logicp_writings/queer/double_negation.md

Double Negations

Contemporary

We highlighted the manner in which the human mind is prone to adapting an expectation and that it can impose a behaviour that is incongruent or even anti-thetical to its stated beliefs and values under the assumption or declaration that the behaviour will be negated at the appropriate time. Let us examine two prevalent forms of this in our current society.

• Expectation of future event becomes rationale for allowing a behaviour in the present
• Behaviour may contradict stated objective

Queer Negation

The Queer activist insists that some are characterized by unnormal forms and behaviours and that this puts them into the position of being oppressed by a social structure which values normalcy. It also contends that what is imposed as normal has come to have been asserted as such by those who have the power to set norms, and that they do this to maintain their access to power.

Furthermore, it suggests that as long as oppression exists, it becomes our duty to identify queerly in order to push back against the normalizing aspects of society or at least to maximimze the likelihood of queer identification, since it is these normalizing aspects which are maintaining oppression.

• Those who are not normal are oppressed by those with power who set or maintain the norms
• Moral impetus to identify "antinormal" as a strategy of eliminating oppression

Thesis

Human beings cannot express their true nature

Antithesis:

Enumerate all possible ways of being and propose / suggest that humans take on/perform these roles.

Synthesis

Humans find or realize their true nature of being.

Here, we find the double negation in the form of first having negated the mechanism by which humans couldn't express their true nature, which is done by proposing alternate ways of being that disrupt the current standards, and then later negating that process of negating - that mechanism - a double negation - which we can have faith will come to pass through historical thinking and by believing we have the true higher-level understanding of reality and humanity.

Of course, even this is rife with its own contradictions, which the gnostics don't mind, as that too drives the dialectical tensions through which they employ pressure for sociopolitical change.

Nevertheless, ass rationalist thimthem; we choose to examine them

Contradictions of the Queer Dialectical Triad

• Human nature not yet expressed - is there a nature?
• How do we know it is not expressed? Equity?
• Standards are oppression? Who sets them and embodies them?
  • Capitalism produced behemoths who now tell us of Queer (like banks)
  • They are harnessing opportunity - being opportunistic - thus you should as well
• Only humans have no nature - from outset of human consciousness
  • Product of consciousness <- can be negated
• What is equity? Who decides? And who decides after they're dead?
• Nothing stabilized can ever be a part of the solution
  • So demand no identity - no character, no form/FORMLESS, thoughtless

Before eludating these, we can preface this section by highlighting the contempty of reality. At some level, any proposition is either predicated on a belief in shared reality, or a demand to reject reality / demand that reality is not yet made, as human nature has not yet been actualized.

This follows the human experience in the sense that we are in perpetual preparation, be it through skilled and structured training, or simply waiting for the time to pass. With this in mind, one can either embody an exression whereby they cannot yet commence their true life, or they perceive the preparation as true life which continuously improves the condition of reality, thereby expanding the breadth of what is possible. Reality is accepted as always becoming something more, or it is false and we have not yet seen it proven that reality should be have been brought into being.

Contradiction of Criticizing Drag

"Drag clowns just want to entertain kids. They love to spend time with children, as did Rafi" What is the difference?

• Normal adults are protective of child innocence, while drag introduce topics above the current development stage
  • Children don't have sexual thoughts because they don't have the endocrine states conducive to evoking spontaneous sexual sensations
  • Drag introduce sexual ideas, often indirectly or through innuendo that can be plausibly denied as being done to cater to some fo the adult audience that is present, but it is, nevertheless, something that eventually gets introduced in a drag story time event

Sex education is usually given before hormonal changes occur. In that case, or in the former, it is the case that children with information about sexual behaviour (beyond simple explanations of reproduction) have that knowledge because it came from an adult

• 100% of sexual offences since the 90s (male offenders) is steeped in pornography
• Majority have disseminated/distributed sex content to children
• People in counselling have had their sexual boundaries violated

God Delusion in Marxism

Richard Dawkins' description and argument of human delusion

• Believing in a God is based in Creationism
• Juxtaposed with the Marxist conception of Man having no specified origin
• Man continuously changes himself through suffering from an incorrect turn of events

This negative circumstance where subject cannot directly take its object with proper intent and capability is derived from the gnostic aspect of knowing one has been thrown into a false existence

There is some unrealized reality and instead we are thrust into a false consciousness about ourselves and the world. Those who recollect it can overcome the false consciousness. Our moral purpose should be to liberate ourselves from the oppression.

Questions

1. Elaborate on Richard Dawkins' "God Delusion"
2. Is believing in God based in creationism?
3. What is said by "Subject cannot directly take its object with proper capability/intent

Contractually Social

It is your duty, so that you may prove your:

• Intelligence
• Humanity
• Species
• Obedience to progress (of the collective)

Being Contractually Social

• You can then claim to be an adult, by virtue of your congruity.
• You have demonstrated that you won't put up a fuss and that you can be a prime candidate to lead
• A leader: demonstrates new behaviours to the collective

"You can't just do the things you want to do, you must do the things you don't want to do"

• Makes little sense. Purports to provide a logical/ethical guide, but how can anyone assume to know what one wants?
  • What one wants is what one plans?
  • What one wants is governed by dopamine rewards in the immediate?
• Relying on something subjective to govern one's actions (or, at least, advising others to do this)

This unrealistic way of viewing the world, or of compeling others to support your view, is evident in examinations of other current issues in the world, where impossible-to-verify inferences are chosen without hesitation so long as they appear to bind everyone more strongly to a social contract.

COVID Contract

Taking the "COVID" era and the effects of the so-called pandemic, we see great disparity between jurisdictions regarding an alleged phenomenon which is understood to have a fairly predictable aggregate effect, so long as certain factors are considered:

• latitude
• season
• age distribution
• population density

Nevertheless, these factors do not allow us to easily predict mortality by jurisdiction. This causes some to examine the mitigation strategies employed by the authorities but this is foolishly sought in such a way which presumes that their reference and invocation by name corresponds with a single definition or general description. But, not only can we identify stark differences and temporal applications, but we cannot assume to understand the impact of small differences in particular strategies, as these are always against different populations. Also, how can we understand the comparison of "similar" strategies?

• Similar in language?
• Similar in labour?
• Similar in how culture affects deployment of strategies?
• Similar in the facilities?

Furthermore, we must contend with the different nature of qualifying and maintaining death data by specific cause, through consistent means, on principle and then, also in a consistent manner vis-a-vis other jurisdictions. Getting it correctly for historically prevalent types alone is incredibly difficult, and doing the same for newly identified types (threats) presents its own challenges.

Cause of Death

When thinking about cause of death, we generally think of a chronic and fatal disease, which sets about imposing a decline of health upon an individual over some period of time, even in cases where a fatal disease manifested rapidly/aggressively in its initial presentation (it's sometimes the case that a fatal manifestation of disease was one last iteration with some anteceding disease events, but even in caes where an initial presentation of disease is observed and/or recorded, it is impossible to verify whether there may have been a precipitating decline of health which was never accurately recorded, not to mention the understanding of causal factors (and even if autopsies were performed, they are still most accurate in understanding the final state of the person in question - we can't be assured that understanding precipitating declines of health and their associated causes is something we yet adequately understand. Perhaps with improved practice, better tools, and the necessary equipment to track and observe ever more gradual changes at the cellular level, without falling into the sort of tunnel vision which is intrinsic to a focused dimension))

Why don't we track disease at the cellular level in order to understand disease? We do and we can. Just as you do bloodwork, but there are some limitations to consider:

• you generate data per what is tested for
• you are not observing everything, even with an autopsy

The temporal frame is always limited - this might change, now, but our experience with monitoring biomarkers has never been absolute, thus what we know is based on experience with something incomplete, making the concept of a complete biometric data set as something which is an evolving standard.

It's worth mentioning that reductionistic thinking might identify the most correlative component and it may, even, identify the causal component, but the phenomenon being studied may have other causal factors, requiring different tools of analysis and systems of thought. Example:

• We may be observing cardiac health in someone who is being weakened through chronic infection - this infection hinders their performance in certain regards while limiting the ability to compensate and supercompensate against truth.
• Another example of this is someone whose mental illness puts them frequently into states of stress which have habituated into chronic stress (it's important to note that the reference of a mental illness is insofar as one can be diagnosed per pathology, and must not have to indicate a genetic causation)

Reference

It is quite complicating to understand when some thing or concept holds a reference to some other thing or concept. This is particularly complicating when trying to understand these possile phenomena when they are alleged to be the product of culture. Culture is, however, enduring because of the manner in which key cmponents hold reference to one another, such as diet and geography.

When we approach the concept of holding reference, we are reminded of the description of Being as indeterminate immediacy. Completely void of content and differentiation. There is no detail of content that can be differentiated from any other. It is object with no reference to anything outside of itself and no content that can be differentiated.

But for the human life which has not been so fixated through a perception whereupon granularity necessarily cannot be realistically achieved, particular means of observing more granularly becomes the limit of means of convincing oneself that one has a toolset by which to see the whole world or true world.

Always the Body

To commit someone into a preconceived future, it is generally that the rationale follows an assertion that we are always being directed to commit to a preconceived future, and that all this direction is, unless performed according to Theory, done such as to mould and contort us so that we'll best serve the needs and diesires of the most powerful to the exclusions of our own. This is something which occurs regardless of whether it is explicitly noticed or otherwise directly ascertained, and we know this became about because of unequal social conditions. These simple animalistic survivale takes reign of peope's faculties. We know that these behaviours are ultimately animalistic because...

A Glimpse of Empathy

January 19, 2023

You see it happen every so often. An exchange with a naive passerby, or even an ideologically opposing or otherwise incongruent interlocutor who takes a moment to suspend the conflict and try and understand their conversation/informal debate partner. If that partner is "woke", they may, at this one moment, come to display or radiate an empathetic emotion.

Woke

What do we mean by woke? We mean:

• Perpetual awareness that oppression is structural
• That power is stratified on the basis of identity
• That the goal is to achieve justice through solidarity
• That the path to solidarity is by attaining critical consciousness as a society/community/collectivity or constellation thereof

The first step of that is becoming woke: Woke -> Class Conscious -> Solidarity -> Justice

Empathy

What about empathy?

