# Covidism

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.

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.

A very dear one to me, for what it's worth, as this was the first time we traversed past the line from demanding uniformity of expression and entered into uniformly providing physical access to the body. This was the first time where embodiment of the state rhetoric became a rule and where everyone could be categorized as an immediate threat. It's where one couldn't fully understand whether their participation was itself an expression of state rhetoric or an intelligent choice of actions based on their understanding of the environment.

For the first time, the state could dictate movement in ever house, the manner in which relations of family members are to be managed, and a means by which family members could use state rhetoric, narrative, and the threat of state enforcement mechanisms to pressure, castigate and judge the moral standing of other family members.

It gave anyone an opportunity to utterly betray their closest relatives while maintaining ample plausible deniability through the continuous publication and distribution of emergency announcements and warnings whose message always provided key declarations which can, in and of themselves, not be proven, thus it and in whatever contentious dialogue arises, we see the following:
- Those who make dialogue and question narrative identify themselves as beyond the pale.
- You could simply participate by restating what has been uttered by the state and reinforce the stated goals pertaining to the statements.

## Acting on Body is Acting on Mind

Relinquishing the sanctity and sovereignty of one's body is simultaneously acting on the belief that one should relinquish one's mind. If you can no longer make decisions and act in the best interests of your person, then perhaps you shouldn't be making decisions about anything.

The main issue is how so many men would necessarily come to behave as though their destiny is granted.

## Dialectics

The Covid era has been especially conducive to transforming people's confidence in their capacity to understand their environment and themselves. The messaging and nudges generate cognitive associations and linguistic triggers to serve as implements to manipulate opinion and behaviour through inducing and directing emotional responses. This was done in a way which placed people in a state of mystification whereby they weren't so curious to understand so much as they were wishing to be assured that they were participating correctly and being led to the correct endpoint.

Humans were paradoxically classified as both the most precious resource, and the primary threat. That is not simply that persons who are ill were the threat and the infirm were precious, no, it was that every single human is to be treated as the primary threat at all times, and this is an aspect which still continues to this day in the medical industry, in private institutions, and even among a not-insignificant portion of the general public.

For the medical and pharmaceutical industry, continuing the procedures borne of the Covid era provides opportunities to validate previous behaviours, rationalize demands, such as additional data collection and confirmation of compliance, and inducing a sense of caution and reverence among customers and patients. It allows for a higher implied status of moral standing to which other statements can be validated, such as the virtuous characteristics of he caregiver. For the more ideologically adept working in those environments, they can compel group behaviour and deem it as a form of praxis in the sense of continuing a historical process towards world change.

This gives institutions ample opportunity to validate both their and the state's mechanisms utilized to enforce a standards of authority and control, and given that the institutions depend and are affected by state funding and legislation, there is an incentive for the institutions to record data in a manner which reinforces the state's pronouncements. Institutions can rationalize extra demands by continuing to purvey the semblance of the threat and can, with the state, piggy back on one another's initiatives in order to enhance capacity to influence public perception while validating increased demands.

Furthermore, any broad threat can always be used to excuse poor circumstances, which come to be associated with the issue du jour as it provides an endless stream of evidence. Lastly, it provides a good excuse to claim there is a need to restructure the organization, which is useful for purging undesirable elements or claiming additional power. In many respects, the Covid period served as an opportunity to shift the explicit objectives of an institution towards equity, initially through decrying the projected disparate impacts of Covid itself, and then using the language of crisis to begin describing the normal state of affairs for humans per group identity.

Indeed, the issue, when championed and enforced through an authoritarian entity, becomes an extension of your own other favourite issue and then a mystifying argument is formulated to say they are the same issue, and that your model of it, which includes a new aspect that's been brought in through synthesis which accounts for your identified contradiction is a more intentional and appropriate means of addressing the issue.

This was visible very early on, as the summer of protest coincided with the first year of the Covid era, and both medical professionals and politicians were adopting language by Neo-Marxist activists for peer review journals normally reserved for medicine and biology. Some examples of this, over which we've seen an excess of communication over the past few years, might include the following:

### YT-CoV2

Whether a "syndemic" or "whiteness" as a factor in public health emergencies, the cult of covid blurred lines by using scientific language while focusing on weaponized sociopolitical issues such as antiracism.

There are many ways of making these connections, needing only need a framing of disparity to champion collectivism and consolidation of power to central authority. Interestingly, dialectics of health equity involving the concept of whiteness can be handled in many ways such as to induce reflexive agitation among the public.

White people are sometimes argued as being disadvantaged, by "conservatives" who don't know how to engage the discourse correctly, by claiming contradiction defying descriptions by Critical theorists. A common description involves juxtaposing against the "historically oppressed" moniker, leading to an implied need for "negation" of the problem variable. Critical theorists will even apply the term "disadvantaged" to white people by claiming that, in spite of the tools of whiteness concentrating power and wealth, those people who benefit are themselves a minority (like the 1%) who have leveraged whiteness and the ignorance and unconscious racism of white people, as well as the internalized racism of people of colour, to their advantage. This means that, even within the framework of Critical Race theory, white people can be both disadvantaged and the racist purveyors of hegemonic forces which drive oppression. This is a good example of argumentation built upon contradiction yet postured as reasonable. Nevertheless, it still sells the premise of the CRT mythos and Covidism just takes it a step further and embeds it in what is assumed to be hard science and medicine. If any don't agree with this "reasonable" analysis, they are simply suffering from false consciousness.

If you don't see the racism in medicine, it's likely you are biased from the benefits it gave you, as things could be much worse for you, and it is much worse for at least one who doesn't look like you. White and yt-adjacent benefit simply by not having to directly deal with the conflict.

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.

### Is a Marxism

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's core reasoning for man as Social Man and his explications of the means of effecting gnostic escape.

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, 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.

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

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 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 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.

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.

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

*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

The dialectic of human adaptation, particularly in the sense of immunological adaptation, but not strictly limited to just that. Our ability to adapt no longer functions, both at the level of immunological adaptation to infectious agents like a coronavirus, but also at a higher level in the way that our behaviour, as has been the case, is what lead to our current circumstance and the introduction of this specific infectious pathogen. On the topic of the virus itself, we cannot adapt to it as both undertaking the process of adaptation is too costly and a non-starter, but also in that our reaction as the adaptation to it is so deleterious and toxic from head to toe that the very act of adapting to it, in the way that we are meant to, is also synonymously our destruction. This has been expressed in different ways, often utilizing a good measure of ambiguity, such as whether the adaptation itself is insufficient, the adaptation is somehow incorrectly coordinated resulting in a permutation of immunological state which is somehow harmful, or simply that the condition of having to react as one is expected to react to the live virus in the wild is, though part of the adaptation, too strong of a stimulus.

Though there's infinite depth of consideration to wade through in order to consolidate all the weeds, details and semantics related to understanding immunological adaptation and all the factors that go into it, it's the very premise of taking the concept of human immunological adaptation and saying that it is itself something incorrect but also correct, because it serves as the means by which to understand how adaptation should occur. Extending from this, the dialectic goes deeper in proposing that any immunological solution which is being put forward by corporations in coordination with the state and its public health apparatus is somehow not to the exclusion of human adaptation, but is itself merely this human adaptation being understood, leveraged and conveniently (and safely) provided to persons who can choose to make use of it, should they desire. Somehow, the capacity for human adaptation is itself both insufficient and the precise thing which is being provided, both in a way which is different but also the same, depending on the context wherein it is being discussed.

In a sense, the state must seize the means of production of immunological adaptation so that it is done to yield the conditions which make existence for humans palatable, admissible and sufficient for flourishing. When rhetoric indicating this also utilizes argumentation on the basis of reified oppressed identities who will be affected asymmetrically by this strategy, then we can see that it is a dialectic demanding the seizing of the means of immunological production for the purpose of liberating the proletarian class, and that those who understand this innately do so because they are of a particular consciousness which is in line with the current historical moment in the development of our species.

