logicp
/
logicp_writings


			
				
					
						
						
							1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950515253545556575859606162636465666768697071727374757677787980818283848586878889909192939495969798991001011021031041051061071081091101111121131141151161171181191201211221231241251261271281291301311321331341351361371381391401411421431441451461471481491501511521531541551561571581591601611621631641651661671681691701711721731741751761771781791801811821831841851861871881891901911921931941951961971981992002012022032042052062072082092102112122132142152162172182192202212222232242252262272282292302312322332342352362372382392402412422432442452462472482492502512522532542552562572582592602612622632642652662672682692702712722732742752762772782792802812822832842852862872882892902912922932942952962972982993003013023033043053063073083093103113123133143153163173183193203213223233243253263273283293303313323333343353363373383393403413423433443453463473483493503513523533543553563573583593603613623633643653663673683693703713723733743753763773783793803813823833843853863873883893903913923933943953963973983994004014024034044054064074084094104114124134144154164174184194204214224234244254264274284294304314324334344354364374384394404414424434444454464474484494504514524534544554564574584594604614624634644654664674684694704714724734744754764774784794804814824834844854864874884894904914924934944954964974984995005015025035045055065075085095105115125135145155165175185195205215225235245255265275285295305315325335345355365375385395405415425435445455465475485495505515525535545555565575585595605615625635645655665675685695705715725735745755765775785795805815825835845855865875885895905915925935945955965975985996006016026036046056066076086096106116126136146156166176186196206216226236246256266276286296306316326336346356366376386396406416426436446456466476486496506516526536546556566576586596606616626636646656666676686696706716726736746756766776786796806816826836846856866876886896906916926936946956966976986997007017027037047057067077087097107117127137147157167177187197207217227237247257267277287297307317327337347357367377387397407417427437447457467477487497507517527537547557567577587597607617627637647657667677687697707717727737747757767777787797807817827837847857867877887897907917927937947957967977987998008018028038048058068078088098108118128138148158168178188198208218228238248258268278288298308318328338348358368378388398408418428438448458468478488498508518528538548558568578588598608618628638648658668678688698708718728738748758768778788798808818828838848858868878888898908918928938948958968978988999009019029039049059069079089099109119129139149159169179189199209219229239249259269279289299309319329339349359369379389399409419429439449459469479489499509519529539549559569579589599609619629639649659669679689699709719729739749759769779789799809819829839849859869879889899909919929939949959969979989991000100110021003100410051006100710081009101010111012101310141015101610171018101910201021102210231024102510261027102810291030103110321033103410351036103710381039104010411042104310441045104610471048104910501051105210531054105510561057105810591060106110621063106410651066106710681069107010711072107310741075107610771078107910801081108210831084108510861087108810891090109110921093109410951096109710981099110011011102110311041105110611071108110911101111111211131114111511161117111811191120112111221123112411251126112711281129113011311132113311341135113611371138113911401141114211431144114511461147114811491150115111521153115411551156115711581159116011611162116311641165116611671168116911701171117211731174117511761177117811791180118111821183118411851186118711881189119011911192119311941195119611971198119912001201120212031204120512061207120812091210121112121213121412151216121712181219122012211222122312241225122612271228122912301231123212331234123512361237123812391240124112421243124412451246124712481249125012511252125312541255125612571258125912601261126212631264126512661267126812691270127112721273127412751276127712781279128012811282128312841285128612871288128912901291129212931294129512961297129812991300130113021303130413051306130713081309131013111312131313141315131613171318131913201321132213231324132513261327132813291330133113321333133413351336133713381339134013411342134313441345134613471348134913501351135213531354135513561357135813591360136113621363136413651366136713681369137013711372137313741375137613771378137913801381138213831384138513861387138813891390139113921393139413951396139713981399140014011402140314041405140614071408140914101411141214131414141514161417141814191420142114221423142414251426142714281429143014311432143314341435143614371438143914401441144214431444144514461447144814491450145114521453145414551456145714581459146014611462146314641465146614671468146914701471147214731474147514761477147814791480148114821483148414851486148714881489149014911492149314941495149614971498149915001501150215031504150515061507150815091510151115121513151415151516151715181519152015211522152315241525152615271528152915301531153215331534153515361537153815391540154115421543154415451546154715481549155015511552155315541555155615571558155915601561156215631564156515661567156815691570157115721573157415751576157715781579158015811582158315841585158615871588158915901591159215931594159515961597159815991600160116021603160416051606160716081609161016111612161316141615161616171618161916201621162216231624162516261627162816291630163116321633163416351636163716381639164016411642164316441645164616471648164916501651165216531654165516561657165816591660166116621663166416651666166716681669167016711672167316741675167616771678167916801681168216831684168516861687168816891690169116921693169416951696169716981699170017011702170317041705170617071708170917101711171217131714171517161717171817191720172117221723172417251726172717281729173017311732173317341735173617371738173917401741174217431744174517461747174817491750175117521753175417551756175717581759176017611762176317641765176617671768176917701771177217731774177517761777177817791780178117821783178417851786178717881789179017911792179317941795179617971798179918001801180218031804180518061807180818091810181118121813181418151816181718181819182018211822182318241825182618271828182918301831183218331834183518361837183818391840184118421843184418451846184718481849185018511852185318541855185618571858185918601861186218631864186518661867186818691870187118721873187418751876187718781879188018811882188318841885188618871888188918901891189218931894189518961897189818991900190119021903190419051906190719081909191019111912191319141915191619171918191919201921192219231924192519261927192819291930193119321933193419351936193719381939194019411942194319441945194619471948194919501951195219531954195519561957195819591960196119621963196419651966196719681969197019711972197319741975197619771978197919801981198219831984198519861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038203920402041204220432044204520462047204820492050205120522053205420552056205720582059206020612062206320642065206620672068206920702071207220732074207520762077207820792080208120822083208420852086208720882089209020912092209320942095209620972098209921002101210221032104210521062107210821092110211121122113211421152116211721182119212021212122212321242125212621272128212921302131213221332134213521362137213821392140214121422143214421452146214721482149215021512152215321542155215621572158215921602161216221632164216521662167216821692170217121722173217421752176217721782179218021812182218321842185218621872188218921902191219221932194219521962197219821992200220122022203220422052206220722082209221022112212221322142215221622172218221922202221222222232224222522262227222822292230223122322233223422352236223722382239224022412242224322442245224622472248224922502251225222532254225522562257225822592260226122622263226422652266226722682269227022712272227322742275227622772278227922802281228222832284228522862287228822892290229122922293229422952296229722982299230023012302230323042305230623072308230923102311231223132314231523162317231823192320232123222323232423252326232723282329233023312332233323342335233623372338233923402341234223432344234523462347234823492350235123522353235423552356235723582359236023612362236323642365236623672368236923702371237223732374237523762377237823792380238123822383238423852386238723882389239023912392239323942395239623972398239924002401240224032404240524062407240824092410241124122413241424152416241724182419242024212422242324242425242624272428242924302431243224332434243524362437243824392440244124422443244424452446244724482449245024512452245324542455245624572458245924602461246224632464246524662467246824692470247124722473247424752476247724782479248024812482248324842485248624872488248924902491249224932494249524962497249824992500250125022503250425052506250725082509251025112512251325142515251625172518251925202521252225232524252525262527252825292530253125322533253425352536253725382539254025412542254325442545254625472548254925502551255225532554255525562557255825592560256125622563256425652566256725682569257025712572257325742575257625772578257925802581258225832584258525862587258825892590259125922593259425952596259725982599260026012602260326042605260626072608260926102611261226132614261526162617261826192620262126222623262426252626262726282629263026312632263326342635263626372638263926402641264226432644264526462647264826492650265126522653265426552656265726582659266026612662266326642665266626672668266926702671267226732674267526762677267826792680268126822683268426852686268726882689269026912692269326942695269626972698269927002701270227032704270527062707270827092710271127122713271427152716271727182719272027212722272327242725272627272728272927302731273227332734273527362737273827392740274127422743274427452746274727482749275027512752275327542755275627572758275927602761276227632764276527662767276827692770277127722773277427752776277727782779278027812782278327842785278627872788278927902791279227932794279527962797279827992800280128022803280428052806280728082809281028112812281328142815281628172818281928202821282228232824282528262827282828292830283128322833283428352836283728382839284028412842284328442845284628472848284928502851285228532854285528562857285828592860286128622863286428652866286728682869287028712872287328742875287628772878287928802881288228832884288528862887288828892890289128922893289428952896289728982899290029012902290329042905290629072908290929102911291229132914291529162917291829192920292129222923292429252926292729282929293029312932293329342935293629372938293929402941294229432944294529462947294829492950295129522953295429552956295729582959296029612962296329642965296629672968296929702971297229732974297529762977297829792980298129822983298429852986298729882989299029912992299329942995299629972998299930003001300230033004300530063007300830093010301130123013301430153016301730183019302030213022302330243025302630273028302930303031303230333034303530363037303830393040304130423043304430453046304730483049305030513052305330543055305630573058305930603061306230633064306530663067306830693070307130723073307430753076307730783079308030813082308330843085308630873088308930903091309230933094309530963097309830993100310131023103310431053106310731083109311031113112311331143115311631173118311931203121312231233124312531263127312831293130313131323133313431353136313731383139314031413142314331443145314631473148314931503151315231533154315531563157315831593160316131623163316431653166316731683169317031713172317331743175317631773178317931803181318231833184318531863187318831893190319131923193319431953196319731983199320032013202320332043205320632073208320932103211321232133214321532163217321832193220322132223223322432253226322732283229323032313232323332343235323632373238323932403241324232433244324532463247324832493250325132523253325432553256325732583259326032613262326332643265326632673268326932703271327232733274327532763277327832793280328132823283328432853286328732883289329032913292329332943295329632973298329933003301330233033304330533063307330833093310331133123313331433153316331733183319332033213322332333243325332633273328332933303331333233333334333533363337333833393340334133423343334433453346334733483349335033513352335333543355335633573358335933603361336233633364336533663367336833693370337133723373337433753376337733783379338033813382338333843385338633873388338933903391339233933394339533963397339833993400340134023403340434053406340734083409341034113412341334143415341634173418341934203421342234233424342534263427342834293430343134323433343434353436343734383439344034413442344334443445344634473448344934503451345234533454345534563457345834593460346134623463346434653466346734683469347034713472347334743475347634773478347934803481348234833484348534863487348834893490349134923493349434953496349734983499350035013502350335043505350635073508350935103511351235133514351535163517351835193520352135223523352435253526352735283529353035313532353335343535353635373538353935403541354235433544354535463547354835493550355135523553355435553556355735583559356035613562356335643565356635673568356935703571357235733574357535763577357835793580358135823583
							<!DOCTYPE html>
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="" xml:lang="">
<head>
  <meta charset="utf-8" />
  <meta name="generator" content="pandoc" />
  <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0, user-scalable=yes" />
  <title>Hegelian Frame and Marxism</title>
  <style>
    html {
      color: #1a1a1a;
      background-color: #fdfdfd;
    }
    body {
      margin: 0 auto;
      max-width: 36em;
      padding-left: 50px;
      padding-right: 50px;
      padding-top: 50px;
      padding-bottom: 50px;
      hyphens: auto;
      overflow-wrap: break-word;
      text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;
      font-kerning: normal;
    }
    @media (max-width: 600px) {
      body {
        font-size: 0.9em;
        padding: 12px;
      }
      h1 {
        font-size: 1.8em;
      }
    }
    @media print {
      html {
        background-color: white;
      }
      body {
        background-color: transparent;
        color: black;
        font-size: 12pt;
      }
      p, h2, h3 {
        orphans: 3;
        widows: 3;
      }
      h2, h3, h4 {
        page-break-after: avoid;
      }
    }
    p {
      margin: 1em 0;
    }
    a {
      color: #1a1a1a;
    }
    a:visited {
      color: #1a1a1a;
    }
    img {
      max-width: 100%;
    }
    svg {
      height: auto;
      max-width: 100%;
    }
    h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 {
      margin-top: 1.4em;
    }
    h5, h6 {
      font-size: 1em;
      font-style: italic;
    }
    h6 {
      font-weight: normal;
    }
    ol, ul {
      padding-left: 1.7em;
      margin-top: 1em;
    }
    li > ol, li > ul {
      margin-top: 0;
    }
    blockquote {
      margin: 1em 0 1em 1.7em;
      padding-left: 1em;
      border-left: 2px solid #e6e6e6;
      color: #606060;
    }
    code {
      font-family: Menlo, Monaco, Consolas, 'Lucida Console', monospace;
      font-size: 85%;
      margin: 0;
      hyphens: manual;
    }
    pre {
      margin: 1em 0;
      overflow: auto;
    }
    pre code {
      padding: 0;
      overflow: visible;
      overflow-wrap: normal;
    }
    .sourceCode {
     background-color: transparent;
     overflow: visible;
    }
    hr {
      background-color: #1a1a1a;
      border: none;
      height: 1px;
      margin: 1em 0;
    }
    table {
      margin: 1em 0;
      border-collapse: collapse;
      width: 100%;
      overflow-x: auto;
      display: block;
      font-variant-numeric: lining-nums tabular-nums;
    }
    table caption {
      margin-bottom: 0.75em;
    }
    tbody {
      margin-top: 0.5em;
      border-top: 1px solid #1a1a1a;
      border-bottom: 1px solid #1a1a1a;
    }
    th {
      border-top: 1px solid #1a1a1a;
      padding: 0.25em 0.5em 0.25em 0.5em;
    }
    td {
      padding: 0.125em 0.5em 0.25em 0.5em;
    }
    header {
      margin-bottom: 4em;
      text-align: center;
    }
    #TOC li {
      list-style: none;
    }
    #TOC ul {
      padding-left: 1.3em;
    }
    #TOC > ul {
      padding-left: 0;
    }
    #TOC a:not(:hover) {
      text-decoration: none;
    }
    code{white-space: pre-wrap;}
    span.smallcaps{font-variant: small-caps;}
    div.columns{display: flex; gap: min(4vw, 1.5em);}
    div.column{flex: auto; overflow-x: auto;}
    div.hanging-indent{margin-left: 1.5em; text-indent: -1.5em;}
    /* The extra [class] is a hack that increases specificity enough to
       override a similar rule in reveal.js */
    ul.task-list[class]{list-style: none;}
    ul.task-list li input[type="checkbox"] {
      font-size: inherit;
      width: 0.8em;
      margin: 0 0.8em 0.2em -1.6em;
      vertical-align: middle;
    }
    .display.math{display: block; text-align: center; margin: 0.5rem auto;}
  </style>
  <!--[if lt IE 9]>
    <script src="//cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/html5shiv/3.7.3/html5shiv-printshiv.min.js"></script>
  <![endif]-->
</head>
<body>
<header id="title-block-header">
<h1 class="title">Hegelian Frame and Marxism</h1>
</header>
<h2 id="neo-malthusianism">Neo-Malthusianism</h2>
<p>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</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>We may need to delve into the more classical understanding of
Malthusianism in order to make sense of the world today. In particular,
we will see how manuscripts ( !NOTE: Decide if we need this) of the
early Club of Rome analyses - we can see already, even after knowledge
of the Soviet Atrocities, the interests of the day were still such as to
assume that Marxist Analysis is necessary and that a Marxist objective
should be sought.</p>
<h3 id="malthusian-dialectics-and-transhumanism">Malthusian Dialectics
and Transhumanism</h3>
<p>The Neo-Malthusian influence has left a lot of the older generation
intellectuals with a perspective extending firstly from the assumption
that humans are treacherous to nature, and that nature is treacherous to
us. That the relationships at the base level is one to be described by
disharmonic excesses of pointless activities motivated by the fact that
man’s animalistic urges have not been made consonant with his capacity
for grandiose schemes and a need to imagine himself as something larger
and extending beyond his own life.</p>
<p>Our ability to harness our faculties in conjunction with the
materials provided by nature allows us to imagine that we are, in
effect, controlling nature, or at least refining our ability to reform
and direct nature en route to inevitable mastery, but this simply means
that we are capable of disturbing the balance of nature long before ever
becoming capable of moulding it correctly, which is itself an ambition
which is likely to never reach fruition. In the short term, we mitigate
the immediate danger of nature to the long term detriment of the natural
world as a whole.</p>
<p>There is perhaps a break in the representation of Neo-Malthusian
influence in modern times, particularly among the older generation, but
even as it extends into today’s youth, in that the influence of
Neo-Malthusianism appears to go off in two different directions.</p>
<p>There is a Neo-Malthusian influence which remains among much of the
older generation, and which even influences the younger generation
(though it may present in a few different ways that are more directed
towards social activism and transhumanistic desires) and I’m trying to
consolidate two schools of thought which appear to have bifurcated from
that domain of thought (the Neo-Malthusianism).</p>
<ol type="1">
<li><p>A desire to master technology and nature such as to bring harmony
between the existence of man and the natural world. This may include a
transhumanistic development of human cognition and biology such as to
allow for the potential to live a full life which affords humans
limitless experience without incurring the pitfalls of resource
depletion and mishandling, environmental degradation and the
perpetuation of increasingly tumultuous climatic cycles which threaten
to make existence on this planet unsustainable for human beings (and
perhaps all life as a whole).</p></li>
<li><p>A desire to reduce all human activity and energy utilization to a
net-zero or even absolute-zero equation wherein there is a perfect
displacement of energy and transformation of matter such as to allow for
the existence of some humans in a manner which does not disturb the
natural world. This would allow perfectly equilibrated systems to
perpetuate themselves and thus reinforce nature’s propensity towards a
robust and ever-lasting expression of life.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Some might refer to these two incarnations of Malthusian thought as
being one which still contains a modicum of techno-optimism, which might
be referred to as Neo-Malthusian Techno-Optimism, and that this modern
articulation of Malthusian influence is more compatible with the
transhumanistic aspirations of both technocratic interests as well as
the tech-infused yearnings of young, pop-culture infused entertainment
seeking individuals who hope for all the life-enhancing benefits and
experience-expanding affordances of technology without early,
disciplined investment in their physical well-being, while the other
would be characterized by a more Eco-minimalist manifestation of
Malthus-inspired thinking which is more prevalent among the older
generation.</p>
<p>For the younger, more transhumanistically inclined expression of
modern Neo-Malthusianism, we can consider some of the following sources:
- <a
href="https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/an-eco-social-perspective-on-transhumanism">An
Eco-Social Perspective on Transhumanism</a> - <a
href="http://viznut.fi/texts-en/transhumanism_degrowth.html">Transhumanism
Degrowth</a> - <a
href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318466857_The_Future_of_Innovation_Hyper_Innovation_Slow_Innovation_and_No_Innovation">The
Future of Innovation</a> - <a
href="https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-02-26/beyond-capitalist-realism-the-politics-energetics-and-aesthetics-of-degrowth">Beyond
Capitalist Realism</a></p>
<p>Many would contend that it’s absurd to consider that Malthusianism
would lead to something as Transhumanism, because the thinkers and
authors of works derived from institutions such as the Club of Rome, who
published “The Limits To Growth”, contended that technological expansion
was not a possible means of overcoming the impending loss of resources.