• Traditionally, we think of actually feeling someone else's emotions and understanding their experience

But this is something which, in spite of our openness and belief concerning our perception of another's experience and feeling about one's own intuition, remains unverifiable. Instead, we can consider emppathy to be:

• The desire to tolerate, understand and listen to/be attentive to and have kinship with another.
• It is having a frame of mind where, if even for a microsecond, one perceives the other as something capable of having the same experience, making the same realizations and reaching the same understanding

Now that we have a more comprehensive view of wokeness, we can expand:

• Accutely aware of any number of things but it is all tantamount to a desire to transform reality itself.
• Rebirth sought in violent yet sacred acts.

Sacred

This is why the words divine or sacred are used so frequent:

• Abortions are sacred
  • Transcend the limmt of female biology, the prison and life sentence/punishment that you didn't ask for and don't deserve to suffer through
  • Death of the baby is the death of this reality and the death of part of the woman and her body, so that she may be reborn with greater ability and awareness of the true reality she is manifesting/actualizing
  • Creates that new reality whre all women have been reborn as something free
• POC are sacred
  • pure, innocent and noble, like Rousseau's noble savages made to live in cities
  • They have souls; they can occupy bodies because there is something that will be able to transcend the body
  • They are condemned by mortal man; they seek salvation after falling victim to the treachery of those who have control over the structure of being (carceral power)
• Trans people are sacred
  • We have seen this uttered several times and it is the most obvious example of the bunch
  • Trans are in perpetual transition and when considering the definition of trans itself, transition to what?
  • The endpoint is the commitment to higher transcended being
  • one must never cease transcending

On Being Sacred

The sacred who also believe that nothing is sacred except obedience to the collective mind.

They demand that every human must take their assigned place and role, because everything is arbitrarily (or maliciously) assigned as it is, thus the application of theory to your assignment is the first step to achieving a clean baseline. Put another way, we cannot overcome our cursed limitations unless everyone is integrated through theory. Even if it hasn't produced the ideal result thus far, what it really proves is that the challenges of those who suffer for all that isn't right in the world are even greater than anyone realized, and their consequent wisdom even more profound.

Give into the fear and moral criticism and try to exist in the more proper way through the theory which promises there is a way forward, rather than you dangerously flailing in the wind. What do you think would happen otherwise? Clearly, you have not suffered so greatly as I have and thus you are still sheltered and naive in refusing to see the light so you can chase a childish dream. The dream is two fold - you believe the excuse of ideology (capitalist, white, Christian) gives you the excuse to live and irresponsible life because you will be healed and forgiven. The capitalistic ideology causes you to believe that you can be brute who deserves no one or anything save your own ego.

Any success that you might have is clearly minilite and already doomed to be undone.

What will you have then? Don't you want me to start it all over and anew? There is only one approach that remains.

Gnostics and Hyper-real Flavours

January 25, 2023

I have been blessed to have not spent all of my time in one domain. I have had the opportunity to peruse and observe minds of religious faith who embrace its traditions openly. I have also been able to see minds who mostly do not busy themselves with religious thinking, but who have a social/cultural connection to faith and who come into an instance (odd church visit) or period (Ramadan) and suddenly become affected by religious thinking. That they can fairly without friction alternate from an atheistic, material/physical worldview and frame of mind to a devout faith-based outlook of the world sounds as though they are irrational, non-sensical, weak-minded and perhaps impressionable, but I find that it is actually quite easy and perhaps the normal way in which a human mind operates.

Before we go further down into that explanation, let's establish some things we know about human neurocognition and physiology, and examine them in context of the gnostic premise.

• Only one field of vision which faces forward
• Experiencing time that only moves forward
• Inability to know if life in this body is the only existence to be experienced
• no escape except complete end

If you exist in a false reality, every additional moment spent is a moment invested in making this false reality known and in making it more difficult to imagine anything beyond.

Whatever you do, simply continuing to exist makes the false reality worse, and that can remain true regardless of what happens.

Things are bad? Seehow awful existence is. Things are good? Make it even more difficult to realize the reality of the situation.

Priming an individual to be more likely to respond to an event, whether profound and unique, or simply the event of life, can be referred to and described with some of the following:

• Reflexive Priming
• Making the appropriate respones more likely based on describing a symbol / aesthetic / etc

The described reflexive position evokes memories that, when presented with certain artifacts, will evoke the emtions that were primed/assigned to those symbols, and these emotions and a proposed dialectical explication will be accepted/rejected virtually uncritically, depending on how reflexive priming was performed.

Much of the reflexivity has been said to be affected by normalcy bias and that is very interesting because, as neutral as we'd wish for them to be, they still occur. Furthermore, this option is also nice because they are reserved - it lends toward making such events famous/infamous, but it can work even just through declaring a plurality of probable outcomes and framing them each to your advantage.

Marxist Side-stepping

January ?, 2023

Why do they do this? Why are they not proud? Do they not recognize the logic of the systems they support? The mechanisms they so admire? Why do they always distance themselves from more modern instantiations of sociopolitical thought which use standpoint epistemology, raise critical consciousness, have updated classes and a theory about their corresponding class consciousnesses, maintain the use of the master-slave dialectic, and so on?

First of all, remember that Marxists don't create the solutions to the problems they propose to be focusing on. Everything they do, especially today, occurs through criticizing. So even by claiming to be disagreeing with them about anything makes it such that they don't want you to have power to do anything. So, for them, to harness power and cultivate anything in their favour, the only operation they perform is one of negation. They do not propose and argue in favour of, they juxtapose and deny or criticize that which they must control, supplant and obliterate.

So, if you propose that a specific instantiation of their idea is worth criticizing, and they aren't focused on or even dependant on arguing their idea in the terms of the instance you are targetting, they needn't do so: they will simply negate your thesis.

Why would they not wish to argue the abstraction at the level of logic? Because the logic is becoming from the realization which occurs as they gain control over the mechanisms that create culture, society, nature and man. What is most important is that man create reality and it only works if man creates at the level of the species.

Some of teh magically unaware Marxists are the classical unionist Marxists who believe the material conditions are imperfect until there is no poverty, and that Marxists should make such a final determination.

Theory and Practice

January 31, 2023

The idea of Praxis is that of theory and practice spiraling closer towards one-another until they are not distinguishable from one another.

There are different terms by which to express this. One might say that man cannot act as per his own true nature until he can be free to act volitionally without oppression, domination and estrangement. One could also say that one could not discover and embody the species character unless one is amongst both the species and environment (society) which allows for everyone to embody it. That is to say that this property, qualified as the correct permutation of state, is co-continuous between the environment and its participants.

Co-Continuous

One might also say that it is when one becomes co-continuous with society

Why

Becoming co-continuous with society means that the social bonds between members of the society are fully expressed and uniform, and that there are no conflicts to be worked out in what is simply implicit open transaction where the sender and recipient are not exchanging something profoundly or technically differentiated.

If all action is perfect as a representation of theory, or all action is the creation and definition of theory, then one can say that we are referring to the actions and theory of perfect, divine expression of being. One could posit this as God or a God.

There is nothing of the action that can ever be judged. The actions themselves serve as the judgment of the world by being the lens through which to judge it. This is a theory of actualization and, if it has become co-continous, then it implies the judgment of a perfect result.

The final and complete man, if theoretically complete, should be perfect. And if it is theoretically complete, that's because it is practically complete and indistinguishable from theory. This is the endpoint of praxis.

Conceptually Jealous

I must admit, I have recently made the realization, seemingly in tandem with James claiming to be stressed from coming to terms with his need to re-contextualize his message through the lense of gnosticism, that though I have long been fixated on understanding religious behaviour and faith among the supposed atheists and highly educated self-proclaimed progressives, I have failed to frame the observations in succinct a way as I believe he has come upon through explaining what could be described as a gnostic mindset. That is, the belief of one's special knowledge which gives one awareness of a false reality with which we participate which must be overcome.

Wrapped in an easily represented format which explains how irrational modes of conception could have become represented as the only fully rational world view.

Motivation

The gnostic mindset might be described as the motivation, whereas there process by which the gnostic corrects the world is hermetic.

By We will go about describing the gnostic mindset as it affects our world today.

Mechanisms and Factors

• dialectical redefinition of the enlightenment and liberal terminology
• directing focus to mythological long term goals (which may not yet be ready to be described)
• negation from present allows realization and understanding of those goals
• short-term goals of allegiance/commitment
  • demonstrate gnosis
  • social benefit of participation, and/or;
  • detriment of not participating

Gnostic Covidism

Covidism as a form of gnosticism is an eye-opening framing because it explains the multitudes who have completely come to disregard the benefits of the natural state of affairs in social, biological being - exposure to one another's biology. That is, the natural state of affairs has always been biological exposure.

Aversions to Infinite Regress

This isn't the first time that we come upon the discussion of whether it is considered scientific or even just sensible and valuable to consider questions of the infinite regress, particularly when looking at history and evolution. One might say that we find ourselves in a circumstance where we either a) no longer need to worry about such matters or b) the environment is such that it renders evolutionarily-mediated adaptations as completely irrelevant.

The other manner of dismissing questions of an Infinite Regress is to say that choosing how to spend our time means choosing amongst activities which lead to progress in our particular set of matters, or that those activities are best judged along the dimension of progress in relation to those affairs and that our knowledge base is such that we can, with high certainty, choose to implement changes or to completely avoid concerns that we might otherwise have, if considering a historical or evolutionary mode of conception.

It's impossible to get around the historical fact of biological exposure, at all the worst times, and it having occurred in a manner which informs our biological structure and our ecological situation. We can claim that these things are only worth studying in a narrower frame, but that isn't immediately obvious, and is disposed to hubris and blindedness. It becomes far too easy to claim that something new is the primary aspect of consideration, because you can now no longer regard any historical or evolutionary facts as being relevant. You can avoid massive parts of the discussion about human nature by eliminating anything beyond immediate superficial analysis.

There's also the related factor of biological feasibility - meaning that the organism achieved and maintained biological feasibility not simply in spite of the conditions it encountered, but through having been moulded by those conditions.

We also needn't note or understand whether there are lasting features or characteristics in humanity that aren't just an arbitrary feature of human embodied experience. Do we no longer need to understand our histories? Could the kstudy of human knowledge have been averted.

Bio-Gnosis

• Aware of the dangers of biology
• Initial state of a human developed without inducing immunological adaptation is unacceptable
• Path to liberation

All biological interactions presuppose that there is a viable nature that can yield positive effects. Any perceived positive effect is always serving to obscure and make more difficult the realization of the reality of suffering, particularly for those who are able to understand just what is possible/what life the world can be transformed into.

