logicp_writings/Book/Chapters/Forward.md

Modern Collectivism

Ideas vs Actors

!NOTE: rather than utilizing the "Ideas vs Actors" motif, this could simply be placed as an introduction.

We have a bad habit of interpreting bad behaviour as the consequence of bad ideas originating from bad actors. It's a foolish and childish presumption that leaves us with a terrible blindspot as to our own capacity to develop and act on bad ideas? In any case, let us undertake a brief, higher level analysis so we can enumerate some of the consequential players and ideas pertaining to each of the modern collectivist philosophies of interest.

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

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

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

Race

Everyone favourite and most savoury form of modern cult collectivism, which might be the most broadly offensive as, unlike some of the other ones, like Queer Theory, isn't mired in arguing as to whether the premises are based in make-believe, or, as is the case with sustainability, concerning premises based on whether something is a truly scientific understanding about phenomena which aren't, as a first order consequence, operating on analyses and assumptions about other human beings.

Actors

Who are those whom we feel are most responsible for formulating, proliferating and enforcing the ideas borne of the Race cult?

!TODO: Expand on each one and provide examples

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

Info

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

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

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

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

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

Gamifying?

Indeed, we're talking about gamification in the sense that there is a new points system and a process of evaluation whereby people are busying themselves with playing games and, particularly in a professional or academic environment, this replaces the otherwise intended purpose of the institution in question. If we are to really target these things and make them make sense according to their desired purpose, we need to be clear about what we're attempting to achieve in these institutions, and if we're actually trying to transform them for another purpose, then we should rename them to exhibit and express that other new purpose, which becomes its first order purpose.

One of the major consequences of gamifying an activity or environment through a value system with implications about ethics, morality, guilt and purpose is that having one continuously function such as to consider the impact on points becomes one's programming and is, in effect, a form of brainwashing on the basis of its function as operant conditioning, leading to ideological conformation. See James Lindsay's explanation of digital gulags

Anteceding Procreation

When a human considers their mortality, recognize that they are, in fact, a different human being from all others, and that the differentiatedness of individuality means they are vulnerable to coming to grips with the potential that they might not be able to, not only, live forever but be accepted into the gene pool as a part of the immortality of future human existence through bearing some form of lineage, but even simply convince themselves that their developed and instantiated form was a worthwhile occurrence and not simply a blip.

This stark, tragic and brutal cosmology proposition awaits every human with a conscious, sentient mind and is already something extremely difficult to tangle with. For some, it might be considered a rite of passage to maturity and self-worth to deal with such a thing, while for others it's an unfair aspect of the "flungness" (thrownness) of Being and puts it upon ourselves to reformulate the human experience and the meaning of human life in order to help the species arrive at the conditions where such a thing need no longer be experienced. But, nevertheless, it is the reality that we do face and that all humans have faced before us.

The redeeming prospect, however, is that we can in fact rise up and develop ourselves such as to find a path of solace, comfort and empowerment, and that this may come in many forms, not just those relating to procreation and having our genes propagate into the future.

To classify ourselves into categories which may or may not be considered legitimate and viable on the basis of attributes for which we haven't had control over, however, is a special kind of evil that even those who champion such methods are intuitively aware of.

How are other humans to be looked upon, in terms of their existential viability, after adopting a view which categorizes humans as superior and inferior as per their race, be it physiologically, intellectually, culturally, morally, or otherwise? A fragile chain of nearly-rejected deceivers who faked and fooled more noble beings into allowing the mistaken experiments of ancient history to remain in existence. If, indeed, class differences exist as the collectivist describes, then even in every pair-bond exists some quantity of that manipulative dynamic and, as such, one of the participants will have fooled the other. They were all mistakes whose greatest achievement is having fooled someone long enough to tame and delay their disgust which should still come to be expressed at a later time.

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

Some additions are made by force and others by mistake or through a failure by the oppressed party to have applied due diligence; one wonders if ever there have been legitimate, deserved, honourable additions at all, as surely it was mostly the case that one party was undeserving of gaining entry into the pantheon of cosmological extension. It may very well be the case that the fact of human survival is nothing but a vulgar heuristic of how a particularly repulsive organism manages to overstay its welcome.