The other aspect of having seized the means of immunological adaptation is that, in tandem with the completion of man, we'll finally bring about the conditions whereby man's body will finally do what it was meant to do, with the "ought" of what it is meant to do being that which is line with an existence that is free of oppression, which is consistent with Marx's ontology of Man.

These ideas came to be embodied in academics and medical professionals to the extent that many of them began to make the claim that even a single infection of one cell in a human body by a virus is something unhealthy and detrimental, as though there is some perfect state of net-zero viral infection, even on the order of single cells, whereby the reality of us being continuously exposed to pathogenic particles, which is a continuously extant phenomenon, is itself something unnatural and to be solved. This flies in the face of many complexities about the nature of biological life, ecology, evolution, and infers the need to delve into such questions as whether we might best live in a vacuum, rather than be exposed to environments with the hopes that any consequent adaptation might better prepare our systems for unknown threats in the future.

### Dialectic of Personal and 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 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] 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.

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:

Belief in the validity of pursuing 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, invoked through labels like "Far-Right fitness culture", "toxic masculinity", and capitalism.

Marxists seek to subject all ideology to critique, uncovering the internal contradictions in an ideology and exposing the social interests expressed by it."

As seen before, the collectivist worldview and that of those congruent to them simply utilize reason to make sense of the world, and those not agreeing to their observations, analyses, objectives and prescriptions are succumbing to Ideology.

#### No Health Except Communism

The concept of health transformed through Critical Praxis means a state of affairs void of oppression. The epitome of this health is state of equity wherein no social tension is produced, as indicated by racism as a public health emergency. This has a few consequences, one of which being that inclusivity, which is the championing of those whose bodies are superficially described by the collectivist mythologies, is the model by which an environment is evaluated for health. Since the theory produces a model which represents those it asserts as being assigned to its categories, the apparatus of Public Health has full capacity to enforce its ideal prescriptions for all humans.

Another consequence, as a corollary of the demotion of individual health, is the framing that those who champion improved fitness as actions and behaviours undertaken individually, is seen as the appearance of Fascist ideology. This was evident in the failure of public health officials to remind the public to improve their physical health, the further failure of public health officials to not acknowledge that fitness levels affect outcomes with any respiratory disease, and the prevalent association of the right wing with fitness culture, according to mainstream media, at relevant time points of the covid era, such as [this article].

### Dialectic of the Natural

Public health advocates largely wanted to have it both ways by saying natural immunity doesn't exist but immunization can occur precisely because of a capacity to naturally adapt immunologically. A "controlled" exposure to the precise stimulus yields a natural adaptation to attain the maximum benefit both for yourself and for your community. Those of a collectivist mindset ran for far too long with the notion that natural immunity could not be undertaken not simply on the basis that it wasn't preferable but by insisting that persons who experience a real infection would not confer immunity. This was due to a variety of proposed mechanisms, such as the ratio of non-specific antibodies after an infection, binding affinity, the rate at which the receptor binding domain of the spike protein could mutate, glycan shielding, conformational flexibility, the infection causing an inflammatory response with non-ideal proportions of particular inflammatory markers, inadequate germinal center formation, suppression of interferon signaling, and so on. It boggles the mind that this conclusion was reached by so many, without grappling with the reality that the vast majority clear the infection, and that long term immunity is not solely dependent on IgG antibodies.

Since quite some time, now, it's been obvious that people do, in fact, recover from infection and though many like to argue as to whether one form of immunological adaptation is superior to the other, most partially-sensible medical professionals and scientists have conceded that natural immunity is indeed a thing and actually quite robust. Nevertheless, we should still analyze a bit more this blurring of concepts which were thrown upon the entire world wherein they were gaslit into denying the notion that they could benefit from natural immunity while also being told that the design of the jabs and one's ability to respond to it were all based on one's capacity to enjoy natural immunity. In particular, this was expressed through claiming that there is nothing artificial about the jabs or one's reaction to them and that, in fact, they were much safer and more natural than previous vaccine designs, which included metal-based adjuvants and biological particulate.

Collectivist public health advocates also claimed that there was nothing natural about being infected by a virus, as though it weren't something that were technically occurring all the time, and which wasn't part an integral part of our ecological reality and the mechanism of evolution which has created and guided our development as a species on this planet. That somehow the adaptation we would incur by being exposed to something through the progression of barriers by which we are designed through evolution to deal with the biodiversity of the environment is something unnatural, but the presentation of antigen through mechanisms which would never have occurred in the natural world except as an effect of human industrial development was itself something more natural or less unnatural.

The effect of this has been to mystify people's expectations about safety under completely normal circumstances, such as when being outdoors with good air, good weather, and without a single ill person in their midst. In these normal situations where they might otherwise benefit from touching grass, enhancing vitality and whistling a tune, many were now tasting their mucus and saliva as they continuously rebreathe bodily fluids becoming aerosolized from the ever-moistening mask kept far too long on their faces, in circumstances beyond intended purpose, and in a manner which habituating maintenance of an anonymous representation of themselves to the public and to themselves. To look out into the world with the expectation that one cannot be easily identified while thinking that every possible location traversed is threatening to health and well-being is now somehow a natural way of being.

### The Dialectic of Togetherness

An especially treacherous synthesis the effect of which remains today. We had to be apart in order to be together; if we were apart when it was necessary we could come to be together on a higher level than before. In putting aside selfishness and taking the step to be apart, we transcend previous shortcomings which contribute to atomization of man and society and demonstrate capacity and willingness to achieve unity in a way which preserves and prolongs the lives of others. Instead of being separate and atomized, we come together and prioritize the health of all people as a whole.

Through a process of becoming physically separate but consciously aligned, we achieve new understanding and appreciation for how precious it is to be together while each contributing to transforming the conditions to make togetherness possible again. Not to mention, absence makes the heart grow fonder!

By being apart, we show that we care about each other's well-being and that we understand the historical process of achieving what is necessary for the benefit of one another.

The pandemic is a challenge for us as a species. Our ability to erect the hope of an improved form of togetherness rests on our ability to prove authenticity to ourselves and each other, which makes the great vision of humanity possible. In being separate, we are actually behaving, perceiving and feeling the essence of togetherness, as opposed to allowing us to return to selfish desires which keep us from connecting with one another.

In quelling our immediate wants and coming to understand that everyone's success, including our own, is potentiated through the greater collective, we set an example of empathy and embody it in our very actions, making us symbiotically compatible and resilient against the dangers of this world. What seems like a sacrifice as an individual is actually a blessing to each of us.

Conversely, seeing one another during high risk periods has the opposing effect. In choosing to risk one another's health through contact when it's not yet safe to do so, we ignore the risks of the situation and pretend to enjoy one another's company while fostering cognitive dissonance which disrupts the flow and precludes us from having the fulfilling interactions we truly need. Being together when it's harmful while being aware of the danger reinforces the practice of selfishness, isolates us and makes us unsympathetic to the real needs of our fellow humans.

After having gone through a great intellectual, physical, and even spiritual challenge, we'll transcend limitations that render us so dull, callous and prone to bringing catastrophe upon ourselves and overcome the atomization of our technologically-preoccupied lives.

#### Our History Coming Together

That we're not truly together unless we're apart can be understood in a number of ways. Ultimately, we must show our love for whomsoever we claim to care about by demonstrating true togetherness. This is a politically-mediated sensibility upheld by rhetoric assuming what's good for the public, society and humanity.

