latest

Book/DRAFT.md

@@ -2663,9 +2663,9 @@ How do we know this? Because Queer scholars and activists can't help but attempt
 
 > "The experiences of art photographer Jacqueline Livingston exemplify the climate created by the child porn panic. An assistant professor of photography at Cornell University, Livingston was fired in 1978 after exhibiting pictures of male nudes which included photographs of her seven-year-old son masturbating. Ms. Magazine, Chrysalis, and Art News all refused to run ads for Livingston's posters of male nudes. At one point, Kodak confiscated some of her film, and for several months, Livingston lived with the threat of prosecution under the child pornography laws. The Tompkins County Department of Social Services investigated her fitness as a parent. Livingston's posters have been collected by the Museum of Modern Art, the Metropolitan, and other major museums. But she has paid a high cost in harassment and anxiety for her efforts to capture on film the uncensored male body at different ages."
 
->"It is easy to see someone like Livingston as a victim of the child porn wars. It is harder for most people to sympathize with actual boy-lovers. Like communists and homosexuals in the 1950s, boy-lovers are so stigmatized that it is difficult to find defenders for their civil liberties, let alone for their erotic orientation. Consequently, the police have feasted on them. Local police, the FBI, and watchdog postal inspectors have joined to build a huge apparatus whose sole aim is to wipe out the community of men who love underaged youth. In twenty years or so, when some of the smoke has cleared, it will be much easier to show that these men have been the victims of a savage and undeserved witch hunt. A lot of people will be embarrassed by their collaboration with this persecution, but it will be too late to do much good for those men who have spent their lives in prison." - Gayle Rubin (Thinking Sex)
+> "It is easy to see someone like Livingston as a victim of the child porn wars. It is harder for most people to sympathize with actual boy-lovers. Like communists and homosexuals in the 1950s, boy-lovers are so stigmatized that it is difficult to find defenders for their civil liberties, let alone for their erotic orientation. Consequently, the police have feasted on them. Local police, the FBI, and watchdog postal inspectors have joined to build a huge apparatus whose sole aim is to wipe out the community of men who love underaged youth. In twenty years or so, when some of the smoke has cleared, it will be much easier to show that these men have been the victims of a savage and undeserved witch hunt. A lot of people will be embarrassed by their collaboration with this persecution, but it will be too late to do much good for those men who have spent their lives in prison." - Gayle Rubin (Thinking Sex)
 
->"As Duschinsky (2013) notes, “Discourses of childhood innocence seem to have an unimpeachable moral status. Yet scrutiny of these discourses indicates that they may in fact be regarded as a potentially exclusionary form of social practice, linked to little-acknowledged and problematic social effects” (p. 764). While such social effects have not gone entirely unquestioned, most critical work on the topic of childhood innocence, much of which has been produced by Australian scholars, has focused on the regulation of children’s sexual agency (Egan and Hawkes, 2009; Faulkner, 2010; Robinson, 2013). Here, I take up the notion of childhood innocence to examine how, in the US context, it regulates race relations by producing a particular “childhood” that perpetuates White supremacy." - Julie Garlen (Interrogating innocence: “Childhood” as exclusionary social practice)
+> "As Duschinsky (2013) notes, “Discourses of childhood innocence seem to have an unimpeachable moral status. Yet scrutiny of these discourses indicates that they may in fact be regarded as a potentially exclusionary form of social practice, linked to little-acknowledged and problematic social effects” (p. 764). While such social effects have not gone entirely unquestioned, most critical work on the topic of childhood innocence, much of which has been produced by Australian scholars, has focused on the regulation of children’s sexual agency (Egan and Hawkes, 2009; Faulkner, 2010; Robinson, 2013). Here, I take up the notion of childhood innocence to examine how, in the US context, it regulates race relations by producing a particular “childhood” that perpetuates White supremacy." - Julie Garlen (Interrogating innocence: “Childhood” as exclusionary social practice)
 
 #### Childhood Innocence
 
@@ -3276,61 +3276,68 @@ Maybe, but let's look at it in good detail:
 