Exposure to even more harm beyond the difficulty of life is akin to evil treachery which only serves capitalist and white heteronormative interests.

Initial States

As the narrative of COVID was normalized, many completely abandonned the idea that we could have a healthy adaptive response to any pathogen. That is that there is a finite capacity for adapting to anything, especially a pathogen, and that the adaptation itself is also deleterious to one's health in any theoretical absolute or narrowly scoped evaluation, and that as such we should consider our capacity to evolve with technology to support an ethical argument that we should avoid immunological adaptation in all situations except those expressly sought for specific and deliberate adaptation.

The idea here is that we can choose what particular antigen to adapt to, the manner in which we deliver it to the body, the time of administration, the target recipients, and so forth. With medical research and observational study of use, we can ensure that we have the most comprehensive understanding of these adaptations that is possible, and that this always is a more complete view than when contrasted when whatever adaptations are manifesting under the circumstance of raw living itself, which is brutal, unrelenting and a chaotic and perilous soup of entropic violence.

With these two framings, it's clear that one of them is a proposition for something that we can consent to, and that the other is not.

Who Consents

Further to the question of whether one consents to what they themselves choose to administer to themselves, or whether one chooses to allow themselves to inhabit the circumstances and environments which lead to their being exposed to something, there comes a new set of questions at another level of indirection: the exposure to one's peers.

Here we are clear that, in light of our improved understanding of the jumbled pathogenic landscape which we are already subjected to, we are now going to consider whether the fact of our being able to choose an adaptation, to mitigate some of that chaos, suffices as requirement to consider that those who fail to perform an adaptive action using a documented strategy or using a readily available tool or product are not causing others to be committed to an adaptive process to which they have not consented. Furthermore, we wish to understand whether one's failure to attempt the mitigatory strategy is itself constituting a form of consent, both in terms of one's intention to allow personal exposure and in terms of extending that exposure to others, by virtue communicating an explicit and deliberate choice to accept conditions which can be argued to potentiate a form of exposure of interest, with an understanding that such an exposure confers the undertaking of a transaction to which the other party is not necessarily privy nor, if even so, is not able to provide explicit consent. Is this an implicit act of choosing to give their consent to the potential occurrences which may result, and can they be deemed accountable for the consequences?

Better Past or Future

Is this the recollection of a better world of the past? At first it may not appear as such - what a ridiculous suggestion.

But you should see that they in fact do refer to a "better past", at least in the sense of likelihood or rate of encountering a deadly pathogen whose novel aspect was the product of a process whose of activity or differentiation was previously more modest. This is the dimension of corruption - the evidence not simply of things not being right in this world, but of the ways in which things are not right. That is, it informs us of the manner in which we should understand whether things are not right in this world.

Made Unright

In learning of this new mode of interpretation and evaluation for understanding whether the circumstance of the world is in right order, we are also proposing that this permutation of the world, in which a particular attribute can be logically discerned, is one for which the operations and activity which lead to its actuality are the effect of a human's activity, whether that activity is deliberate insofar as it relates to the outcome, and whether that activity and its contribution to that effect is best understood in a way which supports these assertions.

How It Was

Realize that it's presupposed that we had less volatile pathogenic circumstances prior to now, at least insofar as mutation or zoonotic transmission of a pathogen, and that in recent history there has been an acceleration in rate of occurrence or an increasing of the likelihood because we allowed capitalist greed to destroy efforts to make our world safer and more stable.

If climate change causes migrations of species such as to place the world into a configuration where biological obscenity takes place, then the supposition is that a previous, undisturbed world was more harmonious and not as liable to produce pathogens which seemed to be a "biological misstep".

But what is the mistake of biological life prior to capitalism and human technological development in pursuit of market exchange? It must be something akin to humans having to decay and die, and what makes it so would be God-like qualities which indicate both that man is meant to be more and that man will be able to understand the terror of their not having the means to avoid pain. Not having the means to negate the need to become lost in such realizations.

Whether that can be due to volitional work capacity, or simply capacity for self-reflection/awareness, it's something which becomes sought in Praxis (with the attitude that any unyet understood aspects of such a pursuit will be continuously better realized through each conflict).

Just one of our remarkable talents, separating ourselves from the animals, serves to make existence utterly unbearable given the fact that we must anticipate our failure, suffering and ultimate demise, knowing full-well that the childish excitement and curiosity of trying something new as a child simply has been kept from us as we continuously negate those parts of our personas.

Viral Genome

February 7, 2023

Is there separation between the various forms of mind virus running amok in society, or are they just superficially differentiated?

Bio-Prison

• Covidists see biological prison beccause all illness should be avoided.
• Queer activits and practitioners see biological prison because they weren't given an advantageous form with which to explore and do all they could have been (a divine form)

We are still cracking the shell of realizing the frame of mind that enables Covidism. Accept the premise that: human life will evolve through minimizing biological exposure between humans and all immunological adaptations of note

• No biological exchanges between humans.
• All immunological adptations are to be artifically induced
• The human becomes not something that is a product of life and environment, but;
• something created for withstanding the environment without being changed by it.

Sanctioned adaptation

• Even the most extreme and unnatural of changes are accepted, welcomed, encouraged and even made to be seen as moral imperatives, or;
• Set of mandatory modifications which one must perform in order to demonstrate that one's biological be admissible will expand
• The meaning of simple language must be transformed to:
  • Facilitate these transformations, or;
  • Make suggestion of these transformations unavoidable
• Parts of the world which suggest a human nature with inherent biological capability must be suppressed
  • All adaptations from those maximally beneficial to neutral biological adaptation must be ignored
• The potential for negative interaction with the environment is villified and exaggerated to cartoonish degrees, all the while adopting the language of the natural and presenting it as though nature and truly balanced and natural ways of being are sought and made possible through the state.
• That is, natural is made to be artificial, and the state is made to become the source of true nature

Collectivist Science

It was argued on Dyer/Lindsay/Coughlin that another way of thinking of Gnostic science, the Science, Wissenschaft Licher socializmus, vernunft, dual consciousness and all the rest is simply as that which argues in favour or in directly for collectivism.

Why is that?

Like the scientific process of history, it assumes things are inevitable and the way to prove it is to get everyone to agree that your vision of reality is the right one. It becomes guaranteed because post-modernism has given us the modality of accepting all language as synthetic in pursuit of power thus, if everyone agrees, we have the power, can curate meaning accordingly and then, finally, the collective will reflect my subjectivity into being.

Nothing I desire or declare can ever be impossible because the power of collective can generate updated meanings accordingly for it will work out in our favour regardless since the collective wishes to continue its existence and will, thus, create definitions which serve itself.

Conditioned into Inversion

February 11, 2023

People like having things on auto pilot, but mostly because they want the freedmo to not have to do, rather than the freedom to do.

The hubris of the gnostic death cult knows no bounds. They enjoy seeing other citizens suffer at the inability to advocate for tehir children's well-being. Specifically, it just becomes an opportunity whereby they can assert to lay claim that they, by virtue of their special knowledge or proximity to power an prestige, will get to decide not only what will be done for another's child's well-being, but the very concept of well-being itself.

If one's true nature and greatest potential for living a just life are only made possible throught he conditions of collectivism, then the only pursuit or aspiration for that child becomes the bringing about of that collectivist social structure. FUrthermore, the only work that the child can perform which is not unhealthy is that of bringing about the collectivist society. It is for your well-being to dedicate your health, body and the entirety of your mind to promoting and achieving the collectivity.

The last ditch effort to finally realize particular ways of Being. Well, it's realy just the only prospect of changing the nature of reality. There is a secret type of existence that we are being prevented of being amitted into because it would mean an elevated existence. In the current format, we cannot express our true nature and it remains this way because of an entity which benefits or assumes itself to benefit from existence as it currently stands and it might even be benefitting from your suffering directly! So either everyone gets on board with changing it or they all believe all is as you say, in which case it might as well be true.

He/Him Condition

Yet more he/hims are attempting to both be part of the environment while being isolated from it. Much of this is on the presumption that there is currently a viral pathogen that is capable of remarkably unique effects leading to particualrly harmful health changes, but that is completely false.

In reality, we don't need to constrain ourselves in mutual exclusion. That is, the effects of these viral pathogens arnd their incurred health changes by humans are something which was already occurring, but man humans were not aware of it simply because we didn't have pop culture and public health messaging so obsessively saturated with morbid detail and fear-inducing warnings and recommendations.

What Now?

So, now that we have established most of the arguments that COVIDISM and Queer Activism are cult religions attempting to create Totalitarian structures for the purpose of transforming reality, what is the path to the Second Enlightenment?

Directing people toward a better future must be multifaceted and account for things like momentum - we must enable development and advancement in such a way that people are challenged. People must be made to seek balance while never losing touch with a skill or capacity which causes them to lose momentum. That is, they can and should rotate their focus, but it should be done in such a way where they aren't losing touch or at lesat sight of it. On the other hand, maintaining the connection with the non-focused capacities should be maintained in such a way that they not only do not harm their performance with the focus, but even enhances the performance. This might seem like a fairytale, but we are standing on the shoulders of giants. We can already look towards the human body and understand the ways in which one focus can enhance another's focus.

Biological Obscenity

Feburary 15, 2023

What is all this biological obscenity? Is it all since modern mistakes were made, or is it the original fall of man? Is it the riddle of humanity? A fractal matrix of horrors?

The mind that aims for purity and prestige vis-a-vis the collective through insight into biological endeavours and their taking place under ideal conditions might look to the past and discern the differences with respect to our biological infrastructure and compare changes by rate of time and their rate of change in relation to human moral failures.

But what is the moral ideal? Well, it is the perfection of conditions for biological balance, expression, optimization, supremacy, resolution, longevity, etc. Those with the best biological outcomes as quality of experience, longevity etc.

We cannot see those conditions nor what has prevented their being reached, but they exist as an ideal conception at different levels of abstraction, continuously being reconstructed for the particular reference through which it is being recalled, often subconsciously as a grounding factor within a higher level representation of one's life experiences.