And then, to the reader - are you magnificent and worthy of having existed at all? If not truly of divine equivalence, then one must be repulsive.

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

On the balance of these concerns against the critique in favour of dismissal, and on the basis that such a category may be destined to be eliminated before others (as the melting po), too arbitrary or difficult to define, dehumanizing, and not modern enough, we can see that all the forestanding rationalizations give ample reason to overcome our fallen and mundane limitations. For the purveyors of the race cult, who somehow see them as having attained the correct configuration, or are choosing to position themselves, as Sartre had described, such as to hope for mercy in their judgment, we can recognize the bleak set of issues they themselves should find themselves to be faced with by implication of their doctrine: that they should somehow avoid complete negation by carefully and selectively refuting aspects of the doctrine while imposing it on the world, as though their moment and role are now the most significant in history such as to embody a moment of transcendence which begins through them. Of course, even this needn't be the case, because it's far simpler to indicate that judgment of humanity such as to make individuals, which they ultimately are, inadmissible is tantamount to participation in a death cult.

We should conclude that it investigating the race cult constitutes one of the primary aspects of analysis to which most can relate and are familiar, at least insofar as laying the ground work for our understanding of cult collectivism, though the context has evolved such as to become more insidious to human perception of reality itself.

Queer

!TODO: This whole section should be parsed for point-form summary and rewritten This one maintains itself even more strongly on the very same points as race, except it reaches new levels of magnitude in the manner that it brings its assertions and scope of attack to a higher level of abstraction.

While the Race cult is concerned with rejecting social systems that have not yet produced equity when analyzing social strata through the lenses of race, ethnicity and skin colour, the Queer cult has much less flexibility with regards to allowing for a standard of specification about any aspect of reality whatsoever. The driving sentiment behind Queer Theory is a desire to destroy the ability for the human mind to have any expectation about what limits can exist within human experience and judgment, particularly with respect to the body which, as we are humans in an embodied experience, ends up comprising the entirety of the experience as can be reasonable discussed.

Reality ( as being challenged )

While most may criticize the addition of race on the basis that reality needn't include it as per a standard of science, the Queer challenge the very notion that we may discern or even interpret an approximation of reality at all, and it takes it much further than, for example, the distinction of the phenomenological and noumenal as put forward by Kant, who at least isn't necessarily stating that an objective reality cannot exist. With the Queer, it isn't even a question of whether objective reality exists, but that a position must be assumed wherein the subject is the reality for the purpose of transformation, regardless of any underlying belief about what could possibly manifest as a result. It is liable to put in its crosshairs any feature or fraction of reality which it finds in its vicinity, whether as conflict or even on the basis that it is already in conflict with anything specified. The very act of enumerating and identifying something outside of a proposed Queer control structure is offensive and contrary to Queer praxis.

Specifically, the question of one's material construct bearing some kind of ordered legitimacy is brought into the fold, but in somewhat of a different respect: one must question the reality of one's conception of structure. Any description of reality is a false reality, but queer is the effort to regain a real perspective by maintaining the attitude of rejecting the potential for having one's reality subverted by any structural element. In a sense, it desires to impose supremacy of the broadly inferior, particularly by aesthetic, and claims through epistemological means not unlike that of the master-slave dialectic that that which has been seen to be superior is actually inferior.

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

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

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

• Reduced confidence in one's sense-making
• Downgraded status for established critical reasoning faculties
• Reification of a domain of grace:
  • Holy status - Sanctity essential to divine promise leading to a liberation identity that is culturally "genocided" through a variety of means, including the questioning of the liberation identity's capacity to actualize
  • Self-evident truth based on oppressed status

Transhumanism

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

1. You believe one representation is the correct one. In positioning and performing for the right side which is heading down the path of salvation, as opposed to any other path which is at best driven by false consciousness, you have made a safe bet which is reinforced by broadly available popular rhetoric and institutional support. This is the more passive of the two, and might describe a mindset taking a glimpse at the implications of everything within the range of curiosity for gender ambiguity to permanent body modification.

