logicp_writings/Book/DRAFT.md

This is the latest sequenced writing

Themes:

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

Questions

Defining

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

Many complain about semantics, or even allege a fundamental distinction to be worked out in choosing how to best identify what might be a threat, what the meaning of a term happens to be, and so on.

I contend that we can talk about defining these terms based on what they mean as concepts, but that when we refer to people as being instances of an idea, and whether they are this because of them having identified in this way, we run into unresolvable problems.

Communist as definition, Communist as self-described, Communist as deciphered by the onlooker.

• Communist the { concept, idea, model, theory }
• Communist the { identification, declaration, social culture }
• Communist the { observation, allegation, categorization }

1. Theory described as a model of what could be
2. What one might claim themselves to be
3. What one asserts others to be

The theoretical concept of what a human being may be -> described fundamentally as an ontology and:

• the species Being -> Marxist definition/description
• people advocating for a political system / political party

First Principles Investigation of Communism

July 18, 2024

1. The Species Being

"Man is a species-being, not only because in practice and in theory he adopts the species (his own as well as those of other things) as his object, but – and this is only another way of expressing it – also because he treats himself as the actual, living species; because he treats himself as a universal and therefore a free being.

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

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

2. Self-Proclamation

• my social surroundings expect this of me
• social surroundings will be affected by this
• stand in for other identifiers
  • furries, trans, feminist, queer, decolonialist

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

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

3. Political System

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

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

In spite of which instance of a supposedly communist system comes under the lense of analysis, there will always be a large proportion of self-professed communists today who will reject it, claim that it is not a communist, and even claim that the party or, more commonly, the system was/is actually an example of the exact system communism is intended to obliterate and/or supplant.

• Has not been tried
• Gyorg Lukacs
  • All revolutions either fall to reactionary counter-revolutionary forces, or;
  • opportunism

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

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

Psychological Dispositions

There are some interesting discussions re: the cause of adopting the communist perspective which contend that communism is principally a disposition borne out of existential despair.

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

But it is an incomplete view in that it is proven on the basis of diagnosing communists, but not working out all the possible points of origin for the behaviour of these candidates.

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

What can be more reasonably asserted is the following set of statements:

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

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

Moreover, we might say that there is a weakness of character which facilitates such choices and outcomes, but the susceptibility which fulfills the conditions is one common and universal, after all, and which will be mad emore clear in the following section.

Categorical Descriptions

The real category

Introduction:

• Theology
• Religion
• God-Object
• Biological Reality

Before disambiguating whether the term is most correctly thought of as any one of these, we first need to make something abundantly clear: the reality and viability of the collectivist phenomenon sometimes referred to as Communism is natural, universal and something everyone may very well have experienced (though many may not recollect or realize this). This might sound obvious, to many political theorists, in that its what has already come to pass - but not so: there are plenty of obscene and inhuman practices for which it needn't be said that the potentiating factors are universal, but which come to pass through mere environmental and cultural factors. What I am saying is that all people are able to experience this and likely have and that it is important to illustrate an empathetic path to understanding this phenomenon. (That is, I don't only say that one must have empathy in thinking about it, but one should discuss this phenomenon in a manner which illustrates the path by which it came about in an empathetic fashion - in a manner which speaks to everone)

Biological Pre-requisites

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

And what are some of these characteristics?

• finite biological system
• single sensory frame (high level composite of cluster of senses)
• perception of self
  • sufficient to abstract and speculate
  • "consciousness"
  • knowledge of death
• capacity to communicate with degree of semantically expressive syntax sufficient to speculate consciousness of other human forms
• experience of dimension of time (state change with single path and direction)

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

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

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

A phrase to help us remember this acronym is: "Stop And Find Knowledge Together" "Strengthen Authentic Feelings Kindly" "Sort All Faulty Karents Teasingly"

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

Senses

Abstract

Finitude

Kill

Time

Cheating Death

Something especially crucial to highlight amongst that set is that the capacity for abstraction / speculation and the knowledge of death means the fulfilling of the requirements sufficient to cause one to believe that death can be evaded.

