latest and before reorganizing the modern part

Book/DRAFT.md

@@ -850,9 +850,11 @@ I want to be very clear that I'm not contributing these observations and opinion
 TODO: this is the right content, but it needs to be refactored
 The referenced characteristics in critiques of phenomena which I describe as being either collectivist cult manifestations or conducive to collectivist social transformation are not ephemeral, cultural or that which has occurred through happenstance. We are identifying the base; the fundamental aspect and mechanism by which its employers and proponents believe it functions and we should be able to see that it's not just necessarily the case that they are progressed or implemented as per a formal understanding (though there is certainly no limit to that), but that it is implicit as it is taken up by those who adopt the language and syntax and utilize it in the context through which it is presented.
 
-The notion being alluded to is that of dialectics as they've been provided, not through the formulators (Greeks, Romans), and their predecessors and anteceding thinkers, but the German idealists who have massaged, processed and supposedly evolved the method, as well as those who contributed to its use in a way which brought it to having been framed as a feature of enlightenment thought, such as Rousseau, and now especially as its usage in popular culture and, sadly, academic  institutions including those pertaining to the sciences, at least to the extent that activism has entered such institutions which is, in all veracity, almost all of them.
+The notion being alluded to is that of dialectics as they've been provided, not through the formulators (Greeks, Romans), and their predecessors and anteceding thinkers, but the German idealists, and those who profoundly influenced them, who have massaged, processed and supposedly evolved the method, as well as those who contributed to its use in a way which brought it to having been framed as a feature of enlightenment thought, such as Rousseau, and now especially as its usage in popular culture and, sadly, academic  institutions including those pertaining to the sciences, at least to the extent that activism has entered such institutions which is, in all veracity, almost all of them.
 
-Just as, with modern usage of the dialectic through aspiration to idealism leaves all terms ambiguous, we can see how thinkers like Rousseau are understood to be enlightenment thinkers for certain characteristics which ultimately contradict the association. That is to say, Rousseau is thought of as being an enlightenment thinker, while putting forward ideas that are clearly anti-enlightenment or skeptical of it. Kant is much the same way, having contributed much to modern dialectic in a manner which makes hib]]]]]
+Just as, with modern usage of the dialectic through aspiration to idealism leaves all terms ambiguous, we can see how thinkers like Rousseau are understood to be enlightenment thinkers for certain characteristics which ultimately contradict the association. That is to say, Rousseau is thought of as being an enlightenment thinker, while putting forward ideas that are clearly anti-enlightenment and skeptical of it. Kant is much the same way, having contributed much to modern dialectic, both as a means of understanding but also as a tool for change, in a manner which makes him especially relevant. I should add, however, that this isn't to say that Kant's use of or description as to the means of making use of the dialectic was as a tool for change. Quite the contrary, for him its use was purely analytical, but as much as his work is potent and viable in the realm of the enlightenment and the streams of thought which extend from it, there's good reason to consider that his efforts and contributions stand in contrast to the enlightenment and, consequently, empower those who wished to leverage his tools in a direction unbecoming of the enlightenment:
+
+>"I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith." - Immanuel Kant (Critique of Pure Reason)
 
 Though it seems perfectly valid and reasonable to choose to deepen one's understanding of any given concept or cognizable artifact, that is, through universal application of deep thought, using comparison of terms as it they can be related in an individual's thinking, and by having reflected sufficiently to perhaps lead a represented understanding to the point of communicable thought. Classically, when considering the use of dialectics, the weight of its impact through man and society is only to be found in the degree to which one is affected by the process, and the degree to which impact can be made through effective rhetoric.
 
@@ -1683,21 +1685,21 @@ This must always be a requirement of every form of woke cult phenomenon, as it c
 
 > Educators have a responsibility to draw students into a possible crisis." - Kevin Kumashiro (Against Repetition: Addressing Resistance to Anti-Oppressive Change and the Practice of Learning, Supervising and Researching (2002))
 
-If we don't negate the previous conception of the world, then it lingers and corrupts the current frame of existence, and since at least the perception of reality is socially constructed, if not reality itself (which is an idea that has become increasingly more common than many of us would have ever imagined) then changing the conception of the world necessarily entails preventing the current perceptions of the world from maintaining themselves in the next generation of children, hence the need to induce crises in them.
+If we don't negate the previous conception of the world, then it lingers and corrupts the current frame of existence, and since at least the perception of reality is socially constructed, if not reality itself (which is an idea that has become increasingly more common than many of us would have ever imagined) then changing the conception of the world necessarily entails preventing the current perceptions of the world from maintaining themselves in the next generation of children, hence the need to induce crises in them. Put another way, the conception of the world is the aggregate perception of the world given a theoretical belief about the world of man having an underlying reality whereby the whole and the parts are intrinsically bound to one another and carrying a quality and structure in which the two are ultimately indistinguishable.
 