2. You make the choice which imposes the force of change. Change reality to make it admissible and adequate. Through a mode of self-sacrifice, you are choosing something with hope and faith of becoming a more correct instance of Being, even the perfected instance of Being. This is the more active of the two, and is perfectly exemplified by the transgender initiate bearing a Queer consciousness.

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

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

Obviously, this is a destructive process, both conceptually and physically, which is why I referred to it as Ultimate Negation, and it doesn't seem to lend itself towards a series of improvements to the human form, but its complete obliteration, at least at this "stage" of "Queer history", though one would be hard pressed to imagine that this should change considering the philosophical underpinnings and similar structure of logic which places it in the pool of dialectic "philosophies".

Upheaval

Though it may seem contradictory to the goal and process of transhumanism, that is of no concern to the Queer theorist who believes that the tension of such conflicting views will create the upheaval and socio-political drive to change the pursuit of everything towards the needs of the Queer theorist, which are ultimately the aspects of reality sought through Queer liberation.

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

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

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

This means that all perception of human form and body must be uniform as both a complete range of expression and simultaneously completely void of content, like a Hegelian climax, hence making this a collectivist cult aiming for arbitrary control over reality - such is the point at which the queer theorist is satisfied.

Dissatisfying Distinction

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

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

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

Digression

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

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

Summarizing

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

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

---

Covidism Part II (rest of chapter)

Climate Historicism

Scientists, politicians, economics and social justice activists all speak about "Covid" not simply on the basis of it being something which occurred that profoundly affected the world and humanity, but as some sort of an inevitable outcome based on the precedence of human activity which stood before it. For the Covidist, the event of a pandemic of international concern is seen in its historical context. It is an event preceded by the struggle, historical conditions and tension which led to this event unfolding. The fact of its sociopolitical, human and biological significance is clearly indicative that its human and social precedents gave rise to it, informed it, and so on. For example, it would be stated that our industrial activity and selfish consumerism yielded the climate change which caused unusual ecological developments, such as the creation of this virus. It would be said that capitalism leveraged the crisis in order to produce disaster capitalism and all the incentives and behaviours which come along with it. All this logically confers that it must be seen as relevant and a stage en route to a better world, but only if we are willing to use it as the right motivator to finally put an end to certain behaviours which we mistakenly believe we're at liberty to participate in.

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

!TODO: compare against Covid-era notes.

!TODO: determine whether any of the following has to be fleshed out and included:

Covidism and Symbolism

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

Our Metaphysical Question

!TODO: Move this and the next section?

It's worth restating the purpose in elucidating these issues which is to address the fact that people have become unable to communicate with one another, as the entire process as become rife with lies and manipulation through abuse of language. Though the issue appears as a cultural conflict whereby a transformation of the culture has taken place thus producing fractionated sub-cultures within nation, community, institution and even family, but that is too much of a superficial way of looking at it. Though it's true that aspects of social transformation present themselves in social environments, and even that there have been ideologically-driven efforts to induce and exacerbate conflict in many of the institutions which have the deep and long-lasting effects, the underlying issue has more to do with our common capacities and the banality of evil..

Might it just be superficial because the social changes mirror an evolution in human thought or form? No, the proclivity towards these things is something we haven't evolved away from, though one might say that our intellectual developments have given us better toolsets with which to mitigate these tendencies.

It is a war over what to do about the question of the perceived fundamental nature of reality as experienced by human mind. It is transformation vs transcendence. Eternal vs imminent. Acceptance vs rejection. Gratitude vs bitter resentment of the existing order.

Some might call it a religious war or, perhaps more palatably, a war of faith. Others would prefer to call it a war of epistemology. Perhaps the best framing would be to call it a war of ethics on the basis of what can and cannot be known about reality, the mind of others, and even one's own mind. That is to say, the difference between a philosophy or a mode of action which extends from a claim about the imminent is that it imposes a demand for agreement about that which needn't be proven, and this is a fundamental breach of ethics.