But, of course, such thinkers would need to consolidate the fact of
their failed predictions, particularly stringent ones which claimed
quite outrightly that we wouldn’t have certain resources, such as
copper, by a time that is now long behind us.</p>
<p>To such critics, however, I would respond in communicating that
Malthusianism is predicated on a necessarily collectivist world view
which deals with a historicist conception of the world and compels an
expectation of an eschatological endpoint which, according to their
worst predictions, serves as some form of judgment for the ills of
mankind. Any sort of collectivist understanding of the world requires a
shared endpoint and a description of reality based on a state of world
in a process of becoming, and that this inescapably means a dialectical
way of thinking about the world.</p>
<p>When thinking dialectically, we are always in a spiraling course of
re-imagining the terms of the world as concepts that are never
fully-formed but that are always developing against their contradictions
into syntheses which represent the next stage of understanding in the
course of human history. As such, we can turn to the use of the
dialectic in supposing the manner of thinking which allows the human
mind to aspire towards Malthusian principles while desiring the benefits
of technology so long as they are in line with a future endpoint of
liberated humanity.</p>
<ol type="1">
<li>The dialectic always progresses</li>
<li>Programs are implemented by the state (because the state represents
class consciousness in its most historically correct form)</li>
<li>Excuse will be made similarly to noting that standard of living
changes in negative correlation to birth rate</li>
<li>A truly scientific society will account for all resource use and
thus need to be both developing transhumanistic tech while being
sustainable</li>
<li>Most transhumanist tech is developed on the basis of treatments
which are intended for the masses in a dialogue which includes
consideration to overpopulation, such as vaccines</li>
</ol>
<p>!TODO: Do we need the connection between Malthusianism informing the
definition of Communism? These considerations can inform our categorical
definition of Communism, which is just a formal artifact for the logical
conclusion of collectivist thinking and which is bound by imminence in
that it is an object which relates to every man and, thus, is
ontologically consistent with man as a process of engaging in his
self-definition. It is not man himself and not necessarily the aggregate
of him, nor his geist. It is the object relating all then and serving in
such a capacity that, upon its imminent attainment, marks the phase
whereupon evidence of man’s nature finally manifests by virtue of the
conditions which were now made palatable by man’s own hand, such as to
make him “man in himself”.</p>
<p>Its definition is then the promise that man can and, by virtue of the
logical extension of such an assumption, should bring about the moment
of his true reality. It is the binding of all men to this imminence but
it also requires one last contextual element in order to make this
understanding complete.</p>
<ul>
<li>A theory of how man proceeds to Communism</li>
</ul>
<p>How does this proceed? Through conflict and struggle</p>
<p>!TODO: Should this “struggle” content be placed here in a section
about Professionals? Should it be migrated, or can its essence be
extracted and placed elsewhere in a more concise format?</p>
<h2 id="still-struggle">Still Struggle</h2>
<p>Whether old or new, we always see the descriptions of class struggle,
regardless of whether one believes the word class to be archaic. It is
always the elucidating of dialectical tension driving history as
teleological foundation, that this is occurring through critique of
world and society, and always within a short handful of hops of Marx
himself, neo-Marxists and even newer contemporaries who might denounce
him while still maintaining what exhibits a Hegelian view of reality. A
dialectic examining contradiction and yielding tension. Even if many do
it, not through a conscious and intentionally-advocated metaphysic, but
simply as intuition delivered through cultural critique and moralization
on the juxtaposition of humans grouped and classified on their
appearance, reproductive strategy, association, sexual preoccupation, or
any other dimension of social division and oppression.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“… capitalist society reality is – immediately – the same for both
the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, remains unaltered. But we may now
add that this same reality employs the motor of class interests to keep
the bourgeoisie imprisoned within this immediacy while forcing the
proletariat to go beyond it.” - Gyorg Lukács (History and Class
Consciousness)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>“The Communist Party is an autonomous form of proletarian class
consciousness serving the interests of the revolution.” - Gyorg Lukács
(History and Class Consciousness)</p>
</blockquote>
<h2 id="remark">Remark</h2>
<p>I want to be very clear that I’m not contributing these observations
and opinions simply because I think that they offer an easy critique of
some vulnerable aspect of institutions, the state, a cultural domain, or
any recognizable arena of discourse.</p>
<p>TODO: this is the right content, but it needs to be refactored The
referenced characteristics in critiques of phenomena which I describe as
being either collectivist cult manifestations or conducive to
collectivist social transformation are not ephemeral, cultural or that
which has occurred through happenstance. We are identifying the base;
the fundamental aspect and mechanism by which its employers and
proponents believe it functions and we should be able to see that it’s
not just necessarily the case that they are progressed or implemented as
per a formal understanding (though there is certainly no limit to that),
but that it is implicit as it is taken up by those who adopt the
language and syntax and utilize it in the context through which it is
presented.</p>
<p>The notion being alluded to is that of dialectics as they’ve been
provided, not through the formulators (Greeks, Romans), and their
predecessors and anteceding thinkers, but the German idealists, and
those who profoundly influenced them, who have massaged, processed and
supposedly evolved the method, as well as those who contributed to its
use in a way which brought it to having been framed as a feature of
enlightenment thought, such as Rousseau, and now especially as its usage
in popular culture and, sadly, academic institutions including those
pertaining to the sciences, at least to the extent that activism has
entered such institutions which is, in all veracity, almost all of
them.</p>
<p>Just as, with modern usage of the dialectic through aspiration to
idealism leaves all terms ambiguous, we can see how thinkers like
Rousseau are understood to be enlightenment thinkers for certain
characteristics which ultimately contradict the association. That is to
say, Rousseau is thought of as being an enlightenment thinker, while
putting forward ideas that are clearly anti-enlightenment and skeptical
of it. Kant is much the same way, having contributed much to modern
dialectic, both as a means of understanding but also as a tool for
change, in a manner which makes him especially relevant. I should add,
however, that this isn’t to say that Kant’s use of or description as to
the means of making use of the dialectic was as a tool for change. Quite
the contrary, for him its use was purely analytical, but as much as his
work is potent and viable in the realm of the enlightenment and the
streams of thought which extend from it, there’s good reason to consider
that his efforts and contributions stand in contrast to the
enlightenment and, consequently, empower those who wished to leverage
his tools in a direction unbecoming of the enlightenment:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.” - Immanuel
Kant (Critique of Pure Reason)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Though it seems perfectly valid and reasonable to choose to deepen
one’s understanding of any given concept or cognizable artifact, that
is, through universal application of deep thought, using comparison of
terms as it they can be related in an individual’s thinking, and by
having reflected sufficiently to perhaps lead a represented
understanding to the point of communicable thought. Classically, when
considering the use of dialectics, the weight of its impact through man
and society is only to be found in the degree to which one is affected
by the process, and the degree to which impact can be made through
effective rhetoric.</p>
<p>For the Hegelian and supposedly post-Hegelian, the tension moves
beyond mere intellectual pursuit, even if the work itself can be thought
of as being one. They are not simply driven by a desire for intellectual
prowess or intellectual dominance, but through an insistence on
metaphysical dominance. This is the difference which allows for one to
continue their forward charge, even after a loss of confidence in the
veracity of their position in the traditional sense. The veracity of the
current understanding of the world can always be superseded with the
veracity of one’s commitment to an as-of-yet unrealized point of
termination - if it has not yet come to be, we’ll always be en route
towards its coming to be.</p>
<p>For dialectical purist, believing in the fundamental description of
reality through a post-Hegelian thinker, such as Marx or Lukács, they
come to be active under the assumption of a world and reality which are
fundamentally idealist and that those things which are to pass will be
doing so as an analog of forms to coming to pass as ideal forms as
though it would be found in a Neo-Platonic elucidation. More concerning
than the mysticism-infused behaviour, however, is that the dialectical
mode of thought can take a more implicit form.</p>
<p>That is because this tendency towards idealism isn’t an artificial
programming yielding from one’s having encountered the ideas of Plato or
Hegel, even if they give such ideas a seemingly robust structure. On the
contrary, the disposition of idealism is a very human one which begins
in every human’s early phase of life. It’s a tendency which causes us to
admire idealism, even in our antagonizers, and even at the very moment
of conflict.</p>
<h1 id="perceptual-frame">Perceptual Frame</h1>
<p>The perceptual frame is the crux of what is to be understood in
adopting what I believe to be the correct mode of analysis to understand
human behaviour, beliefs about collective social dynamics, and
understanding the interplay between reason and faith. Insofar as humans
are able to deliberate, there is no perception outside the perceptual
frame of a conscious human mind and this is the constant that we should
expect as being universal and legitimate, regardless of suspected
ideological contamination.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is
this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he
erects it in reality. The perceptual frame is the first phenomenon, as
phenomenon in itself (to borrow some Hegelian terminology) that we each
experience, and it is not an aspect of our experience from which we ever
depart, lest we depart from experience altogether.” - Karl Marx (Das
Kapital)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We begin with something approximating an idealist view, not in the
sense of having some advanced or fully-formed opinion as to how all
things should be, but in the sense that we can reasonably agree that the
entirety of what can be scientifically observed as the perception,
interpretation and sustainment of the sense apparatus of a human person
is tantamount to incurring all of what is described as human mind, human
consciousness and, especially, something which extends from a human
having thoughts.</p>
<p>This isn’t an argument as to whether a human has thoughts to the
exclusion of other animals, but that we are examining the experience of
having a human body, what it might be disposed to perceiving of that
experience, and how that should inform our opinions about what it means
for a human to proclaim, define or association with some referenceable
manner of thought, such as Idealism, and that this occurs either in a
process of thought which is only available to humans or which is
distinctly human</p>
<p>Even if it were the case that their experience was absent the sense
apparatus, to any degree, some might call it a perception less-tainted
and others might say it lacks relevance insofar as the experience lacks
environmental context, but then if there were any content at all, it
would be as a realm of ideas, especially as can be imagined as an
experiment in mind, for it is easy enough to see that if truly an
experience could be had which was completely devoid of content, then it
would be an oblivious experience and still maintaining a form which is
fundamentally idealist, save for an instance where no thought occurs
whatsoever.</p>
<p>If at the base of development we are already at a mode of perception
which may plausibly be perceiving such to assume that one’s own frame of
perception is the only one in existence, or the only type of perception
that may be experienced but that somehow could translate into multiple
perceptions, such as multiple instances of the same perception, or
otherwise as a perception whose outlook from the subject (perceiver)
looks as an imagined, cultish formation insisting on what is perceived,
or how and in what way or per what quantities perception could take
place, and that in isolation it would be the only meaningful perception,
then still these observations concerning the natural tendencies of human
perception would still hold. Far less likely would it be to envision a
cult which believes an isolated perception with no sensory input as
being void of thought or a state of mind as being one of a vegetative
state, except as a final limit.</p>
<p>!WARNING: That last paragraph was rough.</p>
<p>The main point is that we need to learn to understand and even intuit
that: - Others likely have a perception, too - There is at minimum an
environment which appears to exist independent of one’s consciousness or
will</p>
<h1 id="hegelian-frame-and-marxism">Hegelian Frame and Marxism</h1>
<p>Contrary to the wholly individualistic perceptual frame is the
Hegelian frame. It refers to one’s perception when imagining collective
consciousness. This could be as speculating or a sense of belief about
an intuition for an intelligible phenomenon of collective consciousness,
as extant or imminent event, and whether relating to all things
ontologically or as consolidation of a conscious faculty as a shared
quality. There are many standards by which to describe such a
perception, and it is an evergreen challenge of human existence to wade
through them and ground ourselves, but it is perhaps the Hegelian
flavour of collectivist thinking which best serves our explication of
the difference of these frames, particularly as it’s deeply embedded in
modern civilization. It must be mentioned that this manner of perceiving
is necessarily dialectical.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Dialectics is the theory of knowledge of (Hegel and ) Marxism. This
is the aspect of the matter (it is not an aspect, but the essence of the
matter)”. - Lenin (Lenin’s Collected Works)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>“The state is the actuality of the ethical Idea. It is ethical mind
qua the substantial will manifest and revealed to itself, knowing and
thinking itself, accomplishing what it knows and in so far as it knows
it.” - Georg Willhelm Friedrich Hegel (Philosophy of Right)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>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. But first, a PSA.</p>
<h2 id="digression-unconstrained-analytics">Digression (Unconstrained
Analytics)</h2>
<p>It bears mentioning that American Lawyer, Intelligence Analyst and
founder of Unconstrained Analytics would advise us that we needn’t wade
into the flavours and interpretations of Hegel’s dialectic all too much,
lest we find ourselves living in it and mystified by it. The important
point is to recognize the worldview is itself dialectical and that as a
matter of teleological implication it yields implements to ascribe
purpose subjectively. It is through this mechanism that cult-like
behaviour is facilitated in human beings.</p>
<h2 id="hegelian-impendence">Hegelian Impendence</h2>
<p>Whereas classically, and as an intellectual pursuit, dialectics
consists of examining what is not understood by examining what
contradictions can be found, or what oppositional terms and concepts can
be set in conflict with one another (generally as per their relationship
to something already cognizable), and using the tension brought out
through the dualistic analysis of the corresponding items to invigorate
the drive towards one’s better understanding, Hegel’s is use the
dialectic as driven through a conception of history 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 - Historical movement heads towards resolution -
Semantically: utilizing negation against an abstract understanding in
order to yield something substantive</p>
<p>Some would call this an imminentization or that something is
eschatological, which is to say: all things occur in the context of an
endpoint. By endpoint, we mean an end to a period of history. The aim is
for the occurrences to be considered in their most reasonable
representation, which is to say reasonable in the sense of its relevance
in the context of it having existed with all things, thus giving rise to
consider that the most complete understanding of anything is in the
context of everything. Some might also call this being scientific, or
applying a scientific analysis, which is not the same thing as
application of scientific method.</p>
<p>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 improved capacity
to grapple with “X”. This could be improvement through achieving a
particular level of competence, through mastering actions and attaining
insights, but it might simply be an improvement through one’s having
made the subject temporally relevant.</p>
<p>But that is not blind faith just as it isn’t blind faith to consider
that you’re going to move closer to the correct answer of a math problem
if you actually begin working it out.</p>
<p>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 came to be because of true human nature extending the true
longing desire of all mankind. As such, if what is desired is not yet
manifest, its insistence becomes morally obligatory.</p>
<p>The eschatological change is one of human conception, be understood
as recognition made by all of humanity yielding change at the structural
level of Being. For Marx, this comes to be the being of the species and
is intrinsic to reality.</p>
<p>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 occurring through sublation. In his
idealist formulation, all exist as aspects of a totality synonymous
divinity.</p>
<h3 id="final-events-in-historical-periods">Final Events in Historical
Periods</h3>
<p>There is a difference between the idea of an endpoint and its being
the final event of history, which sounds as mystical, or even
cataclysmic, cosmological event. It’s the final occurrence of all that
could be.</p>
<p>With Hegel, his idea of an eschatological endpoint, though not the
term by which he refers to it, was that of a final completion of the
process of existence where the fact that existence had occurred was
because of a deviation from from a completed state so perfect that it
may be tantamount to non-existence. The deviation from state of
perfection was the creation of existence whose instantiation implies
that its unfolding would logically lead back toward the perfect state
and that, at least according to the semantics of Hegel’s philosophy,
would be complete when the absolute state of existence will negate
itself in a final determination whereby no more progress can be made in
the dimension of existence beyond the fact of its perfect completion
having no more perfect state possible except as a final resolving of the
redundancy of itself as being something which maintains a distinction.
That last removal of the distinction of its existence is the only step
which is left to occur.</p>
<p>With Marx, he words himself on the topic of history by only
commenting on history as it pertains to the history of man, so whether
he considers that to be a subset of all of history, or whether he
considers that question to be irrelevant is something we can never know,
but at the very least it is the only history that he considers in his
explications of a philosophy about the liberation and creation of man
predicated on the dialectic as a historical process. All modern
incarnations of dialectic describe a historical process of unfolding
tension as transformation of world conditions.</p>
<p>Defenders of dialectic claim it avoids mysticism by stating the
dialectical process of history is not itself the entirety of history
which also includes a greater overarching history of universe, yet will
contend that history is only relevant for man and that transformation of
reality occurs through the dialectical process. They will also claim
that the process contains all qualitative aspects of human existence and
will have described its own unfolding by the completion of the current
stage of human history. These presumptions make it irrelevant whether or
not the period described by the dialectical process is itself the
entirety of history. The fact of the matter is the idealist description
of dialectical history is a metaphysical faith and this cannot be
ignored.</p>
<h3 id="remark-on-hegelian-framing">Remark on Hegelian Framing</h3>
<p>We understand Hegel as being an idealist, and many of us can look
back on our past experiences and recognize relationships with people
whom we’d like to allege are “idealists”. But are there idealists? Can
someone ever be so sure that they themselves adhere to the ideal of
their supposed idealism? Can they be an idealist without adhering to the
ideals? Are they certain that they are idealist in their manner of
thought or have they simply identified the implements of idealism?</p>
<p>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 claim to be
idealists, we cannot read minds. What we perceive as being our
rationalized thought process might be better understood as a balancing
of our cognitive faculties with our psycho-emotive state, and even those
things cannot be well-demarcated from one another.</p>
<p>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 or ultimate context. We can observe it and understand things
about it and make inferences or contemplate shapes, feelings, patterns
or concepts invoked by it.</p>
<p>Even if we are creating a geometric model or represented image as per
our nervous system engaging with conception of the object through the
activity of our visual cortex, that image is not the thing in question
and, though by itself, it makes it an idea in its own rite, it’s not
necessarily the idea or the representation of the thing one might
assumes it’s purported to be, or even simply 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.</p>
<h4 id="friendships-and-authoritarianism">Friendships and
Authoritarianism</h4>
<p><em>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
!!</em></p>
<p>The phenomenon of humans failing to see what’s right in front of
them, or at least failing to communicate their acknowledgment of the
reality they should reasonably be expected to understand, is a
frustrating factor of the human condition, particularly for social
relations. Of course, to believe that only others are subject to this
and not oneself is likely an instantiation of it, but nevertheless I’ll
indulge myself in examining what this means in the context of
authoritarianism.</p>
<p>Though the phenomenon is something intuitively participated in, and
thus perhaps avoided to some degree which doesn’t make it explicitly
focused upon, I found that as I grew older I began to feel more
surprised surprised that those close to me, who had often demonstrated a
great capacity for reasoning with rigorous logic and an open mind and
who were dependable in dynamic situations where semantically accurate
negotiation cannot be executed transparently, seemed to easily come to
the point of pretending to be oblivious about that which they should
likely be aware of. This seemed to prevent them from applying those
skills of consistency and rigor. Even in scientific matters, they would
suspend their capacity to critique the logic or science behind a
declaration when it was related to a social matter, political
proclamation, or adherence to an ideal.</p>
<p>These were people included some that I’d known for my entire life,
and were people with whom I’d spent great lengths of time with in very
private settings, deliberating what we seemed to agree on as the limits
of knowledge, the means of pushing the boundaries of thought and
conception, and finding the inspiration to empower our thinking through
our lust for life and exploration. We drove curiosity and provoked great
aspirations in one another, and could enjoy doing so without being
hindered by ego or neurotic extravagances, at least when the setting
permitted (and isn’t that the kicker).</p>
<p>But slowly and surely, for reasons I speculate about, and possibly
even just because of the manner in which I myself was changing through
life, I found that, if were confronted with a matter bearing great
social significance, the reliability of clear definitions and sensible
ordering of contextual analyses seemed to be at risk of being
sacrificed.</p>
<p>This was evident when coming across issues that had to do with
conceiving of humans as something universal with equal potential for
understanding and achievement, and its replacement with assuming people
have their perception poisoned by hegemony to the point where volatile
deconstructive approaches must be taken, such as championing events
which agitate people differently according to class affiliation, with
these classes being informed by skin colour, ethnicity, sex, and other
categories of identity which, in my opinion, are fundamentally imagined
but also include ones whose qualitative distinction is one of
imagination (that is to say, to imagine group identity is something
altogether imaginary to begin with and to imagine a group identity
predicated on gender as the construction of an identity category
predicated on gender, which is an imagined attribute (even in the case
that one believes gender itself is coherent, as its basis as something
subjective and even fluid necessitates awareness to the subjective
perceptions of other humans, thus requiring some degree of faith in
acknowledging their gender pronouncements as something legitimate).</p>
<p>I furthermore saw this when it came to issues of climate and the
environment. When a serious effort was made to understand environmental
degradation or contamination from a low-level analysis, it’s not taken
seriously as it’s not being initiated under an assumption of seeking to
find evidence which reinforces the alleged consensus already being
championed at a high level through entities that are highly political
and highly embedded in governance. This coincides perfectly with the
aversion to avoid any sort of debate about the premises that such
initiatives and projects build upon, with guidance always being that the
emphasis should be placed on how to proliferate the political message,
harness industry support and coordinate academic institutions towards
maximizing social acceptance and the redirection of infrastructure to
the goals of those initiatives.</p>
<p>One last aspect of these surprises is perhaps the least surprising,
which is the orientation toward and acceptance of authoritarianism as
not only the logical conclusion or necessary evil of our circumstances,
but as something which is being revealed as the basic element of social
organization. That social environments cannot be organized except
through the application of authoritarianism as a principle and its
associated procedures. This has also become an issue for those who
pronounce themselves as “right-leaning”, but was a feature of the
“left-claiming” who, in my opinion, are differentiated politically
through cultural circumstance, whereas they share a personal disposition
with the more traditionally-minded conservative authoritarians.</p>
<h4 id="endpoint-framing">Endpoint Framing</h4>
<p>Another aspect essential to this view which I’ve not yet mentioned is
that of double negation. This conception of a future endpoint is
essentially one of accepting a certain degree of mystification in the
adoption of the process of absolution under an overarching expectation
that the mystification will be resolved once the process has ended. Once
an endpoint is expected which justifies the imperfections of the
present, it is seen as the inevitable release from consequences
associated with the period preceding it.</p>
<p>It is through this expectation that one is not simply in the
circumstance of making a claim without positing something concrete, such
as providing the solution or tracing the logical conclusion, but is
holding onto a belief the substance of which they’ve not themselves even
witnessed. The endpoint is inevitable, having been designated as such
through stating it as the precondition for accepting this world and
promising that it will account for a complete set of aspects of the
world of man. It is the wholeness which implies the endpoint; the
promise of totality defines the endpoint.</p>
<p>For Hegel, it is the manner by which abstraction holds reference to
the actual and through advancing forms toward their 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.</p>
<h2 id="collective">Collective</h2>
<p>How are we to understand the very concept and premise of a
collective? Some may put forward that simply having a collective is
itself a moral good by default and improvement on the status quo. It is
claimed that it acknowledges the basic reality that we humans are
numerous and that life is improved for each and every one of us when we
work together and help one another. It is alleged that some are
corrupted with hate and ideology, leading to some being wrongfully typed
as “other”. Indeed, there exist multiple entities, but of what type? Is
it all just one type, and is the notion of a collective then simply a
way of reminding everyone that there is no “other”? Or, could we say
that the types which exist indicate the same number of collectives? Or
might the number of types be equivalent to those declared within the
collective and those who reject such declarations?</p>
<p>Let’s start with a charitable offering to purveyors and advocates of
collectivism in saying that there are 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.</p>
<p>What, then, is the purpose of humans who exist in a world where there
is some ethical value in the collective? Is it that there are different
primary purposes for humans to be in different collectives such that we
could say that it’s somehow arbitrary? Something that, on the balance of
it all, ends up looking random and necessitates further questioning in
order to know what purpose is being erected or focused upon? Is it just
generally implementing the concept of coordination? For the sake of
coordination itself? Well, coordination implies a shared purpose, so
we’re left still wondering what the purpose is, in all cases. One might
say that it is the need to have a specification for a more complete
form, and that the collective suggests that those who come into the fold
are cognizant or illuminated to the need for such a specification. To
have a specification of the world and what exists in it. To know that
all who exist are specified within the collective as a means to reach
completion of existence and the purpose of existence itself.</p>
<p>Could we say that the collective exists to serve some other entity?