Dialectical Affiliation

February, 2023

Queer

Normalized patterns are fascist but its patterns must be normalized

• Actually normalized by the state
  • gatekeeper to law and power
• Reject the chaos of life and insist on guided existence so long as it grants arbitrary power to the state and carceral power to those who reject the structure of being

Socialist

Hates state ostensibly but demands everyone's allegiance and devotion.

• Demands the state gather and capture greater control in order to negate the capacity for humans to own property as an essential step towards granting everyone all property and eliminating the state.
• There are many representations of thi dialectical process, including ones which purport to have no ability to reach a complete abolishment of property or elimination of state, but it is nevertheless these qualities to which the sturcture of thought will obviate

Covidist

Necessitate any challenge of health in order to eliminate all challenges of health

Racialist

Make race essentialist to eliminate race (Mapping the Margins)

Hegelian

Particular from the whole. Being from negative (equal in quality universally, and absolutely equal in the abstract)

Abstract

How do we come to view ourselves as abstract: There might be many moments, but not the least of which being:

• when we note wisdom, insight or perspective based on observing the discovery of that wisdom or its complement
• environment
• health care
• When we extrapolate wisdom across humans, assume a model of linear trajectory, aim to understsand a perspective by placing ourselves in the relevant situation, and so forth
• As our abstract, do we come to also see ourselves as negative?

Dialectical Inversion

February 18, 2023

The dialectical inversions never quite complete, but they are best described as gaining power by criticizing and also proposing an alternative which solves the specific problem to which you had drawn attention

So, on the topic of weaving syntheses in order to supplant ideas and understandings through the technique of dialectical inversion, we come upon a technical discussion about work targets and work task viability. That is, we find ourselves looking to find the utility of normies (perhaps not fully-fledged NPCs) and it is contentious.

We see a balancing act taking place on the pivot of opinion surrounding an issue, but is that so much the aggregate of genuinely-formed opinion, or an expression of human mind and experience given a set of conditions? We might say that education makes some more courageous, but we can't be sure that everyone who comes to accept a better idea, or form a critique of a bad idea (or vice versa!), is doing so at the behest of courage or bravery.

Perhaps the better "go-to" perspective on this has to do with having a bare minimum of mage-level warriors wh can disarm the threat and flip the tables without completely selling out on one's principles. That is, people need a demonstration of what' spossibly when someone pushes to reveal more substance of the issue being deliberated. This, at a fundamental level, need be demonstrated to simply have it become enumerated. Things which are not enumerated can't be expected to be observed or discovered (though that isn't to say that they won't be).

Then, it alos has a time component to be considered. The effectiveness of the interaction considers a range of what outcomes might be achieved not just in the sense of success, but whether the transformed recipient might become semantically astute to a degree sufficient to provide significant assistance towards the disarmament and elimination of woke gnosticism.

And so they ask: "Why would you wish to eliminate something from the marketplace of ideas?" to which I first respond with "no one has said it must be eliminated as an idea". Literally, what they are doing, is invoking your principle or value of having the ability to have ideas juxtaposed and set into competition and proposing to transform its meaning to saying that an idea should be left uncriticized and unchallenged as proof that you are willing to be open to ideas, and new ideas in particular, as a whole. It's utter nonsense and it has nothing to do with proving that one acknowledges the value fo a marketplace of ideas. A market place of ideas is precisely why you aren't demanding that someone be silenced on the basis of them having described an idea to you. That you are willing to refute the idea specifically shows that you value the marketplace of ideas as you have upheld the standard which makes a marketplace of ideas possible. That is, discussion and debate rather than censorship.

But it is not enough for it simply to be enumerated and known of. You haven't actually given it a fair try because you speak ill of it without having attempted to practice it yourself - without having adopted it into your life and world in order to fully see how the particulars function against the whole.

So, there are a few issues here. The first of which being that, fundamentally, they are usurping and manipulating the means by which you sufficiently attempt/experiment with an idea. That is, there is no formal understanding of both what constitutes an idea being adequately explored, nor the degree to which one must have attempted to adopt it in experiment or how to understand whether one has formed a legitimate opinion. It is not even the case taht a formality can be compared for this, especially not without a breach of ethics and the potentiation of tyranny and domination.

The next issue is that there are, indeed, means of denying or rejecting an idea out of hand based simply on its proposed logical structure and, given that these ideas in contention are derived and continued from the domain of Critical Theory, we know already that the proposition itself is to supplant critical thinking with a process of dialectical inversion/inversion of praxis - to do so is an Act of Faith and, in this case, the Faith is presented as a rationale for undermining and eroding human freedom and liberty.

Freedom is an Ideology

February 20, 2023

Freedom is just an ideology which results in humanity having no freedom.

How do we quantify this assertion?

• We don't need to, at least not along an agreed-upon dimension or level of observation
• We, in fact, do quantify on the basis of whether we, ourselves, are satisfied with the environment and social structure, in real terms, phenomenologically, or theoretically - a theory of which only some are experts

Becoming an Expert in Theory

How do you become an expert in The Theory?

1. You must hold the opinion as the consensus of its experts
2. You must declare that the theory holds precedence over its alternatives
3. You must do the work!

And, so, here is the implicit Dialectic of Freedom. A synthesis presupposing that there is no principle of freedom. There is something much more complex and sophisticated in the sense that we can establish freedom through the following:

• Enumerate actions, characterizations, attributes and so on with which to evaluate one's freedom (score or index)
  • Assumes that quality and compisition of freedom are indeed universal, but only behind an opaque function which, yet again, can only be interpreted or defined by experts of The Theory
  • Assess populations, chosen by experts, to draw up this data as necessary and transform/modify/evolve the social structure as is appropriate

What of the default circumstance of Freedom as an Ideology, which assumes universality and which is used to prevent the creation and enforcement of laws which actually grant and enable freedom? Let us declare, define and critique.

Freedom, Definition and Critique

System

Temporality. Object localization. Movement potential. Dimensions of movement. Object creation/destruction. Object modification/transformation

Freedom is characterized, observed and expressed through:

• movement, constraint, access to resources, ability to think ,the proportion of unwasted time, connection to genuine, ability to avoid fallacy, life expectancy, personal ability
• We could come up with an infinite set of expressions and activities for which a case could be made that they constitute freedom itself, or can function as a legitimate proxy, and you can evaluate a freedom index or score to establish whether the state / apparatus - that is, they score your freedom according to their own conception of freedom or the proxies by which it is to be evaluated
• They enumerate a set of actions, expressions and circumstances which they represent as affecting a freedom score and then not only determine your freedom score through it, but measure their own progress insofar that they promote or create the freedom of others/the world (they also, consequently, completely monopolize not just the means of evaluating freedom, but even imposing an implied philosophical argument or concept as to what freedom is)

Who gets to decide what constitutes freedom? Those with freedom or those without?

Freedom is one's own free movement along any conceivable dimension. One might say that freedom is also, then, the freedom to harm and oppress, but that is not so perfectly apparent. Causing harm to other humans in some ways constrains even the person causing that harm. Emotional disturbance and conditioning to no longer be made content through other actions and circumstances. Now, through habituation, they fall into a destructive pit.

Infringing on Freedoms

And even if one's own freedom is somehow maintained, the fact that it has potential to infringe on the freedom of others in any capacity means it's not only a freedom but also a constraint.

That's right! Any and all actions with a body in space time will certainly infringe on others, if even by occupying space that could otherwise be occupied by another (or be made a part of one's prospective pathway which is now made difficult to conceive of due to your having infringed on the possibilities of space and movement of others), thus there can always be a rationale that your actions - your every action - incurs cost and burden to all others and that your very existence means that you must pay for the cost you placed on the world. In a world of data, this must be recorded and tracked - if we are to have an equitable and inclusive society.

So, you see, your very existence is, in a sense, unreasonable. It does not make sense that a being, such as yourself, should have come to be only as a net cost to the world. This is a form of original sin and though one might point to primitive peoples of primitive times, such peoples were actually sophisticated to maintain their process of survival with fewer tools and less knowledge.

The Body that Infringes

How can you repent for having a body? Repent for not being immortal. Repent for the density of your existence; you should be no more dense and sluggish than light, which should be the case if you are pious and pure; if you contribute revolutionary energy; if you bring about Critical Consciousness.

The sin of the body is eternal, with prehistoric theological thinking having first realized the potential for sex-related depravity. You cannot fool everyone, but when I am serious about discovering options, use both sides and reap rewards.

How would we have first discovered shame through the body? Being simply less capable in any regard? For at least hundreds of thousands of years, but perhaps millions, human-like beings have been sufficiently intelligent to reflect on their environment, actions, cause+effect, survival potential and their sensations and emotions.

Comparisons

The comparison that a being may have placed itself in may have been against other peers of differing stature and abilities and age, or even against one's conception of how they would feel if successful (more). It does not really require more than that in order to feel negative emotion with respect to limitations and circumstances surrounding one's existence through the perception afforded by having the body.

For all of these thousands to millions of years, that body could not change. There were no sophisticated and lasting mechanisms by which one could adopt the means of enhancing or presenting as enhanced their body / physical form.

One wonders whether the earliest experiences of shame caused the beings in question to lie. Because we now lie even without feeling the shame, but to keep ourselves from feeling it (if even several levels of abstraction removed from the context of that shameful scenario

Valuing Critical

March, 2023

Faux Stance

What is the goal with critical thinking but to challenge existing limits on what is known in order to bring about enlightenment and development?

Of course, that's absurd, as one is critical to critique the existing society which they feel cannot serve. It's the ruthless criticism of all that exists (the existing order), not to means of putting forward the society which does serve. The terms of the truly harmonious society are not comprehensible within the current existing order, thus it must be torn down - it must be taken down and dismantled to alleviate the limits of subjectivity. That is to say, a creative and productive approach would posit the replacement for the society, but the assumption is that the path to a new society - to a good society - would be found be critiquing exising aspects of the current society out of existence. Identify and target the aspects which should be destroyed so that the ideal society can be conceived of

What could possibly be holding humanity's development and enlightenment than subjugation, indoctrination, wastefulness and malicious excesses? Surely we can see that in the periods that we suddenly have growth, or make progress, that things can rapidly improve -> from temperment to the quality of life, to the degree that someone can become serious in their operational capacity.

So, it is actually you who has failed to be critical. You circumvent the opportunity to present the widest variety of perspectives on the matter, preventing yourself from thinking critically.