 #### Land Acknowledgments
 
-!TODO: fix below
+##### Totem Polemic
 
-When first confronted with the land acknowledgment, spectators of the event, as inhabitants of this shared environment, contemplate that the land is used differently for different people. Is it that people make decisions about how to use the land that they have, the land of the space in which they are present, and public land which they generally share with other inhabitants? Is it that the land is used by those in positions of authority such that the less fortunate are affected differently from others? You might say that the notion that people make decisions about how to use their land, or the public spaces, is something which shouldn't be expressed, because it problematizes and complicates the circumstances of some, their thoughts, and the possibility of us addressing the fact that not everyone has an equal standing or enjoys life and resources in a manner equivalent to everyone else.
+*Part naive thought experiment, part polemic, part warning about the awful places a mind falls into when reading into the implications of land acknowledgments*
 
-The land is currently used in a way which benefits some over others, because it was used differently by some over others in the past. That it was used differently in the past could have been because someone was in the space of the land beforehand, but it's actually put forward that it was a particular change of hands which changed the manner in which we are to think about land ownership, and that this is so intensely important that we are to ignore other changes of hands which may have taken place, by virtue of the fact that we are not going to perform a near-infinite regression to ascertain what person or animal was first in a given space. We are only concerned with the last change of hands "of interest" whereby the state has declared that the former holder in that exchange was legitimate and harmonious, and that any owner since that time is illegitimate in the sense that they reduce survivability of others.
+When first confronted with the land acknowledgment, spectators of the event, as inhabitants of this shared environment, contemplate that the land is used differently for different people. Is it that people make decisions about how to use the land that they have, the land of the space in which they are present, and public land which they generally share with other inhabitants? Is it that the land is used by those in positions of authority such that the less fortunate are affected differently from others? You might say that the notion that people make decisions about how to use their land, or the public spaces, is something which shouldn't be expressed, because its being "problematic" in complicating the circumstances of some, their thoughts, and the possibility of us addressing the fact that not everyone has an equal standing or enjoys life and resources in a manner equivalent to everyone else.
 
-The land could have belonged to a different "type" f person, but prior men have used this land in such a way which has caused others to underperform. Poor people performed so poorly because they didn't expect how immediate and real it would be to change situations and have a new perspective? Well, no, they performed poorly because others were treated unfairly in the past...... 
+The land is currently used in a way which benefits some over others, because it was used differently by some in the past. That is to say, the land, rather than being used in a uniform way which doesn't exploit, had been used in a manner which uniquely exploited some. That it was used differently in the past is not because of an arbitrary change of use in terms of new occupancy, but a qualitative change of use coinciding with a particular change of hands which forces us to think about land ownership. This is so intensely important that we are to ignore other changes of hands which may have taken place, rather than undertaking an investigate regression in order to determine the truly legitimate original inhabitant of that land, which would otherwise seem as a near-infinite regression leading to a question of whether it were first human (hominid?) or animal. We are only concerned with the last change of hands "of interest" whereby the state has declared that the former holder in that exchange was legitimate and harmonious, and that any owner since that time is illegitimate, an offense to the survivability of others, and a perversion of not only the specific environment which they occupied, but the very manner in which land is conceived by all of man.
 
-That prior men have used a land calls into question whose usage was last a legitimate use. That is, one which accords with the harmony of the world, rejects the temptation to perform disharmonic action, and which is in line with the trajectory towards resolving unwanted harmonic friction and alleviating the world of sources of disharmony.
+Because the land was not occupied by the legitimate type of person, the land was used in such a way which causes others to underperform. Did poor people perform so poorly because they didn't expect how immediate and real it would be to change situations and have a new perspective? Well, no, they performed poorly because the use of land was for the purpose of realizing unfair treatment. 
 