Well, even in enumerating an entity which exists supposedly outside of
the collective itself, we still must assert that the collective has a
purpose bound to its components, so we’re still not able to clearly
state the purpose is externalized. But, actually, here’s where things
get interesting.</p>
<p>Either that entity is the collective itself, in which case we ask:
why does that entity exists, and what is its purpose? I suggest that
it’s purpose is as a promise of a completed collective as expectation of
its fulfillment becomes man’s attainment of purpose.</p>
<p>Can this entity be the state? Let’s say that the purpose of the
collective is to serve the state. But what is the state? It is not
alive, though an idealist might say otherwise. Is it the manifested
instance of a matrix of ideals? It comes back to human existence and its
purpose. If the state exists as a means of orienting man, then the state
is the excuse for the collective and then the question is why 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.</p>
<p>The collectivist may refute and claim a difference between a
communist and democratic socialist conception of an ideal as liberation
of mankind through collective alignment to negate the oppression of the
proletariat, as elimination of disparate classes. This would mean a
state of affairs whereby no distinction exists that would permit
conceptualization of the classes; there would not be a difference
between any two men, and this would ultimately happen at an
international or universal level. What would the response to such a
criticism be?</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>When juxtaposing a nationalistic collectivist state against one
aspiring to internationalism, I take the position that the premise of
Fascism which, just as Communism, would necessitate the same endpoint,
regardless of the theoretical description of its endpoint.</p>
<p>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 in service of and in alignment with as a
collective, to its own discrete form to the exclusion of others?</p>
<p>If there are other states, then one would logically proceed to
supposing that the other states limit the glory and absolution of our
fascist state. Any other state is the fodder by which the fascist state
can achieve further greatness. 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?</p>
<p>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, and thus it would necessarily
need to enter into conflict.</p>
<p>The criticism of this would be to say that the state would then turn
its attention inward as conflict could occur from the inside, and this
is obviously something that we always see as a regime with a utopian
collectivist philosophy always subjects its own people to massive
atrocities.</p>
<p>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
a point that all men are of one mind or there is only one man.</p>
<p>So while there may be some aesthetic difference in the theory, we are
heading to the same endpoint and always because it’s the purpose of man
to move through conflict until the distinctions are eliminated.</p>
<h2 id="dialogue-on-collective">Dialogue on Collective</h2>
<p><em>Here is a dialogue arguing the point that regardless of your
flavour of collectivism you end up with an authoritarian regime and
totalitarianism as collectivism perpetuates delusion which necessitates
the gnostic mind that seeks absolution.</em></p>
<hr />
<p>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.”</p>
<p>Interlocutor: “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.”</p>
<p>Eman: “Marxist theory requires a dictatorship of the proletariat,
which in practice is equivalent to the fascist state.”</p>
<p>Interlocutor: “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.”</p>
<p>Eman: “The state is necessary as long as conflict exists between men,
which reveals itself as contradiction and thus disparate class.</p>
<p>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 will always be a more severe permutation of these as history moves
toward my described requirement.”</p>
<p>Interlocutor: “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.’</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Until such time, both will seek to maintain control over society
indefinitely through authoritarian means.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.”</p>
<hr />
<p>We will proceed to examine some formulations of Hegelian thought that
we are familiar with today.</p>
<h2 id="remark-1">Remark</h2>
<p>Before examining those subsets of Hegelian thought, let’s highlight
that the Hegelian view of events is more insidious in its invitation to
commitment than the “pop culture” representations of Hegel. “Problem,
Reaction, Solution” sounds like an intelligent methodology with some
susceptibility to political manipulation and something which can be
applied by anyone through planning and political responsiveness. It can
be deemed completely normal on the basis that there’s necessarily a
noticeable difference between a planned provocation executed through
conspiracy and some sensible degree of preparedness already expected by
a good professional in any given domain.</p>
<p>In actuality, it is a more mystical incarnation of dialectic not
specifically catered toward improving understanding of what is and may
just as well function to reduce understanding in the short term. The
understanding is only conceptually valid at the end of the process, thus
excusing any immediate blurring through dialogue. What dialectics is
understood to provide is the methodology for 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 to an endpoint of resolved tension. To be a bit
pedantic, though, it should be said that inducing the conflict reveals
the tension of the dialectic, and that dialectical tension would have
already been present, but that a man of action can help catalyze the
process of the world’s logic working itself out, which would contribute
to the advancement of world history towards the achievement of the world
spirit, or Weltgeist.</p>
<p>For Hegel, the state of ideal or final stage before true realization
of ideal, is where all things that were are revealed to be the same
thing. Their disparate forms and articulations were all part of the
process of working out that they were all in fact the same thing.</p>
<h2 id="queer-liberation">Queer Liberation</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>“…dialectical thinking, in which each thing is what it is only by
becoming what it is not.” - Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno
(Dialectic of Enlightenment)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>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. In speculating of its negative, however, we discover
contradictions. As a result, the “it” in question transforms through
negation into its other; it becomes its negative as all things do.</p>
<p>For the Queer cult, there is continuous application of dialectical
tension through a process of negation under an implicit expectation that
conflict will eventually be resolved allowing for the true, natural and
unforced form and behaviour to become possible.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<h3 id="dimensions-of-concern">Dimensions of Concern</h3>
<p>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 a
concept of queer learned through the following: - Pop
culture/movies/music/TV - Hobbies (relates to culture but often has
queer structural implementations) - Workplace - Activism</p>
<h4 id="pop">Pop</h4>
<p>Most people encounter it through pop culture, with literature
preceding in describing the strange and unusual as queer. A common first
run-in with queer has been through film and television programs, <a
href="https://glaad.org/publications/accelerating-acceptance-2023/">as
has been documented</a>, 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.</p>
<p>If queer nomenclature is present in your hobby, by virtue of
location, organization, activity partner, or even the documentation 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.</p>
<p>If queer praxis has been made to be required through a particular
domain, then the primary objective has been to transform the use of
language to make it conform to a queer worldview. This means that the
participants needn’t necessarily yet understand what it means for
someone to be queer, or what queering as a verb or action happens to be.
Instead, they are helping to create an environment where queer activists
have control over the use and meaning or at least structurally and
institutionally recognized definitions) of all language, especially
structurally and through compelling institutions to recognize
definitions, under an assumption of queer mythos.</p>
<p>It is an accessible, soft initiation to queer conformity and consent
to social enforcement infrastructure without really grokking its
premised theory of knowledge which supersedes any other.</p>
<h5 id="pop-spectrum">Pop Spectrum</h5>
<p>The “pop culture queer vibe” was examined in video by Peter
Boghossian. It was pointed out, in this spectrum street epistemology
video featuring Peter Boghossian, Charles Love, <trans person> and
<female lawyer>, that straight people make up the majority of Pride
Event attendees, and this appears a modern articulation of pop culture.
Whereas previously such persons had likely been introduced to the term
as previously described through TV and film, and perhaps through pop
music stars, they now take part in celebration of queer rituals for
belonging, in what presents to many as a pagan ceremony to conjure
transformation. “It is an identity without an essence” <a
href="https://youtu.be/KZhiUv7COCw?si=sLYVEvyYBmv9kO1V">The Spectrum
Street Epistemology video in question</a>.</p>
<p>They posited some reasons as to why this is the case, but the premise
of the discourse was made abundantly clear through the first question
they used to examine different viewpoints and arguments: <em>Do straight
white people attend Pride parades because Straight White Pride is
considered unacceptable and forbidden?</em></p>
<p>Well, the answers were a bit divided, but I think almost all of them
failed to make sure that they understood the question, or at least
failed to clarify the premises such as to make the discourse relevant
and fruitful to unpacking related issues and fleshing out people’s
viewpoints. Some responded yes and elaborated that, in another world
where the popular cool and hip thing to do is attend White Pride and
promote a racially white belonging, they would be taking part in it,
whereas here they’re doing something analogous to that which signals
their having situated themselves in a centralized position that is
protected and supported by the prevailing central forces of society, and
are furthermore celebrating their superiority of possessing an evolved
mind with the correct sensibility, having been sexually enlightened, and
sporting a moral sensibility that is somehow a virtuous achievement on
their part and that of their “kind”.</p>
<p>There is a form of folk nationalist colonization at play altogether
different from the rough era of immigrants making their way into America
that pursued establishment not of a culture that had to distinguish
itself by race in a society that didn’t value it, but with an approach
to survival and expansion of basic capacities necessary to support life
and flourishing.</p>
<p>Now, things are different, and we’re more likely to see the sort of
“White Pride” racial celebration that is positioning itself in the same
way as a CRT-derived race celebration, or a Queer Theory-derived sex and
gender identity celebration.</p>
<p>It signals allegiance to a collective that bears significance in
terms of a power hierarchy which insists on a particular ordering of
world, society and, in the case of queer, reality itself. Those who do
not demonstrate an allegiance to it as a collective and posited destiny
are not just excluded from the event, but from society which comes in
the form first of polite society. Given that this imposes a weight of
moral implication predicated on rhetoric constructed through terms of
life and genocide, the point is made that those contrary to the goals of
“justice” and “fairness” have not evolved with humanity, and are thus
somehow something altogether less human, sub human, or not human.</p>
<p>But what is Queer? And are those incongruent to a queer worldview not
evolving with humanity?</p>
<h4 id="defining-queer">Defining Queer</h4>
<p>Now that you are beginning to get annoyed, it’s a good time to
provide the technical definition for queer, which is the meaning of
queer as used by queer scholars and queer activists.</p>
<p>Queer is opposition to being as a means of transforming being. Some
might call it a political position or 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 practicing 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.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Queer does not name some natural kind, or refer to some determinate
object. It acquires its meaning from its oppositional relation to the
norm. Queer is, by definition, whatever is at odds with the normal, the
legitimate and the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it
necessarily refers - it is an identity without an essence.” - David
Halperin (St. Foucault)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>“Queer, then, demarcates not a positivity but a positionality
vis-a-vis the normative. A positionality that is not restricted to
Lesbians and Gay men but is, in fact, available to anyone who is or
feels marginalized because of his or her sexual practices”. - David
Halperin (St. Foucault)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I want to argue that while many see Queer as being specifically
political, I would contend that it’s political in the sense of political
society as the vehicle of history which illuminates the structure,
understanding and meaning of a human being, as would be described by
Eric Voegelin. It’s just that, with Queer theory, it’s especially
advanced in its focus on the body.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“The existence of man in political society is historical existence;
and a theory of politics, if it penetrates to principles, must at the
same time be a theory of history.” - Eric Voegelin (The New Science of
Politics)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The desire to implement the 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 be it by occlusion,
distortion or complete supplantation. What may begin as a mere reaction
to limit inquiry, obfuscate or misrepresent to prevent an unwelcome
revelation of the reality which clearly corresponds between the subject
and their other can inspire angst and resentment in the subject who
still suspects the threat of revelation. This angst and resentment
enables the subject to accept the dissolution of reality into
nothingness as a protest against the order of being itself.</p>
<p>Once on the path of dissolving the normal, a moral impetus has been
provided to dissolve any inconvenient distinction that might prevent the
mind from maintaining its beliefs and desires. At such a point, the only
positive endpoint which would satisfy would be a state of liberation
wherein no distinction can be discerned. This would exist as one of the
following permutations: - undifferentiated many - absolutely
differentiated many - one, oneness, pure essence, pure Being,
undifferentiated one, the Monad</p>
<h5 id="deconstructing-munoz">Deconstructing Munoz</h5>
<p>For more insight into the concept of queer as has been developed
among its practitioners, let’s take a look at some prose by a queer and
critical theorist to get a feel of the language and investigate the
implied meaning, particularly per a Marxist Gnostic lense:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Queerness is not yet here. Queerness is an ideality. Put another
way, we are not yet queer. We may never touch queerness, but we can feel
it as the warm illumination of a horizon imbued with potentiality. We
have never been Queer, yet Queerness exists as an ideality that can be
distilled from the past and is used to imagine a future. The future is
Queerness’ domain. Queerness is a structuring and educated mode of
desiring that allows us to see and feel beyond the quagmire of the
present. The here and now is a prison house.” - Esteban Munoz (Cruising
Utopia)</p>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>“Queerness is not yet here”: historicism.</li>
<li>“Queerness is an ideality”: bestowed as Idealism.</li>
<li>“We are not yet queer”: ontological determination for humanity.</li>
<li>“We may never touch queerness”: The work is never done.</li>
<li>“but we can feel it as the warm illumination of a horizon imbued
with potentiality”: something to feel because this idealist religion is
axiologically mediated through pathos, which brings enlightenment to
those who follow it/</li>
<li>“We have never been Queer, …, can be distilled from the past, …,
used to imagine a future”: Speculative idealism in alignment with a
Hegelian metaphysic, and used to create the future returned to a
perfected ideal.</li>
<li>“The future is Queerness’ domain”: The future is ours.</li>
<li>“Queerness is a structuring and educated mode of desiring, …, allows
us to see, …, beyond the present”: our desires direct us to our
destiny.</li>
<li>“The here and now is a prison house”: gnosticism.</li>
</ul>
<h4 id="desire">Desire</h4>
<h5 id="evergreen-hegelianism">Evergreen Hegelianism</h5>
<p>This desire for an unspecifiable endpoint where no oppression occurs
(at least insofar as sex, sexuality, the body, its expectations are
concerned) is not altogether too different from what is desired in each
post-Hegelian incarnations. For example, Woodrow Wilson’s Progressive
Nationalism was founded on his views as a Hegelian and indicate the same
objectives for the process of history, such as social justice and
collective well-being. John Dewey, Du Bois, Richard Rorty and probably
any other person considered Hegelian from the Gilded age and beyond will
undoubtedly indicate a desire for a liberation endpoint that can be
described as social justice. The only difference might be that some of
them might refer to the affair in more pragmatist terms, hence why so
many of them are referred as having championed Practical Idealism or
Neo-Pragmatism.</p>
<h5 id="broad-adoption">Broad Adoption</h5>
<p>Broad adoption in his way of thinking, as evidenced first by all
those who not only refer to him, and not also speak in a manner which
suggests the same way of thinking, but because it is the logical
conclusion of a collectivist interpretation of reality.</p>
<p>Though these connections could be more exhaustively explicated, much
work has already been performed by others in such a vein thus I will
limit my effort to bring the point into context.</p>
<p>!TODO: Add more references from the Hegelian study we did (see Hegel
OS Notes)</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Dialectical thought understands the critical tension between”is” and
“ought” first as an ontological condition, pertaining to the structure
of Being itself. However, the recognition of this state of Being—its
theory—intends from the beginning a concrete practice. Seen in the light
of a truth which appears in them falsified or denied, the given facts
themselves appear false and negative.” - Herbert Marcuse (One
Dimensional Man)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It’s rather obvious that Marcuse is a proponent of dialectical
thinking, and that he indicates that what is revealed en route to a
concrete practice are truths as facts that appear negative. This is a
perfect example of Hegel’s dialectic of synthesizing concrete from
abstract and negative.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“The laws of thought are laws of reality, or rather become the laws
of reality if thought understands the truth of immediate experience as
the appearance of another truth, which is that of the true Forms of
reality—of the Ideas. Thus there is contradiction rather than
correspondence between dialectical thought and the given reality; the
true judgment judges this reality not in its own terms, but in terms
which envisage its subversion. And in this subversion, reality comes
into its own truth.” - Herbert Marcuse (One Dimensional Man)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Here we see that Marcuse’s metaphysical interpretation is one of
Idealism in which reality itself must be subverted in order for it to be
judged and that this must be the case because of the moment in an
incomplete historical process.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Enlightenment, understood in the widest sense as the advance of
thought, has always aimed at liberating human beings from fear and
installing them as masters. Yet the wholly enlightened earth radiates
under the sign of disaster triumphant.” - Max Horkheimer and Theodor
Adorno (The Dialectic of Enlightenment)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Analogous to Hegel’s criticism of empirical understanding versus
reason as through the method of dialectic, Horkheimer and Adorno,
seminal champions of Critical Theory, claim the aspects of enlightenment
thought to liberate humanity have resulted in disaster.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Black feminism remains important because U.S. Black women constitute
an oppressed group. As a collectivity, U.S. Black women participate in a
dialectical relationship linking African-American women’s oppression and
activism. Dialectical relationships of this sort mean that two parties
are opposed and opposite. As long as Black women’s subordination within
intersecting oppressions of race, class, gender, sexuality, and nation
persists, Black feminism as an activist response to that oppression will
remain needed. … If intersecting oppressions did not exist, Black
Feminist thought and similar oppositional knowledges would not be
necessary.” - Patricia Hill Collins (Black Feminist Thought)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Just as Marx built his ideas atop Hegel’s dialectic, Collins employs
it in a more explicitly Marxist modality emphasizing class conflict.
Here, the fact of the lived experience of black women is itself the
evidence of intersecting oppression, the tension of which drives the
liberation of all oppressed groups.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Revolutionists seek to change reality, to make it better. Therefore,
revolutionists not only need the revolutionary philosophy of dialectics.