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

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

Basic Framework to Imagine This

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

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

Verification of Truth

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

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

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

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

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

Professionals Led Astray

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

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

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

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

But this is the perfect example in some ways, as he is clearly willing to expose himself to some scrutiny by (or on the behalf) of the holy by taking an anti-woke stance, albeit a limited one, and standing up for at least some form of principles. It just so happens that his own woke programming allows him to treat the state as divine when it comes to supporting a political party - which comes in the form of seeing science as divine and, thus, beyond reproach, as well as the form of repressive violence where, unless you are caught up in the unconventional view, you are essentially demanding for the pre-emptive censorship and violence.

Exclusion

The threat of exclusion is a constantly wielded scalpel with which to make social and psychological modifications and it is nearly impossible to conceive of the fine line whereupon a balance is discovered between useful stressor and destructive disabler. How do we know that shame and the threat of lonely starvation induces healthy, desirable behaviour supporting an incontestably desirable form of development for any human? Both the liberal view and the idealized view of the communist (at least insofar as Marx himself had fantasized about) is that a human should be able to pursue their affairs without coercion (at least to the extent that they are not causing violence to others -> first order physical violence) or oppression and domination through the advantage of one's access to capital (communists).

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

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

This is always the recurring programming coming from the cultists: identify a vulnerable person and suggest that their very whim must be met so long as food can be prepared.

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

So, now, to our categorical definition, which is bound by imminence in that it is an object which relates to every man and, thus, is ontologically consistent with man as a process of engaging in his self-definition. It is not man himself and not necessarily the aggregate of him, nor his geist. It is the object relating all then and serving in such a capacity that, upon its imminent attainment, marks the phase whereupon evidence of man's nature finally manifests by virtue of the conditions which were now made palatable by man's own hand, such as to make him "man in himself".

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

• A theory of how man proceeds to communism

How does this proceed? Through conflict and struggle

Still Struggle

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

Remark

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

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

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

Though it seems perfectly valid and reasonable to choose to deepen one's understanding of any given concept or cognizable artifact, that is through universal application as it relates to individual thinking - reflected upon and perhaps leading to communicable thought and that the weight of its impact through man and society is only to be found in the degree to which one, themselves, has been affected in thought or in their person, or to the degree to which one communication serves as effective rhetoric.

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

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

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

Perceptual frame

The perceptual frame is the first phenomenon, as phenomenon in itself (to borrow some Hegelian terminology) that we each experience, and it is nto an aspect of our experience from which we ever depart, lest we depart from experience altogether.

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

This isn't an argument as to whether a human has thoughts to the exclusion of other animals, but that we are examining the experience of having a human body, what it might be disposed to perceiving of that experience, and how that should inform our opinions about what it means for a human to proclaim, define, or associate with some referenceable manner of thinking (in this case, Idealism).

Even if it were the case that their experience was absent the sense apparatus, some might call it a perception less tainted and others might say it lacks relevance insofar as the experience lacks environmental context, but then if there were any content at all, it would be as a realm of ideas, especially as can be imagined as an experiment in mind, for it is easy enough to see that if truly an experience could be had which was completely devoid of content, then it would be oblivious and so for every case our conception holds relevant.

If at base of development we are already at a mode of perception which may plausibly be perceiving such to assume that the (one's own) frame of perception is the only one in existence, or the only type of perception that may be perceived but could be perceived in multiple instances, or otherwise as a perception whose outlook from the subject (perceiver) looks (TODO: what is this? -> you could even imagine a cultish formation insisting on what is perceived, or how and in what way or per what quantity and that in isolation it would be the only meaningful perception). Far less likely would it be to envision a cult which believes an isolated perception with no sensory input as being void of thought or state of mind - such a thing is not even alleged of those who reach a vegetative state, except maybe at that final limit.

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

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

Hegelian Framing

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

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

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

Whereas classically, and as an intellectual pursuit, dialectics consists of examining what is not understood by examining what contradictions can be found, or what oppositional terms and concepts can be set in conflict with one another (generally as per their relationship to something already cognizable), and using the tension brought out about the dual items of consideration to invigorate the drive towards one's better understanding, but Hegel's is different:

• dialectical tension occurs in all things
• dialectical process is the engine of change
• dialectical tension evokes change and this is what drives history
• this movement in history is heading towards a moment of resolution

Some would call this imminentization or eschatological in that all that occurs is in the context of this endpoint in order for the occurrences to be considered in their most reasonable representation. Some might also call this being scientific, or applying a scientific analysis.