Of course, none of these descriptions or enumerations can ever completely capture and express the phenomenon in question, which is not a theory on a model, and this is precisely why we must avoid and resist the inclination of any person to make laws or policies which presuppose a complete understanding or moral determination about any person based on their observable physical characteristics, genetic sequence, or other encoded representation of someone's material form, beyond denoting one's actions. One might even extend that statement to include one's proclaimed political affiliation, though it would fall short as certain political doctrines do, in fact, put forward those presuppositions and moral determinations, such as Communism requiring everyone to do the work of bringing about increasing Socialist environments, or Nazism enforcing a racial hierarchy through a rationale which ostensibly claims that it's necessary in order to save civilization.

Yet still, even in this description, it would be facile to say that the doctrines most of us know are worthy of rejection are the product of poor or manipulative thinkers who were afforded the power to mislead the rest of us. The truth is that the phenomena and behaviours we seem to be faced with shouldn't be laid at the feet of any one villain and mystery man. Though the formalizing of certain human proclivities may have arisen from or been presented by a previous thinker or public persona, those proclivities themselves are artifacts of the basic means by which we make our view of reality and our lives actionable.

Is Public Health a Good Idea?

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

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

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

If it had to be the case that public funds are to be spent on public health, and that we are to find a more productive view than some abstract representation of public as an aggregated being, it would do well to somehow find a way of providing health advice, encouraging fitness, or facilitating access to goods and services of a certain quality. It's nearly impossible to do this, of course, due to the political nature of redistributing the money of citizens. That is, it will always promote a racket and be subjected to moderation by the official standards.

This is because a governmental body allocating funds for purposes such as health and dietary guidelines means that it is able to affect where funds are directed to, as in the private enterprises that will eventually be funded because of the expenditure of public funds for a given purpose. Furthermore, the fact that private enterprises and research funding are affected by the guidelines that are sought and set through a political body, and the fact that whatever the government sets as a standard will be referred to by itself, even through its various different departments and satellite entities, crown corporations, and so forth. To have an entity which decides how much to distribute to whom under its own standards is simply not going to be a clean process performed objectively to the end of providing clean advice and assistance.

Perhaps less prone to conflict and corruption would be to help people identify individual behaviours which are deleterious, such as the manner in which being subjected to the company of psychopaths or persons exhibiting dark tetrad traits can affect one's own health and well-being. But even something seemingly as straightforward as this becomes an impossible task for a governmental body which reifies concepts like identity, as the specification of those identities relies on behaviours and even tendencies of diagnoses which problematize the very idea that a particular behaviour or condition can be deleterious. That is to say, though it can sometimes be easily understood that a psychopathological behaviour is deleterious for those who must deal with it, once identity becomes involved, then there is a mythology attached to it which insists that rectifying the conditions which make the distinction of an identity meaningful is itself a bigger priority than the incidental effects which are incurred to individuals operating within the current state of those conditions. That is, the health of individuals becomes less important than the trajectory by which the conditions change.

With all of that in mind, it becomes nearly impossible to expect a modality of public health which can contribute to society without causing more harm than good. Perhaps if the system of governance evolves to no longer assume identity as an intelligible and meaningful model for its citizens, then such endeavours can become more viable, but I remain deeply skeptical.

Human Narrative as Story

Collectivist Story

The collectivist inclination is one of an incomplete story needing to be brought to resolution. Though this sounds like the fulfillment of something specified in myth which has perpetuated itself historically such as to be romantic or endearing enough to maintain a lineage through the cultures and minds of man, it's actually something much more basic and universal. The collectivist inclination, a natural tendency of human mind, is borne completely through the application of syntax to delusion. That is to say, when a human being makes a false determination or assumes a false premise about reality, it may very well go unnoticed for everyone, including that same human, unless it is expressed in syntax. When that delusion is formed in language and made communicable, the seed of the collectivist cult is born.