 *How are crises rationalized? Well they're rationalized as being a healthy response to an unhealthy world, thus describing the world in terms which induce a crisis in an as-of-yet uncorrupted mind becomes a point of evidence that one has described that world or taught that child accurately.*
 
-The alternative to that nonsense is to consider it like this:  "I am building that thing which is grateful to reality and which causes new possibilities to be offered in thanks to the reality we enjoy."
+The alternative to that nonsense is to consider it like this:  "I am building that thing which is grateful to reality and which causes new possibilities to be offered in thanks to that reality we enjoy."
 
 ### Ultimate Negation
 
-When I speak here of the ultimate negation, I feel that there may be more than one answer based on the state of the world and the cultural manifestations that have become broadly familiar in our time. This is because there is one form which has become the most toxic and pervasive, whereas other forms, though seemingly not as deleterious and anti-human, at least in terms of the logic inherent in its semantic structure, as that which I wish to expound upon.
+When I speak here of the ultimate negation, I feel that there may be more than one answer based on the state of the world and the cultural manifestations that have become broadly familiar in our time. This is because there is one form which has become the most toxic and pervasive which I would like to expound upon. Other forms, though seemingly not as deleterious and anti-human, at least on paper in terms of the logic inherent in its semantic structure, may very well be associated with more actual death and destructive events in recorded history, but it is the logic of the theory that I think fulfills the designation of being "Ultimate Negation".
 
 The ultimate system of negation for human life, as we have been able to come to know and experience, is Queer Theory, but I don't think that we can really grasp its operational relevance and metaphysical implications as the queering of the world of man and of society without considering it as part of the transhumanist plight which may or may not necessarily augment humans to God-status for it must, more fundamentally, grapple with the notion that the human body and the human life are not enough.
 
-Queer is at the heart of the negation process, both because of where and how it currently stands, but also because of how it relates to the human form and how queer is the inevitable developing a more sophisticated gnostic refutation of human life consequent to reflecting on dealing with the prospect of a pseudo-immortality through procreation in the face of man's mortal existence.
+Queer is at the heart of the negation process, both because of where and how it currently stands, but also because of how it relates to the human form and how queer is the inevitable development following a progression of ever more sophisticated gnostic refutations of human life. Humans have, since time immemorial, been  reflecting on dealing with the prospect of a pseudo-immortality through everything from myth to philosophical abstraction n the basis of considering the meaning of procreation in the face of man's mortal existence.
 
-Some may raise some objections to the notion that Queer is at the heart of the negation process, based on the following types of criticisms:
+Many may raise some objections to the notion that Queer is at the heart of the negation process, based on the following types of criticisms:
 - feminism is to blame
   - gave us queer
   - Orwell warned about women
@@ -1705,124 +1707,177 @@ Some may raise some objections to the notion that Queer is at the heart of the n
 - Ultimately these are all just anti-capitalism
 - these all feed into Communism - we should focus attention there
 
+Some might say that it's feminism which is to blame, as it gave us Queer either through the seminal works which are considered as being the originating works of Queer Theory, which came from radical sex-positive feminists like Gayle Rubin, the postmodern Hegelian banter of Judith Butler, the formalizing of Queer as a term denoting critical transformative change by David Halperin, the French postmodernists themselves, or even the view that woman is a process of becoming as other to demiurgic spectre of maleness which plagues women across the world. Even Orwell warned about women (I'm going to piss some people off):
+
+>"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.” - George Orwell (1984)
+
+There are also those who will say that Queer Theory is not something to really be concerned about, as it doesn't have a stable-enough grounding in reality in order to maintain a structure with sufficient coherence to really bring down much of anything.
+
+Others, still, will say that it's not worth identifying Queer Theory itself, as these are all just superficially differentiated forms of "anti-capitalism" and that all of these different cultural manifestations are just variants of the same thing, such as Communism, and that we could simply focus our effort much better by generalizing everything and shrinking the set of operational terms to a minimum.
+
+There's something to be said for all of this, but you would be remiss in failing to consider just how toxic and deleterious Queer criticism is in how it preys upon the facets of human thought which are most conducive to feelings of resentment towards the biologically embodiment of human life - something for which everyone already deals with resentment about from time to time.
+
+With all that in mind, we should at least examine feminism a little bit more closely.
+
 #### Muh Feminism
 