This also means that having preferred social bonds for inner nuclear family or closer friends and prioritizing them and our relations to them (at least, in any manner which can be construed as deleterious or detrimental to public health) is not expressing togetherness or that we truly care about anyone. We are simply upholding ideology, being reactionary, acting on our irrational fears, and being a puppet for interests who believe they can maintain their advantages in society by not falling in line with public health perspective and its prioritization of our collective well-being.

A historical event in the eyes of those doing Critical praxis, it's easily represented as historical to the non-initiated on the simple basis of it being preceded by events leading to it, and the view that the future is informed by it.

More specifically, however, our shared transformation through courage and desire is historically informed by the prescient at the cusp of change. Those things which denote the moments of change keep politically symbolic relevance and function as a feature in the structure of reality such that their content and determinative factors are accounted for in the resolving nature of historical progress. This is why so many supposed non-believers, academics or elites are compatible with the idea that something has to be eliminated or used as a superficial, aesthetic consolidation of social ritual. That is, they tolerate phenomena which are otherwise an unnecessary or destructive occurrence. There is no reason for angry youth to destroy cities and deface monuments of historical significance, with the targets sometimes ill-chosen. Elites and intellectuals find it nevertheless amusing and mostly harmless as baseline, and reframe it as necessary when their commitment to revolution becomes more explicit.

If they intuit imminentization without believing it constructible from mind as things presently are, then it is something to be released from a reordered structure. But, then, if the current structure doesn't permit that because of the addition of undesirable phenomena which pollute the structure as it currently exists, then a practice of purification has to take place, and this only makes sense as a process of destruction and replacement.

Then, in order for there to be evidence of historical progress, the aesthetic of the zeitgeist in current event bearing conflict is seen as a fundamental aspect of the progression of humanity, even if it interferes with previous principles. It becomes an essential principle superseding the principle with which it conflicts, and any resulting disruption of logic, presentation of hypocrisy, or failure to cohere at can be disregarded on the basis of proposing the conflict the incomplete procedure of intellectual refinement and that the very fact of supporting and executing negation of the problematic aspect is itself the intellectual refinement in action.

This is a low bar of entry for supposed intellectual achievement but any shame, dissatisfaction or vulnerability stumbled into as a consequence of it is supplanted by a sense of moral virtue one assumes through the sanitization and abolishment that follows.

It also goes without saying that a centrally acknowledged and socially supported process of sanitization is complicated to reject and doing so will necessarily incur the cost of grappling with the suggestion that one is rejecting morality, cleanliness, and higher intellectual expression. For these reasons, academics and political elite always err on the side of the political initiative at play and infrequently demonstrate skepticism in response to the new propositions.

### The Dialectic of Consent

This is probably one of the most egregious manipulations on all humans as it attempts to directly redefine the ethics and morality of what right one has to their own barriers of privacy and autonomy concerning their own body.

The very concept of consent and, as such, the sanctity and sovereignty of one's own personhood is put into disarray by supposing that the default state of reality is one to which one cannot consent. This is reminiscent of the thrownness referred to earlier.

One cannot consent to the unknown, which is nature as it currently stands. This is particularly so because it is not a correct nature, due to the tampering consequent to man's selfish needs. As such, nothing about the state of reality can be known until such time that science has completed its task, which is akin to a historical process completing the specification of man and world. We wait for man and nature which are, as Marx put it, one and the same but also in a configuration whereby man is not actually expressing his true nature until such time that the process, which is to say man's ontological journey through history, is complete.

You were given a choice to be a part of an appropriately-assigned, institutionally-supported effort intelligently formulating the specification for adaptation and as such you can consent to a smart, fully-explicated solution for the problem that not only you're faced with but that you modulate as a problem to others by your very actions. You were given consent through knowledge that you have the choice to receive what's guaranteed as the best option available suited to your and everyone else's needs.

Since the dialectic involves a default state of nature to which one cannot consent, and a process of composing the intentional solution with specificity, any hesitancy or dragging of feet is portrayed as the denying of other people's consent.

Not only that, but the state keeps the process of knowledge-construction and, by extension, consent, free of contamination by elements you are otherwise susceptible to such that you would otherwise no capacity for consent. In fact, the process of contaminating knowledge production is itself a phenomenon like a viral threat, demonstrating the multiple levels of complexity at which this issue is having to be dealt with. The whole ordeal of infectious disease is so complicated beyond even those areas of discourse that you are aware of that you would otherwise be overwhelmed with the complexity of it all. The state helps to fix the process of dialogue which otherwise eliminates opportunity for consent.

Of course, this is all hocus-pocus dialectical nonsense whereby your consent has been demolished through a specious and sophistic faculty of aufheben. Not only is your fundamental capacity for consent being overlooked, supplanted and destroyed, but the censorship, corrupt incentives and threats to professionals through totalizing entryism makes it so that even the information generated to be salient with the institutional narratives is itself corrupt and something which, when presented to you at face value, is impossible to reasonably give consent to.

#### Eco-Socialist Spin on Consent

Many of the previous generation who subscribed to a green "revolution" framed in Neo-Liberal formulation will see themselves as environmentalists and scientists built on a naive realism that extends from the lineage of naturalism. The Eco-Socialist must "undo" the mistakes of an overzealous industrial capitalism that rabidly pursues elite status through profit-motive. For them, their idea of a noble and pristine natural state of the environment is something which was corrupted by the selfish inclinations of their less green and less educated neighbours. As such, their understanding about the conditions which can be consented to is that, just as they explain any non-ideal weather as an extreme weather condition resulting from the fall of man, so too can the pathogens of the environment now be thought of similarly, including any and all common infection which runs the risk of inducing detrimental effects, even undetected or no worse than that of any common respiratory illness.

### Dialectic of Fascism

To remember what the Dialectic is, especially in modern times, it's worth looking again at that quote by our seminal Critical theorists, Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno:

If in our speculation the object in question is deemed to not adequately befit what it was believed to be, then it must transform through being placed against its opposite until the realization of their similarity redefines them.

In the sense of Fascism it is being redefined both by the state and activists actively engaged in pursuit of collectivism. This occurs through a proclamation of things as Fascism which are otherwise antithetical to it, such as freedom and liberty.

Note that Fascism is the concept put forward by Giovanni Gentile and Benito Mussolini, whose work "The Doctrine of Fascism" explicates what most already sense as being Fascism through the following:

Indeed, the acts and aspirations of individual humans towards freedom and liberty are truly antithetical to Fascism, but such acts have come to be labeled Fascism by statists and collectivists who are seeking to create a superstate through authoritarianism by promising to provide us with safety and medical treatments en route to a situation where viral infections simply do not occur.

All resistance to the state is now labeled as "Fascism", while actual Fascism is synthesized with the superficial portrayal of freedom and liberation in a contrived sense whereby it is deemed that the conditions for freedom will be made possible through submission to the state and relinquishing one's desire for individual liberty. Those who benefit from an empowered structure will label themselves as liberatory and congruent to equity, and those who criticize them for having facilitated the merger of private and public into an increasingly authoritarian state come to be labeled as Fascists. Fascism is now any resistance to the transformative progress of encroaching Totalitarianism.

The Freedom Convoy and those who advocated for freedom and liberty during the Covid era were denounced as being those who destroy freedom by inconveniencing through their protest and desire for dialogue. Their request for dialogue, both with the state which was never granted to them and with whomsoever wished to speak, dance, eat and play with them in their bouncy castles, was portrayed as an intransigent, patriarchal demand to uphold their supremacy. They were depicted through media as imposing their pestilence and unclean bodies which serve as vectors for disease and contamination, with state-supporting witnesses coming forward in formal deliberations to claim, without further evidence, that the truckers defecating on the streets.

