# Introduction

A book on collectivism? Is this just a capitalist grift to squeeze some blood from unsuspecting consumers? Wouldn't it be easier to fall in line with those who are on the right side of history and simply trying to make the world marginally more fair so that it works better for everyone?

I've always been a stickler for definitions, and when it comes to matters of ethics, morality and social prescriptions, the definitions are everything. In fact, the entire process of human life and social interaction is one of defining, both through the action of what we are, what we do, and what this realm of existence is. 

For many years I've been a bit perturbed by the supposing that moving towards more collective and "fair" solutions is put forward as the obvious way forward, not because I don't want fair solutions, but because of the language employed when discussing these solutions and their moral implication. What I found was that collectivist solutions are put forward but the language used to explain why they are needed, how they will work, and why it's the best path forward had always left me dissatisfied and distrustful of those advocating for them. Was this because I don't want fair solutions? Do I simply not understand how difficult it is to manage complexity? Am I not culturally sensitive enough, or harbouring a secret death wish for myself and all of mankind?

Somehow, whenever attempting to push back on the rationale of a collectivist solution, it's always responded to as though there is bad faith on my part and that if I don't recognize it, it's because I'm somehow blind with my cognitive biases, which have made me mindlessly controllable by only the worst interests out there, and there's no other possible explanation for my position because, even if I am able to express something, the fact that I'm already not advocating for the collectivist solution means that I'm not a person who's able to intelligently determine what a good solution is and, worse, I somehow despise solutions and am lashing out or making determinations on the basis of a very primitive mind.

I spent a long time trying to understand whether those who allege such things truly believe the things they say, are speaking in good faith, and are somehow correct in supposing that along every partisan divide there is one side which is more intelligent and morally robust, with the other side being somehow its opposite, and though many have worked through these sorts of problems before, one thing that stood out to me most of all was that the qualities associated with each side of the partisan divide didn't really make sense to me, given that, for example, all of those around me who proclaimed themselves as the most progressive tended to have very conservative personalities. This just didn't jive with everything I'd heard about partisan differences and the corresponding personalities which go along with them.

Though I spend time trying to work out a better understanding of people's political dispositions and what it meant for the world we live in, I eventually came to try and do my best to ignore the political divide and simply focus on my work in the tech industry. We can, after all, make life better through technology and eventually yield conditions that are more favourable. Surely if we improve outcomes for people with technology, they'll be less politically radical and eventually relinquish their political concerns in favour of living good lives and providing good lives to their children.

But then the "Covid era" began, and I found myself feeling guilty. Guilty that I was now seeing a move towards a more totalitarian system, with behaviours and messaging whose implications are utterly dehumanizing. Guilty that some terribly consequences are very realistic, and that if we were to incur them they would be my own damn fault.

For this reason, I set out to lay down my definitions, describe the partisan divide to the best of my understanding, and examine the conflict of collectivist initiatives with principles of individualism which I had always found to be more representative of what it means to be of a liberal disposition.

## Left/Right Paradigm

In considering the idea of conservatism and the conservation of things, what do we understand about it as a concept? Is it something which can be understood perfectly in the abstract, or is it something contingent on personality?

There are theories about left/right disposition as per someone's personality, and a few of these that are most well-known are the following:

1. The Big Five Personality Traits and Political Orientation
- Mondak, J. J. (2010). Personality and the Foundations of Political Behavior. Cambridge University Press.
2. Authoritarianism and Right-Wing
- Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-Wing Authoritarianism.
3. Moral Foundations Theory
- Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98-116.
4. System Justification Theory
- Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881-919.
5. Genetics, Personality, and Political Ideology
- Alford, J. R., Funk, C. L., & Hibbing, J. R. (2005). Are political orientations genetically transmitted? American Political Science Review, 99(2), 153-167.
6. Psychological Needs and Ideological Differences
- Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339-375.
7. The Myth of Left-Wing Authoritarianism
- https://www.jstor.org/stable/3790998

### Big Five

This is the best known, the most utilized, and probably the most reliable, not necessarily in terms of understanding people's political affiliations (though there is a lot of good research there), but at least in terms of understanding some emotional dimensions of people and how these might be recognized in personality.

### Authoritarianism and Right-Wing

A bit hard to stomach, actually, considering that this research came from a well known Marxist, Theodor Adorno, who planted the seeds for postmodernism. No doubt, authoritarians who claim to be on the left will always rationalize any passing authoritarian regime which appears to celebrate philosophies most commonly understood as being to the left will happily claim that they were transformed in the wrong way because of reactionary elements and post-revolutionary thinking, leading to the right wing, all the while demanding changes in their world today which are necessarily authoritarian and totalitarian, lest they ever be implementable or achievable. 

### Moral Foundations Theory

The work of Jonathan Haidt, which has been interesting to me, in spite of some of his ridiculous TDS tendencies, because he touches upon group behaviours which we recognize, especially people who may have been the right age to have lived through both supposedly differing examples of race-based othering, that old school racism is a form of call-out behaviour which has been replaced with the assigning of the "racist" moniker in a new form of call-out behaviour in which those who perform the othering are still manifesting the same behaviour and likely still have the same racist dispositions.

### Systemic Justification Theory

An interesting take which claims that people justify the system/status quo or are better able to challenge it.

It's particularly interesting because it's relevant to my work and my claims about how our understanding of the left-right paradigm. That is, this theory, which is that we wrongly assume that someone's political disposition is the party to which they align at least to the extent that they can claim some sort of affiliation. From this point (TODO: look into this), they're observing what sort of personality differences people have with respect to their justification and support of status quo, or the degree to which they will fight against social hierarchies.

There's a few issues here, one of which being that it overlooks the degree to which the concept of a status quo can vary between something popularly understood as a traditional position in discourse, as opposed to the intuition and perspective that a human has about what the social norms happen to be in their immediate environment. It is precisely one's aversion to representing themselves against what is otherwise considered as being the social norm which would provide a more pertinent measure of one's disposition towards the right or right wing thinking and personality. The ideals and pragmatisms of a particular party, and its represented aesthetic vis-a-vis its stated alignment to a political ideology, are an unreliable combination. It's not just about the career politicians whose targets and opinions seem to change in conflicting ways, or their tendency to change parties at opportune times, or even career politicians at all. It's about how we recognize objects capable of affecting and operating on the social environment and how that influences our embodied experience of perceiving. This can mean simply the change in one's mood without any hard focus on the facts, details and logical conclusions of the contribution of that object to the environment, or it can be focusing on what one believes as being the most reasonably comprehensible meaning which can be logically deduced through deep and hopefully unbiased contemplation about the object and its corresponding potential to affect.

How these introduce the potential for either chaos or organization at different levels of scope and whether for particular or universal parties further complicates our situation. It's not even that we can't find people who are willing to give an honest attempt at being open about their beliefs and motivations, but we simply cannot rationally assert that we are ever able to experience what another human has experienced, or model, quantify, serialize, parse, interpret, and reconstruct valid data about human experience sufficient to veritably capture an essence of the occurrence of a human experience, much less understand whether such a thing has an essence. We need to be real about these limitations, and stop playing sophistic games of manipulation (ok, we'll keep doing those, but let's hope we can become less inclined to do that over subjects where it's increasingly absurd).

The status quo can very well be progressive wokeism, and has been quite commonly for many periods in many places. Whether that's a progressive re-imagination of some traditionally understood school of thought, or any established methodology, there comes to be a disconnect in permitting that one's cognizance of a method or domain can be relied upon, or whether it is to be conceptualized as a point on a path which still has not yet composed the core of what the method is based upon. As soon as this becomes a popular view, the inclination to treat the ideas, parlance and constructs pertaining to that domain or methodology can be dismissed through an act of aspirational rectitude towards historically derivable endpoints that have yet to be reached. Nevertheless, this becomes a status quo position so long as it dominates the discourse of a given arena.

With the establishing of a status quo, ones proximity to it, or the manner in which one operates in life such as can be bearing an effect on one's proximity to it, can be fueled by the type of emotion and intuition one has when conceiving of or observing it, as though we understand that these events are cumulative and paint a picture about one's social sphere. If one is going along with what they believe is the default perspective, and the default interest, then they are in fact not operating in a manner which is what we consider as being traditionally left. They're playing it safe, being very conservative, and doing it for the purpose of converting something an their placement against that something in question.

### Genetics, Personality and Political Ideology

It's a bit ridiculous to think that it's even a question as to whether political orientation is something that can be inherited. As though the party itself comes to be inherited through a type of evolved ape which finally achieves the level of understanding that the conditions of the many affect the conditions of the one, and that choosing a particular political party comes down to one's inherited intellect bestowed upon them by the Gods that wish to see mankind attain some status of deity.

- Twin studies
- Disadvantaged children studies

There's definitely good reason to assume that genetics influence something like personality, as the development of the human being and its capacity for neurocognition is not a one-and-done process. It's not the difference between having a neuron or not, and obviously we can observe impediments to development and the consequences thereof. The idea that openness is tied to intelligence and that this is influenced by one's neurocognitive capacity doesn't take many research battles to at least consider that it makes sense, as we can observe all sorts of differences of intelligence, and the resource requirements for endeavouring to follow one's curiosity is costly and must follow a requisite baseline of both development and resource availability.

Woke initiates to collectivist cults, however, who put forward a claim that following their line of reasoning, philosophy, ideology (as a lack of ideology, of course), and so forth is an indication of intelligence and that it, in a sense, delineates a new evolution in the human being (towards the liberation of mankind) are making quite the jump, however. We don't need to sift through examples of people who don't fit the bill of a highly intelligent woke initiate, nor do we even have to go the other route and claim that those who go down this path are unintelligent, or that those who are embracing conservatism or any philosophies or ideologies that are incompatible with woke-ism are doing so because they, in fact, have the upper hand in intelligence. Having intelligence has more to do with following curiosity and having more interest in understanding why and how even when it's costly to one's immediate social environment to do so. If you are surrounded by other woke cult initiates, then agreeing with them, even while espousing a belief about the world wherein one's views are unpopular or contrary to hegemony, is not a sign of intelligence. Perhaps there's a minimal intelligence required to be adamantly stating one's claim and actually believing in it, but that's the same threshold of intelligence required for any number of mundane proclamations regardless of the degree of authenticity present in one's conviction.

It is, again, not the same thing as following curiosity in spite of the social cost it my have.

Yes, a claim can be made that there is a resource cost involved in anything which doesn't necessarily translate to resource acquisition, but we would still need to rid ourselves of the confounders brought on by social environment and, even if we did that, we'd have to deal with the elephant in the room: social justice activism and critical praxis has resulted in a complete overhaul of institutions, especially related to education which most affects young persons who are the height of their potential for setting up their interests and intellectual pursuits and capabilities, and so just to state that a resource cost proves intelligence in the face of one's undertakings is a non-starter. If anything, even in those cases where resources are unavailable, and where the decision to pursue social justice advocacy with a critical theory bent places one in a situation wherein their income acquisition is little to non-existent, all of it is perfectly in line with the belief that the system is set-up as part of a grand, unconsciously sought and insidiously expounded array of hegemonic structures which monopolize all forms of capital (be it the direct monetary components which yield productive capacity, or culture itself) to corrupt resource distribution and which makes the pursuit of resource acquisition a harmful act which prevents everyone, including oneself, from living a good life.
There's something to be said about the fact of there being reduced personality differences observed between both fraternal and identical twins, even when they develop in different environments. But we must also consider the environmentally-mediated effects which influence personality development:

### Psychological Needs and Ideological Differences

This originally looked at the needs associated with certain "ideologies" or political orientations and stated that conservatives tend to want to have more certainty, organization and less cognitive ambiguity or lack of cognitive resolve, while liberals tend to be more open to chaos, complexity and the ambiguous.

There's obviously a huge problem with this body of research, however, in that we can't even really understand how the terms conservative and liberal, as utilized in its related studies (such as "Political conservatism as motivated social cognition" in 2003) translate to terms today, or how the same terms would be defined.

Though this research does stand atop previous work by such critical theorists as Theodor Adorno, when brought into a more temporally-current focus, we need to understand that the notion of not only liberal has changed, in the sense that most far-left ideologies lay the claim that liberalism and liberal humanism are paths leading to "fascism", but that even the domains of what is considered "far-left" and "radicals" (which should be considered synonymous with revolutionaries or those who have concluded that revolution for transformative change is necessary for any sort of progress that they are concerned with) are occupied by a different set of people after decades of activists seeking to capture institutions and popularize the concepts through all ranges of media, entertainment, education and public service. That is to say, there are all sorts of popular entry-points to this way of thinking and they quite often state outrightly that theirs is the majority view, making it a bit of a paradox in claiming that revolutionary change is necessarily to be sought by an interested group which already constitutes a majority in order to change the majority of society. This is not a case of someone thinking outside the box, but a case of many believing they have to conform to the box in order to maintain social salience.

The other aspect of this is that there was a time when the far-left disposition was anti-authoritarian and anti-state in the immediate sense. This alone already has to be consolidated against an understanding of revolutionary thought, stemming from Marx, where a revolution must occur to impose a proletarian dictatorship (though that can be somewhat explained by positing that there is an acceptance of the upheaval which would ensue) and that this new political entity, finally representing the interest of the people and of the evolution of humanity, would assert itself as a ruthless authority until such time that all are liberated from oppression. There were the anti-war perspectives, often associated with punk rock and counter-culture at a time when counter cultures were crafted from outside of institutions and industries, like that of media and entertainment. There was an effort to reject all imperialism and all of the state processes associated with collecting money from people and protecting bloated, monopolistic corporations, such as those which relate to a "military-industrial complex"

But now, instead, we see those advocating for what concepts that are traditionally thought of as "far-left" and "revolutionary" but whose direct implements of concern are all driving for more state authority, less freedom of speech, stronger institutional presence, reinforced requirement for credentialism, uniform public adoption of pharmaceutical products, single conduits for political procedure (vote blue no matter who), and so on. These are authoritarian predilections which are completely committed to enforcing certainty and demanding that, in spite of a dissolution of the processes and behaviours which are foundational to civilizational development (such as open inquiry, challenging status quo, invoking healthy skepticism for the establishment, and so on), are doing so on the basis of argumentation which asserts that the consequence of not doing so will lead to chaos and disorder.

### A Necessary Revelation

I believe we've reached a point in our speculation of political philosophy and human psychology where we can consider that the certainty of conserving the known world as a means to subdue the potential for chaos is replaced with the certainty of what an individual perceives as the centralized point of origin within the social environment, or a collective of humans, and one's proximity to it. This might also be conceived of as the point of origin of an entity commissioned with exerting force on those who deviate from behaving in accordance with its regulations.

We may have an inherent disposition, perhaps inherited genetically, or formed through the environment (and as this can be argued as being a different understanding of what we normally assume to be a hereditary, we would then consider it as being formed by occurrences which have a decreasing effect along the continued period of one's life, thus being another way of saying that it is formed in the earliest stages of life), but one's cognition of the world informs the scope and target of how one associates the perception of their environment with neurological, psychological, and emotional state.

And should we even be surprised with this description of human behaviour? Isn't it something which comes more intuitively to us as we experience our upbringing, particularly for those of us which developed while going through public schooling? We sometimes see how some of the children whom we were accustomed to seeing as being less inclined towards embracing chaos and the unknown, growing up to associate themselves as very progressive and left-leaning in context of popular political discourse and world events, but whose personality and behaviour itself doesn't appear to be much different from what it has already been. Sure, some people can change in their disposition dramatically, but not only is this the minority, but it tends to be that those who mature and gain experience become more confident, or that they only become more "conservative" in the sense of conscientiousness, which is to say that they become more accountable to themselves and feel liberated by their own sense of agency.

Again, this is highly speculative, but I think it's an important conversation which has long been missing from our political discourse, and it's something which I urge others to consider as something which is not a mere indulgence, but which an approach to analyzing political discourse and philosophy which has become necessary in the face of societies which have evolved technologically and socio-politically to the point that authoritarianism with totalitarian aspirations (or a necessary direction of totalitarianism, should the stated goals of the society ever be seriously approached) isn't just a real possibility, but is something which can be advocated for on the basis of making appeals for freedom and liberty, and traditional left-leaning framings, in a manner which is adopted and repeated in ever more popular scopes and by ever younger citizens.

# Stuck on Definitions

I've always been stuck on the definitions of just about everything, and I believe you should be too. What's the point in having a discussion about anything at all if we aren't assuming we're to be discussing the same things? Even if we disagree, shouldn't we be curious enough to discuss the topics about which we are so passionate? Coming to a clear understanding about what it is that we're speaking about, and even the range of interpretations that exist for that thing in question, should be the absolute most basic motivation for any discussion unless we are looking to take advantage of someone. The counterargument to that is to say that something about the situation, as it stands, involves one of the two parties involved in the discussion already taking advantage of the other, and that the discussion itself is just an opportunity for the disadvantaged party to reclaim some lost ground and relinquish themselves from their oppressor. And in such a case, it's clear that the potential interlocutor positing such an argument is a Marxist.

But there are no interlocutors here, there is just the content of this book as I'm presenting it, thus I beg you to indulge me as I invite you to take a step back with me and grant me the opportunity to talk about definitions.

In most discussions, and in political discourse in general, we tend not to use the term Marxist or Marxism much at all, but instead focus on the terms Communism or Socialism. No, those aren't synonymous - or, rather, they shouldn't be synonyms if we're speaking about them dispassionately and are driven by a veritable curiosity about them, but in essence most discussions which do involve any one of those terms can actually be addressed through just understanding one of these terms.

And, unfortunately, if one were concerned about these topics and were to find themselves in an argument about them with someone, it'd likely be that the other participant in that discussion would be making the case that he whomsoever is concerned is not simply employing the wrong definition, but is actually unable to define it.

## You Can't Define Anything

For the past several years, but especially in the past 2, we've enjoyed the incessant occurrence of social justice advocates, gender queer he-hims, associate professors and much more lament about how "rightoids", "fascists", "peasants" and conservatives in general are making criticisms on topics about which they know nothing. 

Most commonly, this has been the assertion that they "don't know what woke is", but it has quite commonly arisen as "you can't even define communism". How, are woke and communism the same thing? Well, no, not necessarily, though I'd suggest that we wouldn't really have conversations about "woke" in 2025 if we didn't also have the topic of communism to contend with, and as the latter is much more historically significant, and remains, in my opinion, evergreen to this day, we're going to delve into this abyss of definitions by focusing on communism for a while.

It's not just that people can't define communism, but that they are told they are unable to define communism by the very people who, in a healthy society, they should be having debates with about whether or not things like communism can be considered either possible or beneficial.

The other aspect of this is that those who assert the "rightoids" aren't able to define communism (or woke, or socialism, or Marxism) don't actually want for any of these things to be defined, be it from the conservatives, themselves or even from any "historical figure" from which they themselves derive their aspirations.

What the critical social justice warriors, or collectivist cult initiates simply want is for you to be in a stupor so you can't be in a position to criticize anything that they advocate for, and in some cases this is because they know that the things they do want would be worthy of criticism by anyone with a thinking mind.

That being said, a true endpoint yielding communism wouldn't even be possible if there were also thinking minds. You wouldn't attain a true commonality if, in fact, everyone was thinking differently from themselves beyond whose turn it is to give the communal handjobs to the scant few comrades whose erectile dysfunction isn't yet too advanced from the lack of nutrition and healthy activity in their collectivist utopia.

It doesn't take a genius to define communism, but it's worth noting that people can provide varying definitions of communism derived from different contexts and, similar to how a woke comrade performs their praxis (in the sense of performing advocacy where they equivocate between esoteric and exoteric definitions of whatever concept they're trying to proliferate), which will all sound believable and can be passable to anyone of any political orientation, including themselves, just so long as its effect on the immediate context is to their satisfaction

This includes composing a definition on the basis of:

- what political regimes have already existed
- what those political regimes would have been should some undesirable aspect have been negated
- the eschatological god-object as described by Marx
- communal living at a large enough scale
- the absence of oppression
- the absence of a state because of there being no conflict between men (sorry, he/hims)
- a suggested description of what the sociopolitical environment would be if everyone were a "good person"

The only definition of communism which is worthy of discussion is the one which Marx described as being an eventual endpoint at the end of history, and though we can critique what would necessarily be involved in actually achieving that (an existence void of contradiction, oppression and domination - in spite of some very real and unavoidable aspects to the universe which include atomic forces).

If your understanding of communism isn't based on utterances that were made by Marx himself, or compatible with them, then you're just here to cry and jerk off, and no one should feel obligated to help with either of those things. And, certainly, that isn't to say that no one else has espoused the idea of communism, or that such an idea had not been considered prior to Marx's "contributions" to metaphysical and sociopolitical discourse, but he formalized it in a way which specified the precise of ontology of human beings and ontology of the world as a whole which, according to his arguments, makes it the necessary end-goal for every human. Prior to him, the concept already existed as an understanding of common usage of resources, but that remained ambiguous with respect to how to understand just how this is to be implemented, at what scale, and why. Marx took the idea and essentially claimed that no human being could attain the expression of their nature except under the condition of a true communist existence.

Yet another aspect of this is that Marx said that the conditions create man, and that man must become his own creator, thus man can't actually be a communist until he has self-created (and created nature which, in the words of Marx, is his inorganic nature) to the point where the conditions allow for him to be creating the world free of oppression. 

Therefore even the self-proclaimed communists, should they believe in Marx's descriptions about the world, not only can't be real communism but themselves can't be capable of defining communism until man has created the world capable of yielding the first true communist.

But I'm getting ahead of myself, and it'll take some background in order to make these statements relevant and their interpretation more clear, thus we should take even another step back and approach the topic with more rigor.

### What Are We Working Towards?

It might seem like a waste of time to be trying to define something for which when the vast majority are presented with will agree that it's undesirable and immoral, even if most of those would make a hierarchical judgment in saying that there are some things worse than it but that they're against it nevertheless, but I think that this manner of thinking misses the point and isn't yet considering that these ideas and their corresponding potential constructs don't necessarily need to be brought into existence in an unequivocal form before they're actually generating a problem.

I would like to suggest that the concept of communism, when defined properly, and when understood as per the Marxist metaphysic, is actually the logical conclusion of a manner of thought for which we are all susceptible and that it would actually make sense for any human to consider it plausible and desirable under the right circumstances. 

I can't speak for everyone, but when I look back at various stages of my life and try to speculate as to how I conceived the concept of communism, I come up with a few abstract, intuitive presentations in my mind which may or may not even be compatible with the vision of communism as Karl Marx would likely have himself envisioned, but I believe they are nevertheless reasonable representations of what a human might think insofar as imagination is concerned.

1. A safe community free of need and conflict
  - That isn't necessarily to say that a human being, as a living organism, would be completely free of any need to sustain itself as per the temporal and environmental requirements which, when fulfilled, allow for the organism to remain alive.
  - Simply put, some form of environment which includes multiple persons where there is no dimension by which anyone is compelled to do anything in particular, but that the environment maintains itself in spite of this.
2. Some type of red abstraction which sort of relates to the flags and symbolism that we have seen. It might represent a grace from reality or an entrypoint to another way of living and being where there is some potential for fulfillment or destruction. This is something which is cannot be adequately described, but I know that in my experience the consideration of the word communism leads to some sort of image being presented in my mind's eye which may very well be nothing more than a distorted or some presentation of a communist flag with ambiguous acuity.
3. A brutal, totalitarian dictatorship with menacing officers distributed ubiquitously and an ever-present threat of death, abuse or other application of force incurred if for no other reason than as an acknowledging of the unquestionably supreme status of the state or the state apparatus.
4. An agrarian society where everyone is spontaneously performing activity which, on the whole, constitutes some form of organized society wherein everyone is provided for and there is no clear aspect of crime or war.

That's probably enough for now, as I can't even really know for sure if these envisioned presentations which spontaneously occur upon my being presented with the notion of communism can actually be properly described, whether they are discrete from one another, or whether they all sort of meld into the same thing in the brief moment of speculation from which I contemplate their manifestation.

The point isn't to say that these are the true interpretations of communism which occur in very human, or that I have an intuitive interpretation of the idea of communism which should be championed, but simply to say that, regardless of whether an instantiation of communism has, will or can exist, the understanding that a human mind has about ideas, concepts and, in this case, system states or political entities is something which is presented as an intuition or a vision, and that it's worth considering that this is what's happening neurocognitively through the experiences of our friends, foes and interlocutors of any sort in between.

## Defining

*Should we be using the term "Communist" and what is a "Communist"?*
[Furthermore, who gets to define it? Why are instances of attempts valid? Socialism is to achieve Communism. Eternally ephemeral as it cannot be achieved]

In all honesty, there shouldn't be any word or concept for which it's forbidden or even inappropriate for anyone to be able to define it. Whether the definition is correct or not is a different matter, but there should be no reason why we shouldn't expect that anyone can define something if it's also to be communicable in society. We're all sick of the example of Ketanji Brown Jackson deferring to an "expert" biologist (instead of Critical Theorist or Queer Theorist) when asked to define what a woman is, and though there's utility and legitimacy in offering to bring in an expert to help with definitions, it's absurd to think that we should take a default position of not allowing anyone to define anything at all except for the terms and concepts within the taxonomy of their expertise, and nothing more. If that were the case, then we'd be well on our way to a totalitarian society void of interesting, meaningful discourse between humans other than in a corporate-controlled manner.

Indeed, just about anyone should be able to define "communist" and there probably was a time when most people in western culture would have been able to do so, although not to the extent of providing a technical definition as we're seeking to do in this book. What's the difference, you might ask? You'd be right to ask such a question, as it's not at all obvious that there needs to be a technical definition for communist or communism simply in order for us to take the definition seriously or to be able to make use of it in our own discourse or casual conversations.

There are two ways to approach this, and they should be used for the appropriate context:

- They're all just commies and those are all just communism.
- There has not yet been a true communist and there can only be one truly authentic conception of communism.

Both of these are perfectly valid, depending on the circumstance, so let's go through them briefly so we understand why there should be both a casual and more specialized understanding of what communism is. The trick here is that, in fact, even the casual conception of a "commie" or of something being "commie" does actually lend itself to the more specialized understanding of communism, but only by virtue of considering that the casual understanding would be meaningless if we couldn't also consider it as pertaining to something that could be taken to a logical conclusion, given enough time and if it were allowed to blossom to completion.

### Casual Commie

An acquaintance of mine, and someone whom I'd hope to get an opportunity to get to know as a friend some day, had a habit of rubbing the people the wrong way when discussing things of a political nature because he was quick to invoke the term "commie" in what might come across as a brutish, vulgar and ham-fisted manner, but I think that interpreting it as such is the actual premature component of such a dynamic. That is to say, it isn't the fact of him simplifying what seems to be a wide range of terms, behaviours and issues which is premature, but actually the reaction to believe they are incorrect which is itself premature.

Does that sound unreasonable? Well, it should be, because in most cases we have discussions which lack nuance or which present things at a high-enough level where we can conceive of them as they pertain to systems where we aren't having to focus on all of the details all of the time, meaning that there is always more nuance and detail to delve into and, knowing that, we can move forward in having a productive discussion about the thing in question without getting hung up on the details which might cause us to lose scope of the actual discussion at hand.

The problem is that, when discussing politics, we're already talking about things that are affecting everyone personally, and everyone is getting used to having their own affairs or the issues which affect them spoken about in a way which fails to represent the issue as they themselves have been thinking about it.

That's where principles come in. You see, with principles, we have to adhere to the representations of things affected by them such that the principles themselves aren't thrown to the wind simply to maintain the perceived dynamics in how we deal with them.

Why? Because it's the principles themselves which indicate where things should head, given enough time. Given the nature of what's being discussed in this book, which includes a fair bit on the topic of "historicism", I myself might be accused of summoning-up historicism myself by saying things like "given enough time" or "to their logical conclusions", but that isn't what I'm saying at all. I'm not saying that these things will happen; what I'm saying is that, if we are to talk about some phenomenon or idea in particular, it won't make much sense unless we have an understanding of what the essence of the matter is. If not, and we are leaving it ambiguous to account for some imagined spectrum of all the ways it might be considered by other people, or all the different presentations it might take and how each of those have their own aesthetic which might allow for it to be better referred to using completely different terminology, then we're actually not ever discussing the subject at hand, but are providing an opportunity for people to be mystified and for the negative aspects of the issue to wreak their worst effects before we, or whomsoever is affected, have had their opportunity to understand and control the factors surrounding it.

#### These Are All Just Communisms

The progressive political science major would be appalled to see someone like my same aforementioned buddy, who we'll call Mr. K, referring to socialism, democratic socialism, the labour party, public ownership, communism, fascism, and so on as simply "communism" and the related participants as mere "commies" (and those polisci majors would do well to read this book).

Socialism, for one, or especially something like "democratic socialism", serves as a good example because many would say "look at all the progress we're having where we can consider a better life for those people in society who are worst-off, and here you go derailing it by erasing that a concept for socialism that is actually feasible and which could actually go a long way to make life better", as if that's not something which could be said about the simply adherence to foundational principles (of which, if you have none, it would explain why you need a top-down control system to redistribute things).

What is socialism? It is control of the means of production and enforcement through a central authority under a declaration that the coordination is for the public good. It is nothing more and nothing less than this. That people describe all state redistribution as a sliding scale of socialism actually proves this point, and the fact that so many are who support and align themselves with authoritative redistribution without openly stating that they are also in favour of the logical conclusion of the completion of such a reconfiguration demonstrates that humans will never be willing to be accountable to any negative consequences of empowering a totalitarian state.

It is based entirely on the metaphysical question of what it is to be a human and what the nature of the human experience truly is, which is the entire basis for Marx's argument for the necessary endpoint of his historical materialism:

>"This is why the debate between the individualist and the collectivist is at heart a metaphysical debate: What is the nature of the human being?)" - Tibor Machan - Individuals and Their Rights, 1989, Open Court Books, p. 47

Try speaking to any "normie" championing socialism as a moral good, and you'll find that they're completely unable to articulate any of the fundamental concepts, related metaphysical principles, definitions or logical endpoints for these ideas, but will instead refer to the same social programs that have been financed through taxation that could have only been made possible through the free enterprise which preceded it. They are not serious people, but their banter and the manner in which they influence their peers in society can have serious consequences.

Whether those consequences lead to one form of authoritarian rule or another is of little consequence, as the continued support of such social transformation will always be vouched for by describing some type of social deliverance which could only ever be defined in non-ambiguous terms by describing a communistic result.

