logicp_writings/Book/DRAFT.md

Introduction

Themes:

• Cult bent on transforming language
• Covidism
• Queer Theory
• Left/Right paradigm
• Actionable Object

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
2. Mondak, J. J. (2010). Personality and the Foundations of Political Behavior. Cambridge University Press.
3. Authoritarianism and Right-Wing
4. Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-Wing Authoritarianism.
5. Moral Foundations Theory
6. 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.
7. System Justification Theory
8. 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.
9. Genetics, Personality, and Political Ideology
10. Alford, J. R., Funk, C. L., & Hibbing, J. R. (2005). Are political orientations genetically transmitted? American Political Science Review, 99(2), 153-167.
11. Psychological Needs and Ideological Differences
12. Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339-375.
13. The Myth of Left-Wing Authoritarianism
14. 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 Lukacs
  • All revolutions either fall to reactionary counter-revolutionary forces, or;
  • opportunism

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, 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
• Framing Bias wiki
• Framing Bias pubmed
• Framing Bias CBS
• Framing Bias pubmed
• Framing Bias pubmed
• Framing Bias Deib Dict
• Framing Bias U Pitts
• Framing Bias U Texas

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 - but not so: there are plenty of obscene and inhuman practices for which it needn't be said that the potentiating factors are universal, but which come to pass through mere environmental and cultural factors. What I am saying is that all people are able to experience this and likely have and that it is important to illustrate an empathetic path to understanding this phenomenon. (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 illustrates the path by which it came about in an empathetic fashion - in a manner which speaks to everyone)

Biological Pre-requisites

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 of 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

A phrase to help us remember this acronym is: "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

Abstract

Finitude

Kill

Time

Cheating Death

Something especially crucial to highlight amongst that set is that the capacity for abstraction / speculation and the knowledge of death means the fulfilling of the requirements sufficient to cause one 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 (life as this pain).

Another might say that this hope to overcome death, in the sense of divine transcendence or material (mastery to the extent of extended or eternal life is something only feasible through a religious metaphysic which focuses on a supernatural or all-powerful deity, but that is already disproven with secular discourse exploring the potential to achieve these things scientifically, ranging from conceptions for achieving never-ending life as well as remarks explaining any known precedent of health advancement as being some form of this).

Basic Framework to Imagine This

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.

That should cover all circumstances of human life - it is not possible to conceive of a human life that both conceives of death yet has no capacity or disposition to conceive of the overcoming of death.

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

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.

Ir 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 hi 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 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 only previous experience with Laurence has been seeing him participate in a 3 on 3 debate 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.

For more insight into that debate, it can be viewed here.

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 divine and, thus, beyond reproach, as well as the form of repressive violence where, unless you are caught up in the unconventional view, you are essentially demanding for the pre-emptive censorship and violence.

Exclusion

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 and destructive disabler. How do we know that shame and the threat of lonely starvation induces healthy, desirable behaviour supporting an incontestably desirable form of development for any human? 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).

Certainly any reasonable person can see that constraints and impositions are a normal part of the child-rearing process and that care and consideration are used to ensure that no child is engaging in activities and circumstances that are developmentally inappropriate, as this hinders development and introduces or worsens psychopathology, even with activities which may be harmless for an adult of sound-mind.

Unfortunately, such a view must be placed against the queer Marxists and modern wokes who insist that any form of mitigating, preventing or censoring material of any kind on the basis of a belief that a child cannot yet be exposed to it itself a form of bigotry and oppression over children, as it infringes on the child either by reproducing oppression, keeping them from identity, prevent them from riding or disdain to liberation, and so on.

Professionals Permit Absurdities

Yes, this will be a play on the useless idiots argument, which proves itself 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.

Though it may seem to be tangential, "aff..tepin", or even a diversion in order to go all into such matters as a preamble to categorical description, we need to be closer to understand 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, assertable, and these things on 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

TODO: put in the description of a cult and cite references which probably should include James Lindsay and Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism by Robert Jay Lifton.

Neo-Malthusianism

The Malthusian spirit might not be something in all those who share his goals, or even ......

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 will 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 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.

So, now, to our categorical definition, 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 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

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 still keep the Hegelian view of reality. A dialectic examining contradiction and yielding tension. Even if many do it, not as a conscious and intentionally advocated metaphysic, but simply as intuition delivered through cultural critique and moralizing on the juxtaposition of humans grouped and classified on their appearance, reproductive strategy, association, sexual interests or preoccupation, or any other dimension of oppression and social division.

Remark

And another note on the Hegelian view may be necessary to illustrate why these observations and the noted aspects of the methodologies being utilized are not simply chosen for their vulnerability in social critique.

TODO: this is the right content, but it needs to be refactored These are not ephemeral, cultural or occurring through happenstance. We are identifying the base; the fundamental aspect not necessarily by which it functions, but the mechanism by which its employers believe it functions - and that this will be shown to not necessarily be the case as per a formal understanding (though there are certainly those for whom that is the case), but that it is implicit as it is taken up by those who adopt the language and syntax and utilize it in the context through which it is presented.

The notion being alluded to is that of dialectics as they've been provided, not through the formulators (Greeks, Romans), and their predecessors and anteceding thinkers, but the German idealists who have massaged, processed and supposedly evolved the method, as well as those who contributed to its use in a way which brought it to having been framed as a feature of enlightenment thought, such as Rousseau, and now especially as its usage in popular culture and, sadly, science.

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 as it relates to individual thinking - reflected upon and perhaps leading to communicable thought and that the weight of its impact through man and society is only to be found in the degree to which one, themselves, has been affected in thought or in their person, or to the degree to which one communication serves as effective rhetoric.

For the Hegelian and supposedly post-Hegelian, the tension moves beyond mere intellectual pursuit.

For the purist, active under the assumption of a world and reality which are fundamentally idealist is something which can come to pass either through one's competence in Hegel's New Platonic elucidations, but it can also 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.

Perceptual frame

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.

This means that we begin with something at least approximating an idealist view, not in the sense of having some advanced 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 being some or all of what we describe 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 associate with some referenceable manner of thinking (in this case, Idealism).

Even if it were the case that their experience was absent the sense apparatus, 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 oblivious and so for every case our conception holds relevant.

If at base of development we are already at a mode of perception which may plausibly be perceiving such to assume that the (one's own) frame of perception is the only one in existence, or the only type of perception that may be perceived but could be perceived in multiple instances, or otherwise as a perception whose outlook from the subject (perceiver) looks (TODO: what is this? -> you could even imagine a cultish formation insisting on what is perceived, or how and in what way or per what quantity and that in isolation it would be the only meaningful perception). 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 state of mind - such a thing is not even alleged of those who reach a vegetative state, except maybe at that final limit.

The main point is that we need to learn to understand and even intuit that:

• others likely have a perception, too
• there is an environment which seems to exist independent of my consciousness and will

Hegelian Framing

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

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.

(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).

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 about the dual items of consideration 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

Some would call this imminentization or eschatological in that all that occurs is in the context of this endpoint in order for the occurrences to be considered in their most reasonable representation. 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.

Remark: 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. 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 makes it an idea in its own rite and not necessarily the idea of the thing it's purported to 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

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 !! TODO: complete

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.

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 manner through which one holds onto a belief without they themselves having witnessed the substance of it.

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).

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 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.

For Hegel, it is ideal where all things that are or were are revealed to all be the same thing and their disparate forms and articulations were all part of the process of working out that they were all, in fact, the same thing.

Queer Liberation

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.

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

Desire

This desire for an unspecifiable endpoint where no oppression occurs (at least insofar as sex, sexuality, the body, its expectations are concerned) is the same as is desired in each post-Hegelian incarnation.

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.

Why? 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

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 date of interest was observed 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.

There is much contention as to defining terms and in deciding whether something is to be construed as one vs the other.

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 again relates to the problem of construing communism as a political system for which governments of that type have already been formed - and there is good reason to do this - which is 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 actually 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 they could never satisfy the model without first destroying all of humanity (and the world).

The concept of a completely totalizing system is something wherein all actions and occurrences are in concert and are coming into being in a manner which drives the divine expression of the system or state with no compression, no entropy, no loss of potential. It is a perfect permutation of a reality which comes into being in 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 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. TO do this, we can 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.

TODO: REDO

• What convinces you that you suffer from self-estrangement?
• 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

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 a body.

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 (or even terrifying prospect of it) which cripples your sense of self and makes it seem unfairly dependent on perceptions which don't necessarily have your best interest at heart. One is lived into deep contemplation over the realization that all are subject to this and, thus, the resulting pronouncement must, therefore, be for all intents and purposes valid.

But then we reflect on what things we see people get wrong. Where for in we have enough insight to evaluate the positions and choices or 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 simply an expert ad professional in the formal sense, and we bear witness to exceptionally intelligent, accomplished, well-intentioned (reasonably) men who have something to lose make absolutely pathetic and completely dumbfounding decisions. Then, everyone can be wrong! Thus, who benefit when a wrong position is held and who has the means to influence at scale? How much are our negative characterizations liable to assuage us away from truth?

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. 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 do a few more examples, but they all follow the same logic with the same arrangement of 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 only possibly asserted as no longer needed because 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 (and the ability for it to be referenced serves as the evidence of all things broken and erroneous -> as well 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 also 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

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

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
  • 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.

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.

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.

The Description

Communism is, according to Marx, the state of human life where the following is true:

• 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

Marx's statement is the following: "Communism as the positive transcendence of private property as human self-estrangement."

How does one normally perceive such a statement? Isn't it communism 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.

"For the state to wither away, complete communism is necessary."

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 communism and installs communists in power. But here, however, we're talking about the perspective of a pragmatic communist who claims that incomplete communism is still communism.

"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 or make 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 socialist), 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)

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.

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 contradiction or obscene manifestations 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 towards it. It promises both everything and nothing at all. It assigns final judgment to even those who are most difficult to judge.

Through praxis, 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 thing such as they are.

With no universally applicable base of understanding and 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 other methods of logic and reason, this becomes the superordinate process. Praxis is, by definition, superordinate.

Alternate Reality

If you accept any alternate theory of knowledge, even under the premise that there are biases which prevent meritocratic assessments from being carried out or, for whatever reason, you think that it will be limited by good sense, 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 that ways of understanding knowledge and which are accessible to some and not others destroys the idea 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 is destroyed, along with you, and 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 more an inevitable point of attention by the mind extending from an association with it.

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).

That is to say, we must fundamentally agree that knowability of truth is a universal and 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 mitigation of this.

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.

Back to Species Being

This brings us back to re-examine the meaning and significance of the Species Being. If we are to both envision that all humans are to be this species being, yet are:

• unable to attain their nature until they express their human life in this way which lives as and for the species (man in himself).
• 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 farmer 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".

• !TODO: quote here
• !TODO: comparison to Communism

Syllogism on Fascism

The Question: can you have a collectivist undertaking which is not communism?

At first it would seem that you most certainly can. For example, can we not have a fascist state where it simply doesn't prove that things will be equal? Well we can take that in two directions

So, for the first, we can say that the that the goal in communism is equal distribution of something? Well, not exactly. Socialism is the public owning the means of production, but how that is distributed is assumed to be even at all. That's no the case, however - if we look For the first, we can say that the goal in communism is equal distribution. Well, not exactly - Socialism

but try to conceive of this for a second

we have a collective - what does that mean?

Collective

• 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
• there is a purpose. What kind of purpose could exist for a collective?
  • Random purpose? something arbitrary? to erect .. a rock? well, even that example wouldn't be random, and would necessitate a further question of what purpose the erecting of that rock would serve
  • coordination - coordinating for what? well, it would be for our shared purpose, duh
  • 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 - completion of what? of existence and the purpose of existence, of course
  • to serve some other entity
  • now 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 p urpose 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
  • 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 idea lof 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 on distinction which allows for the conceptualization of the classes - there would not be a difference between any two man, but that this ultimately would happen at an international level, or a univversal 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 beacuse it's the purpose of man to move through conflict until the distinctions are eliminated.

2025-01-31 18:18:35

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 thent.

What to Define

! 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 thought about how to ?? the process.

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.

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 and 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.)))

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.

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 for the hardcore ones and those who know the literature - sometimes these are the same thing). 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 whatever way it is commonly referenced
• something for which you will never be threatened and attacked by the public, and the state (and in private)
• something which has power:
  • needs power to assert something totalitarian
  • 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 promising liberation) 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 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, and instead by making such things 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 and 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

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 communism, what does the human mind see when it considers communism in the context of its own life and mind?

• something inevitable
  • it's just a matter of time before it's completely adopted by everyone, thus we need to get ahead of it and in the worst case, I'm saving myself, and in the best case, I'm helping to direct it into a form which best serves us all
• something targeted by those with privilege
  • regardless of whether I agree with those who are implementing it, those who are attacking it are spoken about as though they are only doing so because of their privilege, and thus is plausible because only someone with excess resources would risk their social credibility and congruity to power, plus it also shows that they likely have a lot of power, which explains their confidence in seemingly going after a large entity
• something aimed towards, desired and well-regarded
  • it's not communism, it's just taking care of your neighbourhood; it's loving your neighbours or being a good neighbour; it's sustainability; it's fairness; it's inclusion; it's inclusive capitalism; it's sustainable capitalism
• something with which integration is necessary in order to preserve oneself, one's identity and one's life
  • you need to register with the new system, as it's already going to be the system - it's just like if you were to purchase a product and you want to make sure that the vendor doesn't completely ignore you or see you as a malicious actor if ever you actually need some service and support
• something chosen and indicated from the central and most powerful point in 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
• a necessary aspect of social integration with oneself in order to maintain one's proximity to the implements of the infrastructure/superstructure
• an opportunity to advance one's position
• a necessity to maintain one's level of privilege

Draft 1

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?.

Draft 2

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.

Negation

Not An Aspect: the Essence

Another level of understanding Marxism (and this is not merely an aspect of it, but is the essence of it -> by Hegel's dialectic, as Lenin emphasized in this 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

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 a 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 (in precisely the way in which Marxists use the term "reify" when suggesting 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 (from everything)).

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 a 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. // TODO: Hegel's essence and shine

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 and a criticism which replaces the abstract concept of reality as you saw it and present a tension demanding transformation. You also transform with it, lest ye 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. This is done in search of something better (if we are to be charitable in language, but no -> we can reference TODO: Critical Constructivism and the need to induce crises which is creating an angrier world where enforcement of thought may be potentiated).

Sacrifice

Another key aspect to consider as being both fundamental to the particular domain in question as well as borne out of the logical structure of the primary and lowest level operation of the transformative process (which is one of negation to bring the differentiated components of the order of being (known as reference en route to a fully-actualized expression)) is that of sacrifice. <-- makes no sense

Why is this?

• Eliminate distinction of any individuated object is precisely its destruction
• A conscious act - volitional (conceiving and invoking)
• The target for transformation is the world one is a part of
  • Having others see it as a sacrifice -> believing that you have suffered through it -> makes it real (is positioned as evidence it is real and true)

In taking on the pain and frustration of battling with the hegemonic enforcement mechanisms and the brainwashed populace who perpetuate the lies and oppression which wreak havoc on humanity, children and the potentiality of being, one finds that it simply isn't enough to grapple with every linguistic manipulation and structural implement of enforcement and 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. This necessarily invokes an interlocutor's, witness' and subject's imagination, visualization and sense of confusion, cognitive dissonance, and faculty to reconsolidate their perception of their environment and, by extension, their world (hopefully, at least for whomsoever aims to change 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 there most insane associations whenever you exhibit that your 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 (that a forbidden view can be held because of virtue). <-- ending makes no sense

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 can't change, and since at least the perception of reality is socially constructed (if not reality itself, depending on who you listen to or how you want to interpret some people's work even to this day), 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.

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

Ultimate Negation

When I speak here of the ultimate negation, I feel that there may be more than one answer based on the state of the world and the cultural manifestations that have become broadly familiar in our time. This is because there is one form which has become the most toxic and pervasive, whereas other forms, though seemingly not as deleterious and anti-human (at least in terms of its practice and the manner in which it comes to be introduced to us), as that which I wish to expound upon.

The ultimate system of negation for human life, as we have been able to come to know and experience, is Queer Theory, but the queering of world man, and society is a part of the trans humanist plight which may or may not necessarily augment humans to God-status so much as it must, more fundamentally, grapple with the notion that the human body and the human life is not enough.