They need a revolutionary ideology, i.e. a body of ideas based on
analyzing the main contradictions of the particular society which they
are trying to change, projecting a vision of a higher form of reality in
which this contradiction would be resolved, and relating this resolution
to a social force or forces responsible for and capable of achieving it.
It is only after you have arrived at the correct ideology that it makes
sense to develop your revolutionary politics” - Bell Hooks (Feminist
Theory: From Margin to Center)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Changing reality through revolutionary ideology employing dialectics
to reach a higher form upon resolving contradiction. It’s perfectly
Hegelian, and highlights his featured framing of sublation as the
operation of dialectical synthesis.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“CRT in relation to colorblind ideology is a reflection of the
cross-institutional traveling of resistance, the conditions of
possibility that seed insurgent knowledge, and the continuity of these
dialectics in the contemporary era.” - Kimberlé Crenshaw (Seeing Race
Again)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Crenshaw and CRT practitioners in general aren’t trying to understand
knowledge as being bound to race in a manner that can be verified using
the normal toolset of rigour to vet facts, verify logical consistency,
and examine rhetoric for its validity and truthfulness. Instead, the
tension of experience is itself the knowledge, and that forms differ at
this moment in history by virtue of the fact that humans which can be
materially differentiated experience discomfort contingent on their
perception of themselves in a social system with other humans is itself
the evidence of oppression in a race system of idealism. The ontology of
the races is to drive the course of history through the corresponding
tension of their relations. That there is tension at all means the forms
and knowledge are different and that the process synchronously become
complete with the elimination of tension. The races are seen as a social
construct belonging to the ideology of Whiteness, but the experience of
it is proven by the very fact of race having been enumerated, in spite
of it having no legitimate substance of its own.</p>
<h2 id="totalitarian-ideology">Totalitarian Ideology</h2>
<p>Marx’s conception of Man as a Species Being, and the ontological
claims about man’s needs and purpose in life necessitate totalitarian
classification. This is not because people agree on semantics or a
belief that some formal declaration tantamount to totalitarianism would
alleviate the tense nerves of doomsaying collectivists, but because if
it were true that a human nature could not be expressed except through a
state of perception void of judgment and oppression then there is no
feasible option to proceed towards other than control over human
reality. Interestingly enough, you’ll find plenty of people on both
sides of a partisan narrative who will readily state either that they
believe such control already exists or is being developed by virtue of a
constellation of phenomena that surround us in our everyday lives.</p>
<p>We must delve toward this totalitarian permutation because the
conditions of human life would have to suffice to not drive humans to
oppress one another, and we would need some way of understanding that
our subjective perception of ourselves and each other was resolved.
Insofar as it remains subjective perception, it would need to reach a
level free of contradiction and be made convincing that the experience
of human life is not interspersed with the appearance of friction.</p>
<h3 id="appearance">Appearance</h3>
<p>It’s important to talk about appearance, as much many have a distaste
for the superficial. We function through our cognition of our phenomena
rather than the phenomena themselves and so it gets rather ambiguous,
beginning from childhood, to intuit whether we are cognizing the thing
itself, its appearance, or some meta-representation of it. It’s
ambiguous in the sense of behaving as though things bear the same
appearance to others, and then to speculate on it. We spend a great deal
of time engaged in the battle of convincing or being convinced about
something on the basis of its appearance, as it would be a long and drab
existence to continuously require substantive proof of everything before
assuming it real and concrete. That is to say, we are necessarily
well-practiced in informal world-making based on the appearance, and
this sets us up for delusion which everyone from time to time will
permit, if even only as children (though perhaps it’s arrogant to assume
one is immune to such folly). If we can allow the correct appearance to
unfold for others, and we are able to record their having borne witness
to it, then this serves as the fundamental structure of reality for
human experience, regardless of whether it is in fact the most
legitimate description of reality.</p>
<h4 id="appearance-of-absence">Appearance of Absence</h4>
<p>It’s important to underscore the way in which collectivists measure
purity, or failed adherence to the collective, which is through a
particular absence in the appearance. To incriminate in absence of
evidence you must provide the appearance of there being an absence of
something else, such as a legitimate detail, for the absence becomes
evidence of respect for the sacred. It’s an absence because it is
through verifiable distinctions of reality that the capacity to project
an alternate reality is destroyed. Ironically, failure to ensure the
absence of such distinctions it is equivalent to projecting the
appearance that one is absent a soul. This leaves the judge no choice
but to make the moral and intelligent deduction that the subject in
question is not truly human. When this is coupled with a historical
dimension, it is presented on the basis that the soul is connected to
knowledge, insight or perception which indicates progress in the
traversal of the historical dimension.</p>
<p>This comes in the form of what many refer to as virtue signaling, but
what many fail to comprehend is that it isn’t necessarily that one is
finding an opportunity to demonstrate a good quality about themselves,
even if that might be the interpretation by a recipient, but is the
signaling of group membership or ideological alignment. Discussions of
the pitfalls of believing oneself to be good, moral, and virtuous aside,
the potentially harmful consequences of this include that one will use,
as signal of membership, absurd and self-harming practices and
modalities of living.</p>
<p>With a collectivist worldview, it isn’t necessarily the case that the
qualities choose the group, but that the group confers the qualities,
and that membership is itself virtuous. This is because the group
legitimizes the desired reality and, concomitant with that, it is the
case that things cannot be legitimately judged in the interim, providing
denial of the abhorrent characteristics and practices one might permit
in their partiality for the group which, in actuality, is the cognized
object upon which they’re fixated. The cognized object is a reference to
the concept of a group, which is completely abstract though
experientially validated. The maintenance of the cognized object is the
maintenance of a historical endpoint and it is the perception that one
is in a trajectory in relation to such an endpoint that one is able to
maintain thought, belief or intuition without any empirical means of
verifying whether it corresponds to reality. The trajectory is reality
and is phenomenologically evident.</p>
<p>Allow me to restate that the signal is a political signal in the
sense of being engaged in the trajectory of alternate reality intuited
as the possibility to transcend. This takes the form of an ascription to
group membership in political society, but that is an aesthetic
component of human experience.</p>
<p>Again, as far as the subject perceiving the signals of others in the
context of group membership, its absence is itself the appearance of
absence of one’s soul or humanity. This is the case because their very
existence is interpreted as imposing friction against one’s traversal to
the endpoint; their comportment is the denial of the endpoint and thus
the denial of one’s soul or legitimacy in a reality.</p>
<h4 id="where-this-goes-in-society">Where This Goes in Society</h4>
<p>An appearance of the absence of something is a requirement whose
means of satisfaction becomes ever more sophisticated, particularly if
it becomes a determination to be made through formal administration.
What might have been satisfied with a temporal period without
observation of an event of interest should evolve to proactive measures
such as well-designed testing evaluated using a representation of
perception. Such a model begins as the most basic test itself and later
should involve biometric data, such as heart rate, and ever-more outputs
from the organism, the brain and organs, and neurochemical analysis.
Whatever is possible with the present level of technology.</p>
<p>With data collection and intelligently providing inputs, such as
whatever one is faced with on a screen, and made to include analysis of
one’s response to them, a refinement in predictive capability can be
sought through a building assurance that it would lead to the correct
conditions for a better world. What began as a control of conditions to
reify the alternate reality of the deluded human eventually scales to a
technological faculty in a political society.</p>
<h4 id="ideological-appearance">Ideological Appearance</h4>
<p>People are motivated to attack something they already disapprove of
and this makes it easy to lead them into acknowledging proposals which
make concepts vague and ambiguous. A chief tactic undertaken to maintain
delusion is to present things as like that are actually dissimilar or
even fundamentally different.</p>
<p>This could be, for example, a subject presenting that some political
statement which expresses something truthful, especially when understood
in neutral terms, as being a statement which denies reality. This can be
through supposing that its purpose is to counteract a subject’s
political interest. In such a case, the statements upon which the latter
interest are predicated needn’t be expressed, yet a particular framing
can cause an onlooker to consider that it is, in fact, not a statement
of fact in neutral terms, but a denial of reality.</p>
<p>One example of this is the statement “There are two sexes”. In
contrast to this, political activists informed by Queer Theory claim
that their worldview is supported by science, including biologists, and
will put forth a contrary statement: “There is gender spectrum”. Though
a dialectical attack wherein gender, a social construction, is made
interchangeable with sex, a biological aspect of human life, and though
the activists will claim these to be different in circumstances wherein
they are attempting to effect the adoption of gender, they will also
equivocate sex with gender when it becomes useful to do so. They will
reference further statements by biologists to enumerate anomalies of
sexual development, or intersex conditions and disorders of sexual
development, but with the aim of presenting a critique of discourse the
claims people who have particular experiences will have worldviews and
personalities that are informed by those experiences and that, as such,
since certain people have the same condition, it’s plausible they might
have some views or experiences that are sufficiently similar. These are,
of course, mutually exclusive concepts, but the description of
subjective experience, though completely plausible in the sense that
particular experiences should be expected from similar circumstances, is
now used to blur the understanding of human beings as having a sex by
virtue of reproductive strategies, and the corresponding biological
development that goes along with that, with social construction by
implying that knowledge is bound to subjective experience. That there
are biological details to be discerned is now implicitly negating an
understanding of sex as a biological reality and replacing it with a
spectrum of possible permutations which, in reality, don’t actually ever
replace someone’s sex, yet the consequence is that the former statement
“There are two sexes” will be presented as a denial of the fact of there
being people with disorders of sexual development. The kicker, however,
is that it’s only to reify the notion of gender identity as the mythos
and driver of historical progress through knowledge currently understood
through identity.</p>
<p>We can get into the weeds on that one if we’re so inclined, but the
fact of the matter is that sexual reproduction doesn’t have to lay any
claim as to the personalities, experiences or worldviews of any one
person, and recognizing the fact of human beings propagating the species
through sexual reproduction doesn’t have to indicate anything about
whether intersex people exist.</p>
<h4 id="appearance-dialectic-and-political-systems">Appearance,
Dialectic and Political Systems</h4>
<p>Having a proclivity toward dialectical thinking and framing human
life to indicate a collectivist moral code is relevant not just in
understanding regimes that instantiate Communist or Socialist modes of
thought, but also the manner in which their advocates tend to represent
such systems and regimes to the broader public in a popular context.</p>
<p>Fleshing out these aspects in greater detail will help us understand
the principles of collectivism, its necessary manifestation as cult
ideology, and how these relate to our understanding of Socialism and
Communism as we aim to better define terms.</p>
<p>There is a certain projection in that the socialist will aim to
present all developments which can be labeled as “standard”, “status
quo”, “normative”, and so forth as being paragons of the worst
ideological leanings, and this is no surprise to those who are already
familiar with the expression “Iron Law of Woke Projection”. Socialism
will always be championed and pushed forward as a fundamental principle
of social relations through an aesthetic and control of vernacular which
declares it as liberal, civil, scientific, intelligent, democratic and
so on. The projection is its mission to make the entirety of the social
environment an instance of its ideology.</p>
<p>Frivolous equivocation is continuously engrossed in by socialists
whereby regimes and society will be professed to be or not be Communist
depending on the discourse at hand. The reason will be two fold: - To
separate the current undertaking from any historical precedent which
could otherwise serve to dissuade acceptance. - To promote or induce
radicalization of prospective revolutionaries when there is a sense for
having them potentially take up the collectivist cause in a more radical
form.</p>
<p>For these reasons, a current effort for revolution can be separated
from previous attempts by claiming it is nothing out of the ordinary,
and simply the embodiment of good sense-making and fairness while, at
the same time, its advocates will be happy to help any initiate to
socialist revolution come into believing that anything they have done,
or are likely to do, is an effort which in its highest and most
intelligent form is precisely the development of socialism which makes
everyone’s life better.</p>
<p>This noisy and expressly dishonest political interplay, with feet
firmly entrenched in a mystical metaphysic, makes the environment yet
noisier and prone to agitation when it comes to the problem of
construing communism as a political system for which governments of a
corresponding type have been formed. There is good reason to do this,
such as that these are the precise systems which have come to be created
atop the ideas in question, and we need practical and concrete examples
in order to connect people to a deeper understanding of what these
things are.</p>
<p>The problem that we arrive at, in more detail, is that the concept
being instantiated is so far outside of reality and so antithetical to
what we understand about biology and human consciousness that those who
champion it could never satisfy the model without wading into
destructive behaviour and, if needs be, the destruction of the world and
humanity. We shouldn’t underestimate the potential for such catastrophe,
not simply because of historical precedents, but because of the
necessary progression of technology both in the obvious sense of greater
capacity and, more insidiously, as the degree to which we become
increasingly convinced that we will be able to complete the infinite
series, so to speak.</p>
<p>The completion of an infinite series is the perfect way to describe
the extraordinary and fantastic undertaking, particularly in this case
of it being tantamount to a moral realization and a completion of
something which can only be understood as some sort of perfection or
redemption. It is, in effect, requiring an acuity of understanding at
such a level that every detail can be fully understood and consolidated.
This reminded me almost right away of the distinction pointed out when I
was reading Turing and his describing of the limitations of a machine
that would compute numbers as there are certain numbers which are
incomputable due to the fact of there always being an infinite series of
numbers not only extending positively or negatively in whatever
direction toward infinity, but also in the sense that we have an
unlimited series situated between any two known numbers.</p>
<p>James Lindsay does a wonderful job of describing this problem using
the Pygmalion myth <a
href="https://newdiscourses.com/2023/05/onlysubs-woke-marxism-and-pygmalions-wish/">available
to his paid subscribers</a>.</p>
<p>The concept of a complete and totalizing system is something wherein
all actions and occurrences are in concert and are coming into being in
a manner which drives the perfectly concordant, harmonious and uniform
expression of the system with such perfection that one might wish to
posit it as a divine expression. Another way to think about it, at least
using a more physical description, would be as a state with no
compression, no entropy and no loss of potential. It is a perfect
permutation of a reality which comes into being through harmonious union
between the theoretical model of perfected existence and the practical
concretized activity of all things. This perfect permutation is the
state of being having been configured into its perfect form.</p>
<h3 id="communication">Communication</h3>
<p>But to communicate these ideas intelligibly such as to remove all
doubt and disagreement, they must be considered as per their most
perfect representation, thus they must be considered as per their
theoretical formulation as put forward by their father: he whom has
given them form.</p>
<p>And by calling Marx the father, that isn’t to say that he should be
construed as the originator of this manner of thinking, as I think that
is more of a fundamental split in terms of how humans intuit reality,
but he did formalize many aspects and give a robust theoretical basis
from which he’s been able to reach so many using a vernacular that is
well-recognized and remains in use today. For the purpose of
understanding these ideas in motion today, it remains suitable to
consider him as their father given the specific concept of property
which I maintain is crucial to focus on not only it pertains to economy
or community, but to personhood itself.</p>
<p>Let us examine the following of Marx’s quotes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“…is the positive transcendence of human self-estrangement by private
property.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Does that simply mean fairness to everyone? Wouldn’t we have
transcended self-estrangement of ourselves at the same time?</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>Where does Marx think our self-estrangement comes from? It is our
inability to make manifest in reality the things that one thinks or
conceives at in real time (such as to say, at one’s whim).</p>
<p>How petulant and self-absorbed to consider not only that oneself is
estranged, but that the unburdening of one’s sense of estrangement must
simultaneously take place as the unburdening of estrangement of all
human existence. It’s quite a bold indication of the narcissism of these
just, heroic agents of discontent who are a gift to the universe as the
essence of liberation for all mankind.</p>
<p>Estrangement is in some respects something potentially discovered in
all aspects of human existence for reasons which, if we are to examine
whether it is somehow connected to property, emerge from personhood
itself. That one could be estranged at all is a consequence of being in
an environment with other conscious beings while also being aware of the
separation of one’s body from others. The very fact of being separate is
already a form of estrangement from, at the basic level, and something
because of which some would desire as a unity or meaning to be derived
through reciprocity.</p>
<p>The difference is Marx posits that the fact of there being labour, as
a consequence of private property, is the cause of human estrangement as
per his ontology of man. In a sense we could say there is a wider set of
permutations of estrangement that could be incurred by a human, but in
his representation of society and mankind, and nature itself, if this
one cause of estrangement were to be alleviated, all human conflict
would cease to exist, at least insofar as conflict is significant enough
to warrant a differentiation of class predicated on the belief of the
inability of a human being to create the object of reality in tandem
with his capacity to speculate and conceive of an object as subject to
the world as an expression of his true nature.</p>
<h4 id="the-case-for-solving-oppression">The Case For Solving
Oppression</h4>
<p>If we are able to successfully and authentically work together to
accomplish something because we understand we rely on one another to
make a better world then we are doing so while conceiving of a
qualitatively better world. In human terms it means less human
suffering. We all suffer and should understand that reducing suffering
in the world impacts us positively.</p>
<p>So, why would it actually seem like a better idea to improve things
for ourselves most directly in the most immediate if we aren’t also able
to understand how to end all of our own suffering. It would make sense
that there will be some problems which we can solve and others we
cannot, and that in order to solve the most difficult problems we
eventually have to realize that we need to work with other people.</p>
<p>Wouldn’t we realize that we’d need, for those times when we’d
actually have to work on the problem that requires cooperation and we’re
ready, willing and enthusiastic about working together in earnest, a
methodology and skill for working together, even by defacto which is
refined through repeated activity. For that reason, it makes sense to
start now in order to be ready for those crucial moments which, if we
are serious about wanting to solve problems, are inevitably going to
confront us.</p>
<p>Indeed, oppression should be reduced and eventually all forms of
oppression should be solved or at least the circumstances should be made
to be as conducive to the elimination of oppression as possible, but
that doesn’t presuppose a social critique for explaining what that
oppression is, what it’s caused by and how to solve it. It’s something
to be understood and solved at face value, and that means using whatever
toolset is available universally and in a manner where we can expect to
be able to demonstrate truth to our fellow man in an authentic and
forthright-oriented manner.</p>
<p>The power of nature comes from understanding that reality can’t be
ignored or played with. Reality is as it is and it affects us in
absolutely unavoidable terms, and any kind of self-interested frenzy
will need to contend with that same nature, regardless of how many
resources we’ve set aside for ourselves.</p>
<p>Now certainly if we are fueling our desire for the use of a
particular methodology using some form of despair and dissatisfaction,
then we can search indefinitely for the causes of every dissatisfaction
and aim to rectify them until we finally achieve a clean slate from
which to become engaged in the human experience.</p>
<p>The collectivist will claim that should we hope to one day rid
ourselves of some of the most dissatisfying, painful and unpleasant
aspects of human existence, then we innately and intuitively imagine
them as possibly being solved because we are a part of a humanity which
consolidates and refines itself through community. There are a lot of
ways to argue this point, and it’s true in a sense, but I don’t think it
really means what the collectivist would like for it to mean. We
actually solve problems as individuals and whether you want to think
that the problems you solved weren’t actually solved by you is up to
you, but if no one is actually able to genuinely solve a problem, then
no problems get solved whatsoever. The fact that we draw inspiration or
information from the acts, voices and perspectives of others should be
seen as a great thing, but it should also be thought of as an expansion
of us simply taking inspiration from nature or acquiring knowledge
through our observation of nature and whatever precedent is available to
us at any given time. In such cases, we are inspired by the acts of
other individuals which lift up other individuals.</p>
<p>Alright, I’m humouring such a perspective, but the point here is that
to consider it a failure to perfectly structure the integration of a
plurality of human beings as being the source of oppression and
suffering in the world, not only in terms of who suffers through poverty
or physical violence, but even at the level of explaining our
disagreements as being the result of a false consciousness extending
from the conditions of the environment which, as a cause, supersedes the
relevance of one’s technically evaluatable rationale as per what they
are able to communicate, can lead to the circumstance of considering
that any suffering which one experiences can be blamed on any phenomena
one suspects as bearing an effect through relations, resources, or even
mediums that are more abstract than that, but which are essentially
abstract resources.</p>
<p>If every unsolvable problem can be imagined as one whose only chance
of being solved is through the collectivist ideal finally being reached,
through a lack of conflict and the elimination of all incongruence in
our organization of the world, then there is no limit as to what
evidence of oppression can exist, and what resentment should fuel the
effort.</p>
<h3 id="queer-communism">Queer Communism</h3>
<p>The cult of Queer is very much the continuation of Marxist thought.