So, yes, these are "commie" ideas, and the open advocates for such idea are mere "commies" for all intents and purposes.

### Specialized (Technical) Communism 

For the curious thinker, however, and for the theoretician who wants to compare models of possibilities as an intellectual pursuit, we can choose a more technical approach. In some cases that might be the thinker who is composing the means of evoking tyranny upon all of humanity, but fortunately such things don't need to be limited to such grotesque individuals; on the contrary, those persons who are willing to be accountable to their individual lives, and who have the aptitude and concern which would drive them to help other potential champions of individualism and true liberal principles better understand the dynamics of the political processes utilized for social change, will be well-served by having a clear understanding of what the endpoint of these ideas is and a repertoire for describing them in a fluent manner which provides an accessible suite of cognitive interfaces by which to proliferate the understanding to their corresponding entourages.

I wish to contend that we can talk about defining the parent of these terms based on what it mean as a concept, but that it's also worth thinking about the definitions used when we refer to people as being instances of an idea, and whether they are this because of them having identified in this way, we run into unresolvable problems.

TODO: We must resolve the fact that there are those who champion communism, who call themselves communists, but that Marx also claims there can be no true communist until we live in the state of reality characterized by communism:
- Communist as definition: the { concept, idea, model and theory }
  - Theory described as a model of what could be
    - The theoretical concept of what a human being may be -> described fundamentally as an ontology and:
    - The species Being -> Marxist definition/description
    - People advocating for a political system / political party
- Communist as self-described: { identification, declaration, and social culture }
  - What one might claim themselves to be
- Communist as deciphered by the onlooker: { observation, allegation, categorization }
  - What one asserts others to be

# First Principles Investigation of Communism

## 1. The Species Being

>"Man is a species-being, not only because in practice and in theory he adopts the species (his own as well as those of other things) as his object, but – and this is only another way of expressing it – also because he treats himself as the actual, living species; because he treats himself as a universal and therefore a free being.
>
>The life of the species, both in man and in animals, consists physically in the fact that man (like the animal) lives on organic nature; and the more universal man (or the animal) is, the more universal is the sphere of inorganic nature on which he lives. Just as plants, animals, stones, air, light, etc., constitute theoretically a part of human consciousness, partly as objects of natural science, partly as objects of art – his spiritual inorganic nature, spiritual nourishment which he must first prepare to make palatable and digestible – so also in the realm of practice they constitute a part of human life and human activity. Physically man lives only on these products of nature, whether they appear in the form of food, heating, clothes, a dwelling, etc. The universality of man appears in practice precisely in the universality which makes all nature his inorganic body – both inasmuch as nature is (1) his direct means of life, and (2) the material, the object, and the instrument of his life activity. Nature is man’s inorganic body – nature, that is, insofar as it is not itself human body. Man lives on nature – means that nature is his body, with which he must remain in continuous interchange if he is not to die. That man’s physical and spiritual life is linked to nature means simply that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of nature."

- lives for the species, cannot exist of its own accord
- conscious state is only sensible in context of greater species
- Thinks of own actions in context of species
  - what if everyone did this
  - being of the species means wanting to do this
  - if everyone did X, then the conditions would differ and then:
    - impact of my action would be different
    - I would have chosen a different action

### Live for Species

In this description we can see that man's life is for species being, as it is unavoidably of a form that is species being, thus that it should be purposed as such. Man cannot exist of its own accord, as the fact of there being a plurality of humans means that relations exist, as well as their shared need of resources. One might conceive of an individual human surviving on their own, but a Marxist would likely indicate that this is not a realistic example, that life is hard already, but that by working together we know life is easier, as evidenced by the fact that we always live in environments with multiple humans; we always seek out a pack, a troupe, a group, a collective or what have you in order to improve survival, and this is description is echoed by every practicing evolutionary biologist.

### Rational Consciousness

In considering the reality of our collective condition, it must come to be understood that to pursue the development and expression of a rational consciousness, even as an individual, is to look at the world in full knowledge that you and your actions exist in the context of the greater species. If your thoughts and actions do not take that into account, then you are living in a manner which does not acknowledge reality, and in leveraging the collectivity and your capacity insofar as you relate to other humans in a world where human history transforms the conditions of your lives, you are beginning from a more rational standpoint from which your perception of the world can be better aligned with reality.

In thinking of your actions in the context of species, you will choose to allow and compose them in the way which most affects your being, in a cycle of species which, as it spirals through world changing and world making effects, will provide the most cogent vehicle for allowing for greater forms of being.

### Imagine

Imagine what the world would look like if everyone were making an effort to realize that their social reality is more visible and its effects are more intelligently perceptible while affirming a context which includes others. There's a reason we have great aspirations and that we enjoy sharing our triumphs and miseries with one another - it's because you are being of the species that you are, and not of the many which come together for procreation and not much else.

Furthermore, if more people were living with the intention of recognizing the effects of their actions through their relations, it would mean that your own actions would be taken in and responded to in a way which enhances the effect of your actions. The more we experience this, the more we internalize an improved ability to detect when we've felt we've chosen the best actions.

### What's Missing

If there's something about the concept of Species Being which many people don't get (though, I would say that professors of philosophy who happen to lean towards agreeing with many of Marx's arguments (and perhaps even subscribing to, if not his solutions, or his projections, at least his desired endpoint), it's that people seem to believe there are many conceptions of collectivism and that the socialist utopia described by Marx is the one with which to associate Species Being. As though it's only in Marxism, its derivatives or the system of organization espoused by Marx (implied through negation, of course) that a participant would be doing so because they think the collective is legitimate by virtue of some idea that organizing life through the collective will permit people to live as they should.

The fact is, if you're compelling others to join up a system of organization which specifies the manner in which they are committed and accountable to the well-being of themselves and others, and binding this by enforcement through a legal punitive system, then nothing short of Species Being would stand as a reason beyond brute authoritarianism.

## 2. Self-Proclamation

- My social surroundings expect this of me
- Social surroundings will be affected by this
- Stand in for other identifiers
  - Furries, trans, feminist, queer, decolonialist

There is an array of initiates who might choose to identify, but this is simply the adoption of initiate language in order to demonstrate salience and congruence necessary to be acknowledged as a candidate to receive the perks and rewards associated with the corresponding social milieu.

The unfortunate reality is that most initiates are not purposely pursuing a system of governance or social organization beyond just wishing to participate in society or the social environment in some manner as a natural inclination to avoid loneliness. It isn't necessarily the case that they're even doing that purposely, but that they're just responding to what is in their environment and this is, in most cases, just a sensible way of reacting and is in line with what they've been brought up to do in polite society.

One might say that this is naive and innocent, and that the fact of this possibly leading to a collectivist type of philosophy is simply happenstance and that it needn't necessarily be the case that they go off in that direction. That whether they decide to interpret things in this way is actually something that speaks more as to the inclinations of their personality and that anyone could go off in this direction on their own without any prompting and without any specific subject matter or activity; some people are just more socially-oriented, or have a particular value structure and set of moral aspirations which makes them more altruistic and more concerned about those around them who also inhabit the same social environment because we're all affected by the environment therefore it's sensible, intelligent and insightful to have the foresight to understand that improving the conditions for those around them improves the conditions for themselves and improves the odds that they will succeed or benefit from the activities of others.

This is always the type of argument that we encounter by those who seem to naively push collectivist ideals, but what is the source of this rhetoric? Is it just spontaneous for any one of us to suddenly, without prompt, start to consider that redistribution and an altruistic sense extends from their human nature?

In still other cases, though related, but semantically different in terms of how the material came to be introduced. The initiate is simply adopting the language which demonstrates fluency and familiarity with their subject of interest. This could be a form of hobby or it can even be professional. They are demonstrating competence, commitment, availability, and so forth. In essence, this can easily become an existential or prerequisite for viability and mobility within a particular domain.

### Paradoxical Declaration

It should bother anyone with one iota of sense to see people who call themselves communists and who somehow want to present themselves as though they have some insight into where the world would be headed or where it would end up in their search for ever more pathways by which to proliferate the notion of communism in every facility, in every institution, in every social environment they enter (and make less enjoyable and tolerable for absolutely everyone else) because in endorsing the ideas of Marx and, often enough, even the words of Marx, they are embracing the contradiction of claiming that something which cannot yet manifest already has manifested or that which is yet to become is already here.

The communist isn't something which simply happens because you decide you want to have communism, or the liberation from the order of being, but it's something which is supposed to be as spontaneous and natural as the condition of communism itself, which is only supposed to have truly been breathed into the world once all contradictions and oppressive aspects about life as a human being have been universally lifted.

If the state only exists because there remain conflicts between men, then there should not yet be even an understanding of what it is to be a communist, and the fact of the conditions not yet permitting the realizations and the behaviours which the so-called communists crave is actually supposed to be the very thing which is fueling their resentment and discontent with the world as it exists today.

Here are a selection of quotes from Marx on the fact of his self-estrangement preventing him from attaining his true nature as a social being:

#### Best Quote Candidate

> - "We have seen how on the assumption of positively annulled private property man produces man –himself and the other man; how the object, being the direct manifestation of his individuality, is simultaneously his own existence for the other man, the existence of the other man, and that existence for him. Likewise, however, both the material of labor and man as the subject, are the point of departure as well as the result of the movement (and precisely in this fact, that they must constitute the point of departure, lies the historical necessity of private property). Thus the social character is the general character of the whole movement: just as society itself produces man as man, so is society produced by him. Activity and enjoyment, both in their content and in their mode of existence, are social: social [This word is crossed out in the manuscript. – Ed.] activity and social enjoyment. The human aspect of nature exists only for social man; for only then does nature exist for him as a bond with man – as his existence for the other and the other’s existence for him – and as the life-element of human reality. Only then does nature exist as the foundation of his own human existence. Only here has what is to him his natural existence become his human existence, and nature become man for him. Thus society is the complete unity of man with nature – the true resurrection of nature – the consistent naturalism of man and the consistent humanism of nature."

#### Other Quote Candidates

> - "Communism is the positive expression of annulled private property—as human self-estrangement, and hence the real appropriation of the human essence through and for man; communism therefore as the complete and conscious return of man, of his entire substantial being, to himself as a social, i.e., human being."
> - "The existence of private property is, therefore, the existence of alienated labor... and thus the existence of the estrangement of man from man."
  > - Actual quote: Estranged labor turns thus:
  (3) Man’s species-being, both nature and his spiritual species-property, into a being alien to him, into a means of his individual existence. It estranges from man his own body, as well as external nature and his spiritual aspect, his human aspect.
  (4) An immediate consequence of the fact that man is estranged from the product of his labor, from his life activity, from his species-being, is the estrangement of man from man. When man confronts himself, he confronts the other man. What applies to a man’s relation to his work, to the product of his labor and to himself, also holds of a man’s relation to the other man, and to the other man’s labor and object of labor.

  - Important to note that "Estranged Labour" is the name for labour in political economy, which "starts with the fact of private property"
> - "In the relation of estranged labor, each man regards the other according to the standard and the position in which he finds himself as a worker."
> - "The community of men, or the manifestation of the nature of men, their mutual complementing the result of which is species-life, truly human life—this community is conceived by political economy in the form of exchange and trade."
> - "The estrangement of man, and in fact every relationship in which man [himself] is active, is alienated from himself and his own species-being."
> - "Private property has made us so stupid and one-sided that an object is only ours when we have it, when it exists for us as capital, or when it is directly possessed, eaten, drunk, worn, inhabited, etc., in short, when it is used by us."
> - "Communism is the positive supersession of private property as human self-estrangement, and hence the true appropriation of the human essence through and for man."
> - "The positive transcendence of private property, as the appropriation of human life, is therefore the positive transcendence of all estrangement – that is to say, the return of man from religion, family, state, etc., to his human, i.e., social existence."
> - "Nature is man’s inorganic body – that is to say, nature insofar as it is not itself human body. Man lives from nature – i.e., nature is his body – and he must maintain a continuing dialogue with it if he is not to die."
> - "In his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind."
> - "The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and range. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates."

## 3. Political System

This is the normie's informal qualifier which allows the masses to believe they have some workable form of understanding, and this further embeds the fact of their complete lack of education on this subject behind a mute and dumb wall of ignorance (ok I'm being hyperbolic, because they never really had a reason to be mute and dumb about it - there just was nothing on the radar and no common discourse which really took it into consideration)

A political system might seem to make sense, given that particular infamous governments have been formed along political parties who name and describe themselves as communist, and who get referred to continuously by all sorts of demographics, cultures, professions (polisci), political affiliations, and so on, but there are a few good reasons to disregard this and to take a different approach to defining the communist term.

In spite of which instance of a supposedly communist system comes under the lense of analysis, there will always be a large proportion of self-professed communists today who will reject it, claim that it is not a communist, and even claim that the party or, more commonly, the system was/is actually an example of the exact system communism is intended to obliterate and/or supplant.
- Has not been tried
- Gyorg Lukács
  - All revolutions either fall to reactionary counter-revolutionary forces, or;
  - opportunism
  - Demands commitment of one's entire existence
>If every member of the party commits his whole personality and his whole existence to the party in this way, then the same centralising and disciplinary principle will preside over the living interaction between the will of the members and that of the party leadership, and will ensure that the will and the wishes, the proposals and the criticisms of the members are given due weight by the party leaders. - Gyorg Lukács (History and Class Consciousness)

This makes a lot of sense of you have spent sometime examining revolutionary theory as it is described by Marxists or those who follow one of the neo-Marxist subsets that work towards a revolution over time. Whether they explain ti as a distinct form of Neo-Marxism. And, even otherwise, many have no idea what any of those happen to be but simply have been describing themselves as something which doesn't fall victim to the hegemonic forces and ideologies which plagued all previous attempts / formulations that had been claiming to associate themselves with the ideas of communism. (That is to say, all attempts are themselves centered (or came to be centered) around a specific ideology (antithetical to communism), such as capitalism, normalcy, colonialism, etc).

These are, in my opinion, perfectly helping to reify the sense of historical progression which has been presented as confirmation that what we are ultimately dealing with is a metaphysic.

### The Case for the Communist System

There still remains one good case for agreeing that the word communism refers to the political systems and state governments which have come into emerged to date that declared themselves as being an instance of this type of political formulation by name, or at least parties which espoused the principles and goals that are otherwise considered as being those of Marx or Neo-Marxist thinkers, even if they didn't specifically invoke the terminology which would make the association unequivocal. The reasoning behind it is precisely the same angle one should take in addressing those who like to claim "real communism" or "real socialism" hasn't been tried, bro. And that's because, given that the perfect instantiation has not yet taken place, and given that Marx's formulation essentially states that we cannot know what it is and it cannot be brought into being until such time that a spontaneous occurrence befalls a world in the sense of there being no conflict and no need to even advocate politically or participate in revolution: in absence of the perfect example which everyone reasonably agrees represents the thing in question, those who advocate for it need to concede that if any effort to bring it about has taken place, that whatever the result of that happens to be is, until present, the actual instantiation of that thing.

This means that, at bare minimum, we have some examples of what we would get and, in spite of their failures, or in spite of the atrocities which transpired as a result, those who brought them about would allow for it to occur again or perhaps even much worse, as they are not yet satisfied with either what took place or the costly failure of it not having taken place yet. They would unrelentingly push for atrocities if only for the chance to keep the continued pursuit of a different outcome open.

## Psychological Dispositions

There are some interesting discussions re: the cause of adopting the communist perspective which contend that communism is principally a disposition borne out of existential despair. More specifically it is to say that those who are drawn into it, which we like to call the initiates, do so because of existential despair.

It is a viable hypothesis as we clearly see a correlation between those who identify as communist and such a personality - the highly neurotic, manipulative type who seeks constant acknowledgment while insisting that all must be in agreement to have any moral standing (cluster B personality).

But it is an incomplete view in that it is proven on the basis of diagnosing communists (and often an armchair diagnosis, though perhaps by those who know something about the matter), but not working out all the possible points of origin for the behaviour of these candidates.

Others might contend that they had particular traits which made them likely to choose to agree with the critiques put forth by communism, and thus it is their weakness of character which makes them communists, and that the main identifier is that communists put up promises attractive to young minds, but I am not convinced these are so distinct. That is to say, though we might observe these psychopathologies and though there may be genetically borne/mediated dispositions which facilitate or make more likely these outcomes, causation is unprovable, and even if we were to assume a fundamental factor present from onset or early life, it itself would be indistinguishable from early childhood influences such as reasoning and early challenges.

What can be more reasonably asserted is the following set of statements:
- all humans are capable of negative emotion
- an overbearing abundance of negative emotion can lead to despair
- all humans come to become familiar with the concept of time's finitude
- from a biological standpoint, beings with serotonergic systems balance reward and expectation through a relationship to their environment. In this way, it is not even relevant to have a discussion about this being a scientific analysis if we are not considering that the root cause can be applied to all the prospective persons (unless you are able to prove, unequivocally, that persons not genetically predisposed are notable to identify as "communist" and are not able to experience "existential despair").

### Professional Bias

It's good to remember to read these dialogues as though the purveyor of the perspective, in this case about the "communist" being an adopted identifier of a politically-focused person who suffers from existential despair and has crafted and reinforced in themselves what can be evaluated as a cluster B personality type, is something for which one might be inclined to take with a grain of salt. This isn't a criticism of the professional utilizing their painstakingly cultivated skill-set, and it even isn't an attempt to declare something contrary to the analysis; it's quite possible that they themselves would implicitly need for there to be a grain of salt taken along with it, as a good professional knows that it's necessary to put forward an assumption in certain circumstances in order to construct a system to help understand especially complex phenomena such as human psychology, anthropology and political philosophy.

It's definitely a meaningful system of analysis, as you'll probably be hard-pressed to find any examples to the contrary - especially if you're focused on people who come into such a socio-political view through their own lives, and not as a consequence of radicalization through the universities, which is probably the most benign and reasonable method by which someone may have come to harbour such a position (while still being indefensible, in my strong opinion).

### Nature vs Nurture

This is always divides us, even though most would feel that nurture takes precedence over just about everything for most people, even those who are trying to take back the control over nature and the institutions which are supposed to generate the most robust understanding of it.

Even in supposing that, in most cases, it's impossible to ascertain whether something is inherently present due to genetics or whether it was etched into the development of an organism early on, it's impossible to eliminate the perspective that nurture maintains precedence and that doesn't mean that the social constructivists are correct, because even they themselves will continuously refer back to the argument that there may be "ways of being" or "knowing" that are rooted in aspects life which are themselves being suppressed by hegemony.

There is an inherent and continuous challenge with interpreting and curbing delusion, even if such delusion is too incidental and inconsequential to be noticed. It appears to be universal in children to find them confirm their biases in the most ridiculous of ways; surely this must be acknowledged and remembered as being an ever-present natural characteristic in human thinking and we should, thus, assume that one maintains the potential to delude themselves even without realizing it, as the confirmation of one's biases can't necessarily be discovered without an incurred and clearly observed consequence that itself can be realized without too much bias.

The issue isn't so much that the mechanistic characteristics are present and able to be leveraged, or that the capacities which lend toward adopting ideological characteristics are also present (which they are and are being fervently promoted by person, state and corporation alike and which can by themselves cause one to become utterly blind to whatever might disrupt the serenity of the ideological stupor), but that one can even engage in a mode of perception which embraces delusion without any clear ideology whatsoever, but simply by a disposition to desiring a particular perception of themselves, or about the life one is living and what its future might hold.

And, furthermore, in having experienced delusion, in any capacity, one runs the risk of believing that all human perceptions are a form of delusion or are a component in the enablement of delusion. Why wouldn't anyone consider this, if even in a narrowly interpreted Kantian sense of noumenal and phenomenal.

If surely one has had even one moment wherein they recognize their own delusion, then they at least understand the ease by which one can participate in it, and if not all is well and good, surely one could imagine that things are as they are in spite of rampant and ubiquitous delusion. Such thinking, as well, lends itself to the communist, who believes that there is enough value being kept from them (enough opportunity, possibility) such that some can be wasted while still being sufficient to keep the current imperfect project going.

*We should instead be considering that the fact that any sense can be made about anything at all works as a reminder that sense and an aspiration to represent everything in its most correct and universal light is something which must necessarily be present in whatever perfect formulation of human experience that could ever come to be.*

### Explaining Communist Psychopathology

Going back to the conflict of competing explications between psychopathology as explicit existential despair, and that of "character weakness" facilitating and potentiating one to adopt an incomplete metaphysic which leads them towards the former, one might make the case that the second is more likely, but I contend that this, though technically more robust, is overridden by my yet-to-be elaborated categorical description and accompanying model of action towards reification of the communist perception (which is itself a collectivist perception).

Moreover, we might say that there is a weakness of character which facilitates such choices and outcomes, but the susceptibility which fulfills the conditions is one common and universal, after all, and which will be made more clear in the following section. It also isn't necessarily the right idea to look for how an "other" is being fulfilled and how we can imagine it as something whose origin is different. Not simply an array of the other origins, but an example of what awaits any one of us who decides to enumerate a laundry list of all the reasons for believing our differences start with existence, or how we exist - the content of our existence.

We should in essence be looking for opportunities to see people not as having fallen victim to their disposition, but to having a disposition imposed upon themselves and their lives, but seeing it as something which they themselves have the power to break free from. And while this might also sound reminiscent of Marxist praxis where the base of the theory is well-maintained as the assumption for a proceeding activism which aims to cause people to attain a critical consciousness, this is not the same thing at all.

With the critical consciousness it is assumed both that the lines of separation and hierarchy has been etched out in society through a dimension of oppression that is rooted in identity, and that people attain critical consciousness through understanding their identity as it has been conferred through the oppression of that system. What we should be offering to people, instead, is the very idea that they can redefine themselves without that vulnerability, because the vulnerability needn't be understood through identity, but happens to be a vulnerability because we all have certain inherent vulnerabilities from the shared universal factor of experiencing life with a human body, and fears which extend from these vulnerabilities make us amenable to ideologies which promise some form of deliverance from vulnerability 

### Framing for Bias

#### Cult Initiation

Indeed, we are making the assertion that a lot of the habituation of collectivist thinking and, more formally, Marxist sociopolitical outlook, comes in the form of cult initiation and indoctrination, as opposed to individuals engaging the work through their own independent curiosity and having that study radicalize them. In fact, I would wager that, even though I found Marx's writings particularly compelling at a young age, it wasn't really something that radicalized me so much as it gave me some ideas to think about that I hadn't previously considered at that level of acuity. It didn't, for example, immediately cause me to begin using new language or instill a deep desire to begin doing the work of Marxist praxis.

It might sound far-fetched for cult initiation to be taking place anywhere in our society, especially on a large scale, but it's not so intuitive to think about because when we think about cult initiation, we think about a very formalized system that has been developed from the ground up and articulated into ever-more sophisticated and completed edifices, but that's not how this works. In essence, it simply takes a corruption of language, and previously-extant edifices within which to deploy the language.

In this way, only a small-scale logistical undertaking is necessary for an organization to become a purveyor of cult ideology amongst a group of its regular dwellers who may or may not know anything about the cult in question, even after having adopted the language. It may only take one facilitator or the mandating of some programming which, though taking up a small proportion of the organization's activities, is enough to start allowing ideological commitments to become logically slated to come to fruition.

For example, with a DEI commitment, an organization might begin requiring its employees to receive recurring instruction on how to adapt their perception of their fellow colleagues in order to evaluate one another's bodies as per the systems of classification the DEI practitioner espoused as being the correct ones for understanding one another. Perhaps I am getting a head of myself by mentioning that it is predicated on the evaluation of bodies, but that is always going to be a limiting factor; it will always be the case that the effort to achieve a perfected existence through collectivism will be a permutation of perfecting matter of or as it relates to the bodies of extant human beings.

The curse of human embodiment will remain key to the evoked forces which drive humans to participate in collectivist endeavours, be it from the survival standpoint or from the standpoint of wishing to believe delusion. No human can be resolved in solitary delusion, but most any human can come to suspect that they'll find resolution in spite of their faintly self-acknowledged delusions just so long as another embodied being can affect it.

There is a structure to cult initiation and participation, but regardless of whether some cults may be formalized and well-established, or whether the quality of cult is being asserted on the basis of behaviour and happenstance, the procedure of initiation, adoption of practices, and contribution in perpetuating the cult has less to do on whether the cult is a real organization and more to do with human behaviour and human belief. The mechanics of cult indoctrination, however, are such that there will necessarily be some degree of formalizing which results from cult praxis.

TODO: complete this section on cult initiation and cult structures
TODO: Quotes from Robert Jay Lifton

#### Initiation to Despair

The initiates who are taken into organizations purposed for collectivist praxis through cult initiation might be doing so because their immediate circumstances already cause them great existential despair, thus having put them in a state where they are susceptible to desiring some sort of stability in their lives. It might simply be the case that they need to associate with some other people because that provides the modicum of stability; often enough, when people with ample negative emotion socialize, it's because it's hoped that, for them, it improves the moment and helps them move past their current level of angst.

It should be mentioned again that it isn't necessarily the case that every participant has begun their association with a cult-like organization or embraced the new cult-like practices that are brought into an organization under the guise of DEI or Culturally Relevant Pedagogy or similar frameworks, but that these both present an appeal to someone prone to negative emotion who is still aiming to be social, as well as that these cultivate an environment and relations amongst those within the organization that is conducive to nurturing negative emotion by embedding thought patterns and points of reflection that are toxic. There may very well be persons who don't have much negative emotion, but who also don't have much positive emotion, empathy, and so on, who somehow participate in this sort of thing, but that would just be conjecture, and I think that, for our purposes, and as relates to the vast majority of people, it's best to consider a circumstance of people who are able to empathize but who are, however, also able to fall victim to manipulation and exploitation.

TODO: Merge aspects of previous and following paragraph.

For those who already deal with a high level of negative emotion from which they rarely enjoy respite, it's not simply a case of them actively looking for environments or opportunities to join with politically focused or politically motivated organizations, but they may very well be looking for opportunities to socialize with others out of a need to subdue loneliness. Even in cases where one is deemed anti-social or even considers themselves as such, they may very well still have avenues through which to explore the opportunity for socialization, and this is especially true since the advent of gaming culture, social media, and communication over the internet in general, or even bulletin board systems (BBS) which were common enough before the internet became a widely accessed phenomenon (in fact, I was much more anti-social than those of my age and in my surroundings as I grew up, and I gravitated very much towards bulletin board systems (BBS) before ever having a chance to use the internet).

With my own experience, I find myself always empathizing and contemplating in detail what it must be like to be presented with a new social environment bearing a corresponding vernacular whose utilization has the power to sculpt and mould my perspective of the world, of other people and even myself, and that's just in consideration of a social environment that one enters into voluntarily, which is bad enough, but the reality is that children are also dealing with having to adopt what I continue to argue as being a problematic vernacular which is usually being presented to them as authoritative, morally justified, ethically necessary and logically or scientifically accurate.

And this circumstance is worthy of consideration for all those who consider that the threat to their children of such endeavours such as public schooling is based primarily upon curriculum, course instruction and what are considered as being the correct responses to questions which explicitly delve into subject matter that the parent is concerned about. It's far from the problem and is, in fact, probably much less of a risk than the other aspects of public schooling which condition and program children to think in a certain way.

It isn't the course material and the correct answers to questions, as it's far easier for children to be skeptical about what they are being "forced" to learn. It's also far easier for parents to see what is being taught through the course material and as per the performance of the student, the details of the answers given and the grading and commentary or feedback provided for those answers. What is far more difficult to sort through, identify and understand the effects of are simply the manner in which language is chosen for general communication in those environments, and the degree to which an educator has themselves been conditioned to harbour particular biases, especially when those biases have been programmed into them through a certification process as those perspectives are now intrinsically bound to their effort to have distinguished themselves professionally, meaning that it is connected to their pride of effort and duty, as well as to a representation of their capabilities as a developed individual.

This is because what appears as dispassionately presented, neutral information which takes place as a professional communication can yield different effects. Neutrally-presented, circumstantially present information affects the degree to which it is less scrutinized and the potential consequence of that is that it conditions a worldview without the subject having given it explicit thought which might have otherwise provided them with an opportunity to employ faculties of critical reasoning.

#### References to Framing and Bias
- [Framing Bias sage](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00218863221104864)
- [Framing Bias wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_%28social_sciences%29)
- [Framing Bias pubmed](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8345362/)
- [Framing Bias CBS](https://research-api.cbs.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/101442939/faith_hatani_framing_biases_and_language_choices_acceptedversion.pdf)
- [Framing Bias pubmed](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8345362/)
- [Framing Bias pubmed](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9031119/)
- [Framing Bias Deib Dict](https://developdiverse.com/deib_dictionary/framing-effect/)
- [Framing Bias U Pitts](https://sites.pitt.edu/~mitnick/BPweb/HallahanSevenModelsFramingJPubRelRes.pdf)
- [Framing Bias U Texas](https://journalism.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/sites/journalism.utexas.edu/files/attachments/reese/baresch-hsu-reese-chapter.pdf)

### Inducing vs Attracting Despair

Though it was touched on briefly, it's important to elaborate on a very concerning aspect of introducing cult-initiate language in social environments which is that it doesn't just attract vulnerable people who already suffer from existential despair, but that the fact of the language having many implications which challenge one's notions of reality can be an implement by which to induce existential despair in someone not already suffering from it, and that this serves the very praxis which has been used to embed the vernacular extending from the cult praxis in whatever respective domain for which the social environment in question is intended.



TODO: major editing for next part
Think about how it feels to be suddenly thrust in a situation where you are being asked to consider yourself as being immoral or to have to second guess all your thoughts and actions as being expressions and things bearing significance in a moral framework which speaks about the degree to which your existence is justified or the degree to which you make other people's existence intolerable.

To cause you to consider constantly, at least in that setting, that everything you've done throughout your life has been actually harmful to someone else because they have a different body than yours and that the true meaning of your bodies, as per a system surround you that you weren't ever able to decode until now. In fact, that you are able to decode them at all is only possibly because you're being afforded the privilege of learning how to do it, out of the virtue of those with bodies whose significance makes them morally superior and deeply more insightful than you are. It simply has been something that you weren't able to pick up on, and that now from here on out you are in the company of those who can actually read those things and who will be scrutinizing you to make sure you're able to show progress in understanding this.