Queer is at the heart of the negation process, both because of where and how it currently stands, but also because of how it relates to the human form and how queer is the inevitable developing a more sophisticated gnostic refutation of human life consequent to reflecting on dealing with the prospect of a pseudo-immortality through procreation in the face of man's mortal existence.

Some may raise some objections to the notion that Queer is at the heart of the negation process, based on the following types of criticisms:

• 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

Muh Feminism

In a way, this is the correct response, except you are trying too hard to separate them. We see them as different because so many men participate in the newer formulation, but you can already see where I'm going with all this: it is simply the evolution of the idea as it becomes updated to remain viable and operationally significant. As far as it has been ???, what do you think is meant by that?

Some might say that, prior to the most pronounced proliferation of Queer Theory, the phenomenon of people explicitly distancing themselves from or even outright denouncing feminism had become more unstable. That although it is reasonable to assume that feminist rhetoric had, at some time ago, been extremely unpopular and that it has become familiar to declare or hear or hear the declaration that the insistent voice of a woman demanding equal treatment be something that we must prioritize the receival of, because they are completing against the odds. But (the fact of that being so familiar sentiment also speaks to the degree to which it has become the common, sensible, and popular view to have such an outlook on the matter).

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

Because of the goals of feminism, or any view which utilizes Marxist Critical Analysis -> it can't stop at universal application of liberal principles. No, it stands against Liberalism and it does so as its fundamental position. That is to say, that which defines it fundamentally makes it opposed to Liberalism.

All Collectivism is Anti-Liberal

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

The work of collectivism is never done.

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

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

With rule by law by a state which presents as the manifestation of divinity in the concrete form tangible to us, and as our superordinate entity which grants us life, rights, nobility and morality, those who chose to reify a mythos by proclaiming an identity which proves the mythology and legitimacy of not just the stated goal, but the understanding that the goal has not been reached (or else I wouldn't have this identity, and we wouldn't even know what that identity is).

It's Feminism When We Want

If it's the lense of feminism then it's the implicit understanding that, and this has been stated so many times before (but it will always be the issue, because this pertains to the essence of this way of thinking), the outcome will always be unsatisfactory and will always prove that oppression exists in the exact form described by Critical Theorists. (in this case, critical feminist theorists), and the moment this is championed by a state government in the moment the state begins, if even only slowly, its march to totalitarianism.

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

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

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

Queering

Lastly, is the basic premise of gender non-conformity and, more accurately, queering. If Simone de Beauvoir is correct in her ground-breaking statement "a woman is not born, but becomes" ("une femme n'est pas nee, mais devien"), then we have before us the instantiation of queer, even before its formality.

Queer as Ultimate Negation

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

But this isn't about your freedom to pursue meaning. This is instead the presupposing of a circumstance whereby your freedom to pursue is secondary and emerges as a condition from the direct targets of a process which is assigned to the purpose, ostensibly, of people pursuing their own meaning, but is actually a process of modifying all others who are not this person as a precondition to their capacity to find meaning in their own life.

It is not a positive encouragement to do something in particular so much as a threatening arsenal of methods of negation which must remove any expression from humans and human society which could otherwise be theorized to interfere with one's capacity to imagine themselves differently from: how they perceive themselves and how it is possible for them to be perceived by others.

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

Well, it isn't even so much that the manner in which one self-perceives is liable to be a fantasy, but that the notion that we could have any insight into one's self-perception, especially to such an end that we could know whether they self-perceive correctly, or even to their satisfaction, is a fantasy. For a state apparatus to be used for such a purpose is the enshrining in law a civilizational right to pursue fantasies, and this on its own is not even something intelligible.

But it gets much worse than that because, in the cult, everything which comes into Being is done so collectively. They tell you over and over that they believe in the collective and that things which are have been made as such through the interpretation and confirmation of the collective. Whether this is simply the socialistic comment of "you didn't build that", or the Marxist plight of man being able to create unburdened by conditions beset and coloured by other entities within the same system, or whether the lived experience and ways of knowing are the result of structural determinism, we can see that every system of Marxist thought and collectivism as a whole depends entirely on ensuring that the conditions are sanitized and made conducive to one's true state of being by ensuring that there are no expressions which serve as evidence that the conditions have not yet been brought to the point where one's freedom to perceive has been granted.

Controlled Expressions

So, as we again see, it is the expressions themselves which must be controlled, which serve as evidence, and which are the goal of these cults. When the expressions are perfect, uncontaminated, without conflict, and these expressions have led us to liberation.

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

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

It isn't just usually negation; it is negation, and only ever negation. Why? Why is that? Because the opposite is the thing which intends to do something. In this case, it just so happens that the thing it intends to do is to consolidate a specific expression).

It's Not an Ism

< Commentary on Denis Rancourt's Critique on the Origins of Wokeism >

There is a good pushback on the allegation that some or much of the ever-increasing social strife afflicting human society should be associated with terms like communism or Marxism because labeling these phenomena will lead (and has led) to the following:

• Coercion by propaganda campaigns to vilify some type of socio-political object, entity, state, and so forth (just noise from war and merch towards totalitarianism)
• fail to recognize that social hierarchies become corrupted and that choosing the right ism doesn't address this

Remember why we bother -> it's because the death and destruction which occurred in the name of something may have been better described through the biological mechanisms, and maybe a physical mechanism at the level of society and the world, but that the horrors are revered and it's not just a matter of explaining a mechanism we all relate to, but in relating the great horror of fantastic society with backwards ideas, but that we are prone.

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

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

The Health of Humanity

It isn't only the case that systems become weak and people die. Because the systems in question are composed of humans, and so if we are saying the system is unhealthy without making this also a question of whether particular human are themselves unhealthy, or whether some are, or whether participating in activities of (cap society?) ..

It isn't just the case of whether those are organic systems that become weak and that people died. Those systems are composed of humans, and so then the questions begin to arise:

• what is the health of all humans, average human, median
• what is the proportional impact of the humans whose health most deviates from the median
• does some change from some humans necessarily affect all humans?
• is there such a thing as health of relations which is, to any degree, notably separate from the the health of the humans?

I assume that the other way of looking at human health in social systems is that the interaction and context of the human towards the system confers the biologically observed health of the human.

But this becomes another question of the infinite regress. That is, do we imagine the root indulging factor universally relevant as only extant per a threshold of participants, or is it something we could find in each our individual experience? Yes, these pathologies are socio-politically active and intelligible, and yes the participants are exhibiting psychopathological traits, but that is something otherwise considered as humans susceptible to the ideology, or humans affected by ideology, but what about pathology without social manipulation? One's manipulation of self?

The Trick of Reality

We clearly play tricks on ourselves, so why not begin with such scope before complicating it with others and imagining that the phenomena begin there? Yes, it may be more pronounced and even more observable, but we should strive to distinguish the precise point at which the behaviour might emerge, and I contend that it must be something affecting us universally, because it emerges individually.

And that isn't to say that we don't have terms like cognitive bias and rampant psychological assessments being published for every new iteration of populist, blue collar scorn, but that we are much too forgiving with our complacency about selective application of such analyses.

What we are dealing with, not just some political system, or social doctrine, but with individual human perception which seeks to:

• simplify the perceptual frame / processing thereof
• maximizing the perception of one's metaphysical freedom
  • possibly through gnostic association which contends and expresses one's imprisonment, but as a demand for a condition of freedom which transcends all possible conception of freedom
  • the limit to freedom is not only raised, but made undefinable, because any physical laws of the construct of reality may be replaced
  • even insofar as ignoring selected factors while otherwise supposing that the construct is similar to what is already otherwise presented

We seek to blur our vision of reality all the time, and in ever innocuous ways not simply to mystify ourselves, but even as a consequence of our ability to abstract and speculate being balanced against our requirement of time management for sanity and survival. We can't possibly know everything about anything at any time ever,and yet we retain our ability to second-guess our choices and our reasoning, such as whether we exercise due diligence, or when we downplay the necessity of learning a particular detail and then also give thought to the range of impacts that are actually associated with it.

Children necessarily must mitigate their highly dynamic and chaotic mood shifts while responding to and attempting to circumvent, overcome and adjudicate authority on mediums the most formalized of which likely being a barely understood or commanded spoken language.

In undertaking, if even reflexively or simply in reactance to environmental stimuli, the task of working out and negotiating, both with interlocutor and with themselves. They do this while uncovering sudden desires as a cognitive connection is made to some perceived potential and the nature of reality both depends on and shifts in tandem with the structure of reality pertaining to the condition surrounding that potential.

That is, the pursuit of the potential becomes highly informative not just in terms of what social and human norms are, but the basis for truth and the control one has over reality as it unfolds to them - as one masters their ability to have reality yield what one desires. We may have to do a thought experiment.

Experiment

A toddler desires a treat? or something through which semblance of important living is taking place. Emotional reaction, visceral over-exaggerated -> coming into conflict defining life purpose and the actualization of self -> but without that sophistication -> it is simply the level of basic needs and one cannot fathom a requirement of any other kind more important to validate one's purpose and existence.

The other aspect of the modern, evolved and instantiated sociopolitical weapons for psycho-social manipulation into a collectivist theology embodying the spirit of Marxist critical consciousness is our most recent global crisis affecting every country on their own home turf: Covidism

Intermission

Covidism

"What do you mean, covidism? Shouldn't you be calling it covidians (wouldn't participants in covidism be covidians? Why aren't we calling the mcovidists?)"

Ideas vs Players

Let's back up! What sort of players are involved here? Let's summarize from others so we know if we need to be more concerned with the players or with the ideas themselves.

Areas: Race, Queer, Covidism, Sustainability, Decolonization.

We briefly examine these to see if they are worthy of being focused on and whether their players are more to blame than the ideas.

Race

Players

• Everyone/No one
• Politicians
• Academia
• Church
• Philosophizers
• Legal Theorists

Info

Politicians may not be true believers, but everyone can be made to be holy or evil based on wrongthink and minds can be read based on history.

Professionals wield means of gameifying or gaining advantages in an already gameified professional environment and this isn't because of quotas -> they don't need to represent a group to gain that advantage (though sometimes it can help).

Academia: similar to professionals, but more foundational to what is considered legitimate knowledge or information.

The thing about race is that it is combined with Marxist critical analysis to make a human perception - an instance of life seeking truth and intelligent expression, sense of world and self and others - all as a miraculously flexible and dynamic faculty of contemplation - all inadmissible, but yet worse than that because one is judged on the basis of the very genetic sequence which governs this, in the most direct and immediate way for the very base material at the level of organization such for them to have a composition - the sequence as serializable form in the most arbitrary of representation almost as though it were more real than you, your mind, your emotion and so forth.

And all that, but with the lineage of what procreated antecedently.

Anteceding Procreation

A fragile chain of nearly-rejected deceivers who faked and fooled more noble beings into allowing the mistaken experiments of ancient history to remain in existence. They were all mistakes whose greatest achievement is having fooled someone log enough to tame and delay their disgust which likely still was expressed at a later time.

This can be wondered about every procreative event, as there is no further gate to pass before being incorporated into the eternal specification of the evolved species as the current ongoing propagation of the life form.

Some additions by force, others by mistake or failed application of diligence; one wonders if ever there have been legitimate, deserved, honourable additions at all. If not, then it truly is a vulgar measure of the degree to which a particular specimen is magnificent, or at least not repulsive.

And then, to the speculator - are you magnificent? If not truly so, then one must be repulsive.

If ever we come to be categorizing ourselves along a trait somehow informed by heredity, we necessarily raise up the sentiment of genetic judgment which insists nothing of you to be considered except the repulsiveness of your pathetic and incorrectly propagated material form. How foul.

On the balance of these concerns against the critique in favour of dismissal, on the basis that such a category may be:

• destined to be eliminated before others (melting pot?)
• too arbitrary or difficult to define
• dehumanizing (duh)
• not modern enough -> we can see that all the forestanding rationalizations give ample reason to overcome those, and that's: a) we shan't expect the negation (mystical Alf?) b) the practitioners themselves refute these very same criticisms c) possibly the most significant in history at this point

We should conclude that it constitutes one of the primary aspects of analysis, at least in so far as laying ground work and for our analysis, though not perhaps for majority of context.

Queer

This one maintains itself even more strongly on the very same points as race, except it reaches new levels of magnitude in the manner that it brings its assertions and scope of attack to a higher level of abstraction.

Reality ( as being challenged )

While some (and most) may criticize the addition of race on the basis that the reality needn't include it as per a standard of science, but the Queer challenge the very notion that we may discern or even interpret an approximation of reality at all. It is liable to put in its crosshairs any feature or fraction of reality which it finds in its vicinity (whether as conflict or even on the basis that it is already in conflict with anything specified). The very act of enumerating and identifying something outside of a proposed queer control structure is offensive.

Specifically, the question of one's material construct bearing some kind of ordered legitimacy is brought into the fold, but in somewhat of a different respect:

• question the reality of one's conception of structure
  • any description of reality is a false reality, but queer is the effort to regain a real perspective
• supremacy of the broadly inferior - by aesthetic
  • that which has been seen to be superior is actually inferior

It then approaches the matter even more severely because, unlike race where the understanding that there can be some essence known today which can be brought into harmony (by virtue of the fact that historical aspects remain in motion today and are imagined at the point of salvation), the very basis for queer is to negate for the purpose of attaining the conditions of imagining the unimaginable.

While race questions what some assumptions were made about reality and posits some enforcement in how we see reality (usually through controlled language), and to varying degrees of intentionality, queer is itself mediated through the most fundamental aspects of what a human life considers as being real.

Queer very much facilitates the premature assumptions that stable aspects of reality, as understood from the perspective of human life, are imagined and able to be eliminated with little to no questioning - almost as though, in spite of occupying a culturally recognized garment of open curiosity, one has far less curiosity about the phenomenon than one has an aversion to finding themselves at odds with a structurally-mediated social priority. The consequences of this being vast, but which might divide into at least:

• reduced confidence in one's sense-making
• downgraded status for established critical reasoning faculties
• reification of a domain of grace; holy status (sanctity essential to divine promise -> liberation identity is culturally genocided in any configuration, which includes the questioning of the liberation identity's capacity to actualize)
  • self-evident truth based on oppressed status

Transhumanism

Indeed, this is the most obvious tie-in and the logical consequence both in terms of technical proficiency in mastering material figurations intended to unlock the true divine expression of being, which becomes unburdened by the oppressive subjectivities which arise through observation of the precious material configuration; a structure of matter whose viewing is intrinsically determined through sequences of thought tainted by the hegemonic influence of asymmetrically powerful sociopolitical interests. Under such conditions, there are only two interpretations possible:

• you believe one representation is the correct one
  • the right side (as per historicism?) else false consciousness
• you make the choice which imposes the force of change
  • change reality to make it admissible and adequate.
  • something which becomes a more correct instance of Being
  • even the perfected instance of Being

Traditionally, the view of eugenics and transhumanism has been one of improvement and advancement of the human form, but this, at least in popular view, takes into account that we value the human experience as we understand it and wish to make it better, if even only by prolonging it.

Queer views the interpretation of human body and embodiment as inherently restrictive and, in fact, the source of the restriction itself. Therefore, the technological advancement is to be employed such as to refashion the flesh such that its presentation destroys the concept and understanding of what the human form is, how it appears, and what it means.

Obviously, this is a destructive process (which is why I referred to it as Ultimate Negation) and it doesn't seem to lend itself towards a series of improvements to the human form, but its complete obliteration, at least at this "stage" of "queer history".

Upheaval

Though it may seem contradictory to the goal and process of transhumanism, that is of no concern to the queer theorist who believes that the tension of such conflicting views will create the upheaval and socio-political drive to change the pursuit of everything towards the needs of liberation (queer liberation and, thus, the needs of the queer theorist).

This process of upheaval is supposed to be something which takes away and threatens the prospect of an improving and ongoing instance of technological advancement. It is a delicate ?stream with momentum and dependencies specific to the capturing of particular technological endowments.

For queer, however, nothing will ever be good enough as our reality is quite generally a reminder of the inadequacy of our forms and our perceptions of those forms. The control over the forms would have to outpace our control over the representation of the forms, even at the level of interpretation, and this likely cannot be satisfied.