A state who completely refused to communicate with protestors but instead stamped them out at gunpoint with the boots and hooves of its heavily armed and armoured security forces is the opposite of Fascism, while those who asked for nothing more than an authentic exchange of human thought were the epitome of Fascism for daring to desire anything beyond the rigid contraints of state-directed conformity. They were a horrible inconvenience and a stain on our otherwise pristine and beautiful nation state. An inconvenience that is completely the result of the vile conspiratorial villainy of these unwashed truckers, and was not in any way maximized by the government who intervened immediately as the truckers came into the city. Instead of allowing them to settle in various parts of the city that were not necessarily going to block traffic, such as along the canal or in Confederation Park, authorities forced them to amass themselves as a concentrated permutation along the busiest streets of downtown Ottawa. It seemed like a design to maximize the inconvenience to the city. Yes, these truckers, the very embodiment of Fascism, were given their just desserts by the helmets and batons of freedom, courtesy of our magnanimously empathetic and generously charitable government.

#### Freedom

##### Freedumb for the Freedumbers

No matter how evident it seems to be that humans have a natural disposition easily drawn to authoritarianism, I'm always get taken aback by fellow humans working to reduce liberty. How did we get to the point of people actively mocking fellow citizens who advocate on their behalf? Never on the basis of seeking truth, but through extinguishing a process of discovery in favour of structurally-imposed certainty.

##### Unfreedom

There's been ample narrative-supplied fodder for dialectical attacks on freedom through proclaiming that those who advocate for freedom are just destroying freedom by chasing selfish inclinations. But it goes a step further, in saying that they are the tip of the spear, so to speak.

Firstly, some of the more ridiculous points that have been repeatedly disseminated have said something like that the advocacy of the Freedom Convoy, and those who support them, is a demand to have constraints put on the public. This is elaborated to include banning vaccination, closing hospitals, dissolving a functional government, banning face masks, and banning medicine.

Next are claims that their actions are centered around disrupting social services, making routes unnavigable, and exhausting and breaking the supply chain. There is something to be said for the breaking of supply chains, but that wasn't in the sense of them destroying those chains themselves, but in going on strike because of the conditions that were being imposed on them through a central authority. This is classic worker advocacy and, given that all of their critics are generally in favour of unions, often to the point of romanticism, it's predictably perturbing to see that the socialists who love unions hate them when they advocate for liberty and personal choice.

Lastly, was endless rhetoric used putting out the idea that the truckers were captured and controlled by Russians, Russian intelligence, or any villainous country or organization that had managed to place their tendrils in the minds of these pitchfork-wielding degenerates who somehow learned to drive a truck without crashing. These are insane conspiracy theories, of course, because regardless of whether there are international interests wishing to disrupt the affairs of other societies, that is an evergreen problem which latches onto every opportunity for conflict, including this one. Regardless of whether this is a real problem, it's not being treated in a serious manner if it's supposed that only certain people are influenced and if it explains the motives for the participants while disregarding the possibility that some players may have honest and authentic inclinations which may not yet be properly understood.

##### Fear of Freedom

Freedom isn't an easy proposition, especially if you've never had to fight for it or been exposed to the clearly recognizable and palpable denial of your own freedom. The mind works through the set of sense apparatuses to obtain a viable field of vision and proposition for action. That is a process of simplifying complexity to make the body and environment actionable.  A situation where the body and the spirit are made to wade through the bizarre complexity of being and align the focal point with potential for action and modification or conformation to the shapes and levers of the world. To interface with it, if you will, and proceed in one's survival. If one doesn't have this capacity available to them, they become overwhelmed in complexity to the point of the grotesque and overbearing.

True freedom brings the threat of chaos, unfortunately, but based on the nature of man having freedom to act and choose and have a focal point that the person directs and focuses through, is a natural inclination. When freedom is sufficiently denied, you'll be hard pressed to find a human who does not react with great valiance and courage. It's just wired into us.

What is that? Because freedom is in service of truth. The possibility of truth to be sought and apprehended is the universal grounding thrust of human being, and is the only reasonable orienting factor for freedom. Freedom derives from this thrust, and is otherwise arbitrary pandemonium. That we acknowledge human freedom to pursue truth is essential to rational living.

Many fall into the simplicity of believing there is a prescribed protocol for all actions and environments and that, by adhering and conforming to an external authority, you and it come to be an extension of one another yielding certain assurances and benefits that might otherwise be missed out on. This external authority functions to take the place of what would also be symbolized as the Father Figure or a God, which is comforting and stabilizing, if only superficially in the immediate.

If you are particularly prone to negative emotion, then the urge to choose this option of operating becomes all the more natural, as deciphering and acting on your own behalf is distressing, especially when being told by all messaging apparatuses to panic and be on edge.

##### Exclusion: Punished for Freedom

The threat of exclusion rears its ugly head as the point of origin offering the self justification for violence and power. It's difficult for anyone to find the motivation to hold the entity most associated with the process of exclusion to account when doing so will only heighten that threat. That some acquiesce to such an entity more easily than others is hardly surprising and such a factor plays strongly in the magnitude of the threat. It's best to remain invisible, or even a coward, and assuming such a stance impels one to have hope and faith to be spared of any possible tyrannical effects.

One intuits and finds evidence through peers that other subjects of the shared social surroundings claim allegiance to the source of centralized power. If one seems to fall out of line with the currently represented code of that power, one runs the risk of being ridiculed and vilified. It even becomes complicated to learn other people's thoughts, especially once they seem to be incongruent to the social fabric extending from and surrounding that authority. The state has already told you what people believe and why. If, for instance, you were to agree with some of those forbidden views, you run the risk of incurring cognitive dissonance, complicating your life and that of your loved ones, and other people might even be willing to pretend to be of the appropriate sensibility expected of them, just to maintain social cohesion and their current momentum towards their goals and expectations. It's best to remain safe in one's bubble of conformity.

##### Real Freedom: The State

In music, and for particular example in jazz improvisation, it is said that you need some structure in order to liberate yourself. This might be something as simple as knowing the "shells" of the harmonic progression, which are generally the 3rd and 7th tone relative to the root in a harmonic progression, in order to carry the tonality. With the movement of these voices outlining how the music unfolds, there are no limits to what sorts of ideas one come up with as the mind, fingers and entire body dance to the heart's delight!

With guard rails from the state to help you move through the tempest of an angry planet, you can finally find your place to express yourself, choose an identity, perform a role and entertain yourself. Without that structure, you are let flailing about with no discernible direction. The structure gives you a path forward away from the crippling stupor of depression that one falls into when disabled in a sea of chaos.

##### Freedom to Choose

One of the loveliest parts of this dialectic has been to have those drawn into the cult assert that there's no such thing as force, violence or coercion except in the form of holding someone down and penetrating them with a needle. Anything up to that point is fair game and can be classified as the experience of having freedom; freedom from coercion, freedom of choice and freedom of autonomy.

Indeed, the very same people who assert that failure to enunciate sounds precisely as prescribed is a form of "literal violence" tantamount to partaking in "genocide" of an entire class of people are the same ones who will tell you that forcing you out of employment, subjecting you to the continuous barrage of the vertically stacked messaging apparatus of a corporatized state, every professional domain and every branch of pop culture entertainment claiming you deserve to be condemned, exiled, cast out of your family, denied medical treatment, access to goods and services, the freedom to leave your domicile, and that you deserve to suffocate an agonizing death for which no one should feel one iota of sympathy is not a form of force or coercion, but simply the experience of going through informed consent so you can make an easy decision about your life and personhood with a clear mind.

Bodily autonomy-advocates witnessed the fallback of plausibly denying state-sanctioned coercion as there was no law to forcibly inject anyone. Even forgetting the phase of forcing people to show proof of vaccination before they enter into certain public areas or businesses, there were jurisdictions which, for a time, enforced lockdowns on only the portion of their citizenry that was unvaccinated, such as Austria. Another claim to fame for Austria, painfully in-line with its pedigree of treating different classes of people as human or sub-human, was the decision to impose fines on people who refuse to take the vaccine. In some places, such as Greece, this was done for elderly persons who had not been injected, even taking it out of their pensions, while Austria attempted to do this with everyone as a whole with fines of up to €3,600.