-!TODO: Put Feminism article here
+!NOTE: consider putting feminism article within this section as under a sub-heading of "Feminism is Anti-Liberal" or similar.
 
-In a way, this is the correct response, except you are trying too hard to separate them. We see them as different because so many men participate in the newer formulation, but you can already see where I'm going with all this: it is simply the evolution of the idea as it becomes updated to remain viable and operationally significant. As far as it has been ???, what do you think is meant by that?
+In a way, this is the correct response, but it all depends on what one is doing to try and separate them. For the modern "gender-critical" feminist, they see the need to separate them. In fact, they see Queer Theory as the product of Patriarchy having infiltrated what is otherwise the liberatory process for women, and they evidence this on the basis of there being biological males in female spaces, and biological males doing Queer activism to conquer what is otherwise reserved for women. Of course, there are plenty of females doing the same, and the boots on the ground doesn't really tell you where the ideas come from. A more correct interpretation of Queer Theory is as the evolution of, at least, the idea of Feminism as it becomes updated to remain viable and operationally significant and, more accurately, the evolution of cult collectivism, which is the product of delusional thinking, as is logically to be pursued by a human being.
 
-Some might say that, prior to the most pronounced proliferation of Queer Theory, the phenomenon of people explicitly distancing themselves from or even outright denouncing feminism had become more unstable. That although it is reasonable to assume that feminist rhetoric had, at some time ago, been extremely unpopular and that it has become familiar to declare or hear or hear the declaration that the insistent voice of a woman demanding equal treatment be something that we must prioritize the receival of, because they are completing against the odds. But (the fact of that being so familiar sentiment also speaks to the degree to which it has become the common, sensible, and popular view to have such an outlook on the matter).
+Some might say that, prior to the more pronounced proliferation of Queer Theory of the 2000s and, in pop culture, the 2010s, the phenomenon of people explicitly distancing themselves from or even outright denouncing Feminism had caused it to become more unstable. Likewise, although it is reasonable to assume that feminist rhetoric had some time ago been extremely unpopular and that it had become familiar to hear the insistent declaration that a woman demanding equal treatment be something that we must prioritize, because they are competing against the odds, the fact of that being so familiar sentiment also speaks to the degree to which it has become the common, sensible, and popular outlook to have.
 
 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 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.
+Because of the goals of Feminism, or any view which utilizes Marxist Critical Analysis (and yes, it is my opinion that Feminism fundamentally requires a critical analysis predicated on class struggle). It can't stop at universal application of Liberal principles. No, it stands against Liberalism, or "Classical Liberalism" for those who like to differentiate the two, and it does so at 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.
+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 commented on in this book.
 
-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.
+All collectivism, even when pursued by those who claim to be in favour of a society based on Liberalism, must be eschatological and, as such, must delay the application and expected viability of Liberalism. The work of collectivism is never done.
 
-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.
+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 abstractly 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 be argued to never be enough and any lingering discontent about anything in the life and experience of any person who has found a culturally referenceable stereotype, be it familiar or even obscure, that they believe they can plausibly declare themselves as being associated with as the whole or part (thanks, Intersectionality) can be used as fodder to decry their having been oppressed by a villain or group of villains whose identity they perceive as their other.
 
-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).
+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 the infrastructure dedicated for this very situation (such as a Diversity policy), they will always have the comfort of knowing they could remove any doubt about their conduct and 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 current 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 no one would have a Critical 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 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.
+There is a prevailing issue pertaining to the essence of these Critical ways of thinking, and it is that dissatisfaction will always be identified, breeding resentment, and that this becomes a perpetual cycle. In fact, it is this cycle which powers the engine of activism in seeking change.
+
+If it's the lense of feminism then it's the implicit understanding the outcome will always be unsatisfactory because of patriarchy, and these sentiments will themselves prove that oppression exists in the exact form described by feminists, Critical Theorists, and so forth. The moment this is championed by a state government, as is always sought, is the moment we can be assured of 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 certain problems and currently accepted solutions haven't been working and need to be replaced or eliminated.
 