Well, it almost can't be satisfied, except in theory, which is why we should now remind ourselves that this domain of thought is all about the transformation of world through praxis -> theory informed practice, or a continuously narrowed conception of theory and practice which are destined to merge as one; a process of refining conditions until no contradictions arise as such a contradiction is simultaneously an insistence that theory and practice are not yet sufficiently developed and hence are not truly actualized to be one and the same.

Obviously this means that all perception of each and all that is referenced by them must be uniform, hence making this a collectivist cult aiming for arbitrary control over reality - such is the point at which the queer theorist is satisfied.

Dissatisfying Distinction

Because there is always dissatisfaction with the body, ideals for development are belittling and can make any human as though they are an unnecessary specimen, if at least insofar as being a path for the evolution of the species; that is to say, a direction which brings improvement.

But please note that this improvement is ultimately measured as a satisfaction with the body as it interfaces with spacetime, reality, or however else you wish to construe it. If satisfaction has arisen in a reality which includes a social element, then it is the distinction of your having a body and there being a difference between you and someone not yourself. And ultimately, that dissatisfaction may be predicated not on a fundamentally morphological distinction, but could even be as simple as the dying and the living, or that there is any perceptual separation at all through the one against the many.

Children can easily be made to feel inadequate for simply not being fully developed, but adult humans too can feel inadequate for the reason of having already attained their full adult development and, as such, knowing that they will have to work hard as they cannot benefit from whatever advancement would otherwise be stated to come to fruition seemingly for free through father time.

Digression

Politicians have really destroyed themselves through this issue as one cannot know for sure whether someone is a true believer or has simply played fast and loose with matters that change the entire prospect of reality simply to maintain popular salience as per the estimates of algorithms and machine learning enhanced analyses. It's easy to say which is worse, but both are likely irredeemable.

So, again, while race makes us question our legitimacy as per some genetic encoding because of a race category, queer maintains that you will question your very capability to discern reality coupled with a problematized judgment of one's genetic structure. An example of the latter being judging oneself as presenting a traditionally less desirable set of traits and this being placed as a point of virtue on the order of whether it abandons that tradition. Any who don't fit the traditional description are both grappling with ways of being less "pretty", and otherwise also dealing with the disdain and disgust reserved for them (according to theory they choose to identify with).

Summarizing

That is all strong rationale for considering the potent, pervasive, totalizing and destructive nature consequent to the demands of queer theory, and how its adoption by a central authority necessarily facilitates transition to a totalitarian society on the basis of a metaphysic with an imminentized expectation of liberated collectivism.

For our society, this is a key component in the development of transhumanism.

Covidism

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

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

It gave anyone an opportunity to utterly betray their closest relatives while maintaining ample plausible deniability through the continuous publication and distribution of emergency announcements and warnings whose message always provided key declarations which can, in and of themselves, not be proven, thus it and in whatever contentious dialogue arises, we see the following:

• make dialogue and question themselves beyond the pale?
• you could simply participate by restating what has been uttered by the state and reinforce the stated goals pertaining to the statements

Acting on Body is Acting on Mind

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

The main issue is how so many men would necessarily come to behave as though their destiny is granted. The creation of one's own destiny is the extent to which one can remain humble while assuming role of creator.

The primary sub-topics and themes which need to be brought out are:

• bodily autonomy
• measuring progress
• public health praxis
• supreme concern
• selfishness
• inclusion
• public social health justice
• collectivism
• citizenships

Dialectics

The covid era has been especially potent for transforming people's understanding or confidence in their capacity to understand, as well as imprinting cognitive association or linguistic triggers to completely guide and control their thoughts and emotions seemingly at will - at least for teh most common among us.

Each human was classified as both the most precious resource, as well as the primary threat. That is not simply that persons who are ill were the threat and the infirm were precious, no, it was that every single human is to be treated as the primary threat at all times, and this is an aspect which still continues to this day in at least the medical services and private institutions whenever they detect an opportunity to practice their neutral behaviour.

Yes, opportunity to do:

• validate the mechanism
• rationalize their extra demands
• piggy back the initiative
• do praxis
  • proliferate for critical consciousness
• appropriate as evidence for other issue

• restructure organizations Indeed, the issue becomes your other issue and then an argument is formulated to say they are the same issue, and that your model of it (which includes a new aspect that's been brought in through synthesis which accounts for your identified contradiction is a more intentional and appropriate means of addressing the issue)

• Covid is actually social justice

• Covid is sustainability

  • is social justice

• this is all evidence of transphobia and fascism-creep

YT-CoV2

There are so many ways of making these connections, and they only need some framing of disparity in any capacity so long as it supports collectivism and consolidation of power to central authority:

• white people are disadvantaged
  • negated through invoking "historically oppressed"
• white people are disadvantaged statistically because even the tools of whiteness concentrate power and wealth for a small minority of white people or the white adjacent or otherwise beneficiaries of whiteness (that is to say, those people who somehow benefit from the use of a property or even simply those who do not denounce private property and whiteness as private property)
  • if you don't see it, you are likely at least biased from the benefits it gave you or those you believe will come to you:
  • not proven per specific belief
  • white and yt-adjacent benefit simply by not dealing with conflict (directly)
    • no conflict, no reason to change the comforting stupor of false consciousness
• so long as their plight is described as a consequence or lingering symptom of ailment that would otherwise be addressed by the distribution of power and wealth to entities that pursue collectivism, the rationale will be considered valid and legitimate

Ultimately, only the thing which addresses all effects (and thus the oppression models of the world) will be considered valid. This is, of course, because the ultimate solution is a totalizing and one, and its system for man's life and society is a totalitarian one.

Is a Marxism

There have only been a handful of people who have come out and said that covidism is, in effect, another instance of Marxism. Many push back on that idea the moment it is uttered. This needs to be disambiguated like the others to show that this is not necessarily a component of Marx's predicated sequence of historical events en route to his utopia, but it follows the general thought as an evolution of oppressor and oppressed.

Private property as bourgeois property and the cause of human self-estrangement still remains, but now the risk to health and society is made concrete as an example or even the prescient outcome which, though it shows up as a risk today, is only a slight taste of the horrors to come.

The modern degrowth movement speaks about Marx's analysis and how it touches upon the environment in terms of the use of land, and the metabolic rift resulting from utilization of resources in a commoditized form, whereby the true cost and value of their use is supplanted by a reified, contrived and inauthentic format which leads to loss of understanding and blindspots or ignorance which potentiate catastrophe.

The true use value of resources are never expressed in spite of the expenditure of resources which, in turn, affect the conditions which cause the weighting of the use value.

Early Observations

• It was such a wide scope of authoritarianism and it was so widely applied, adopted and accepted
• everything was made as a moral claim, while presupposing things either not known or impossible to know
  • not yet -> how deadly/dangerous
  • impossible -> the net benefit of increased authoritarianism as a society
• our vulnerability towards unquestioning adoption of the practices -> social acceptance for survival
• new standard from harm -> zero harm of immediate style threat
  • we transcend/evolve to new standard of "harmless life"
• be part of this new awakening, otherwise you are one part of the group which brought us these problems in the first place
• messaging for equity early on
  • guarantee of easier times if you give up your rights
• priming of reactionary dispositions classically associated with "far-right", but quickly adopted and expressed by "progressive left"

Dialectic Examples

• Human adaptation doesn't adapt anymore
  • state must adapt
  • must seize the means of production (of adaptation)
• personal health is public health -> congruence
• we must separate to be together
  • eliminate atomizaton
• consent
  • we cannot consent to the unknown
  • consent to science; of becoming
• no patience for skepticism and feet dragging
• nature -> illness is unnatural; evolving man is natural

At a certain point, one wishes to know that there is a familial loyalty whereby we are willing to take on what might be an increase of risk in order to maintain proximity and compatibility with family - if even just the nuclear family. This, of course, is a great oversimplification, as it goes without saying that familial interaction establishes the base of physical, cognitive and social development in almost all humans (perhaps some feral children ?) and that there are risks with any environment and any interaction while also being a range of innumerable benefits which also result.

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

Surely people either learn this or come to have some intuition about it on the basis of learning about breast milk providing antibodies, which is more widely communicated across the popular landscape than most other health factoids (because pregnant women will be incentivized to produce antibodies in response to a commercially available immune-inducing agents, and there arise incentives around such a practice in its own rite).

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

The offering up of one's child to the administration of new innovations and subjecting them to social conditioning that necessarily isolates them is many things, including the conforming to social expectations, but it is also:

• rite of passage
  • your child must undergo initiation to be accepted into the next stage or evolution of society
• sacrifice
  • there is something to be understood in the sense that people felt some impetus to allow certain harm to be incurred (even as a risk of harm that was interpreted as being low, but simultaneously being one which can be catastrophic, as immune-related issues can sometimes become)
  • proves a world-view to their child and social milieu
  • state will understand you as having honoured its bidding and a more restricted future necessarily makes you more dependent on the state

Drive

TODO: this is nonsense What is the drive towards the idea of a society which must be free of the threat of infection? Do we know that an infection-free society would be a good thing?

For some, it's easy to dismiss the severity of something if all our children become critically conscious and so on. If even the children are being made to participate with and be subjected to something, then surely it must be safe. And even if it were not safe, it would be a sacrifice that all would be committing to together, thus we have good reason to feel encouraged??

TODO: Need to complete this

History

For the Covidist, the event of a pandemic of international concern is seen in its historical context. It is an event preceded by the struggle, historical conditions and tension which led to this event unfolding. The fact of its sociopolitical, human and biological significance is clearly indicative that its human and social precedents gave rise to it, informed it, and so on. All this logically confers that it must be seen as relevant and a stage en route to a better world, if any sort of better life were ever to be made a possible reality (history is what makes a reality possible).

Our hopes and dreams both have been prevented from being realized through this, yet our hopes and dreams are being imagined because of this event. If even we could be liberated, we will find that this event, whether now considered as making such liberation more difficult or more possible, is an aspect of the liberatory process and is something which shaped, formed and etched out the shape of that liberated structure.

Again, all of this is perfectly congruent with our set of properties which make the imagining, desire and expectation for a collectivist, transcendence of reality possible:

• SAFKT
• Stop And Find Knowledge Together S: senses A: abstraction F: frame K: knowledge (of death) T: time

Interlude #TODO: Move this and the next section?

Do we remember why we are talking about these subjects again? Indeed, people have become unable to communicate with one another, with the entire process becoming rife with lies, manipulation and abuse.

And why is that? Is this some type of cultural conflict? Is it simply social and human evolution?

It is a religious war over the fundamental nature of reality, as experienced by human mind. It is transformation vs transcendence. Eternal vs imminent. Acceptance vs rejection. Gratitude vs bitter resentment of the existing order.

Of course, none of these descriptions or enumerations can ever completely capture and express the phenomenon in question, which is not a theory on a model, and this is precisely why we must avoid and resist the inclination of any person to make laws or policies which presuppose a complete understanding or moral determination about any person based on their proclaimed political affiliation, observable physical characteristics, genetic sequence, or other encoded representation of someone's material form, beyond denoting one's actions.

Some might remark critically on my overly emphasized focus on Marx, o even Hegel and I would first respond that I am delighted to see healthy skepticism and would hope it's being applied quite consistently in elucidations of our socio-political, philosophical and metaphysical pronouncements.

The truth is that the phenomena and behaviours we seem to be faced with shouldn't be laid at the feet of any one villain and mystery man. I have said repeatedly that these issues arise not from a previous thinker or system of thought having been formalized. On the contrary, these are the msot basic means by which we make our view of reality and our lives actionable.

Story

The collectivist inclination is one of an incomplete story needing to be brought to resolution. An individualist inclination, however, is one where the story is an ongoing exploration of reality as unknown because that pursuit is itself already worthwhile. The conclusions to such a story are more open-ended in that the ultimate achievement needn't necessarily be imminent and within the reach of this reality:

• divinity awaits
  • predicated on one's actions in reality
  • something which always either awaits or is perfectly on-going by virtue of the true structure of existence
• if no divine aspect of reality exists then the individualist already understands, if even only intuitively, that a human's view of reality most accurately being perceived at the level of an individual is the correct one and that this is something to be expressed and negated at any given moment.

Hero's Journey

The individual's story is naturally the hero's journey as every person understands the notion that something good follows something difficult, something requiring sacrifice, something which causes one fear and for which there is an obstacle to overcome, and that the benefit in facing adversity needn't even be the most typical of material reward. That is, it needn't be a tangible material commodity itself. In spite of the possibility of one receiving no clear material reward, humans have an ingrained sense that doing the difficult will yield some sort of benefit to themselves, if even just through the fact of being consolidated to accept and approach yet more difficult scenarios. The skill of understanding that one can persevere and benefit.

The child's mind also sees the world through story and narrative and this, along with contextualizing observations. Though it isn't necessarily the case that it's seen as one discrete and simple story, but that:

• experience feels like a story
• stories which one encounters feel natural and sensible, because of a linear progression through action potential and event of action, being sequenced with a discernible, higher level narrative to be drawn from it (regardless of whether the semantics and aspects of the conditions and its entities make real-life sense)

Theirs is more exploratory to as the hero, but, without a formed opinion as to the nature of what that constitutes; with a process of continued exploration and object classification through the assistance of others more adept who have some system to draw from. They needn't be versed in any particular system in order to participate and have one adopt the conceptions of the formal system. They need only learn language which relates to the subject at hand and which, in discourse, confirms, refutes or expands the content of that subject.

Hero Cognition

This confirmation approach is used most heavily by children anytime a cognition occurs in the form of recalling some object reference - even if it is far off from reality, and an affirmation from the parent; even as a misunderstood response - will most certainly cause the child to believe the cognition itself. This reinforced cognition will be something easily attached to and difficult for the child to move on from without a new cognition being made to supplant it.

If the child is confronted with something distinctly cognizable for which there is a cognitive reference, the reference will generally be uttered and may be done so repeatedly in an effort to receive confirmation that the child is operating successfully. If the child receives confirmation of an absolutely absurd declaration (because, for instance, the adult is distracted and provided the confirmation erroneously), the child will happily take on the new association and will even continuously proclaim this declaration. This isn't to say that the child would not come to question such an association in due time, but that the absurd proposition intrinsic to the declaration will fail to induce any qualms, distress, anxiety, cognitive dissonance, and so forth. It will be readily accepted in the immediate, because the complexity associated with having to classify something has no reason to be adopted - any seemingly free, simplification which is neutral to one's view is easily adopted and if it also reinforces one's view or enhances one's standing, particularly where one conceives of themselves as holding a position or orientation for which one's commitment is tenuous in a way which is not simply raw, intellectual curiosity towards knowledge (drive for intellectual supremacy, is not what is entailed here).

TODO: Piaget and complex reduction

The Dialectics of Covidism

• Separate to be together
• Public health is your personal health
• Natural immunity
• Consent
• Freedom
• Disgust
• Victimhood

Disambiguation

Togetherness

• We are not together unless we are apart
• Deatomize -> we were atomized but now we've found the right reason to come together

Freedom

• Freedumbers destroy our freedom
  • It's dumb to value freedom - true freedom comes from structure, order and authority: the freedom to have a role by virtue of the state
• Freedom to choose -> no coercion
• Freedom ideology

Consent

• Cannot consent to a tainted world
• Unknown adaptation vs studied/intentional treatment
• Others cannot consent to your presence

Disgust

• Cleanliness / disgust sensitivty
• Normally Far-right
  • Only unsensible persons woul put others at risk
  • Aversion to entropy and the unknown
• Having progressed from tolerating the intolerant -> of immunocompromised / fragile

Victimhood

• The victim mentality of those who are not able to subdue selfishness
• Should be resilient -> in one's own interest
• Paranoid like a hypochondriac
  • Always suspects the government is trying to harm them
• Views that which benefits others as being something to their detriment
  • relative level of status
  • reduction in one's comparative advantage over marginalized

Natural Immunity

• Is not something natural
• It is not natural to be infected or to receive a virus
• All adaptations come at a cost
  • Better to never be exposed
  • Correct the adaptations
  • Take control of the means of adaptation
• Your chance to have a real immunity which allows your body to do what it was meant to do
  • Makes use of your own natural capacity for immunological adaptation

Public Health is Personal Health

"The personal is political" - Notes from the Second Year: Women's Liberation

• Disease comes from others
  • Your health is the degree to which you prevent transmission
  • Your health is the degree to which those around you are immune / vaccinated / masked / isolated
• Not atomized
• Inclination to healthy living does more harm than good
  • Sends the wrong example
  • Yields false consciousness
• Far-right ideology
  • Perfect form / beauty (traditional conception of beauty based on cisheteropatriarchy)
  • Expression of racial supremacy, sexism and intolerance
• Your health doesn't matter if you are all alone
• Public will never b healthy until health is equitable, inclusive and sustained
• Some paradoxes? No, this is business as usual!
  • The fact that we need to choose between alternatives shows we must have greater commitment to public health

The Dialectic of Togetherness

We are not truly together unless we are apart. That is something which can be understood in a number of ways. Ultimately, it means that we must show our love for whomsoever we claim to care about by doing those things which demonstrate true togetherness -> that is, things that are good for the public, society and humanity.