What is happening, here? Incessant and ambiguous demands that you aren't valuing particular evidence or ideas based on the presumption that those forms of argument present an approach that is referred to as "critical". Critical thinking is being supposed, but then being represented as anything which "challenges existing limits on what is known" or anything that leads to "enlightenment" and "development").

Any demand for political power and resource distribution, so it is obviously something which potentiates development. Resources lead to education and, thus, to enlighten those who most need it.

The play on all the terms that people trust and assume they can rely on is exhausting, and also the deliberate target of those who seek maximum utilitarianism. For them, the utility proves that it is true and that it should be no surprise for anyone who has attended school.

Teachers are one reason for this, but we should always remember that the soruce/initiating factor for the socially utilitarian truth is the children; that is to say, it is ourselves - as this is a natural, evolutionarily supportable, self-preserving approach to understanding and communicating about truth. In a sense, th pragmatists' truth ends up being the only one which can be analyzed and validated. It's the only thing that you've seen for sure whether it has power-power to evoke change, power to be believed, and the power to be so evidently the description of how things should be.

Pejorative Directions

Again, it is a shame to see so much concern about one's declared political disposition as well as one's political associations. Even more profound, however, is one's concern as to whether their choice is recognized as being of the colour and association that they prefer. But why is it a preference? Why not simply have a behaviour and disposition of one's own that no political cookie cutter can accuratel describe? Why not put all the effort into determining what you think and why, rather than what framing of your thoughts is likely to cause onlookers or interlocutors to perceive you some particular way? If you are operating in this way, you have misrepresented yourself and you likely don't have developed thoughts on the matter in question. You ar e aslave to your desire for social benefit and you choose your position in the social hierarchy as having greater iportance than your thoughts, or even having thoughts. You are a slave to sensations and you are foregoing the opportunity to bring something unique into being.

Back to Chaos

March 10, 2023

We must melt off the murky cultural confusion and direct group associations which feed pride and ego, and just generally impede progress and understanding. Ultimtaely, we need to see each participant's behaviour at the level of analysis where they are most alike and then traverse to higher levels of abstraction and use the previous understanding to make more insightful predictions and descriptions.

We are complex beings because there are many facets of our being that can be examined and used to make more robust a proposed understanding or theory of our behaviour.

We have sensations - a continuous set of cascading seas interwoven intuitively and calibrated in effect, defining our experiences, adjusted such as to incorporate those sensations in perceptive frame and memory formation, be it through a sensation being made more apparent and influential, all the way to the opposite be it by valence or type of parameter.

Together, as a matrix of properties and processes, it forms an expression of being which itself is not limited to within, or amongst the self.

But what too we have is fierce and rabid desire to help us insist on the voice of logos echoing through the field of reality. The unrelenting, stubborn drive to charge forward with the entirety of whatever capactities can be afforded as an unwavering assault through the contour of a perceived environment. Taking its shape and pattern as it appears and following through with an expressive interplay with it. A complete and continuous flow where the intiation and reaction are indiscernible - collapsing into one another so perfectly as to be expressing total stability.

Is that what is being harnessed, here? To reduce everyone to a complete loss of cotrol and intolerant mode so that they clamour and whimper for the only matter that they believe will satiate their emotive needs while also completely starving them of other nourishment? The real satiating parts of life have nothing to do with access to material sensation. The fulfilling of emotional or carnal desires can never articulate the omega part of the journey. In fact, such a thing could only serve to cloud the path and process. (makes no sense - was falling asleep)

Manipulative Money

March 2023

• Insisting that a position taken is predicated on one contentious memory
• Complete intolerance of perspectives you disagree with
• Attitude of entitlement to your company
• Ignorance that your mood affects others
• Passive aggression through referring to you and your life as depraved
• Expressions of disgust
• Endless self-indulgeance
• Bringing up issues you disagree on and then circumventing your perspective through playing the subject off of others
• Pretending to be ignorant as to your position on a matter
• Bringing the state's authority and ideals into domestic environments
• Pretending to care for hearing one's perspective while never listening
• Failure to demonstrate family loyalty and cohesion vs ideals of the state
• Demonstrating that you are willing to keep company with those whose values you don't care to hear

Health Crisis

March, 2023 The path to transform reality interfaces through the issue of health. Public Health Gnosis

• What it means to be healthy
• The carceral aspects of reality making health unfeasible
• Health cannot be achieved without changing reality
• The human body is not naturally healthy
• We must come close to death in order to have a healthy life
• The only path to any individual health is through collective commitment

Covid State of Working People can impose restrictions:

• because they are the humans that work to create Communism
• other humans aren't trying to stop dominating through capitalism
• everything they hope for is predicated on a belief of forcing their constraints on others -> dictatorship
• the helpless, individually unhappy, non-working workers
• no hope to create their own health -> must define what health will be and then force everyone to agree and express that manner of health
  • making it the idea and understanding of health which exists in our reality

Tribal

We can be swayed to a tribal position on any issue.

Not a matter of logic, but an enforcing of a change in lexicographical ordering whether by competing factors or choice of level of abstraction.

With race, for example, they have completely rejected the concept of colourblindedness and have come to represent it and refer to it as an aspect of White Supremacy, the ideology of Whiteness, and even the ideologies of Capitalism and Colonialism.

This isn't exactly to say that they don't think there are people who genuinely believe they are treating everyone equal, or not applying judgement by race, or even that it isn't possible that someone might be or could become capable of doing just that (though most would reject the latter as impossible), but that to do so would itself be an act of racism, and that it perpetuates racism by not taking the opportunity to enact or compel antiracism.

The Pronoun Trigger

March 2023

They claim your failure to use the language demanded of you si evidence of you being triggered, but wait until they find out that you don't actually speak in reference to them except as a fascinating study of human behaviour, social conditioning, psychology and cultural revolution.

It's a shame that their school environment has declared that a modified handle and process of speech is necessary for them to be respected, reassued, and made more stable, because it posits that the manner in which they lived their life was not sufficient and that this was due to their mind or soul being incongruent with the social constructions made around and about their body.

But this presumes that the distinctions which exist between humans, as expressed in terms of the structure fo the human body which have allowed for humans to have existed as long as they have, are also complete fabrications, and that one's choice with respect to one's perception of one's own body is just as arbitrary.

The fact is that there are always complications which come with having a body, and any path which increases those complications cannot be presented as being an approach more conducive to health of being.

The Freedom Loving Socialist

Interesting to see self-proclaimed socialists who advocate Freedom of Speech. It seems to me that the vast majority of these are slightly older to senior aged and that their position and opinion thereof is the product of assuming the plentiful runoff more than suffices to provide living and thriving resources for the entirety of the populace.

So much effort is spent to convert people to one's view rather than feeling that we are so privileged to have access to a variety of views and perspectives. This is partly because of the socially-mediated, and even professionally and survival-related consequences that exist today, but it is also, in a more direct sense, the consequence that much of the framing and dialogue comes in a form which accuses the other of wrongdoing.

So, why do I see a distinction? What is my excuse?

1. The framing is done to fabricate a model/stereotype and then hold it over you as a constant threat while forcing you to always hear their recitation of reality which they recruited you for as a witness to confirm it is true through your absence of protest, knowing full-well that they are being manipulative, threatening and abusive by doing so (but excusing it under the belief or stated belief that it is measured and serving a great purpose).

2. The simple fact that absence of action is not action, or especially not the action you portray it as

Proxy Debunking

No one really cares to debunk the debunk when it's not something which represents the issue in the first place, much less the take on the matter that someone particularly had composed out of their concern.

What are people concerned about, with this transformation of law, standards, wealth, public health apparatus and culture? Quite simply, they are concerned that their value, and the value in pursuing existence through the human experience, are being suppressed and made into unnecessary suffering

Duality

There are those who already believe the human experience itself is acceptable and improving, and others who claim they cannot accept this / cannot tolerate it.

On Freedom

If freedom is defined as a being's ability to undertake, affect and transform as per dimensionally discernible movement, then the crucial apparatus through which these movements can be determined to be viable/feasible and just would be that of speech, as it is through interlocutory transaction, argumentation and understanding that the consequences of these movements can be understood.

Dialectic of Life

Thesis

• Living

  Antithesis

• Dying

  Synthesis

  Existence having purpose through instantiation of life conflicts with antithesis

• This occurs as individual life, but;

• the collective, as abstract, is eternal and without limitation through determination

Death

Death is only a part of life because we must be forced to exist as individual bodies, but do we not yearn for unity and togetherness? Is not all we do because of awareness to the existence of others?

What might we think and do if the yearning and pain were alleviated while still retaining our consciousness? Is it not already suspected by some that, upon death, through our return to the void, that our frame of perception and mode of existing becomes an expression of unity, being, all, one, awareness in the pure immediacy? That this occurs as a totality?

Covidism as Marxism

Yes, "Covidism" (imo) is a subset of Marxism. Or, at least, it retains the core theological aspect of Marxist thinking and it uses the dialectic to synthesize concepts like health, consent, and so forth.

It also uses historicism

Covidism also always asserts that those who do not conform to the new collective totality are doing so because of ideology, which very much follows a Marxist definition for "ideology"

There are even covidists who are explicitly Marxist in the sense that they will proclaim that capitalism resulted in the conditions for SARS-CoV2 to come about, point to disaster capitalism failing to fulfill its duty to mankind, and so forth

Just as Marx's conception of man was as a being to be completed in order to attain its nature as a species being, the covidist conception is one where its inherent structure is incomplete and must be made whole through the new synthesis of health

This is why desire for natural immunity is a form of blasphemy, in a sense, because it functions as a contradiction towards completing the sanitized and immunologically complete being that could only come to fruition through public health

Belief in the validity of one's health as an individual is a form of false consciousness, much in the way that a Marxist views false consciousness as that which excuses the material conditions of bourgeois society

That said, I do prefer the sound of "Covidian" to "Covidist", but I believe the latter to be more correct

Marxist Theology reca

Origin

man creates himself, which is why he's separate from an animal (Marx specifically sidestepped the question of infinite regress by making fun of the questioner and saying "are you an abstraction? Man should only owe his life to himself").

Man creates the world which not only creates man but also refining the idea of what it means to be human.