 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?
-  - expectations about how to live, feel, present and behave
+  - Women can be not women - what IS a woman?
+  - Expectations about how to live, feel, present and behave
+  - That women and men might sometimes dress differently
 
-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.
+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.
 
 ### Queering
-Lastly, is the basic premise of gender non-conformity and, more accurately, queering. If Simone de Beauvoir is correct in her ground-breaking statement "a woman is not born, but becomes" ("une femme n'est pas nee, mais devien"), then we have before us the instantiation of queer, even before its formality.
+
+> "... une femme n'est pas nee, mais devien" - Simone de Beauvoir (The Second Sex)
+
+This statement is the basic premise of gender non-conformity and, more importantly, queering. If Simone de Beauvoir is to be taken as correct in her ground-breaking statement "a woman is not born, but becomes", then we have before us the instantiation of queer, even before its formalizing.
 
 #### Queer as Ultimate Negation
+
 To come to be what you are on your own terms sounds like a brave, liberated, justified aspiration for anyone. Indeed, I see no reason why everyone shouldn't want to exist as they do under the assumption that they are creating meaning and a destiny for themselves and that their capacity to endeavour to do this aids us all in attaining the same - a capacity that I'd hope we should all attain and that, as a point of ethics and morality, we should all be expected to be afforded the freedom to pursue.
 
-But this isn't about your freedom to pursue meaning. This is instead the presupposing of a circumstance whereby your freedom to pursue is secondary and emerges as a condition from the direct targets of a process which is assigned to the purpose, ostensibly, of people pursuing their own meaning, but is actually a process of modifying all others who are not this person as a precondition to their capacity to find meaning in their own life.
+But this isn't about your freedom to pursue meaning. It isn't even about your freedom to pursue identity, with Queer Theory presupposing that reaching and expressing one's identity correctly will bring them into a state of harmony from which their most meaningful existence will be derived. This presupposes that the circumstances from which your identity becomes possible emerge conditionally from that which must be made the target of Queer Theory, which proceeds ostensibly as a process of the pursuit of meaning, but is actually a violent and dehumanizing tool which must modify and destroy not just all others, but oneself.
 
-It is not a positive encouragement to do something in particular so much as a threatening arsenal of methods of negation which must remove any expression from humans and human society which could otherwise be theorized to interfere with one's capacity to imagine themselves differently from: how they perceive themselves and how it is possible for them to be perceived by others.
+Though poising itself as something to ground the ungrounded, especially in popular culture, educational institutions, entertainment and other areas where its praxis comes face to face with common people, it is not a domain of thought or toolset by which to provide humans with positive encouragement, illumination and a framework to build stable lives so much as it is a threatening arsenal of methods of negation which must remove any expression from human society which could otherwise be theorized to interfere with one's capacity to imagine themselves as something which will cause a disruption in the other that perceives them.
 
 And how do people perceive themselves? How do we evaluate and confirm that they perceive themselves in some way? Is their perception of self a genuine one? An objective one? Or just a fantastical one?
 
-Well, it isn't even so much that the manner in which one self-perceives is liable to be a fantasy, but that the notion that we could have any insight into one's self-perception, especially to such an end that we could know whether they self-perceive correctly, or even to their satisfaction, is a fantasy. For a state apparatus to be used for such a purpose is the enshrining in law a civilizational right to pursue fantasies, and this on its own is not even something intelligible.
-
+Well, it isn't even so much that the manner in which one self-perceives is liable to be a fantasy, but that the notion that one could have any insight into one's self-perception, especially to such an end that one could know whether they self-perceive correctly, or even to an acceptable level of satisfaction, is a fantasy. For a state apparatus to be used for such a purpose is the enshrining in law a civilizational right to pursue fantasy, and this on its own is not even something intelligible. 
+!TODO: (Above) a right to pursue a change in the conduct and content of others?
+!TODO: (Below) massive run-on sentence
 But it gets much worse than that because, in the cult, everything which comes into Being is done so collectively. They tell you over and over that they believe in the collective and that things which are have been made as such through the interpretation and confirmation of the collective. Whether this is simply the socialistic comment of "you didn't build that", or the Marxist plight of man being able to create unburdened by conditions beset and coloured by other entities within the same system, or whether the lived experience and ways of knowing are the result of structural determinism, we can see that every system of Marxist thought and collectivism as a whole depends entirely on ensuring that the conditions are sanitized and made conducive to one's true state of being by ensuring that there are no expressions which serve as evidence that the conditions have not yet been brought to the point where one's freedom to perceive has been granted.
 