That base scenario is just one aspect of the struggle sessions which will need to become regular, and which may very well be so subtle that you aren't actively aware of the fact that you are being struggled. You have to demonstrate mastery of acknowledging these things without disclosing that you actually have insight because part of your demonstration needs to be the affirming that you don't have knowledge and insight and that you rely on those others, who are other to you, to give you insight. Their being "other" is, by the way, your moral failure and the moral failing of your ancestry which has set up the world such as to cause you to be developed in a way where you are lacking knowledge and insight.

You need to walk that sharp, jagged and treacherous line between having knowledge and not making mistakes while also letting on that you have no knowledge. You must be ready when met with a prompt of appropriate scrutiny to acknowledge that everything you do is a mistake in some form. And if you fall into an intersectional identity which produces a more oppressed looking matrix, you can only maintain the status conferred by that designation so long as your words and behaviour are emblematic of the model of your identity as determined in critical social justice. If something is noted or observed about you which deviates sufficiently from that model, you will be described as having fallen victim to false consciousness or, in the worst case, you will be accused of betraying all marginalized people and as having become lost in trying to adopt your oppressor's identity.

It's constantly demanding the impossible, constantly accepting that you are immoral, and constantly showing that you are capable of handling it while having to prove your humility by showing that you are incapable, but it only seems impossible when language is taken at face value under an assumption of a shared, universally-applicable epistemology grounded in logic and reason. The logic of cult collectivism, however, is always sound: the goal is for the realm of human existence to be one absolute, totalizing expression. For the initiate, however, who has been lured on the basis of plain-speak language which demands fairness, freedom and humanity as common-sense terms which aren't considered to have dubious and contrived meanings, the environment is perfect to produce the anxiety needed by the cult to compel its participants to action.

The inconsistencies and base state of oppression and misery are to be recognized as the normal permutation of society, and having the initiate reflect on this, particularly if they're children, will help lead them into crises that can be harnessed for social change:

> "Once in a crisis, a student can go in many directions, some that may lead to anti-oppressive change, others that may lead to more entrenched resistance. Therefore, educators have a responsibility not only to draw students into a possible crisis, but also to structure experiences that can help them work through their crises productively."
> - Kevin Kumashiro

As a cult initiate, because you are to recognize alternate systems of knowledge, you are given an ambiguous means of rationalizing why the paradox can be ignored since the paradox is only on the basis of utilizing traditional critical reasoning faculties which are themselves an artifact of the unjust and immoral way of thinking and doing.

The degree to which your experience must be laden with paradoxes and contradictions while being given the tools and the rhetoric such as to help you ignore that things are unresolved and not worked out is astonishing, and furthermore the fact that yo will now keep these things unresolved and ignore them will just give you psychological damage and abuse you - causing you to have an ever-expanding and intensifying source of existential despair, which is fuel for cult proliferation.

### Contradictions For Productive Despair

As we've said, the fact of the matter is that paradoxes and tension of contradiction are not just tolerated or welcome, but they're actually precisely what the enforcements are intended to yield. This fundamental perspective is not something which comes from modern collectivist practices, but one which is rooted in the overarching philosophical cult framework: Marxism. !TODO: following sentence should be rethought -> That's the design of the structures or the systems which are consequent to the theory being employed. We're not supposed to have a world free of contradiction and tension because such a word would mean we've already transcended and allowed man to attain the level of being "man in himself". To contextualize that statement of "man in himself" we can look at the following quote:

> "...fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself." - Karl Marx (A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right)

Just as Lenin had espoused both in his demand to accelerate the contradictions, as well in his description of state and the process of history as being founded upon the notion that the state exists to resolve the conflict of man and that the cessation of conflict would be synonymous and synchronous with he disillusion of the state, the purpose of the environment, particularly if it is declared as geared towards the express purpose of allowing an oppressed identity to be reified in its true form in a manner where it belongs and where it is brought to the center, is to collide conflicting entities and produce conflict with the faith that the energy and tension borne of the event will power the type of transformative change being sought for social justice (in keeping with the more modern nomenclature). As the true effect of man in society as a phenomenon is as a component which fuels historical change, and to the end that the qualitative aspect of history is such that man can and will be discarded, the regard for the health of psyche in any individual human (component) of that environment, by the social justice practitioner whose faith lies in critical praxis, is secondary at best and, more realistically, non-existent. Instead, that regard is supplanted by an analysis of whether the contribution of that component is yielding as a capacity for transformative change, under a presumption that it is the new conditions which will determine the psyche, and not the treatment or comportment of any humans en route to that change.

This passage seems a bit contradictory in its own rite in that on the first hand it alleges that man should throw off the chains of religion, but in the next it's saying that man should revolve around himself as the center of the system which, in essence, is very religious. It would seem that the actual criticism is to replace all religion with the one true religion of a materialist type focused on the perfecting of man until he has imminentized the perfected structure of reality in his being as man in himself, man of himself and man for himself. For those who have done the appropriate study, this appears strikingly similar and conceptually congruent to satanism, with the perfection of reality being the intellectual pursuit of man and the goal of a self-centered existence which embraces the material as the foundation of what will become divine.

## Categorical Descriptions

Unlike the subjects of most of our study, I believe in universally applicable and comprehensible reason which is not only the reason why we can provide a categorical description of Communism, but is the reason why doing so is necessary for any rational conversation about the subject. In doing so, we should make a concerted effort to be clear that we are being particular when defining terms like Communism or Marxism (which isn't simply another way of naming Communism, nor a parent or subset of it), because we want to be clear about how the ideas developed and how people think about them.

One might bring forward an example of a self-proclaimed Communist whose words, circumstances and lifestyle are of a nature where one will point to it in order to claim that my categorical descriptions and people's definitions in general are fleeting and imprecise, and that it's far more important to allow people to express themselves, even with wrong syntax (or even false premises) and that we consequently learn what people are thinking and might find commonality with them as a result. While I don't dispute that we should find commonality and learn what people are thinking (in fact, you have no business working with people unless you care to learn what and how they think), I am quite stubborn in insisting that the structure of thought behind an idea, and the thoughts it invokes, are not something arbitrary. They're...

Just as one will not find one specific type of person who attends a Christian church, you will find variance even in a collectivist cult religion, but you will also find a more pronounced pattern of delusion or tendency towards delusion amongst those participating in the practice of bringing about Communism.

### Introduction:

- Theology
- Religion
- God-Object
- Biological Reality

Before disambiguating whether the term is most correctly thought of as any one of these, we first need to make something abundantly clear: the reality and viability of the collectivist phenomenon sometimes referred to as Communism is natural, universal and something everyone may very well have experienced (though many may not recollect or realize this). This might sound obvious to many political theorists in that its what has already come to pass, thus it must be within the realm of biologically-driven behaviour, but there are always debates and disagreements about whether an undesirable behaviour which appears foreign from one's base of comparison, especially in a cultural sense, is the product of mere environmental and cultural factors. In the case of the conceiving of a Communist endpoint, and collectivism in general (which I don't believe to be as distinct as some might contend), what I am saying is that all people are able to experience this and likely have and that it is important to illustrate the phenomenon with an empathetic path to understanding. (That is, I don't only say that one must have empathy in thinking about it, but one should discuss this phenomenon in a manner which explains that the path by which it came about could be attractive an sensible to anyone, at least insofar as initiation and taking up use of the language of socialist liberation, in whatever form).

### Biological Pre-requisites

If there's a universal appeal to something, then it's not likely to be the case that its pursuit is due to social construction. One might say that the social constructions of the social sphere bring out more of a particular behaviour, or have been set to reward a particular behaviour more than it should. No doubt, it may seem ironic or paradoxical to note that we're describing the ideological pursuit of something on the basis that all other things are social constructions and that somehow the final destination would be something wherein the social constructions are possibly non-extant, but it's a bit more complicated than that. The idea from Marx is that we can't understand our true nature if there are conditions and relations which corrupt our perception, and that it is these corruptions which serve as the clear indication that a process of reorganization is necessary. Further to that point, the idea isn't ultimately to get rid of the social constructions, as Marx's conception of man includes the necessity of creating himself through social construction, but that this social construction also includes the creation of nature, as it is upon our nature that we subsist, and it is through the creation and reconfiguration of nature that we socialize ourselves.

It should be mentioned that the essential components derived from biological reality / form -> specifically one with conscious thought as can be verified -> this human, is the same set of functional components which I've also explained as  being conducive to historicism. This is just another way of reminding everyone that Marx called his theory historical materialism, as well as calling attention tot he fact that Marx's line of thought originated from different historicists, like Hegel, and that this means any serious person should consider these parts of it.

And what are some of these characteristics?
- Finite biological system
- Single sensory frame (high level composite cluster of senses)
- Perception of self
  - Sufficient to abstract and speculate
  - "Consciousness"
    - Knowledge of death
- Capacity to communicate with degree of semantically expressive syntax sufficient to speculate consciousness of other human forms
- Experience of dimension of time (state change with single path and direction)

Let's try to fit this into an acronym that's easy to remember. Easy enough, at least:

SAFKT. At least it can be pronounced. What is it?

S - senses
A - abstract
F - finitude
K - kill (or knowledge of death)
T - time

Here are some phrases that I use to help remember the set of terms:
- "Stop And Find Knowledge Together"
- "Strengthen Authentic Feelings Kindly"
- "Sort All Faulty Karens Teasingly"

*Let's expand on that again just so it's clear:*

#### Senses

In the context of:
- predisposition towards:
  - Historicism
  - Collectivism
  - Abuse of language to construct delusional representation of reality

Indeed, we fall into delusional thinking and have expectations about a future with an endpoint which allows the unproven details about that delusion, and the predicates to the conception of thought which brought about that delusion, to be fulfilled and proven correct, in enough time

The first requirement for this is the fact of having senses. This is maybe a bit more obvious than the others, in the sense that if our existence were characterized by pure knowledge and information - the location and configuration of the bits of matter of all the universe, then there'd be nothing more to it than that - the fact of there being some type of acknowledgment or recognition of the structure of information, such as it is, would be somehow a fundamental behaviour of ourselves, but that isn't the case. Instead, we are feeding sensory apparatuses with some quantity of that information, and that leads to production of other information (or, reconfiguration of information, if we want to stay strict in employing language which recognizes and respects the First Law of Thermodynamics).

This is a very complicated starting place, and it's not in a sense the starting point for our challenge of mitigating delusional thinking.

#### Abstract

The very fact of our being able to abstract is precisely what allows to contemplate and consider anything beyond the immediate, superficial representation of something as being the be all and end all of reality. Or perhaps superficial isn't the right term, but the unassuming, unfiltered interpretation of the environment exactly as it presents itself, and in the context of the immediate moment. There is, of course, some degree of prediction which goes on with a brain - and this isn't just limited to human biology or human neuroscience, but is something which is obviously present in all animals, as we see with predator prey behaviour, and so on. But beyond some of these details which describe some of our more immediate survival instincts, the ability to abstract and contemplate is something distinctly human and which allows us to extend or scope of prediction beyond a range appropriate to the immediate choices about movement and position of the body, and take it into the realm of time-travel - considering the past, or the future, and to an extent which isn't measurable but is, in fact, something approaching infinity.

Being able to imagine changes to the environment and to the construct of reality all the way out to an infinite distance allows for the conceiving of a reality which is infinitely different from the current one, or the presentation of the current one.

#### Finitude

Oh, woe is us, with our finite ability and the impending conclusion of our experience due to human mortality. It is, without doubt, the one of the worst forms of oppression which we are all subject to. Particularly with the capacity to envision experience, events and realty going all the way across astronomical time scales and even to what one might attempt to conceptualize as an infinite distance or eternal span of temporality, the possibility of an existence which is itself non-temporal, and so on. With all of these cognitive possibilities and cognitive buffets to choose from, one begins to wonder if more sense can be made from them given enough time, or if changes could be made to the environment or the person one is bound to, and if such changes could lead to an expansion in the duration of one's ability to perceive and experience, or whether a complete paradigmatic shift is necessary for one to grasp a mode of being in reality which allows one to transcend the limitations inherent to the human form. This easily, with sufficient resources to allow one the luxury of contemplation, can drive one to pose a moral question as to whether a human purpose can be discerned from this ability to contemplate the transcendence of our limitations.

#### Kill

This factor is so easily and intuitively understood by any human being that such an expectation can even likely be extended to feral children so long as they'd had some time to experience loss through the observation of animals in the wild. To contemplate the limits of experience insofar as it relates to the mortality of oneself and others is something which is woven ever so deeply into the human experience. From the budding thoughts of this matter in the mind of a maturing child to a dilapidated, elderly human making peace with their thoughts, memories and personhood in the last moments of their life, reflecting on death is inextricable from the human experience and, as such, everyone will have had at least one moment to consider whether death can be averted. Our understanding of the limits of human experience are based both upon technology and the language used to share our perceptual experience, thus it makes perhaps the fundamental motivation for the planning of our actions and the effort we make to transform the environment or at least our understanding of it.

#### Time

Time is obviously the most fundamental and essential component to historicist thinking and expectation on a future which is becoming. The human mind has expectations about the future by default, regardless of any ideological indoctrination or mastery of technical skill. It sees expected events which come to pass and become realized, considers that things which have not yet occurred as being things which have not yet come to pass, with time still coming which retains the possibility of things still coming to be. It reflects on past events to consider how they are best understood today, and how their occurrence may have affected to trajectory of time which bring us to a current point in existence. To make any historical reference necessarily causes one to conceptualize the path of history as being a world line the dynamics of which are the reality that we experience. Lastly, from historical contemplation and dwelling on the past, we can come to question whether the path of history could have differed from what has occurred, and whether there is a difference between the legitimacy of a world where something which should come to be will come to be, and one where it will not.

Also of note is the perspective that children, as being immersed in experience wherein they temporally advance in a process of discovering that things can be true and how things are made to be and known to be true, may naturally see truth as something which is always created and developed.

### Cheating Death

Something especially crucial to highlight amongst the set components essential to human experience is that the capacity for abstraction and speculation combined with the knowledge of death fulfills the requirements sufficient to allow one to come to believe that death can be evaded.

Some might call it a hope to overcome death which rests in us all, with death itself sometimes being perceived as the means to overcome death - as in a  rite of passage, mastery of the challenge (if even the psychological aspects of it), insight into the question of whether there is something more, the final silencing of the pain which leads to death (that is, with life as that pain which must ultimately be silenced).

Another might say that this hope to overcome death, in the sense of divine transcendence or material mastery as it pertains to extended or eternal life is something only feasible through a religious metaphysic which focuses on a supernatural or all-powerful deity. One may wish to counter that thought by pointing towards secular discourse exploring the potential to achieve these things scientifically and incrementally with examples ranging from concepts for achieving never-ending life to remarks explaining any known precedent of health advancement as being some form of this completing this historically ever-present challenge of mankind.

It's not really that far out of the realm of possibility. We have developed gene delivery methods that are ever more reliable at delivering payloads to cells, with much of this progress having come about through interest in controlling gene expression  through gene silencing, or oncogene inhibition, gene restoration, which is hoped to allow cells to restore their ability to regulate growth, and through epigenetic modification affecting DNA methylation and histones which influence oncogenes and tumour suppression genes.

There is also a very real possibility of advancing our ability to maintain and regenerate the brain, which is in some ways the major goal of neuroscience, or certain branches of it. Efforts include stem cell therapy to provide critical neurons and induce neurogenesis, neurotrophic factors, gene therapy, epigenetic programming, senolytics, nanotech therapies, such as nanobots which repair at the cellular level, nanoparticles which clear beta-amyloid and nano-delivery of materials to influence gene expression, and cryonics.

There are then, going even further into a more science fiction-infused realm of inquiry, the utilization of more artificial means of attempting to maintain one's consciousness. These range from developing the means of reproducing the information structure of the brain, to brain interfaces..

#### Eternal Brain

There's this preconceived belief that the consciousness, the fact of you having awareness about the passing of time from the perspective of your body, and the fact of there being 3 dimensional space corresponding to that other temporal dimension wherein your body appears to exist and is able to mobilize, displace, change and exist, is something which is made possible because of the brain. In addition to that, is also the appearance of a focal point of awareness, both in terms of your visual spectrum and where your visual acuity is focused upon, as well as a focus of potential for speculation and intention.

This might also be understood as a human having a thought, which might just be considered as being one's attention to something which comes across as a structure bearing semblance to information, be it geometric or something linguistic - though you'd be hard pressed to really know for sure whether these are separate from one another. Another point one might consider is that there could be a focus upon the auditory - that somehow there is a sonic representation in the mind. And it certainly appears like that, for me at least, as I'll play guitar in the mornings and seemingly have the tunes I've played echoing through my mind without any effort - supposedly defeating the intentional aspect of what I just described. But I wouldn't say that it's without intention - it's something I'm replaying and thinking about, and I'm aware of it, so I can't really ascertain the degree to which it is intentional or involuntary, just as we can't really conclusively know whether one person is able to quell a thought while another is forced to endure it, with an extreme example as being some person who is suffering a schizophrenia and enduring a psychotic break wherein they aren't aware of reality or are somehow not able to make intelligent inferences which correspond with the observations and experiences of other observers or other devices which are receiving information about the same environment.

Now we can design tests to provide us with data and heuristics about what someone is experiencing and the degree to which their interpretation of the events of the environment they are subjected to correspond with what is universally and reasonably understood as "reality", but this is never going to be the same thing as having access to the internal state in some type of objective and verifiable way. Our ability to analyze and verify will always be kept behind a veil of models and techniques to fabricate some type of stand-in for direct-access to a human's perception and experience.

Another thought to bring into the mix is that what we understand as consciousness and human experience as an aware intellect as well as the instance of perception which considers and reflects upon sensory inputs available by virtue of a human body may be isolated to the brain located in that body, but it might also be something which is located in all of or any part of the nervous system as a whole. Though it seems like a common-sense premise to believe that either the entirety or the primary or fundamental implement by which we have conscious awareness is through the mechanisms located in the brain itself, this too is something that we can't understand conclusively, and this speaks to the manner in which we conduct ourselves in pursuit of understanding our form and experience.

But let's forget all of those complications for now and choose to accept the premise that consciousness is located in the brain or is enabled by virtue of a living brain which maintains its function and viability through a metabolism, and consider the ways in which we might preserve such functionality which extends beyond the plausible and reasonable expectations of a human lifespan.

- Brain cell replacement and regeneration
  - Tweaking metabolism
  - Repairing damaged metabolism / cells
  - Regenerating neurons
  - Providing cells which self-differentiate into specifically-required neurons
  - Providing artificially-produced particles which as perfectly interchangeable neurons (or neurons which are somehow compatible yet enhanced in a way which does not take away from the otherwise-expected capability of the neurons they are replacing or acting as a redundancy for)
  - Modifying the neurons we have such as to infinitely extend their life span (or prolong by a magnitude that, compared to our understanding of plain human biology, would be approaching something that a human would perceive as infinite)
  - Augmenting the brain with artificial implements which take over the entirety or nearly the entire functionality of the brain, while simultaneously placing the normal brain in an environment or subjecting the normal brain to a treatment which unburdens it from its normal duties and, because of this situation, allows for it to exist in a state wherein it is not expending itself metabolically and is not subjected to the normal entropic conditions that would otherwise cause it to age
- Whole brain replacement
  - Developing a digital brain for brain emulation
  - Developing an artificial brain which is completely analogous to the biologically developed human brain
    - Having the means to transfer the information state of the biological brain to the artificial brain

Now, for the latter of those two strategies, it would be hoped that there would be some means of testing the solution which satisfies one's curiosity as to whether the state of consciousness is maintained through the transfer, or even the replication, of information state. Without getting too far off into a digression, it's fascinating to think about how one could undertake the verification effort, as even an indication that the new brain is yielding evidence of consciousness would not be, in and of itself, the evidence that the actual conscious state is maintained, and that the life experience of the human in question would continue through the new brain if the old one were to cease functioning. Nevertheless, these are things that we are able to consider as being possible strategies for attaining infinite or near-infinite durations of brain activity for the purpose of maintaining human consciousness.

Furthermore, it's worth mentioning that if we are able to produce organisms which have all the appearance of consciousness to a degree that is indistinguishable from human beings, and, less importantly, that these new seemingly-conscious beings are enjoying the experience of existence through their supposed conscious state, that it may be sufficient to consider this as the extension and continuation of the human race, even if the last biologically-derived human were to become deceased. It's a morbid argument, but a worthy one as we contemplate the means by which we can continue our existence even in the face of cataclysmic calamities and so on.

#### Eternal Aesthetic

What would this look like? Some kind of a eternal life that develops and becomes more sophisticated or more fulfilling as time goes on? That doesn't seem too unreasonable, as we could begin with simply taking a break from living one's life and modifying one's environment such as to house one's body or just the brain in an apparatus which limits aging while permitting some level of conscious awareness and thought process to be continued. Of course, again, we'd have to grapple with the verification that the life is actually continuing and that we didn't just completely kill the person and begin a facade of their continued life, but that this latter replacement is just a morbid spectacle without and ability to actually fulfill what it was set out to (if we are to assume that we are expanding the already extant human life and not simply replacing human life with something that is conscious enough to be considered human, inspired by humans or an evolution of humanity).

We should expand on that thought a little but, before we do that, it's important to point out just how historicist that plan is at every level. We're talking about endeavouring to attain the as-of-yet unattainable by placing oneself in a situation where it necessarily must come to fruition in order for their life to be lived. We could think of another example of someone being within minutes of their last breath, and that we'd take this person's brain and extend their life as such, but there are obvious complications that we needn't expand on here - what's clear is that we'd want to test this out with a volunteer who is at a health state of body and functionality, and preserve them in this state, or at least begin from that state so there's a higher chance of being able to deal with the unknowns as we develop our capacity to enable, expand and maintain functionality of the mind for that person.

How can we test it? We'd have to perform the procedure with a healthy body, removing the brain and placing it in the apparatus to slow or stop aging, and then come to a baseline of observing consciousness to a satisfactory degree. Then, we'd have to return the brain to the biological body from which it was taken and verify that, indeed, the person is still able to describe their consciousness and speak as to what the experience was like with the brain having been separated from the body.

### Basic Framework to Imagine This

Is it important to have a thought experiment which involves an infinite regress, or is that the point by which it is to be criticized? On the one hand we've had experiences with former critiques of an ontological nature or at least insofar as they deny descriptions of an ontological nature while presupposing their own, and these were precisely performed on the notion that the suggestion itself wasn't appropriate sans an infinite regress and that the alternative is a more pragmatic approach of understanding what is current, what is prescient and what is effective at moving towards an outcome of our choice. Of course, we need to accept that premise that the outcome is something that is both described in a manner that can be universally understood and that, perhaps more thoughtlessly, that it is indeed the right outcome that we should be aiming for. But again we have that circular reasoning, that here we are indicating the outcome or the endpoint of desire and that this is somehow indicative of an ontological truth while, simultaneously, the description putting it forward is prompted to do so on the basis that the nature itself cannot be deduced. If a nature cannot be deduced, then are we having a disagreement about that point and does that serve as the negation of our interlocutory process? It is, perhaps, the means by which we replace it with a contrived representation of that process which is itself not fruitful in the manner which is ostensibly pointed to but, instead, is the very thing which occupies those with an authentic curiosity as to how to understand the proper procedure to be undertaken.

The thought experiment itself involves a simple organism which doesn't need to be elaborated upon in terms of its structure beyond fulfilling the most basic aspects of the SAFKT model that was described earlier. In fact, we don't even need all of the elements, but at least the **NOTE: we need to verify the elements ** T (time), K (kill), and some limited ability to abstract from sensory input. With these in place, we begin our experiment with first the only single member in the environment unable perhaps to speculate about the imminent end to its mortal existence, but at least having some hints about limitations to structure and form which are brought about by bouts of illness as they are presented through encounters with other organisms (or perhaps limitations of the environment, such as insufficient nourishment or oxygen, contamination by certain inorganic compounds, and the physical structure of the environment to the end of presenting dangerous barriers and paths that must be traversed. This on its own might not actually get us to the place we're describing, but it has the potential to even without having to add other participants into the equation. When we speak of participants, we don't mean any other type of organism but ones which can be classified in kind.

The other conditions of the environment used for our thought experiment are that we are assuming that there is no formal base by which to perform our analysis. That is to say, this is a pre-enlightenment equivalent which might be, in a sense, the precursor to a naturalist conception of the environment, but which is perhaps enabled through this actual analysis in question. There is no need for introducing transcendental conceptions through symbolism, either represented purely in the abstract or through phenomena which interface with the body and can be  represented in the visual cortex, though it must be taken as a starting assumption that there are indeed these faculties and that they are a base operational capacity by which to interface with the environment.

#### Wired to Avoid Death

We already have an extensive understanding of biological organisms and the circuits by which they avoid pain, as well as ideas about how these extend to human beings who consequently both anticipate pain avoidance and speculate about changing conditions to avoid pain, even to the point of longing for immortality.

For some, it might sound perfectly obvious that humans anticipate pain and avoid it at a level not afforded to other animals, and that this builds off of a base of biologically-mediated behaviour which avoids discomfort in general, but I am highlighting and emphasizing it to make it clear that there is a strong foundation for this and that, given the much-expanded faculties of a human being, this affects the speculative human mind to the level of its perception of metaphysic and ontological truth.

##### 1. Pain-Avoidance and Defensive Behaviors (Nociceptive Circuits)
- Charles Scott Sherrington (1857–1952) – Reflex arcs and nociceptive withdrawal reflexes
- Sherrington, C. (1906). The Integrative Action of the Nervous System. Yale University Press.
- Patrick D. Wall & Ronald Melzack – Developed the Gate Control Theory of Pain, explaining how pain perception is regulated by the nervous system.
- Melzack, R., & Wall, P. D. (1965). Pain mechanisms: A new theory. Science, 150(3699), 971-979.

##### 2. Fear and Threat-Detection (Amygdala & Hypothalamus Circuits)

- Joseph LeDoux – Identified the amygdala’s role in fear processing and survival behavior.
- LeDoux, J. (1996). The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life. Simon & Schuster.
- Walter Cannon (1871–1945) – Introduced the concept of the "fight-or-flight" response and the role of the hypothalamus in stress.
- Cannon, W. B. (1929). Bodily Changes in Pain, Hunger, Fear, and Rage. Appleton & Company.

##### 3. Reward-Seeking and Dopaminergic Motivation (Midbrain Dopamine Pathways)
- James Olds & Peter Milner – Discovered the brain's reward system, particularly the role of dopamine pathways in motivation.
- Olds, J., & Milner, P. (1954). Positive reinforcement produced by electrical stimulation of septal area and other regions of rat brain. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 47(6), 419-427.
- Wolfram Schultz – Detailed how dopamine neurons encode reward prediction error.
- Schultz, W. (1997). A neural substrate of prediction and reward. Science, 275(5306), 1593-1599.

##### 4. Homeostasis and Self-Preservation (Autonomic Nervous System & Insular Cortex)
- Claude Bernard (1813–1878) – Introduced the concept of the "milieu intérieur," foundational to homeostasis.
- Bernard, C. (1865). Introduction à l'étude de la médecine expérimentale.
- Walter B. Cannon – Expanded Bernard's concept and coined "homeostasis."
- Cannon, W. B. (1932). The Wisdom of the Body. W. W. Norton & Company.
- Antonio Damasio – Described how the insular cortex integrates bodily states with emotional experience.
- Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. Harper Collins.

##### 5. Memory, Learning, and Pattern Recognition (Hippocampus & Prefrontal Cortex)
- Donald O. Hebb – Developed Hebbian learning, explaining how neural circuits strengthen through experience.
- Hebb, D. O. (1949). The Organization of Behavior: A Neuropsychological Theory. Wiley.
- Brenda Milner & Wilder Penfield – Showed the role of the hippocampus in memory through patient H.M. studies.
- Scoville, W. B., & Milner, B. (1957). Loss of recent memory after bilateral hippocampal lesions. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 20(1), 11-21.
- Michael Gazzaniga – Investigated split-brain patients, showing the lateralization of cognitive functions.
- Gazzaniga, M. S. (1970). The Bisected Brain. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

##### 6. Social and Cooperative Survival Instincts (Oxytocin & Mirror Neurons)
- Giacomo Rizzolatti – Discovered mirror neurons, which help facilitate learning through social imitation.
- Rizzolatti, G., et al. (1996). Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Cognitive Brain Research, 3(2), 131-141.
- Paul J. Zak – Studied oxytocin’s role in social bonding and trust.
- Zak, P. J. (2005). The neuroeconomics of trust. Scientific American, 296(3), 88-95.

##### 7. Neuroplasticity and Abstract Thought (Association Cortices & Default Mode Network)
- Michael Merzenich – Pioneered research on neuroplasticity, demonstrating the brain’s ability to reorganize itself.
- Merzenich, M. M. (2001). Cortical plasticity contributing to childhood development. Developmental Psychobiology, 39(1), 135-145.
- Marcus E. Raichle – Identified the Default Mode Network (DMN), associated with introspection and abstract thought.
- Raichle, M. E., et al. (2001). A default mode of brain function. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(2), 676-682.

#### Experiment of Immortal Thinking

!NOTE: Do we even need this section, or do we simply need to state the point of the disposition and give examples of the evidence for the biologically mediated component.

If examining the pre-scientific, pre-enlightenment, pre-naturalist, pre-civilizational, etc, then surely one could even imagine, as experiment, a condition of life with few or only one living being, and a state of no formal conception of deity in lieu of scientific knowledge, and these beings, having no verified explanation for phenomena, conceiving of pain and witnessing the death of other organisms, coming into having speculation of one's evasion of pain or death, and then this leading to imaginations about one's special path towards its achievement.

I contend that it wouldn't be normal for a human being to not ponder and reflect on such possibilities, as it is in our nature (yes, imagine that we actually do have a nature) to invest our time into ideas and activities which appear as only a conjecture in the immediate but may relate to large payouts over a long period of time and that the extent of such a period could be pushed out towards the infinite.

### Verification of Truth

*How do we approach this informally? How do formal methods get affected?*

Might it be that we simply don't ask the right questions? In academic and developmental pursuits as a whole, we quickly become rewarded along the path of engaging the question and answer process which takes place at a very low level, regardless of whether we utilize a formal process to address a specific higher level question, or conversely if only reacting in short temporal portions to one's perception of the surrounding environment.