Telos:

Man's purpose is to complete himself as a species being, and he does this through through praxis which advances history using dialectical materialism

Communism is basically what begins when that process completes

Ontology:

The meaning of existence as man is a consequence of man's ability to conceive of that which changes the world, to create it, and then to be changed by it

If he didn't have this volitional ability, the meaning of his existence wouldn't be based on having to change anything.. he could just exist like an animal

but because of this ability, he's basically in a prison until he can free himself by changing the world until he can fully understand himself and spiritually nourish himself through nature as the object of his subjectivity

Theodyssey:

The tragedy of existence is the evil in the world which is a consequence of division of labour creating structural conditions with a stratified class structure of humans in conflict with one another.

The great plight is to work through the violence, pain and struggle to move history until domination ends

Soteriology:

Salvation occurs through dialectical praxis (putting theory into practice, which actualizes reality and is the only truly scientific way of thinking, since it considers the activity in the historical sense that the significance of its effect is towards the very end of history which represents the most complete context of all activity (this is why use values of goods differ from their price in a market economy)

So, again, salvation by faith in the theory which informs your practice in a spiraling process where nothing needs to be yet understood, yet this is the most scientific way of doing things 🤡

Axiology

The true values being transacted in this existence are insofar of doing the work, the praxis - consciously advancing history. The process of history and man's inability to attain his true nature until its completion gives rise to duties of conscience.

Epistemology (Gnosiological):

What is true is what is what advances theory and history. As with Hegel, subject is not separate from substance, so you have true knowledge which can't be proven or disproven in the current frame of history, since not everything can be realized until man is free to follow through with the conceptions of his mind.

The epistemology is literally that things which advance it are true and things which don't are false.

This is why, for example, in Canada, they supposedly found these underground graves of indigenous kids from 70-80 years ago and, now that it seems there's no real evidence of it, it's complete blasphemy to deny it as something confirmed true and real.

What's real is that liberation is achieved by doing the thing which moves history towards liberation. In that case, it's the unfounded, romanticized story about dead indigenous kids. That has the REAL effect of making progress.

Saying that the evidence of it isn't so good is friction against that progress, and is therefore false. Your only motivation for doing such a thing is because of your ideologies which gave you false consciousness.

Everything is incomplete. You just have to have faith in the process because of your gnosis that you are trapped in existence and could only live your true, fully actualized life once once a totalitarian collective has all achieved the same consciousness, since the consequence of that is utopia.

How to Create the World

To create the world, you must be conscious. This means that you notice which magic spells are being cast - that is, the language being used, by who and what it serves.

You can essentially determine how conscious other people are by seeing how much they agree with you without descending to complete naivety (either because they offer no conflict and mirror all your opinions, or because the rationale for their shared position seems something of a caricature).

So only your tribe can be creating the world (as opposed to other tribes which are creating the anti-world or whom are poisoning, wasting and killing the world, or are creating a false world which hides the fact of there being a real world to be discovered or created), and you are constantly paranoid that your members are playing for the other team - that is, they must continuously move with you in the same direction and by the same magnitude or at the same velocity. Anything reminiscient of the past has become the other side - the reactionaries.

But also, engaging any system or partaking in any activity needs to become another instance of being...

We Are All Gnostics

What makes us all predisposed to the manner of perceiving and engaging the world as a gnostic (from the gnostic mindset)?

Mortal Thinking

Perhaps it comes from the following question: If life is something good then why do we live to die? Once we realize our mortality we fall into fantasy and imagine the ways in wihch our personal existence might be saved.

Gnostic Historicism

Historicist thinking allows us to expect anything not yet actualized. It all occurs along one train of time, making it apparent that things which happen are part of the array of things that can happen as well as that of things that are to happen.

We are seduced by the belief that we can change reality and, perhaps later, that we can come into a higher level understanding of reality such that the perception of it conforms to our conception through reflection of that reality by other perceptions. The confirmation of seeking and discovering evidence of other perceptions confirming particular ideas is used to cultivate that higher level representation of the phenomena we encounter.

If we can get the state to pursue a conception that we have affinity for, we are liable to perceive it as reified and becoming actualized. In this case, reification not in the sense of that claimed of bourgeois mystification, but the reification of a conception of reality which approaches the endpoint alluded to by historicist thinking.

Built into our base cognitive architecture, we continuously seek ways to simplify the complex for otherwise we drown in such immense complexity that perception and, by extension, existence itself is revealed as grotesque and obscene. Something no to be accepted, approached, or considered palatable.

Intelligently Unique

March 23, 2023

It's particularly pernicious to face the idea, narrative and the advertising/promotion elements of ideologies which, independently and as a whole, presents that persons of a particular way of thinking (as represented within those ideologies) are as they are because of increased intelligence and uniqueness. That they notice what others cannot notice or have difficulty in noticing.

Aspects:

• unique mind
• withstanding a greater burden
• intelligent
• new intelligence
• their achievements are heightened while also being difficult to compare against
• simply being is a monumental accomplishment

Queer/Trans

• place "neuroatypical" under the umbrella of Queer
• statistical studies/surveys showing interesting data
• reinforces one's focus on anxiety, giving one reason to engage in the activities as other to the anxiety - to the anxious nature of the supposed unique self
• affirmation:
  • love-bombing
  • companionship
  • you declare congruent/relevant identity presupposing framing of ideology
  • all identities also include oppressor/sin asect
  • you must do the work
• those outside this way of thinking are liars/deceived/immoral and harmful to the sacred, pure, unique and truly intelligent
  • this purity is not insofar as the traditional uncorrupted/sexless purity as cast by fable, but expresses purity of theory - demonstrates a construct that is pure with respect to the theory

Unconventional Warfare

March 25, 2023

There are tactics being used that are designed to exploit the very best characteristics of humanity. Your patience, open mindedness, willingness to give people the benefit of the doubt, etc. Anything that you might associate with the concept of liberal tolerance (not liberating tolerance, which is a very difficult and different thing, indeed, especially when sorting through the dialectical framings and attacks which attempt to blend these concepts in an ambiguous concept used to undermine psychological and intellectual stability and introduce confusion to set the conditions for a dialectical inversion).

We see it with the Attorney General in New York, who has promoted the symbols of reading and the rainbow. How interesting that it is still the most innocuous of the flags - maybe I'm reading a bit too much into that but if drag is supposed to expose children past the limits of conventional being then it stands to reason that the most conventional flag, now associated by queer activists as being monopolized by the most privileged among them - in fact by those who effectively use the moment to focus themselves, while extinguishing the authentic, passionate drive of the liberation-seeking collective.

But they call it "don't say gay". Get over it. Gay is so far accepted that you can't find any example of those words being suppressed or forbidden except by the progressive sauce who subsist from the stereotyping itself.

Everything done is as a provocation. This means that a dichotomous scenario of you reacting or being inactive are both considered and each of these is considered as being a winning outcome for the purveyor of unconventional warfare in the form of a dialectical attack.

Dealing

People never quite realize what they're dealing with when the context of every situation now includes an ideology that is cynically seeks complete transformation of society and, perhaps most importantly, is a system of thought which considers itself the only means of not practicing an ideology. Because of this, you must continuously declare obedience, demonstrate servitude, pledge allegiance to an

This is because it has redefined ideology to mean the set of ideas and systems which resist submitting to their goal of totalitarianism, which they define as some form of spontaneous socialism (which itself has to be forced, so that the conditions for the spontaneity can be made).

As we previously mentioned, the objective is always to provoke a reaction. But you have only limited options for what to do:

• nothing: do you have this luxury? Forever? Encroachment?
• pre-emptive action
• reaction

AI and Transhumanism

March 26, 2023

Do these get to be separate issues?

It's best to be clear about what level of abstraction is used to understand each of these, because I do not think they are the same.

Transhumanism exists as the idea - the concept of changing the human being so that human capabilities transcend their limits. We can get into the weeds about why this might be sought or desired, but it is always the same concept: transcend limitations of the human form, such as it has evolved to have become what it is today.

AI has concepts and ideas behind it, but it is most fundamentally technology. More specifically, it is the attempt to develop digital technology which mimics human thinking/human mind. One might opine over whether it is centered on creating or replicating the human mind, whether it is a reproduction of the human neural matrix or, more generally, an automated ability for a decision-making apparatus which can go beyond the limits of pre-programmed intervention.

Worth mentioning Bruno's theory that fantasy of creating self absent other sex involvement is expressed by males.

We already do things equivalent to asserting minds have been read - more through double-meaning and overriding any presumption of reason. Now, we create evidene to take place of what would have otherwise been purely subjective. That means that, from that point onward, we have official mind-reading evidence available to the state in a standardized format, and we can only expect two things:

• it will expand/become more sophisticated, and;
• it will be used to improve the state's ability to predict us, and (bonus);
• even for the state to generate inputs for our consumption in order to prompt us to provide it with the output it wants to see.

If this begins (and it has in many respects), eventually the state will expect a minimum amount of data from each of us.

Transhumanism vs AI

March 27, 2023

Do they even compare? At different levels of abstraction. AI is transhumanism but the reverse is not also true.

Transhumanism: concept to transcend the inherent limitations of the bioevolutionarily created human being. Everything from medidicine to a walking stick to hyperbaric oxygen therapy to handheld devices to pacemakers to neural implants to prosthetics/prosthesis are successful implementations of transhumanism or things that bear some degree of being transhumanistic ie having relevance to understsanding ourselves as having capability beyond our inherent and discrete form.

The next step would be a more explicit and profound application of AI to human ability than what is currently evident.

What would make for a good demarcation of this progression would be something which requires more of a commitment on the part of the person -> physical integration with the body, production and transmission of data that will be recognized as representing your state of being in REAL TIME to a governing entity, whether that be the state itself (sovereign) or something akin to a powerful company (the corporation!).

Religion of Resentment

March 28, 2023

Even if not all can explicitly see it for what it is, most likely intuit it at the level of sentiment and through resonance either of the expression or as is expressed within themselves when embodying the speaker of the word, actor of the performance and generator of the movement.

In most cases it is the same - a victimization of one's existence necessitating a correction not from the self, as one is not accountable, and not from existence itself (as a reality) as it cannot yet be delivered, but from all other entities that share in having an experience (actualization of existence). It is fundamentally a childish sentiment which breeds unreasonable rage.

The sentiment necessarily reaches a characfter and strength of unrelenting hate and disgust for one's fellow man, and pity and loathing for the self, first out of discontent for self, and later out of attempting to ignore one's awareness to the fact that they are playing an ever more committed role of the petulant and ungrateful child. The anxiety comes from a never-resolving suspicion that as one traverses the path of constructing a simulacrum, one will never be able to reach the desired endpoint.