We must make the conditions such that we do not have a need to enumerate
identity. All must simply be man in himself, truly liberated to express
and exist without moral implication, judgment and expectation over the
fact of us having physical bodies. This is the ultimate manner of being
unburdened by what has been; we will be unburdened by the fact of having
had to exist with a human body.</p>
<p>The sociocultural soul of the body will not be imprisoning you
through your interpreted and tainted conception of your body, thus
allowing for you to act in accordance with your true nature. At this
point, Queer praxis would be complete.</p>
<p>It is no trivial matter for virtually each of us have faced the
callous judgment, if even only the terrifying prospect of it, which
cripples your sense of self and makes it seem unfairly dependent on
perceptions stemming from entities not embodying, at least in the eyes
of the Queer theorist, a legitimate consciousness. One can easily find
themselves falling into deep contemplation over the realization that all
are subjected to this and, thus, the resulting pronouncements by Queer
activism can therefore be suggested as valid. But is it?</p>
<p>To explore that in more detail, we can reflect on what things we see
people get wrong. Where, for example, we consider matters in we have
enough insight to evaluate the positions, choices and opinions of others
over something for which we have a certain expertise, be it from what
happens to have been our rare experience through happenstance, or where
we are actually an expert and professional in the formal sense, and we
bear witness to exceptionally intelligent, accomplished and reasonably
well-intentioned persons who have something to lose make absolutely
pathetic and completely dumbfounding decisions. In fact, with enough
experience, most come to realize that everyone is sometimes wrong! Thus,
I would suggest that gaining competence in general is all that one needs
to liberate themselves from others’ expectations, and that one clouds
one’s outlook and essence of being far more greatly through any sort of
desire to not be subjected to judgment.</p>
<h4 id="judith-butlers-hegelian-reifications">Judith Butler’s Hegelian
Reifications</h4>
<blockquote>
<p>“Originally intended to dispute the biology-is-destiny formulation,
the distinction between sex and gender serves the argument that whatever
biological intractability sex appears to have, gender is culturally
constructed … If the immutable character of sex is contested, perhaps
this construct called “sex” is as culturally constructed as gender;
indeed, perhaps it was always already gender, with the consequence that
the distinction between sex and gender turns out to be no distinction at
all.” - Judith Butler (Gender Trouble)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Though we will tackle the full quote later in the book, the
unfamiliar might feel unimpressed with Judith for simply asserting the
negation of sex by gender with such glaring contradictions: We created
gender to describe things beyond the biologically mediated reality of
sex, and yet the fact of us thinking to do so is the evidence that there
is no sex after all, just gender. But consider that the position taken
by cult initiates is one of refusing to see the distinction and this is
a protest against the structure of human reality. The contradiction is
to bring it into conflict because the transcendence of biology is
insisted upon as a moral good.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Many of the arguments made in the field of childhood education
concerning children’s sexualities, though, tend to stabilize queerness
as identity, instead of preserving something contingent, a “site of
collective contestation”” - Judith Butler (Critically queer. GLQ: A
Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>For Queer Communism to be realized, all objects related to the ground
of reality must be destabilized as this is the means by which history
progresses. Since crystallized perspectives are what must be overcome,
they can only be prevented through targeting children as “a site of
collective contestation”.</p>
<h4 id="reifying-the-queer-child">Reifying the Queer Child</h4>
<p>By now everyone has become familiar with the phenomenon of Drag Queer
Story Hour, whether through seeing it offered through schools and
libraries, seeing articles about it from their favourite publicly-funded
news publisher, or through their family and friends who, in most cases,
seem to manically and vocally offer up their children to the project
with glee. And though there will likely always remain contention about
the purpose and dynamics of such a project, we thankfully don’t need to
wade through the pop-culture discourse or argue with family members
about the matter as the Queer activist “scholars” have themselves
explained in great detail precisely what they are up to and why with
flagrant yet now unsurprising academic papers such as <a
href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03626784.2020.1864621">Drag
pedagogy: The playful practice of queer imagination in early
childhood</a> by the queer and trans academic Harper Keenan and academic
Harris Kornstein aka Lil Miss Hot Mess, who not only works as a drag
queen, but has been a board member of Drag Story Hour NYC, which has
recently renamed itself to “Drag Artists for Expression NYC”.</p>
<p><em>But first, let’s think through the very idea of using drag queens
to introduce children to Queer Pedagogy</em>:</p>
<h5 id="drag-queen-specificity">Drag Queen Specificity</h5>
<p>Who are these men? Do they portray themselves as modest females, in
order to simply be convincing that they are they opposite sex? No. Not
at all.</p>
<p>They are to be extravagant in their expression of the female form. A
female that cannot be resisted. A female that won’t be ignored. A female
that attracts and tantalizes. A female that causes your blood flow to be
diverted and your breath to be taken away. This is accomplished through
attire, which is generally made to be risque, to the makeup, which
exaggerates the piercingly feminine and alluring eyes, the flushed and
aroused cheeks and the big, smoochy lipstick-laden lips that are waiting
to be tasted and kissed. It is in the sway of hips and the swinging of
bottoms that a spanking is hinted because they’ve been so so naughty.
The twerking of the hips demand attention and yearn for the rich
pleasures of the senses, which is something the transvestite queen
insists is to be celebrated.</p>
<p>You might state that your particular drag queen was toned down, but
toned down from what? Why must your favourite ritualistic ambassador
through which to teach children of the new world be of a type which need
be toned down? Do you believe all Drag Queen Story Hours will have drag
queens that are equally toned down and in the same ways?</p>
<p>It’s quite curious, indeed, that the educators specifically
designated for the enlightenment of children are to be ones with a
particularly sexual dimension of expression that is, by default,
reasonably expected in all other performative scenarios, yet denied by
some when the targeted audience is children. Remember, Drag Queens
existed before they became storybook companions for kids. Can we say
with certainty that such is the design? Or is this simply an unexpected
factor to be mitigated? And, depending on the reason for this
predicament, would that be considered a shortsight or a foresight?</p>
<p>If such a sexual dimension of expression were suppressed, would that
not be considered contrary to the purpose of exposing children to an
environment of performers who demonstrate the absence of limits and
constraints? Or, if this is a reasonable detail to attenuate, should it
not be expected that such attenuation would take place to varying
degrees - a spectrum, in fact.</p>
<p>What is the preference of the Drag Queen Story Hour advocate? What
accountability do they recommend for circumstances where appropriate
attenuation is not achieved, or are they rather thankful in a belief
that your child has been made even wiser than you are? Because it would
be possible to choose any other form of performer or exemplar of a
vocation, such as a handicapped athletic champion, daredevil or
astronaut.</p>
<p>But those who attain more traditional achievements simply won’t do,
thus we need to understand why someone would insist upon this particular
specialization, and it is simple: these performers, whether or not it is
being presented purposefully and explicitly, hold continuous reference
to sexual expression.</p>
<p>No, I don’t mean the fact that they are human beings and humans are a
sexually reproducing species with biological and social expression of
sexuality, I mean that these performers specialize in expressing
sexuality through their craft). Not only is this known by all adults
with any awareness of Drag Queen performance, but these same adults are
aware of the ever-present potential for expressions to take place along
the sexual dimension before these children.</p>
<p>What is the purpose? It is not the stories being read, nor
self-esteem, nor the presentation of identity categories in order to
ensure the child will not fear or hate such identities. How do we know?
Drag isn’t to present homosexuality (regardless of whether it may be
present in the performance). You don’t identify homosexuals by their
being in drag. In fact, drag performers have often been heterosexuals
who simply developed this particular talent and skillset.</p>
<p>The drag performer harbours potential for over-the-top sexual
expression. And with that fertile capacity for sexual expression
situated right beneath the surface (and sometimes bursting out for all
to see). The DQSH advocates can wink and giggle to one another (or to
naive parents) about the thin layer of repressed sexual expression which
erupt for the children at any moment.</p>
<p>Enjoy the contradiction of both wanting a performer who demonstrates
“no limits or constraints” to the benefit of children, while also
asserting that this performer will limit and constrain their sexual
expression.</p>
<h5 id="drag-pedagogy">Drag Pedagogy</h5>
<blockquote>
<p>“Drag Queen Story Hour provides a generative extension of queer
pedagogy into the world of early childhood education…offer early
childhood educators a way into a sense of queer imagination: play as
praxis, aesthetic transformation, strategic defiance, destigmatization
of shame, and embodied kinship. Ultimately, the authors propose that
“drag pedagogy” provides a performative approach to queer pedagogy that
is not simply about LGBT lives, but living queerly.” - LMHM Lil Miss Hot
Mess (Drag Pedagogy)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The purpose of Drag Queen Story Hour is to embed a generative praxis
in early childhood education which grooms children into embodied kinship
with queer family.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“drag artists have channelled their penchant for playfully “‘reading’
each other to filth” into different forms of literacy…as well as
positioning queer and trans cultural forms as valuable components of
early childhood education…what might Drag Queen Story Hour offer
educators as a way of bringing queer ways of knowing and being into the
education of young children?” - LMHM (Drag Pedagogy)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Note the reference to “different forms of literacy”, which is from
the Freirean model (to be touched on later in this book) which assumes
that literacy is a form of privilege used to reproduce structural
oppression. The goal is for people to become literate in their
liberation and for the Queer theorist, simply means making queer
activists.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“DQSH creates spaces for young children and families to immerse
themselves in LGBT-themed stories, and does so in ways that seem to
genuinely reflect queer ways of being and relating – rather than as a
neatly marketed product. We believe that this makes DQSH worthy of
closer study. We argue that the programme creates a pathway into the
imaginative, messy, and rule-breaking aspects of drag for children
without necessarily watering down queer cultures.” - LMHM (Drag
Pedagogy)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It positions itself as being concerned with “broad acceptance” only
to seem viable for young children, but it ultimately doesn’t want to be
“watering down queer cultures”.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“organizers invite kids to create their own drag name or study
feminist icons using DQSH’s self-published Dragtivity Book. A few cities
have expanded programming to include bilingual readings, events geared
specifically towards neurodivergent children and others with
disabilities, or programmes for teenagers that feature makeup and
performance workshops.” - LMHM (Drag Pedagogy)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Here they tell you that they target autistic kids and ask kids to
create their drag name so they can begin imagining and acting out queer
identities to perform or transition to.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“he teacher is a drag queen. She breaks the limiting stereotype of a
teacher: she is loud, extravagant, and playful. She encourages children
to think for themselves and even to break the rules. She is the
exponential product of Ms. Frizzle and Bob the Drag Queen. She is a
queer teacher. To the unimaginative adult (which – sigh – describes most
of us), it might seem that the world of drag and the world of children
are impossibly distant from one another. Yet, their meeting has left
many audiences wondering why they hadn’t considered it before. DQSH
co-founder Juli Delgado Lopera notes this overlooked affinity in an
interview: “I think generally queers are not mixed with kids—especially
drag queens … It’s a kid’s world to be very imaginative” (Graff, 2016).
Co-founder Michelle Tea also comments, “they’re both very funny and see
the humor in the world … [and] for drag queens the idea is about pushing
limits and pushing boundaries” (Rudi, 2018). Such generalizations may
not always apply, but these comments lead us to ask: What if we took
play, defiance, and imagination seriously as forms of knowledge
production? If we celebrated the convergence of children and drag
queens, what kinds of potentialities might their collaboration hold?” -
LMHM (DP)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Most adults are boring, unlike the creative and playful child and
drag performer who can connect in ways that boring and unimaginative
adults cannot. And the drag performer is just doing what normal teachers
already do, except now we can expand our horizons by celebrating the
convergence of children with queer activism founded through exploitation
of hyper-sexualized stereotyping which intentionally pushes limits and
boundaries.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Combined with our experiential knowledge of working with children
and living in queer/trans communities where drag is often a celebrated
tradition, we incorporate theories drawn from the academic fields of
education, performance, and queer and trans studies to consider how drag
queens and children might work together, however fleetingly, to promote
a spirit of creative inquiry and world making…for teaching and learning
that extends beyond traditional approaches to LGBT curricular
inclusion…to…envision new modes of being together…[and invite] children
into building communities that are more hospitable to queer knowledge
and experience” - LMHM (DP)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It’s a project to initiate children into doing the work as
collectivist praxis for queer world making. Note how “LGBT” curriculum,
including the teaching of transgender inclusion, is referred to as
something traditional, and the quote then suggests that there are
as-of-yet undiscovered modes of being together by inviting children into
queer communities.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“it is not amateur night. So, bring your notes and put on those
glasses, everybody, because this requires reading on multiple levels.
…We focus on five interrelated themes: play as praxis, aesthetic
transformation, strategic defiance, camp and its relationship to stigma,
and embodied kinship. Ultimately,we suggest that drag pedagogy offers
one model for learning not simply about queer lives, but how to live
queerly.” - LMHM (DP)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>These are professionals with an expertise in using coded language
requiring “reading on multiple levels”. Any good Marxist with a
postmodern flavour knows that language is power, and if you’re concerned
with getting rid of structural oppression then it is your MORAL DUTY to
manipulate by employing a double meaning to language wherever possible,
particularly to encode Queer praxis into otherwise normal language as a
means to liberate the body of the child through adopting fluid sexual
identities. This isn’t inclusive education to teach about the
“existence” of “queer lives”, but to initiate the child into a new way
of living their own life. Note that they even employ the term “praxis”
themselves.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Queer theory can be used to examine how often-impossible standards
of normalcy are formed, not only through institutional categorizations
of gender and sexuality, but also through social expectations produced
through the racialized structures of capitalism that are inextricably
intertwined with that hierarchy.” - LMHM (DP)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Indeed, it most certainly is Queer theory, and Queer theory most
certainly is an evolution of Marxism working atop the critiques of
Critical Race theory with the goal of attaining Communism. They couldn’t
possibly be more clear in telling you this themselves.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“queer and trans pedagogies seek to actively destabilize the
normative function of schooling through transformative education. This
is a fundamentally different orientation than movements towards the
inclusion or assimilation of LGBT people into the existing structures of
school and society - LMHM (DP)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>They are quite clear in pointing out that gay acceptance is a form of
“assimilation” into the current hegemonically-tainted structure and that
they seek to destabilize society through children.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“queer and trans communities reach toward a different kind of world.
Jose Munoz Esteban argued in his 2009 book Cruising Utopia that
queerness is imagination itself, a yearning for a future not fully
conceivable in the present” - LMHM (DP)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The goal is Queer Utopia, but it can’t yet be conceived because
“Communism doesn’t know how”. In the hermetic tradition of Hegelianism
we must allow the divine to be revealed from the mundane by negating the
aspects of the old system through making children incompatible with
it.</p>
<p>It’s also reminiscent of Herbert Marcuse saying that we can’t imagine
the utopian society, but that it’s trapped within the current one.</p>
<h3 id="atomic-forces">Atomic Forces</h3>
<p>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. Even 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.</p>
<p>Some may disagree that such a superfluous endpoint could be sought,
even with enough time, but I wager that we do this instinctively as an
organism bearing certain elements: - Biological organisms instinctively
orient towards and pursue the avoidance of unwanted sensations (see
<em>“Pain-Avoidance and Defensive Behaviors (Nociceptive
Circuits)”</em>) . Though we do things which lead to discomfort is not
the same as contemplating the effect of expected discomfort on
subjective bias. - We evaluate facts emotively (Russell Conjugation). -
We have declared that we can pursue things that do not yet exist and we
utilize them as per expectation.</p>
<p>Let us note that all modes of Hegelian thought follow the same logic
with analogous entities, with each a distinct aesthetic and dimension of
value, and ultimate promise of how one will live life according to their
true, natural, uncoloured and uncorrupted state of being.</p>
<h3 id="race-enums">Race Enums</h3>
<p>Race Idealism in all its forms, such as CRT, is a Hegelian cult
projecting a conception of racial injustice where the identity borne of
race, and the identification with racial identities, as a cognizable
objects of reference, are considered as only being asserted as no longer
needed once they’re no longer enumerable. This is the manner of
supposing the addition of something contrived and synthetic as a way of
life to be is criticized as the superordinate oppression of the world.