Now, with the seed of delusion able to be delivered to another potential cult participant, all that is required for the existence of a collective is the originator believes their falsity is understood and believed by another human. At this point, the evidence of its truth is that the syntax was delivered, cognized and reflected as a true aspect of reality. It's not actually a problem whether the other participant truly understands, or even truly agrees, just so long as no contradiction has yet been expressed. Should that not occur, or even until that time that it does occur, we have the concept of a collective consisting of those participants who have the knowledge of reality in this form, which is an incomplete representation, founded upon delusion, and the implicit purpose of the collective is now to maintain the integrity of this fragment of existence. As things become more complicated, and more is invested into the delusion, the strength of angst driving the need to fulfill the adoption of the collective can intensify with the implied endpoint of an eschatological solution becoming more clearly articulated in the sheer desire of those who participate in explicit adoption of the belief.

We can see almost immediately that this story-based interpretation of desiring an immanent collectivist solution is analogous to the gnostic plight as a pathological mode of being in hopes of overcoming the embodied sensation which comes from interpreting one's life in spacetime.

An individualist inclination, however, is one where the story is an ongoing exploration of reality as unknown because that pursuit is itself already worthwhile. The conclusions to such a story are more open-ended in that the ultimate achievement needn't necessarily be imminent, in fact to believe so would be a form of hubris unbecoming of the inclination, and instead the individual wonders about the potential for gifts which may or may not be within the reach of reality. Divinity may await, and it may be predicated on one's actions in reality, thus it makes sense to make decisions and perform actions which have a greater chance of being in line with what a human mind would believe as being valuable beyond the matter of this universe. In a sense, one might say that this is tantamount to the concept that truth is not something ascertained as something relative consequent to human experience, as is quibbled over between those arguing in favour of a religious morality versus those claiming a scientific one, but something which we choose to have faith as being extant simply on the basis that there is something beneficial in human life to be derived in doing so. If there is a divinity, it is something which always either awaits or is perfectly on-going by virtue of some structure of the real and objective.

If no divine aspect of reality exists then the individualist already understands, if even only intuitively, that a human's view of reality most accurately being perceived at the level of an individual is the correct one and that this is something to be expressed and negated at any given moment and, as such, is precious.

Individual Story: Hero's Journey

The individual's story is naturally something at least approximately equivalent to the hero's journey, as there is no choice but to perceive the reality one is faced with, and this must proceed through senses which can only correspond with one single person. When combined with the knowledge of death, this is already the recipe for moving temporally towards a great challenge whereby the only manner of offsetting something naturally feared are the discoveries made on that way.

Every person understands the notion that something good follows something difficult, whether through simple time and effort, or the complex equation of confrontation. Something requiring sacrifice and something which causes one fear and for which there is an obstacle to overcome is intuitively interpreted as providing benefit. That it necessarily incorporates an element of facing adversity doesn't come with the promise of a material reward. That is, the reward needn't be some tangible material commodity in and of itself and in spite of the possibility of one receiving no clear material reward, humans have an ingrained sense that doing the difficult will yield some sort of benefit to themselves, if even just through the fact of learning that we can accept and consolidate yet more difficult scenarios and developing the skill of understanding that one can persevere.

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

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

It might not seem that way to an outside observer, as the syntax and capacity for providing a robust framework are limited, but they aren't inhibited in expressing their understanding of an event or behaviour in the ways that an adult, who wishes to scrutinize the degree to which it sounds reasonable, might be. In effect, the child will continuously impose narrative over their experience and corroborate it with details appealing to the sensory along with key words which convey their focused motif.

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

Hero Cognition

This confirmation approach is used most heavily by children anytime a cognition occurs in the form of recalling some object reference, even if it is far off from reality, and an affirmation from the parent, even as a misunderstood response, will most certainly cause the child to believe the cognition to be legitimate. This reinforced cognition will be something easily attached to and difficult for the child to move on from without a new cognition being made to supplant it, though provisioning such a replacement cognition is itself not very difficult.