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

This event is historical as well. It is preceded by the events informing and leading to it, and it also leads towards a future that is now informed by it.

More specifically, however, the transformation of us all towards something embodying courage and desire is historically informed by whatever is correctly prescient or at the cusp of change. Those things which denote the moments of change somehow keep their symbolic relevance politically, but also as a feature in the structure of reality such that its content and determinative factors must be resolved and accounted for as part of historical progress. This is why so many supposed non-believers, academics or elites are so compatible with the idea that either something has to be eliminated or used in such a way as to be what appears as only a superficial or aesthetic consolidation in ritualistic social phenomena which are otherwise an unnecessary or destructive occurrence. There is no reason for angry youth to destroy cities and deface monuments of historical significance, but the elite find it amusing and mostly harmless.

If, for them, they intuit an imminentization without believing that it is something conceived and constructed or constructible from mind as things are already in the present, then it is something to be released from a reordered structure. But, then, if the current structure doesn't permit that because of the addition of undesirable aspects / details / phenomena which effectively pollute the structure as it currently exists, then a practice of purification has to take place, and this only makes sense a sa process of destruction and replacement.

So, then, in order for there to be some evidence of progress of history, the particular aesthetic of the zeitgeist in current event bearing conflict, is seen as itself a fundamental aspect of the progression of humanity, even if it interferes with some previously-stated principle, it itself becomes an essential principle which supersedes the principle with which it conflicts, and any resulting disruption of logic, presentation of hypocrisy, or failure to cohere at some level of analysis can be disregarded on the basis of a proposition that the conflict is itself an incomplete procedure of intellectual refinement and that the very fact of one accepting, supporting, or executing the act of negating the targeted problematic aspect is itself the intellectual refinement in action.

This is, in essence, a very low bar of entry towards a supposed intellectual achievement, but any shame, dissatisfaction or vulnerability one might normally stumble into as a consequence of this is supplanted by the sense of moral virtue one assumes through the sanitization and abolishment that has been indicated.

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

Freedom

What is freedom? Is it a good thing? Must we adopt an idealized definition based on a purely interpreted, technical definition, or is there room for flexibility? Might we say, instead, that a sensible definition exists, based on reasonable assumptions about context, application, universal pertinence, and so forth?

Technical Definition

{ Refer to technical definition from "Double Negation" doc }

That is a pure definition which explicates a principled understanding of the concept, and this makes it easy to apply it to the right context which, for our purposes, will have to be one of human freedom.

Human Freedom

A purely technical interpretation of freedom for a human being (or even a society) is not very useful to us. Freedom of movement granted by a vacuum is of little interest save some novel exploration and exercise. {Refer to Stronglogic Solutions manifesto as a deeply liberal conception of universal human progress which is argued as the most intelligent choice of organized objective because it leads to the highest potential for flourishing and success by oneself if more people are able to maximize their gifts and level of development. It's worth mentioning that many who will come to criticize the attempt to argue on behalf of human freedom and the highest potential flourishing is something mundane, facile and performative in the fact of acknowledging that we all want that - but those same people will certainly argue against anything which is known to lead to flourishing other than venturing off into the new, which is always unprecedented}.

The dialectic of freedom is something so evil and sinister however, because it predicates itself on freedom and promises that everyone deserves and will receive limitless freedom, but that those who have pursued freedom as a matter of principle and who do this through insisting some form of never-changing and uncompromising freedom for themselves are actually the cause of the loss of freedom for everyone and even themselves.

(This is, of course, predicated on a nouveau understanding of freedom which has little to do with a principle of leaving humans to do as they please without enforcement of structure or other restrictions, but on a model of freedom whereby quantifications of freedom are compared on the basis of how many potential actions or experiences or circumstances can be made available to a human).

Types of Freedom

You can only become truly free by becoming that which is not free (completely in line with the definition of the dialectic found here: "in which each thing is what it is only by becoming what it is not" - Theodore Adourno). Or, freedom must be understood to also be the absence of freedom (constraint, capture, immobility, the absence of potential for movement, change - Essentially, for something to be free in this world, it would be the complete opposite of what it is expected to be. Just as to be truly honourable you would need dishonour (which sounds like complete nonsense until you examine a punk-ish context to defy structure and authority, but in this case we get actual freedom by ensuring that whatever it is we do is something which doesn't permit much movement, as well as, and this is even better, taking away activities and behaviours for which it is asserted that it can cause an imposition on a particular freedom).

With a laundry list of enumerated freedoms of expression predicated on identity as well as an infinitely-expanding inventory of strategies and initiatives by which to reduce the possibility that an identity category's requirements are not burdened or infringed upon, you will never run out of reasons to negate a particular activity or behaviour in pursuit of upholding the list of freedoms.

Nevertheless, let's think about some characteristics and expression vectors which denote and define freedom:

• Access to space
  • Freedom to exist
  • Occupy space
• Freedom of movement
  • Relocation body/object
• Freedom of action
  • Reposition body/object
  • Reconfiguration
  • Internal movement (metabolism, healing)
• Freedom for actions of no movement?
  • Thoughts (possibly can be argued as movement)

Is it all freedom of movement? Possibly.

Abstract Human Movement

• Free to move
  • Movement in terms of jurisdiction or territory
  • Free to move his person while remaining in jurisdiction
• Freedom to think
  • Freedom to have thoughts
  • Freedom of speech
  • Freedom to hear what others have said
• Freedom to breathe (movement?)
• Freedom to drink water (Freedom of movement? Repositioning object?)
  • Freedom to consume naturally extant material/phenomena (without infringing on property of others)

These get distilled into statements as used in the US declaration of independence and the Bill of Rights, which assume that human beings have the right to pursue happiness by their own means, with their own property, and to believe as they do.

But what about human freedom from the woke cult perspective?

Human Woke Freedom

Frankly, we know that this functions as a process of eliminating distinctions, but how does that work? Wouldn't it be more difficult to eliminate known things? Wouldn't it simply be easier to present a new distinction and demand its enforcement, respect and adherence?

Woke Requires The Elimination of Things

It all functions through negating, but why can't it simply be the addition of something new?

Examples:

• Queer kids
• Gender identity
• Animal identity
• Racial identity
• Sustainability

Queer kids | New | Negated | |-----------|-----------| | Gay/Lesbian | Non-sexual child | | Non-binary | Biologically essential aspects / deductions of reality | | 2-Spirit | Universality of consciousness | | Trans | Boys and Girls |

This will bring us to our next section: Modern Woke Negation

Modern Woke Negation

1. Gay/Lesbian

How can a child have a sexual orientation? Well the assumption is that a child not expressly gay is heterosexual (according to Queer theory), but is that really the case? Sexuality suggests sexual attraction, but a child is not reaching states of sexual arousal, and far less a state of sexual arousal associated with reproduction. There may be some inclination towards romantic feelings, but these are not yet compared in a context where they can be identified or their ramifications understood. A reasonable understanding or attitude would be to say that children are not yet developed in a manner or to hte degree that sexual arousal manifests, and that children may be fond of one another but that the relation and dynamic of that fondness is nto sexual whatsoever and is, thus, much simpler and of less impactful consequences (particularly with respect to commitment and accountability).

They will argue against the idea of commitment and accountability because everyone is responsible for all the world, or something to that effect, but what we're really talking about are life and death consequences. Bringing in life and using the facilities of the body is one thing, as well as exposing one's vulnerabilities such that it becomes easiest for their lives to be taken or their health to be changed in some type of manner which can be discerned long-term.

This is a big reason as to why most humans see children as exhibiting expressions of innocence. Some would say that the innocence is an illusion derived from:

1. What we are used to seeing
2. What is expected of the child (conservative values)
3. A marker of privilege used to exclude others
4. A false innocence because the ascription of innocence is actually positioning them to have cisheteronormativity impressed upon them
5. Is our failure to recognize that "acceptance" of identities has been an inauthentic and lost opportunity for social justice
6. Our unwillingness to provide people (children) with what they need to thrive and liberate themselves

2. Non-Binary Negation

• Biological essentialism
• Grounding of human reality
• Questioning evolution

Biological essentialism is instantly in the crosshair because whatever criteria was previously used and believed to be sufficient for identifying real, actual aspects of human biology are being made to seem unproven, inaccurate and insufficiently argued for (without yet getting into the perspective that arguing in favour of those things is both assumed to follow having been influenced by entities which favour those same things as well as a process which influences you (arguing for them influences your bias towards them)).

The whole reason we identified the concept of male and female is because we have to deal with our biology. We care for our own bodies and there are portions of that whereby that care looks different for each sex.

The other part of being made to deal with our biology is that of reproduction. We understand that reproduction is possible just as we know that there is only one particular modality which one would understand as being relevant to the reality of what impact sexual reproduction has on them and their lives. A set of effects is a real non-subjective aspect of reality which every human is liable to deal with and though we can perform actions which affect what those effects may be and the dynamics of hwo they are expressed as they occur, any intended destination sought through doing so is not something otherwise extant outside of human intervention and only as advanced technological exploit. Nature with the constructs, formulations and behaviours which arise from its biologically mediated determinants does not include any of these such endpoints, permutations and phenomena, so we must ask if the problem hoped to be corrected as being not of human beings, our society and socialization, but one of nature itself.

(They would say "YES! Of course we are fighting nature! Most natural environments are treacherous and we even survive in our comfortable enclaves through the most unnatural technological developments that could ever be imagined!)

3. 2-Spirit Negation

This is one of the more distasteful and infuriating of the various forms of abusive, anti-human negation processes currently underway as some sort of advanced and "evolved" form of collectivist, totalitarian philosophy adopted by state bodies and forced into use by private interests, state infrastructure and human cultural practices. This isn't simply a totalitarian potential or something that might result in, under certain conditions ??. But a concept whose recognition by anybody with legislative authority is incoherent except in the context of conceptual enforcement?? There is no "meaningful" action that any government can take to ensure that the society of its jurisdiction accommodates or "respects" this concept, except through policy concerning what expressions may take place in that society.

Intrinsic to the acknowledgment of the concept by the state is its authority to proclaim and maintain the technical specification for what that thing is; that is to say, that thing will no longer exist except as per the model provided by the state authority (and an individual's ability to arrange, express, present and be perceived adequately such as to pass continuous evaluation against the state model). Without meeting such a capacity, one then becomes re-ascribed as something else, as chosen by the state or as per a defacto designation which occurs by virtue of entering into conflict with the state.

And if the concept exists as even a subset of another larger category, then it and the implements which evaluate against it become the means by which all designation within the larger category are validated. This includes the category of "human".

Drafted as State Enforcer

This isn't only one being evaluated as per the appearance of the body; meeting rigid criteria for the expression of their form, and the manner in which its perception is interpreted, but because its form now can only serve as a capacity to reify and reinforce the state specification and because it is only legal acknowledgment, one's role must be specifically to ensure the state's conception of the phenomenon is the only one utilized, as anything else is now a form of genocide and erasure (at least by the state's acknowledgment is also the positing of there being a phenomenon, its specification, and a need for enforcement. The state cannot under any circumstance be made to acknowledge a false representation of its citizenry, or it admits to serving something other than its citizenry (imagined or false citizenry)).

Know Your Role

Everyone's role in this matter, including those who are supposedly caught in the net cast by the specification, is to confirm and elaborate the truth of the state, and this is synonymous with not performing genocide of the reified identity (and a people) synonymous with the phenomenon.

It is because of this that it becomes more important to demonstrate the logic and corresponding thinking of the state specification than it does to be of a particular physical form, to have had particular experiences and history, to be of a certain family, to be of specific genetic make-up, and so forth. If your communication does not facilitate the demonstration and reification of the state's specification, then your history, your skin colour, your family, your genetic make-up and your physiological experiences all become inadmissible. All your beliefs about our family and the legacy of human activity are now irrelevant and tantamount to lies and dishonesty. The state owns the infrastructure to assign reality to each and every being, and the meaning of every moment of your life. You are an irrelevant piece of embarrassing and disgraceful material and you can never be intelligibly construed in this society; you can only be an example of how to have your real, experienced existence erased, disregarded and discredited. YWNBAW => YWNBR => YWNBE => YWNBAP (real, extant, person)

Evading Mephistopheles

It was in Faust that the main character's deal with the devil affords him some degree of power, pleasure and intellectual formidability. This enhancement to human life first appears as the path towards enlightenment (though, it should have been a red flag to imagine that fulfillment would come from the sensory reward mechanism (even simple and animalistic, which hints at what is driving even man's pursuit of supremacy by means of intellect)).

But, ultimately, he finds himself with a disposition towards another set of activities, perhaps poorly named to self-less acts, which might be better differentiated from the supposed intellectual pursuits in that while the latter is considered in terms of complexity which can be evaluated and expressed in material terms, the former is difficult to quantify similarly; it becomes difficult to compare the limits of human cognition and performance as here are capabilities which mature over time, as well as capabilities which themselves form or are yielded or granted after attaining a level of maturity generally associated with achieving mastery in multiple things/domains, or understanding the multiple paths to mastery that are possible within a realm/domain/field/activity, and the differences between these. It takes time and experience to understand that even long-lived impressions can change, and that it's quite easy for a human to have a good experience with something and falsely assume that it is the best, or even a good strategy. It takes time to realize that that which you previously believed to cause little to no effect may actually affect most consequentially. Our conception of successful execution changes as our scope of awareness includes details to which we have that matured acuity (whereby we understand the effects which lay outside the commonly assumed scope of observation).

The incorporation of a greater scope of awareness and concern in conjunction with complex activities unearths potential for as-of-yet unrealized elegance and after the elegant evocations borne of mature orchestration are easily made unnoticeable because of their degree of elegance, the degree to which they remain unnoticed is a testament to their seamless elegance and for a novice attempting to learn what works, they might not be afforded the requisite insight unless calamity ensues or the right source of education can be engaged.

Ultimately, we must discern our satisfaction from our activities per an expectation of lasting satisfaction which is well-supported and not fleeting, and this generally means something that can be attained in a manner which restores, reinvigorates, and reinforces the most remarkable and elegance-supporting patterns of phenomena.

There is a resistance of the ego and the will which insists on demonstrating a supremacy over one's peers. This aspiration to have supremacy can never attain true mastery or the highest level of performance and expression. It deems that all wisdom can be superseded by intensity and performative powers and that, just as new records in sporting performance change the precedent and are soon followed by a suddenly elevated capacity for performance by peers which would previously have been deemed absurdly unrealistic, a new precedent for brutish finesse will make it easy for one to be the new master in a game requiring new wisdom. But there is a complexity which comes through a relaxed awareness which lends towards unique, exploratory expression that is harmoniously and robustly reinforced with a seemingly infinite depth of the natural frictionless essence of reality, and though it appears as though the output is not as pronounced, it is noiseless expression of a quality which trumps the barbaric ejaculation of egotistical desire.

I contend that the collectivist pursuit of supremacy over the order of being is precisely the Mephistophelean path just described, and that it is the individualist whose attempt to find a more chaotic and ephemeral harmony with his free peers who is embodying the wisdom gathered through our history and experience and that it is only through such a modality that humanity harnesses the infinite potential of our world and ourselves, and that this can't be measured beyond adherence to our principles most readily observed before the advent of political society; the infinite regress forces us to ask questions of life in pure solitude and the lowest levels of social interaction with the fewest second / third /.. order social influences.

Otherwise, we have this abomination: a monstrous, blind and archaic corporate entity calling itself "the people" while purporting to know our minds, and replacing real people and a legacy of beautiful culture with a decrepit and pathetic voodoo doll with which to taunt any who doubt their supreme infallibility.