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

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

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

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

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

Remark: There is something to be said here about the insistence of being able to represent things in idealist terms. The problem about ascribing idealism to someone's view is that even if they themselves proclaim themselves as idealists, we can't really understand what's going on with anyone at whatever time they're speaking or as they're rationalizing something in mind, discourse or otherwise. I want to take the approach that we all likely go through modes of conception, perhaps even at all times, which are compatible with what we describe as idealism. We already agree that there is a subject/object split to a degree that a human being cannot look at any object and understand it in absolute terms - its complete structure, nature, composition, context towards a purpose, or whether it exists in context of no purpose at all. We can observe it and understand things about it and make inferences or contemplate shapes or feelings or patterns or concepts that are invoked or somehow influenced by it. Even if we are creating a geometric model or represented image as per our nervous system engaging with the object, or our conception of the object, and the activity of our visual cortex, that image is not the thing in question, and though by itself makes it an idea in its own rite and not necessarily the idea of the thing it's purported to be in reference to. The idea exists as an abstraction, and further abstractions are conjured even upon reflecting on the experience of perceiving that thing in question. It's difficult to really express the degree to which this can make a huge difference in someone's thinking

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

Another aspect of this which I haven't yet mentioned which is essential to this view is that of double negation. This conception of a future endpoint is essentially one of accepting a certain degree of mystification in the adoption of the process of absolution under an overarching expectation that the mystification will be resolved once the process has ended.

It is through this expectation that one is not simply in the circumstance of making a claim without substance or without the positing of something concrete (such as providing the solution, or describing the logical conclusion of a logic or line of reasoning that has been put forward), but is the manner through which ne holds onto a belief without they themselves having witnessed the substance of it.

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

Formulations

We see many formulations of this happening:

• Sustainability
• Racial Justice
• Queer Liberation
• Communism
• Decolonization

Remark

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

This more mystical incarnation of dialectic (and it is precisely that) is not specifically catered towards improving understanding of what is - it may just as well function to reduce understanding in the short term. The understanding is only conceptually valid at the end of the process (an ever-present theme). What dialectics is understood to provide is the methodology for change (often to be regarded as historical change). Whether one believes the fundamental nature of the Universe or reality is material, ideal, or something unspecified, the faith remains the same: inducing conflict produces the tension of the dialectic which drives history forward towards an endpoint which resolves these tensions.

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

Queer Liberation

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

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

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

We will need to examine this in a few ways:

• The dimension of concern
• Biological interfaces
• Innate sense of faith
• Formal mechanisms

Dimensions of Concern

If you are familiar with Queer Scholarship, or are a practitioner of queer yourself, then you might already think you grok the right term but the average participant to the discourse is coming into it with their concept of queer derived from one of the following:

• Pop culture/movies/music/TV
• Hobbies (relates to culture but often has queer structural implementations)
• Workplace
• Activism

Pop

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

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

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

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

Defining Queer

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

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

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

The only positive endpoint which would satisfy the process of dissolving anything considered normal would be a state of liberation wherein no distinction can be discerned, and that this would exist as one of the following permutations:

• undifferentiated many
• absolutely differentiated many
• one, oneness, pure essence, pure Being, undifferentiated one, the Monad

Desire

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

Marx's conception of Man as a Species Being, and the ontological claims about man's needs and purpose in life necessitate totalitarian classification - not because people agree on the semantics, and not even because most would feel that proclamation of agreement could ever alleviate the heightened nerves and angst of the doomsaying collectivist, but precisely because if it were true that a human nature could not be expressed except through a state of perception which is truly free of the oppression and judgment of men, then there is no feasible option to proceed towards other than the power to control reality - human reality.

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

Appearance

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

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

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

This again relates to the problem of construing communism as a political system for which governments of that type have already been formed - and there is good reason to do this - which is that these are the precise systems which have come to be created atop the ideas in question, and we need practical and concrete examples in order to connect people to a deeper understanding of what these things actually are.

The problem that we arrive at, in more detail, is that the concept being instantiated is so far outside of reality, and so antithetical to what we understand about biology and human consciousness that they could never satisfy the model without first destroying all of humanity (and the world).