The only solution is to enforce the most hyper-real simulacra and a specific interpretation of it that is so totalizing and absolute that doubt cannot manifest to seed anxiety and uncertain again. This is the goal of totalitarianism.

The Cult Religion

April 2, 2023

1. Target initiates
2. Introduce mythology. Codify world in its terms
3. Place them in that world, inducing anxiety, guilt and anger
4. Provide antidote: a) ritual to affirm/confess b) life-long commitment to purification (do the work)
5. Work: Create conflict
6. Replace family with found family

Whole Child

April 6, 2023

Whole implies that this framework has a more complete understanding of the matter than similar frameworks, or those it intends to supplant.

• Asserts that there are goals that cannot be attained due to certain impediments -> systemic forces
• Anything not applying the same theory is the systemic force, by default

Generative

Data-mining - what makes your child tick?

Any prospect of uncovering or declaring a new identity becomes evidence that the whole child is being addressed, because:

1. It increases the quantity of aspects that have been assessed or touched upon and;
2. even if it's wrong, it becomes an increment in the path of doing this work

This all means that there will be a bias for seekign to declare new identities over something and though it can be so easily performed with simple redundancies, that practice creates momentum for identity declaration and the prospect of declaring a liberatory identity carries the weight of itself being a form of liberatory praxis based on the theories which inform the applied whole-child model.

Sin and Karma

April 8, 2023

One must remember that for them, though they use the word frequently, it's not about process (at least, not in terms of the quality of process). They have a mystical outlook and already believe that they see the end of history, or at least feel that they have a sense/intuition as to the direction things will proceed by until reaching that endpoint. So, for them, they needn't critique the process itself (they will appear to be doing that, but what they are actually doing is critiquing something to suggest that it is not actually part of the process to which they are adhering, and if there is any doubt they will simply frame their process using a description from a higher level, or a reference to the higher level through a shared characteristic from the low level).

For them, sin in this context is simply a failure to demonsrate loyalty to the process by virtue of its high-level description and ultimate endpoint, which has to be the conformed definition of an end of history or idealistic target. They define all of these things through the dialectic, such as by continuously replacing the thing they criticize with a thing which even does that which was the meat of their criticism (but at least now it's being done explicitly and with intention).

ES Acronyms

April 9, 2023

Something that isn't adequately recognized in our understanding of some of the new industry regulations / standards is not that they are an imposition of demands on certain companies, or even that they produce new market dynamics which can be used to provide disparate advantages to certain entities within an industry, but that it is a step in the dissolution of the ability for humans to vote.

Not only can this be seen in the sense that the new regulations are ones which are formulated without input from citizens, or that they are applied without agreement and acknowledgment by citizens, but it is becoming readily appraent that citizens are losing the ability to vote with their dollras or feet.

That is to say, profitability is being replaced with financability, and since everything works within bubbles, it is less important for a company to turn a profit than it is for them to adhere to these regulations, emphasizing top-down dynamics which naturally extend from centralized, authoritative interests rather than those that have culminated from the ieas, sentiments and behavours of the ppulace or, specifically, public citizenry.

It might seem that these affect certain industries and the largest companies, but we have seen how, in the past 3 years, a declaration of emergency leads to sudden and aggressive destruction and transfer of their assets into these largest of corporations which are most significantly participating in all of the newly instantiated market regulations, namely those of inclusion and sustainability or, put another way, those that are congruent to the UN SDGs.

Structured like a Bitch

April, 2023

Everyone has to be a victim of the structure in order to have fire and the structure is the root of every problem.

Remember younger years where, no matter who you are, you had a different conception of what is possible and why? Not necessarily what is technically possible, but what the range and quality of one's intuited expectations happen to be. It might be something only worth representing as a phenomenological event, that is, a snapshot of your neuropsychological state, the visually expressed generation which accompanies the moment of conception, and so forth.

...

Other

April 2023

Is everyone so afraid of being an other? Does the fact of being an other offend them so greatly that they are unable to enjoy being itself? Why have a desire for something leading to absolution in the material realm? If truly you believe that this is the order of things for all, then why not have faith that it comes to pass?

Commentary needed on Rosa Luxemburg's natural progression of Socialism VS state-mediated conscious instigation of proletarian revolution argued by Gyorg Lukacs in terms of the Bolsheviks

Simone de Beauvoir speaks of the female itself as though it is chiefly defined as Other to male, is forced to accept this by men, and that somehow this distinction might not exist if not for this dynamic (the last part is implied). But realy, how would you wish for it to be different? Could it be different at the most fundamental levels, or is this focus taking place at another level?

The truth is that once you make your case and predicate it on woman-ness, or the concept of an identity, then the reactionarism and even duty becomes to push back on it anywhere you might relate, and this naturally lends to the outlook that if you are angry, or discontent, then you now have a means of making your case at any level you where you feel comfortable to proceed.

And so let's think about how this fundamentally leads to a gnostic outlook. A conflation of the naturally emergent structure yielding a female experience and phenomenology with the assertion that one's enforced role in society is one of performing an invitation to serve and be violated in such ways that exacerbate the subjugation.

The problem with this mode of protest is that, regadless of one's intuition or beliefs, the protest itself is seen as performative.

Effeminate Bigotry

April 15, 2023

Predicated on the proposal that a enhanced image of a man posing effeminately and made to look female is proof that a man has now become a woman

This has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

• Photoshopped pictures indicate that this is again something asserted artificially
  • even your example is positing that reality is supplanted as what can be actualized per someone's beliefs as prompted through greater indirection, if necessary
  • Also, lends to the concept of a religion which sees reality as being composed through belief as opposed to something that is
  • It is becoming through the beliefs and language.
  • If, indeed, these people pass as well as someone of teh biological sex that they are mimicking, then there is really no problem - but that isn't the issue at hand

What we have here is a demand for legal support to put those who couldn't possibly pass in thos environments, and this invites many issues being avoided (purposefully?) with your heavily tampered representations. Buck Angel doesn't have this issue, but a large overweight man with sexual pathology can and will take advantage of teh social means of acting out the fantasies bound to his pathologies, and one can call another names for having brought it up, but that doesn't really matter to someone who is speaking to reveal truth rather than seeking operational success at all costs.

So why even try to conflate these things? Obviously the issue has to do with either those who do not present in a way which convinces others that they are in the appropriate washroom, as well as those who, regardless of how they present, are engaging in activities which cause one to be understood as either trespassing or harassing in some capacity.

Covid Sensibility

The covid narrative was the ultitae reset for instilling a new biologically mediated (psychologically pronounced) sensibility for Socialism. The redistribution schemes, the perilous outlook towards a perceived common enemy that can supposedly only be defeated, or at least mitigated, through submission to the state and its dictates - a set of dictates and explications that are understood to be both fluid, not necessarily accurate, yet still both better than any suggestion from a citizen, while also being something which should never be questioned.

To even doub or hesitate complete submission to the states dictates is seen and treated as malice towards every other citizen; this is something for which no patience, tolerance or consideration is to be afforded. In fact, those who engage in such repugnant behaviour are to be disenfranchised and described as destined for death as a form of capital punishment not by state, but by nature itself.

Nature, as we have seen described in elucidations and analyses of modern instances of collectivist religions, is something which is denied in the sense of it producing anything of its own accord, but the same does not hold for destruction, erasure and negation. That is, it is the ultimate

Nature, as we have seen described in elucidations and analyses of all the modern instances of collectivist religions, is something which is denied in the senes of it producing anything of its own accord (this is expressed to different degrees, but it is ultimately that our activity is either, at one extreme, that our activity is responsible for it in its totality, or that our activity is such that nature itself is overcome or overridden), but the same does not hold for destruction, erasure and negation. That is, it is the ultimate dialectical synthesis for a natural order that is to be replaced by the impetus and capacity for Man's creation of reality.

The consequence of this is that there is no requirement to yield a specified structure representing some endpoint. Instead, the negation process makes clear that something has been decried as immaterial.

Feminism is Extremely Effective

Social constructivism; necessarily has to become anti sex-essentialist, rendering the gender critical feminism's contingent ineffectual and receiving it, though ingenuously (only because biology is either real, or it is not the most universally reasonable means of describing life on earth that we can agree on), as reactionary and seeking to conserve, which, whether you agree or not, is something woke will posit as anti-progressive and right wing.

From a purely logical standpoint, that has to be true in all cases except through insistence on an understood biological reality

The crux of this is that if criticism of Patriarchy includes the insistence that sex essentialism, which is biology, is used to oppress, then the logical endpoint is Queer Theory. It becomes nearly impossible to differentiate properly between biology as oppression, misuse of biology as oppression, and bad biology/incorrect biology as oppression, because the discourse will take place in forums of the subject which sublate it, or ones which claim to be marginal to the milieu in which they contend the subject is able to breathe itself through the social fabric.

Again, we must touch on the statement "You are not born a woman, but become". This clearly Hegelian statement follows the same logic of seekign to transform in order to self-beget. It already was the case that the woman should reject any notion of what it might mean to be a woman, even if she agrees that there is a biological reality, or that women have a body which specifically differs from that of a man. But Queer Theory took the same idea and made sure to apply it quite specifically to the body -> especially that of the woman.

Once you name the Patriarchy as your sworn enemy, this must become a mystical movement which can never be satisfied. With other more vulgar domains of thought, an identified enemy, whether through malice or false consciousness, can be destroyed as a materially discernible entity. But the purpose of Patriarchy will remain until such time as feminism is no longer viable (Double negation).

Hope

There was but one mild glimmer of hope that a feminist could, upon seeing how her own philosophy would be used against her, come to lose interest in holding to the tactics of Activism that rely on it.

Who is ready to move past the solace, comfort and assurance that a group provides? That might be perfectly alone, but they have the sense that in the great plight of it all, there exists comrades in arms who are resonating at a compatible frequency and that, together, they are creating, or at least acknowledging, the true reality.

It's not that far-fetched as humans come to match temporal cycles in other regards, including even facial expressions and body language. So what are these other dimensions of human existence which might synchronize and influence one another accordingly? Does the fact of women synchronizing menstrual cycles speak to our ability to have faith in changing the world in ways which don't need to be understood? Could we imagine that we create the perfect human by having similar faith? How about, that it is worth suppressing and repressing humanity on its journey towards that end?