 ### Controlled Expressions
-So, as we again see, it is the expressions themselves which must be controlled, which serve as evidence, and which are the goal of these cults. When the expressions are perfect, uncontaminated, without conflict, and these expressions have led us to liberation.
+
+So, as we again see, it is the expressions themselves which must be controlled because, as they serve as that evidence evidence of not being in the desired state of reality, they evoke friction and sow doubt as to whether the delusion will ever fully actualize, bringing great offense to the cult initiate, activist and believer. Once the cult participant's belief about their identity is bound to the hope for a state of affairs that is free of offensive expressions, any evidence of an entity existing out of alignment is itself an attack on self-perceived identity of the cult member. In a superficial sense, these are the goals of the cult. When the expressions are perfect, uncontaminated and without conflict, these expressions will have led us to liberation.
 
 But, then, which expressions are these? Well they are the perfected ones and they resonate in an environment devoid of any other contradictory expression. And the path of changes necessary for these expressions is made to be traversed not through knowing what the eventual perfect expression will be, but by ensuring the false expressions which prevent others from achieving capacity for free expression are not disseminated.
 
-It is a system for suppressing expression with the faith that it leads to our perfected expression. But the process of perfecting expression -> the methods used in that process - are not one of formulating a more perfect expression. On the contrary, though expressions are transmitted, they are constructed vis-a-vis the particular expression against which it seeks to be brought into conflict with. Like a fully-differentiated IgG antibody marking a particular undesired cell for destruction, the tactical expression targets the particular expression deemed to be operating within the system to prevent, suppress, contaminate, or otherwise hinder the true and most righteous expression of species or Universe.
+It is a system for suppressing expression with the faith that it leads to our perfected expression. But the process of perfecting expression and the methods used in that process are not conceived of or designed in some way such as to be used in formulating a more perfect expression. On the contrary, though expressions are transmitted, they are constructed vis-a-vis the targeted expression against which it seeks to be brought into conflict with. Like a fully-differentiated IgG antibody marking a specific type of undesired cell for destruction, the tactical expression targets the particular expression deemed to be operating within the system to prevent, suppress, contaminate, or otherwise hinder the true and righteous expressions of species and Universe.
 
-It isn't just usually negation; it is negation, and only ever negation. Why? Why is that? Because the opposite is the thing which intends to do something. In this case, it just so happens that the thing it intends to do is to consolidate a specific expression).
+It isn't just usually negation; it is negation, and only ever negation. Why is that? Because the opposite is the thing which intends to do something. As critical praxis, all action arises through identifying the actions, edifices and formations which have created that which must be rejected.
 
 # It's Not an Ism
-< Commentary on Denis Rancourt's Critique on the Origins of Wokeism >
+
+!NOTE: This might be out of place here, but I wanted to include something from those with whom I have some form of allyship in order to demonstrate the prevalence of this mode of thinking, and to offer material to such people so they have an opportunity to rethink some of the details and rationales of their position.
+
+*Commentary on Denis Rancourt's Critique on the Origins of Wokeism*
 
 There is a good pushback on the allegation that some or much of the ever-increasing social strife afflicting human society should be associated with terms like communism or Marxism because labeling these phenomena will lead (and has led) to the following:
-- Coercion by propaganda campaigns to vilify some type of socio-political object, entity, state, and so forth (just noise from war and merch towards totalitarianism)
+- Coercion by propaganda campaigns to vilify some type of socio-political object, entity, state, and so forth (just noise from war and march towards totalitarianism)
 - fail to recognize that social hierarchies become corrupted and that choosing the right ism doesn't address this
 