The concept of a completely totalizing system is something wherein all actions and occurrences are in concert and are coming into being in a manner which drives the divine expression of the system or state with no compression, no entropy, no loss of potential. It is a perfect permutation of a reality which comes into being in harmonious union between the theoretical model of perfected existence and the practical/concretized activity of all things. This perfect permutation is the state of being having configured into its perfect form.

Communication

But to communicate these ideas intelligibly such as to remove all doubt and disagreement, then they must be considered as per their most perfect representation, then they must be considered as per their theoretical formulation as put forward by their father - he whom has given them form. TO do this, we can examine the following of Marx's quotes:

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

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

No.

Where does Marx think our self-estrangement comes from? It is our inability to make manifest in reality the things that one thinks.

TODO: REDO

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

Queer Communism

It is the same thing with queer: we must make the condition such that we do not have a need to enumerate identity. We will simply be man in himself, truly liberated to express and exist without moral implication, judgment and expectation over the fact of us having a body.

This is the ultimate manner of being unburdened by what has been - unburdened by the fact of having had to exist with a human body.

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

It is no trivial matter for virtually each of us have faced the callous judgment (or even terrifying prospect of it) which cripples your sense of self and makes it seem unfairly dependent on perceptions which don't necessarily have your best interest at heart. One is lived into deep contemplation over the realization that all are subject to this and, thus, the resulting pronouncement must, therefore, be for all intents and purposes valid.

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

Atomic Forces

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

Some may disagree that such a superfluous endpoint could be sought, even in time (with enough time), but I would wager that we do this instinctively as an organism bearing certain elements:

• biological organisms instinctively orient towards and pursue the avoidance of unwanted sensation from the body. Yes, we do things which lead to discomfort but that is not the same as reacting to the immediate sensations of the body as they occur.
• We have posited a means of evaluating truth claims on the rejection of universally applicable logic and reason
• we have declared that we can pursue things that do not yet exist and we can utilize things which we expect will come into existence

We can do a few more examples, but they all follow the same logic with the same arrangement of entities, with each a distinct aesthetic and dimension of value and evaluation of morality, resonance, and ultimately one's capacity to live one's life according to their true, natural, uncoloured and incorrupted state of being.

Race Enums

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

Race exists and thus oppression exists - you must participate in racial praxis to create the better world. You must continue doing this until such time that we are no longer able to conceive of race and, at that point, the following also be true:

• we cannot enumerate race
• we will exist in a just world
• people can exist as they are, unburdened by what has been
• your (or anyone's) participation in a process of praxis will be no more

Double Negation

These constitute the forms of double negation that we are most familiar with, at the cultural level:

• Classical Marxism: negate the process of negating the existing order
  • negate capitalist society and private property (bourgeois private property)
• Race Marxism: negate the process of negating whiteness
• Queer: negate the process of negating normalcy
• Feminism: negate the process of negating patriarchy
• Critical Pedagogy: Promises perpetual revolution

In each of these, the prescription and the expected benefits are the same:

• identify source of oppression

In each of these, the prescription, critique, and alluded benefit are the same:

• identify source of oppression affecting distribution of resources and division of labour.
• The dimension of concern may appear different aesthetically based on the sociocultural critique
• negate all expressions inline with the hegemon/demiurgic force
• the new world awaits where the end will have justified the means

Dialectical Religion

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

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

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

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

Completing Man

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

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

The Description

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

• human beings engage in activity which is volitional;
• which is not influenced by any desire or need;
• and especially not a need associated with survival;
• and all aspects of society are fulfilled by this as free activity;
• there is no state

The communist advocates for this endpoint, and they perceive Communism as:

• a God object
• a perfectly spontaneous ordering of life
• a return home
• entering the garden of Eden
• having one's fill from the tree of knowledge

The Statement

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

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

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

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

Pragmatic Communism?