And we should lead that back to the next item on list of child negations, so let's recap:

3. a) 2-Spirit Negation Part II

Themes:

• Colonization
• Stealing children
• Appropriating heritage
• Cultural genocide

How distastefully ironic that after a long, successful period of being accused of enacting social, cultural and even absolute control over people's supposed identities (and, indeed, at least their lives) that the state, corporations, syndicates and oligarchs are finding their true humanitarian calling in imbuing the entirety of what they do with the reifying of a specification for what and how people are, as denoted by their material classification (the classification of the matter of their flesh as the essence of their being).

Assuming that these simple beasts exist with no real thought of their own, but simply an awkward mess of desires and reactions, and that one classification of beast had a temporally-afforded state of relatively more endowed access to resource which allowed them to attain dominance over another, regardless of any other contextual consideration, is the cause of the eternal designations of God and Devil, sacred and fallen, divine and mundane, to one material formation of flesh vs another is a principle driver of our morality, the questioning of which is avoided as though deemed forbidden (and indeed it is forbidden as the law dictates that the capacity for an identity category to exist and thus any instance of beast to which it has been ascribed rests upon the capacity of the collective to assure and even enforce a set of conditions to an environment, chief among them the content of utterances which occur within it.

That simply isn't the extent of it, but it certainly is the basis as to why it should be rejected and ridiculed for its totalitarian, puritanical, eschatological characteristics. That all humans must take up the work of transforming the world into a specification of acceptance criteria which is not only technically unattainable, and is not only presupposing a representation of every human, as per a model's evaluation of their body, but which is formulated with logic both congruent to and inspired by Marx's critiques and critical philosophy as per his writing and theory of historical materialism.

When it comes to producing rhetoric which supposes an oppressed status by people befitting a description of their bodies, such persons are put on the stage of this authoritative entity, described in a manner which presupposes that this entity has a deeper understanding of a particular type of human by virtue of the fact that it speaks of its weaknesses and vulnerability, but this is in addition to a few more things to the oppressed type as well:

• One's fallen state is reified uncritically
• One's challenge in life is now defined and described by the state along with its purpose, intention, meaning and the nature and content of the experience
• It becomes the standard quantifier for determining the quality of God or Devil
• In order to be spoken of as enumerated by the authority as being considered as having a particular identity, one must either perform their actions in line with the authority's description (based entirely on what you say and what you do), or not offer up or express any contradiction, resistance, or hesitation to the description or the capacity of the state to announce to identity -> this is tantamount to erasing all members of the identity, destroying their "human rights", and even participating in genocide (prepare yourself -> death wish, assured death, misery & company, apocalyptic induction and so on).

As we carry on in our analysis, we will examine the ways in which the state has employed aesthetic determinants to appropriate the culture and representation of millions of people based on the material characteristics of their bodies or their proclaimed experiences (as evaluated by the state)

Rainbow Savage

Motifs of rainbow:

• Brilliant, eternal light
• Transcendant completion
• The total range of being
• Infinite
• Timeless wisdom

There is something majestic about the rainbow and the prism of refraction inducing the display of superseding wisdom in its perfected, harmonious and balanced form, as though something beyond the crude offerings of fallen man. To take this up as an extension of oneself as though the essence of one's being is to be acknowledged as something revered with the perfection of the potential of expression - that things taken as humans understand them as things that are discrete will always yield incomplete, partial expressions of being, but that consolidating all things within one expression by purposely pursuing and empowering the expression of anything based on the suggestion that it should be limited in some way is the path of salvation and that resistance to this in any form is a failure in some universal sense, regardless of any particulars - that as soon as something is indicated through identity, that it must be incorporated.

Unlike other supposed "races", which are enumerated in other cult subsets through descriptions found in Critical Race Theory (as a domain), Indigenous people on the other hand because the egg became so necessary, demand some progress. ??

State Tangent

Since we have already set out our our related to identifying the cults and their elaborate ?their? location, I think we need to bring to view the manner in which the state construes itself and the manner in which it construes its people.

The State as Man's Failure

• State exists to work out / resolve conflict between men
• Men without conflict don't need a state
• The existence of a state proves that class conflict exists

See, the purely democratic system of governance for the people is a state government which has successfully eliminated all political entities vying for parliamentary power that are not "for the people" and this is the first step.

What does it mean to be "for the people?". Well, that is evaluated in the sociopolitical discourse and if some perfectly-composed, semantically-complete structure representing a party "for the people" can be ascertained, presented and disseminated, then the parties can be compared against it in order to know how perfectly "for the people" they are. We could call that the second step.

But until that structure is realized and consolidated, it will remain second to the process underway of convincing people to set into motion the elimination of political choice until only one incumbent party remains which has unequivocally declared itself to be "for the people".

What happens next is something to be estimated both as "what would happen", as well as "what should happen".

For the Marx purist, they would (as per Engels) suggest that the state will wither away. For the Leninist, they would say that the state will continue to exist only as long as struggle and tension between the parties continues to exist.

That the party exists indicates that it should continue to only as long as struggle and tension between the parties or the people continues to exist.

This is why it doesn't matter how blatant, egregious, or severe the party's mistakes are, the error of any party is always preceded by another error at the lowest unit associating with it - that of a human. The only time a human is considered to have individual agency, whereas almost all other decisions are made under the assumption that we need to counteract the "fact" that humans have no agency.

That is, there is always reason to assume that everything about you from your morals, values, ways of relating to others, and so on, must be taught to you, not in terms of ways of thinking about these things outright, but in terms of what the correct opinion should be on every matter of any import. What's most insidious is how it is explicit here that these things are programmed into people while also utilizing and convincing them that their expression of a particular viewpoint or the content from a viewpoint is also the demonstration of one's critical thinking faculty. That is to say, whether it is inline with their capacity to bring about proletarian revolution.

Great Spirit, Great Creator

When the state invokes the enumeration of what it refers to as the original people of this land who have been wronged and stolen from, it doesn't mean by it (the state). No, the state is the only entity which is finally making the wronged people whole again, whereas all other humans in the world who aren't enumerated as these unfortunates can only participate in demonstrating a desire for restoration (reconciliation) through supporting the state, proving the state correct, and participating in the work of whatever program it is undertaking.

I am reminded of this quote:

"“Native peoples have always been determined by settler colonialism to have no future.”

If the goal of Queerness is to challenge the reproduction of the social order, then the native child may already be queered."

"... the native child is not invested with assurance of futurity"

What It Is

Essentially, it is a continuation of the same mentality that would have led to genocide and racism in the past but society and infrastructure are more complex and developed. There is some of the following at play:

• Seeing as other and unlike
• Noble beast
• Controlling the unknown
• Seeing as lesser

Whether disgust, fear or pity and self-aggrandizement, the true settler is whomsoever wields the wand to reify some notion of critical identity - an ID claiming and promising... ?? // TODO: what?

And this is the common theme because as soon as the argument has been made about the existence of an identity and a moral imperative arising from it as reality, you are now committed to that perception about an indefinite quantity of some form or another. The commitment is to a representation of the world which bears some meaning to the subject in question, yet it is also a commitment to swathes of humans; they are now constraints.

This cheap conception of a rich tapestry of different people with infinite variation and locally-tuned awareness is being supplanted with a model which stands for the state and which imposes a life by rule, and rule by law.

I think that the best term to refer to it is abomination, in that it is obscene, tragic and possibly evil that mankind develops concepts and systems with ever-greater sophistication in the sense of presenting, declaring, elucidating and promising:

• Presenting: the appearance and opportunity to achieve justice
• Declaring: itself as being something so difficult and unverifiable to suppose
• Elucidating: an explication of reality, experience, the substance of man, and the path to righteousness
• Promising: the fulfillment of our true needs and destiny

To think that any sycophantic busybody would actually acquiesce to someone else judging such things about themselves is laughable and not likely; it is only the passive, vulnerable and manipulated, hapless peasants who follow through in giving their and their children's bodies as fuel to the resentful flame of critical praxis under the banner of justice. We can't know for certain whether it's faith or fear which drives them into accepting such an invocation upont hemselves and the entirety of mankind, but we can try to understand the plausible paths and mechanisms for each, and build our diagnostic tools to be employed whenever we detect the disregard for principles of freedom and liberty in exchange for the prmise of our being made whole as an entire superorganism or universal divine spirit.

We Need To Seriously Disambiguate

• 2-spirit
• colonialism
• reserve
• pow wow
• creator
• poverty
• sustainability
• spirituality

One of the first things worth mentioning which in some ways is the whole point of all this is the idea that the state can communicate that people, and especially categories of people, can have additional, greater, or even just different dimensions of spirituality from one another, and that having these dimensions signifies that the lives of persons within a category and the life of anyone else relative to them, can be understood in terms which describe their moral circumstances and challenges, their disposition towards any other person, as category or individually, and the degree to which or manner in which they affect justice and fairness in this world.

For anyone to be regarded as having such an effect on mankind, history and reality is akin to a divine logic and application of divine principle. Even if statistics could show some iron-clad relationship that could never be undermined or challenged, it should still be rejected, as it can never make absolute sense, and because any reality of injustice would need, in actual terms, to be bound to the actions of people. There is no possibility of a true moral conflict occurring without an event pertaining to it with actual persons acting, observing and experiencing it and, regardless of what one believes about cognitive bias and false consciousness, there is no hope for any member of mankind without the perspective that logic and reason can be applied universally and that, for any generally observed patterns visible at the level of a socially-conceived identifier or evaluated motif, there remains always the possibility of exceptions and our expectation of the possibility of expectations is tantamount to, equivalent to, and even synonymous with the fact that identity categories are not causative. Even when great, unjust and violent measures are applied systematically by an official, authoritative entity to a supposed category of people of any kind at any level of scale.

Queer Scholarship

• Queer indigenous studies by Quo-Li Driskill
• Asegi Stories: Cherokee Queer and 2-spirit Men
• Spaces Between Us
• Two-Spirit people

I want to preface this section by speaking to those who would believe that the following circumstance only applies to one peculiar "group" and posit that this should be completely obvious short of ignorance and bigotry. I also want to compel the reader to extend the understanding that the capacity to ascribe queer liberation to any particular group might seem, in one sense, possibly because of the particular content of queer theory, but I contend that this is only because of the fact of that content being of a collectivist nature. So long as a group can be posited, a rhetorical structure can be edified to declare the necessity of a collectivist liberation for that group.

With that said, we can focus on the manner in which a queer designation was imposed on the very idea of indigeneity.

Theory is Systemic Designation

It's important to make the assertion that indigenous, or any sort of person that can be considered as being queer, is not something to be ascribed to only certain persons (or members) of a supposed broader identity group. This is impossible as the logic applied only works through the presupposing of a systemic condition and, thus, must be also applied systemically; this is an explicit form of proposed systemic oppression as it is a constraint.

With this in mind, it should come as no surprise to see that the sources of force, as expected and inscribed in law, not only offer no resistance or even interest in providing a modicum of healthy skepticism, but form and set into motion initiatives to promote broad application, dissemination and means of verification of the adoption and promotion of understanding all persons in this way.

This serves a general purpose for the state authority acknowledging, legislating, or mandating any piece of material or official communication which even so much as utilizes the nomenclature, taxonomy, or vernacular derived from the social critiques that were used to posit a systemic description of a category of people:

• legitimization of power
• legitimization of work
• legitimization of description and statements relative to which these assertions exist as second-order logic

To even allow for a previously secular and liberal state to begin making ontological claims about mankind and sub-categories of the human species such that it is said that there are additional dimensions of not just spirituality, but even simply experience, is itself an insult to good sense. It is one thing to entertain opinion or welcome its utterance in particular environments, but it is another to either pretend one truly has a form of spiritual experience, whether cultural or biological, which is necessarily not experienced someone else.

It is ons thing to respect people's right to claim something like this which is to say to have the opinion that there are spiritual expressions or aspects that are unique to some and not others, and to respect peoples' right to perform and participate in practices which may presuppose this, but that is quite different from the state authority who must enforce laws.

This alone means that the state must evaluate events occurring under its jurisdiction (or being contemplated by those under its jurisdiction) and make declarations and assertions based on that analysis which are to be regarded as true, just, fair, and universally communicable. Imagine communicating to all humans that they must consider that the share resources of society, and our capacity to acquire resources and nourish yourself, sustain your life and that of your loved ones must be disproportionately allocated because of a type of person who has dimensions of metaphysical significance that are different from you and this differences corresponds in an absolute sense with an ascription of moral failure on your part with your praise of the redistribution, to your detriment.

From another perspective, we can imagine someone of indigenous descent who is proud of their heritage and who sees it as a matter of culture, values, genetics, history, survival and so forth. They look on themselves and they feel like they are carrying the torch to keep an understanding of the nuance in human history alive and that they do this because of their strength and intelligence and that these faculties are necessarily inherited from the long line that stood before them.

They look upon their situation and they know that they'll keep knowledge and customs alive through teaching their loved ones and friends about the culture and that doing this brings great honour and excitement for the future.

The other thing that bears mentioning is that in bringing the category of indigenous identity into or under the umbrella of queer, we are now deciding to refer to all supposed indigenous people as an enumerant? or enumerable element of a classification system developed over the dimensions of human sexuality (and this is one where its seminal works have already problematized, blurred and obliterated - at least within the domain itself - the distinction of biology and sexually-related social construction), positing it along the lines of reproduction. This itself comes in multiple forms:

• repressed reproduction by society
• the notion that indigenous cultures are numerous and may have various social constructions borne of sex
• the potential for varying degrees of accepting homosexuality

One more aspect for which little regard is given is that the doors are left open to associate with the term 2-Spirit by means of sexuality, sex stereotypes, spirituality, historical legacy, mythology, tradition and culture.

Spirituality

It's really difficult to put forward a universal concept of spirituality in and of itself, much less understanding an individual's motivation for declaring themselves to be spiritual (for adults, that is). But for children? You can get children to declare all sorts of things by simply prompting them with an opportunity to declare whatever it is you want them to declare, whether as a suggestion, a set of constrained affordances, and so forth. They will also declare a range of absurdities through impossible statements, be them assertive, imperative or otherwise, just on their own.

That a declaration can be read in an environment with, say, a facilitator, counselor, educator, administrator, and so on, who has come to believe that the purpose of their work is one of social change as broad, liberatory phenomena, means that the meaning of the children and their utterances is now something to be evaluated as per its potential to induce, cause, and proliferate change which, for queer praxis, takes form along an assumption that identities must be composed and presented such as to eliminate things from the world which might impose any sort of limit or barrier. Without even having to expand on the presumptions of such a practice, such as what constitutes a limit, particularly as it relates to reality and to the social experiences of human beings, the very possibility of being able to override the accuracy, context and reliability of a child's statement on the basis of the potential of framing its interpretation insofar as the capacity for social change can be effected is completely obscene and utterly abhorrent.

Examples of Stories and Occurrences FIXME: We are in too many levels here

We can see examples in autobiographies such as A Two-Spirit Journey - Ma-Nee Chacaby Mary Louisa Plummer, but first I must mention a few things.