-Remember why we bother -> it's because the death and destruction which occurred in the name of something may have been better described through the biological mechanisms, and maybe a physical mechanism at the level of society and the world, but that the horrors are revered and it's not just a matter of explaining a mechanism we all relate to, but in relating the great horror of fantastic society with backwards ideas, but that we are prone.
+Remember why we bother with struggling against some of the formalized and recognizable forms of collectivism. It's because the death and destruction which occurred in the name of some "ism" may have been better described through the biological mechanisms, and maybe a physical mechanism at the level of society and the world. The horrors are notorious, praised or revered not because of how we're all capable of them, as is often commented when discussing the most notorious of evils, such as the Nazis, but because they're seen as consequent to ideological indoctrination which functions as some sort of brainwashing rather than a facilitation. It's not just a matter of explaining a mechanism we all relate to and in relating the great horror of a fantastic society harbouring backwards ideas, but that we are prone to performing similarly, even in a fashion that could become celebratory. To deny that there is a structure of thought around these which so easily inhabits people, regardless of the ideological flavour, causes us to miss the opportunity for growth and advancement. Rather than it simply being the consequence of propaganda campaigns, which are indeed evergreen, we can draw from it such as to help us proceed with more robust ideas that make those propaganda campaigns, and ones like them in our future, less effective.
 
 "They want to say these are a form of extreme thinking and that the severity of the thinking is measured?"
 
 But it is very much a universal and human way of thinking and the historical significance in demonstrating the record of atrocities that have been borne of those ways of thinking. We will need to break down the details because we want to make it clear that it is religious thinking.
 
 # The Health of Humanity
-It isn't only the case that systems become weak and people die. Because the systems in question are composed of humans, and so if we are saying the system is unhealthy without making this also a question of whether particular human are themselves unhealthy, or whether some are, or whether participating in activities of (cap society?) ..
 
-It isn't just the case of whether those are organic systems that become weak and that people died. Those systems are composed of humans, and so then the questions begin to arise:
-- what is the health of all humans, average human, median
-- what is the proportional impact of the humans whose health most deviates from the median
-- does some change from some humans necessarily affect all humans?
-- is there such a thing as health of relations which is, to any degree, notably separate from the the health of the humans?
+## Aggregate Health as Tyranny
+
+Public health construes the disease risk of society as being the case that systems become weak and people die, but always falls short in describing the underlying aspect that the systems in question are composed of individual humans, except insofar as their disparate behaviour is itself the greatest risk factor. I argue that if we are saying the system is unhealthy without making this also a question of whether particular humans are themselves unhealthy, then we are relegated to abstractions about some aggregated being who participates in either good or bad activities, such as whether he is behaving poorly due to "capitalist society".
+
+It isn't just the case of whether those are organic systems that become weak and that people died. If we focus on the fact of those systems as being composed of humans, some questions begin to arise:
+- What is the health of all humans, average human, median
+- What is the proportional impact of the humans whose health most deviates from the median
+- Does some change from some humans necessarily affect all humans?
+- Is there such a thing as health of relations which is, to any degree, notably separate from the health of the humans?
 
 I assume that the other way of looking at human health in social systems is that the interaction and context of the human towards the system confers the biologically observed health of the human.
 
-But this becomes another question of the infinite regress. That is, do we imagine the root indulging factor universally relevant as only extant per a threshold of participants, or is it something we could find in each our individual experience? Yes, these pathologies are socio-politically active and intelligible, and yes the participants are exhibiting psychopathological traits, but that is something otherwise considered as humans susceptible to the ideology, or humans affected by ideology, but what about pathology without social manipulation? One's manipulation of self?
+But this can become another question of infinite regress. That is, do we imagine an indulgent and universally-relevant root factor as only extant per a threshold of participants, or is it something we could find in each our individual experience? Yes, any pathology exhibited by an individual are can be intelligibly framed as socio-politically active and, yes, the participants could, for example, exhibit psychopathological traits which can be implicated such as to relate in terms of being a health to others, but that needn't be considered through the lense of public health, which must necessarily seek perfect uniformity as one of the requirements of perfect execution, as psychopathology can always best be understood at the level of ideology and the individual, and a perfectly executed public health policy is something which itself must express an ideology all its own.
 