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

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

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

Continuing down a path and calling it communism while knowingly contradicting its principles may sound like a death blow to a communist revolutionary's thinking, but it is quite the opposite. Whenever a communist feels they must do something contradictory in order to operate to their benefit (even insofar as being able to fulfill their stated obligation - such as perpetuating communism or socialist), it becomes several things for the communist all at once:

• evidence that they are right (look what we are forced to do)
• a way of enjoying special privilege at your expense
• protest against the system they hate
• something producing tension which transforms society in their favour
  • if you are confused by it, then you are negated in the process which systematizes reason (from contradiction)

Collectivism

It's important to remember that collectivism in general as communism (more accurately Marxism - not as something which Karl Marx put forward as a domain of thought, but as a study of the logic of Marx which drove him to desire Socialism) and Fascism, function through its purveyors strongly believing that they have special insight concerning history and mankind and how humans are to transform with the knowledge of this.

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

This historicism is paired with the notion of praxis which drives to the same goal relentlessly while ensuring that any contradiction or obscene manifestations can be dismissed out of hand.

Praxis

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

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

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

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

Without the means of asserting other methods of logic and reason, this becomes the superordinate process. Praxis is, by definition, superordinate.

Alternate Reality

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

As a means of thinking, it exists only to negate you. The idea that ways of understanding knowledge and which are accessible to some and not others destroys the idea that the world is simply observable and that its aspects can come to be known in some universal sense. A world where things can come to be known through being within it, a part of it, and through being able to observe and contemplate is destroyed, along with you, and in its place is a world where you may not be able to know anything, and where some have a more human consciousness and state of being by virtue of the matter which forms their bodies with the power, might and wisdom of history itself coursing through their veins, both in how their flesh presents and in the manner that the flesh of the body becomes more an inevitable point of attention by the mind extending from an association with it.

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

That is to say, we must fundamentally agree that knowability of truth is a universal and human challenge and that the details of such a challenge are located in the ways in which we are the same, regardless of whether some individuals might be impede by this more than others.

Furthermore, we can deduce from this conundrum of human life and being that the solution to most if not all our human and social problems lies in the mitigation of this.

The disrespecting of one another through failing to acknowledge this crucial fact about our existence is at the heart of all the ideologies which come to plague us.

Back to Species Being

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

• unable to attain their nature until they express their human life in this way which lives as and for the species (man in himself).
• able to impose a theory of knowledge dependent upon the distinctions which exist between man (as material or otherwise (culture, alternate expression, or otherwise - through the farmer is especially evil)).

Then, we necessarily indicate and require a process leading to the elimination of all distinction between men and for the state of life as a species being to be achieved (one can even liken this ). If this is still not yet clear, or the likely aesthetic of this in the face of human bodies and advancement of technology, then it will soon be made more clear after examining the same subject from the lense (and reflecting from the corresponding historical event) of covidism.

What to Define

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

If Communism is the end stage of a historical process, Marxism is the thought about how to ?? the process.

Communism is the God-object at the end of the transformation of man and nature, through the creation of new man. It is the state of life and the stateless beginning of our new history. Stateless only in that there is no state separate from ourselves, and we are co-continuous as the existence of Man.

Marxism is the means of understanding the here and now in the context of oppression.

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

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

We Aren't Like That (Historical Faith)

When the cult says "historical", it means "historicist". Is there a difference? Yes, of course, but not specifically because history only came to be studied and carefully considered later, but because of the way it was used and I argue that the way it was used, though a certain misuse was not fundamentally a choice to misuse something so much as the manner in which humans are disposed to think and approach something based on its use as is provisioned by virtue of:

• a) the manner in which it interfaces with the body, and;
• b) what this something represented (what abstraction was cognized at the high level by the mind upon undertaking the operation of observing, imagining, an dappropriating the conceptual object at moment of cognition (TODO: theory: especially the first moment, as it is the only reasonable universality we can examine given the difficulty of finding consistent parametrization of subsequent events of congition (though, to be fair, this sholud be met with peering into research about a sweet spot for cognizing objects wherein the composition of the major aspect of the conceptual object is made into its most crystallized form.)))

They Don't Even Know

People pushing for Communism will, of course, not be aware of historicism, yet they are quite clearly thinking dialectically in terms that are ..... never fully formed.