The ability for the problem to be communicated serves as evidence of the
problem itself, whose causation is implied and maintained through
circular reasoning.</p>
<p>The end of the history of racial oppression will bring about several
conditions: - We cannot enumerate race - We will exist in a just world -
People can exist as they are, unburdened by what has been - People no
longer participate in racial praxis</p>
<p>There is something to be examined about the possible conception of a
cognized object representing each one’s own race for which one has pride
and some gnostic outlook carrying the hope of divination and absolution
in the face of a racial other, particularly one whose characteristic
behaviour is to either impose or participate in the aesthetic of the
gnostic construct.</p>
<h4 id="remark-on-colour-blindness">Remark on Colour Blindness</h4>
<p>We already know what the critique of those who believe in antiracism
and who are against the notion of one being socially colourblind is
because it’s always a form of projection (<strong>cough</strong> and the
<em>Iron Law of Woke Projection</em> never misses). They are seeking
that modality in their interpretation of a person’s body, and then they
are experiencing the fact of they themselves judging that person and
imagining the limitations, experience and rationale or motivations of
that person who has that body based on what they cognize as being the
model of that body’s behaviour according to colour and sex. But it’s
something altogether abstract, of course, so it’s against whatever
symbols they cognized at the moment that they were conceived, which are
symbols predicated on superficial dimensions, but bearing significance
in the order of reality and society.</p>
<h5 id="insisting-on-race-to-complete-reality">Insisting on Race to
Complete Reality</h5>
<p>As all things that we deal with are through their symbolic cognition
as objects that are actionable and bearing meaning and significance for
human life insofar as the Metaxy, or the medium between a material
reality and the prospect of something more such as a transcendent realm
of divination, the symbols themselves are not bound to real-world
objects in discrete form, but must function with compression or, as
Voegelin would put it, compactness necessary to be an actionable object
with significance in both realms. In the case of a racial cult
predicated on a Hegelian collectivist and pantheistic metaphysic, the
people of God must express the consciousness of the race as part of the
historical process of working through the mythos of racial oppression
towards liberation. In this way, we have a proxy by which the people of
God are not simply those universally extant, or even those with a
correct consciousness, but must first be separated by race and, in this
way, the people of God cannot be their own nation or representative of
universal human spirit, but must be units of the race nation, with the
conflict between race nations playing out. Their mythic stories of
struggle are the aspects of the singular historical timeline of
historical redemption and their perception of a promised land of racial
justice to be delivered is the eschatological consciousness which, in
the present, is instantiated in those who know they must adhere to their
racial identities. There is a gnostic revolt against a universally
accessible reality in the sense that the ideological project of
immanentizing the eschaton forbids the dissolution of an incomplete
representation of history and reality, which would be imposed by
colour-blindness.</p>
<h4 id="the-international-race-nation-cult">The International Race
Nation Cult</h4>
<p>But all of that aside, they are lulling themselves into believing
they have the evidence of prejudicial experience concerning a
stereotype, and they are experiencing, for whatever it’s worth and
whatever it actually pertains to in the real universe, as some kind of
event, likely through neurotic speculation and self-reflection. That
projection is abhorrent, and should be ridiculed and condemned for its
bigotry and idiocy, and as it’s a deliberate attempt to perpetuate
misery in hopes of compelling the world into transformation, even to the
point of destruction if that’s the only type of transformation that
could take place. The sentiment driving that desire is completely toxic,
and so it should be no surprise to anyone that it would seek utter
annihilation.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Interrupting the forces of racism is ongoing, lifelong work because
the forces conditioning us into racist frameworks are always at play” -
Robin DiAngelo (White Fragility)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>They succeed tremendously well in proving to themselves that
colourblindness doesn’t exist, as they keep rediscovering the focus of
race either through being prompted to be reminded of it explicitly from
environments richly endowed with Critical Race praxis, or through their
general paranoia which, in spite of whether they may have a proclivity
for it, is heightened by instigating and participating in continuous
struggle. It is an undertaking for which they themselves admit to seeing
no conclusive remedy, other than submission to cult collectivism and
endless critique as airing of grievance, navel-gazing, wound-collecting,
and other toxic, pathology-inducing behaviours. Short of a totalizing
force that will assuredly control every other human’s experience such as
to negate colour or race from the equation, like perhaps a society-level
faculty extending from a totalitarian technocracy, there will never be
an end to the racism upon which their vile cult subsists. We should
denounce that complexly obscene behaviour and insist on colour blindness
as it’s actually the only alternative to an endless process of
dehumanization.</p>
<p>Perhaps I’m not coming across as clear as I should, but if we are
really serious about choosing a future with principles which suppress
dehumanization on dimensions such as the absurd valuing of race then we
need to be explicit about what it’s going to take, not just in order to
criticize the world, but in order to clearly indicate what a legitimate
solution would look like.</p>
<p>The only possibility of justice, fairness and empathy between two
beings is for them both to presuppose that the other could be a
reflection of themselves, be it in the potential for experience,
understanding, or form. Alignment in the sentiment about perception is
the key which unlocks fairness in shared event.</p>
<p>In taking these cult faith movements, sold as conceptual frameworks,
at their word and looking to see myself represented, if I were to find,
for example, a half Indian half Dutch man of equal dimensions, age,
health, style, preference and opinion, I’d find that we aren’t perfectly
aligned and that somehow there could be some difference from which to
produce an aberrations preventing perfectly atoned contentment. And
heaven forbid if they were to hold a political opinion or prefer a
different political candidate than I, as it would surely mean that they
are contaminated with false consciousness and that I am a victim of
genocide.</p>
<p>So there is no choice, because you’ll never find that truly
empathetic and openly curious view of anyone else’s experience without
inducing it through your logically deduced conclusion that it’s simply
better to do so because it makes your life better. That is to say, you
don’t find the people that are empathetic just on their own; you make
people empathetic by improving the environment with your own intention
and with expressions which follow the upholding of principles that are
hopefully morally sound and ethically robust when executed by you, who
actually believes in them.</p>
<h3 id="double-negation">Double Negation</h3>
<p>!TODO: This can safely be relocated, given that it doesn’t
necessarily follow the previous section. !TODO: Give intro to double
negation based on my notes about biological proclivity</p>
<p>The human mind is prone to expecting that it can adopt behaviours
that are contrary, incongruent and even antithetical to its stated
beliefs or values under an assumption that the behaviour will be negated
at an appropriate time such as to still fulfill the outcome which
corresponds with those values. Somehow, the frame of mind or
consciousness of the present indicates the future outcome without having
to act in the modality which directly produces the outcome. In fact, the
expectation for the future event can be rationalized such as to allow
the present behaviour which must necessarily be negated, thus behaviour
may contradict the stated objective.</p>
<p>One example of this might be knowing that we aspire to be healthy
with our dietary choices, have strong opinions about what type of eating
is conducive to the best performance, strong vitality and a long life,
and an expectation that we will use such knowledge to practice dietary
consumption in order to achieve our expected endpoint of healthy and
long-lasting life.</p>
<p>The same can be found in our mastery of other human skill sets, be it
in our personal lives or in our professional faculties, as we believe we
understand the methodologies and habits which will lead to our happiest
way of life in pursuit of professional or personal achievements and
that, in spite of this knowledge, any deviation from that is part of our
preparation.</p>
<p>This follows an intuition about making progress through a continued
process of illumination. You might say that we are in perpetual
preparation, be it through skilled and structured training, or even
simply in waiting for a quantity of time to pass. With this in mind, one
can either embody an expression whereby they cannot yet commence their
true life, or perceive the preparation as the true life which
continuously improves the conditions of their life and reality as a
whole. Reality must then be perceived either as becoming something more,
or as being false and unproven in the sense that it has not yet been
brought into being.</p>
<h4 id="enabling-thinking-conducive-to-double-negation">Enabling
Thinking Conducive to Double Negation</h4>
<p>To summarize, this is the practice of believing that the current
conduct, though correct in some sense, is still expected to be changed.
Keep doing what you want, even if problematic, under an assumption that
it will be negated at a later time, and that it might be a form of
virtue.</p>
<p>Some motivation, at least at the individual level, might be the
libido dominandi, a means by which to permit the play of the mind,
self-loathing, puritanical thinking, and making one compatible with what
one perceives as structural forces, especially if its tendrils, as
currently articulated, are somehow ephemeral.</p>
<h4 id="forms-of-double-negation">Forms of Double Negation</h4>
<p>These constitute the forms of double negation that we are most
familiar with, at the cultural level:</p>
<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 40%" />
<col style="width: 30%" />
<col style="width: 30%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th>Mythos</th>
<th>D.N.</th>
<th>Note</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Classical Marxism</td>
<td>negate the process of negating the existing order</td>
<td>Negation of state (which negates capitalist society)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Race Marxism</td>
<td>negate the process of negating whiteness</td>
<td>N/A</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Queer</td>
<td>negate the process of negating normalcy</td>
<td>N/A</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Feminism</td>
<td>negate the process of negating patriarchy</td>
<td>N/A</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Critical Pedagogy</td>
<td>Promises perpetual revolution</td>
<td>Appears as the exception, but is perhaps more honestly stated as
they all do this</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>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</p>
<h3 id="dialectical-religion">Dialectical Religion</h3>
<p>Indeed, it is a religion because it introduces a complete means of
viewing human life from which arise duties of conscience. Each variant
explains original sin, final judgment, salvation through liberation 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.</p>
<p>“God” here doesn’t have to mean a man in the sky, but the source of
absolution which must not rest outside of this material construct, as a
transcendental deity of the Abrahamic faiths would intimate, but an
indicated direction that necessarily exists or will come to exist in
this world. A divine construct brought into being either as oneself,
one’s integration with conditions that have been made perfect and
complete, or as the understanding and perception of the world which will
be made manifest.</p>
<p>A concept of divinity understood as outside the material construct
within which man is engaged is incompatible with a dialectical worldview
as the terms of understanding are themselves always in flux, thus
precluding a settled expectation of divinity in an externalized
transcendental realm.</p>
<p>It functions as a dialogue which includes oneself but necessarily
requires the rest of the existing world as a component for, in most
cases, one’s victimization through the conditions of the world and the
others who are party to it requires a correction not of the self, who is
not accountable simply due to being extant as the product of the
surroundings. As such, any observed error, shortcoming or revealing of
one’s lack of grace is simply an indication that one has been prevented
from embodying their true essence due to these surroundings, which must
be transformed.</p>
<p>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 can even promise to make the impossible and
unimaginable real.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Such a thing cannot be attained without relinquishing human being
itself, 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.</p>
<h4 id="completing-man">Completing Man</h4>
<p>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 toward an
objective as identified by the state, then no objective becomes too
difficult nor too absurd to promise to the citizens.</p>
<p>Some might wish to say that there is no state in the final
permutation of world and society, or that one is critical of the state,
but all collectivist cult affiliation necessarily requires that it
itself functions as the state, or that the state must adopt the goals
and even language of the cult such that it can be leveraged. The state
must be a stepping stone in the right direction and, ultimately, even if
there is no formal state as political society, the state is always an
everlasting object as the state of spacetime.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<h5 id="impossible-objectives">Impossible Objectives</h5>
<p>I wish to highlight again that there’s no limit as to the absurdity
of future promises to be made by the intelligentsia on behalf of a
conceptual collective so long as it is mediated through the state by
virtue of a social contract. The high falutin betters are not in the
business of actually realizing anything whatsoever at the level of
concrete edification; the elite-minded moral busy-bodies are able to
convince themselves they’ve realized everything at the level of idealism
through making commitments, especially on behalf of those who might have
a difference of mind.</p>
<h2 id="the-description">The Description</h2>
<p>Communism is, according to Marx, the state of human life and nature
which follow from these evident truths: - Human beings engage in
volitional activity; - 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</p>
<p>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</p>
<h2 id="the-statement">The Statement</h2>
<p>Revisiting Marx’s revealing statement: &gt; “Communism as the
positive transcendence of private property as human self-estrangement.”
- Karl Marx (Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 - Private
Property and Communism)</p>
<p>How does one normally perceive such a statement? Isn’t Communism just
getting rid of private, for-profit mega-corporations which otherwise
enjoy ridiculous monopolies at everyone else’s expense and replacing
them with state-certified production of whatever people need in
appropriate quantities and with standards which solve planned
obsolescence, and any other worry consumers might have currently.</p>
<p>Well, no, there is no state in Marx’s theoretical formulation of
Communism.</p>
<p>The whole notion of a consumer, at least as per a socialist, extends
from the premise that there are roles of human life which necessarily
separate people into class, with these roles causing humans to have
fundamentally different qualities of life, different outlooks, different
access to knowledge, different bias, and so forth. That there is a
consumer follows from an assumption that some would produce and others
would not. But, for Marx, the idea that some produce, beyond a temporal
point of human, social and technological development and evolution,
becomes a mistake which denotes a stagnation in the continuation of the
process of man evolving to realize the type of existence which should
follow the base faculties of human being as differentiated from
animal.</p>
<p>All humans create their life within the range of their capacity to
conceive, have thoughts and perform actions which make the life they
desire a reality. Humans are related to one another through shared
environment and possess faculties for socialization means that humans
act in the world that they create which affects all humans. Given their
ability to ponder reality, the conditions of the world, the manner in
which their actions affect others, and the manner in which actions of
others affect them, it is said that humans act in accordance with all
other humans as a whole.</p>
<p>This means that, if we were to find a set of conditions that truly
brought satisfaction to any man in life, it would be because their
capacity to imagine the world they desire was unhindered by the actions
of any other man, as well as the conditions of the setting being shared
with other men. Some would insist that such conditions would correspond
to there no longer being a state, as there would no longer be a state
required to manage possible grievances or moral infractions between
men.</p>
<h3 id="withering-the-state">Withering the State</h3>
<p>Both Marx and Engels wrote of the eventual dissolution of the state,
as its existence would become moot and redundant given a sufficient
transformation in the conditions of man and society, but it was perhaps
Vladimir Lenin who formalized dialogue on that topic to a more
conclusive degree. Lenin drew from the ideas and writings of Marx and
Engels, and was very clear about it by basing his comments on the
progression of societal change toward the elimination of state most
fundamentally on reflections he made on the quotes of Marx and Engels,
whom he found to have considerably different views on the role of the
state, but whose logical conclusions can be consolidated through
developing our understanding of what the concepts and their related
terms, such as democracy, ultimately mean. Such semantics are not so
important, however, as the main point to get across is the degree to
which distinctions need to be eliminated for a true conception of
liberated humanity which, according to Lenin, would be one without a
state due to the absence of class distinctions.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is
necessary.” - Vladimir Lenin (The State and Revolution - The Economic
Basis of the Withering Away of the State)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>“The Communist Manifesto gives a general summary of history, which
compels us to regard the state as the organ of class rule and leads us
to the inevitable conclusion that the proletariat cannot overthrow the
bourgeoisie without first winning political power, without attaining
political supremacy, without transforming the state into the”proletariat
organized as the ruling class”; and that this proletarian state will
begin to wither away immediately after its victory because the state is
unnecessary and cannot exist in a society in which there are no class
antagonisms.” - Vladimir Lenin (The State and Revolution)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>State only exists both as a utilitarian function and evidence that
conflict between classes have not yet been eliminated, thus serving as
the implement by which the dialectic plays out according to the tension
of those classes and which works to drive history. Once the proletariat
have truly attained supremacy as a ruling class, those with the power to
direct the affairs of society will also be those with the consciousness
necessary for man to liberate himself. Lenin believed that a transition
period of dictatorial rule by the proletariat was necessary before the
eventual and complete dissipation of state.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Dialectics is the theory of knowledge of (Hegel and ) Marxism. This
is the aspect of the matter (it is not an aspect, but the essence of the
matter).” - Lenin (Lenin’s Collected Works)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We see, once again, that Lenin’s contributions are based on the
Hegelian faith, which is to say a faith which precedes Hegel but is best
understood through Hegel because of the manner in which it encompasses
both the role of state as the worldly manifestation of the divine at the
present moment in history as well as the belief that this fundamental
phenomenon of world transformation, both as a feature of existence as
well as a tool to be utilized by human consciousness, is the means by
which all of reality reaches its eschatological destiny.</p>
<h3 id="pragmatic-communism">Pragmatic Communism?</h3>
<p><em>Indeed, on the Marxists.org website, they speak of the nature of
truth and actually position Communism as being close to pragmatism,
except with everything’s utility measured insofar as it propagates
Socialism and installs Communists in power. Here, however, we’re talking
about the perspective of a pragmatic Communist who claims that
incomplete Communism (which is also Socialism) is still
Communism.</em></p>
<p>Some will retort: “Well, it’s all the same: the incomplete societies
are still doing communism as is first feasible, with room for change as
time passes. They are still the societies that are communistic by
comparison.”</p>
<p>I’m not even necessarily denying that, but the point was that it will
never satisfy the capacity for a central authority to assert for or make
a claim to ever-greater power. The logic of the system of thinking is
that private exchange of use of goods as a financial transaction, and
the necessity for having such activity estrange man, the worker, owner
and consumer, and that this perpetuates and becomes even more insidious
with each subsequent generation which must adopt the corresponding
practices. According to Marxism, these are a set of ritualistic
practices as part of ideology pushed in order to survive in the system
such as it is.</p>
<p>Continuing down a path and calling it Communism while knowingly
contradicting its principles may sound like a death blow to a communist
revolutionary’s thinking, but it is quite the opposite. Whenever a
communist feels they must do something contradictory in order to operate
to their benefit (even insofar as being able to fulfill their stated
obligation - such as perpetuating communism or socialism), it becomes
several things for the communist all at once: - Evidence that they are
right (look what we are forced to do) - Enjoying special privilege at
your expense - Protest against the system - Production of tension which
transforms society in their favour</p>
<p>Those confused by it are negated in the process which systematizes
reason.</p>
<h3 id="placing-definitions-in-context">Placing Definitions in
Context</h3>
<p>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 Collectivism).</p>
<p>If Communism is the end stage of a historical process, Marxism is the
theology from which that is derived as an ought, particularly through
its ontological and teleological declarations. The study of Marxism is
what has developed toolsets which are faithful to those
declarations/descriptions.</p>
<p>Communism is the God-object at the end of the transformation of man
and nature, through the creation of new man. It is the state of life and
the stateless beginning of our new history. Stateless only in that there
is no state separate from ourselves, and we are co-continuous as the
existence of man, for if there were any deviation from such a
permutation of reality and human existence, we would not yet be at the
point of Communism, for the state of liberation (as opposed to a state
as entity which governs) would not be true for all men.</p>
<p>Conversely, Marxism is the means of understanding the here and now in
the context of oppression. Marxism is the belief system which puts faith
in that process. It explains the true nature of man based on what it
means to be human, and how man and mankind can come to be fulfilled in
their existence. It also requires faith to believe that something will
come to automagically be through removing known things as barriers or
sources of corruption but without laying the first brick of whatever
future edifice you expect should come to be potentiated and come to
fruition by the acts of negation.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<h4 id="we-arent-like-that-historical-faith">We Aren’t Like That
(Historical Faith)</h4>
<p>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.</p>
<p>There is a massive difference between historical and historicist and
many who use the terms historical and historically are actually doing so
in the context of a historicist understanding of the world and
description of human life, reality and purpose.</p>
<p>History on its face should be nothing but an effort to develop an
objective understanding of the events of human existence as a
dispassionate chronology that can be reviewed, drawn from, curated and
updated using the rigorous, unbiased and impartial application of reason
about our present knowledge. But to make a claim that something is
historically relevant or that something today can be defined based on
its historical precedent, rather than the neutral understanding of what
that thing is today, is to claim that we need to apply a lense which
falls outside the toolset of universal application of logic and reason.
This is where history becomes an input for performing praxis on the
basis of Critical Theory, but even this is a modern application of
something which has long existed.</p>
<p>Understanding historicism, much as with Hegel or Marx, requires us to
understand that the concept of science or what is scientific has itself
evolved and that its preceding phases weren’t necessarily the
dispassionate application of the techniques we’ve come to associate as
being Scientific Method. Furthermore, it’s not difficult to imagine how
common it would have been to have such presumptions about history:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“The historicists believed that history was not only a science but
the science par excellence, because it alone could grasp the
individuality, development, and meaning of human life in its full
concrete reality. Unlike the natural sciences, which abstract from the
particular to find universal laws, history comprehends the unique and
particular in its organic development.” (Beiser - The German Historicist
Tradition)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Historical Idealism and Historical Materialism came to develop such
as they did in large part because of what we now refer to as the
Historicist Tradition. As the prospect of a scientific understanding of
the world was sought at a time both when history was beginning to be
conceived of as a discipline and science was being circumscribed, these
ideologies and historicism itself came to be deeply embedded in the
structure of political society and the aesthetic of modern human
thought.</p>
<p>I argue that the way historicism and historical thinking was used was
not to manipulate through rationalizing based on historical knowledge,
but an example of the manner in which humans are disposed to think and
approach something based on its use as provisioned by virtue of: - a)
how it interfaces with the body (or can be imagined to), and; - b) what
this something represented (what abstraction was cognized at a high
level) by the mind upon undertaking the operation of observing,
imagining, and appropriating the conceptual object at the moment of
cognition, as it is the only reasonable universality we can examine
given the difficulty of finding consistent parametrization for how
humans cognize objects</p>
<p>How it interfaces with the body is an interesting concept to explore
here. When we consider our body in its finite form in a system that is
transforming not just temporally but its very substance, limitations,
symbols and meaning thereof through subjective perception. The manner in
which technology and the knowledge are changing allows us to consider
that a higher level science is developing bearing significance in the
interpretation of the body, its place in the system, and the limitations
of that body in the system. It stands to reason that there is an
inherent hope that limitations of human embodiment are going to be
addressed, so long as sufficient development occurs as a consequence of
the historical process. This is tantamount to an indiscernible
completion given that, should those resolutions be met, we would no
longer have angst with respect to any desires or conceptions that are
otherwise limited. That is to say, it would allow for a new phase of
temporal existence and a new history, which is very similar to what is
described by Marx when he says the following:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“…in the entire so-called history of the world is nothing but the
creation of man through human labor, nothing but the emergence of nature
for man…” - Karl Marx (Economic &amp; Philosophic Manuscripts of
1844)</p>
</blockquote>
<h4 id="they-dont-even-know">They Don’t Even Know</h4>
<p>People pushing for Communism will obviously not be aware of
historicism, yet they it’s clear they are thinking dialectically in
terms that are never fully-formed. This is the hallmark of
collectivists, just as their collective is never complete yet its
construction stands as the precondition to a world where their terms
will finally be fully realized and intelligently affirmable.</p>
<p>For those who are surrounded by intellectuals who proclaim themselves
as measured centrists yet decry everything below them as populism and a
stepping stone towards fascism, it will ring a bell to reflect on their
propensity to comment on the aesthetics of the target of their critique,
and denounce it on the basis of what direction it’s presumed to lead
toward. This will serve as sufficient rationale to propose an
alternative which itself needn’t be something which exemplifies a
principle so much as it heads in a direction which they believe exudes
the flavours of progress, particularly given historical references. For
example, an amalgamation of Europe is a good thing because of a war
precedent, in spite of any criticism about it, because its formalized
and amalgamated structure is itself a symbolic guide and lacking
sufficient power to cause negative effects.</p>
<p>But what do they see when looking at Communism?</p>
<p>It is represented as something never fully formed and referenced as
something not Communism, except by hardcore activists and
true-believers. But, ideally, in constructing a plausibly cognizable and
crystalline conception of Communism, it would come to be seen as: -
Something plausibly referenced in the way that it is expected to be
commonly understood - Something for which your support of it won’t lead
to your being attacked by the public, legitimate state, or in those in
private - Something which has power: - It needs power to assert
something totalitarian - It needs even more power to progress toward its
goals; - Or at least to indicate it’s addressing its goals</p>
<p>Unless it is something fringe and outside of most people’s lives, the
crux of Communism, collectivism with the promise of liberation extending
from Marx’s critiques, will not have to be advocated for, nor any of its
premises. You will instead only be made to insist on the popular
cultural artifacts of the day, and the values of the most popular set,
or the set extending from the state. Marxism and revolutionary theory
will cause the proliferation of Marxist political action through
institutions, and any apparatus which reaches the people. The
implementation adapts to the contemporary aesthetic and temperature
level; it needn’t mention classical categories in order to implicitly
compel towards an equitable end state. Its execution necessarily becomes
more totalitarian as it proceeds in articulating itself.</p>
<p>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. Take note, of course, that
any advocacy for all occurs through focusing on the few or some subset
subset rather than the degree to which the law is universally stated and
universally applied. It must be applied in a way which denies the
possibility of universally applied and universally administered law.