 ## The Trick of Reality
-We clearly play tricks on ourselves, so why not begin with such scope before complicating it with others and imagining that the phenomena begin there? Yes, it may be more pronounced and even more observable, but we should strive to distinguish the precise point at which the behaviour might emerge, and I contend that it must be something affecting us universally, because it emerges individually.
 
-And that isn't to say that we don't have terms like cognitive bias and rampant psychological assessments being published for every new iteration of populist, blue collar scorn, but that we are much too forgiving with our complacency about selective application of such analyses.
+We clearly play tricks on ourselves, so why not begin with such scope before complicating it with others and imagining that the phenomena begin there? Yes, it may be more pronounced and even more observable, but we should strive to distinguish the precise point at which the behaviour might emerge, and I contend that it must be something affecting us universally, because it emerges both individually and so broadly that you'd never believe someone who claimed to have somehow avoided it through exceptional circumstance or behaviour.
+
+And that isn't to say that we don't have terms like cognitive bias and rampant psychological assessments being published for every new iteration of populist, blue collar scorn, but that we are much too forgiving with our complacency in the selective application of such analyses.
+
+What we are dealing with, not just some political system, or social doctrine, but with individual human perception which seeks to simplify the perceptual frame and processing therof while maximizing the perception of one's potential for metaphysical freedom. How this occurs is beyond pragmatic assessment, but deep down we all have been touched by some fundamental angst borne of our human embodiment, and we've found some good ways to describe it, such as through gnostic association which contends and expresses one's imprisonment as a demand for a condition of freedom which transcends all possible human conceptions of freedom, which are limiting.
 
-What we are dealing with, not just some political system, or social doctrine, but with individual human perception which seeks to:
-- simplify the perceptual frame / processing thereof
-- maximizing the perception of one's metaphysical freedom
-  - possibly through gnostic association which contends and expresses one's imprisonment, but as a demand for a condition of freedom which transcends all possible conception of freedom
-  - the limit to freedom is not only raised, but made undefinable, because any physical laws of the construct of reality may be replaced
-  - even insofar as ignoring selected factors while otherwise supposing that the construct is similar to what is already otherwise presented
+The limit of freedom is not only raised, but made undefinable, because any physical laws of the construct of reality may be replaced, even insofar as ignoring selected factors while otherwise supposing that the construct is similar to what is already otherwise presented. That is to say that even in the case of imagining the divine or transcendent, we are still left having to interface it with the human experience in order for it to be cognizable.
 
-We seek to blur our vision of reality all the time, and in ever innocuous ways not simply to mystify ourselves, but even as a consequence of our ability to abstract and speculate being balanced against our requirement of time management for sanity and survival. We can't possibly know everything about anything at any time ever,and yet we retain our ability to second-guess our choices and our reasoning, such as whether we exercise due diligence, or when we downplay the necessity of learning a particular detail and then also give thought to the range of impacts that are actually associated with it.
+We seek to blur our vision of reality all the time, and in ever innocuous ways not simply to mystify ourselves, but even as a consequence of our ability to abstract and speculate being balanced against our requirement of time management for sanity and survival. We can't possibly know everything about anything at ever any time,and yet we retain our ability to second-guess our choices and our reasoning, such as whether we exercise due diligence, or when we downplay the necessity of learning a particular detail and then also give thought to the range of impacts that are actually associated with it.
 
 Children necessarily must mitigate their highly dynamic and chaotic mood shifts while responding to and attempting to circumvent, overcome and adjudicate authority on mediums the most formalized of which likely being a barely understood or commanded spoken language.
 
-In undertaking, if even reflexively or simply in reactance to environmental stimuli, the task of working out and negotiating, both with interlocutor and with themselves. They do this while uncovering sudden desires as a cognitive connection is made to some perceived potential and the nature of reality both depends on and shifts in tandem with the structure of reality pertaining to the condition surrounding that potential.
+In undertaking, if even reflexively or simply in reactance to environmental stimuli, the task of working out and negotiating endlessly continues on both with interlocutor and with themselves. They do this while uncovering sudden desires as a cognitive connection is made to some perceived potential. The nature of reality both depends on and shifts in tandem with the structure of reality pertaining to the conditions surrounding that potential.
 