Patience for the Intolerant

April 29, 2023

Remember that only one side of the simulated dichotomy was wishing to make intolerance an explicit modus operandi for their formulation of progress, and that the implication of disagreeing with this idea comes at the cost, as per the evaluations inherent to that dichotomy, one into someone who tolerates Nazis and is then, by extension, smoeone who keeps the company of Nazis -> this is, as we've seen through smears predicated on representing groups as Nazis based on even allegations of the presence of, not even particular people, but even just an artifact of any kind.

The proposition is then, of course, to become a foot soldier for their causes as well as also to have you acknowledge their right to define the meanings of terms like Nazi and tolerance, as well as complete control over what can and cannot be tolerated sans discussion.

The question must immediately be turned back around:

• Do we tolerate such antagonistic, bad faith and violent actors, or do we find a new way of making the intraction as fruitful as possible for all involved?
  • How so?
  • It is not necessarily the case that the degree fruitfulness can be measured insofar that everyone feels their proposition is reinforced
  • Would it not eventually lead to a world where understanding can be achieved without force?

Social Sentinel

*aka Woke Sentinel**

• Seeks out those that threaten proliferation of ideology (to impede proliferation of the woke ideology) and attempts to tag them as not being worth listening. They don't offer anything intelligent or genuine nor can they commit to anything beyond smearing the perceived threat (which is actually a process of dialectical negation through replacing that thing permanently with its opposite).

Mystified Materialism

July 5, 2023

Fundamental

All negative theology-based mysticism

• Control the Structure of Being universally by removing the mundant property/component so that the true reality can be made visible
• Marxism:
  • Division of Labour
  • Control of the means of production
  • Claim to science since it is atheistic, and since it seeks to declare an organized understanding of some phenomenon
  • Replaces God by being one portion of the God Head

Details

We come easily to the mystified belief in that concepts, rather than expressing or bearing characteristics which can be evaluated against principles instead become something through which an expectation can be made for principles after the process is complete. If one is mystified, then they cannot rely on principles, as these now are also mystified (or the understanding of them is mystified).

Wondering as to how one could have ever had stated principles that one might now have to question:

• This leads to more mystification and a greater sense of disappointment
• An even greater impetus to engage into nihilism and frustration with society or the world itself

Replacement

Mystification becomes the replacement/suppplantation for any sense of principle except the one principle binding the cult; that is, allegiance to the cult of acknowledging the cult's stated purpose/reason for having any intentional moment. We refer to it as completely abstract and implicit as the cultists wish to declare that they are other to an oppressor who must be beaten and transcended over. In fact, it is an oppressor that can only be beaten through transcendence, or by act of transcendence.

Feeding Crocodiles

Conceptions of this

Normies or mild initiates

• Cowards who just comply to any social pressure

• People who always seek to align with structural foce in order to:

  • maintain or acquire social privilege

  • wield power sanctimoniously

    Enthused Initiates and True Believers

    Sliding scale of these, mostly as can be functionally/pragmatically ascertained

    True Believers

• Seeking the means to control reality

• Strong desire to force their views on others

  • Makes their perspective / belief true when unchallenged by others

  • taking a position bound to threat of force is an easy way to establish that one has correct beliefs

    Distraughtly Gnostic

• Sees possibility that reality can change

• Make fantasy reality - syntheses:

  • Synthesis of racism

  • Racism to transcend racism, then unreal can transcend to become better real

    Double Negation thinking/enablement

• Practice of acting or behaving or believing that which one expects will change

• Keep doing what you want (even if problematic):

  • Assumption that it presents as a virtue
  • It will be negated at a later time

• Motivations:

  • Libido Dominandi
  • Permit the play of the mind
  • Self-loathing
  • Puritanical cleansing
  • Making one compatible with what one perceives as structural forces, especially ephemeral ones

The Dance of Cringe

September 9, 2023 Musical chairs of legitimate/competent and the bitter self-disenfranchised (more than just bitter, they have an aspiration to condemn as an assurance that they are in the right and that they aren't responsible for or accountable to any aspect of their circumstance for which they feel discontent or dissatisfied, leading to resentment and animosity)

So, then, the resentment is itself the fuel for the will to power with an assumption or at least a suspicion that one would believe they might not have felt similary had they already have come upon the placement so desired. But how would one have come upon it, otherwise? Without brute force and without this ideological excuse of competence that they now scoff at?

Well, though we say their desire is for an arbitrary power, what would be the story they instead tell themselves? Certainly, they would see it as a form of competence as well, but competence in what?

• Awareness of what things to refuse and destroy
• Desire to leave the current state of affairs
• Desire to express their resentment and disdain wihch, when spoken from the position desired, would grant others the same desire, confirming it as real, and unleashing a great power that would rid the world of those very things they know must be destroyed -> elimination of evil, or the source of its illusions and the mundane.

Mundane

What is mundane? The aspects and portions of the world that are, to begin with, not interesting to them but are, more importantly, causing others to become occupied become occupied with, to be infected with the mundane, when they would otherwise have come to hear and understand those things necessary to come into alignment with the subject - the resenter - leading to actualization of the correspondence of truth that would satisfy the sages, the rabbl and all the naysayers. Control the mundane and choose what being is to be reflected.

Comprehensive Warrior

Needs more work

Blasting deBlasio

September 13, 2023

Looking back to deBlasio comparing lockdown victims whom he had punished for breaking orders (and who are punished regardless, and vulnerable to the imposed regulations due to their profession, skillset, choice of vocation and choice of investment), it brings about a foul taste in one's mouth and causes one to suspect they must prepare for the worst.

To be frank, he is implying that any random person, regardless of tehir experience or choice of vocation, is dealing with grief and mental issues which surpass the issues of any private business owner.

Infinite Regress:

• Biological exposure
• Biological feasibility
• Any lasting characteristic from pre-modern or pre-society
• Do we need to understand our own histories?

Remembrance

Yes, we remember, but is it just to feed bitterness? Surely the first thought is that thinking of it at all would breed some resentment and make one more stubbornly resistant against differences of opinion.

But, we were never permitted to express differences of opiion, because we were made to be inconsequential advocates, nullified and made inhert insofar as being able to affect the world for anything we believe to be of value, save one small exception

We were declared as being the detriment of all mankind. The real virus who, worse than the mere limiting factor, were the source, the switch, the predicate which enabled the terror and misery for humanity as a whole.

So, no, it wasn't mere difference of opinion, as we became uncertain of our very survival in this structure whose powers all seemed to content to feed to whatever point it might reach. And if nothing was learned from before, then we expect even lesser chances to make it through further iterations of similar kind.

Truth

The truth is that, rather than understanding any of the issues, the different perspectives about them, the points of contention, and the possible paths to bring about the most resolute and universally viable outcome, many have predicated their position and opinion on the assumption that only one manner of thinking and being will be supported by the regime, and that the regime will be willing to escalate its use of force to impose this as time goes on.

They are, essentially, choosing whether or not to be vocally supportive of the regime, supportive of condemning those who dissent, and manner in which one cultivates rationale about the aforementioned after having accepted the regime's supremacy.

And we know why they do this:

• Fear
• Greed
• Pride

Aempathy

October 4, 2023

Mendacious mendacity. Foaming at the mouth with endless aempathy.

Yes, Aempathy. You can't help but say it funny, with its snarky, eccentric, flamboyant, presumptive, mocking, pretentious, exuberant, inauthentic, dismissive, condescending, sanctimonious, aberrant, sarcastic, menacing, ridiculing, agitating, petulant, pedantic, insidious, outrageous, self-assured, pompous, showy, arrogant, grandiose, inflated, haughty, ostentatious, exaggerated, extravagant, threatrical, tasteless and overbearingly inauthentic flavour.

And, because of this flavour, because of the sentiment which surrounds it, because of the unmistakeably dubious forms of propositions which come along with it, you will be accused of having made your assertion for no reason other than your having been motivated by the very sentiments it produces.

You are too haughty and can't tolerate even considering the pronouncement exclaiming itself as being in the name of empathy. For you, it is a personal attack and you see the fact of an attack as itself being a form of apathy/lack of empathy. You predicate your determination of empathy on whether someone holds you with prime consideration. This is, in veritability and in effect, evidence of your selfishness. When, truly, what it should be is an evaluation based on whether we are considering and able to understand how others who are affected/involved, would be feeling.

Response:

Don't you mean "should" be feeling? Could? Or might be expected to be feeling? How could you ever be certain as to what another is feeling, even if they were to describe it to you in great detail? Why even require your perception and position to assume something so brittle and subjective? To even invoke empathy as a percept to your position is itself a haughty little manipulation as not only does it demand that your assertion be accepted on the basis fo something unprovable, but it concomitantly implies that those who disagree with your perception do so because of a lack of empathy.

A truly empathetic position is one where you never need to compel another to your view in the name of empathy. Why? Because to be empathetic, in any sort of authentic form, would require you to experience another's perception so clearly that you would feel their precise emotive and embodied state. In its ideal form, you would feel exactly what they feel.

Barring such an ideal which, with no demonstrative capacity, should be treated as unattainable, at least in a scientifically provable manner, we must move towards a standard of empathy which forms its own axiomatic standards around the principles of the ideal model:

• to assume that we could have the same perception about something in this world, or;
• to assume that if it could be the case that it would be a good thing
• to assume that, though we are separate people, the achievement of one person's goals is not necessarily the exclusion fo the other person's goals

In employing such a standard, one might come to realize that assuming one is not empathetic for failure to agree is not supported by evidence, regardless of the position being argued, whereas the expressing that one is without empathy is itself evidence that one is not empathetic. This is another reason for us to call false empathy aempathy. It is not presumptive or menacing, for we would not speak of it or write and think of it except as a defense against dialectical attacks, which necessitates a more complex understanding

New Woke

Covidism is the new woke because it puts even non-devout covidists into the wizard's circle and keeps them doing the work predicated on the logic of a covidist world:

• nature is harmonious without the division of labour/property
• adaptation is non-consensual
• placed in the circumstance of ideology -> robbed of true nature
  • nature returns through the collective
  • all must do the work of bringing the conditions for a harmonius nature after the threats are overcome by eliminating motividowel

Man who has false consciousness, by eliminating indiidual man who has false consciousness at best, and is actually trying to worsen the trip of ideology/domination due to KM's bourgeois indoctrination