-We both live on this land but its history also delineates the limits of all our potential accomplishments. The history of this land weights the handicap necessary to be imposed such as to bring about our equality. In the best case, he whomsoever has a more advantageous foundation can have pity on the other and see them as less capable. The sub-capable reality of the other is to be pondered upon as a psychological phenomenon and a resource accessibility issue, with each of these being wrought upon the other as per their having a physical form which resembles some criteria.
+###### Last Legitimate Tribe
 
-Even if we have everything else equal in this world, and even if the other is physically healthier, wealthier, and better looking, they can never be as great as what the historically advantaged can become. In the worst case, those with structural advantages in the form of political power, social wealth, and the tim to allocate towards implementing structural/systemically discernible effects, such as the word of the law, are not only using a concept alleged to represent the other in order to gain even more power for themselves while diminishing that other, but are being facilitated by the other who believe this affordance will grant more power to themselves. This is made even worse still by demonstrating an affinity to receive stories which describe you, the other, as unfortunate because of weaknesses and pathologies. Being part of such a plan and being active in its formulation further cements the other's place as inferior.
-!TODO: up to above
+That prior men have used a land calls into question whose usage was the last to be legitimate. That is, usage which accords with the harmony of the world, rejects the temptation to perform disharmonic action, and which is in line with the trajectory towards resolving unwanted harmonic friction and alleviating the world of its sources of disharmony.
 
-It takes faith to claim that a particular piece of land is your birthright, that any who have proposed there not of your bloodline or within an accepted relative range of genetic variability have performed a terrible injustice, or at least that you are owed some form of compensation or royalty or tribute because whatever you had done hasn't been enough to feel you are able to move on from the past, even if the past too is a fable and one which was not your own.
+We both live on this land but its history also demarcates the limits of all our potential accomplishments. The history of this land necessitates and weights the handicap to be imposed that can bring about equality. In the best case, he whomsoever has a more advantageous foundation can have pity on the other and see them as less capable. The reality of the sub-capable other is to be pondered upon as a psychological phenomenon and issue of resource accessibility, with these issues wrought upon the other through mediation in a system which identifies the substance of their mind as something allocated by virtue of their superficial appearance within the system.
 
-You cannot possibly have misused any land because you are the root race, in tune with the species being, and the land comes out of you. You are the land and the land is you, thus nay use of it under your time spent here is always subject to the dictates and arbitrary authority shared by you and the state. If all is well, you are regarded as a miracle, and your accomplishments grander beyond all comprehension, as a divine act.
+Even if we have everything else equal in this world, and even with an other that is physically healthier, wealthier, and better looking, they can never be as great as what the historically advantaged can become. In the worst case, those with structural advantages in the form of political power, social wealth, and the time to allocate towards implementing structural/systemically discernible effects, such as the word of the law, are not only using a concept alleged to represent the other in order to gain even more power for themselves while diminishing that other, but are being facilitated by the other who believe this affordance will grant more power to themselves. This is made even worse still by demonstrating an affinity to receive stories which describe you, the other, as unfortunate because of weaknesses and pathologies. Being part of such a plan and being active in its formulation further cements the other's place as inferior. It manufactures privilege and oppression in exchange for the destruction of dignity, erasing of culture, and production of resentment.
 
-If things are not so perfect, however, then you are the only part of it who's not at fault and the only part that would be perfect if not for the existence of other non-conscious participants (actually, all the divine participants
+It takes faith to claim that a particular piece of land is your birthright, and to propose that those not of your bloodline or within an accepted relative range of genetic or phenotypic variability have performed a terrible injustice, and that you are owed some form of compensation, royalty, tribute, or admiration because your life and what you've done hasn't been enough to feel as though you are able to move on from the past, or the fable of the past, of lives lived that were not your own.
 
-#### Divine Land
-- this is their land
-- because the material conditions create man
-- and man works those conditions to create himself
-- they are the divine material, aligned with the environment
-- and the other is that which disrupts the harmony of the environment which would otherwise provide perfect existence for man
-- in fact, it's a shame to the state that the other who pollutes reality must be tolerated, but this demonstrates the wisdom and patience of the divine state
+To believe that you yourself and your forebearers cannot possibly have misused any land is akin to conceiving of oneself as belonging to a root race, in tune with the species being, and the land comes out of you. You are the land and the land is you, thus nay use of it under your time spent here is always subject to the dictates and arbitrary authority shared by you and the state. If all is well, you are regarded as a miracle, and your accomplishments grander beyond all comprehension, as a divine act.
 