Such policies would be referred to as progressive and enlightened by public health advocates, politicians, and other subsets of Totalitarian fear-mongering cult initiates who would repeatedly claim that vaccines are the only way to "end the pandemic". Many to this day likely claim there was never any cessation an ongoing pandemic which continues to torment us. Politicians who make inflammatory statements are given a generous platform, void of substantive criticism, such as Canadian Member of Parliament Jean-Yves Duclos, who served as the Federal Health Minister until mid 2023, who said that the "provinces could make vaccination mandatory". Indeed, "you're so lucky we aren't directly pointing the barrel of a gun to the head of your loved ones, forcibly restraining you, and using an 18 gauge needle to make sure you feel the thrill of saving the lives of your countrymen. We are so nice to you!".

Honestly, could you imagine those who claimed there was no coercion not approving of a state-sanctioned campaign to utilize greater degrees of force, including fines and imprisonment, in order to get to each and every vac-refusenik? Shy of a few exceptions, the vast majority would unquestionably approve any proposition to escalate force to conform, as it would require no change on their part and serve to signal their good sense to all.

It's feasible to rationalize every step of encroachment on other people's lives by predicating an argument on unwritten and unspoken social contracts, especially for those who already conflate failure to use language as genocide, invent terms like cultural genocide to equivocate with enslavement, death and murder, and claim every human being has the right to every conceivable necessity and desire. But when faced with a non-conformist, they express nothing but a wall of disdain and disgust, wishing for no single potentiation of survival to be extended to the "other".

Most are not farmers and do not have the means to produce food. Mandating the administration of medical treatments under just the threat of lost employment threatens one's very survival, the erosion of health and that of their loved ones, the prospect of starvation, loss of productivity, and inhibiting their children's development. Imposing loss of access to resources and the facilities of society creates a class system and imposes actual hierarchical force along a social structure which is in line with the projections of an oppressive world to which collectivist activists constantly proclaim. It's clear the policies intended to quell "vaccine hesitancy" are encouraging loss of health, vitality, years lived and death in those who do not agree with whatever is demanded of them, and to think that this isn't a form of dehumanizing coercion would be strikingly conducive to a totalitarian future.

#### Conformity as Resistance

This dialectical juxtaposition is instrumental in the overall progress of transforming society into a totalitarian state, something which I argue is the natural consequence of systems maintaining themselves across time as they grow in size and function to interpret and affect its own behaviour. This is different than claiming it a consciously chosen tool by those in a favourable position to attempt societal-level change which, though likely occurring, doesn't preclude from the notion that large-scale social changes that we experience are mostly affected by complex systems phenomena for which we can't truly know the impact our and our fellow brethren's actions have on society as a whole.

Any aspect functioning to reduce entropy and maintain behaviour, even temporarily, means reduced insubordination and non-conformity, thus inducing a more totalizing pattern of behaviour upon the entities within scope of the system should come to be expected, if even only naively. Indeed, as we've seen, the words resist and resistance have become co-operated, manipulated and resynthesized to mean their complete opposite as those who advocate for collectivism and embed themselves in state activities in order to guide discourse and policy towards their desired ends. We've seen those who are most conformist and likely to identify non-conformists as an "enemy of the people". They claim that to resist and the act of resisting is to become aligned with their movement for greater state censorship and enforcement of social norms, economic constraints and ever-increasing regulation which fundamentally infringes on liberty and freedom. For them, the enemy is freedom itself and people's desire for it, thus they see actual resistance as "ideology" which they equate to fascism and the far-right - terms understood in populist movements as representing a desire for freedom, such as the now fraught term capitalism.

What began as a Marxist critique of the working class not expressing the repressed revolutionary energy concentrated and embedded deep in society has gradually escalated in the hyperbole of its representation while the source of that critique has itself positioned itself at every opportunity at the most centrally-located points of society possible such that the messages generated from what is classically understood as the most dominant, authoritarian structures now describe the least powerful entities as the fiercely privileged champions of fascism for simply not using their voice to demand increased centralization of power, and especially so if demonstrating willingness to resist that concentration of power.

#### Linguistically Supplanted

What we see in the (ab)use of language, is that concepts of freedom have now been resynthesized to capture all terms associated with freedom and liberty as liberation through an unrelenting totalitarian structure. That is to say, those who are posited as benefiting from the empowerment of central authority will label themselves as liberatory and equitable, and these concepts are put forward to indicate that they provide a path for creating a freedom which otherwise can not yet exist except as the pursuit of formulating the future freedom promised by the God entity which, in this case, is the Hegelian State. Those who criticize the reformulated concepts of freedom, and the authority of state as a whole, are understood as products of Fascism. This includes any resistance to the merging of private and public, the nationalizing of any implements of the social environment, and the bringing of all articulation of society within the control of the state.

### Dialectic of Victimhood

Seen throughout the Covid-era was the assertion that those who are hesitant to accept or promote the vaccines, offered resistance to wearing a mask and social distancing, or those who didn't agree with vaccine mandates, travel restrictions and curfews, were simply those who were promoting a victimhood ideology built upon a foundation of paranoia and privilege. You see, these ideologues who dragged their feet against progress which would otherwise have led us out of a pandemic were suffering from false consciousness, partly due to their subversion by coordinated actors who wished to control them, like Russia, and partly due to their habit of trying to avoid changing, even for the better, as they already have it better than most.

As they mostly assume a general oppressor role as a member of society, their demand for free choice while crying about being a victim is actually an ideological tool, manifesting even at the opportunity of leveraging something is truly of benefit for them.

In contrast to these self-proclaimed victims, who are a cesspool of disease and ill health, are the real victims who happen to position themselves with the central authority. Those who align with central authority and are trying to complete the system of pristine life with virtually no ill health, poverty, and racism are being held back by those who won't conform or play-along and who are not willing to be resilient or to sacrifice some of their wants and desires which direct them poorly and away from the greater good. Acting in what they believe is in their own interest, rather than that which includes others through methods which actually would be of benefit. Instead, they are paranoid that everyone is out to get them, and their resistance proves their paranoia and belief in delusion.

Why do they do this? Most fundamentally, they view anything which might benefit others as something to their own detriment because it can harm their relative status. A reduction in their comparative advantage over the marginalized.

Imagine thinking you are a victim while aligning yourself with the authorities and doing everything they demand of you, including singling out and flinging feces of vitriol upon any who don't fall in line, joking about their death, proclaiming them as less human, and comparing them to the least desirable people to ever walk the earth, the Nazis, whom most wouldn't even consider as being worthy of life, (particularly for anyone who grown up in the west and been subjected to western entertainment). You, who demands death of those lesser than you, believes themselves congruent with the most powerful sources of authority, and who is enjoying, in their own opinion, all the most advanced offerings that civilization, science and technology have to offer. In spite of it all, you still believe you've especially been taken advantage of, made vulnerable and made to be exposed to the unwanted aspects of life.

### Dialectic of Family

It's in our nature to wish to be able to fall back on the assurance that there is a source of familial loyalty in their lives whereby oneself and one's family members would be willing to take on what might be an increase of risk, even in the form of modest exclusion or reduction of salience to the surrounding social sphere, in order to maintain proximity and compatibility with family. This is especially true concerning the nuclear family. This is because, whatever our disagreements and problems, there will always remain the greatest potential for empathy, understanding, patience and intuitive symbioticism for one's family members, if even simply out of a respectful regard to the contributions of one's shared genetic antecedents. The symbioticism in particular, might be seen as well-wishing and social support for one's success as an organism surviving a broad environment, but it also includes such things as developmental influence as aligned and similar genetics, learning, nurturing and, furthermore, immunological maturation. This, of course, is a great oversimplification, as it goes without saying that familial interaction, for better or worse, establishes the base of physical, cognitive and social development in all humans, save some feral children, and that though there are risks and benefits in any social environment, one's lowest level scope of familial structure is the environment bearing the greatest impact on a child's development.