I don't want to take something away from this powerful book. It's amazing that she has been able to tell a recollection of her life experience in such an intimate, raw and honest way. I don't think there's anything malicious about her sharing her life story and I find myself empathizing with her throughout, and feeling sorrow for some of the more difficult moments she touches upon. Her story of her experience seems to me to be told in as honest a way as anyone is capable of, but that has little to do with the point I am trying to make. The issue here is that these concepts and the language which has been adopted in more modern frameworks of critical theory/queery theory/decolonization and the terms that have been offered up in organized interactions which, having specific purposes whether in activism, education, and even simply recreation and community are simultaneously a means by which people are seeking to fulfill their lives and have a connection to others. These frameworks with readily accessible vernacular that also yield a dynamic of equivocable (that which can be equivocated upon) exoteric and esoteric understanding yield the following circumstance:

• People can readily use the language in settings where they are likely to feel socially fulfilled
• Being able to express openly in a manner which centers yourself and, by virtue of the implicit logic in the systems of discourse which make use of the terminology, elevates your social value and moral standing incurs the question of whether there is ever a point at which one wishes to limit being at the helm of a process which necessarily does such a thing.
  • If yes, then how does one avoid engaging in the process without any consideration of pathology?
  • If not, then would anyone of any category ever reach such a point?
• Engaging in this can appear as a form of spiritual fulfillment
  • The experience of person of category A bears an ontological distinction whose reasonable distinction is the fact of its having an instance of perception associated with it
  • This consequently becomes the perception of the soul
  • We are now evaluating the limits of people's souls whose substance and veritability can be completely disconnected from anything resembling a material existence, or the human life as lived by any corresponding instance of perception in question

The concept of someone having a true spirit identity is something as simply asserted on the mere basis of one's grandparent having told them that they have a mode of existence that somehow bears some characteristic, which in this case is the mode of having both a male and female spirit, and that this makes them special. Who doesn't want to believe that they are a little special? Or a lot special? How about to deal with the pain of one's existence and to give meaning to the atrocity one has been subjected to? Doesn't it make sense that you bear the worst of pain and might wonder what significance it may have, if only even to the end that it has induced changes in you which have a contextual association to the world in which you inhabit, or to take it a step further that they might yield insight that can be useful in that world (we don't need to get into deep metaphysics, or far less theological beliefs in order to think about these things). And so, then, the Rainbow Cult activists think they understand and champion any double gender identity held by an indigenous person, and that they can reference this in their advocacy for themselves by assuming that their goals and experiences are the same thing, or somehow related. Are there 2-spirit identities based on animals? Would that work for Rainbow Cults? You can most definitely bet on it.

When the very broad term was introduced into the inventory of queer theory praxis, specifically when being adopted by and used by people who consider themselves based, not simply on the social vernacular which begins at the level of common pop culture, but those who see it as a pursuit of social justice, and who see a clearly identified target to be critiqued, transformed and negated before any sort of acceptable societal configuration can be found. When such people, who call themselves queer and see queer praxis as being a necessary and essential political praxis and wish to embed it into the very essence of themselves (or see it as sourced from their essence), see the use of the queer indigenous term, or the indigenous people which they imagine as being indicated by this terminology, what should we expect they might have been experiencing (whether 2-Spirit, indigiqueer, lesbian native, and so on)?

They must necessarily see this as something sacred, as colonization, and the tropes of the noble savage must remain for any western person. A sacred, forgotten identity which our "predecessors" worked hard to eradicate.

It is the connection to a relationship with nature, and the vision of a utopian paradise where the instincts are fully satisfied while one transcends the mortality problem.

It is the sense that your rage and anger are perfectly tuned with sacred spirit. That any and all emotion can be seen as legitimate not on the basis of how you execute, how your life is visibly affected, or how others are affected, but simply for taking a side in conflict and insisting that there must be an escalation in the tension felt. Your purpose needn't be demonstrated in your life, but insofar as it can be imagined to potentiate the possible life that could be lived at a future time (a life worth living).

What really needs to be grasped here is that the proposing of conflict between identity categories, by the authority who announces the circumstances and conditions of the shared environment in a manner for which it is morally obligated to enforce, simultaneously implicates any person found to be referenceable by the proposition and makes the purpose of their life an objective which has been made a stated goal of the authority (or at least will be the purpose as can be logically ascertained through the statements found within the proposal and the language used).

It is possible that some are simply trying to show their respect for indigenous people and that their good nature is easily captured for any initiative so long as it mentions their identity category?

Maybe, but let's look at it in good detail:

• Land Acknowledgments
• Special Treatment
• Noble Savagery
• Stewards of sacredness
• Sanitizing one's sins

Land Acknowledgments

• We both exist here, but the land is currently used in a way which benefits me over you
• This land would have been yours, but prior men used this land in such a way which has caused you to underperform. Poor you, you perform so poorly.
• We both live on this land but its history also tells of why you can't accomplish as much as me and need a helping hand from me before you can ever be my equal. In the best case, I have pity on you and see you as les capable because of some psychological phenomenon affecting people who have a physical form resembling you or meeting a physical criteria.
• Even if we have everything else equal in this world - in fact, even if you are healthier, wealthier and better looking - you will never be as great as I can become.
• In the worst case, I think that those who have structural advantages in the sense of political power, social wealth, and the time to allocate towards implementing structural/systemically discernible effects (that is to say, in the word of law) are not only using a concept alleged to represent you in order to gain even more power for themselves while diminishing my own, but you are facilitating it because:
  • a) You believe it will give you power
  • b) You are receptive to stories which describe you as unfortunate because of your weaknesses and pathologies
  • c) You are part of the plan -> active in having formulated it

It takes faith to claim that a particular piece of land is your birthrite, that any who have proposed there not of your bloodline or within an accepted relative range of genetic variability have performed a terrible injustice, or at least that you are owed some form of compensation or royalty or tribute because whatever you had done hasn't been enough to feel you are able to move on from the past, even if the past too is a fable and one which was not your own.

You cannot possibly have misused any land because you are the root race, in tune with the species being, and the land comes out of you. You are the land and the land is you, thus nay use of it under your time spent here is always subject to the dictates and arbitrary authority shared by you and the state. If all is well, you are regarded as a miracle, and your accomplishments grander beyond all comprehension, as a divine act.

If things are not so perfect, however, then you are the only part of it who's not at fault and the only part that would be perfect if not for the existence of other non-conscious participants (actually, all the divine participants

Divine Land

• this is their land
• because the material conditions create man
• and man works those conditions to create himself
• they are the divine material, aligned with the environment
• and the other is that which disrupts the harmony of the environment which would otherwise provide perfect existence for man
• in fact, it's a shame to the state that the other who pollutes reality must be tolerated, but this demonstrates the wisdom and patience of the divine state

Queer Covid Spirit

• Normal conditions are genocidal due to hegemony and ideology
• Anything with bias affects marginalized most
• Replacing perceived identity with face of collective liberation
• Erasure of individual expression; replace with state-approved expression
• Creating a new normal which recognizes the depravity of previous / former society
• Enumerate all the modalities by which people are oppressed by a lack of socialism and posit them as identities
  • Enumerate them as a means of targeting the existing order and make their very enumeration the evidence that the existing order is corrupt and worthy of destruction

Normal Conditions are Genocidal

A very general common theme throughout all forms or framing of collectivism; conditions created by persons not members of the collective are the operators, actions and subjects who condition one another into spontaneously instantiate the process of their and the world's destruction, with those not contributing the initialization of such a process also being those who suffer the most painfully and immediately once such a process begins.

Anything Negative Affects the Marginalized the Most

The promise of the collective can only ever ultimately become the elimination of distinctions. If there were no distinctions yet still the existence of man, then no need for the collective would remain, which is equivalent to the collective being complete. Until such time, the name of the game always remains as mitigating the consequences of spacetime while having to transform resources utilized for such a purpose.

In the context of queer, it is those whose conception of normal is in the sense of having traditionally (and still currently), been conducive to allowing the human species to exist. In choosing to embody what one conceives as being other to that, one simultaneously protests in suggesting precisely what must be transformed in order to make human existence tolerable.

The "ability" or "utility" ? for arbitrary action whilst surviving in spite of that. Propagation of human sentence which can finally direct its focus without being beholden to any idea outside itself, including any constraints affecting survival.

Sort of like the laser beam of God, which can finally direct itself such as to create the world as something evolving towards the greatest expression of existence. What could be better than that?

Any focus is always going to be mediated and directed (and interpreted) by those in the majority or occupying the positions of greatest influence. And, of course, influence is considered as being visibility along the lines of the intersectional formulations to have come out of critical theory. What makes someone have dangerous and ill-gotten or undeserved influence can be evaluated by the evaluation of their body (an === comparison), as well as that of their audience, and even if their language and rhetoric hit certain notes for interpretation.

This is based on history as a dimension of progress towards collectivist liberation, and not some natural sciences measurement laid out as temporal chronology. Those things which present the symbols not leading to completion will always be privileged.

Replacing Perceived Identity with the Face of Collective Liberation

I remember when I first started this book - both in a concrete sense, but also in the sense of the moments, sentiments, thoughts and cognitive dissonance which drove me to think more deeply about the factors motivating human perception, and it was precisely the notion of collectivist liberation and collectivist theology (that there was a perceptually mediated belief in collectivism which implicitly forms one's metaphysic).

I knew back then that the target audience - the collectivists themselves - would scoff at the use of the word theology.

But what is the standard for adhering to an absence of theology? What do we know about theology? Knowledge or acceptance of fact that requires faith.

So, okay, some might say that everything about accepting the construct of reality requires a bit of faith, and others might occupy entirely the other extreme and say that absolutely nothing they do is based on faith, and that even if it is a stance or choice about something of great ramifications (not only, but incomplete information -> it fills in the rest of reality and thus becomes a scalpel or speculum with which to mould and set the rest - galvanizing?) to be made without important information they still do so rationally, using the best information available to them at the time, but that never constitutes faith.

We could look at what James Lindsay said on balancing faith and reason, and then reflect on how there are scenarios where taking a position on incomplete information which causes others to be harmed, judged, reprimanded, punished or destroyed as a result is completely inappropriate. But that doesn't help you organize your belief.

Theology orients your entire life, at least by implication, around an understanding or expectation about the world which must be based on faith. The expectation of being made whole.

An expectation that one can even flirt with ruthless power and the loss of freedoms. An expectation that one can feed tyranny while being free and safe to maintain one's existence or even bring about the conditions for the type of existence one believes that should be having.

It takes faith to keep feeding a crocodile, and faith to draft the recipe for the destruction of man while hoping to not be destroyed.

Whether through the enforcing of garments and constrained biological integration with the world and each other, or the legal authority to tell people what they may express and with what language they are to express it.

But where does identity come into all this? Is it at the level of choosing one? The system for one? A path for coming to understand and reveal one? Or even to simply believe there is such a thing at all?

Clearly, it must be the last of those options, for what on earth (or in the world) could possibly be an identity? Are we really to believe it to be coherent that something can be understood as being part of a shared, objective reality simply because of the degree to which it can be so eloquently described? Based on what? Occurrences that never manifest in everyone's experience (for it would be absurd to assume even i it were simply the name of a feeling)? Or the feeling and speculative thought themselves?

Things that cannot be set in one pure structure of representation without committing them into the theoretical and intangible and thus cordoning them off from the true essence of human experience which must be consumed through the perceptual frame.

There is no essence of human experience void of individuality and it cannot be known whether a human experience can be something fully formed and lossless yet communal or collective. Could there be a collective consciousness? Sure, there might be; have you ever had a meaningful and profound experience with other people? Didn't it seem like you were experiencing some things together? In sync, so to speak? It might have been not just that you were experiencing the same types of emotions at the same time, but it may have been more than that:

• the same sentiment
• the same information stream

We can ask the question of whether it's infantile to even entertain the idea of "manifesting" something beyond reasonable guesses or at least just making predictions based on normal, material sciences, and retaining the modesty to presume we may very well be wrong. We can make observations and choose representations of these observed phenomena in hopes of getting better at predicting them, and we can use these predictions of getting better at predicting them, and we can use these predictive capacities as an inventory of structures of varying reliability, to create infrastructure for controlling material conditions in the world to a very limited degree. In fact, it would be wrong to say that we are controlling the conditions. We are, and have historically been, able to influence some aspects of the conditions of the environment, but this only appears as reliably controlled conditions in some limited way which, finally, doesn't account for our inability to demonstrate omniscience over the material world and, furthermore, doesn't even demonstrate mastery over those things in the world that we are aware of.

Any utterance declaring and describing the capacity to predict the nature of what cannot be tested and observed is necessarily a theory for understanding inexplicable phenomena.

Antagonizer: "Yes, but you see, you can make such predictions.

Take any example from any of the human rights plights or oppressed classes that you wish to destroy (and obsess over so profusely) and you will see that yes, indeed, it is scientific and is based on reasonable predictions!

Items to argue:

• Queer Kids
• Capitalism
• Colonization
• Sustainability
• Pandemics

####### Queering Kids is Scientific

1. We predicted closeted kids and look at new stats
2. If scientific, then we should understand science as something serious and, as such, we can imagine that everyone is oppressed by a system which already came to be different).
3. Scientific understanding strives to be a complete understanding for only a complete understanding could ever be truly correct:
4. If there are elements present which prevent manifestation of all human expressions then there will be perspective by which no observation gets an opportunity to be made, thus reducing the likelihood of complete understanding
5. A scientific understanding of mental health should suggest that humans who aren't able to evoke and embody forms of expression to which they are naturally inclined are more likely to develop pathologies

####### Capitalism Next, we have a thorough understanding of history, technological development, institutional development, psychology, political science, and shoulders of giants to stand on, without the contributions of which we may have never had the chance to enjoy a critique of certain systems, structures (social) and their respective hegemonies.

It's likely that, in 2024, an attempt to claim that a replacement, the destruction or the fundamental transformation of capitalism is a scientifically sound recommendation and is something that will have to be argued on the basis of sustainability or even worse -> something that in its contemporary formulations has become so mind numbing in its plain-speak and its appeal to an insurmountable volume of never-ending rhetoric in conjunction with appeals to authority; utter cringe the acceptance of which must surely be paired with the complete destruction of one's self-respect. With this in mind, we will proceed with an appeal towards representing a particularly "vulgar" incarnation of Marxism against the bland and traditional conception of capitalism which remains rather similar as it is in place this very day.

1. Capitalism is a means of conceiving of and utilizing resources with a limited scope of analysis which only consider resources, labour, production, and material conditions in a limited context but, in doing so, is doomed to never achieving a scientific explanation for itself or any phenomena which are affected by it.

2. Capitalism is always concerned with maximizing profit of a particular commodity, even insofar as such a commodity can be transformed or exchanged towards the same end.

3. A conception of production and resource utilization which looks beyond simple profit maximization will always be more scientific

I suppose that it isn't necessarily any more complicated than that. From the outset, it is always concerned with a desire to deny those with more power their own belongings, as though their very lives have stood in the way of everyone else having a better life.

Since material belongings appear to be something which are an immediate concrete asset, which can be used to nourish oneself and sustain one's existence, any disparity in material asset necessarily means that the incentives are laid out such as to potentiate the survival of not only those whomsoever are able to act and respond on a relevant matter, but of the qualitatively inferable conditions and our relations to them (the conditions, the environment) as well as our relations to each other.

Managing conditions to maximize survival is already something that would be considered as a base and even scientific on its own, and what the reality is is a world of finite resources, and a form of finite capabilities, thus the simplest configuration for human life that is scientific is the manner of understanding how to overcome finite limitations. Why?

Because the very proposition to do anything scientifically requires observation of the problem, the experiment, or the choices of methodology itself. That would all be part of the scientific process. As such, it would be necessarily unscientific to fail to maintain an adherence to a strategy of extending, potentiating and maximizing the capacity for human life as a life can be lived with the knowledge that one lives not in a vacuum, but in a community and, as such, the insufficient utilization of resources by man as a whole becomes an anti-scientific practice.

####### Pandemics and Infectious Disease Here, certainly, is a practice which is so obviously scientific that it causes one great pain and distress to find themselves in a position where it is even proposed to make the case that it is.

Any systemic effort or effort of individual health in consideration of the environment, made to reduce the threat to oneself or all(??). One might even endeavour to say that all pandemic preparation is scientific:

• Aiming to extend and reinforce the capacity for observation is always scientific.

If one is not choosing a means of mitigating these things, then one is unscientific from the outset. So, really, there is no choice in the matter without absconding from being scientific; you must prepare for every type of threat that you know about within reasonable limits which consider the lethality and probability of the threat.

We know that pathogenic microorganisms exist, and we know that we have found evidence of pathogenesis due to infection from the same microorganism in very different geographic locations thus we must assume that the threat of a pandemic is real and that there are many benefits to preparing for one:

• Technological advancement
• Greater understanding of health
• Disease mitigation
• Economic contributions

####### Decolonization Decolonization is scientific in that we are seeking the more complete view which isn't coloured by the bias and limited perspectives brought on by hegemony. We can't know just how much our perception is held back, warped and misdirected, unless we question the manner in which knowledge and power are harnessed and used to maintain structures of order and dominance.

If we are to begin questioning, we must necessarily come to the place of examining how the particular locale was ordered prior to the current regime:

• Of course, historical oppression exist
• Need to assign roles to the past with eternal significance

Technology, knowledge production, health and medicine - these are all things produced by man for what he produces is mastery of nature and thus nature itself (??).