That corresponding 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.</p>
<p>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 human by eliminating any analysis of their individually
disseminated report or stream of thought and any of their creations and
productions; we have the rationale to deny communication of any kind.
Instead of allowing for humans to be understood both in universal terms
and by assuming they are operating through universally-accessible
faculties, we exploit social systems and relations by making such
principle-based methodologies inadmissible in the place of a critical
assessment using the lense of Marxist analysis.</p>
<p>All group analysis is ultimately only significant as it relates to
the prospect of engaging in critical praxis for the purpose of
liberation consistent with revolutionary theory. That a basis is formed
on a particular or combination of dimensions of social critique bearing
significance in the realm of thinkers extending from Marxist analysis,
Critical Constructivism, or Critical Theory can be largely ignored when
hoping to understand the phenomenon, as such details are a distraction
and invitation to be lulled into validating the false premises or
expending your life often futile combat. Unfortunately, it’s actually
necessary to know the details of the false descriptions and proposals
as, ultimately, they have to be defused and the work to do that must be
demonstrated. Adjudicate accordingly.</p>
<p>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 policy, nor the patterns of
behaviour which extend from their implemented organizing structures,
governance and systems of inquiry which come to be affected, erected or
in the same way made fearful or inspired.</p>
<h5 id="perceiving-imminent-authoritarian-collectivism">Perceiving
Imminent Authoritarian Collectivism</h5>
<p>In many ways, the inspiration for the thinking I’ve developed around
collectivism and thoughts about why humans offer no resistance to the
systems around them as they potentiate a more authoritarian future has
come from my personal observations. I struggled to find the right way to
express what I was witnessing as those around me who seemed to proclaim
universal freedom and liberty would somehow promote ideas and repeat
refactored statements that were pro-tyranny. Though I had many ways of
understanding it, deconstructing it and rationalizing it on the basis of
what I perceived as the psychological and immediate social incentives, I
have found the concept of having embraced a dialectical way of thinking
as being an excellent model.</p>
<p>It’s particularly drôle and a tad disconcerting to see a never-ending
and sophistic dialectical buffet being conducted around the encroaching
threat of authoritarianism, especially since most of the hyperbolic
takes come from histrionically-performant agitators from all walks of
life.</p>
<p>While many can clash and grovel over whether or not some nation or
government was able to veritably instantiate a political system in
accordance with the desire for a true Communist state, what does the
normie human mind see when it considers Communism in the context of its
own life?</p>
<p>For any sort of encroaching authoritarianism, the mind sees it either
as something that it wishes to annul and prevent, or something utterly
inevitable for which it’s either too hopeless and complicated to push
back against, or inevitable as something promising some form of
absolution. In the case of this description, we’d like to focus on the
latter with the second modality: inevitable and promising something,
such as completion of the world.</p>
<p>It needn’t be the moon, though that’s certainly within the range of
plausible promises, given that the state promises anything and
everything in order to earn the support of its citizens, if even the
power to rationalize the dismissal of any protest or criticism. It can
simply be the promise of maintaining one’s social salience and
professional viability, as well as the ability to avoid being censored,
dismissed and forgotten. Beyond that, however, it becomes the promise of
whatever appeals to one’s ego, so long as one is obedient and
maintaining compatible messaging with state infrastructure. The appeal
through the gnostic disposition is endless, as humans yearn for a
liberated existence in a very general sense. It’s important to note that
the term “gnostic” doesn’t refer, to members of the religion of
Gnosticism per se, but the proclivity of humans to engage the world
symbolically, making for a political outlook, and the manner in which we
perceive reality in those terms as it pertains to the potential to
eliminate the anxiety of human embodiment as our soul finds meaning in
the pursuance and mitigation of those symbols.</p>
<p>When we come to view the impending changes to our environment as only
being a matter of time before they are widespread and adopted by
everyone, then we have an incentive to get ahead of it. In the worst
case, this might come to be seen as having been required to get ahead of
the inevitable changes, while in a better case one might respond such as
to believe they are helping to direct the changes to best serve the
environment and its inhabitants.</p>
<p>Once you are biased to accept the continued construction of an
inexorably powerful ruling entity, you are also biased to interpret its
critics as something that can interfere with the future you are now
invested in. Whether it’s the prospect of complicating your future thus
impacting negative emotion or as an opportunity for you to demonstrate
obedience and allegiance, it has now become easier for you to accept
rhetoric which denounces critics of the regime.</p>
<p>Those who rebel, resist and reject the advancement of its power will
be labeled as those having the privilege to enjoy doing so, as though
they’ve enjoyed such privileges long past their culpability in untold
acts of dishonour worthy of notoriety. Regardless of whether you agree
with those implementing the new standards of authoritarianism, those who
are attacking it are to be spoken about as though they are only doing so
because of their privilege and access to unearned power which could only
be used for the wasteful or the obscene. Only someone with excess
resources would risk their social credibility and congruity to power.
Having sufficient confidence to speak ill of an entity with great power
means they too may have power, but given that they are not an entity
with oversight over the entire social environment, it’s still a good bet
they wouldn’t ultimately be a formidable match.</p>
<p>The impending state of totalizing power becomes something to be aimed
towards, desired and well-regarded as, since it is inevitable, one has
no choice but to accept it with open arms.</p>
<p>One can also rationalize its existence and reframe it in more
agreeable terms. “It’s not Communism, it’s just taking care of our
neighbourhood. It’s loving your neighbours and being a good neighbour
yourself. It’s sustainable practices, which show my intelligence. It’s
fairness and inclusion, or inclusive capitalism, nay, sustainable
capitalism”.</p>
<p>The forthcoming totalitarian age is something with which integration
is necessary in order to preserve oneself, one’s identity in the
permissible representation which validates state mythology, and one’s
life. You need to register with the new system, as it’s already going to
be your system and it could be just like you. If you are to purchase the
product, which is your life, and ensure the vendor doesn’t completely
ignore you or see you as a malicious actor, then you surely need to be a
suitable candidate for both the purchase and subsequent service and
support.</p>
<p>The totalitarian entity is something chosen and indicated from the
central and most powerful point of society. If something is to be
implemented for which absolutely everything will be relevant, then its
composition and deployment is through that which has authority over
everything.</p>
<p>Lastly, it is a necessary aspect of social integration of oneself
that one must maintain proximity to the implements of the superstructure
through its articulations as they manifest. This is a prerequisite in
order to have any opportunity for advancement in status, profession, and
so forth and is, ironically, a necessity for privilege.</p>
<h4 id="cognition-of-collective">Cognition of Collective</h4>
<p>I wish to keep intimating that collectivism is presented as the
manner in which it interfaces with an individual. I posit other
representations necessitate suspension of belief or refer other
cognizable objects in order to allow their descriptive syntax as they
cannot invoke an actual collective consciousness. The most charitable
affordance could be allegedly experienced or perceived collective
consciousness as comes about through altered states with psychoactive
compounds and meditation, but that these states aren’t conducive to
compelling political action in the manner in which collective
organization of society is advocated for.</p>
<p>What does one envision when confronted with the notion of a
collective? A collection of objects in a space, like a jar? A society? A
collective of people? In what arrangement and context? Is one
envisioning the containment of people, or other object of some sort?
One’s containment against some barrier? A collective conveys a few ideas
nearly immediately.</p>
<p>Perhaps one envisions their own exclusion or rejection by a force
greater than any single individual or interest and that this poses a
difficult challenge to them.</p>
<p>One might also envision one’s act of collecting by their hand: the
holding of things to represent a form of abundance.</p>
<p>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 of choices are dissimilar not just
because of different preferences and backgrounds affecting personal
biases. The conceptions edified through the visual cortex by the being,
their communicable theories and the aspects of reality proclaimed as
corresponding objects are each different.</p>
<h4 id="collective-typing">Collective Typing</h4>
<p>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 and locale,
you still cannot assume that the conceptual object being cognized in
relation to any particular event, place or thing will be similar, much
less identical.</p>
<p>We treat them as equivalent yet we can learn to be clear about
people’s individuality. Individuality can’t be a qualifier for group
masking of actual people with real instantiated consciousnesses as it’s
something the qualification of necessarily means considering things only
insofar as they can be applied universally at the level of the
individual.</p>
<h3 id="collectivism">Collectivism</h3>
<p>“Collectivists believe life is alienating except when reflecting
self” - Me.</p>
<p>It’s important to remember that collectivism in general as Communism,
or the set of rationales put forward by Marx 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 it. This is “gnosis” to be explored in
further depth, but for now I want to make the point that understanding
this phenomenon isn’t as simple as establishing there are persons with
“gnosis” beforehand who are attracted to this philosophy, system of
organization, way of seeing their socialization or method of
world-making. Nor is it the case that upon initiation into a practice of
collectivism that one must somehow proclaim gnosis, or work to discover
that they have some sort of secret knowledge before moving forward.</p>
<p>In this case the factor of “gnosis”, much to the chagrin of angry
activists themselves who to criticize the use of the term by asserting
its only suitable when capitalized in reference to ancient cult
religions, can be described as a chicken-and-egg situation whereby it
becomes a side effect of of dialectical thinking intrinsic collectivism.
The mere act of assuming an unreached destination as prerequisite
necessary to grant a universally-accessible epistemological toolset
whose legitimate use is otherwise skewed on the basis of some identity
theory such as class or a structurally-determined material qualifier
like race necessarily obligates the assertion that one understands
something that needn’t be qualified through the universally-accessible
epistemology.</p>
<p>The epistemological distinction, bound to metaphysical orientation,
is the fundamental distinction between collectivist and individualist
thinking, which might be better understood as a divide between
dialectical faith and realism. And the consequences of contending
against collectivist thinkers is indeed quite grave.</p>
<p>For example, the difference between those who believe this and those
that don’t is tantamount to a genetic deficiency or racial inferiority.
If the consensus decides there is a path to salvation, and some only
respond with friction and resistance, then they are literally
regressive, dangerous to the human race, and existing as a blight or
infection.</p>
<p>This historicism is paired with the notion of praxis which drives to
the same goal relentlessly while ensuring that any contradictions or
obscene manifestations, such as the death of naive peasants through
circumstance, can be dismissed out of hand.</p>
<h3 id="praxis">Praxis</h3>
<p>Praxis means we know the objective but don’t need to provide a
complete understanding of how and why. In fact, the objective itself can
remain unspecified except as a vector. You are to have faith in the
endpoint and understand that there’s no need to find ways to express or
portray the composition of that endpoint, as it can be expected that
such an endpoint will become realized in tandem with the elimination of
the drive or tension that compels any towards it. It promises both
everything and nothing at all. It assigns final judgment to even those
who are most difficult to judge.</p>
<p>When considering praxis through the eyes of the practitioner, they
might think “I peer into the soul you never even knew. The model and
theory of your mind, body and soul are something beyond you, but which
reveal to me your essence and true nature. Only I can understand
precisely the way in which you cheat, lie to, and estrange everyone and
even yourself.”</p>
<p>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 inequity) are the aspect of
social existence which rob people of their capacity to discern and
cognize things such as they truly are.</p>
<p>With no universally applicable base of understanding or method for
sense-making, the oppressor must bow to the oppressed, and those with
special insight into these truths must be given the means of enforcing
the transformative changes otherwise resisted by the masses.</p>
<p>Without the means of asserting, using and accepting methods based on
logic and reason, this becomes the superordinate process. Praxis is, by
definition, superordinate.</p>
<h3 id="alternate-reality">Alternate Reality</h3>
<p>If you accept an alternate theory of knowledge through the premise
that there are biases preventing legitimate meritocratic assessments
from being carried out then you will be in for a rude awakening:
<strong>The alternate way of knowing is your negation.</strong></p>
<p>This means of thinking exists to negate you, for founded as the
rationale to dismiss expression. The idea is that ways of understanding,
knowledge and accessibility of epistemologies are feasible for some and
not others and this destroys the notion that the world is simply
observable and that its aspects can be known in a universal sense. A
world where things can come to be known through being within it, a part
of it, and through being able to observe and contemplate, it is
destroyed along with you. In its place is a world where you may not be
able to know anything, and where some have a more human consciousness
and state of being by virtue of the matter which forms their bodies with
the power, might and wisdom of history itself coursing through their
veins, both in how their flesh presents and in the manner that the flesh
of the body becomes the inevitable point of attention by the mind.</p>
<p>Either reality is knowable or perhaps more accurately is in the
process of being revealed to be 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 for the same
reasons. As such, the manner in which we seek to understand reality most
accurately is universal.</p>
<p>To put it another way, given that both the limits and the best
available and most viable toolsets for understanding reality are
universal, we must fundamentally agree that the knowability of truth is
universal and a human challenge and that the details of such a challenge
are located in the ways in which we are the same, regardless of whether
some individuals might suffer more impediments than others.</p>
<p>Furthermore, we can deduce from this conundrum of human life and
being that the solution to most if not all our human and social problems
lies in the universally-applicable means of mitigating the limits of
knowledge.</p>
<p>Disrespecting 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 and requires some type of attack on language.</p>
<h3 id="back-to-species-being">Back to Species Being</h3>
<p>In thinking about ideology, let’s step back to re-examine the meaning
and significance of the Species Being.</p>
<p>The arguments by Marx about the Species Being, or being as a being of
the species and for the species as through one coming into alignment
with their ontology, sounds esoteric not necessarily just in the sense
of it possibly having a relationship to occultism, but literally in the
sense that it sounds, even at the surface, obscure and far-fetched which
casually yields rationale for its dismissal. But the very concept of
Species Being is obligatory once we start indicating any form of
collectivist ascription. You cannot have an argument for there being a
collective, even as implied through proposing the existence of, say, a
social contract separate from seeking out one’s greatest mode of life as
an individual. That is to say, it is to claim that one’s obligations to
social reality are somehow discrete and oppositional to individualist
aspirations.</p>
<p>The collective obligation is synonymous with Marx’s Species Being,
regardless of whether one tries to make the claim that potential for
flourishing and a fulfilling life would be made possible through having
fulfilled those collective obligations. There is no way to prove a being
beyond the individual, and even that requires some degree of faith
which, in this author’s opinion, is the minimum faith one has to decide
upon embodying through reason that they can hopefully compose for
themselves.</p>
<p>By the motif of the Species Being, humans are able to impose a theory
of knowledge dependent upon the distinctions which exist between men, as
material or otherwise such as through culture and alternate expression.
If we are to both envision that all humans are to be these species
beings or components of Species Being yet are unable to attain their
nature until they express their human life in this way, wherein they
live their lives as and for the species as man in himself, 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. If this is still not yet clear, or the likely aesthetic
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
of the corresponding historical event of covidism.</p>
<h3 id="but-fascism-not-communism">But Fascism, not Communism</h3>
<p>The point I’m really trying to drive home is that once you possess a
collectivist perspective, you are set on the same totalitarian path of
eliminating distinctions and though various collectivist ideologies can
be enumerated, including ones which are understood as being antithetical
to one another, their differences are highly superficial. This is
strikingly evident when considering Fascism.</p>
<p>One thing stood out to me right away when I first began reading “The
Doctrine of Fascism” was that the core of all collectivist ideologies is
immediately communicated: &gt;“Fascism is action and it is thought;
action in which doctrine is immanent, and doctrine arising from a given
system of historical forces in which it is inserted, and working on them
from within” - Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile (The Doctrine of
Fascism)</p>
<p>Action and thought amidst historical forces towards the immanent?
Perfectly analogous to Historical Materialism. Marxism is Critical
Praxis, theory and practice, to achieve Communism as the solution to the
“riddle of history”: &gt; “The history of all hitherto existing society
is the history of class struggles.” - Karl Marx (The Communist
Manifesto)</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“The unity of theory and practice, is the revolutionary core of this
method” - György Lukács (History and Class Consciousness)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Full quote: &gt; “It is not the primacy of economic motives in
historical explanation that constitutes the decisive difference between
Marxism and bourgeois thought, but the point of view of totality. The
category of totality, the all-pervasive supremacy of the whole over the
parts, is the essence of the method which Marx took over from Hegel and
brilliantly transformed into the foundations of a wholly new science.
The primacy of practice over theory, or rather the unity of theory and
practice, is the revolutionary core of this method.” - György Lukács
(History and Class Consciousness)</p>
<p>They’re essentially the same thing, but people get stuck on the
Nationalist vs Internationalist distinction. The internationalist state
of spontaneous Socialism void of contradiction and oppression would be
the step after the perfection of the conditions at an international
level, which would be akin to a superstate. And the Fascist state? Well
it seeks conflict with other states until it reigns supreme.</p>
<p>So, in effect, it too would need to become the super state, if ever
the zenith of its ascension were ever to be achieved. At that point, the
distinction between its dissolution, aka its “withering away”, or its
eternal status as the perfected edifice may serve as the final
distinction of each logical conclusion. That’s not much of a
distinction.</p>
<h4 id="syllogism-on-fascism">Syllogism on Fascism</h4>
<p>The Question: can you have a collectivist undertaking which is not
either Communism or Fascism with the caveat that its undertaking
includes an aspect of Communism coming into being as part of the
historical process of developing the Fascist state? We ask this question
because, in practical terms, there must be some means by which to orient
the masses which, in theory, includes differentiation of personality and
opinion, regardless of whether there’s a concept of an ideal formulation
wherein those differences will have been resolved such as to place each
member in perfect alignment. For this reason, some revisionists of
Fascism have posited that, given the ideal of the state as an organic
entity transcending the multiplicity of human beings, each participant’s
role, purpose and spiritual value are expressing some form of equality,
and that this is tantamount to a more correct permutation of a common
and perfected human existence, but that still differs from the concept
of Communism either popularly understood or being presented in this
book.</p>
<p>However, there is something to be said as communists continuously
assert that Fascism is a dualistically-mediated component of the reality
that they describe and acknowledge. To elaborate, Fascism is either a
component to reality driving the need of having to create the Communist
endpoint or is itself the reaction to a revolutionary force, while
fascists themselves have largely manifested as a reaction. There are
some semantics to work out in fully consolidating an understanding of
what Fascism is, both as a philosophy and historically, as it was borne
of Syndicalism and is itself a progressive ideology, which is to say
that it is an eschatology which develops through historical praxis. But
those semantics aside, that Fascism is largely understood as either a
reaction or that which Communism combats leads to the misassumption that
it is unlike and dissimilar in its opposition.</p>
<p>Its telos, ontological claims, philosophical underpinnings, and its
pairing with Communism as the dialectical engine of tension to move
history forward, which is the desire of a mind believing in historical
praxis, make them one apparatus. Furthermore, this author asserts that
most of the semantics surrounding Fascism, and even Communism,
especially as espoused by those undertaking its praxis, serve as
mystifications, and that these mystifications just serve as the
agitation to heat the engine in pursuit of collectivist conformity into
a totalitarian political society. The more easily understood figuration
of Fascism is as an authoritarian system which is totalizing, which
leaves no room for anything outside of itself as a perfect state, and to
which all humans are subordinate in purpose and value, and that these
are all the necessary conclusions of Collectivism as a whole.</p>
<p>All Collectivism must be totalizing and must destroy humanity.