Though it barely needs to be stated, as there is ample evidence of this and it shouldn't even be controversial to state the proportionally more significant influence of family, as such, we can easily reference works that are commonly known, even outside of academic circles, such as Attachment Theory, Ecological Systems Theory and the better-known Hierarchy of Needs, which all reinforce these assumptions.

Familial support begins with interaction between mother and child which, we can touch upon contextually by indicating it as part of the fundamental basis of immunological development. It is necessarily the case that the mother is exposed to, and has been exposed to, a wider and more dynamic range of biological phenomena informing her immunological capacities, and that this extends to opportunities for both exposure and adaptation of her offspring by virtue of her child-rearing activities. Though we may focus, in discussing the prospect of a mother providing mature and differentiated antibodies to her child through mother's milk, it should be noted that a baby's immunological capabilities come most extensively from their innate immune system, such as that provided by T-cells. They differentiate as both CD8+ (helper) and CD4+ (killer) cells through many forms of exposure which includes discarded nucleoside sequences and DNA fragments present in exosomes delivered via skin, sweat, exhalation, breast milk, urine and feces. This is a rich form of exposure to real phenomena in the shared environment and it allows adaptation to occur precisely in the manner sought by the administration of vaccines.

Surely people either learn this or come to have some intuition about it on the basis of learning that breast milk provides antibodies, which is more widely communicated across the popular landscape than most other health factoids for reasons which may include incentives arising from the expectation that pregnant women will produce antibodies in response to a commercially available immune-inducing agents.

What explains this drive to prevent a child's robust development and the imposing of a supreme concern of evading the particles of this one classification seems that it can be chalked up to public health messaging, but I don't think that really begins to explain it.

The offering up of one's child to the administration of new innovations and subjecting them to social conditioning that necessarily isolates them (be it psychologically, physically, or in the relative strength of their familial bonds) is many things, including the conformation to social expectations, but we should also consider as a rite of passage in that your child must undergo initiation to be accepted into the next stage or evolution of society. Perhaps more controversial, though, is that to pursue the administration of substances to one's child which are beyond one's comprehension also intrinsically symbolizes a form of sacrifice. There is something to be understood in the sense that people felt some impetus to allow certain harm to be incurred, even only as a modest and perhaps even insignificant risk of harm that was interpreted as being low enough to be reasonable, but simultaneously being one which can be catastrophic, as immune-related issues can sometimes become. To accept, choose or promote the administration of a substance which is beyond one's understanding also proves a world-view both to one's child and one's social milieu, and possible leads to some comfort that the state will understand you as having honoured its bidding which, as undertaken in the Covid era, indicates acceptance of a more restricted future. This comfort necessarily makes you more dependent on the state.

#### Beyond the Child

Public Health agencies, services and departments, like Public Health Ottawa, encouraged citizens to snitch on one another by providing them instructions to report when someone can be observed violating public health orders, such as insufficient social distancing, failure to wear a mask, failure to stay out of public parks, failure to close a non-essential business, failure to enforce proof of vaccination, and so on. The effect of living under these policies and related incidents is complex, meaningful and impossible to ever truly understand, but we can speculate on what the effect of living under these policies does to family relations.

Modest disagreement or even the prospect of utilizing an open discussion among family members to better understand their circumstances are complicated by the fact of said members being aware of the potential to snitch on their fellow neighbours and, indeed, even their fellow family members should believe someone having failed to adhere to the policy ordered by public health mandates. This might simply be that there is already some unwillingness to discuss matters to an appreciable degree of detail and that the threat of enforcement by authorities is itself something to be referred to as the evidence of what is true. This is damaging for discussions which aren't themselves a violation of any set of public health orders, regardless of the legitimacy of public health orders as a whole, and it's likely that there is certainly an incentive to the state authority and its public health agencies to eliminate discussions among the citizenry which might lead to the doubting and challenging of state decrees, state determinations, and so forth.

The dance of the mask alone could serve to source a thousand books without yet fully elucidating the subject in its entirety. The manner in which its use can defy the stated logic of its operator concerning the details of its application, the declared rationale, and all of the particular motivations, egotistical paralogy, semantics of mythology and more can be validated or rejected through the evidence of one's having chosen to wear the mask. It is indeed a toxic affair made all the more complicated through the state suggesting or even ordering that it is to be adorned in even the private domiciles of the citizens.

It is not conclusively knowable whether there is a greater positive effect on health through familial integration and open communication versus simple imposition of state-enforced public health decrees, but it would stand to reason that one has been foundational in our evolution and development as a species, and that there is ample research indicating the health of one's familial bonds does indeed have an impact on one's health.

Allowing for the means to moralize and make declarations about the shape and limit of another's ethics, intelligence and knowledge to be predicated on authoritative positions which aren't intended for deliberation, particularly because the state has declared that a great threat to humanity, the vulnerable, and survival means that members of a family can now eliminate the work of making reasonable determinations t those closest to them. Having such a forceful fallback available in the face of declining quality of open communication between family members can accelerate the rate of that decline.

Whenever examining stories of Totalitarianism, whether fictitious as found in 1984, in the real-life retelling of events by escapees of North Korea, or the scholars having dug into documented events from Soviet Russia and Communist China, one phenomenon demonstrating the absolutely devastating degree by which cult mentality has taken over the mind of those aligned with the state is that of family betrayal. Perhaps most disconcerting is the degree to which these may insidiously occur as incremental developments. That is, it's not a conscious betrayal but a slow adoption of state-approved beliefs of which one is continuously prompted to signal alignment through professional and recreational environments, and that this supplants familial loyalty as the first order set of socially-relevant principles by which one is expected to be well-versed.

Though this is always playing out to varying degrees, the manner is unsurprisingly predictable.

##### Familial Negation

The primary mode of imposition is the tension brought about through the denial of one's beliefs which isn't necessarily on the basis of refuting the logical content of any said belief, but through making the rationale of any non-approved belief inadmissible. The family member initiated into the state-congruent collectivist *philosophy* need not articulate or champion any particular belief beyond the belief of aligning with central authority, even to the exclusion of the family.

I hesitate to call state-approved sets of "thought" actual philosophies, of which they rarely are - especially when disseminated by the state, as they are not systems of thought in and of themselves, but tools by which the state can declare its own plausible deniability as to whether it is ignorant of the predicates and implications bound to its own commands.

###### State Enforcement

A lot of what takes place after dismissing one's attempts to proclaim their beliefs or present their rationale for those beliefs is an enumeration of properly palatable options which serve as an affordance trap, which is the provisioning of options to give the illusion of openness and choice when in fact the range of selection only serves as a means of limiting or rendering one incapable of discovering other more legitimate choices. These state approved options are presented before the articulation of one's thoughts can take place in order to prevent thoughts from being fully formed and digested. If the articulation does take place, however, it is to be disregarded and is often met with the discontinuation of the interaction which is often prompted by the declaration of a wound having been identified and collected by the initiated member. Thought termination is necessary in order to proclaim the acceptable beliefs which must be absorbed wholesale without deconstruction, disambiguation or critique. This process must always take place to satisfy the initiate's baseline conditions for acceptable family bonding.

The result of this practice is atomization which, though already occurring broadly in society at large, is now also occurring in real time in the environments that are otherwise most resistant to it.