Decolonization is scientific in that it not only replaces the ideologically compromised (if even just as the profit-hungry capitalist), but it liberates those to think, do, and re-acquire their voice and power, and resume in a capacity takes patience, courage, and the means of contributing what they really see and fail (fail? feel?)

####### Decolonization Retort Allow me to retort, and first allow a blurb on this whole notion of different.

It sounded like hyperbole to say things like "they are reality deniers" or "biology deniers" not because it was inaccurate to say so, but because it came across as bad-faith participation if only on the basis of seeming prematurely aggressive and combative.

Why? For no other reason (to my mind, anyway) except that one could take the proposition purely on its theoretical merit and eliminate the possible bias in the recipient of one's argument and this would have also been a good strategy to demonstrate openness, transparency, and the rigor of one's approach to sensemaking as a reasonable and logical human being.

The issue is that, even in the theoretical sense, examination of the very concept of normalcy is difficult to undertake without coming to the conclusion that what is considered normal is reality itself, as must be reasonably understood by a human being.

You see, all of the criticism of there being a concept of normal takes the following subtype forms (and one common overarching form, which will be disclosed subsequently):

• Sexual deviance:

  • This is differentiated from mere romantic interest from the outset of the seminal formulation of queer theory. Gayle Rubin repeatedly dwells on the specific, undesirable (at least in professional and business settings) as sexual abuse of children (which she refers to using the euphemism "inter-generational love"), the incorporation of kink into more aspects of "a professional environment or daily life in general. There is even a defense in decriminalizing the production and distribution of child exploitation materials and paraphernalia (and on the basis that laws and arguments which intend to forbid materials which sexually exploit children would lead to their invocation on the basis of materials which don't fall into that vein (and, yes, we are reminded of woke projection whereby they are declaring their tendency to search for a means of constraining any behaviour from their perceived other as an infraction against some structurally enforcible law or policy).

• Organized structure of all forms

Put another way, they are willing to not only permit but to prime, facilitate and potentiate a lewd and destructive behaviour for so long as it can be matched against an accepted and desirable behaviour because it accomplishes the following:

• Capturing arbitrary power
• Yields an implement to target and eliminate the other
• Eliminates distinctions which allow them to imagine the reality they desire without hindrance (burden of what has been)

####### Closeted? This is always the proposal: there are secretly gay children who are suffering mental distress for not being able to express themselves in a particular community setting:

• Gay is interchangeably qualified on the basis that: a) Stereotypical behaviour is inherent to a gay genetic formulation And b) Is not sexual in spite of being bound to a specific sexual preference (which the child may be unaware of, but the educator always senses via critical consciousness)
• The pressure to not express the inflections and forms of that identity is one of normativity as a political modality, thus gay is actually a proxy for queer
• Because of systemic abuses, there is a moral impetus for everyone to be either queer or an ally, and since all identity is socially constructed, the outcome is based on priming environment and performing identities

####### Normal vs Different If the status quo is one of oppression through imposition of the normal...

Everyone is part of everyone while also being different. Does everyone claim to want to just be like everyone else? Probably not, though some do, of course, what they symbolize as the idea of equalization to all others insofar as having an equality at even just one level of abstraction can differ, and so in that way I can't say that everyone doesn't envision some type of equalization as an entry point to a symbol that they do interpret in some congruent manner. It becomes too difficult to work out, in any case.

But what of the notion of difference? Sure, there is the separation of perception from one another, and one can sometimes imagine a tension between the reality of human embodiment and that of an absolute togetherness of all existence, and though it may first seem like a proposition to consider a religious metaphysic (in even one of the popularly recognized systems), anyone who has ventured into experience with psychoactive compounds can express to you some sort of familiar state of being which they believe themselves to be experiencing (evey beyond whether they believe that it is real, or whether they make the argument simply as phenomenological one whose subjective aspect is arbitrary in terms of it being inconsequential to reality, nature, history and so forth.

We could also venture off into somewhat more formalized permutation of the use of psychoactive compounds either as traditional shamanic rituals as cultural practice, as well as quasi-scientific psychoanalytical and anthropological studies, which have also noted similar observations.

Further to that point, we can look towards some meditative practices and find claims of having entered a state of consciousness which appears to be some type of collective, meta or divine consciousness as well.

There is something to the comforting, surreal and eternalizing concept of returning to some total state of being which can only be defined through some manner of completion, as it intuitively appears as though it would allow a human to transcend the limitations of matter, aging and death. But, this ain't science, nor an appropriate predicate for policy and governance, a secular form of ethics, and so on.

And what of being different? We are all just human, no? Or, everyone is just as different as everyone else, therefore we are all of the same in that we are different.

Some say they just want to be left alone and some say they just want to fit in and be like anyone.

But there is a drive to be different which can even manifest in the disposition to fit in. It's almost as if being granted a social standing allows one to start ...

(skip over covidism symbolism)

####### Covidism and Symbolism (note that Dialectics of Covidism is ##)

1. Illness
2. Suffocation
3. Something appearing worse -> aging?
   • Extra media focus
4. Threat of other illness from this
   • Start to perceive those other illnesses as being caused generally
5. Cleanliness
   • Air breathing is selfish and disgusting
   • Entitlements:
   • Resource utilization which harms others and disrupts cosmological order
   • Distributing disease and spawning evil:
   • Demonizing forces which reinforce the false reality

####### Problematization of Difference (Continued) It is an ironic commonality that we find independent means of claiming differences: As a modality or source of self-conceived identity and as a means to not miss out on a appurtenance and provisions as can be found within a social sphere.

On the one hand, we claim our difference to maintain our distinction, but how to separate a distinction as a means of separation from its service as a means of buttressing oneself from potential exclusion -> TODO -> Research on social differentiation in a biological capacity: is it investigated in neuroscience?)

The primary point is that every participant in a social environment will find reason to proclaim a difference in spite of seemingly conflicting rationales, and thus this calls into question any system of analysis presupposing an ascription of marginalization through categorical assignment of difference on the basis of normality / normalcy.

The distinction of normalcy and one's friction against it may very well become the proposal for a collective commitment to a declaration of allegiance to a new standard of equalization is not necessarily in the sense of equal affordance and acquisition of resources from the environment as it currently stands, but instead as a demand for a transformation of the environment.

When considering children and epistemic practices, there are universal and general requirements for development and these obviously derive from the generalized requirements to sustain life, and so the proposition that children have individual requirements stemming from unquantifiable (well, really) and unverifiable truths which bear relevance on themselves and society which are somehow evaluated on the basis of their material classification is an affront to reason and true justice. To compel children to place themselves in a moral hierarchy by luring them into supporting a political view in exchange for their ability to make themselves potential recipients of the benefits of society, or even to use language which is perfectly-suited for things for simply participating in society, speaking, and asking to follow along with others.

We are compelling children to accept a material classification to be able to participate in society:

• The assumption is that some categories are killing and oppressing others by their existence
• Some categories are afforded which classify one as being in service to the collective by virtue of the critical theory-derived model of history:
  • Not being congruent to this means one is not on the path of evolution
  • This replaces procreation, which is otherwise one's path to immortality
  • At the very least, having the right ideological ascription allows you to be validated as having some to this point in an evolved state (you are the latest version/release)
  • Since the goal of the ideology is world-making and the creation of man, anything which commits you to the goal insofar as being connected to this realization of its endpoint becomes the mechanism for your immortalization
  • Since reality is actualized through social constructivism, the manner by which one commits themselves to the endpoint is by having the collective bear witness to your corrected identity
    • Semantically, the commitment is by leading transformation to the conditions which make the endpoint possible, and this is through eliminating aspects of the world which are an expression of the conditions as they currently exist, which are the material aspects which maintain a distinction about reality (if even just a reified conception of reality, in the eyes of the critical theorist); this means that one's identity must be the negation of the current reality.

It's particularly insidious that we are dealing with a small range of possible identity options for any child whose body does not immediately cause them to be classified as an oppressed status human, when evaluated at face value. With the intersectional lense, it's not enough that a white woman identify or come to be identified in the context of "patriarchy". For her critical perspective to be admissible, she must either perform praxis through her body, or her body should have been composed of different material altogether.

It's Not You, It's We

People make like to grovel over whether their conception of the problem is being incorrectly labeled using their one flavour of collectivism that they hold onto and hold dear. That one theory which is no theory, but simply a honest look at reality, and which describes the real machinations of society and which puts forth an insightful understanding of just what limits have been placed on our lives, our happiness, and the thoughts that we may have. A helpful guide on how we can come to terms with what has been done and learn to imagine a way forward to a better future for everyone.

And let's imagine for a moment, that we are going to do that based on what the laws themselves say. That we are going to look at what the current social structure is, what its legal stipulations happen to be, and discover that there are, indeed, hegemonic forces that are systemic and that necessarily affect the value of a person based on however it is that they are made knowable to the society at a general level. Could it even then finally become appropriate to use a structural critique of our relations and infer something about a type of person, now finally, because of the actual real proof of systemic forces which we know applies to everyone within the corresponding geographic locale?

Well, no, because no matter how you slice it, people aren't groups and although we can say that the systemically applied laws are unfair and need to be removed, we can't ever understand how they affect people in the real world, and, far less knowable, that we can't assume to understand other humans based on how they are described with respect to these laws. Yes, we know things affect people, but we can't understand how they affect people. We also can't understand how it would affect all people who would be interpreted based o the current specification of unfairness.

We try to look at human history being a process of us becoming more reasonable and hence also a recipe by which we are never truly making the same mistakes that were made before. Why wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that things can get better, or that the ills of the world today don't indicate just what needs to be rectified or who might be (and not be) responsible?

How else are we to imagine what the better world looks like without criticizing those things about it that we want to change?

Of course this brings about another paradox which has become a mainstay in western culture, and this again is only of interest to you if you care about contradictions and paradoxes, as those who have championed, forged and supported the thoughts this particular paradox are probably perfectly pleased to not only overlook the contradictions, but to smile upon them.

Concluding Overview

• Paulo Freire
• Paradox of not imagining the ended
• Universities and "transformalism"
• World planning
• SDGs
• The real way forward

Paulo Freire

Why

We want to talk about Paulo because he does a few things which bring the logic of the cult, its implementation, its roots, and its ramifications into clear view. It's also his work which has been instantiated in our current society at the points where we are most vulnerable and (this is a restatement of the previous point), at the point at which it is most likely to have an effect. Lastly, it's also a domain of thought and philosophy which is most explicitly religious, both in terms of its own description as well as the underpinnings and influences which it references in its own work.

1. Logic

It is a collectivist logic which supplants not only theory of knowledge but its production as formation of literacy, not simply in temrs of whether obscure subjects are taught, or whether competing or extended aspects of the subject are included that are usually not, but in terms of the entire practice of educating as a whole.

The logic is that all knowledge production is a means of oppressing the proletarian class so that their value can be extracted by the dominant classes.

Another part of the logic is the rationale which supports the most concrete of its prescriptions. But such an explication will need to follow an numeration of its implementations. For now, a short (suggested) summary:

• No individual agency
• Ethically prescribed brainwashing

2. Implementations

a. Models and Concepts

• Gnostic cycle
• Freirean method
  • Generative method
  • Relies on Dialogical
    • Standpoint requires class
    • Class consciousness (Lukacs)

Generative method

• Codification
• Problematization
• Decodification

b. Instantiations

Critical Constructivism

• Henri Giroux
• Joe Kincheloe

c. Instantiation in Education

• Critical Pedagogy

3. Roots

• Mao
• Lukacs
• Gnosticism

4. Ramifications

Education

• Not literate in traditional terms
• More difficulty attaining privacy
• Abused and emotionally damaged
• Morality sought through pathological behaviour

5. Current Instantiations

• Critical Pedagogy
• Inclusive component of sustainability

Critical Pedagogy

Appears to be used in all our schools and is present in the base level of administration, school objectives, code of conduct, etc. Obviously, in the pedagogy and curriculum, the counselling, the discipline policies, and so on. It's just the manner in which educational professionals become accredited, think about the work there, and navigate the institutions.

• Education emphasizing power relations means that development and learning never occurs without the threat that the process harms the child, thus all activity must be an explicit act of addressing power relations.

Critical Pedagogy went through a process of being more explicitly associated with critical theory, even though such things seem superfluous given that they already utilize the same fundamental assumptions about the nature of man given the reality of social relations.

6. Vulnerable

• Focuses entirely on children, when a human hasn't developed their own faculties to evaluate whether there are assumptions being baked into the programs that they are engaged in. In fact, these concepts necessarily consider the rejection of their assumptions as equivalent to an expression of systemic oppression, and any form of reasoning to reject the assumptions as ideology or ideologically-driven.

7. Effective

It is inded effective because its methods rest entirely in cultivating a sense of crisis in children. This predisposes the subject to experiencing greater angst and makes them less likely to feel in control of themselves. Their poor experience can easily be describe through a critical pedagogy lense as being evidence for the need for social transformation as a means of healing.

Creating conflict between generations is also useful in increasing degree of adaptation of a new way of seeing the world from an external source (exterior to the family).

8. Religion

It is religious because it involves having faith in what cannot be known and then asserting with divine authority in requiring that the world view predicated on that faith is adhered to. It puts forward a declaration of liberation that will be made possible once the world is made holy. It puts forward a desire and promise for the role of man as world maker with the task of creating the world where all the demons of reality have been destroyed. What are these? The differences between us - the fact of there being any difference of note eventually becomes oppression for each of us as that separation and differentiation will play a fundamental part in one's having an undesirable perceptual frame of reality which is not universally experienced by all men or all of existence.

Be it coveting and jealousy, or the fact of one's person specifically undergoing a trying or fatal experience. Once one is faced with the discomfort of human embodiment, there is little keeping one from noting and being reminded of the lonely isolation which comes from that embodiment.

Freirean Paradox

All of the woke assertions for power are made on the basis of assuming reality cannot be described within the terms of the current conception of the world, as systems of oppression cause presentation of information and formality of knowledge to be composed in such a way as to prioritize the maintenance and reproduction of the current system, and all the while implying that there could be a better system if only we reorder it such as to make realization and cognition of the better system possible.

Is the promise of the endpoint removed because the entire reality must be supplanted? If the source of oppression and domination is borne of all the capacity for oppression through domination, then we are left with only a few options:

• Perpetual revolution as itself the designated endpoint
• The destruction of the world and reality
• The elimination of the capacity to dominate
• There can be only one being or instance of perception

The truth is that once you accept a collectivist ordering of world and society, the details begin to matter less and less. The most important thing is already behind us, and that's a clear decision about how we organize society, our values, our priorities, our body politic, and so forth. Then, the immediate presumption becomes the idea that individual capacities, such as that of a fair, happy and worthwhile life, occur because of the collective. This means that, regardless of whether the details make sense, one cannot question the legitimacy of the collective, such as whether it makes sense to have a declared endpoint, or whether our disharmony is apparent, or whether our prized and cherished collective is itself the endpoint, or simply an embrace of the worse aspects of human or animal tendency.

Universalism and Transformationalism (meant to be related to Universities?)

That might not be the right title for it, but this can be expressed through other terms that are placed in all sorts of dialectical conflict, and are after made to seem as though the approach to the other through the transcending of them and their conflict, is the correct type of normal thinking which aligns with secular humanism and intelligent thinking.

Universalism is in consideration of how things can be applied and considered for every human being (such as the presumption of their having a perceptual frame, equal opportunity, the capacity to use logic and reason, and the sovereignty of their personhood).

Transformationalism concerns the rejection of the current construct, whether explicitly as society, the human body, reality, our understanding of knowledge, or that the conditions of world and society permit all humans to utilize logic and reason for pursuit of knowledge in much the same way as one another.

Transformationalism also bears significance in the domain of understanding globalism for which critiques linking it to Neo-Malthusianism and Neo-Marxism already exist. Some of those critiques can be sought through this resource.

Paramount to universalism is one's own assumption that others could attain their knowledge, and that people are to be regarded as individuals because precisely anyone benefits from developing themselves.

It's not necessarily that we expect everyone to "get it" and comprehend things in precisely the same way that we ourselves do, lest they be liars or cretins, but that we don't hold as a point of pride and virtue some notion that we are infallible, or uniquely superior through some mechanism which allows one a unique path to knowledge that others cannot attain.