Any intentional, voluntary action is, at minimum, fulfilling the choice between rest or action out of action potential, and being that a human's neurocognitive and neuromuscular capacities are intrinsically yielding from behaviour borne of neurochemically rewarding patterns of actions undertaken by the human person, there will always be some degree of rewarded response or, better stated, answering of a question.

A scientific approach is, at minimum, asking some higher level questions, but there is nothing which universally limits the choice of question, other than, perhaps, the social factors which influence its utterance, receipt and so forth.

So then, obviously, we need to take from this that our hesitation should always err on the side of skepticism which, though uttered, is never really drilled down to its lowest level interpretation, but is instead applied insofar as things are classified in the social environment as being either accepted views or those which are already pressured towards exclusion.

# Professionals Led Astray

Western civilization faces a conundrum in that immense distrust in professions and the "expert class" has become so widespread that even normies and ideologically captured professionals themselves will sometimes express it, much less those who try to think outside the box and claim "common sense". In many ways, it's a well-deserved distrust, though the extent of its application is unknown, as it's still true that the electrical grid functions, aircraft controllers are highly successful, and surgeons are expected to perform miracles on the daily. The real question isn't whether to disregard professionals and experts whose work would otherwise have to be replicated by random people, but whether we can evolve better systems to train, accredit, and verify skills and knowledge as technology progresses and authoritative constraints can be made to adapt or even be circumvented such as to meet the needs and challenges of the day.

With that in mind, let us take a moment to ruminate on the disappointment of the professional class so that the failures can be understood in a way which is productive and which ultimately does not dismiss the utility and legitimacy of having recognized professionals.

## Intellectuals and Propaganda

> "Ellul follows through by designating intellectuals as virtually the most vulnerable of all to modern propaganda, for three reasons: (1) they absorb the largest amount of secondhand, unverifiable information; (2) they feel a compelling need to have an opinion on every important question of our time, and thus easily succumb to opinions offered to them by propaganda on all such indigestible pieces of information; (3) they consider themselves capable of “judging for themselves.” - Konrad Kellen (Introduction to the English translation of Propaganda - The Formation of Men’s Attitudes by Jacques Ellul)

It should come as no surprise that intellectuals, especially self-professed ones, are the most vulnerable to propaganda. For one, they will consume more of it of it in one form or another. This isn't just due to wishing to be relevant to social affairs and maintaining social salience and, as such, consuming the most broadly published news available as befits their interests, but also because as one becomes an intellectual, one tends to drive into a specialization which is interoperable in a manner which relates to many other fields outside of their specialization. Since the application of most specializations requires an integrative context, they come to become familiar with the domains through which they are deployed, all the while having to take for granted the assumptions of those neighbouring specializations which are also party to that domain. This means having to refer to a lots of published material or public statements about an array of subjects beyond their own specialization, but while being mostly committed in their professional time to making progress within their specialization. This isn't a declaration of their incompetence, but merely a realistic understanding of what it means to be a professional in today's technologically advanced environment, and the demands on professionals in spite of resource limitations like one's professional and personal time.

They will also generally have a perspective of the concept of propaganda which assumes that its purpose is to cause the propagandee, or recipient of said messaging, to be made to change their opinion about something, and that this is one of the primary reasons by which intellectuals and labourers, blue-collar folk, and those who are less educated, less proficient with their intellect, and held in not as high an esteem within the public eye differ in their opinions about what is true. To even categorize these two on the basis of a intellect causes us to immediately assume that it is analogous to a difference of true and false opinions.

Jacques Ellul shows that this is not the case at all, and that propaganda mostly serves in a few other capacities:
- Entrenchment of opinion
- Proposition to profess allegiance to state
- Signaling one's appropriate positioning for matters of society and polity
- Ensuring that citizens understand where their current focus should be placed
- Demonstrating to the public that you are hip, maintaining relevance and avoiding redundancy (NOTE: this could be merged with professing allegiance)

## Professional Case Study
*Examining Lawrence Krauss*
I shall take as a case study one Lawrence Krauss, a Theoretical physicist who always fashions himself as a progressive, yet still wants to eat the cake he wishes to keep by crying about the destruction of his precious academia and the erasure and mockery of the scientific method as it is applied in his field and those surrounding him.

It is somewhat frustrating to see as he carries both a lot of influence and expertise, while also demonstrating a wonderful case of someone second-guessing the sacred expectations of his "political side". I've seen him collaborate with real, actual and veritable freedom fighters, such as the great Gad Saad (and perhaps this came to fruition because they have a long-standing friendship), yet he still suffers from a massive and overly complicated case of TDS himself, while keeping company with the sort of cult initiates who suffer from the very woke mind virus parasitization written about in the very book he is "tasked" with editing in order to assist Mr. Saad in the finalization and deployment of his latest book.

It is not so much the keeping of company that is the problem but the fact that keeping company with cult initiates and adepts means constantly responding to the proposition to affirm their cult view.

My first significant experience with Lawrence was seeing him participate in a 3 on 3 debate in 2017 at La Ciudad de las Ideas in Puebla, México on the topic of Climate Change against some very competent skeptics, such as William Happer and Richard Lindzen, where Laurence' loss of temper, tendency to utilize ad hominem attacks, and refusal to respond to the technical aspects of the arguments put forward by his interlocutors did some of the most remarkable damage to the credibility of climate alarmists, at least for my own view.

Lawrence predicated everything on consensus and insisted not just that the debate itself was illegitimate and that he hated to be participating in it, but that his interlocutors were not speaking from a position of authenticity, but were just hired mercenaries that had been purchased to spew lies and sow confusion and discord.

Rather than consider that they all agreed that climate is changing and that anthropogenic events have an effect on the climate, but that there was room for nuance in considering the degree to which climate change is a problem or the degree to which we are certain about what we know concerning causes, the reliability of the measurements, the models, and so forth, he insisted on avoiding any of those opportunities for a discussion.

This tired tactic of alleging that one's interlocutors are acting in bad faith, not even as evidenced by their statements, tone, demeanor, or the level of respect they're showing the other side, but simply because the fact of them arguing from their side necessarily means that we can label, slander and smear them as an illegitimate element, is not doing much to convince me of the legitimacy of the supposed science which demonstrates a need for an alarmist approach to mitigating the issue of climate change. If anything, it hints that the science is probably not as solid as it has been made out to be, and that it attracts persons who are willing to overlook details and concrete facts in the meantime under a presumption that a historicist vision of the world is akin to a scientific understanding of reality. I think that this is modern-day mysticism, and perfectly in line with the collectivist cult ideological disposition that this book is criticizing.

How ironic, then, that Krauss, in this case, has become a vocal critic of all things woke, particularly as they present in the institutions that he himself is most concerned with - scientific research and academic institutions which physics and hard sciences.

Lawrence Krauss claims to be concerned with scientific integrity and rigor in the application and conception of scientific methodology and its scholarship. This conflicts with what could be seen in that debate through his own conduct.

For more insight into that debate, it can be viewed [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZsnAdGaxkY).

But this is the perfect example in some ways, as he is clearly willing to expose himself to some scrutiny by (or on the behalf) of the holy by taking an anti-woke stance, albeit a limited one, and standing up for at least some form of principles. It just so happens that his own woke programming allows him to treat the state as divine when it comes to supporting a political party - which comes in the form of seeing science as a process of progress rather than simply the adherence to scientific methodology. This isn't a difficult error to make, as science changes our understanding of the world and the progress of our understanding can be understood in terms of being a historical process, or a sequence of events that can be referenced as a history, but the problem occurs once one presumes that there is a partisan allegiance to application of scientific method and that there is a moral obligation to maintain commitments such as, for example, to the "science party". This outlook of science causes one to fall into a stupor whereby the expect that positioning oneself along party lines is akin to positioning oneself according to the impending revelation of the divine and, thus, causes one to suspect that criticisms to the party and its statements is inappropriate, and that the party itself is beyond reproach. If this escalates to a more extreme form, we come to see a form of repression where, unless you are caught up in the unconventional view, you come to be demanding what is essentially pre-emptive censorship and even violence (from application of systemic force to supporting activism which is capable and willing of participating in acts of violence).

!TODO: Add examples for: TDS, Progressivism, Allowing nonsense in the academy.

> "If you go to secular group meetings now you will see a far greater diversity onstage." - Lawrence Krauss (Tweet / X post 9:59 AM · Jan 29, 2018)
> "Women's rights, and climate change.  Two reasons Trump needs to lose, and hopefully Democrats gain senate majority." - Lawrence Krauss (Tweet / X post 11:10 PM · Nov 1, 2016)
> "The sad choice for US president: A woke marginally competent Dem. (albeit with a great laugh) or a hateful, lying, crooked narcissist. Sorry 
@elonmusk
. "Her left-wing wokeism is a problem but hopefully Congress, X, etc. can fight it. But we can't trust that megalomaniac at all." - Lawrence Krauss (Tweet / X post 2:59 PM · Aug 26, 2024)
> "tons of papers on gender being in a continuum independent of chromosomes." - Lawrence Krauss (Tweet / X post 6:44 PM · Oct 5, 2017)

## Exclusion

We are often excluded, or fear exclusion, in a variety of forms:
- The experience you're supposed to be having
- New possibilities, if even in the abstract sense
- Love and affection
- Recognition
- Accomplishment
- Health
- Life
- Social legitimacy
- The shared resources of the social environment
- The protections afforded by the authority over the environment
- The gene pool

Ok so some of those might be a bit more far fetched than others, but certainly there's also a consideration of how one construes the manner and form and particulars of how they might be excluded from the social environment. Whether that's professional recognition or even just basic dignity, and how one comes to perceive either of those things, it's all highly subjective. We could say that their accomplishments beign recognized might be something for some, and accomplishing the things themselves might be something for others, or that the manner in which even either of those is construed will be a mix of both factors or perhaps even a complete inversion, depending on who is in question (or everyone could be like that, and we still wouldn't be able to know for sure).

The truth is that there are relations and the perceptions others have of ourselves inform the limit and purpose of those relations.

The more complexly interwoven our professional development is with other professionals, the more complicated it becomes to risk upsetting them. It serves in every capacity for those who consider or speak of their profession as their life's purpose or a defining feature of who they are and what they've done with their limited time in existence. The proportion of those professionals who would be willing to risk it all on the simple basis of needing to maintain clarity of semantics or, better yet, having to take a stand on moral and ethical grounds, is likely to be less than in "non-professional" fields

There is an attitude of intellectual subordination in professional disciplines as well as in the path of education which leads them to those positions, and while this is an understandable aspect of reproducing domains of knowledge and learning from those who have more experience and a deeper understanding of the subjects entailed, it's also something to be understood as being habituated and, along with the political nature of professions (both as an implication of working for survival, as well as the impact professional work has on governance and the social environment, not to mention other more specifically ideological elements which are also inherent to the reality of professional work both today and perhaps as an ever-present aspect of professions undertaken through human interest), is also the aspect by which the authentic purpose of a discipline or a professional can be undermined.

Jeff Schmidt described this as being conservative, which was correct in a manner of speaking, particularly if you are thinking about it in terms of personalities and one's disposition towards risk taking, the degree to which they allow for potential chaos, and their tendency to adhere to the corporate and institutional structures as the legitimate articulation as infrastructure of the discipline.

The threat of exclusion is a constantly wielded scalpel with which to make social and psychological modifications and it is nearly impossible to conceive of the fine line whereupon a balance is discovered between useful stressor, destructive disabler, or aspect which incentivizes erroneous, malicious or simply redundant behaviour. Shame and the threat of being prevented access to resources might serve as sources of effective and corrective forces in certain situations, such as with little children and preventing them from consuming poison, but how do we know the limit at which it becomes inappropriate or serves such as to cause the prevention of developing the proper incentive structures within professional disciplines?

Both the liberal view and the idealized view of the Communist (at least insofar as Marx himself had fantasized about) is that a human should be able to pursue their affairs without coercion (at least to the extent that they are not causing violence to others -> first order physical violence) or oppression and domination through the advantage of one's access to capital (communists). This is a good place to ask if the common ground might, at least as far as ideological conceptions are concerned, indicate that there is a universal value at hand which should inform time and time again and which remains a huge threat in the sense that we do need professionals, and we could benefit tremendously by having some sort of publicly-coordinated research facilities, which is what universities fulfill in some capacity, or have at least done so traditionally, even if it's come to be a situation where even those who apologized for their many missteps years ago have now come to wonder if they do more harm than good. In fact, when I refer to the broad pursuit of collectivism as though it were a cult (and yes it is). That is not to be argued in the sense of there being some formally declared membership to a specific organization, but the fact of this functioning as a cult and, because of the congruence that various domains bear towards one another, like heads of a hydra, because of their logical pursuit of the same end impossible end result, they relate to one another in a manner wherein one head supports the adoption of the proliferation and interfacing with another head.

This is always the recurring programming coming from the cultists: identify a vulnerable person and suggest that their very whim must be met so long as food can be prepared. That is to say, so long as the absolute destruction of all of civilization hasn't yet resulted, the consequence of not meeting the whim of any vulnerable person whose identity can be posited as being a description of the great plight of the future existence of mankind, then it can be assumed that we'll suffer an eventual civilizational collapse, alluded to perhaps simply by saying that we are failing to evolve in our historical environment which includes such and such calamity, such as the loss of a species of fauna, or a change in the expected pattern in some particular locale.

Sometimes this is referred to as resilience, particularly in the wake of new initiatives surrounding sustainability. That is to say, they speak of resilience s though it is a reinforcement of infrastructure, an upgrade in the materials being used, the adding of redundancies to ensure that infrastructure and services re not disrupted in the case of a catastrophic or somehow unforeseen event, but that isn't what is referred to, at least not in the discourse of governance and civilizational or social planning (which are often stand-ins for the same thing, without actually referring to just things that are social or just things that are infrastructure). The transformations that are expected (and that, again, is a key watchword as has been elaborated on by a whole sleuw of liberal (classical) thinkers today) to take place in the sensibilities of the citizens (and even non-citizens, or those who aren't adequate to be identified as true citizens of the transcendental super nation) insofar as it is they themselves who are resilient to the changes that will be imposed on them in the form of a reduction of services, energy availability and so forth. The rationale behind and such changes is for the human type who is identified as being vulnerable through a process of having ascertained them as such based on social theory and that, as a particular mitigation is necessary to ensure that an eventual civilizational collapse will not occur, all other less-vulnerable citizens can afford to be more resilient. This can be argued both on the basis that they have a resource and privilege buffer which allows them to take on the prospect of material loss, as well as on the basis that the eventual collapse would incur more of a material loss for said persons anyway, thus making this the less costly of a prophesized dualistic set of possible outcomes.

Though it may seem to be tangential, even a diversion in order to go all into such matters as a preamble to categorical description, we need to be closer to understanding what manner of definition is sought by the true believer (one which rests upon not just an ontologically-driven assumption about man, but one which demands the acknowledgment of the capacity to define man) to insist on a belief that not only is the true nature and meaning of humanity and human life knowable and assertable, and that these things are the basis of an imposable morality which must be followed by any who participates in the discussion, but that it is ultimately the purpose of man to attain the capacity to arbitrarily define itself until no possibility of encountering constraint can occur.

## Cults and Totalism

> "Thought reform has a psychological momentum of its own, a self-perpetuating energy not always bound by the interests of the program’s directors. When we inquire into the sources of this momentum, we come upon a complex set of psychological themes, which may be grouped under the general heading of ideological totalism."
> "..."
> "In discussing tendencies toward individual totalism within my subjects, I made it clear that these were a matter of degree" - Robert J. Lifton (Ideological Totalism)

## Neo-Malthusianism

So the premise is the set of assertions that includes the following:
- Nature is treacherous
- We utilize technology to mitigate the danger of nature
- All transcending of nature is a good thing and contributes as a moral good in that it confers scientific progress
  - All leads towards man's mastery of the universe and himself
  - Even if we do not know the appropriate next steps or the ultimate end-state, all scientific progress contributes to realizing these things

Indeed, genital mutilation and creation of hybrid and chimeric organisms can be seen as some form of scientific progress, and what should it lead to?
- The perfected state of human being
  - But is this something to be attained by all human beings?
  - Should every human that has ever existed have the opportunity to exist as perfect being? Should the goal of mankind be to make it such that all humans, past present and future, come to exist as perfect being?

Of course not - it would be, at most, those humans that exist at the moment that perfect human being is attained, or at least feasible. And would it even be desired by any one human for all living humans at the moment where it would become possible? No. If one were to conceive of a perfected human being for all human existence, other conceptions would detract from its attainment if even in muddying up the conception of the most correct manner of existence for human life. So, for the holder of that conception, it becomes a challenge to view. It becomes difficult to picture the vector of perfecting human being as running through the expressions of those who haven't the sensibility to have come into holding the view of those who already see the path to perfection. Those with special knowledge don't necessarily have the glimpse of perfection either, but they know what is excluded from such an image, as well as what particular paths are to be trodden en route to the promised land and who is ready to be on such paths.

Again, this is because of a historical sensibility, which is to say that it's not something in terms of a familiarity with the past events of history, but having the sense to understand the current moment in history and, by extension, the future. It's for this reason that there must be deep-seated intolerance for those who don't appear to be expressing the current historical moment correctly; they are as malfunctioning robots or brainwashed zombies - relieving themselves with their favourite form of activity to source their stupor as they miss the opportunity to provide an intelligent, noble and reasonable nudge in the right direction.

If their expression of being is made to manifest incorrectly, it is at best a latency-inducing frivolity and at worst the regressive and insensible entrapment of the entirety of human kind and human culture into a most stagnant and unnatural form of reality; a falsely-lived life for all others simply because one cannot put to rest their urges and most fallen and simple, animalistic aspects - one's for which it is man's capacity to resist and overcome which is the most basic demonstration of having evolved from mere animal to a thoughtful and conscious being.

We may need to delve into the more classical understanding of Malthusianism in order to make sense of the world today. In particular, we will see how manuscripts ( !NOTE: Decide if we need this) of the early Club of Rome analyses - we can see already, even after knowledge of the Soviet Atrocities, the interests of the day were still such as to assume that Marxist Analysis is necessary and that a Marxist objective should be sought.

### Malthusian Dialectics and Transhumanism

The Neo-Malthusian influence has left a lot of the older generation intellectuals with a perspective extending firstly from the assumption that humans are treacherous to nature, and that nature is treacherous to us. That the relationships at the base level is one to be described by disharmonic excesses of pointless activities motivated by the fact that man's animalistic urges have not been made consonant with his capacity for grandiose schemes and a need to imagine himself as something larger and extending beyond his own life.

Our ability to harness our faculties in conjunction with the materials provided by nature allows us to imagine that we are, in effect, controlling nature, or at least refining our ability to reform and direct nature en route to inevitable mastery, but this simply means that we are capable of disturbing the balance of nature long before ever becoming capable of moulding it correctly, which is itself an ambition which is likely to never reach fruition. In the short term, we mitigate the immediate danger of nature to the long term detriment of the natural world as a whole.

There is perhaps a break in the representation of Neo-Malthusian influence in modern times, particularly among the older generation, but even as it extends into today's youth, in that the influence of Neo-Malthusianism appears to go off in two different directions.

There is a Neo-Malthusian influence which remains among much of the older generation, and which even influences the younger generation (though it may present in a few different ways that are more directed towards social activism and transhumanistic desires) and I'm trying to consolidate two schools of thought which appear to have bifurcated from that domain of thought (the Neo-Malthusianism).

1. A desire to master technology and nature such as to bring harmony between the existence of man and the natural world. This may include a transhumanistic development of human cognition and biology such as to allow for the potential to live a full life which affords humans limitless experience without incurring the pitfalls of resource depletion and mishandling, environmental degradation and the perpetuation of increasingly tumultuous climatic cycles which threaten to make existence on this planet unsustainable for human beings (and perhaps all life as a whole).

2. A desire to reduce all human activity and energy utilization to a net-zero or even absolute-zero equation wherein there is a perfect displacement of energy and transformation of matter such as to allow for the existence of some humans in a manner which does not disturb the natural world. This would allow perfectly equilibrated systems to perpetuate themselves and thus reinforce nature's propensity towards a robust and ever-lasting expression of life.

Some might refer to these two incarnations of Malthusian thought as being one which still contains a modicum of techno-optimism, which might be referred to as Neo-Malthusian Techno-Optimism, and that this modern articulation of Malthusian influence is more compatible with the transhumanistic aspirations of both technocratic interests as well as the tech-infused yearnings of young, pop-culture infused entertainment seeking individuals who hope for all the life-enhancing benefits and experience-expanding affordances of technology without early, disciplined investment in their physical well-being, while the other would be characterized by a more Eco-minimalist manifestation of Malthus-inspired thinking which is more prevalent among the older generation.

For the younger, more transhumanistically inclined expression of modern Neo-Malthusianism, we can consider some of the following sources:
- [An Eco-Social Perspective on Transhumanism](https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/an-eco-social-perspective-on-transhumanism)
- [Transhumanism Degrowth](http://viznut.fi/texts-en/transhumanism_degrowth.html)
- [The Future of Innovation](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318466857_The_Future_of_Innovation_Hyper_Innovation_Slow_Innovation_and_No_Innovation)
- [Beyond Capitalist Realism](https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-02-26/beyond-capitalist-realism-the-politics-energetics-and-aesthetics-of-degrowth)

Many would contend that it's absurd to consider that Malthusianism would lead to something as Transhumanism, because the thinkers and authors of works derived from institutions such as the Club of Rome, who published "The Limits To Growth", contended that technological expansion was not a possible means of overcoming the impending loss of resources. But, of course, such thinkers would need to consolidate the fact of their failed predictions, particularly stringent ones which claimed quite outrightly that we wouldn't have certain resources, such as copper, by a time that is now long behind us.

To such critics, however, I would respond in communicating that Malthusianism is predicated on a necessarily collectivist world view which deals with a historicist conception of the world and compels an expectation of an eschatological endpoint which, according to their worst predictions, serves as some form of judgment for the ills of mankind. Any sort of collectivist understanding of the world requires a shared endpoint and a description of reality based on a state of world in a process of becoming, and that this inescapably means a dialectical way of thinking about the world.

When thinking dialectically, we are always in a spiraling course of re-imagining the terms of the world as concepts that are never fully-formed but that are always developing against their contradictions into syntheses which represent the next stage of understanding in the course of human history. As such, we can turn to the use of the dialectic in supposing the manner of thinking which allows the human mind to aspire towards Malthusian principles while desiring the benefits of technology so long as they are in line with a future endpoint of liberated humanity.

1. The dialectic always progresses
2. Programs are implemented by the state (because the state represents class consciousness in its most historically correct form)
3. Excuse will be made similarly to noting that standard of living changes in negative correlation to birth rate
4. A truly scientific society will account for all resource use and thus need to be both developing transhumanistic tech while being sustainable
5. Most transhumanist tech is developed on the basis of treatments which are intended for the masses in a dialogue which includes consideration to overpopulation, such as vaccines

!TODO: Do we need the connection between Malthusianism informing the definition of Communism?
These considerations can inform our categorical definition of Communism, which is just a formal artifact for the logical conclusion of collectivist thinking and which is bound by imminence in that it is an object which relates to every man and, thus, is ontologically consistent with man as a process of engaging in his self-definition. It is not man himself and not necessarily the aggregate of him, nor his geist. It is the object relating all then and serving in such a capacity that, upon its imminent attainment, marks the phase whereupon evidence of man's nature finally manifests by virtue of the conditions which were now made palatable by man's own hand, such as to make him "man in himself".

Its definition is then the promise that man can and, by virtue of the logical extension of such an assumption, should bring about the moment of his true reality. It is the binding of all men to this imminence but it also requires one last contextual element in order to make this understanding complete.

- A theory of how man proceeds to Communism

How does this proceed? Through conflict and struggle

!TODO: Should this "struggle" content be placed here in a section about Professionals? Should it be migrated, or can its essence be extracted and placed elsewhere in a more concise format?

## Still Struggle

Whether old or new, we always see the descriptions of class struggle, regardless of whether one believes the word class to be archaic. It is always the elucidating of dialectical tension driving history as teleological foundation, that this is occurring through critique of world and society, and always within a short handful of hops of Marx himself, neo-Marxists and even newer contemporaries who might denounce him while still maintaining what exhibits a Hegelian view of reality. A dialectic examining contradiction and yielding tension. Even if many do it, not through a conscious and intentionally-advocated metaphysic, but simply as intuition delivered through cultural critique and moralization on the juxtaposition of humans grouped and classified on their appearance, reproductive strategy, association, sexual preoccupation, or any other dimension of social division and oppression.

> "... capitalist society reality is – immediately – the same for both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, remains unaltered. But we may now add that this same reality employs the motor of class interests to keep the bourgeoisie imprisoned within this immediacy while forcing the proletariat to go beyond it." - Gyorg Lukács (History and Class Consciousness)

> "The Communist Party is an autonomous form of proletarian class consciousness serving the interests of the revolution." - Gyorg Lukács (History and Class Consciousness)

## Remark

I want to be very clear that I'm not contributing these observations and opinions simply because I think that they offer an easy critique of some vulnerable aspect of institutions, the state, a cultural domain, or any recognizable arena of discourse.

TODO: this is the right content, but it needs to be refactored
The referenced characteristics in critiques of phenomena which I describe as being either collectivist cult manifestations or conducive to collectivist social transformation are not ephemeral, cultural or that which has occurred through happenstance. We are identifying the base; the fundamental aspect and mechanism by which its employers and proponents believe it functions and we should be able to see that it's not just necessarily the case that they are progressed or implemented as per a formal understanding (though there is certainly no limit to that), but that it is implicit as it is taken up by those who adopt the language and syntax and utilize it in the context through which it is presented.

The notion being alluded to is that of dialectics as they've been provided, not through the formulators (Greeks, Romans), and their predecessors and anteceding thinkers, but the German idealists, and those who profoundly influenced them, who have massaged, processed and supposedly evolved the method, as well as those who contributed to its use in a way which brought it to having been framed as a feature of enlightenment thought, such as Rousseau, and now especially as its usage in popular culture and, sadly, academic  institutions including those pertaining to the sciences, at least to the extent that activism has entered such institutions which is, in all veracity, almost all of them.

Just as, with modern usage of the dialectic through aspiration to idealism leaves all terms ambiguous, we can see how thinkers like Rousseau are understood to be enlightenment thinkers for certain characteristics which ultimately contradict the association. That is to say, Rousseau is thought of as being an enlightenment thinker, while putting forward ideas that are clearly anti-enlightenment and skeptical of it. Kant is much the same way, having contributed much to modern dialectic, both as a means of understanding but also as a tool for change, in a manner which makes him especially relevant. I should add, however, that this isn't to say that Kant's use of or description as to the means of making use of the dialectic was as a tool for change. Quite the contrary, for him its use was purely analytical, but as much as his work is potent and viable in the realm of the enlightenment and the streams of thought which extend from it, there's good reason to consider that his efforts and contributions stand in contrast to the enlightenment and, consequently, empower those who wished to leverage his tools in a direction unbecoming of the enlightenment:

>"I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith." - Immanuel Kant (Critique of Pure Reason)

Though it seems perfectly valid and reasonable to choose to deepen one's understanding of any given concept or cognizable artifact, that is, through universal application of deep thought, using comparison of terms as it they can be related in an individual's thinking, and by having reflected sufficiently to perhaps lead a represented understanding to the point of communicable thought. Classically, when considering the use of dialectics, the weight of its impact through man and society is only to be found in the degree to which one is affected by the process, and the degree to which impact can be made through effective rhetoric.

For the Hegelian and supposedly post-Hegelian, the tension moves beyond mere intellectual pursuit, even if the work itself can be thought of as being one. They are not simply driven by a desire for intellectual prowess or intellectual dominance, but through an insistence on metaphysical dominance. This is the difference which allows for one to continue their forward charge, even after a loss of confidence in the veracity of their position in the traditional sense. The veracity of the current understanding of the world can always be superseded with the veracity of one's commitment to an as-of-yet unrealized point of termination - if it has not yet come to be, we'll always be en route towards its coming to be.

For dialectical purist, believing in the fundamental description of reality through a post-Hegelian thinker, such as Marx or Lukács, they come to be active under the assumption of a world and reality which are fundamentally idealist and that those things which are to pass will be doing so as an analog of forms to coming to pass as ideal forms as though it would be found in a Neo-Platonic elucidation. More concerning than the mysticism-infused behaviour, however, is that the dialectical mode of thought can take a more implicit form.

That is because this tendency towards idealism isn't an artificial programming yielding from one's having encountered the ideas of Plato or Hegel, even if they give such ideas a seemingly robust structure. On the contrary, the disposition of idealism is a very human one which begins in every human's early phase of life. It's a tendency which causes us to admire idealism, even in our antagonizers, and even at the very moment of conflict.

# It's Not an Ism

!NOTE: This might be out of place here, but I wanted to include something from those with whom I have some form of allyship in order to demonstrate the prevalence of this mode of thinking, and to offer material to such people so they have an opportunity to rethink some of the details and rationales of their position. It might be offensive to Denis Rancourt to place this here.

*Commentary on Denis Rancourt's Critique on the Origins of Wokeism*

There is a good pushback on the allegation that some or much of the ever-increasing social strife afflicting human society should be associated with terms like communism or Marxism because labeling these phenomena will lead (and has led) to the following:
- Coercion by propaganda campaigns to vilify some type of socio-political object, entity, state, and so forth (just noise from war and march towards totalitarianism)
- fail to recognize that social hierarchies become corrupted and that choosing the right ism doesn't address this

Remember why we bother with struggling against some of the formalized and recognizable forms of collectivism. It's because the death and destruction which occurred in the name of some "ism" may have been better described through the biological mechanisms, and maybe a physical mechanism at the level of society and the world. The horrors are notorious, praised or revered not because of how we're all capable of them, as is often commented when discussing the most notorious of evils, such as the Nazis, but because they're seen as consequent to ideological indoctrination which functions as some sort of brainwashing rather than a facilitation. It's not just a matter of explaining a mechanism we all relate to and in relating the great horror of a fantastic society harbouring backwards ideas, but that we are prone to performing similarly, even in a fashion that could become celebratory. To deny that there is a structure of thought around these which so easily inhabits people, regardless of the ideological flavour, causes us to miss the opportunity for growth and advancement. Rather than it simply being the consequence of propaganda campaigns, which are indeed evergreen, we can draw from it such as to help us proceed with more robust ideas that make those propaganda campaigns, and ones like them in our future, less effective.