###### Delegation of Reason

With the pre-approved resources of polite society guaranteeing vetted, non-controversial argumentation of heavy, morally-implicated weight on matters of strong disagreement, the state-enforcer no longer has to undertake the task of articulating themselves in real time. The authoritative aspect of the source provides endless means of making assertions while maintaining plausible deniability in the face of pesky, conflicting semantics.

In the case of the covid-era, this means that one's previous conduct which may previously have been considered to be threatening as per the rhetoric, even of that time, surrounding the particulars of the "threat" can be dismissed out of hand, especially when contradicted by new information, simply on the basis that recommendations have changed and the source of those recommendations is being respected. With agreement in place, any nuanced understanding is a sort of intellectual luxury extending from having already proclaimed agreement.

###### Supplanted

As the basis for the denial of counter-rationale is indicated through proposing that available domains of knowledge are made as such through identity, the consequent proposition is that there are now a set of pre-approved identities which serve as the foundation of persons with non-harmful utterances and that, if these are not fulfilled in the environment of an enclave of members of shared heredity (normal family), they will be supplanted from the perspective of the initiates with persons presenting identities from other domains. In all cases you will find that those who are of the mind to have accepted the initiate language and external loyalty to entities outside the family will increasingly value other sources of communion and socialization from which they mediate the threat of atomization and exclusion. Such sources include profession, other friendships and, in many cases, celebrities. You will find, almost faithfully, that these initiates are heavily interested in pop culture and will attend many popular events as a source of ritual for psychological and spiritual fulfillment.

## Drive Towards Infection-Free Environments

One of the consequences of the priming of fear towards the threat of infection, both prior to Covid with Hollywood films like "Contagion", and then through the early phases of the Covid-era, was the emergence of rhetoric which presupposed that any amount of infection by any pathogen at all was something that we should strive to eliminate as a species. That this particular pathogen was harbouring such an inexplicable degree of harm that it's time to consider that humans should evolve to eradicate the threat of even incidental, nominal and miniscule occurrences of infection which aren't accompanied with obvious and acute symptoms.

Though there were voices describing the phenomenon of viral infection in precisely this way, including ones from academia, the movement of "zero-Covid", though likely buttressed and portrayed as larger than it may have been by social media campaigns, public health advocacy and private interest groups, grew to sizeable proportions and was, in effect, the logical conclusion of rhetoric which had been composed to maximize fear and interest in unquestionable uptake of the primary treatment sought by state governments across the globe (the one which starts with "V"). It didn't really make sense to think about the threat of coronaviruses, or any virus, in any manner except one with an eventual goal of making infection impossible. This was because the unchanging goal of the Covid-era was always the neutralizing of infection. Vaccination was always described as yielding humans as being the final endpoint for the coronavirus as it wouldn't be able to transmit from them onwards, which stayed in line with the original public health enforcements whose rationale always centered on the fact of there being vulnerable for whom a risk of infection was unacceptable; all of the demands for force and coercion centered on the premise that the only manner in which a safe environment could be achieved for the vulnerable was to ensure that every individual in that environment had received "full immunization". Additionally, the rhetoric of fear maintained its intensity regardless of changes to the relative profile found in sequenced viral specimens in various regions as time went on (which took on names such as Omicron, for example). If the conversation surrounding the evolution of viruses has been made such to exclude the concept of its diminishing virulence across time, then it stands to reason that all viral infection should be avoided and, if possible, neutralized from taking place using whatever technological means are available to mankind.

The drive towards the idea of a society completely free of infection might include, at some level, positive characteristics about human beings. But, when seeking an absolute outcome which is not only outside the reasonable conception of reality, but also an outcome which cannot be reliable ascertained as a positive or net-good for our species and which is, more likely, a net-negative and possibly even catastrophic outcome, we can begin to hypothesize how best to frame these motivations.

I would suggest that the motivations themselves are echoing some of our darker proclivities and that these have already manifested in some of the more extreme outcomes of our recorded history.

### Survival Instincts

To be fair, most got in touch with survival instincts early on in the Covid-era, if even just around the time of the official announcement when the fearful discourse was fresh and unfamiliar. This gives a good base for empathy to work from, but the fact remains that many who did fear for their lives and health early on overcame that fear and were in many cases putting themselves in situations that they believed to be of elevated risk if even just for the principle of how their behaviour would contribute to the potential of an increasingly totalitarian society. For example, many who believed that the threat was elevated, or who were at least affected by the continuous messaging from all angles and sources, whether authoritative, entertainment, workplace or one's own personal friends such that it gets in your head to keep thinking about the possibility that you are within spitting distance of the most uncomfortable week of your life, and even death, would still refuse to wear a mask or avoid seeing certain people face-to-face, simply to push back on the process of conformity which was unfolding all around us.

It's also worth mentioning that some of the most ardent cult covidists view harm to themselves as evidence of their correct worldview and corresponding world mission. When one considers the overlap between, as an example, persons who sacrifice their health and body for Queer praxis and Covidism, it becomes clear that survival instinct isn't the appropriate framing. Note that this is not synonymous with fear of death which, though seeming to be something that one is avoiding through survival, acts is discretely cognized as a motivator for such things which ruin survivability and lifespan. So survival instinct, while playing an aspect, is not a sufficient rationale on its own, especially not in the case of rationalizing one's drive towards desiring an infection-free society.

### Contamination

Now we're getting somewhere, because the fear of contamination and heightened disgust sensitivity was palpable among those who were most ardent in their insistence that measures be followed and that a perfect endpoint was hopefully around the corner. What was most notable was an unquestionable desire to follow authority and even take up the opportunity to report and snitch on strangers, friends, colleagues, and even family members. It was even explicitly encouraged, whether through public health notices, 311 listings, or statements from politicians and public health officers. Given the atomization that our society has witnessed over the past few years, it's not far-fetched to recognize how quickly society can change and engage in such practices.

In fact, the threat of infection can override people's self-narrative about what standards they consider acceptable for society not just during the moment of extraordinary circumstance but in general, leading to advocating dehumanization, exclusion of those who believe, behave or appear differently, and the erecting of authoritarian policies which would be difficul to overturn, and which leave a bitter precedent for authoritarians to draw at a future opportunity.

We saw this first hand with inflammatory language describing the unvaccinated, vaccine-hesitant, and unmasked as unclean vectors of disease, unevolved and deeply immoral subhumans. The comparison to vermin was reminiscent of Nazi-era rhetoric where such comparisons were a central feature of public messaging.

Some social psychologists observed what they believed to be a paradox in that those who declare themselves as aligned with a right-leaning political party seemed to be less concerned about the threat of infection, which called into question the presumption that disgust sensitivity is a rigorously understood thrust of human behaviour and that either it did not yield the magnitude of effect previously thought, or it was being overridden by other factors which inform right-leaning preferences.

I contend that this is another indication that what is traditionally understood as a left-right political dimension is actually only axiomatically coherent with a clear and universal conceptual framework of entropy tolerance, which can be reframed in political terms as order vs chaos, or liberty vs authority, and that our association of current political parties is based on cultural ascriptions rather than whether they truly adhere to a concept of comparing openness for information and exploration against a need for order, authority and the assurance that one can inhabit a central locale within the social environment. That is to say, persons with conservative personality characteristics have come to associate themselves with superficially left-leaning politics because the promise authoritarian governance.

#### Moral Purity

Along with the obsession of contamination and the categorizing of people as being members of the disease ridden and unclean was a sense of moral purity which was both intrinsically bound to this phenomenon and prevalent in the language used by public officials.