The expectation that others are able to attain your achievements and understanding is exactly what allows one to believe it possible for oneself to have attained good, better or even something approaching a veritable understanding of the world.

If the construct of reality still seems unready for one to live their true life where all things are beholden to the state of existence, and you can feel accountable to yourself for your every moment, then there is a rift in the form of your imagined, elevated existence, be that as a God or a superman - be it only relatively so in the direction of a God. The important point to note is not that one does or does not attain God-level ability, or whether one explicitly believes in these terms, but that their attitude of dissatisfaction with the current construct intuitively gives reason to subdue one's sense of accountability, and the ambiguity of both the endpoint as well as the system-level entity of hegemony indicate that the implied requirement is tantamount to a supplantation of the construct in that whether it is an optimization, correction of the current system state, or its replacement by a completely alien state, in each case it is an entire rejection being changed to a complete acceptance (if only in theory).

World Planning

Since the issue having to be addressed is systemic and hegemonic, there is no set scope of analysis (as a final constraint). That is, even if a critique is wagered against some particular enumerated system, the scope is liable to change indefinitely until such time that no criticism can be wagered. This is obviously because no specific infraction is being addressed but rather the experience of dissatisfaction and discontent itself, thus the prescription to address the ailment is aimed at creating a world where dissatisfaction becomes impossible.

SDGs

This world making has already been formalized by the UN, who have as part of their ridiculous repertoire, and not even as a contribution by short-lived inconsequential members, but by the Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, who enjoyed a 40 year career with the organization, as the task of mankind as inducing and guiding the transformation of the planet through planetary evolution, aka planetics, which is a practice in cosmology and metaphysics.

We will also need to touch on UNESCO and the foundational document by Huxley (Purpose and Philosophy), and consider that UNESCO is the real display of intent and rationale behind the UN and therefore to judge both as a negative on humanity.

The Way Forward

Evolution: mirror neurons and empathy vs evidence and reason:

• At scale, this is a question of collectivism vs liberal principles. We are more developed and don't need to be fooled into understanding shared environment and destiny.

Reactionary Woke

Elements to maintain flourishing society tangled in political divide/ideology. Need to free them from mental traps by teaching that political affiliation is not identity.

Thriving people can help others. The potential for genius -> with people developed, we actually can make life a better, rather than promise better life and it takes away your agency.

Palestine

This is, without a doubt, the current events issue which has proven to be the most complicating not in terms of material changes in people's lives, but in the sense of confusing people about their moral standpoint, ethical commitments, means of replicating their values, and so on. To really understand it, we will need to be sure to cover the following relationships:

• Indigeneity of lands
• why Indigeneity ultimately doesn't matter
• Israel's crimes
• What is Decolonization?
• Why this issue is so dangerous to western civilization
• The dialectical spiralling This issue has expertly and relentlessly driven a wedge of confusion and separation in every social engagement, milieu, and many more seem to adopt some part of the issue's narrative.

Indigeneity

We have touche dupon this subject earlier, but the terms bring on a whole new meaning in the context of Israel and Palestine.

Many of us became interestedin the anti-war movement in the wake of 9/11 as we became deeply skeptical of US imperialism and the military industrial complex following activist campaigns which appeared to originate from the "liberal" left, enhanced by such high profile and broadly disseminated work such as Farenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore, other Hollywood movies (later) and even documentaries that were critical of Israel's policies concerning Gaza as they relate to the conditions of civilians, settlements, and violence including the crushing to death of activist Rachel Corrie by a bulldozer.

I can't speak for others, but I have found a rather sizeable contingent who shared the sentiments I had in maintaining skepticism about the US' military exploits, and a belief (no longer so simply held) that life would be better for everyone if much of the military budget were redirected towards social services so there would be less poverty and disparity at home and in the west in general.

Through the formation of such a worl dview, I came upon argumentation conceiving the repurposing of land previously inhabited by Palestinian muslims for use by jewish settlers, but this was always preselected under the context of "these were the previous legitimate peoples of these lands" or "these were the last rightful and peaceful occupants of the land which is how they came into the land, what they did with the land and, most importantly, what identity class the cult / party / state / designates themse so that we may process our understanding of all historical events pertaining to them based on an approach to creating the future where there will be no differentiation between these and any other category (or at least, between muslims and jews in the area currently referred to as Israel); we must collapse categories through negation induced by the power of history. This means that no matter what history is recorded, or what experience is recounted by whatever actual living human being, those who set the theory and implicitly indicate the algorithm get to control the meaning and existence of those humans as will be enforced by whatever state or organization which decides to allow for the theorizing humans to be recognized.

But It Doesn't Matter (Indigeneity)

Of course, a declaration of Indigeneity both without the intention to consoildate the infinite regress and without the capability of making the necessary observations to validate such a consolidation are meaningless in the face of re-establishing land designation, even to produce th ebest argument for it, which will ultimately remain futile as the logical consequence would be to assert where every human should be born or what materials are valid in the context of what human being may exist where and what human may be permitted to procreate. Let's do a little thought experiment!

The Birth

• Woman becomes pregnant
  • What is her DNA?
  • How valid is the analysis?
  • What identity category does she belong to?
  • Is it based on her form, construction and composition, or her allegiance?
  • If allyship, her pregnancy de-centers marginalized (white woman tears)
  • What is the most oppressed her child can be assessed to be?
  • The most oppressed her child can be critically reasoned to assert itself to be?

Whether she is a true believer or not is inconsequential, even as an ally, as her announcing herself as such is the acknowledgment that the context and meaning of her existence is not her own but made available to the theory of collective transcendence.

The DNA and identity category of whomsoever impregnated her can override evaluation of her own identity and body.

Only the particular body types or bodies corresponding to preselected identity designations can be birthed in a particular location, and it is always subject to change.

Pregnant? Are you an oppressed identity? If materially-mediated then no declaration is required. Negated if you don't behave according to the cult description of your ontology/axiology. What impregnated you? What will you do with your child? Offer it up? Assign liberatory identity in advance?

• No assigned gender or gender treatment
• Abort for tissue/organ harvesting which advances health equity

Otherwise, not an acceptable course of action: your genes and potential to support hegemonic forces which repress the desired genes / material configurations are forbidden and to be condemned.

Again, it ultimtaely is being forced to matter as a sort of malicious pragmatism in service of pathological processes, and we know this both because original cannot be ascertained and no desire to perfrm infinite regress and reaction of silencing and erasing any human expression wich does not accord with the theory of proletarian revolution and consciousness; that is, those designated a proletarian identity can only hold onto it by virtue of their material body if they are inactive or act without defying, producing friction or vibrating discordantly against the description of their body as per the theory.

And, indeed, it finally means nothing - this "indigeneity", this "original" human, noble savage and untainted form, as even if we could find the first man to occupy each space, or the first jurisdiction of an area to ever be declared, and we were to trace accurately the precise humans hwo would most appear as the original men (since we function under structural determinism) there is no good reason to assume they are more deserving of a particular land or space for that reason alone.

What Makes Anyone Deserve Space?

We deserve space because we all didn't consent to come into existence (to the best of our knowledge), and all are forced to deal with the challenge of life. No single person gets to construct the environment of reality, establish its properties, make available the possibility of it, the fact of humans having come into being, and so forth.

One might make a claim about the human body and state that their way of doing and understanding of the world potentiates and facilitates the development of transhuman solutions and that these would finally allow us the sort of control wherein one could make the case that we are finally setting fundamental properties of existence, at least through a human body.

But looking past the fact that we haven't yet developed these solutions, or even an agreement as to what would suffice to have even reached such a level of "transhuman evolution", we must also ask whether anyone would consider it as being an evolution of man, or simply a corporation's evolution in research and development, or manufacturing. Must everyone be compelled to accept a moral argument that indeed this is humanity itself and that simultaneously humanity is the replacement of the non-technologically enhanced human body?

Further to this, would a consequence of such evolution be not only the deprecation of the "standard" human body, but the forbidding of lives lived in such a form? It is one thing to suggest that this may happen, be it by defacto or by decree, an quite another to conduct things as though such a plan is our responsibility. But any collectivist or socially contracted commitment to liberation must be that: freedom from oppression of being and that must ultimtaely come as the replacing of human experience.

Think about it: we are employing a theory where any economic or cultural disparity is sufficient to drive a model describing a stratified society and utilizing this model simultaneously gives you an alternate theory of knowledge overriding both what any one account can provide as well as what any institution declares and communicates; it is always an expression of the stratified hierarchy and its reinforcement.

Some will say this is just about picturing a better world and that our identities don't need to be considered as permanent or fundamental to reality but that we are engaged in a system which happens to be configured in a particular way so engaging the reality which exists means working with it until we have resolved the aspects of it which force us to think in these terms.

This leads to a disconnect between an understanding of imminent and desire for improvement, but it is a rejection of one reality by concluding something about it under a presumption that a future reality will amend it. That is not synonymous with desire to improve, which can accompany any understanding of reality, even if one accepts it fully or believes that its organization is excellent.

We will need to revisit this to paint a clear distinction between believing things can improve and believing an endpoint exists or that one is necessary to make the social reality admissible.

For now, we accept that reality is here, we are experiencing it and we are able to be accountable to it. This means that we cannot designate property ownership, morality and guilt on the basis of anything beyond our actions.

Israel's Crimes

It must be stated that suspicion about narratives which participate in the Israeli-Palestinian dialectic is not taking a position that Israeli organizations or military don't engage in questionable or even criminal behaviour.

In fact, the purpose of this section isn't to enumerate and detail all of Israel's posssible crimes, but to do a few related things:

• Indicate that my positions are not an endorsement of Israel, its politics or its views
• That there are likely IDF soldiers that have committed atrocious acts that are probably illegal even according to Israeli law and international "law" (declarations, but often from the UN which we don't as an organization)
• Israel has likely designed, orchestrated and participated in subversive and clandestine operations that bring about misery and oppression
• Allies of Israel, which account for most of what is colloquially referred to as "the west" have probably done the same
• Covid proves this in a way which places them in an appropriate conetxt for the ideas in this book.
• I consider all policies, activities, and operations which potentiate global governance as exampels of precisely what I am suspicious of, particularly as technology becomes more advanced.

Potentiating Globalism and Global Governance

• We are being made to commit to international conflicts in whatever terms they are presented to us as
• Instability and mass migration are a win for those whose aspirations demand greater state control and reduction of human freedom
• Why shouldn't we consider everything in this way, given that technology already biases us towards such an outcome, and with ever increased likelihood of its successful deployment

We must give serious thought about the permutation of society and the corresponding human conformations which arise from ever-expanding states which are increasingly restrictive and suspicious of the rights and freedom of individual human beings which are ultimately the only real, conscious and experiencing entities. The only entities capable of compassion and empathy, and the very things which can inspire people. It is a frame of experience which humans aspire for, imitate, embody, and come to be shaped by, and such things are only experienced by individual humans. The only reason the idea of a human experiencing anything can make sense to any person is because of the individual's capacity to imagine experiencing it themselves, and this is always an expression of universal belief in the existence of individual perception - the only perception.

We must think about what happens as an authoritarian state becomes increasingly adapted towards ensuring it can both measure every aspect of human life as well as becoming able to accurately predict the results of such measurements.

Trying to construct the frame of mind possessed by one who not just sits idle as the progression of state absolution takes place in a manner to which they are personally able to witness and discern, without recoiling in horror and denouncing, or better still, who comes to be found making excuses for it, constructing rationales, and creatively imagining the wonders that might be unlocked through this warrants deep suspicion and scrutiny. This is not because they are "in on it", but because their reaction to support a view (and especially if they seem to gravitate towards it).

It may seem facile to limit conception of such a frame of mind to what appears as a false dichotomy (and especially in a book which purports to critique misapplication of the dialectic spiral); simultaneously, this concern shouldn't preclude us from making an effort to conceive of what a frame of mind presents as, as this would even be the natural consequence of attempting to apply a modicum of empathy to the circumstance. Surely, even a most empathetic view should serve to reveal some reasonable description of the behaviour adn set of opinions which accompany such phenomena, so long as such empathy is not ostensible and, as matter of fact, in service of some other need or faculty. With consideration to these factors, we will attempt an enumeration:

• "Perceiving Imminent Authoritarian Collectivism"
• "Conditioned into Inversion"
• "Self Proclamation"
• "Totalizing System Against Normativity"

But what each of these will touch upon are some of the following:

1. Maintaining social coherence
2. Maintaining proximity to social center / state / infrastructure
3. True believer / Divine State / Superstructure
4. Keeping delusion on life support / Food stamps through state narrative
5. Strivers (similar to 2)
6. Vision of completing human or self through state enforced collectivism (honing resources towards solving immortality)

Decolonization

Naïve

• Correcting infractions in society which program us and harm colonized people
• Finding opportunities to explicitly advance the colonized
• Finding opportunities to use sources of knowledge otherwise lost or ignored

Informed

Frantz Fanon

• "National Liberation, national renaissance, the restoration of nationhood to the people, commonwealth: whatever may be the heading used or the new formulas introduced, decolonization is always a violent phenomenon."
• "Decolonization is quite simply the replacing of a species of men with another species of men"
• "Without any period of transition, there is a total, complete and absolute substitution"

Why is this important? Because, unlike something like a vulgar marxist description of communism, which describes a circumstance that is free of oppression, decolonization is only concerned with the process of attaining liberation (actually, marxism is the same way, but the description of bourgeois / proletarian relations are far more abstract, and essentially come to be considered on the basis of wealth and property ownership. With critical colonial theory, the group assignments are far more racial and, unlike critical race theory's white / black dialectic, all land can specifically be problematized on the basis of whether the holy incantations are being uttered over them, with those incantations themselves being a means of reminding the crowd to struggle itself and invite everyone to participate in a struggle to purify the body politic.

Again, with the eternal designations, as though your composition and you socialization are lost in an endless feedback loop of your ever intensifying depravity. The more pure you become insofar as decentering, allyship, self flagellation, humiliation rituals, and representing all identities correctly, the more hidden secret and insidious your corruption, always bound to your flesh.

Lamentation:

" Decolonization and purification you aren't adequate you aren't original you aren't something unique or significant you're just an empty patchwork of superficiality which pretends to be something important and meaningful but you're actually what brings down th emeaning of all the rest of teh world your existence makes it impossible for people to see the real value which would otherwise bring meaning to their own lives you are worse than a parasite you don't even have anything unique and interesting of your own.. you are a wraith of stolen dreams and pathetic mimicry and somehow you have come into undeserved and unearned resources which sustain your abominable existence while repressing and suffocating noble existence which has a real purpose in demonstrating the real reason for existence.. the real use of having a human life.. the hope of a universe which was well worth having come into being how depraved and awful to have to witness your continued existence which is a proverbial spitting in the face of things whose existence actually fulfills the hopes, desires and aspirations tied to it"

#### Additional ##### What is the Cult? It's worth putting into words why I'm referring to these things as "the cult", what ultimately that means, beacuse we can talk about the cults and cult memberships, and we can talk about Marxism, different collectivist systems, fascism, national socialism, we can talk about more modern cults like the Jonestown suicides, but ultimately I'm trying to indicate that collectivism and the disposition and capacity to to pursue it, when formalized, is basically a cult because it always requires membership, and it always requires the upholding of a reality to be constructed, if the collectivist project were the succeed and be the mainstay of how social reality is edified, manager, maintained, constructed, etc. Someone will say "well, you're doing what the Marxists are doing because they're saying that ideology is basically the excuses for us not having a socialist worldview, not wanting to return to the garden", but what I am saying is different. What I'm saying is:

• You only exist as an individual so anything that causes you to believe that there is a collective way of seeing reality which corrects the way in that we are seeing things as an individual, because we are otherwise prone to ideologies -> that's the court, in whatever form it ends up being.

Political Nature

They say that our political nature is the consequence of indoctrination or programming. It's not that, although sure that stuff all happens, and affects everyone, but we can't say that it's the overarching factor. It's actually that we have the capacity for advanced syntax in our descriptions of our perceptions and we have a visual cortex and what that means -> having a visual cortex means that you are generating an image into something intangible. So that ends up having to be something that corresponds symbolically with things. The meaning is the meaning of the symbol, rather than the thing the symbol represents, and that's where the subjectivism can run astray.