-#### Queer Covid Spirit
-- Normal conditions are genocidal due to hegemony and ideology
-- Anything with bias affects marginalized most
-- Replacing perceived identity with face of collective liberation
-- Erasure of individual expression; replace with state-approved expression
-- Creating a new normal which recognizes the depravity of previous / former society
-- Enumerate all the modalities by which people are oppressed by a lack of socialism and posit them as identities
-  - Enumerate them as a means of targeting the existing order and make their very enumeration the evidence that the existing order is corrupt and worthy of destruction
+If things are not so perfect, however, and these flaws and deficiencies are the result of land and property, then you, as the divine being of this land, are the only part of the social structure who's not at fault and the only part that would be perfect if not for the existence of other non-conscious participants.
 
-##### Normal Conditions are Genocidal
-A very general common theme throughout all forms or framing of collectivism; conditions created by persons not members of the collective are the operators, actions and subjects who condition one another into spontaneously instantiate the process of their and the world's destruction, with those not contributing the initialization of such a process also being those who suffer the most painfully and immediately once such a process begins.
+#### Divine Land and Queer Spirit
+
+The land serves as a vital aspect of creation, as the ground of human creation, wherein glory of human life is sought through a balance which isn't to be corrupted through disrespect of territory otherwise imposed by blind capitalist exploitation. As the material conditions serve as the base from which man creates, and are also conditions that are created by man himself, the man works upon the conditions to create himself. If done in alignment with the environment, it becomes an expression of the divine.
+
+The settler, as discordant other, disrupts the harmony of the environment which would otherwise provide and lead to perfect existence. It's a shame to the state that the other who pollutes reality must be tolerated, but this demonstrates the wisdom and patience of the state.
+
+The conditions that have been made to be perceived as "normal" as per hegemonic forces and the ideologies which support them are genocidal. They lead to the practice of both cultural genocide and literal genocide as an eventual destruction of humanity itself. The oppressive bias from this process affects marginalized the most and imposes false identities which, through presupposing an individualistic primacy, must be replaced with collective liberation which promises those conditions where man is harmonious with creation and, in effect, would be creative.
+
+In all seriousness, the idea of sanitizing the use and allocation of land to bring about liberation would mean the erasure of individual expression and its replacement with state-approved expression. This would lead to the creation of a new normal which recognizes the depravity of previous societies. In order to achieve this, we must enumerate all the modalities by which people are represented as oppressed through a lack of socialism and posit these identities as liberatory and harmonious. By enumerating them, we target the existing order as the enumeration is itself the evidence that the existing order is corrupt and worthy of destruction.
+
+##### Normal is Genocidal
+
+A common theme throughout all forms of collectivism is that the conditions created by persons not members of the collective yield the operators, actions and subjects that inevitably and spontaneously instantiate their own and the world's destruction, with those not contributing to the initialization of such a process being those who suffer the most painfully and immediately once such a process begins, as the marginalized, oppressed and non-privileged.
+
+What do we mean by Operators, Actions and Subjects? The operators are the superstructure, in classical Marxist terms, who codify the specification by which to sustain themselves, as superficial authority, those who resemble them, and who share their values, or perpetuate the mythos which glorifies the structure and its followers.
+
+By actions, we mean the exclusion, unfair relations, force to assimilate, unequal use of the law, and unequal deleterious effects of the environment.
+
+By subject, we mean all the inhabitants, including those who have a false consciousness, and those who cannot harness their consciousness due to despair and cognitive dissonant in response to the worsening conditions.
 
 ##### Anything Negative Affects the Marginalized the Most
-The promise of the collective can only ever ultimately become the elimination of distinctions. If there were no distinctions yet still the existence of man, then no need for the collective would remain, which is equivalent to the collective being complete. Until such time, the name of the game always remains as mitigating the consequences of spacetime while having to transform resources utilized for such a purpose.
 
