic can be logically deduced.*
 
 ### Dialectic of Human Adaptation
@@ -2134,20 +2140,20 @@ These ideas came to be embodied in academics and medical professionals to the ex
 > "Living through this COVID-19 moment as a political theorist has made me wonder about what kind of disease this virus resembles within our body politic. What pre-existing conditions does it exacerbate? What kind of demise does it portend? What cures might exist, and is the body already too weakened to be adequately treated? Or is it possible that what doesn't kill us will make us stronger?
 Hobbes's wager was that by constantly reminding us that bodies are vulnerable, and that commonwealths are nothing more than artificial bodies whose breath of sovereignty is blown into them by the will of a people, our mortal fear could translate into civic health." - Prof. Sara Rushing (On Bodies, Anti-bodies, and the Body Politic in Viral Times)
 
-There is no personal health without public health. There is no public health until each individual's personal health is expressed as a coordinated effort to perfect the conditions which allow for public health to be possible. This is why the desire for "natural immunity" is a form of blasphemy in that it functions as a contradiction towards completing the sanitized and immunologically perfected being that could only come to fruition through public health.
+There is no personal health without public health. There is no public health until each individual's personal health is expressed concordant with theory; we must pursue the theory that public health can coordinate for the perfect conditions of personal health. The desire for "natural immunity" is a form of blasphemy in that it functions as a contradiction towards completing the sanitized and immunologically perfected being of human being as a public and social being.
 
-A wonderful example of how public health progresses mostly through conformity can be found in analyzing the discourse surrounding masking. There are a range of pre-existing studies of various levels of quality that could have been drawn from at the outset of the Covid era, but debating the costs and benefits of masking quickly became forbidden, and it was from that point only acceptable to put forward the notion that masking is going to be helpful in any capacity. As time went on, the scientific debates, or whatever was left of them, became much more focused and finally culminated in the most relevant and well-accredited voices who promoted masking proclaiming that it may very well be completely useless, and even downright harmful, to wear cloth and surgical masks, but that the holy grail of high-quality masks that are still sufficiently feasible for everyday use, the N95 mask, were helping to protect you and your neighbours, and should continue being used, and even enforced (depending on the time and details of the discussion).
+A wonderful example of how public health progresses through conformity lies in analyzing masking. There were ample pre-existing high quality studies to drawn from at the outset of the Covid era, but debating the costs and benefits quickly became forbidden, and it was from that point it only became acceptable to refer to masking as a helpful intervention. As time went on, what remained of scientific debate focused and culminated in many relevant voices who promoted masking deciding that it may be useless, and even downright harmful, to wear cloth and surgical masks, but the holy grail of quality masks still sufficiently feasible for daily use, the N95, were helping to protect us, and should be used.
 
-There was, of course, a [meta analysis of RCTs on masking put out by Cochrane](https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full) which should have put the issue to rest, but this was largely ignored, villainized, and refuted on the basis of a discrepancy between the statements of the authors of the study and the editor which emerged after the publication (and in response to the massive criticism it had received by pro-masking medical professionals, activists, and collectivists of all stripes).
+There was, of course, a [meta analysis of RCTs on masking put out by Cochrane](https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full) which should have put the issue to rest, but this was largely ignored, villainized, and refuted on the basis of a discrepancy between statements of the authors and the editor which emerged after publication, and in response to massive criticism it had received by pro-masking professionals and activists.
 
-But that aside, even if we were to assume that the critics were correct in maintaining that N95 is a necessary and helpful intervention that should be partaken in by all who have the means to, you would still widely observe, since long before and continuing ever since, that even in environments where Mask-Nazis are present, or where masking is enforced, people are accepted into the environment so long as they wear any mask at all - N95s, surgical masks, cotton masks, polyester/spandex masks, and I'm sure people could even get away with more ridiculous arrangements, such as undergarments placed over the mouth. You would also find that professionals and activists are, at least in most cases, no likely to utter a single peep of protestation about people wearing a chin-diaper (a mask over the chin), just so long as they are participating in the ritual.
+That aside, even if we were to assume the critics were correct in maintaining N95 as a necessary intervention to be partaken in by all with the means to, you would still since observe, even in mask-enforced environments with Mask-Nazis present, that people are accepted into the environment with any mask at all: N95s, surgical, cotton, sport polyester/spandex. I'm sure people could get away with more ridiculous arrangements like undergarments over the mouth. You would also find that professionals and activists are in most cases no likely to utter a peep of protestation about chin-diapers, just so long as there is participation in the ritual.
 
 Georg Lukács might offer some insight into how collectivists feel about the errors of proletarians:
 
 > "proletariat always aspires towards the truth even in its ‘false’ consciousness and in its substantive errors." - Georg Lukács (History and Class Consciousness)
 
-The belief in the validity of one's health as an individual is a form of false consciousness, much in the way that a Marxist views false consciousness as that which excuses the material conditions of bourgeois society. Covidism always asserts that those who do not conform to the new collective with a totalized vision of society are doing so because of ideology, which can be enumerated in various forms ranging from "Far-Right fitness culture", to "toxic masculinity", to capitalism, and many more.
-
+Belief in the validity of health as an individual is a form of false consciousness, much in the way that a Marxist views false consciousness as excusing the material conditions of bourgeois society. Covidism always asserts that those who do not conform to the new collective with a totalized vision of society are doing so because of ideology, which can be enumerated in various forms ranging from "Far-Right fitness culture", to "toxic masculinity", to capitalism, and many more.
+!TODO: Here!!!!!!!!!
 > "Ideology is a system of concepts and views which serves to make sense of the world while obscuring the social interests that are expressed therein, and by its completeness and relative internal consistency tends to form a closed system and maintain itself in the face of contradictory or inconsistent experience.
 ...
 Marxists seek to subject all ideology to critique, uncovering the internal contradictions in an ideology and exposing the social interests expressed by it."