From the rhetoric that was being disseminated and the response by those who seemed to acknowledge its rationale and abide by it on a seemingly religious basis, it was clear that the decrees would be adopted and followed regardless of the level of threat, just so long as the central authority was broadcasting the demand. What's clear is that, when taken to their logical conclusions, the rationales being disseminated were ones for which, regardless of the efficacy of the measures prescribed, the conditions always serve as a sufficient predicate because they seem to serve a higher purpose.

That is to say, if there is always a portion of the population which is too vulnerable to adapt to the ever-differentiating threats of the environment, and if erecting barriers between us and making use of implements to supposedly prevent infection while also preventing us from transmitting to others, then it stands to reason that it's always a good idea to apply measures, particularly when there is no private health without public health; that is to say, there is no way of guaranteeing the best possible conditions from which your personal health can be influenced except through a public health apparatus which is functioning such as to affect those conditions in the first place. Even if its guarantee is not attained, it stands as the promise of its pursuit.

These modes of thought completely abstain from considering other factors of resilience that are developed in a social environment. For example, the fact of healthy persons developing the means of acting as sinks for pathogens while distributing safer fragments as signals about the threats to which we may all be subjected, or the fact of how isolation, reduced activity and reduced exposure reduce general vitality. This tells you not only about the degree to which many may be unaware of the issue's complexity, but also that the phenomenon of people adopting societally-enforced measures on the basis of collective safety who might actually be aware of some of these complexities would necessarily be biased by the belief in an immediate risk to themselves, and that the degree to which the frail and infirm might be made yet more fragile under the circumstance of increased isolation, and the degree to which families relying on "non-essential businesses" are impacted negatively imposing a non-null effect on health and well-being, tells us that these motivations of survivability towards an aesthetic of cleanliness and moral purity are motivations of individuals wishing for an improved level in terms of the risk of disease that they themselves are being subjected to. This motivation could continue regardless of an ill effect developing long term for society as a whole just so long as one maintains a belief that their immediate threat is being reduced or that the enforcement mechanisms are from the central entity to which they maintain alignment.

Furthermore, as the mind becomes more preoccupied with the threat of infection, there is a greater desire for control and order versus freedom and chaos, which coincides with what we said earlier about the effect of a risk of infection on predisposition towards "far-right" beliefs and preferences, though better-stated as authoritarian or totalitarian systems.

### Control

Whenever there is a lever by which authoritarian implements can be wielded to compel, coerce or manipulate people, those with a disposition towards power and control will not be able to resist wielding it. During the Covid-era, this means that those who gravitate towards taking up positions which play a role in the administration or oversight of power as per the need for new safety measures are likely to find their moment to do as such.

We saw it in immersive, overbearing and exorbitant abundance during the Covid-era as so many in leadership roles spoke in such inflexible terms and unwavering demeanour about the new standards with clearly deducible implications for human freedom and liberty. They did this for such a long portion of the Covid-era, with many more continuing to this day, without even so much as a tentative comment revealing the tiniest bit of concern about the long term consequences on human freedom. This is in no small part related to the phenomenon of persons seeking political power with a collectivist conception of an assumed social contract whose understanding of freedom and liberty is predicated on a collective trajectory towards improving the conditions of the world as they perceive them. Such a prospect of traversal serves as the precondition from which any notion of freedom can be considered.

When the very notion of freedom changes from something universally applicable as a default modality of human life, if even as something to be valued in theory, to that which extends from the fulfillment of objectives as indicated by someone who necessarily perceives their social surroundings as one in which the powers of state enforcement extend through them, a transition of society towards something more tyrannical should follow. Adding the element of the threat of disease, even just in the rhetoric, accelerates this transition.

#### Inducing Pathology

We've given everyone ample opportunity affect control of their peer groups, workplaces, communities, organizations, friends, partners, families and essentially any environment wherein they may have a disagreement, as this topic became embedded in every moment and aspect of everyone's lives. This was enhanced through use of conventional propaganda, social media and interdisciplinary-focused academia already inebriated with Social Justice.

With a mission predicated on the greater good and alleging it to function such as to quell the risk of destroying all things and ourselves, and elaborated to interface with every enumerable social issue, one has sufficient rationale to compel collective action for their desired issue by declaring support from authorities by alignment on higher level objective. One can maintain a low resolution scope of discourse while referring to authority, insist their view is scientific, and insist that all with a contrary position are anti-science.

Yet worse is the easy of finding validation through toxic community to support them at a time when people are most divided and isolated, both figuratively and literally. Everyone is a bit more on edge and ready to embrace these opportunities if they have the necessary proclivities. This worsens pathological tendencies the worst outbursts of which aren't subject to the same public criticism as before. People are isolated for longer, crazier for longer, and more tolerant of a lower expectation for human freedom, liberty and open aired reasoning or open air anything as it were.

This reinforcing of dubious behaviour combined with the state providing cover for one's linguistic manipulations on concepts like freedom and liberty, which are now contingent on the achieving of these other goals of sanitation and conformity, means that we are initiating, rewarding, habituating and exacerbating pathologies.

### Perfectionism

It's easier to avoid contemplating whether there is risk involved for their children, particularly if it's being recommended, advocated and demanded that you administer it to your child. It's easy to delegate the difficult question of evaluating the plausible ramifications when you can consider that, as all children are being made to participate and be subjected to something, then surely that increases the likelihood that it must be safe. And even if it were not safe, it would be a sacrifice that all would be committing to together, contributing to our shared strength and knowledge, and thus we have good reason to feel encouraged as we are en route to a perfection which, if ever attained, would likely be something developed, supported and maintained by the state.

## Historically-Oppressed Virus

### Vacation

Back in 2022, after having been locked down for longer than one could remember, and having gone through a period of undulating, tyrannical policies including vaccine passports, masking, destruction of businesses and the economy, curfews, and restrictions on travel including movement between cities and provinces, we were finally ready to take a vacation. Perhaps a year earlier, we had even considered that should we ever find ourselves able to take a vacation from Canada and, given that the recent actions of the Canadian government were met with a combination of glee, manic enthusiasm, apathy and hopeless withdrawal by the Canadian citizenry, it may possibly be the last vacation we are able to legally take. At this time, however, it was Christmas of 2022, and the echoing effects of the Canadian Freedom Convoy had made us more hopeful about the possibility of changing the tone and culture of the west to make the steady march towards totalitarianism less feasible, at least for the immediate future.

We made our way to the Dominican Republic, with our child, and without having to be struggled over proof of vaccination at the Canadian airport, and were finally able to enjoy some family time in the sun. It was wonderful for health, vitality, and to prime ourselves for a more inspiring future outlook.

As usual, I found the resort gym on the day we arrived, as I quite like training in new gyms, enjoying better recovery and having a level of activity to help mitigate some of the delicious alimentary endeavours the resort might offer.

At the gym, I saw another similarly-aged man training with a respectable degree of effort, and we pleasantly introduced ourselves. He was professor of oncology at a university in the US and we had plenty of health and medicine related topics to discuss while attempting to maintain the pace of our workouts. I was quite impressed with how open minded he was about cancer research and the degree to which metabolism may play a role in certain cancers, and we delved into other related subjects, in close proximity to one another as we aerosolized our bodily fluids, came into contact with the same surfaces of the same equipment, and introduced one another's immune system to artifacts of the other's recent environments.

Before long, however, he began lamenting on the crazy right wing nutcases in America, likely assuming I too despise the non-academic, non-intellectual and  non-professional classes, and their support of Donald Trump who, as a political figure that was not adequately championing the cause of addressing climate change (per the professor's perspective), had played a hand in causing the pandemic. Yes, it was his opinion (though he might have said that it was an undeniable fact) that climate change had made the conditions of the world so unnatural that a freakish and defiled monstrosity of nature had manifested itself in the form of a coronavirus of unprecedented capacity to menace humanity, almost as a vengeful act of Gaia, and hurled itself at us in order to make us pay for our collective misdeeds.