Collectivism for the entity of the state because it allows everyone to
be their true self. Collectivism for the purpose of abolishing the
state, with the state existing as evidence of conflict between men. #
Negation</p>
<h2 id="not-an-aspect-the-essence">Not An Aspect: the Essence</h2>
<p>Another level of understanding Marxism, and what I argue as being
generalized most broadly to collectivism as a whole, while emphasizing
that this is not merely an aspect of it, but is the essence of it, as
Lenin will emphasize in the following quote, is that this is a process
of negation.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“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</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We must strongly articulate that it’s incomplete to put this all on
Marxism as Marxism is not the reason that this occurs in the first place
but is just an arguably sophisticated formalizing of the human tendency
to compel a forced view of reality through collectivism, which is to say
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.</p>
<p>That this is in order to maintain or instantiate some aspect of
perceived reality, we can say that it is to reify it. When we say
“reify”, we intend to mean it in precisely the way in which Marxists use
the term when suggesting, for example, that capitalism is an ideology
which reifies perceptions and beliefs which cause one to adhere to
practices which maintain the structure of power relations such as it is
or make the power discrepancies more pronounced and to teach a mythology
about the virtues of capitalism in order to sedate oneself into a
comfortably stupefying self-certainty about one’s place, conduct and
happenstance, rather than correctly interpreting the reality of the
situation. That is, living for a superior configuration of existence
where each of us is liberated.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in
order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or
consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the
living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he
will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded
his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around
himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which
revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around” - Karl Marx
(A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right)</p>
</blockquote>
<h2 id="hegels-concretization">Hegel’s Concretization</h2>
<p>It is more than a mere 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 towards the desired. That is, we can have faith that that
which evoked an effect in the world was true application and if it was
done with theory informed purpose, then it is the expression of truth as
genuine and deliberate 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 being composed, 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.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“But, second, it is more than just the unessential; it is being void
of essence; it is shine. Third, this shine is not something external,
something other than essence, but is essence’s own shining. This shining
of essence within it is reflection.”</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>“Essence is sublated being. It is simple equality with itself but is
such as the negation of the sphere of being in general… Essence itself
is in this determination an existent immediate essence, and with
reference to it being is only something negative, nothing in and for
itself: essence, therefore, is a determined negation.” - Hegel (Science
of Logic)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>“Reflection is the shining of essence within itself. Essence, as
infinite immanent turning back is not immediate simplicity, but negative
simplicity; it is a movement across moments that are distinct, is
absolute mediation with itself.” - Hegel (Science of Logic)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
<p>This is Hegel’s concretization of Being through negation against the
abstract. That is, what you think you understand or perceive of the
world has, against it, a contradiction to be composed in idea and put
forward as a criticism leading to the replacement of what was only a
more abstract concept of reality, as had been seen before. Now, we are
presented with a tension that induces transformation and as this
transformation of the target or previous articulation, it comes to be
obliterated.</p>
<p>The whole proposition to progress through change predicated on that
tension is a proposal to negate in order to give rise to the actual.
Though, for the idealist, it is said to be done in search of something
better, but in reality it has given rise to such domains of thinking as
Critical Constructivism and its need to induce crises, leading to the
creation of an angrier world where enforcement of thought may be
potentiated.</p>
<p>!TODO: quote Kevin Kumashiro (Against Common Sense: Teaching and
Learning Toward Social Justice)</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Consequently, educators need to create a space in their curriculum
for students to work through crisis…teaching and learning really take
place only through entering and working through crisis, since it is this
process that moves a student to a different
intellectual/emotional/political space.” - Kevin Kumashiro (Toward a
Theory of Anti-Oppressive Education)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>“It is precisely because learning about oppression can be so
upsetting that it holds so much potential for change. By moving students
into a state of discomfort or crisis, educators can open up
possibilities for students to question and transform their oppressive
frameworks.” - Kevin Kumashiro (Troubling Education: Queer Activism and
Anti-Oppressive Pedagogy)</p>
</blockquote>
<h2 id="sacrifice">Sacrifice</h2>
<p>Sacrifice as a modality of negation is crucial to consider in any
domain that can be understood as a collective, for sacrifice is
inextricable from the very idea of positing that the role of any being
is as a member of a collective. The sacrifice as negation is indeed the
primary and lowest level operation of the transformative process, as the
very anticipation of advancing through transformation in consideration
of materializing the collective is only cognizable through the sacrifice
of the multiple for the one. That is, the multiple individuals for the
one as whole. The differentiated components of the order of system, or
the order of being as is considered through human perception, is
actualized through sacrifice.</p>
<h3 id="why-this-is">Why This is</h3>
<ul>
<li>To eliminate the distinction of any individuated object is precisely
its destruction</li>
<li>A conscious act which is volitional, both as conceiving and through
invoking</li>
<li>The ultimate target for transformation is the world one is a part of
<ul>
<li>Having others see it as a sacrifice is believing that you have
suffered through it. The event of its being witnessed is positioned as
evidence, making it real and true.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
<p>Those “doing the work” believe they are contending against a
brainwashed populace who perpetuate implanted lies as assimilated
members of a structurally determined existence, and this in turn
continues the never-ending oppression wreaking havoc on the humanity to
which they themselves could be a part of. This work is a process of them
taking on the pain and frustration of battling with the hegemonic
enforcement mechanisms which that populace is more directly a part of,
and which is what’s keeping them from being full participants of
humanity. Among the victims are children, who are the one key by which
to break the cycle, and the potentiality of being. The self-sacrificing
warrior laments that it simply isn’t enough to grapple with every
linguistic manipulation and enforceable structural implement or other
means of coercion. One needs to actually create the very texture and
fabric of perception as this concomitantly breaks through into the
realization, demonstration, enablement and “dis-inhibition” of what is
possible. The result of this, in theory, is that they’ll have
necessarily invoked an interlocutor’s, witness’ and subject’s
imagination, visualization and sense of confusion yielding cognitive
dissonance, and the faculty to reconsolidate their perception of their
environment and, by extension, their world. To hit the bullseye they’ve
been aiming at changes the fabric of perception as a political act.</p>
<p>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 toward 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.</p>
<p>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 only 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 similarity or arbitrary
association to something else, or through knowing of its opposite
through it and this making it appear as though both it and the opposite
are somehow equally foundational to it. Finding examples of this is key,
but it most generally extends from one’s exhibition of adhering to a
stance due to one’s unwavering principles. The more honest and authentic
one’s commitment to their principles, the more vitriolic and insane the
effort to smear that individual as promoting the very opposite. In the
woke cult, the only way to demonstrate one’s worth and one’s virtue is
to make allegiance and conformity to the unwavering principle of
disregarding reality.</p>
<h2 id="modern-negation-and-crisis">Modern Negation and Crisis</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>“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.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>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)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>“…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.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>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))</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If we don’t negate the previous conception of the world, then it
lingers and corrupts the current frame of existence, and since at least
the perception of reality is socially constructed, if not reality itself
(which is an idea that has become increasingly more common than many of
us would have ever imagined), then changing the conception of the world
necessarily entails preventing the current perceptions of the world from
maintaining themselves in the next generation of children, hence the
need to induce crises in them. Put another way, the conception of the
world is the aggregate perception of the world given a theoretical
belief about the world of man having an underlying reality whereby the
whole and the parts are intrinsically bound to one another and carrying
a quality and structure in which the two are ultimately
indistinguishable.</p>
<p><em>How are crises rationalized? Well they’re rationalized as being a
healthy response to an unhealthy world, thus describing the world in
terms which induce a crisis in an as-of-yet uncorrupted mind becomes a
point of evidence that one has described that world or taught that child
accurately.</em></p>
<p>The alternative to that nonsense is to consider this: “I am building
in gratitude to offer new possibilities as thanks to reality.”</p>
<h3 id="ultimate-negation">Ultimate Negation</h3>
<p>When I speak here of the ultimate negation, I feel that there may be
more than one answer based on the state of the world and the cultural
manifestations that have become broadly familiar in our time. This is
because there is one form which has become the most toxic and pervasive
which I would like to expound upon. Other forms, though seemingly not as
deleterious and anti-human, at least on paper in terms of the logic
inherent in its semantic structure, may very well be associated with
more actual death or destructive events in recorded history, but it is
the logic of the theory that I think fulfills the designation of being
“Ultimate Negation” as we aim to maintain humanity in the times
ahead.</p>
<p>The ultimate system of negation for human life, as we have been able
to come to know and experience, is Queer Theory, but I don’t think that
we can really grasp its operational relevance and metaphysical
implications as the queering of the world of man and of society without
considering it as part of the transhumanist plight which may or may not
necessarily augment humans to God-status for it must, more
fundamentally, grapple with the notion that the human body and the human
life are not enough.</p>
<p>Queer is at the heart of the negation process, both because of where
and how it currently stands, but also because of how it relates to the
human form and how queer is the inevitable development following a
progression of ever more sophisticated gnostic refutations of human
life. Humans have, since time immemorial, been reflecting on dealing
with the prospect of a pseudo-immortality through everything from myth
to philosophical abstraction on the basis of considering the meaning of
procreation in the face of man’s mortal existence.</p>
<p>Some might say that it’s feminism which is to blame, as it gave us
Queer either through the seminal works considered as being the
originating of a discrete Queer Theory, which came from radical
sex-positive feminists like Gayle Rubin, the postmodern Hegelian banter
of Judith Butler, the formalizing of Queer as a term denoting critical
transformative change by David Halperin, the French postmodernists
themselves, or even the view that woman is a process of becoming as
other to demiurgic spectre of maleness which plagues women across the
world. Even Orwell warned about women:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the
most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the
amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.” - George Orwell (1984)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There are also those who will say that Queer Theory is not something
to be concerned about, as it doesn’t have a stable-enough grounding in
reality in order to maintain a sufficiently coherent structure to really
bring down much of anything.</p>
<p>Others, still, will say that it’s not worth identifying Queer Theory
itself, as these are all just superficially differentiated forms of
“anti-capitalism” and all these different cultural manifestations are
just variants of the same thing, such as Communism, and that we could
simply focus our effort much better by generalizing everything and
shrinking the set of operational terms to a minimum.</p>
<p>There’s something to be said for simplifying, but you would be remiss
in failing to consider how toxic and deleterious Queer criticism is in
how it preys upon the facets of human thought which are most conducive
to feelings of resentment toward the biologically embodiment of human
life - something for which most have already dealt with resentment
about.</p>
<p>With all that in mind, we should at least examine Feminism a little
bit more closely.</p>
<h4 id="muh-feminism">Muh Feminism</h4>
<p>!NOTE: Feminism article?</p>
<p>In a way, it’s correct to respond to the proposition of Queer theory
by examining Feminism, but there seem to be multiple ways by which
people attempt to separate them. For the modern “Gender-Critical”
feminist, they undoubtedly see the need to separate them. In fact, they
see Queer Theory as an implement of Patriarchy having infiltrated what
is the liberatory process of women, and they evidence this on the basis
of there being biological males in female spaces, and biological males
doing Queer activism to redirect and confuse the revolutionary energy
intended to free women. Of course, there are plenty of females doing the
same, and the boots on the ground doesn’t really tell you where the
ideas come from. A more correct interpretation of Queer Theory is as the
evolution of, at least, the idea of Feminism as it becomes updated to
remain viable and operationally significant and, more accurately, the
evolution of cult collectivism as the logical pursuit of the prospect of
collective delusional thinking.</p>
<p>Some might say that, prior to the more pronounced proliferation of
Queer Theory of the 2000s and, in pop culture, the 2010s, the phenomenon
of people distancing themselves from explicit association with Feminism,
if perhaps even as seeking self-empowerment or choosing a more
post-feminist lean, caused its more aggressive activism to become less
stable. Though warmth to standard feminist rhetoric had become less
popular out of academia it had since become familiar more familiar to
hear the insistence for the prioritization of the equal treatment of
women, particularly in an institutionalized surrounding, that they are
competing against the odds. That familiar sentiment speaks to the degree
to which it has become considered as the common, sensible, and popular
outlook to have, even if it is now inducing significant pushback.</p>
<p>But why do we avoid considering that as significant in many areas of
popular and academic discourse?</p>
<p>Because of the goals of Feminism, or any view which utilizes Marxist
Critical Analysis (and yes, it is my opinion that Feminism fundamentally
requires a critical analysis predicated on class struggle), it can’t
stop at universal application of liberal principles. No, it stands
against Liberalism, or “Classical Liberalism” for those who like to
differentiate the two, and it does so at its fundamental position. That
is to say, that which defines it fundamentally makes it opposed to
Liberalism and, if adequately pursued, should lead to its
destruction..</p>
<h3 id="all-collectivism-is-anti-liberal">All Collectivism is
Anti-Liberal</h3>
<p>That should be elaborated upon, because it is quite a statement to
say that the goal of something is the destruction of Liberalism, but I
find it difficult to not reach this conclusion for the same reason I
gave in my criticism of every other form of collectivism commented on in
this book.</p>
<p>All collectivism, even when pursued by those who claim to be in
favour of a society based on Liberalism, must be eschatological and, as
such, must delay the application and expected viability of Liberalism.
Just as Robin DiAngelo’s antiracism is a “lifelong commitment to an
ongoing process”, and “That Wasn’t Real Communism, the work of
collectivism is never done.</p>
<p>Even if every law written and every policy enacted is done in such a
way as to not permit the preferred treatment of any person classified
along some abstractly identifiable trait other than, say, being a
criminal with a history of murder and pedophilia (and even such people
have laws they can refer to in order to avoid being discriminated
against), it can still be argued to never be enough. Any lingering
discontent in the life and experience of a person who has found a
culturally referenceable stereotype, even if obscure, by which they
believe they can plausibly declare themselves as being associated in
whole or part can be used as fodder to decry their having been oppressed
by a villain whose identity they perceive as their other.</p>
<p>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 a state apparatus provisioned to serve
as infrastructure dedicated this very situation, such as a Diversity
policy, they will always have the comfort of knowing they could reject
any doubt about their conduct and proclamation and find a credible piece
of universally accepted evidence that they are correct by sheer
enumerability in the form of the state’s own participation and identity
declarations. A reusable reference coupled with state authority can go a
long way of convincing the discontent that their method of re-asserting
themselves is legitimate in a world that heretofore kept them down.</p>
<p>With rule by law by a state which presents as the manifestation of
divinity in the current concrete form tangible to us, and as our
superordinate entity which grants us life, rights, nobility and
morality, those who chose to reify a mythos by proclaiming an identity
which proves the state’s description of history and legitimacy of its
stated goals are fully-legitimate beings.</p>
<h4 id="its-feminism-when-we-want">It’s Feminism When We Want</h4>
<p>There is a prevailing issue pertaining to the essence of these
Critical ways of thinking, and it is that dissatisfaction is
continuously identified, breeding resentment, and that this becomes a
perpetual cycle. In fact, it is this cycle which powers the engine of
activism in seeking change.</p>
<p>If it’s the lense of Feminism then it’s the implicit understanding
that the outcome will always be unsatisfactory because of patriarchy,
and these sentiments will themselves prove that oppression exists in the
exact form described by feminists, Critical Theorists, and so forth. The
moment this is championed by a state government, as is always sought, is
the moment we can be assured of its practical march to
totalitarianism.</p>
<p>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 revolutionary desire means belief the laws
don’t work. It means that processes addressing certain problems and
currently accepted solutions haven’t been working and need to be
replaced and eliminated.</p>
<p>What are some things which Feminism finds have not been addressed? -
Wage Gap (in ever more insidious and confined forms of quantification) -
Violence against women (any number of things beyond physical violence by
men vs women are construed as this, including violence of men against
men) - Hegemonic imposition of any kind: - Women can be not women: -
Queer theory: praxis undertaken to finally embody expression of woman -
Gender critical: Patriarchy’s manifestation of Transgender Rights
Activists suppress the life and expression of real women - Expectations
about how to live, feel, present and behave - That women and men might
sometimes dress differently (this sentiment has almost completely been
relegated to the domain of Queer)</p>
<p>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 forms of oppression against women. Yet more
obvious, still, is how some of these new concerns are actually Queer
Theory, but which get presented as that of Feminism, or
Intersectionality, the latter of which should be reasonably seen as
including Queer theory or at least functioning as an essential interface
towards its proliferation. Tracing the lineage of Queer Theory to
Feminism is not very hard as we can look towards any number of seminal
works of Queer scholarship and see that they came from people who were
and are still considered to be feminists, including by themselves.</p>
<h3 id="queering">Queering</h3>
<blockquote>
<p>“… une femme n’est pas nee, mais devien” - Simone de Beauvoir (The
Second Sex)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This statement is the basic premise of gender non-conformity and,
more importantly, queering. If Simone de Beauvoir is to be taken as
correct in making her ground-breaking statement “a woman is not born,
but becomes”, then we have before us the instantiation of queer, even
before its formalizing.</p>
<h4 id="queer-as-ultimate-negation">Queer as Ultimate Negation</h4>
<p>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 so 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.</p>
<p>But this isn’t about your freedom to pursue meaning. It isn’t even
about your freedom to pursue identity, with Queer theory presupposing
that reaching and expressing one’s identity correctly will bring them
into a state of harmony from which their most meaningful existence will
be derived. This presupposes that the circumstances from which your
identity becomes possible emerge conditionally from that which must be
made the target of Queer theory, which proceeds ostensibly as a process
of the pursuit of meaning, but is actually a violent and dehumanizing
tool which must modify and destroy not just others, but oneself.</p>
<p>Though poising itself as something to ground the ungrounded,
especially in popular culture, educational institutions, entertainment
and other areas where its praxis comes face to face with common people,
it is not a domain of thought or toolset by which to provide humans with
positive encouragement, illumination and a framework to build stable
lives so much as it is a threatening arsenal of methods of negation
which must remove any expression from human society which could
otherwise be theorized to interfere with one’s capacity to imagine
themselves as something which will cause a disruption in the other that
perceives them.</p>
<p>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 mere fantasy?</p>
<p>Well, it isn’t even so much that the manner in which one
self-perceives is liable to be a fantasy, but that the notion that one
could have any insight into self-perception, especially to such an end
that one could know whether they self-perceive correctly, or to an
acceptable level of satisfaction, is a fantasy. For a state apparatus to
be used for such a purpose is the enshrining in law of a civilizational
right to pursue fantasy, and this on its own is not something
intelligible.</p>
<p>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 to be 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 a true state of
being by ensuring that there are no expressions serving as evidence that
the conditions have allowed freedom of perception to be granted.</p>
<h3 id="controlled-expressions">Controlled Expressions</h3>
<p>As we again see, it is the expressions themselves which must be
controlled because, as they serve as evidence of not being in the
desired state of reality. They evoke friction and sow doubt as to
whether the delusion will fully actualize, bringing great offense to the
cult initiate, activist and believer. Once the cult participant’s belief
about their identity is bound to the hope for a state of affairs that is
free of offensive expressions, any evidence of an entity existing out of
alignment is itself an attack on the self-perceived identity of the cult
member. In a superficial sense, these are the goals of the cult. When
the expressions are perfect, uncontaminated and without conflict, these
expressions will have led us to liberation.</p>
<p>But, then, which expressions are these? Well they are those that
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.</p>
<p>It is a system for suppressing expression with the faith that it
leads to a perfected expression. But the process of perfecting
expression and the methods used in that process are not conceived of or
designed in some way such as to formulate some form of better
expression. On the contrary, though expressions are transmitted, they
are constructed vis-a-vis the targeted expression against which it seeks
to be brought into conflict with. Like a fully-differentiated IgG
antibody marking a specific type of undesired cell for destruction, the
tactical expression targets the particular expression deemed to be
operating within the system to prevent, suppress, contaminate, or
otherwise hinder the true and righteous expressions of species and
Universe.</p>
<p>It isn’t just usually negation; it is negation, and only ever
negation. Why is that? Because the opposite is the thing which intends
to do something. As critical praxis, all action arises through
identifying the actions, edifices and formations which have created and
they must be destroyed.</p>
</body>
</html>