So, if they are looking at communism, what would one see? Obviously, in the meantime, it is represented as something never fully formed and likely referenced as something which is not communism (except for the hardcore ones and those who know the literature - sometimes these are the same thing). But, ideally, in constructing a conception of communism which is as crystalline and cognizable as possible, it would come to be seen as:

• something plausibly referenced in whatever way it is commonly referenced
• something for which you will never be threatened and attacked by the public, and the state (and in private)
• something which has power:
  • needs power to assert something totalitarian
  • needs even more power to progress towards its goals
  • or even just to indicate that it is addressing its goals

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

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

We compose a conceptual encampment of historical effects and the specification for the inner workings of people's minds, which goes so far as to lay claim to what knowledge can be expressed, known or learned by any specific individual human by eliminating any analysis of their individually disseminated report or stream of thought, any of their creations and productions, and any communication of any kind, and instead by making such things inadmissible in the place of a critical assessment using the lense of Marxist analysis as it relates to the prospect of engaging in critical praxis for the purpose of liberation consistent with revolutionary theory on the basis fo a particular or combination of dimensions of social critique bearing significance in the realm of thinkers extending from Marxist analysis, critical constructivist analysis, and critical theory analysis and their contemporaries.

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

Perceiving Imminent Authoritarian Collectivism

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

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

Draft 1

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

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

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

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

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

Draft 2

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

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

Negation

Not An Aspect: the Essence

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

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

• Lenin

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

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

Hegel's Concretization

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

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

THis is Hegel's concretization of Being through negation against the abstract. That is, what you think you understand or perceive of the world has, against it, a contradiction and a criticism which replaces the abstract concept of reality as you saw it and present a tension demanding transformation. You also transform with it, lest ye be obliterated.

That whole proposition to progress through change predicated on that tension is a proposal to negate in order to give rise to the actual. This is done in search of something better (if we are to be charitable in language, but no -> we can reference TODO: Critical Constructivism and the need to induce crises which is creating an angrier world where enforcement of thought may be potentiated).

Modern Negation and Crisis

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

Generative themes arise at the point where the personal lives of students intersect with the larger society and the globalized world."

• Joe Kincheloe (Knowledge and Critical Pedagogy, an Introduction)

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

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

Educators have a responsibility to draw students into a possible crisis."

• Kevin Kumashiro (Against Repetition: Addressing Resistance to Anti-Oppressive Change and the Practice of Learning, Supervising and Researching (2002))

If we don't negate the previous conception of the world, then it can't change, and since at least the perception of reality is socially constructed (if not reality itself, depending on who you listen to or how you want to interpret some people's work even to this day), changing the conception of the world necessarily entails preventing the current perceptions of the world from maintaining themselves in the next generation of children, hence the need to induce crises in them.

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

Ultimate Negation

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

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

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

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

• feminism is to blame
  • gave us queer
  • Orwell warned about women
• Queer doesn't worry me because it's not based on reality
• Ultimately these are all just anti-capitalism
• these all feed into Communism - we should focus attention there

Muh Feminism

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

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

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

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

All Collectivism is Anti-Liberal

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

The work of collectivism is never done.

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

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

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

It's Feminism When We Want

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

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

What are some things which feminism finds have not been addressed?

• Wage Gap (in ever more confined forms of quantification which ignore so much to the contrary)
• Violence against women (any number of things beyond physical violence by man vs woman are construed as this, and it has even expanded to mean violence of men against men)
• Hegemonic imposition of any kind
  • women can be not women - whaT IS a woman?
  • expectations about how to live, feel, present and behave

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

Queering

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

Queer as Ultimate Negation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Controlled Expressions

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

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

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

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

It's Not an Ism

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Health of Humanity

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

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

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

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

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

The Trick of Reality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Experiment

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

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

Intermission

Covidism

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

Ideas vs Players

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

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

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

Race

Players

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

Info

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

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

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

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

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

Anteceding Procreation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Queer

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

Reality ( as being challenged )

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transhumanism

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

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

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

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

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

Upheaval

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

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

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

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

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

Dissatisfying Distinction

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

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

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

Digression

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

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

Summarizing

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

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

Covidism

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

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

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

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

Acting on Body is Acting on Mind

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

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

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

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

Dialectics

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

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

Yes, opportunity to do:

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

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

• Covid is actually social justice

• Covid is sustainability

  • is social justice

• this is all evidence of transphobia and fascism-creep