"They want to say these are a form of extreme thinking and that the severity of the thinking is measured?"

But it is very much a universal and human way of thinking and the historical significance in demonstrating the record of atrocities that have been borne of those ways of thinking. We will need to break down the details because we want to make it clear that it is religious thinking.

# Perceptual Frame

The perceptual frame is the crux of what is to be understood in adopting what I believe to be the correct mode of analysis to understand human behaviour, beliefs about collective social dynamics, and understanding the interplay between reason and faith. Insofar as humans are able to deliberate, there is no perception outside the perceptual frame of a conscious human mind and this is the constant that we should expect as being universal and legitimate, regardless of suspected ideological contamination.

> "But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. The perceptual frame is the first phenomenon, as phenomenon in itself (to borrow some Hegelian terminology) that we each experience, and it is not an aspect of our experience from which we ever depart, lest we depart from experience altogether." - Karl Marx (Das Kapital)

We begin with something approximating an idealist view, not in the sense of having some advanced or fully-formed opinion as to how all things should be, but in the sense that we can reasonably agree that the entirety of what can be scientifically observed as the perception, interpretation and sustainment of the sense apparatus of a human person is tantamount to incurring all of what is described as human mind, human consciousness and, especially, something which extends from a human having thoughts.

This isn't an argument as to whether a human has thoughts to the exclusion of other animals, but that we are examining the experience of having a human body, what it might be disposed to perceiving of that experience, and how that should inform our opinions about what it means for a human to proclaim, define or association with some referenceable manner of thought, such as Idealism, and that this occurs either in a process of thought which is only available to humans or which is distinctly human

Even if it were the case that their experience was absent the sense apparatus, to any degree, some might call it a perception less-tainted and others might say it lacks relevance insofar as the experience lacks environmental context, but then if there were any content at all, it would be as a realm of ideas, especially as can be imagined as an experiment in mind, for it is easy enough to see that if truly an experience could be had which was completely devoid of content, then it would be an oblivious experience and still maintaining a form which is fundamentally idealist, save for an instance where no thought occurs whatsoever.

If at the base of development we are already at a mode of perception which may plausibly be perceiving such to assume that one's own frame of perception is the only one in existence, or the only type of perception that may be experienced but that somehow could translate into multiple perceptions, such as multiple instances of the same perception, or otherwise as a perception whose outlook from the subject (perceiver) looks as an imagined, cultish formation insisting on what is perceived, or how and in what way or per what quantities perception could take place, and that in isolation it would be the only meaningful perception, then still these observations concerning the natural tendencies of human perception would still hold. Far less likely would it be to envision a cult which believes an isolated perception with no sensory input as being void of thought or a state of mind as being one of a vegetative state, except as a final limit.

!WARNING: That last paragraph was rough.

The main point is that we need to learn to understand and even intuit that:
- Others likely have a perception, too
- There is at minimum an environment which appears to exist independent of one's consciousness or will

# Hegelian Framing

Contrary to the perceptual frame, which is a wholly individualist phenomenon, is the belief in a frame of perception which comprises the collective. There are many standards by which to describe such a perception, and it is an evergreen challenge of human existence to wade through them and reground ourselves, but it is perhaps the Hegelian flavour of collectivist thinking which best serves our explication of the difference, as well as how it's so deeply embedded in modern civilization.

> "Dialectics is the theory of knowledge of (Hegel and ) Marxism. This is the aspect of the matter (it is not an aspect, but the essence of the matter)". - Lenin (Lenin’s Collected Works)

> "The state is the actuality of the ethical Idea. It is ethical mind qua the substantial will manifest and revealed to itself, knowing and thinking itself, accomplishing what it knows and in so far as it knows it." - Georg Willhelm Friedrich Hegel (Philosophy of Right)

Coming back to the point of what precisely is the Hegelian view, Hegelian faith, or Hegelian application of dialectic, we can now make clear the distinction.

## Digression (Unconstrained Analytics)
- It is worth mentioning that Stephen Coughlin would advise on the topic and remind us that we needn't wade into the flavours and interpretations of Hegel's dialectic all too much, lest we find ourselves in it -> the important point is to recognize the worldview is itself dialectical and that this is as a matter of teleology.

## Hegelian Impendence
Whereas classically, and as an intellectual pursuit, dialectics consists of examining what is not understood by examining what contradictions can be found, or what oppositional terms and concepts can be set in conflict with one another (generally as per their relationship to something already cognizable), and using the tension brought out through the dualistic analysis of the corresponding items to invigorate the drive towards one's better understanding, but Hegel's is different:
- Dialectical tension occurs in all things
- Dialectical process is the engine of change
- Dialectical tension evokes change and this is what drives history
- This movement in history is heading towards a moment of resolution
- Semantically: utilizing negation against an abstract understanding in order to yield something substantive

Some would call this an imminentization or that something is eschatological, which is to say: all things occur in the context of an endpoint. By endpoint, we mean an end to a period of history. In order for the occurrences to be considered in their most reasonable representation (reasonable in the sense that if there is any relevance to something, it is in the fact of it having existed in the context of all things, thus giving rise to consider that the most complete understanding of anything is in the context of everything). Some might also call this being scientific, or applying a scientific analysis.

That isn't to say that an intellectual pursuit of comparing terms, concepts or ideas shouldn't be expected to move towards better understanding -> of course it would insofar as someone decides to apply focus and attention. You cannot progress on understanding if you are not paying attention to the thing in question, but there is a difference in saying that focus and attention to X shall result in some manner of improved capacity to grapple with "X" in general -> this could be improvement through achieving a particular level of competence - through having done some expert-level action or gaining expert level insight - but it might simply be that the improvement through one's having made the subject more temporally relevant.

But that is not blind faith just as it isn't blind faith to consider that you're going to move closer to, or perhaps all the way to, the correct answer to a mathematical equation if you actually begin working it out.

Dialectical faith is faith that the actions and utterances are not correct on the basis of truth claim. What makes it true is that it is desired. That it is not universally agreed upon as having been brought to fruition just means that the process isn't complete. For that which you desire either came to be because of that desire and a special nature -> a true human nature which knows, or at least feels, the true longing desire of all mankind. As such, if what is desired is not already the case, it should become the case and insisting that this be so becomes a moral obligation.

The eschatological change is one of human conception - at least to be understood as something to be a recognition made by all of humanity or to be a change at the structural level of the Being - that of the species, and likely all of reality (if even to the extent that humans will have a better glimpse of reality).

For Hegel, this comes about through all manner of dialectical thought as the understanding of all things includes an unresolved tension and process of reflection occurring in tandem with negation as sublation (TODO: perhaps rephrase that a little). In his idealist formulation, all these things ultimately exist as ideas which are aspects of a totality and this is synonymous with Divinity or the Divine.

### Final Events in Historical Periods

There is a difference between the idea of an endpoint as the final event of history, because it sounds much more religious, mystical, cataclysmic, cosmologically relevant, and so forth. It's the final occurrence of all that could be, from the perspective of how existence and, say, the universe appear for a human mind.

With Hegel, his idea of an eschatological endpoint, which isn't how he describe it, was that of a final completion of the process of existence where the fact that existence had occurred was because of a deviation from some form of state of completion that was so perfect that it may be tantamount to there not being an existence. The deviation from that state of perfection was the creation of an existence which, the fact of it unfolding, implies that its unfolding would logically lead back towards the perfect state and that, at least according to the semantics of Hegel's philosophy, would be complete when the absolute state of existence will negate itself in a final determination of existence as a whole whereby no more progress can be made in the dimension of existence beyond the fact of its perfect completion having no more perfect state possible except as a final resolving of the redundancy of itself as being something which maintains a distinction. That last removal of the distinction of its existence is the only step which is left to occur.

With Marx, he words himself on the topic of history by only commenting on history as it pertains to the history of man, so whether he considers that to be a subset of all of history, or whether he considers that question to be irrelevant is something we can never know, but at the very least it is the only history that he considers in his explications of a philosophy about the liberation and creation of man which is predicated on a process of dialectic which is itself a historical process.

With all other modern incarnations of a historical dialectic, it describes a process based on history whereby the entire process of history is the unfolding of dialectical tension until the transformation of condition(s) is complete.

Regardless of whether one wishes to comment that it somehow avoids being mystical by leaving it open that there's additional time and a greater overarching history of universe which exists before and beyond that dialectical process of history being described in a given collectivist or purely idealist doctrine, that it contends that the transformation of reality occurs through this process and that the qualitative aspects of that process are contained within a history which describes the unfolding of that process in its entirety makes it rather irrelevant whether or not that period is itself the entirety of history or not. The fact of the matter is that the description of that history which it does put forward is its metaphysical faith, and this cannot be ignored.

### Remark on Hegelian Framing

We understand Hegel as being an idealist, and many of us can look back on our past experiences and recognize relationships with people whom we'd like to allege are "idealists". But are there idealists? Can someone ever be so sure that they themselves adhere to the ideal of their supposed idealism? Can they be an idealist without adhering to it? Are they certain that they are idealist in their manner of thought? Or have they simply identified the implement by which to affect?

There is something to be said here about the insistence of being able to represent things in idealist terms. The problem about ascribing idealism to someone's view is that even if they themselves proclaim themselves as idealists, we can't really understand what's going on with anyone at whatever time they're speaking or as they're rationalizing something in mind, discourse or otherwise. What we perceive as being our rationalized thought process might be better understood as a balancing of our cognitive faculties with our psycho-emotive state, and even those things cannot be well-demarcated from one another.

I want to take the approach that we all likely go through modes of conception, perhaps even at all times, which are compatible with what we describe as idealism. We already agree that there is a subject/object split to a degree that a human being cannot look at any object and understand it in absolute terms - its complete structure, nature, composition, context towards a purpose, or whether it exists in context of no purpose at all. We can observe it and understand things about it and make inferences or contemplate shapes or feelings or patterns or concepts that are invoked or somehow influenced by it.

Even if we are creating a geometric model or represented image as per our nervous system engaging with the object, or our conception of the object, and the activity of our visual cortex, that image is not the thing in question and, though by itself, it makes it an idea in its own rite, it's not necessarily the idea or the representation of the thing one might have assumed it's purported to be, or even simply be in reference to. The idea exists as an abstraction, and further abstractions are conjured even upon reflecting on the experience of perceiving that thing in question. It's difficult to really express the degree to which this can make a huge difference in someone's thinking.

#### Friendships and Authoritarianism

*I was somehow always surprised to see persons I had been close to, known for a long time, and gotten into difficult situations with and had been someone I could count on, at least in the most difficult of situations, in spite of the fact that my relationship with them may have contributed to, not necessarily whether I would ever get into such situations, but mechanistically in terms of the path, behaviour and temporality of my having reached those situations, and their disposition towards utterances and argumentation which, upon reflection, appeared to necessitate seeing aspects of the world that have been well tested and observed and experienced with a body, would be willing to pretend something is not true, or that something which should be true or for which the behaving and expecting or even simply hoping of it as being true might somehow bring a possibility of a change in the world !!*

I was somehow always surprised to see persons close to me, who had demonstrated a great capacity for reasoning with rigorous logic and an open mind driven by sheer curiosity and zest of life, come to the point of pretending that something is or isn't true, and prevent themselves from applying those skills of consistency and rigor to something which happens to bear significance in another context which is not altogether scientific. That is, that they would suspend their capacity to critique the logic or science behind a declaration when the declaration was related to a social matter, a political proclamation, or something which purports to adhere to an ideal.

These are people I'd known for a long time, whom I had considered myself close to for long periods or, in some cases, the entirety of my life. These are people with whom I'd spent great lengths of time with in very private settings, deliberating what we seemed to agree on as the limits of knowledge, the means of pushing the boundaries of thought and conception, and finding the inspiration to empower our thinking with our lust for life and exploration. We drove curiosity and induced great aspirations in one another, and could enjoy doing so without being hindered by ego or neurotic extravagances.

But slowly and slowly, for reasons I can only speculate about, and possibly even just because of the manner in which I myself was changing through life, I found that, if were confronted with a matter bearing great social significance, especially for their career prospect

This was evident when coming across issues that had to do with conceiving of humans as something universal with equal potential for understanding and achievement, and its replacement with assuming people have their perception poisoned by hegemony to the point where volatile deconstructive approaches must be taken, such as championing events which agitate people differently according to class affiliation, with these classes being informed by skin colour, ethnicity, sex, and other categories of identity which, in my opinion, are fundamentally imagined but also include ones whose qualitative distinction is one of imagination also (that is to say, to imagine group identity is something altogether imaginary to begin with, but to imagine a group identity predicated on gender is to construct an identity category, which is imagined, that is predicated on gender, which is an attribute that is also imagined).

I furthermore saw this when it came to issues of climate and the environment. When a serious effort was made to understand environmental degradation or contamination from a low-level analysis, it's not taken seriously as it's not being initiated under an assumption of seeking to find evidence which reinforces the alleged consensus already being championed at a high level through entities that are highly political and highly embedded in governance. This coincides perfectly with the aversion to avoid any sort of debate about the premises that such initiatives and projects build upon, with guidance always being that the emphasis should be placed on how to proliferate the political message, harness industry support and coordinate academic institutions towards maximizing social acceptance and infrastructure redirection towards the goals of those initiatives.

Lastly, the other aspect of these surprises is the one which comes to be the least surprising, given the precedence of the other aspects, which is the orientation towards and acceptance of authoritarianism as not only the logical conclusion or necessary evil of our circumstances, but as something which is being revealed as the basic element of social organization. That social environments cannot be organized except through the application of authoritarianism as a principle and its associated procedures.

#### Endpoint Framing

Another aspect of this which I haven't yet mentioned which is essential to this view is that of double negation. This conception of a future endpoint is essentially one of accepting a certain degree of mystification in the adoption of the process of absolution under an overarching expectation that the mystification will be resolved once the process has ended. Once an endpoint is expected which justifies any imperfections of the present, it is seen as the inevitable release from consequences associated with any period before it.
!NOTE: The last sentence was explaining the use of the term "absolution".

It is through this expectation that one is not simply in the circumstance of making a claim without substance or without the positing of something concrete (such as providing the solution, or describing the logical conclusion of a logic or line of reasoning that has been put forward), but is the circumstance of one proceeding through a manner of holding onto a belief without they themselves having witnessed the substance of it. The endpoint is inevitable because its designation extends from stating it as equivalent to defining a method which accounts for a complete set of aspects. It is the wholeness which implies the endpoint; the definition through which one presents the fact of one having accounted for everything is the definition for the endpoint.

For Hegel, it is the manner by which abstraction holds reference to the actual and which comes to be informed by forms more closely approximating an ideal form - like a NeoPlatonic process of realizing the realm of ideals. His abstract is made concrete through the process of negation, be it the negating of finite into infinite, Being into Nothing (or Being into Pure Being or Pure Immediacy). It is the expectation that through submission and faith, and an orchestration of congruently oriented perceptions reflecting the subject at hand, the desired result will be found and that this will correct the state of Being for all humanity and, by extension, all existence (nod to former Secretary General of the UN Robert Mueller).

## Collective

How are we to understand the very concept and premise of a collective? I've seen it put forward that somehow having a collective is itself, by default, a moral good and a moral improvement over any default understanding of human existence without a collective, because it acknowledges the very basic reality that there are many of us, that we relate to one another, and that life is improved for each and every one of us, the individual as self included, when we work together and try to help one another. Indeed, there exist multiple entities, but of what type? Is it all just one type? Could we say that the types which exist indicate the same number of collectives? Or that the number of types is equivalent to those within the great declaration of a collective and those who reject such a declaration?

Multiple entities, but likely of the same type because we need to understand that they're at least of enough of a similar type such that they can be enumerated within the same context (We can start with that, anyway, which I believe to be a charitable offering to purveyors and advocates of collectivism).

What, then, is the purpose of humans who exist in a world where there is some ethical value in the collective? Could there theoretically be different purposes to humans in different collectives such that we could say that it's somehow arbitrary? (Primary purposes). Something that, on the balance of it all, ends up looking rather random, and would necessitate further questioning in order to know what purpose is being erected or focused upon? Is it just generally implementing the concept of coordination? For coordination itself? Well, coordination imply the necessity of shared purpose, so we're left still wondering what the purpose is, in all cases. One might say that it is the need to have a complete specification, and that the collective suggests that those who come into the fold are cognizant or illuminated to the specification. To have a specification of the world and what exists in it. To know that all who exist are specified within the collective as a means to reach completion of existence and the purpose of existence itself.

Could we say that the collective exists to serve some other entity? Well, even in enumerating an entity which exists supposedly outside of the collective itself, we still must assert that the collective has a purpose bound to its components, so we're still no table to clearly state the purpose is externalized. But, actually, here's where things get interesting.

Either that entity is the collective itself, in which case we ask why that entity exists, and what its purpose is - is it to paint things yellow? Same as the rock thing - so then what's the purpose? It's because a completed collective allows for man to attain his purpose.

Can this entity be the state? Let's say that the purpose of the collective is to serve the state. But what is the state? Is it something alive? Or an instance to represent the ideal? The ideal of what? It all comes back to human existence and its purpose. If the state exists as a means of aligning and orienting all men, then the state is the excuse for the collective and the then the question is what's the reason we must align and orient all men? If there is any reason, it's because of the purpose and potential of attaining some form of true existence or true nature that isn't otherwise happening outside of the collective.

So then the criticisms against this would be to state that there's a difference between a communist and democratic socialist conception of an ideal liberation of mankind through their collective alignment to negate the oppression of the proletariat, which is the elimination of classes, ultimately, because there would be no distinction which allows for the conceptualization of the classes; there would not be a difference between any two men, and this would ultimately happen at an international level, or a universal level. What would the response to such a criticism be?

If you have a collective for the state, and an assumption that this state remains for the one nation and only one nation alone, then we must ask what makes this nation state separate from any other? Is it just arbitrary geographic lines?

Well, no, generally it would be because there is something about the premise of fascism which, just as communism, would necessitate the same endpoint, regardless of the theoretical description of its endpoint.

In Mussolini's fascism, such as what might be understood through "The Doctrine of Fascism", what constraints are there to limit the state, to which all citizens exist as a collective in service to and in perfect alignment with, to being a state of a particular nation, to the exclusion of other states?

If there are other states, then one would logically proceed to supposing that the other states somehow limit the glory and absolution of our fascist state. Would then not the next step be for the fascist state to conquer all other states, until such time that it is a universal state?

There is a presupposing that the purpose and expression of every citizen necessarily requires conflict, as is found in war between the state and the other (other states). It wouldn't need to reconcile anything theoretically, so long as there is inevitable conflict between itself and anything which is its other. It would necessarily need to continue in conflict until there is no other.

The criticism of this would be to say that the state would then turn its attention inwards as conflict could occur from the inside, and this is obviously something that we always see as a regime with a philosophy of a utopian collective always incurs massive atrocity and harm upon its own people.

But the solution to that is easy - you just need to keep refining the process and the content within the state until there exists no contradiction between any of its components. That is to say, until such point that all men are one mind or that there is only one man.

So while there may be some aesthetic difference in the theory, we are heading to the same endpoint and always because it's the purpose of man to move through conflict until the distinctions are eliminated.

## Dialogue on Collective

*Here is a dialogue between myself and my locally-running inference engine with some LLM. The point to be made here is that, regardless of your flavour of collectivism, you end up with an authoritarian regime and a totalitarian theology (or at least philosophy, though much of the point of the book is that the delusion of collectivism necessitates the gnostic mind which must seek absolution, bringing the process back up to the level of a theology).*

Again, I've had this conversation with a few LLM's and it's, of course, much easier to convince them of your points than an actual Marxist, but nevertheless, I tried to give it my argument as a hot take, and it came out like this:

***********************************

Eman: I'm not convinced that the Doctrine of Fascism is describing something which isn't equivalent to Marxism. I think that the fact of it requiring the state and invoking conflict as a means of bringing man to their highest expression is superficial, and that they both logically conclude as the same

KAI: I see what you mean, but the Doctrine of Fascism also requires a totalitarian state and the suppression of individual freedoms. These are not things that can be reconciled with Marxist theory which aims for the liberation of the working class through collective action.

Eman: Marxist theory requires a dictatorship of the proletariat, which in practice is equivalent to the fascist state

KAI: But the goal of Marxism is to create a society where there is no need for a state, whereas fascism seeks to maintain control over society indefinitely.

Eman: the state is necessary as long as conflict exists between men, which reveals itself as contradiction and thus disparate class

Both of these systems would lead inevitably to requiring a circumstance where no conflict exists between men. Until such time, both will remain staunchly totalitarian and imposing an authoritarian state which always be a more severe permutation of these as history moves towards my described requirement

KAI: I agree that both Marxism and Fascism require a strong state to enforce their ideologies, but the ultimate goal of Marxism is to create a stateless society where people are free from class conflict. In contrast, fascist ideology seeks to maintain control over society indefinitely through authoritarian means.

Eman: The difference you indicate is of no consequence except if the endpoint is reached, and for such an endpoint to be reached we will require the same condition.

Until such time, both will seek to maintain control over society indefinitely through authoritarian means.

With Fascism, it will begin as requiring the one totalitarian state to be in conflict with any other state, thus either we require an infinite supply of other states, or we will achieve a circumstance whereby only one state remains, and that will be the universal or international state equivalent to what would be found under Marxism just prior to the liberation of all of humanity.

For that last step, we require the elimination of distinctions between any remaining man. For this reason, only a circumstance of there being one mind for all men, or one single instance of man, would veritably provide the reliable condition of there being no conflict between men.

KAI: I see your point, but I still believe that there is a fundamental difference between Marxism and Fascism. While both require a strong state to enforce their ideologies, the ultimate goal of Marxism is to create a stateless society where people are free from class conflict. In contrast, fascist ideology seeks to maintain control over society indefinitely through authoritarian means.

***********************************

As you can see, it's beginning to run out of steam and keeps bringing up the same point which it then demotes in agreeing to the very points I'm providing to refute them.


## Formulations

We see many formulations of this happening:
- Sustainability
- Racial Justice
- Queer Liberation
- Communism
- Decolonization

## Remark

Before examining flavours of Hegelianism, it's important to highlight the fact that this is more demanding of commitment, more insidious, and more relentless than the "pop culture" representations of Hegel. "Problem, Reaction, Solution" - sounds mostly like political manipulation, conspiracy, limiting flow of information and something which can be easily applied by anyone while also being believably motivated through any scale of personal gain. It can even be deemed as completely normal on the basis that there's necessarily a noticeable difference between a planned provocation executed through conspiracy and some sensible degree of preparedness already expected by a good professional in any given domain.

This more mystical incarnation of dialectic (and it is precisely that) is not specifically catered towards improving understanding of what is - it may just as well function to reduce understanding in the short term. The understanding is only conceptually valid at the end of the process (an ever-present theme). What dialectics is understood to provide is the methodology for change (often to be regarded as historical change). Whether one believes the fundamental nature of the Universe or reality is material, ideal, or something unspecified, the faith remains the same: inducing conflict produces the tension of the dialectic which drives history forward towards an endpoint which resolves these tensions. (To be a bit pedantic, though, it should be said that inducing the conflict reveals the tension of the dialectic, and that dialectical tension would have already been present, but that a man of action can help catalyze the process of the world's logic working itself out, which would contribute to the advancement of world history towards the achievement of the world spirit (Weltgeist).

For Hegel, the state of ideal, or perhaps the final stage before the true realization of ideal, is where all things that are and were are revealed to all be the same thing and that their disparate forms and articulations were most fundamentally all part of the process of working out that they were all, in fact, the same thing.

## Queer Liberation

>"...dialectical thinking, in which each thing is what it is only by becoming what it is not." - Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno (Dialectic of Enlightenment)

Things are transformed into what they are not in order to become what they really are. To know the identity and essence of something is to know what is not it, thus its existence implicitly holds reference to its negative. It, too, transforms through negation into other; it becomes its negative as all things do.

For the Queer Cult, there is also the continuous application of dialectical tension through a process of negation under an implicit expectation that conflict will eventually be resolved and the true, natural and unforced identification and behaviour can finally become possible.

For Queer, the tension is borne of expectation about what it means to have a human body and what it feels like to have awareness to the notion that others are also faced with this.

We will need to examine this in a few ways:
- The dimension of concern
- Biological interfaces
- Innate sense of faith
- Formal mechanisms

### Dimensions of Concern
If you are familiar with Queer Scholarship, or are a practitioner of queer yourself, then you might already think you grok the right term but the average participant to the discourse is coming into it with their concept of queer derived from one of the following:
- Pop culture/movies/music/TV
- Hobbies (relates to culture but often has queer structural implementations)
- Workplace
- Activism

#### Pop
Pop is how most people encounter it, with literature preceding in describing the strange and unusual as queer. But, for many, their first run-in with queer has been through film and television programs (TODO: Citation) where, for at least many decades, queer was made to be synonymous with homosexuality, and likely where there were more than scant references to transexuality or transvestitism, which generally were made to stand as their own things.

If queer nomenclature is present in your hobby, by virtue of a location, organization, your activity partner, or even the literature / documentation / rules or similar of the hobby itself, then it more than likely has come following some period of queer praxis. This same praxis would have "evolved" the use of queer language in film and television to more closely approximate the actual meaning of the term.

If queer praxis has been made to be required through a particular domain, then the primary objective and result has been to transform the use of language such as to make it conform to a queer worldview - meaning that the participant needn't necessarily yet understand what it means for someone to be queer, or what queering as a verb / action / practice might happen to be. Instead, they are helping to create an environment where queer activists have control over the use and supposed meaning (or at least structurally and institutionally recognized definitions) of all language, under an assumption of queer mythos.

It is initiation to queer conformity and support for social enforcement infrastructure premised under a theory of knowledge which supersedes any other, simply because accepting queer mythos makes competing world views oppositional to queer liberation.

##### Pop Spectrum
the pop culture queer vibe is an interesting one. It was pointed out in a spectrum street epistemology video featuring Peter Boghossian, Charles Love, <trans person> and <female lawyer> that straight people make up the majority of Pride Parade / Pride Event attendees, and this appears a continuation of pop culture, whereas previously it was mostly being introduced to the term as previously described through TV and film, and perhaps through pop music stars, it is now the queer worldview, celebration of queer and religious rituals for belonging, in a sort of Pagan vein of conjuring up transformation.

[The Spectrum Street Epistemology video in question](https://youtu.be/KZhiUv7COCw?si=sLYVEvyYBmv9kO1V).

They posited some reasons as to why this is the case, but the premise of the discourse was made abundantly clear through the first question they used to examine different viewpoints and arguments: (implicit) Do straight white people attend Pride parades because Straight White Pride is considered unacceptable/forbidden?

Well, the answers were a bit divided, but I think that almost all of them failed to make sure that they understood the question, or at least failed to clarify the premises such as to make the discourse relevant and fruitful to unpacking the related issues and fleshing out people's viewpoints. For some, they took it as "oh yes, they are doing this in place of white pride because in another world, where the popular cool and hip thing to do is to attend White Pride and promote a racial belonging based on white supremacy, which is rampant and totally accepted, they would be taking part in it, whereas here they're doing something analogous to that, where they are signaling their centralized, position, their having situated themselves in a position that is protected and supported by the prevailing central forces of society, or where they are celebrating their superiority in one way or another, such as being of an evolved mind with the correct sensibility, or having been sexually enlightened, or open to a moral sensibility that is somehow a virtuous achievement on their part and on the part of their "kind".

There is a folk nationalist colonization thing at play, and this is something that wasn't necessary if you are looking at a raw and rough era of immigrants making their way into America, and the establishment not of a culture that had to distinguish itself by race in a society that didn't value it, but with a more basic approach to survival and expansion of basic capacities necessary to support life and fundamentals of societal flourishing.

Now, things are different, and we're more likely to see the sort of "White Pride" racial celebration that is positioning itself in much the same way as a CRT-derived race celebration, or a Queer Theory-derived sex and gender identity celebration.

It is flashing and signaling their allegiance to a collective with an attitude that it asserts and bears significance in terms of a power hierarchy which insists on a particular ordering of world, society and, particularly in the case of queer, reality itself, and that those who do not demonstrate an allegiance to it as a collective and as a posited destiny are not just excluded from the event, but are excluded from society which comes in the form first of polite society but then, given that this is a moral implication predicated on rhetoric constructed through terms of life and genocide, society as a whole, even to the point of making the case that those contrary to the goals of "justice", "fairness" and so on are ones who have not evolved with humanity, and are thus somehow something altogether less human, sub human, or not human.

#### Defining Queer
Now that you are beginning to get a little annoyed, it's a good time to provide the technical definitions for queer, and to make sure that this is the meaning of queer as is used by queer scholars and queer activists.

Queer is opposition to being as a means to transform Being. Some might call it a political position / standpoint and I suppose we should be clear that we are defining it insofar as it can be associated with a person -> identifying as queer or someone who practices queer. One might have become accustomed to thinking that someone is "a" queer, but we must then first consolidate the most important definition in queer literature which claims that Queer is completely void of its own content, has no essence, and exists only as the process of opposing anything legitimate and normal.

I contend that the desire to implement and wield a capacity to reject and destroy anything on the basis that it be considered a normal part of reality is, at heart, the desire to replace reality itself (or at least dissolve it into nothingness as a protest against the order of Being itself, and in order to allow for the immediate potential of all that is kept inadmissible in the face of the otherwise undissolved distinctions).

The only positive endpoint which would satisfy the process of dissolving anything considered normal would be a state of liberation wherein no distinction can be discerned, and that this would exist as one of the following permutations:
- undifferentiated many
- absolutely differentiated many
- one, oneness, pure essence, pure Being, undifferentiated one, the Monad

##### Deconstructing Munoz
Let's take a look at some prose by a queer and critical theorist to get a feel of the language and investigate the implied meaning, particularly as per a Marxist / Gnostic lense.