-In the context of queer, it is those whose conception of normal is in the sense of having traditionally (and still currently), been conducive to allowing the human species to exist. In choosing to embody what one conceives as being other to that, one simultaneously protests in suggesting precisely what must be transformed in order to make human existence tolerable.
+###### The Margins As Essential to Survival
 
-The "ability" or "utility" ? for arbitrary action whilst surviving in spite of that. Propagation of human sentence which can finally direct its focus without being beholden to any idea outside itself, including any constraints affecting survival.
+The promise of the collective must ultimately become the elimination of distinctions. This is the case because, as the subject perceiving reality and cognizing a difference between life within the collective and life without (as for those outside of the collective), for any matter relevant to the collective, the collective makes sense at the level that of making representations and solutions canonical. If there is a discrepancy, even from within the collective, the difference regarding that matter must be resolved and any individual no longer aligned to the resolution is, therefore, no longer someone who belongs as part of the collective. As long as both man exists, and the collective can be cognized, then all things not ignored must be mitigated against the consequences of human relations and spacetime itself.
 
-Sort of like the laser beam of God, which can finally direct itself such as to create the world as something evolving towards the greatest expression of existence. What could be better than that?
+In the context of queer, those who've aligned to and perpetuated a conception of normal have rigidly fixed a belief that what is both traditional and common is somehow necessary for the existence of the human species, but have done so in a manner which creates a scope of acceptance that is exclusive to them and excludes those who do not accord to their view. Paradoxically, the tradition of normality to potentiate existence is precisely that which, according to the Queer theorist, has limited, suppressed and negated the survival of those other to it. In intentionally choosing to embody what one conceives as being other to tradition and normalcy, one etches out a new form for humanity and simultaneously protests by suggesting, through having targeted by implication in having presented as the antithesis, precisely what must be transformed in order to make human existence tolerable.
 
-Any focus is always going to be mediated and directed (and interpreted) by those in the majority or occupying the positions of greatest influence. And, of course, influence is considered as being visibility along the lines of the intersectional formulations to have come out of critical theory. What makes someone have dangerous and ill-gotten or undeserved influence can be evaluated by the evaluation of their body (an === comparison), as well as that of their audience, and even if their language and rhetoric hit certain notes for interpretation.
+It goes beyond targeting the intolerable and demanding its negation, but also creates a demand for survival. The ability engaging in arbitrary action whilst surviving in spite of it necessitates an ascension in human capability to break the chains of the limits of survival and allow for an imagining of what can be without them. Propagation of human sentience which can finally direct its focus without being beholden to any idea outside itself, including any constraints affecting survival.
 
-This is based on history as a dimension of progress towards collectivist liberation, and not some natural sciences measurement laid out as temporal chronology. Those things which present the symbols not leading to completion will always be privileged.
+Sort of like the laser beam of God, which can finally direct itself such as to create the world as something evolving towards the greatest expression of existence. What could be better?
+
+The focused laser beam of God will be directed and mediated by those occupying intersectional positions to remove the false influence of those in line with the established society. The dangerous, ill-gotten influence can be known through evaluations of the body, as well as that of its audience, regardless of what notes are hit by their rhetoric.
+
+History as the dimension of progress towards collectivist liberation, and not some natural sciences measurement laid out as temporal chronology. Those who present symbols of that which doesn't pursue such a completion are privileged within the fallen state, as the consciousness of the oppressed would otherwise balk at any desire to maintain the status quo.
 
 ##### Replacing Perceived Identity with the Face of Collective Liberation
+
 I remember when I first started this book - both in a concrete sense, but also in the sense of the moments, sentiments, thoughts and cognitive dissonance which drove me to think more deeply about the factors motivating human perception, and it was precisely the notion of collectivist liberation and collectivist theology (that there was a perceptually mediated belief in collectivism which implicitly forms one's metaphysic).
 
 I knew back then that the target audience - the collectivists themselves - would scoff at the use of the word theology.