-That is, the pursuit of the potential becomes highly informative not just in terms of what social and human norms are, but the basis for truth and the control one has over reality as it unfolds to them - as one masters their ability to have reality yield what one desires. We may have to do a thought experiment.
+That is, the pursuit of the potential becomes highly informative not just in terms of what social and human norms are, but as the basis for truth and the control one has over reality as it unfolds to them, and the confirmation about one's sense of reality is comes to fruition as one masters their ability to have reality yield what one desires. We may have to do a thought experiment.
 
 ### Experiment
-A toddler desires a treat? or something through which semblance of important living is taking place. Emotional reaction, visceral over-exaggerated -> coming into conflict defining life purpose and the actualization of self -> but without that sophistication -> it is simply the level of basic needs and one cannot fathom a requirement of any other kind more important to validate one's purpose and existence.
+
+#### Toddler
+
+*Just a gentle reminder that we are prone to delusional thinking and become developed and socialized such as to make it not interfere with our ability to undertake reasonable interactions with one another into adulthood.*
+
+Take, for example, a toddler who desires a treat. The toddler will intuit that important living is taking place through this treat, its acquisition, its consumption, the exploration and enjoyment of it, and so forth. The toddler, however, has an emotional reaction that is visceral and over-exaggerated because of the having been denied this treat, even simply due to the fact that the treat is not yet being made available for reasons that are purely circumstantial. The toddler intuits that it has come into conflict with the structure of reality, affecting its their life purpose and actualization of self.
+
+The toddler, of course, doesn't have that level of descriptive sophistication, but the conflict nevertheless occurs at the simple level of basic needs and it cannot fathom a requirement for any other kind of need or semantic aspect upon which its life experience depends. A superfluous and excess sweet which likely harms the child is now that thing through which it validates its purpose and existence.
+
+Sure, you might say that most people have gotten over this, or even the most intelligent, reasonable or mature people have gotten over this by the time they are well into their adulthood, but how can you really be so sure? Is it wise to assume that you aren't prone to delusion? Don't you find yourself having to admit to even small logical compromises that smudge your track record of avoiding fallacious reasoning?
+
+Now that you're hopefully open to thinking about how widespread it might be that humans of all ages and stripes participate in varying degrees of delusion from time to time, we need to talk about some of the more recent consequences.
 
 The other aspect of the modern, evolved and instantiated sociopolitical weapons for psycho-social manipulation into a collectivist theology embodying the spirit of Marxist critical consciousness is our most recent global crisis affecting every country on their own home turf: Covidism
 
 # Intermission
+
 ## Covidism
-"What do you mean, covidism? Shouldn't you be calling it covidians (wouldn't participants in covidism be covidians? Why aren't we calling the mcovidists?)"
+
+A forbidden topic for many, especially if you aren't simply repeating the catch phrases and popular appeals to authority that became so commonplace these past few years.
+
+"What do you mean, covidism? Shouldn't you be calling it covidians? Wouldn't participants in covidism be covidians? Why aren't we calling them covidists?"
+
+### What's In a Name?
+
+Certainly, there have been many fun pet names for the recent public health phenomenon such as the Branch Covidians, drawing inspiration from from the Branch Davidians and the Waco tragedy, Covidians, Quarantine Karens and Mask Nazis. But, in general, Covidian has a nice ring to it, and makes it sound like a member of the Cult of Covid. Technically, however, there are etymological ramifications concerning the use of one suffix vs the other.
+
+A "Covidian" would be one who is "of" Covid; the consequence of having been in a particular milieu or locale, and we might say that children who are raised in an environment where obsession over the threat of commonly transmitted disease symptoms have been the norm might be best described in this way.
+
+Conversely, the "Covidist" would best describe the alarmist, fear-mongering initiate to the "Covid Cult" who leverage broad cognizance of this event in order to advocate for transformation of society, agreement with their Critical description of reality, particularly if it involves a Marxist-style hierarchical analysis, and a general desire for a Collectivist endpoint which they indicate as necessary given the occurrence of a "deadly pandemic" which manifested precisely because not enough had yet been done to drive the world towards their conception of an ideal state of mankind.
 
 ## Ideas vs Players
+
+!TODO: It might make sense to place this outside of this section
+
 Let's back up! What sort of players are involved here? Let's summarize from others so we know if we need to be more concerned with the players or with the ideas themselves.
 
 Areas: Race, Queer, Covidism, Sustainability, Decolonization.