>"Queerness is not yet here. Queerness is an ideality. Put another way, we are not yet queer. We may never touch queerness, but we can feel it as the warm illumination of a horizon imbued with potentiality. We have never been Queer, yet Queerness exists as an ideality that can be distilled from the past and is used to imagine a future. The future is Queerness' domain. Queerness is a structuring and educated mode of desiring that allows us to see and feel beyond the quagmire of the present. The here and now is a prison house." - Esteban Munoz (Cruising Utopia)
- "Queerness is not yet here": historicist metaphysic.
- "Queerness is an ideality": explicitly bestowed as Idealism.
- "We are not yet queer": ontologically determination for humanity.
- "We may never touch queerness": The work is never one.
- "but we can feel it as the warm illumination of a horizon imbued with potentiality": something to feel because this idealist religion is axiologically mediated through pathos, which brings enlightenment to those who follow it, and leads to something indicated as being historically promised
- "We have never been Queer, ..., can be distilled from the past, ..., used to imagine a future": Speculative idealism, much in alignment with a Hegelian metaphysic, and used to create the future which returns to a perfected ideal.
- "The future is Queerness' domain": The future is ours.
- "Queerness is a structuring and educated mode of desiring, ..., allows us to see, ..., beyond the present" - our desires direct us to our destiny.
- "The here and now is a prison house": gnosticism.

#### Desire

##### Evergreen Hegelianism

This desire for an unspecifiable endpoint where no oppression occurs (at least insofar as sex, sexuality, the body, its expectations are concerned) is not altogether too different from what is desired in each post-Hegelian incarnation. For example, Woodrow Wilson's Progressive Nationalism was founded on his views as a Hegelian and indicate the same objectives for the process of history, such as social justice and a collective well-being. John Dewey, Du Bois, Richard Rorty and probably any other person who is considers themselves Hegelian at anytime from the Gilded age and onwards until now, will undoubtedly indicate a desire for a liberation endpoint that can be described as social justice. The only difference might be that some of them might refer to the affair in more pragmatist terms, hence why so many of them are referred as having championed Practical Idealism or Neo-Pragmatism.

##### Broad Adoption

Broad adoption in his way of thinking, as evidenced first by all those who not only refer to him, and not also speak in a manner which suggests the same way of thinking, but because it is the logical conclusion of a collectivist interpretation of reality.
!TODO: Add more references from the Hegelian study we did (see Hegel OS Notes)

>"Dialectical thought understands the critical tension between "is" and "ought" first as an ontological condition, pertaining to the structure of Being itself. However, the recognition of this state of Being its theory intends from the beginning a concrete practice. Seen in the light of a truth which appears in them falsified or denied, the given facts themselves appear false and negative." - Herbert Marcuse (One Dimensional Man)

>"The laws of thought are laws of reality, or rather become the laws of reality if thought understands the truth of immediate experience as the appearance of another truth, which is that of the true Forms of reality—of the Ideas. Thus there is contradiction rather than correspondence between dialectical thought and the given reality; the true judgment judges this reality not in its own terms, but in terms which envisage its subversion. And in this subversion, reality comes into its own truth." - Herbert Marcuse (One Dimensional Man)

>"Enlightenment, understood in the widest sense as the advance of thought, has always aimed at liberating human beings from fear and installing them as masters. Yet the wholly enlightened earth radiates under the sign of disaster triumphant." - Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno (The Dialectic of Enlightenment)

>"Black feminism remains important because U.S. Black women constitute an oppressed group. As a collectivity, U.S. Black women participate in a dialectical relationship linking African-American women’s oppression and activism. Dialectical relationships of this sort mean that two parties are opposed and opposite. As long as Black women’s subordination within intersecting oppressions of race, class, gender, sexuality, and nation persists, Black feminism as an activist response to that oppression will remain needed." - Patricia Hill Collins (Black Feminist Thought)

>"Revolutionists seek to change reality, to make it better. Therefore, revolutionists not only need the revolutionary philosophy of dialectics. They need a revolutionary ideology, i.e. a body of ideas based on analyzing the main contradictions of the particular society which they are trying to change, projecting a vision of a higher form of reality in which this contradiction would be resolved, and relating this resolution to a social force or forces responsible for and capable of achieving it. It is only after you have arrived at the correct ideology that it makes sense to develop your revolutionary politics" - Bell Hooks (Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center)

>"CRT in relation to colorblind ideology is a reflection of the cross-institutional traveling of resistance, the conditions of possibility that seed insurgent knowledge, and the continuity of these dialectics in the contemporary era." - Kimberlé Crenshaw (Seeing Race Again)

Marx's conception of Man as a Species Being, and the ontological claims about man's needs and purpose in life necessitate totalitarian classification - not because people agree on the semantics, and not even because most would feel that proclamation of agreement could ever alleviate the heightened nerves and angst of the doomsaying collectivist, but precisely because if it were true that a human nature could not be expressed except through a state of perception which is truly free of the oppression and judgment of men, then there is no feasible option to proceed towards other than the power to control reality: human reality. And, interestingly enough, you'll find plenty of people on both sides of any lines of partisan tension who will readily state either that they believe such control already exists, by virtue of certain aspects of social media, or through a constellation of formal processes that surround us, as citizens, in our everyday lives, or that such control is being developed at a rapid pace, and will consist of means and features that are beyond our ability to grasp.

Why must we delve towards this totalitarian permutation? Because the conditions of human life would have to suffice to not drive humans to oppress one another, and we would need some way of understanding that our subjective perception of ourselves and each other was resolved - that, at least insofar as it remains subjective perception, it would need to reach a level of process which is free of contradiction and interspersed friction (the appearance of it).

### Appearance

It's important to talk about appearances, as much as some of us have a distaste for an over-reliance on the superficial, because fundamentally we're talking about something that we see in children as they can become convinced or hope to convince others on the basis of the appearance of something, rather than a concrete or substantive proof of something. That is to say, we have a formalizing of world-making based entirely on the appearance of the worldview itself, or those things to which it corresponds. If we can allow the correct appearance to unfold for others, and we are able to record their having borne witness to it, then this serves as the fundamental structure of reality that we cognize as being extant.

#### Appearance of Absence

Equally important to discussing appearance is the effort to underscore the particular type of appearance sought which is that of an absence of something. To incriminate in absence of evidence you must provide the appearance of there being an absence of something else, such as evidence of legitimacy or the evidence of respect for the sacred. It is the appearance of an absence of the soul which is tantamount to proclaiming our alluding that the only moral and intelligent deduction is that the subject in question is not fully or truly human. When this is coupled with a historical dimension, it can easily be presented on the basis that the soul is connected to knowledge, insight or perception for that which is indicated through the traversal of that historical dimension.

For many, this comes in the form of what most people refer to as virtue signaling, but what most people fail to comprehend is that it isn't necessarily that one is finding an opportunity to present a good quality about themselves, even if that is how it is to be interpreted even to the targeted recipients of such signaling, but is actually, in fact, the signaling of group membership or ideological alignment itself. Discussions of the pitfalls of believing oneself to be the good, the moral, and the virtuous aside, the detrimental and harmful potential consequences of this now also include that one will use, as a signal of their group membership (under the premise that group membership is itself virtuous), absurd and self-harming practices and modalities of living.

The absence of such a signal is itself the appearance of absence of one's soul or humanity.

An appearance of the absence of something is a requirement whose means of satisfaction becomes ever more sophisticated. What might have been satisfied with T period of temporality wherein no event of interest was observed to occur on any particular date might now require proactive measures such as well-designed and appropriately timed testing, but eventually a representation of perception can be modeled and evaluated, and such a model might be so minimal as the test, or biometric data with one's heart rate, or ever-more inputs of data ranging from biometric sensors to thorough scanning of brain and organs and measure of neurochemical signifiers (by presence or proportion), all of which are simply an expectation of what's possible at a time when the level of technology is both present and also something being thoroughly investigated and refined with much interest behind it.
!TODO: should the last paragraph be first? Simplify this paragraph, or make it longer if necessary

There is much contention as to defining terms and in deciding whether something is to be construed as one vs the other, but as one goes down the path of thinking dialectically about the world, their values, and those with whom they have relations, it becomes increasingly difficult to find satisfaction. Without a basic acceptance of the terms as they present themselves, rather than a perspective which imagines the terms themselves as changing such as to potentiate the progress of history, which is to say that they change in relation to progress itself.

#### Ideological Appearance

Partly, people are motivated to attack something they already disapprove of and this makes it easy to lead them into acknowledging a proposal which might actually make our conception more ambiguous or watered down, and which might make two things seem alike as instantiations of the same when they are actually fundamentally different.

This could be, for example, a subject presenting a political statement which expresses some truth about reality, especially when understood in neutral terms, as being a statement which denies reality, such as through interpreting it based on presupposing that its purpose is to counteract some other subject's political interest whose very existence is predicated on its own set of statements. In such a case, the statements upon which that latter interest is predicated aren't actually being expressed, nor are they being addressed in a dialogue which includes the former subject, yet a particular framing of that subject's political statement can cause the onlooker to consider that it is, in fact, not a statement of fact in neutral terms, but is a denial of the statements associated with the latter subject.

A perfect example of this would be for one party to make a statement like "There are two sexes". In contrast to this, you might have political activists informed by Queer Theory who will claim that their worldview is supported by science and, in particular, biologists, and these activists will put forward a contrary statement such as "there is gender spectrum". That they are claiming to be supported by biologists will lead to the referencing of yet further statements by a biologist who will enumerate various anomalies of sexual development, such as intersex conditions, or disorders of sexual development, and this will be critiqued on the basis that people who have particular experiences will have worldviews and personalities that are informed by those experiences and that, as such, since certain people with certain conditions have the same condition, it's plausible they might have some views or experiences that are sufficiently similar that they can be expressed with one statement which corresponds to both of them. This is an ambiguous mess, as you can see, but the consequence of all this is that the former statement "There are two sexes" will be presented as a denial of the fact of there being people with disorders of sexual development.

We can get into the weeds on that one if we're so inclined, but the fact of the matter is that sexual reproduction doesn't have to lay any claim as to the personalities, experiences or worldviews of any one person, and recognizing the fact of human beings propagating the species through sexual reproduction doesn't have to indicate anything about whether intersex people exist.

#### Appearance, Dialectic and Political Systems

Having a proclivity towards dialectical thinking and framing of human life and reality as being one which necessarily indicates a collectivist moral code for the social environment is relevant when considering not just the understanding of instantiations of what are considered to be Communist or Socialist regimes and systems of governance, but also the manner in which their advocates tend to represent such systems to the broader public in a popular context.

Fleshing out these aspects in greater detail will help us understand the principles of collectivism and its necessary manifestation as cult ideology, and how these relate to our understanding of Socialism and Communism as we aim to better define the terms.

There is a certain projection in that the socialist will aim to present all developments which can be labeled as "standard", "status quo", "normative", and so forth as being paragons of the worst ideological leanings, and this is no surprise to those who are already familiar with the expression "Iron Law of Woke Projection". Socialism will always be championed and pushed forward as a fundamental principle of social relations through an aesthetic and control of vernacular which declares it as liberal, civil, scientific, intelligent, democratic and so on.

At the same time, a habit of frivolous equivocation is continuously engrossed in by those same participants whereby actual regimes and societies will be professed to be or not be Communist depending on the discourse at hand. The reason will be two fold:
- To separate the current undertaking from any historical precedent which could otherwise serve to dissuade acceptance.
- To promote or induce radicalization of prospective revolutionaries when there is a sense for having them potentially take up the collectivist cause in a more radical form.

For these reasons, a current effort for revolution can be separated from previous attempts by claiming it is nothing out of the ordinary, and simply the embodiment of good sense-making and fairness taking hold today while, at the same time, the same advocate will be happy to help any possible member to socialist revolution come into believing that anything they have done, or currently are likely to do, is simply an effort which, in its highest and most intelligent form, is precisely the development of socialism which would eventually make everyone's life better and easier.

This noisy and expressly dishonest political interplay, with a feet firmly entrenched in a mystical metaphysic makes the environment yet even noisier and more prone to agitation when it comes to the problem of construing communism as a political system for which governments of a corresponding type have been formed. There is good reason to do this, such as that these are the precise systems which have come to be created atop the ideas in question, and we need practical and concrete examples in order to connect people to a deeper understanding of what these things are.

The problem that we arrive at, in more detail, is that the concept being instantiated is so far outside of reality, and so antithetical to what we understand about biology and human consciousness that those who champion it could never satisfy the model without wading into destructive behaviour first, even, if needs be, to the point of destroying all of humanity (and the world - and we shouldn't underestimate the potential for that to occur, not simply because of historical precedents, but because of the necessary progression of technology both in the more obvious sense of greater capacity for some desired effect by sheer force and power but perhaps also more insidiously as the degree to which we become increasingly convinced that we will be able to complete an infinite series. 

The completion of an infinite series is the perfect way to describe the extraordinary and fantastic undertaking, particularly in this case of it being tantamount to a moral realization and a completion of something which can only be understood as some sort of perfection or redemption. It is, in effect, requiring an acuity of understanding at such a level that every detail can be fully understood and consolidated. This reminded me almost right away of the distinction pointed out when I was reading Turing and his describing the limitations of any sort of machine that would count numbers to the end that there are certain numbers which are incomputable due to the fact of there always being an infinite series of numbers not only extending in whatever direction towards infinity (positive or negative), but also in the sense that we have an unlimited series situated between any two known numbers.

James Lindsay does a wonderful job of describing this problem using the Pygmalion myth, which can be [found here](https://newdiscourses.com/2023/05/onlysubs-woke-marxism-and-pygmalions-wish/), but only for his paid subscribers.

The concept of a complete and totalizing system is something wherein all actions and occurrences are in concert and are coming into being in a manner which drives the perfectly concordant, harmonious and uniform expression of the system with such perfection that one might wish to posit it as a divine expression. Another way to think about it, at least using a more physical description, would be as a state with no compression, no entropy and no loss of potential. It is a perfect permutation of a reality which comes into being through harmonious union between the theoretical model of perfected existence and the practical/concretized activity of all things. This perfect permutation is the state of being having been configured into its perfect form.

### Communication

But to communicate these ideas intelligibly such as to remove all doubt and disagreement, then they must be considered as per their most perfect representation, then they must be considered as per their theoretical formulation as put forward by their father - he whom has given them form.

And by calling Marx the father, that isn't to say that he should be construed as the originator of this manner of thinking, as I think that is more of a fundamental split in terms of how humans intuit reality at the level of the metaphysical, but he did formalize manny aspects of it and give the robust theoretical basis from which has been able to reach so many using a vernacular that is well-recognized and remains in use today, and so for the purpose of understanding the ideas that are in motion today, it remains suitable to consider him as their father given the specific concept of property which I maintain is crucial to focus on, as not only does it pertain to an economy or a community, but to personhood itself.

Let us examine the following of Marx's quotes:

> "...is the positive transcendence of human self-estrangement by private property."

What does that mean? Doesn't it simply mean fairness to everyone? Wouldn't we have transcended self-estrangement of ourselves at the same time?

No.

Where does Marx think our self-estrangement comes from? It is our inability to make manifest in reality the things that one thinks or conceives at in real time (such as to say, at one's whim).

TODO: REDO

- [x] What convinces you that you suffer from self-estrangement?
- [x] Can we agree on what that is and how to evaluate it?
- [] If we entertain it, will we agree on its supposed cause?
  - [] We must each live for ourselves
  - [] We do this through collective activity and praxis
    - [] This advances the conditions to liberation
  - [] We must manifest the objects as conceived in our mind
    - [] Without corruption from division of labour
    - [] Cannot have another human creating objects conceived of another

How petulant and self-focused to consider not only that oneself is estranged, but that the unburdening of one's sense of estrangement would and even must take place simultaneously as the unburdening of estrangement for all of human existence. If this isn't the most bold and indication of one's narcissism, then perhaps there aren't even any narcissists at all! Just heroic agents of discontent who are the essence of a motivation to liberate all of human existence.

Estrangement is, in some respects, something which will be potentially discovered in all aspects of human existence for reasons which, if we are to even entertain that this is somehow connected to property, emerge from personhood itself. That one could be estranged at all is a consequence of being in an environment with other conscious beings while also being aware of the separation of one's body from others. The very fact of being separate is already a form of estrangement from, at the basic level, something which some would desire as a unity or meaning to be derived from some form of reciprocity.

The difference with Marx is that he's using the fact of there being labour, as a consequence of the existence of private property, as being the cause of human estrangement as per the ontological description he puts forward for man. So in a sense we could say that there is a wider set of permutations of estrangement that could be incurred by a human, but in his representation of society and mankind (and, as we'll see, nature itself) that if this one cause of estrangement were to be alleviated, all human conflict would cease to exist, at least insofar as conflict is significant enough to warrant a { !TODO: Choose one -> description of reality, or the differentiation of class, the inability of a human being to create the object of reality in tandem with his capacity to speculate and conceive of an object as subject to the world }.
!TODO: in previous line

Indeed, many a Marxist would argue that it's absolutely in our interest to alleviate pain, suffering and oppression from mankind.

#### The Case For Solving Oppression 

If we are able to successfully work together in a way which is authentic and in which everyone is honestly trying to accomplish something because we understand that we all rely on one another to make the world a better place, then we are doing so while conceiving of a world which is substantively better, measurably better, or qualitatively better, and if we are to measure that in human terms, it's because of less human suffering. If we all suffer, then we should understand that reducing suffering in the world is going to impact us positively in one way or another, and so why would it actually seem like a better idea to improve things for ourselves most directly and in the most immediate if we aren't also able to understand how to end all of our own suffering. It would make sense that there will be some problems which we can solve and others that we cannot, and that in order to solve the most difficult problems, we likely either need the right person or the right combination of people and what have you and so if we hope to solve all of the problems then we eventually have to realize that we need to work with other people.

Wouldn't we realize that we'd need, for those times when we'd actually have to work on the problem that requires cooperation and we're ready, willing and enthusiastic about working together thoroughly an earnestly, a methodology and skill level for working together, even a defacto one which is just whatever it happens to be when we move forward with doing so, or whatever gets refined through repeated activity together. So for that reason, it makes sense to start as soon as possible in order to be ready for those crucial moments which, if we are serious about wanting to solve problems, are inevitably going to confront us at some point.

Indeed, oppression should be reduced and eventually all forms of oppression should be solved or at least the circumstances should be made to be as conducive to the elimination of oppression as possible, but that doesn't presuppose a social critique for explaining what that oppression is, what it's caused by and how to solve it. It's something to be understood and solved at face value, and that means using whatever toolset is available universally and in a manner where we can expect to be able to demonstrate truth to our fellow man in an authentic and forthrightly oriented manner.

The power of nature comes from understanding that reality can't be ignored or played with. Reality is as it is and it affects us in absolute terms which are unavoidable, and any kind of self-interested frenzy will need to contend with that same nature, regardless of how many resources we've set aside for ourselves.

Now certainly if we are fueling our desire for the use of a particular methodology using some form of despair and dissatisfaction, then we can search indefinitely for the causes of every dissatisfaction and aim to rectify them until we finally achieve a clean slate from which to become engaged in the human experience.

We should hope to one day rid ourselves of some of the most dissatisfying, painful and unpleasant aspects of human existence, then we even innately and intuitively imagine them as possibly being solved because we are a part of a humanity which consolidates and refines itself through community. There are a lot of ways to argue this point, and it's true in a sense, but I don't think it really means what the collectivist would like for it to mean. We actually solve problems as individuals and whether you want to think that the problems you solved weren't actually solved by you is up to you, but if no one is actually able to genuinely solve a problem, then no problems get solved whatsoever. The fact that we draw inspiration or information from the acts, voices and perspectives of others should be seen as a great thing, but it should also be thought of as an expansion of us simply taking inspiration from nature or acquiring knowledge through our observation of nature and whatever precedent is available to us at any given time.

Alright, I'm humouring such a perspective, but the point here is that to consider it a failure to perfectly structure the integration of a plurality of human beings as being the source of oppression and suffering in the world, not only in terms of who suffers through poverty or physical violence, but even at the level of explaining our disagreements as being the result of a false consciousness extending from the conditions of the environment which, as a cause, supersedes the relevance of one's technically evaluatable rationale as per what they are able to communicate, can lead to the circumstance of considering that any suffering which one experiences can be blamed on any phenomena one suspects as bearing an effect through relations, resources, or even mediums that are more abstract than that, but which are essentially abstract resources.

If every unsolvable problem can be imagined as one whose only chance of being solved is through the collectivist ideal finally being reached, through a lack of conflict and the elimination of all incongruence in our organization of the world and ourselves, then there is no limit as to what evidence of oppression can exist, and what resentment should fuel the effort.

### Queer Communism

It is the same thing with queer: we must make the condition such that we do not have a need to enumerate identity. We will simply be man in himself, truly liberated to express and exist without moral implication, judgment and expectation over the fact of us having physical bodies. This is the ultimate manner of being unburdened by what has been - unburdened by the fact of having had to exist with a human body.

The sociocultural soul of the body will not be imprisoning you through your interpreted and influenced conception of your body, so that socially imposed soul will not imprison your actual body, thus allowing for you to act in accordance with your true nature. At this point, Queer praxis would be complete.

It is no trivial matter for virtually each of us have faced the callous judgment, if even only as the terrifying prospect of it, which cripples your sense of self and makes it seem unfairly dependent on perceptions stemming from entities which don't necessarily have your best interest at heart. One can easily find themselves falling into deep contemplation over the realization that all are subjected to this and, thus, the resulting pronouncement can therefore at least, for all intents and purposes, be suggested as being valid. But is it? 

To explore that in more detail, we can reflect on what things we see people get wrong. Where, for example, we consider matters in we have enough insight to evaluate the positions, choices and opinions of others over something for which we have a certain expertise, be it from what happens to have been our rare experience through happenstance, or where we are actually an expert and professional in the formal sense, and we bear witness to exceptionally intelligent, accomplished and reasonably well-intentioned men who have something to lose make absolutely pathetic and completely dumbfounding decisions. In fact, with enough experience, most come to realize that everyone can sometimes be wrong! Thus, in place of taking the descriptions of Queer theorists at face value, we are left with some questions:
- Who benefit when a wrong position is held?
- Who has the means to influence at scale?
- How much are our negative characterizations liable to assuage us away from truth?

!TODO: Examples to be added:
- [] Hannah Dyer descriptions of expectations about childhood innocence leading to limitations on the development of children.
- [] Drag Queen Story Hour?
- [] Halperin descriptions of Queer?
- [x] Judith Butler's reification of Gender
- [] Gayle Rubin's enumeration of intergenerational love

#### Judith Butler's Hegelian Reifications

!TODO: The following is actually a large massive paragraph, but we can probably break it apart and annotate the fact of our having formatted it to be easier to read

> "Originally intended to dispute the biology-is-destiny formulation, the distinction between sex and gender serves the argument that whatever biological intractability sex appears to have, gender is culturally constructed: hence, gender is neither the causal result of sex nor as seemingly fixed as sex. The unity of the subject is thus already potentially contested by the distinction that permits of gender as a multiple interpretation of sex. If gender is the cultural meanings that the sexed body assumes, then a gender cannot be said to follow from a sex in any one way. Taken to its logical limit, the sex/gender distinction suggests a radical discontinuity between sexed bodies and culturally constructed genders. Assuming for the moment the stability of binary sex, it does not follow that the construction of “men” will accrue exclusively to the bodies of males or that “women” will interpret only female bodies. Further, even if the sexes appear to be unproblematically binary in their morphology and constitution (which will become a question), there is no reason to assume that genders ought also to remain as two. The presumption of a binary gender system implicitly retains the belief in a mimetic relation of gender to sex whereby gender mirrors sex or is otherwise restricted by it. When the constructed status of gender is theorized as radically independent of sex, gender itself becomes a free-floating artifice, with the consequence that man and masculine might just as easily signify a female body as a male one, and woman and feminine a male body as easily as a female one. This radical splitting of the gendered subject poses yet another set of problems. Can we refer to a “given” sex or a “given” gender without first inquiring into how sex and/or gender is given, through what means? And what is “sex” anyway? Is it natural, anatomical, chromosomal, or hormonal, and how is a feminist critic to assess the scientific discourses which purport to establish such “facts” for us? Does sex have a history? Does each sex have a different history, or histories? Is there a history of how the duality of sex was established, a genealogy that might expose the binary options as a variable construction? Are the ostensibly natural facts of sex discursively produced by various scientific discourses in the service of other political and social interests? If the immutable character of sex is contested, perhaps this construct called “sex” is as culturally constructed as gender; indeed, perhaps it was always already gender, with the consequence that the distinction between sex and gender turns out to be no distinction at all." - Judith Butler (Gender Trouble)

Is there anything more annoying than such an obvious and flagrant swindle not merely because of the dubiousness of the statements contained within this quote, but because of the reach and degree of effect it has had which, to be fair, could simply be a more formal construction related to something ongoing, even evergreen, which perfectly captures the logic being employed by those who engage in this form of praxis and cult participation, but more realistically, especially given the degree to which it is cited and revered by those operating in related disciplines or at pertinent junctions of cultural discourse, how it serves as the backbone and rational fallback of modern cult collectivism as described with an ontological rendering of human life predicated on oppression on the basis of sexuality.

>"Many of the arguments made in the field of childhood education concerning children’s sexualities, though, tend to stabilize queerness as identity, instead of preserving something contingent, a “site of collective contestation”" - Judith Butler (Critically queer. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies)

### Atomic Forces

We are starting to have a clearer picture about the dimensions of concern, and we see that queer is liberation from the body in the sense of shame, expectation and the possibility of one not having sole influence over perception. In classical Marxism, it is still liberation from the consequences of having a body. The fact of one being subjected to atomic forces is enough to say that one's circumstance is oppressive.

Some may disagree that such a superfluous endpoint could be sought, even in time (with enough time), but I would wager that we do this instinctively as an organism bearing certain elements:
- Biological organisms instinctively orient towards and pursue the avoidance of unwanted sensation from the body (see *"Pain-Avoidance and Defensive Behaviors (Nociceptive Circuits)"*) . Yes, we do things which lead to discomfort but that is not the same as reacting to the immediate sensations of the body as they occur.
- We have posited a means of evaluating truth claims on the rejection of universally applicable logic and reason.
- We have declared that we can pursue things that do not yet exist and we can utilize things which we expect will come into existence.

We can visit a few more examples later, but for now we can just note that they all follow the same logic with the same arrangement of analogous entities, with each a distinct aesthetic and dimension of value and evaluation of morality, resonance, and ultimately one's capacity to live one's life according to their true, natural, uncoloured and uncorrupted state of being.

### Race Enums

The first is a conception of racial injustice where the identity borne of race, and the identification with racial identities (as a cognizable object of reference) are considered as only possibly being asserted as no longer needed once they are no longer enumerable. This is always the manner in which something contrived and synthetic, whose addition into a way of life is criticized as the superordinate oppression of the world. The ability for it to be referenced serves as the evidence of all things broken and erroneous and as well serves as the causative factor which is established through circular reasoning.

Race exists and thus oppression exists. You must participate in racial praxis to create the better world. You must continue doing this until such time that we are no longer able to conceive of race and, at that point, the following will be true:
- We cannot enumerate race.
- We will exist in a just world.
- People can exist as they are, unburdened by what has been.
- Your (or anyone's) participation in a process of praxis will be no more.
- !TODO: perhaps unrelated but we need to talk about mental healthism and SSRIs

There is something to be examined about the possible conception of a cognized object representing each one's own race for which one has pride and some gnostic outlook carrying the hope of divination and absolution against that or in the face of a racial other, particularly one whose characteristic behaviour is to either impose or participate in the aesthetic of the gnostic construct.

#### Remark on Colour Blindness

We already know what the critique of those who believe in antiracism and who are against the notion of one being socially colourblind is because it's always a form of projection (**cough** and the *Iron Law of Woke Projection* never misses). They are seeking that modality in their interpretation of a person's body, and then they are experiencing the fact of they themselves judging that person and imagining the limitations, experience and rationale or motivations of that person who has that body based on what they cognize as being the model of that body's behaviour according to the colour and sex, in this case. But it's something altogether abstract, of course, so it's against whatever symbols they cognized at the moment that they were conceived, which are symbols predicated on superficial dimensions, but bearing significance in the order of reality and society.

##### Insisting on Race to Complete Reality

!TODO: work in a reference and description of Eric Voegelin's symbols as per "Order and History".
- Compact representation of sacred purpose
- People of God becomes Race as Nation
- Historiogenesis: Mythic stories for historical redemption
- Eschatological Consciousness: Promised land of Racial Justice to be delivered as telos of history
- Immanentization of the Eschaton: Transcendent order in history itself
  - Gnostic Revolt: closed ideological project forbids the dissolution of an incomplete representation of history and reality 
    - Resolve existential tension through a racial totalization.

#### The International Race Nation Cult 

But all of that aside, they are lulling themselves into believing they have the evidence of prejudicial experience concerning a stereotype, and they are experiencing, for whatever it's worth and whatever it actually pertains to in the real universe, as some kind of event, likely through neurotic speculation and self-reflection. That projection is abhorrent, and should be ridiculed and condemned for its bigotry (that isn't to say that they're naturally bigoted, but that they've undertaken a practice which spawns bigoted thinking and causes them to have paranoid suspicions about any who might disagree with them, given the politically polarizing purpose of the activist practices which rely on these so-called philosophies) and idiocy, and especially because it's either a deliberate attempt to perpetuate misery in hopes of compelling the world into transformation, even to the point of destruction if that's the only type of transformation that could take place or it serves in that capacity, since it indicates the appearance of man as having an unscrupulous nature. The sentiment driving that desire is completely toxic, and so it should be no surprise to anyone that, given the opportunity, it would seek transformation even if it means complete and utter annihilation.

>"Interrupting the forces of racism is ongoing, lifelong work because the forces conditioning
us into racist frameworks are always at play" - Robin DiAngelo (White Fragility)

They succeed tremendously well in proving to themselves that colourblindness doesn't exist, as they keep rediscovering the focus of race either through being prompted to be reminded of it explicitly from environments richly endowed with Critical Race praxis, or through their general paranoia which, in spite of whether they may have a proclivity for it, is heightened by instigating and participating in continuous struggle (a lifelong process of it, in fact), and is an undertaking for which they themselves admit to seeing no conclusive remedy, other than submission to cult collectivism and endless critique through airing of grievance, navel-gazing, wound-collecting, and other toxic, pathology-inducing behaviours. Short of a totalizing force that will assuredly control every other human's experience such as to negate colour or race from the equation, like perhaps a society-level faculty extending from a totalitarian technocracy, there will never be an end to the racism upon which their vile cult subsists. We should denounce that complexly obscene behaviour and insist on colour blindness as it's actually the only alternative to an endless process of dehumanization (which would have to end with a material resolution to the differentiatedness of there being more than one being in our shared environment).

Perhaps I'm not coming across as clear and serious as I should be, but if we are really serious about choosing a future with principles which suppress dehumanization on dimensions such as the belief in race, racial communities, and racial nations, then we need to be explicit about what it's going to take, not just in order to criticize the world, but in order to clearly indicate what a legitimate solution would look like. The only possibility of justice, fairness and empathy between two beings is for them both to presuppose that the other could be a reflection of themselves, be it in the potential for experience, or understanding, or form, or what have you. There has to be a aligning in the perception of one or more of those things, and that's the key which unlocks the fairness in shared event.

If you took those repugnant conceptual frameworks at their word, you would repeat their nonsense about having to see yourself represented, and you would forever find that even if I were to find, for example, a half Indian half Dutch man of equal dimensions, age, health, style, preference and opinion, I'd still be horrified to find that we aren't perfectly aligned and that somehow there could be some difference from which to produce an aberration from something hoped to be perfectly atoned contentment. And heaven forbid if they were to hold a political opinion or prefer a different political candidate than I, as it would surely mean that they are enraptured with a false consciousness and that I am a victim of genocide.

So really there is no choice, because you'll never find that truly empathetic and openly curious view of anyone else's experience without inducing it through your logically deduced conclusion that it's simply better to do so because it makes your life better. That is to say, you don't find the people that are empathetic just on their own; you make people empathetic by improving the environment with your own intention and with your expressions which follow the upholding of principles that are morally sound and ethically robust when executed by you, who actually believes in them.

### Double Negation

!TODO: This can safely be relocated, given that it doesn't necessarily follow the previous section.
!TODO: Give intro to double negation based on my notes about biological proclivity

The human mind is prone to expecting that it can adopt behaviours that are contrary, incongruent and even antithetical to its stated beliefs or values under an assumption that the behaviour will be negated at an appropriate time such as to still fulfill the outcome which corresponds with those values. Somehow, the frame of mind or consciousness of the present indicates the future outcome without having to actually of the modality which most directly produces the outcome. In fact, the expectation for the future event can be rationalized such as to allow the present behaviour which must necessarily be negated, thus behaviour may contradict the stated objective.

One example of this might be knowing that we aspire to be healthy with our dietary choices, have strong opinions about what type of eating is conducive to the best performance, strong vitality and a long life, and an expectation that we will use such knowledge to practice dietary consumption in order to achieve our expected endpoint of healthy and long-lasting life.

The same can be found in our mastery of other human skill sets, be it in our personal lives or in our professional faculties, as we believe we understand the methodologies and habits which will lead to our happiest way of life in pursuit of professional or personal achievements and that, in spite of this knowledge, any deviation from that is part of our preparation.

This follows an intuition about making progress through a continued process of illumination. You might say that we are in perpetual preparation, be it through skilled and structured training, or even simply in waiting for the correct time to pass. With this in mind, one can either embody an expression whereby they cannot yet commence their true life, or they perceive the preparation as the true life which continuously improves the conditions of their life and reality as a whole. Reality must then be perceived either as always becoming something more, or as being false and unproven in the sense that it has not yet been brought into being.

#### Enabling Thinking Conducive to Double Negation

To summarize, this is the practice of believing that the current conduct, though correct in some sense, is still expected to be changed. Keep doing what you want, even if problematic, under an assumption that it will be negated at a later time, and even that it might be a form of virtue (which we expand on more when it comes to cult philosophies which utilize this).

Some motivations, at least at the individual level for a given human, might be libido dominandi, a means by which to permit the play of the mind, self-loathing, puritanical thinking, and making one compatible with what one perceives as structural forces, especially if its tendrils, as currently articulated, are somehow ephemeral.

#### Forms of Double Negation

These constitute the forms of double negation that we are most familiar with, at the cultural level:
- Classical Marxism: negate the process of negating the existing order (!TODO: Marx's ruthless criticism)
  - negate capitalist society and private property (bourgeois private property)
- Race Marxism: negate the process of negating whiteness
- Queer: negate the process of negating normalcy
- Feminism: negate the process of negating patriarchy
- Critical Pedagogy: Promises perpetual revolution

In each of these, the prescription and the expected benefits are the same:
- identify source of oppression

In each of these, the prescription, critique, and alluded benefit are the same:
- identify source of oppression affecting distribution of resources and division of labour.
- The dimension of concern may appear different aesthetically based on the sociocultural critique
- negate all expressions inline with the hegemon/demiurgic force
- the new world awaits where the end will have justified the means

### Dialectical Religion

Indeed, it is a religion because it introduces a complete means of viewing human life from which arise duties of conscience, with original sin, final judgment, a liberatory process and the transcending of man to God in order to bring about the transformation necessary to satisfy the resolution of the plight of the oppressed.

"God" here doesn't have to mean a man in the sky, but the source of absolution which must not rest outside of this material construct, as a transcendental deity of the Abrahamic faiths would intimate, but an indicated direction that necessarily exists or will come to exist in this world. An divine construct brought into being either as oneself, one's integration with conditions that have been made perfect and complete, or as the understanding and perception of the world which will be made manifest.

It functions as a dialogue which includes oneself but necessarily requires the rest of the existing world as a component for, in most cases, one's victimization through the conditions of the world and the others who are party to it requires a correction not of the self, who is not accountable simply because they exist as the product of the surroundings, thus any observed error, shortcoming or revealing of one's lack of grace is simply an indication that one has been prevented embodying their true essence due to the surroundings, which must be transformed.

It is dialectical because it functions by continuously adopting new understanding of previously known concepts and reifying the new understanding until they cannot be thought of in any other way. Everything is redefined to indicate a collective consciousness that will bring about transformation through knowledge otherwise not available, except through the proletarian identity. The change in history is so powerful that it promises to make the impossible and unimaginable real.

The drive towards eliminating the factors which prevent humans from beginning their true existence comes through a sense that the human being, and humanity, will come to be completed, and that this sense of completion would only be arrived at once we no longer fear a threat of succumbing to the limitations of human existence.

Obviously, such a thing cannot be attained, and we are essentially programming the rest of the populace into seeing the issue in those terms. The refinement of the populace into something which makes no sense except in theory.

#### Completing Man

The vision of the completed human being is one formulated and delivered by the state. A man who sits in perfect harmony within the collective and who, because of this, enjoys his most perfect personal life as well. If all resources are perfectly directed towards an objective as identified by the state, then no objective becomes too difficult nor too absurd to promise to the citizens.

Some might wish to say that there is no state in the final permutation of world and society, or that one is critical of the state, but all collectivist cult affiliation necessarily requires that it itself functions as the state, or that the state must adopt the goals and even language of the cult such that it can be leveraged, but that the state must be a stepping stone in the right direction.

If the state authority exists at the scale of the globe, rather than a single nation with an independent area of land and water, then their duties become so supreme and superordinate that the criticism of any one single human cannot carry the weight necessary to unseat them. No locale of opinion, with all of its idiosyncrasies, noisy paradigms, ugly biases and embarrassing history polluting it, is able to choose, raise up, or dismiss and deny the authority which is situated to have ultimate oversight and acuity over the entirety of human affairs and human existence.

##### Impossible Objectives

I wish to highlight again that there's no limit as to the absurdity of future promises to be made by the intelligentsia on behalf of a conceptual collective so long as it is mediated through the state by virtue of a social contract. The high falutin betters are not in the business of actually realizing anything whatsoever at the level of concrete edification; the elite-minded moral busy-bodies are able to convince themselves they've realized everything at the level of idealism through making commitments, especially on behalf of those who might have a difference of mind.

## The Description

Communism is, according to Marx, the state of human life and nature which follow from these evident truths:
- Human beings engage in activity which is volitional;
- Which is not influenced by any desire or need;
- And especially not a need associated with survival;
- And all aspects of society are fulfilled by this as free activity;
- There is no state

The Communist advocates for this endpoint, and they perceive Communism as:
- A God object
- A perfectly spontaneous ordering of life
- A return home
- Entering the Garden of Eden
- Having one's fill from the tree of knowledge

## The Statement

!TODO: This is also in the "Communication" section

Marx's most revealing statement is the following:
> "Communism as the positive transcendence of private property as human self-estrangement." - Karl Marx (Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 - Private Property and Communism)

How does one normally perceive such a statement? Isn't Communism just getting rid of private, for-profit mega-corporations which otherwise enjoy ridiculous monopolies at everyone else's expense and replacing them with state-certified production of whatever people need in appropriate quantities and with standards which solve planned obsolescence, and any other worry consumers might have currently.

Well, no, there is no state in Marx's formulation of communism.

The whole notion of a consumer, at least as per the socialist, extends from the premise that there are roles of human life which necessarily separate people into class, with these roles causing humans to have fundamentally different qualities of life, different outlooks, different access to knowledge, different bias, and so forth. That there is a consumer follows from an assumption that some would produce and others would not. But, for Marx, the idea that some produce, beyond a temporal point of human, social and technological development and evolution, becomes a mistake which denotes a stagnation in the continuation of the process of man evolving such as to realize the type of existence which should follow from the base faculties of a human being, as differentiated from animal.

All humans create their life, as within the range of their capacity to conceive, have thoughts and perform actions which make the life they desire a reality. Given the fact that humans are related to one another through shared environment and their possess faculties for socialization means that humans act in the world such that they are creating a world which affects all humans at some level. Given their ability to ponder on reality, the conditions of the world, the manner in which their actions affect others, and the manner in which actions of others affect them, it is said that humans act in accordance with all other humans as a whole.

This means that, if we were to find a set of conditions that truly brought satisfaction to any man in life, it would be because their capacity to imagine the world they desire was unhindered by the actions of any other man, as well as the conditions of the setting being shared with other men. Some would insist that such conditions would correspond to there no longer being a state, as there would no longer be a state required to manage possible grievances or moral infractions between any two men.

### Withering the State

Both Marx and Engels wrote of the eventual dissolution of the state, as its existence would become moot and redundant given a sufficient transformation in the conditions of man and society, but it was perhaps Vladimir Lenin who formalized dialogue on that topic to a more conclusive degree. Lenin drew from the ideas and writings of Marx and Engels, and was very clear about it by basing his comments on the progression of societal change towards the elimination of state most fundamentally on reflections he made on the quotes of Marx and Engels, whom he found to have considerably different views concerning the role of the state, but whose logical conclusions can be consolidated through developing our understanding of what the concepts and their related terms, such as democracy, ultimately mean. Such semantics are not so important, however, as the main point to get across is the degree to which distinctions need to be eliminated for a true conception of liberated humanity which, according to Lenin, would be one without a state as it would be one without class distinction.

> "For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary." - Vladimir Lenin (The State and Revolution - The Economic Basis of the Withering Away of the State)

>"The Communist Manifesto gives a general summary of history, which compels us to regard the state as the organ of class rule and leads us to the inevitable conclusion that the proletariat cannot overthrow the bourgeoisie without first winning political power, without attaining political supremacy, without transforming the state into the !TODO Change quotes "proletariat organized as the ruling class"; and that this proletarian state will begin to wither away immediately after its victory because the state is unnecessary and cannot exist in a society in which there are no class antagonisms." - Vladimir Lenin (The State and Revolution)

> "Dialectics is the theory of knowledge of (Hegel and ) Marxism. This is the aspect of the matter (it is not an aspect, but the essence of the matter)." - Lenin (Lenin’s Collected Works)

- State only exists both as the utilitarian function and the evidence that conflict between classes have not yet been eliminated, thus serving as the implement by which the dialectic plays out according the tension of those classes and which works to drive history forward.
- Once the proletariat have truly attained supremacy as a ruling class, those with the power to direct the affairs of society will also be those with the consciousness necessary for man to be liberate himself.
- Lenin believed that a transition period of dictatorial rule by the proletariat was necessary before the eventual and complete dissipation of state.

We see, once again, that Lenin's contributions are based on the Hegelian faith, which is to say a faith which precedes Hegel but is best understood through Hegel because of the manner in which it encompasses both the role of state as the worldly manifestation of the divine at the present moment in history as well as the belief that this fundamental phenomenon of world transformation, both as a feature of existence as well as a tool to be utilized by human consciousness, is the means by which all of reality reaches its eschatological destiny.

### Pragmatic Communism?

*Indeed, on the Marxists.org website, they speak of the nature of truth and actually position Communism as being close to pragmatism (except with everything's utility measured insofar as it propagates Socialism and installs Communists in power. But here, however, we're talking about the perspective of a pragmatic Communist who claims that incomplete Communism (which is also Socialism) is still Communism.*

Some will retort: "Well, it's all the same: the incomplete societies are still doing communism as is first feasible, with room for change as time passes. They are still the societies that are communistic by comparison."

I'm not even necessarily denying that, but the point was that it will never satisfy the capacity for a central authority to assert for or make a claim to ever-greater power. The logic of the system of thinking is that private exchange of use of goods as a financial transaction, and the necessity for having such activity, estrange man - the worker, the owner, and the consumer - and that this perpetuates and becomes even more insidious with each subsequent generation which must adopt the corresponding practices (almost as a set of ritualistic practices as part of an ideology (according to Marxism)) in order to survive in the system such as it is (or even to enjoy certain benefits in an incomplete communistic society).

Continuing down a path and calling it Communism while knowingly contradicting its principles may sound like a death blow to a communist revolutionary's thinking, but it is quite the opposite. Whenever a communist feels they must do something contradictory in order to operate to their benefit (even insofar as being able to fulfill their stated obligation - such as perpetuating communism or socialism), it becomes several things for the communist all at once:
- Evidence that they are right (look what we are forced to do)
- A way of enjoying special privilege at your expense
- Protest against the system they hate
- Something producing tension which transforms society in their favour
  - if you are confused by it, then you are negated in the process which systematizes reason (from contradiction)

### Placing Definitions in Context

! NOTE: Decide if this should be before former part, where we compare Fascism and Marxism

Before we go further, we must clarify something else related to the definitions I have settled on for my understanding and my approach to helping others in their understanding of Communism (which, to be frank, is one's understanding of Collectivism).

If Communism is the end stage of a historical process, Marxism is the theology from which that is derived as an ought, particularly through its ontological and teleological declarations. The study of Marxism is what has developed toolsets which are faithful to those declarations/descriptions.

Communism is the God-object at the end of the transformation of man and nature, through the creation of new man. It is the state of life and the stateless beginning of our new history. Stateless only in that there is no state separate from ourselves, and we are co-continuous as the existence of Man, for if there were any deviation from such a permutation of reality and human existence, we would not yet be at the point of Communism, for the state of liberation (as opposed to a state as entity which governs) would not be true for all men.

Conversely, Marxism is the means of understanding the here and now in the context of oppression. Marxism is the belief system which puts faith in that process. It explains the true nature of man based on what it means to be human, and how man and mankind can come to be fulfilled in their existence. It also requires faith to believe that something will come to be automagically through removing known things as barriers or sources of corruption but without laying even the first brick of whatever future edifice you expect should come to be potentiated and come to fruition by your participation in acts of negation.

One last thing will have to be touched on before we get more in-depth with Queer and Covidism - a refreshed context on the biological connection.

#### We Aren't Like That (Historical Faith)

When the cult says "historical", it means "historicist". Is there a difference? Yes, of course, but not specifically because history only came to be studied and carefully considered later, but because of the way it was used.

Indeed, there is a massive difference between historical and historicist, and in many who are using the terms historical or historically are actually doing so in the context of a historicist understanding of the world and a historicist description of human life, reality and human purpose.

History on its face should be nothing but an effort to develop an objective understanding of the events of human existence as a dispassionate chronology that can be reviewed, drawn from, curated and updated using the rigorous, unbiased and impartial application of our reason about the knowledge that we have at the present. But to make a claim that something is historically relevant or that something today can be defined based on its historical precedent, rather than the neutral understanding of what that thing is today, is to claim that we need to apply a lense which falls outside the toolset of universal application of logic and reason. This is where history becomes an input for performing praxis on the basis of Critical Theory, but even this is a modern application of something which has long existed.

To understand historicism, much like having to understand Hegel or Marx, requires us to understand that the concept of science or what is scientific has itself evolved and that its preceding phases weren't necessarily the dispassionate application of the techniques we've come to associate as being the "scientific method".

!TODO: elaborate on historicism as a "higher science", talk about wissenschaft licher socializmus, review the Coughlin/Dyer/Lindsay dialogue.
I argue that the way it was used, though a certain misuse was not fundamentally a choice to misuse something so much as the manner in which humans are disposed to think and approach something based on its use as is provisioned by virtue of:
- a) the manner in which it interfaces with the body, and;
- b) what this something represented (what abstraction was cognized at the high level by the mind upon undertaking the operation of observing, imagining, and appropriating the conceptual object at moment of cognition (TODO: theory: especially the first moment, as it is the only reasonable universality we can examine given the difficulty of finding consistent parametrization of subsequent events of cognition (though, to be fair, this should be met with peering into research about a sweet spot for cognizing objects wherein the composition of the major aspect of the conceptual object is made into its most crystallized form.)))

How it interfaces with the body is an interesting concept to explore here. When we consider our body in its finite form in a system that is transforming both in terms of a temporal trajectory, as well as its significance, limitations and symbolization from the perspectives of other people, and the manner in which technology and limits of knowledge are both changing, then we consider that a higher level science is going through an ongoing process of development where the significance of such a science is how it pertains such as to be understood and experienced. That this is bound to and interfaced with the body is inextricable and, as such, if we aren't to understand that there are limits to such a development, then it stands to reason that there is an inherent hope that limitations of human existence and embodiment are going to be addressed, so long as sufficient development occurs as a consequence of the historical process. This is tantamount to an indiscernible completion given that, should those resolutions be met, we would no longer have angst with respect to any desires or conceptions that are otherwise limited. That is to say, it would allow for a new phase of temporal existence and a new history, which is very similar to what is described by Marx when he says the following:

>"...n the entire so-called history of the world is nothing but the creation of man through human labor, nothing but the emergence of nature for man..." - Karl Marx (Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844)

#### They Don't Even Know

People pushing for Communism will, of course, not be aware of historicism, yet they are quite clearly thinking dialectically in terms that are never fully-formed. This is the hallmark of collectivists, just as their collective is never complete yet its construction stands as the precondition to a world where their terms will finally be intelligently affirmable and fully realized.

For those who are surrounded by intellectuals who proclaim themselves as measured centrists, yet decry everything below them as populism and a stepping stone towards fascism, it will ring a bell to reflect on their propensity to comment on the aesthetics of the target of their critique, and denounce it on the basis of what direction it leads towards. This will serve as sufficient rationale to propose an alternative which itself needn't be something which exemplifies a principle so much as it heads in a direction which they believe exudes the flavours of progress, particularly given historical references. For example, an amalgamation of Europe is a good thing because of a war precedent, in spite of any criticism about it, because its formalized and amalgamated structure is itself a symbolic guide and lacking sufficient power to cause negative effects.

So, if they are looking at communism, what would one see?

Obviously, in the meantime, it is represented as something never fully formed and likely referenced as something which is not Communism, except by the hardcore activists and true-believers and those who may know the literature. But, ideally, in constructing a conception of Communism which is as crystalline and cognizable as possible, it would come to be seen as:
- Something plausibly referenced in the way that it is expected to be commonly understood
- Something for which you will never be threatened and attacked by the public, the state state, or in private
- Something which has power:
  - It needs power to assert something totalitarian
  - It needs even more power to progress towards its goals
    - or even just to indicate that it is addressing its goals

Unless it is something fringe and outside of most people's lives, the crux of Communism, collectivism with the promise of liberation extending from Marx's critiques, will not have to be advocated for, nor any of its premises. You will instead only be made to insist on the popular cultural artifacts of the day, and the values of the most popular set, or the set extending from the state. Marxism and revolutionary theory will cause the proliferation of Marxist political action through institutions, and any apparatus which reaches the people.

Another thing that we've witnessed with our own eyes, and increasingly so, is that the policies presented as leftist which are purported to yield rights and freedom to all (though, through focusing on the few, or at least always a subset, rather than the degree to which the law is universally stated and universally applied) must (and that is in the absolute sense) be applied in a way which denies the possibility of universally applied and universally administered law, and that these regions and political locales become increasingly authoritarian all the while attempting to produce an ever more constrained and detailed arrangement of human classification which is composed entirely of a defined separation of human life, human thinking, human morality, and human guilt.

We compose a conceptual encampment of historical effects and the specification for the inner workings of people's minds, which goes so far as to lay claim to what knowledge can be expressed, known or learned by any specific individual human by eliminating any analysis of their individually disseminated report or stream of thought, any of their creations and productions, and any communication of any kind. Instead of allowing for humans to be understood both in universal terms and by assuming they are operating through universally-accessible faculties, we exploit social systems and relations by making such principle-based methodologies inadmissible in the place of a critical assessment using the lense of Marxist analysis as it relates to the prospect of engaging in critical praxis for the purpose of liberation consistent with revolutionary theory on the basis of a particular or combination of dimensions of social critique bearing significance in the realm of thinkers extending from Marxist analysis, critical constructivist analysis, and critical theory analysis or their contemporaries.

In this way, we appear to already have an extremely radical left wing political milieu from which to frame all perspective, but I beg you to consider that this is merely an aesthetic of theory which doesn't even begin to consider the manner in which human mind meets with these concepts, much less their concretization in legislation and policy, nor the patterns of behaviour which extend from their implementation and logic and structure of organization, governance and systems of inquiry which come to be affected, erected or in the same way inspired by these expressions and edifications.

##### Perceiving Imminent Authoritarian Collectivism

In many ways, the inspiration for thinking I've developed around collectivism and the manner in which humans offer no resistance to the systems around them as they potentiate a more authoritarian future has come from my personal observations. I struggled to find the right way to express what I was witnessing as those around me who seemed to proclaim universal freedom and liberty would somehow promote ideas and repeat refactored statements that were pro-tyranny. Though I had many ways of understanding it, deconstructing it and rationalizing it on the basis of what I perceived as the psychological incentives and immediate social incentives, I have found the concept of embracing a dialectical way of thinking as being an excellent model as it ties into what I've found to be a baseline for human behaviour that we're most easily predisposed to.

It's particularly drôle and a tad disconcerting to see a never-ending dialectical buffet of sophistry being conducted around the idea of an encroaching threat of authoritarianism, especially since most of the hyperbolic takes come from the histrionically-performant agitators from all walks of life. 

While many can clash and grovel over whether or not some nation or government was able to veritably instantiate a political system in accordance with the desire for a true Communist state, what does the human mind see when it considers communism in the context of its own life and mind?

For any sort of encroaching authoritarianism of any kind, the mind sees it either as something that it wishes to annul and prevent, or something utterly inevitable for which it's either too hopeless and complicated to push back against, or inevitable as something that promises something to them in return. In the case of this description, we'd like to focus on the latter with the second modality: inevitable and promising something in return.

What could it possibly be promising? Well it needn't be the moon, though that's certainly within the range of plausible promises, given that the state promises anything and everything in order to earn the support of its citizens, if even the power to rationalize the dismissal of any protest or criticism. It can simply be the promise of maintaining one's social salience and professional viability, as well as the ability to avoid being censored, dismissed and forgotten. Beyond that, however, it becomes the promise of whatever appeals to one's ego, so long as one is obedient and maintaining compatible messaging with state infrastructure. The appeal through the gnostic disposition is endless, as humans yearn for a liberated existence in a very general sense. It's important to not here that gnostic doesn't refer, once again, to members of the religion of Gnosticism (or its variants and subsets) per se, but the proclivity of humans to engage the world symbolically, making for a political outlook, and the manner in which we perceive reality in those terms as it pertains to the potential to eliminate the anxiety of human embodiment as our soul finds meaning in the pursuance and mitigation of those symbols.

When we come to view the impending changes to our environment as only being a matter of time before they are widespread and adopted by everyone, then we have an incentive to get ahead of it. In the worst case, this might come to be seen as having been required to get ahead of the inevitable changes, while in a better case it one might respond such as to believe they are helping to direct the changes into a form which best serves the environment and its inhabitants.

Once you are biased to accept the continued construction of an inexorably powerful ruling entity, you are also biased to interpret its critics as something that can interfere with the future you are now invested in. Whether it's the prospect of making your perception of that future complicated such as to contribute to negative emotion or as an opportunity for you to demonstrate obedience and allegiance, it has now become easier for you to accept rhetoric which denounces critics of the regime.

Those who rebel, resist and reject the advancement of its power will be labeled as those having the privilege to enjoy doing so, as though they've enjoyed such privileges long past their culpability in untold acts of dishonour worthy of notoriety. Regardless of whether you agree with those implementing the new standards of authoritarianism, those who are attacking it are to be spoken about as though they are only doing so because of their privilege and access to unearned power which could only be used for the wasteful or the obscene. Only someone with excess resources would risk their social credibility and congruity to power. Having sufficient confidence to speak of ill of an entity with great power means they too may have power, but given that they are not an entity with oversight over the entire social environment, it's still a good bet they wouldn't ultimately be a formidable match.

The impending state of totalizing power becomes something to be aimed towards, desired and well-regarded as, since it is inevitable, one has no choice but to accept it with open arms.

One can also rationalize its existence and reframe it in more agreeable terms. "It's not Communism, it's just taking care of our neighbourhood. It's loving your neighbours and being a good neighbour yourself. It's sustainable practices, which show my intelligence. It's fairness and inclusion, or inclusive capitalism, nay, sustainable capitalism.

The forthcoming totalitarian age is something with which integration is necessary in order to preserve oneself, one's identity (or what form or representation of it may be permitted) and, in the most basic sense, one's life. You need to register with the new system, as it's already going to be your system and it could be just like you. If you were to purchase a product and make sure that the vendor doesn't completely ignore you or see you as a malicious actor if ever you need some service and support.

The totalitarian entity is something chosen and indicated from the central and most powerful point of society. If something is to be implemented for which absolutely everything will be relevant, then it's being composed and deployed by that which has authority over everything.

It is, lastly, a necessary aspect of social integration by oneself that one must maintain proximity to the implements of the superstructure through its articulations as they manifest. This is a prerequisite in order to have any opportunity for advancement in status, profession, and so forth and is, ironically, a necessity to maintain one's level of privilege in the first place.

#### Cognition of Collective

What we are drawing attention to, then, is that it is presented as the manner in which it interfaces with each individual (the only perception, experience, and mode of perception which is intelligent to conceive of at all (or which makes any kind of sense)). Everything else is speed where belief is suspended in order to allow for descriptive syntax which is unable to invoke such a collective consciousness, or even a collective.

What does one even envision when confronted with the notion of a collective? Collection of objects in a space (like a jar)? A society? A collective of people? In what arrangement? In what context? Is it perhaps more likely that one is envisioning the containment of something? Items and object of some sort? One's containment inside or outside of some barrier or enclosure? A collective conveys a few ideas nearly immediately.

Perhaps one envisions their own exclusion or rejection by the force which is itself greater than any single individual or interest, and that this easily poses one sort of challenge that is necessarily difficult.

One might also envision one's act of collecting something with their with their hand - the holding of many things and how this is in some respects a form of abundance.

Whatever an individual mind imagines to meet the need of composing a cognizable object for reference as communism, the fact is that we must assume that even the multitude variety of choices are dissimilar not just because of different preferences or different backgrounds affecting personal biases. The conceptions edified through the visual cortex and its use by the being are not themselves not just over the? But are completely different things being?.

#### Collective Typing

The main point is to acknowledge that even if we have two identical pronouncements of identity declarations by two identical individuals with identically-stated politics, interests, social standing, locale and much more, you still cannot assume that the conceptual object being cognized in relation to any particular event, place, person or thing will be similar, much less identical.

We treat them as equivalent yet we should learn to be clear about people's individuality. Individuality can't be a qualifier for group masking of actual people with real instantiated consciousness - it's something the qualification of necessarily means considering things only insofar as they can be applied universally at the level of the individual.

### Collectivism

"Collectivists believe life is alienating except a world that reflects self" - Me.

It's important to remember that collectivism in general as Communism (more accurately Marxism - not as something which Karl Marx put forward as a domain of thought, but as a study of the logic of Marx which drove him to desire Socialism) and Fascism, function through its purveyors strongly believing that they have special insight concerning history and mankind and how humans are to transform with the knowledge of this. This is a gnosis that we will explore in further depth, but for now I want to make the point that understanding this phenomenon isn't as simple as establishing that there are persons with this "gnosis" beforehand who are attracted to this philosophy, system of organization, way of understanding socialization or method of world-making. Nor is it the case that upon initiation into a practice of collectivism that one must somehow proclaim gnosis, or work to discover that they have some sort of secret knowledge before moving forward.

The factor of "gnosis", in this case (much to the chagrin of the angry activists themselves who like to criticize those who use the term by asserting that its only suitable use is when capitalized in reference to specific ancient cult religions) can be described as a chicken-and-egg situation whereby, at the very least, it becomes a side effect of the sort of dialectical thinking which is associated with with collectivism, though most notably in Marxism since the dialectic is itself specifically referenced. The mere act of assuming a destination which brings about the prerequisites necessary to grant a universally-accessible epistemological toolset whose legitimate use is otherwise skewed on the basis of some identity theory (such as class, or a structurally-determined material qualifier like race) necessarily obligates the assertion that one understands something that itself needn't be qualified through the universally-accessible epistemology, like logic and reason. 

The epistemological distinction is perhaps the fundamental distinction between collectivist and individualist thinking, which might be better understood as a divide between dialectical faith and realism. And the consequences of contending against collectivist thinkers is indeed quite grave.

For example, the difference between those who believe this and those that don't is tantamount to a genetic deficiency or racial inferiority. If the consensus decides there is a path to salvation, and some only respond with friction and resistance, then they are literally regressive, dangerous to the human race, and existing as a blight or infection.

This historicism is paired with the notion of praxis which drives to the same goal relentlessly while ensuring that any contradictions or obscene manifestations, such as the death of naive peasants through circumstance, can be dismissed out of hand.

### Praxis

Praxis means we know the objective but don't ever need to provide a complete understanding of how and why. In fact, the objective itself can remain unspecified except as a vector. You are to have faith in the endpoint and understand that there's no need to find ways to express or portray the composition of that endpoint, as it can be expected that such an endpoint will become realized in tandem with the elimination of the drive or tension that compels any towards it. It promises both everything and nothing at all. It assigns final judgment to even those who are most difficult to judge.

When considering praxis through the eyes of the practitioner, they might think "I peer into the soul you never even knew. The model and theory of your mind, body and soul are something beyond you, but which reveal to me your essence and true nature. Only I can understand precisely the way in which you cheat, lie to, and estrange everyone and even yourself."

With praxis, we remind the world that no theory of knowledge will be sufficient until we reorder the world. The theory is that the world must be reordered until knowledge is feasible, comprehensible and communicable. At the moment, forces of a hegemonic nature (which we know to exist as there remains oppression and inequities) are the aspect of social existence which rob people of their capacity to discern and cognize things such as they truly are.

With no universally applicable base of understanding or method for sense-making, the oppressor must bow to the oppressed, and those with special insight into these truths must be given the means of enforcing the transformative changes otherwise resisted by the masses.

Without the means of asserting, using and accepting methods based on logic and reason, this becomes the superordinate process. Praxis is, by definition, superordinate.

### Alternate Reality

If you accept any alternate theory of knowledge, even through the premise that there are biases which prevent meritocratic assessments from being carried out for whatever reason and you think that it is good sense to expect meritocracy to be limited, then you will be in for a rude awakening:
**The alternate way of knowing is your negation.**

As a means of thinking, it exists only to negate you. The idea is that ways of understanding, knowledge and accessibility of epistemologies are feasible for some and not others and this destroys the notion that the world is simply observable and that its aspects can come to be known in some universal sense. A world where things can come to be known through being within it, a part of it, and through being able to observe and contemplate it is destroyed, along with you. In its place is a world where you may not be able to know anything, and where some have a more human consciousness and state of being by virtue of the matter which forms their bodies with the power, might and wisdom of history itself coursing through their veins, both in how their flesh presents and in the manner that the flesh of the body becomes the inevitable point of attention by the mind extending from an association with it.
!TODO: Is the above about the mind in the body, and its attention to that body? Or is it that all minds fixate the attention on the body (which includes face and head)?

Either reality is knowable or even we might more accurately say that we do not yet know if reality is truly knowable, but the manner in which we are impeded from knowing it in its most-veritable, authentic, and highest resolution form is a universal problem affecting all humans similarly (and the same may be when considering qualitative aspects) and that, in spite of this, the manner in which we seek to understand reality most accurately is universal.

To put it another way, given that both the limits and the best available and most viable toolsets for understanding reality are universal, we must fundamentally agree that the knowability of truth is universal and a human challenge and that the details of such a challenge are located in the ways in which we are the same, regardless of whether some individuals might be impede by this more than others.

Furthermore, we can deduce from this conundrum of human life and being that the solution to most if not all our human and social problems lies in the universally-applicable means of mitigating the limits of knowledge.

The disrespecting of one another through failing to acknowledge this crucial fact about our existence is at the heart of all the ideologies which come to plague us, as all ideology require some type of attack on language.

### Back to Species Being

This brings us back to re-examine the meaning and significance of the Species Being.

The arguments by Marx about the Species Being, or being as a being of the species and for the species as through one coming into alignment with their ontology, sounds esoteric not necessarily just in the sense of it possibly having a relationship to occultism, but literally in the sense that it sounds, even at the surface, incredibly obscure and far-fetched, casually yielding rationale for its dismissal. But the very concept of Species Being is obligatory once we start indicating any form of collectivist obligation. You cannot have an argument for there being a collective, even as implied through proposing the existence of, say, a social contract that is separate from seeking out one's greatest mode of life as an individual - that is to say, to claim that one's obligations to social reality are somehow something discrete and oppositional to individualist aspirations. The collective obligation is synonymous with Marx's Species Being, regardless of whether one tries to make the claim that potential for flourishing and a fulfilling life would be made possible through having fulfilled those collective obligations. There is no way to prove a being beyond the individual, and even that requires some degree of faith which, in this author's opinion, is the minimum faith one has to decide upon embodying through reason that they can hopefully compose for themselves.
!WARNING: massive run-on sentences below.
If we are to both envision that all humans are to be this species beings or components of Species Being yet are unable to attain their nature until they express their human life in this way, wherein they live their lives as and for the species (as man in himself), and that humans are able to impose a theory of knowledge dependent upon the distinctions which exist between man (as material or otherwise (culture, alternate expression, or otherwise - through the former is especially evil)), then, we necessarily indicate and require a process leading to the elimination of all distinction between men and for the state of life as a species being to be achieved (one can even liken this ). If this is still not yet clear, or the likely aesthetic of this in the face of human bodies and advancement of technology, then it will soon be made more clear after examining the same subject from the lense and reflecting from the corresponding historical event of covidism.

### But Fascism, not Communism

One thing stood out to me right away when I first began reading "The Doctrine of Fascism".

>"Fascism is action and it is thought; action in which doctrine is immanent, and doctrine arising from a given system of historical forces in which it is inserted, and working on them from within" - Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile (The Doctrine of Fascism)

Action and thought amidst historical forces towards the immanent?  Perfectly analogous to Historical Materialism. Marxism is Critical Praxis (Theory and Practice) to achieve Communism as the solution to the "riddle of history":
> "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." - Karl Marx (The Communist Manifesto)

> "The unity of theory and practice, is the revolutionary core of this method" - György Lukács (History and Class Consciousness)

Full quote:
> "It is not the primacy of economic motives in historical explanation that constitutes the decisive difference between Marxism and bourgeois thought, but the point of view of totality. The category of totality, the all-pervasive supremacy of the whole over the parts, is the essence of the method which Marx took over from Hegel and brilliantly transformed into the foundations of a wholly new science. The primacy of practice over theory, or rather the unity of theory and practice, is the revolutionary core of this method." - György Lukács (History and Class Consciousness)

They're essentially the same thing, but people get stuck on the Nationalist vs Internationalist distinction. The internationalist state of spontaneous Socialism void of contradiction and oppression would be the step after the perfection of the conditions at an international level, which would be akin to a superstate. And the Fascist state? Well it seeks conflict with other states until it reigns supreme.

So, in effect, it too would need to become the super state, if ever the zenith of its ascension were ever to be achieved. At that point, the distinction between its dissolution ("withering away") or its eternal status as the perfected edifice may serve as the final distinction of each logical conclusion. That's not much of a distinction.

#### Syllogism on Fascism

The Question: can you have a collectivist undertaking which is not either Communism or one whose undertaking includes an aspect of Communism coming into being as part of the historical process of developing the Fascist state? We ask this question because, in practical terms, there must be some means by which to orient the masses which, in theory, includes differentiation of personality and opinion, regardless of whether there's a concept of an ideal formulation wherein those differences will have been resolved such as to place each member in perfect alignment. For this reason, some revisionists of Fascism have posited that, given the ideal of the state as an organic entity transcending the multiplicity of human beings, each participant's role, purpose and spiritual value are expressing some form of equality, and that this is tantamount to a more correct permutation of a common and perfected human existence, but that still differs from the concept of Communism either popularly understood or being presented in this book.

However, there is something to be said in communist philosophers and communists themselves continuously assert that Fascism is dualistically-mediated component of the reality that they describe and acknowledge in that it is either a component to reality which drives the purpose of having to create the Communist endpoint, such as to evade the otherwise inevitable destination of Fascism, while fascists themselves, at least insofar as there have been self-declared adherents to an ideology of Fascism, have largely manifested as a reaction to what is otherwise perceived as being the development of Communism. There are some semantics to work out to fully consolidate the understanding of what Fascism is, both as a philosophy and as has been conjured up historically, as Fascism was borne of Syndicalism and is itself a progressive ideology, which is to say that it is an eschatology which develops through historical praxis but, those semantics aside, Fascism is largely understood of reactionary formulation and manifestation.

All of that said, this author asserts that most of the semantics surrounding Fascism, and even Communism (especially as espoused by those undertaking its praxis) serve as mystifications, and that the more easily understood figuration of Fascism is as an authoritarian system which is totalizing, which leaves no room for anything outside of itself as a perfect state, and to which all humans are subordinate in purpose and value, and that these are all the necessary conclusions of Collectivism as a whole.

All Collectivism must be totalizing and must destroy all humanity. Collectivism for the entity of the state is because it allows everyone to be their true self. Collectivism for the purpose of abolishing the state, with the state existing as evidence of conflict between men, is because it allows the very same. So it's just a matter of understanding the aesthetics and semantics of how one comes to be their true expression of being.

# Negation

## Not An Aspect: the Essence

Another level of understanding Marxism, and what I argue as being generalized most broadly to collectivism as a whole, while emphasizing that this is not merely an aspect of it, but is the essence of it, as Lenin will emphasize in the following quote, is that this is a process of negation.

> "Dialectics is the theory of knowledge of (Hegel and) Marxism. This is the “aspect” of the matter (it is not “an aspect” but the essence of the matter)" - Lenin

We must strongly articulate that it's even not complete to put this all on Marxism, because Marxism is not the reason that this occurs in the first place, but is just an allegedly sophisticated formalizing of the human tendency to manipulate perception of information in order to maintain or instantiate some more imagined operations which sustain the representation of a world which coincides with the target state one would desire as being consequent to one's effort in perceptual manipulation.

In order to maintain or instantiate some aspect of perceived reality, such as to reify it. When we say "reify", we intend to mean it in precisely the way in which Marxists use the term when suggesting, for example, that capitalism is an ideology which reifies perceptions and beliefs which cause one to adhere to practices which maintain the structure of power relations such as it is, or to even make the discrepancies in power relations more pronounced, and to teach a mythology about the virtues of capitalism in order to sedate and medicate oneself into a comfortably stupefying self-certainty about one's place, conduct and happenstance, rather than interpreting the reality of the situation where we could all be living the superior configuration of existence where each of us is liberated because we're all liberated.

> "Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around" - Karl Marx (A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right)

## Hegel's Concretization

It is more than a configuration of existence. The other existence is the actual existence in its proudest form, while ours is a false existence except for the parts of it which lead to the attempt to transform it for the purpose of the desired existence. That is, we can have faith that that which evoked an effect in the world was true application and if it was done with theory informed purpose, then it is the expression of truth in practice informed by theory. This is a truth that one can have faith in while becoming convinced of it simply by seeing any effect of its application. The point where the application of theory through practice is occurring is the part where the tension of what is and what becomes is composing, feeding and directing the moment of determinate actualization. It is the point at which things are immediately expressing what they are while undergoing the process of continuous change.

> "But, second, it is more than just the unessential; it is being void of essence; it is shine. Third, this shine is not something external, something other than essence, but is essence’s own shining. This shining of essence within it is reflection.”

> "Essence is sublated being. It is simple equality with itself but is such as the negation of the sphere of being in general… Essence itself is in this determination an existent immediate essence, and with reference to it being is only something negative, nothing in and for itself: essence, therefore, is a determined negation." - Hegel (Science of Logic)

> "Reflection is the shining of essence within itself. Essence, as infinite immanent turning back is not immediate simplicity, but negative simplicity; it is a movement across moments that are distinct, is absolute mediation with itself." - Hegel (Science of Logic)

But here is where we observe that whatever reality is is not something other than the desire to change it; its rejection an insistence to reorder whatever structure of reality has been observed as frame of existence. This is not the putting forward of a creative expression but one of destruction.

This is Hegel's concretization of Being through negation against the abstract. That is, what you think you understand or perceive of the world has, against it, a contradiction to be composed in idea and put forward as a criticism leading to the replacement of what was only a more abstract concept of reality as was seen before. Now, we are presented with a tension demanding transformation and as this transformation of the target or previous articulation, it comes to be obliterated.

That whole proposition to progress through change predicated on that tension is a proposal to negate in order to give rise to the actual. Though, for the idealist, it is said to be done in search of something better, but in reality it has given rise to such domains of thinking as Critical Constructivism and its need to induce crises, leading to the creation of an angrier world where enforcement of thought may be potentiated.

!TODO: quote Kevin Kumashiro (Against Common Sense: Teaching and Learning Toward Social Justice)

## Sacrifice

Sacrifice as a modality of negation is crucial to consider in any domain that can be understood as a collective, for sacrifice is inextricable from the very idea of positing that the role of any being is as a member of a collective. The sacrifice as negation is indeed the primary and lowest level operation of the transformative process, as the very anticipation of advancing through transformation in consideration of materializing the collective is only cognizable through the sacrifice of the multiple for the one. The differentiated components of the order of system, or the order of being as is considered through human perception, is actualized through sacrifice.

*Why is this?*
- To eliminate the distinction of any individuated object is precisely its destruction
- A conscious act which is volitional, both as conceiving and through invoking
- The ultimate target for transformation is the world one is a part of
  - Having others see it as a sacrifice is believing that you have suffered through it. The event of it having been witnessed is positioned as evidence, making it real and true.

Those "doing the work" believe they are contending against a brainwashed populace who perpetuate implanted lies as assimilated members of a structurally determined existence, and this in turn continues the never-ending oppression wreaking havoc on the humanity to which they themselves could be a part of. This work is a process of them taking on the pain and frustration of battling with the hegemonic enforcement mechanisms which that populace is more directly a part of, and which is what's keeping them from being full participants of humanity. Among the victims are children, who are the one key by which to break the cycle, and the potentiality of being. The self-sacrificing warrior laments that it simply isn't enough to grapple with every linguistic manipulation and enforceable structural implement or other means of coercion. One needs to actually create the very texture and fabric of perception as this concomitantly breaks through into the realization, demonstration, enablement and "dis-inhibition" of what is possible. The result of this, in theory, is that they'll have necessarily invoked an interlocutor's, witness' and subject's imagination, visualization and sense of confusion yielding cognitive dissonance, and the faculty to reconsolidate their perception of their environment and, by extension, their world. To hit the bullseye they've been aiming at changes the fabric of perception as a political act.

As you transform the world, one is inclined to adopt the standpoint that the limits to being and understanding what is possible are largely socially-imposed. Again, this must lead back towards one's sense that guiding and cultivating a collective perception about some aspect of reality makes it possible to reform, reset, re-imagine and re-learn what is possible.

This must always be a requirement of every form of woke cult phenomenon, as it can't be woke unless it is cultivating a collective perception about something in order to change the world, and also that it does this if even simply through language and dialogue. If something is too concrete, it is made ambiguous so that it can be re-imagined as what it otherwise would not have been. If something is too good and noble, it is seen as its opposite either by aesthetic and association to something appearing as its opposite, or through knowing of its opposite through it and this making it appear as though both it and its opposite are essential to it. Finding examples of this is key, but it always becomes surprisingly easy to come to the point of being made out as carrying or being proximate to the most insane associations whenever you exhibit that one's stance is adhered to due to one's unwavering principles. In the woke cult, the only way to demonstrate one's worth and one's virtue is to make allegiance and conformity one's unwavering principle.

## Modern Negation and Crisis

>"The generative theme is a topic taken from students' knowledge of their own lived experiences that is compelling and controversial enough to elicit their excitement and commitment. Such themes are saturated with affect, emotion and meaning because they engage the fears, anxieties, hopes and dreams of both students and their teachers.

> Generative themes arise at the point where the personal lives of students intersect with the larger society and the globalized world." - Joe Kincheloe (Knowledge and Critical Pedagogy, an Introduction)

> "...students learn that the ways that they think and act are not only limited but oppressive. Learning about oppression and about the ways they often unknowingly comply with oppression can lead students to feel paralyzed with anger, sadness, anxiety and guilt. It can lead to a form of emotional crisis.

> Once in crisis, a student can go in many directions. Some which lead to anti-oppressive change, others that may lead to more entrenched resistance.

> Educators have a responsibility to draw students into a possible crisis." - Kevin Kumashiro (Against Repetition: Addressing Resistance to Anti-Oppressive Change and the Practice of Learning, Supervising and Researching (2002))

If we don't negate the previous conception of the world, then it lingers and corrupts the current frame of existence, and since at least the perception of reality is socially constructed, if not reality itself (which is an idea that has become increasingly more common than many of us would have ever imagined) then changing the conception of the world necessarily entails preventing the current perceptions of the world from maintaining themselves in the next generation of children, hence the need to induce crises in them. Put another way, the conception of the world is the aggregate perception of the world given a theoretical belief about the world of man having an underlying reality whereby the whole and the parts are intrinsically bound to one another and carrying a quality and structure in which the two are ultimately indistinguishable.

*How are crises rationalized? Well they're rationalized as being a healthy response to an unhealthy world, thus describing the world in terms which induce a crisis in an as-of-yet uncorrupted mind becomes a point of evidence that one has described that world or taught that child accurately.*

The alternative to that nonsense is to consider it like this:  "I am building that thing which is grateful to reality and which causes new possibilities to be offered in thanks to that reality we enjoy."

### Ultimate Negation

When I speak here of the ultimate negation, I feel that there may be more than one answer based on the state of the world and the cultural manifestations that have become broadly familiar in our time. This is because there is one form which has become the most toxic and pervasive which I would like to expound upon. Other forms, though seemingly not as deleterious and anti-human, at least on paper in terms of the logic inherent in its semantic structure, may very well be associated with more actual death and destructive events in recorded history, but it is the logic of the theory that I think fulfills the designation of being "Ultimate Negation".

The ultimate system of negation for human life, as we have been able to come to know and experience, is Queer Theory, but I don't think that we can really grasp its operational relevance and metaphysical implications as the queering of the world of man and of society without considering it as part of the transhumanist plight which may or may not necessarily augment humans to God-status for it must, more fundamentally, grapple with the notion that the human body and the human life are not enough.

Queer is at the heart of the negation process, both because of where and how it currently stands, but also because of how it relates to the human form and how queer is the inevitable development following a progression of ever more sophisticated gnostic refutations of human life. Humans have, since time immemorial, been  reflecting on dealing with the prospect of a pseudo-immortality through everything from myth to philosophical abstraction n the basis of considering the meaning of procreation in the face of man's mortal existence.

Many may raise some objections to the notion that Queer is at the heart of the negation process, based on the following types of criticisms:
- feminism is to blame
  - gave us queer
  - Orwell warned about women
- Queer doesn't worry me because it's not based on reality
- Ultimately these are all just anti-capitalism
- these all feed into Communism - we should focus attention there

Some might say that it's feminism which is to blame, as it gave us Queer either through the seminal works which are considered as being the originating works of Queer Theory, which came from radical sex-positive feminists like Gayle Rubin, the postmodern Hegelian banter of Judith Butler, the formalizing of Queer as a term denoting critical transformative change by David Halperin, the French postmodernists themselves, or even the view that woman is a process of becoming as other to demiurgic spectre of maleness which plagues women across the world. Even Orwell warned about women (I'm going to piss some people off):

>"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.” - George Orwell (1984)

There are also those who will say that Queer Theory is not something to really be concerned about, as it doesn't have a stable-enough grounding in reality in order to maintain a structure with sufficient coherence to really bring down much of anything.

Others, still, will say that it's not worth identifying Queer Theory itself, as these are all just superficially differentiated forms of "anti-capitalism" and that all of these different cultural manifestations are just variants of the same thing, such as Communism, and that we could simply focus our effort much better by generalizing everything and shrinking the set of operational terms to a minimum.

There's something to be said for all of this, but you would be remiss in failing to consider just how toxic and deleterious Queer criticism is in how it preys upon the facets of human thought which are most conducive to feelings of resentment towards the biologically embodiment of human life - something for which everyone already deals with resentment about from time to time.

With all that in mind, we should at least examine feminism a little bit more closely.

#### Muh Feminism

!NOTE: consider putting feminism article within this section as under a sub-heading of "Feminism is Anti-Liberal" or similar.

In a way, this is the correct response, but it all depends on what one is doing to try and separate them. For the modern "gender-critical" feminist, they see the need to separate them. In fact, they see Queer Theory as the product of Patriarchy having infiltrated what is otherwise the liberatory process for women, and they evidence this on the basis of there being biological males in female spaces, and biological males doing Queer activism to conquer what is otherwise reserved for women. Of course, there are plenty of females doing the same, and the boots on the ground doesn't really tell you where the ideas come from. A more correct interpretation of Queer Theory is as the evolution of, at least, the idea of Feminism as it becomes updated to remain viable and operationally significant and, more accurately, the evolution of cult collectivism, which is the product of delusional thinking, as is logically to be pursued by a human being.

Some might say that, prior to the more pronounced proliferation of Queer Theory of the 2000s and, in pop culture, the 2010s, the phenomenon of people explicitly distancing themselves from or even outright denouncing Feminism had caused it to become more unstable. Likewise, although it is reasonable to assume that feminist rhetoric had some time ago been extremely unpopular and that it had become familiar to hear the insistent declaration that a woman demanding equal treatment be something that we must prioritize, because they are competing against the odds, the fact of that being so familiar sentiment also speaks to the degree to which it has become the common, sensible, and popular outlook to have.

But why do we avoid considering that as significant in many areas of popular and academic discourse?

Because of the goals of Feminism, or any view which utilizes Marxist Critical Analysis (and yes, it is my opinion that Feminism fundamentally requires a critical analysis predicated on class struggle). It can't stop at universal application of Liberal principles. No, it stands against Liberalism, or "Classical Liberalism" for those who like to differentiate the two, and it does so at its fundamental position. That is to say, that which defines it fundamentally makes it opposed to Liberalism.

### All Collectivism is Anti-Liberal

That should be elaborated upon, because it is quite a statement to say that the goal of something is the destruction of Liberalism, but I find it difficult to not reach this conclusion for the same reason I gave in my criticism of every other form of collectivism commented on in this book.

All collectivism, even when pursued by those who claim to be in favour of a society based on Liberalism, must be eschatological and, as such, must delay the application and expected viability of Liberalism. The work of collectivism is never done.

Even if every law written and every policy enacted is done in such a way as to not permit the preferred treatment of any person classified along some abstractly identifiable trait (other than, say, being a criminal with a history of murder and pedophilia - and even such people have laws they can refer to in order to avoid being discriminated against), it can still be argued to never be enough and any lingering discontent about anything in the life and experience of any person who has found a culturally referenceable stereotype, be it familiar or even obscure, that they believe they can plausibly declare themselves as being associated with as the whole or part (thanks, Intersectionality) can be used as fodder to decry their having been oppressed by a villain or group of villains whose identity they perceive as their other.

And since they have a path to invoking the force of the state, even as a general understanding before even having had their own instance of alleged oppression evaluated by the state's apparatuses which were provisioned to serve as the infrastructure dedicated for this very situation (such as a Diversity policy), they will always have the comfort of knowing they could remove any doubt about their conduct and placement and find a credible piece of universally accepted evidence in the form of the state's own participation and declarations.

With rule by law by a state which presents as the manifestation of divinity in the current concrete form tangible to us, and as our superordinate entity which grants us life, rights, nobility and morality, those who chose to reify a mythos by proclaiming an identity which proves the mythology and legitimacy of not just the stated goal but the understanding that the goal has not been reached (or else no one would have a Critical identity, and we wouldn't even know what that identity is).

#### It's Feminism When We Want

There is a prevailing issue pertaining to the essence of these Critical ways of thinking, and it is that dissatisfaction will always be identified, breeding resentment, and that this becomes a perpetual cycle. In fact, it is this cycle which powers the engine of activism in seeking change.

If it's the lense of feminism then it's the implicit understanding the outcome will always be unsatisfactory because of patriarchy, and these sentiments will themselves prove that oppression exists in the exact form described by feminists, Critical Theorists, and so forth. The moment this is championed by a state government, as is always sought, is the moment we can be assured of its march to totalitarianism.

Any promise or claim of liberalism premised under the need for social transformation is always a lie because transformation is always a demand for radical revolution, and radical revolutionary means the laws don't work. It means that processes addressing certain problems and currently accepted solutions haven't been working and need to be replaced or eliminated.

What are some things which feminism finds have not been addressed?
- Wage Gap (in ever more confined forms of quantification which ignore so much to the contrary)
- Violence against women (any number of things beyond physical violence by man vs woman are construed as this, and it has even expanded to mean violence of men against men)
- Hegemonic imposition of any kind
  - Women can be not women - what IS a woman?
  - Expectations about how to live, feel, present and behave
  - That women and men might sometimes dress differently

As we can see, these scopes can include all sorts of phenomena, such as stating that wars causing death to men are ultimately violence against women. A nation's inadequate GDP growth or high inflation, male suicide, and so on are against women. Yet more obvious, still, how some of these new concerns are actually Queer Theory, but which get presented as that of Feminism, or Intersectionality. Tracing the lineage of Queer Theory to Feminism is also not very hard, as we can look towards any number of seminal works of Queer scholarship and see that they came from people who considered and still consider themselves to be feminists.

### Queering

> "... une femme n'est pas nee, mais devien" - Simone de Beauvoir (The Second Sex)

This statement is the basic premise of gender non-conformity and, more importantly, queering. If Simone de Beauvoir is to be taken as correct in her ground-breaking statement "a woman is not born, but becomes", then we have before us the instantiation of queer, even before its formalizing.

#### Queer as Ultimate Negation

To come to be what you are on your own terms sounds like a brave, liberated, justified aspiration for anyone. Indeed, I see no reason why everyone shouldn't want to exist as they do under the assumption that they are creating meaning and a destiny for themselves and that their capacity to endeavour to do this aids us all in attaining the same - a capacity that I'd hope we should all attain and that, as a point of ethics and morality, we should all be expected to be afforded the freedom to pursue.

But this isn't about your freedom to pursue meaning. It isn't even about your freedom to pursue identity, with Queer Theory presupposing that reaching and expressing one's identity correctly will bring them into a state of harmony from which their most meaningful existence will be derived. This presupposes that the circumstances from which your identity becomes possible emerge conditionally from that which must be made the target of Queer Theory, which proceeds ostensibly as a process of the pursuit of meaning, but is actually a violent and dehumanizing tool which must modify and destroy not just all others, but oneself.

Though poising itself as something to ground the ungrounded, especially in popular culture, educational institutions, entertainment and other areas where its praxis comes face to face with common people, it is not a domain of thought or toolset by which to provide humans with positive encouragement, illumination and a framework to build stable lives so much as it is a threatening arsenal of methods of negation which must remove any expression from human society which could otherwise be theorized to interfere with one's capacity to imagine themselves as something which will cause a disruption in the other that perceives them.

And how do people perceive themselves? How do we evaluate and confirm that they perceive themselves in some way? Is their perception of self a genuine one? An objective one? Or just a fantastical one?

Well, it isn't even so much that the manner in which one self-perceives is liable to be a fantasy, but that the notion that one could have any insight into one's self-perception, especially to such an end that one could know whether they self-perceive correctly, or even to an acceptable level of satisfaction, is a fantasy. For a state apparatus to be used for such a purpose is the enshrining in law a civilizational right to pursue fantasy, and this on its own is not even something intelligible. 
!TODO: (Above) a right to pursue a change in the conduct and content of others?
!TODO: (Below) massive run-on sentence
But it gets much worse than that because, in the cult, everything which comes into Being is done so collectively. They tell you over and over that they believe in the collective and that things which are have been made as such through the interpretation and confirmation of the collective. Whether this is simply the socialistic comment of "you didn't build that", or the Marxist plight of man being able to create unburdened by conditions beset and coloured by other entities within the same system, or whether the lived experience and ways of knowing are the result of structural determinism, we can see that every system of Marxist thought and collectivism as a whole depends entirely on ensuring that the conditions are sanitized and made conducive to one's true state of being by ensuring that there are no expressions which serve as evidence that the conditions have not yet been brought to the point where one's freedom to perceive has been granted.

### Controlled Expressions

So, as we again see, it is the expressions themselves which must be controlled because, as they serve as that evidence evidence of not being in the desired state of reality, they evoke friction and sow doubt as to whether the delusion will ever fully actualize, bringing great offense to the cult initiate, activist and believer. Once the cult participant's belief about their identity is bound to the hope for a state of affairs that is free of offensive expressions, any evidence of an entity existing out of alignment is itself an attack on self-perceived identity of the cult member. In a superficial sense, these are the goals of the cult. When the expressions are perfect, uncontaminated and without conflict, these expressions will have led us to liberation.

But, then, which expressions are these? Well they are the perfected ones and they resonate in an environment devoid of any other contradictory expression. And the path of changes necessary for these expressions is made to be traversed not through knowing what the eventual perfect expression will be, but by ensuring the false expressions which prevent others from achieving capacity for free expression are not disseminated.

It is a system for suppressing expression with the faith that it leads to our perfected expression. But the process of perfecting expression and the methods used in that process are not conceived of or designed in some way such as to be used in formulating a more perfect expression. On the contrary, though expressions are transmitted, they are constructed vis-a-vis the targeted expression against which it seeks to be brought into conflict with. Like a fully-differentiated IgG antibody marking a specific type of undesired cell for destruction, the tactical expression targets the particular expression deemed to be operating within the system to prevent, suppress, contaminate, or otherwise hinder the true and righteous expressions of species and Universe.

It isn't just usually negation; it is negation, and only ever negation. Why is that? Because the opposite is the thing which intends to do something. As critical praxis, all action arises through identifying the actions, edifices and formations which have created that which must be rejected.

Public health construes the disease risk of society as being an aggregate of individual behaviours, but not necessarily in the context of the health of the individual humans. That is, though health can be assessed as the proportion of humans which are assigned certain classifications, such as a medical patients with a fatal illness, or proportion of population which falls in the cohort with the lowest mortality (e.g. females aged 5-19), for public health to be actionable it needs to be able to administer or confirm a characteristic within the population and attain a sufficient rate of participation. 

Unfortunately, as it deals with the concept of health as can be applied at the public scale, it is necessarily totalitarian in its aspirations in that it cannot achieve a perfect outcome unless it has full participation by that public and a full quantification of corresponding elements of interest. Furthermore, as it deals more in observed group behaviour and political administration, any effort to describe or understand sub-perfect implementation becomes an ideological critique which is itself ideological. For this reason, it's not uncommon to hear public health practitioners comment on the propensity of non-participants as being the consequence of such conditions as end-stage capitalism, denialism, class-based oppression, and so forth.

Does this mean that public health is a broken endeavour, or is it something that could be better-executed, perhaps in a non-politically motivated incarnation, or perhaps even still as an expertise which focuses on particular events which are specifically deleterious to health of others.

If it had to be the case that public funds are to be spent on public health, and that we are to find a more productive view than some abstract representation of public as an aggregated being, it would do well to somehow find a way of providing health advice, encouraging fitness, or facilitating access to goods and services of a certain quality. It's nearly impossible to do this, of course, due to the political nature of redistributing the money of citizens. That is, it will always promote a racket and be subjected to moderation by the official standards. To have an entity which decides how much to distribute to whom under its own standards is simply not going to be a clean process performed objectively to the end of providing clean advice and assistance.