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

TODO: Piaget and complex reduction

Freedom

How are we best to imagine freedom? Is it just something technical which applies to all matter in the universe, or is it something subjective such as if we were to say that one set of things might make one person more free, while having very little relevance to another person who requires something completely different in order for them to be convinced that they are free.

Is it a matter of convincing someone of freedom? The feeling of being free? Perhaps it's that a culture or even a nation have some concept of what freedom is and then the community is able to develop the tools and mechanisms by which to understand whether the community is doing a good job of cultivating and stewarding a place that is free and promoting the mode of freedom that it values.

Could we imagine a technological tool used to evaluate freedom based on a freedom index? Well, we already do that when we talk about countries, and publish articles about some countries being more free than others, and they have a nice variety of criteria which appeal to many. Even if it's an imperfect index, it provides a good reference to countries in this world, and it's arguable that those countries which score highly on that index are probably more free than many of those which don't even make it onto the list.

But, from another perspective, sometimes those lists have countries where, though scoring adequately or even incredibly well, they might still be places where one might not feel free to express what one truly thinks about life, state and society, and might scoff at the supposing that it's a particularly free country. One could say that though a freedom index is an interesting thing to work with, there might be a difference between fundamental freedom and freedom as an index of things you are able to enjoy as a consequence of the quality of life one is able to attain in a particular locale.

We could imagine, in the aftermath of freedom-indexes whose models are congruent with a globalist perspective of governance, industry and human relations, and the prevalent complacency throughout the west towards the widely settled and accepted notion of a social credit system, as is sported by the People's Republic of China (at least insofar as your average westerner is liable to feel the need to muster up any sort of criticism about it), what sort of freedom evaluations would take place as technology becomes more sophisticated and westerners remain dormant and submissive in their advocacy for themselves as individuals. What would of evaluation would that be?

In the spirit of automation and the need to ever-refine our social cohesion through publicly-funded initiatives, it would be the use of AI and massive data mining to evaluate human freedom not simply on socio-economic statistics, but on the data of individual people, not simply in the manner which has been utilized in China, but made also to include biometric data which can be more nimbly harvested about each human with ever-growing scope and depth of context about their immediate environment.

Artificial Assessments for Artificial Freedom

It's not without irony that I express concern about this very concept, as my a late career change and a massive interest in data mining, social media infrastructure, politics and the prospect of artificial intelligence had me brainstorming and designing everything from high level conceptual frameworks to individual algorithms which might be used to evaluate the degree to which each particular utterance might contribute to or diminish its contribution to freedom and fairness in this world. Perhaps this is a nod to potential for the "banality of evil" which never seems to be too far way when you're a human being, but I thought, in my purposeful naivety, that there could be a strategy for utilizing one's dispassionate analysis of the tools at our disposal and a spirit of honest and open inquiry to concoct the means by which to evaluate our social world or, at least, our digital social world in order to yield a frame of open transparency about our actions and the ways in which we might improve our conduct to reach better outcomes for ourselves and one another.

In fact, isn't it simply the natural trajectory of technology and our evolution as capable cognitive agents that we cannot help but learn more about the world and ourselves and find new ways to make improvements in our lives? Well, perhaps it stands to reason that not everything is an improvement, and that there are many was of improving our lives which aren't necessarily being undertaken, with many of them being neglected for reasons that might align quite well with those who would like nothing more than to have a detailed analysis of every human's every move and, dare I say, thought.

The problem is that, for better or worse, this sort of thing is coming and though some cases can be made to dissuade its evolution, it likely is the natural progression of technology in terms of consolidating complexity and enumerating more of what occurs in our world, thus we need to make an effort to better understand what its trajectory might resemble and what we can do to preserve the aspects of human life that we hold dear to us. Aspects that I would posit as being freedom and liberty which are not on the basis of indexes but something more fundamental and even chaotic.

Leviathan of Freedom

!WARNING: brain dump

It could be an AI powered process of assessing what people are valuing as freedom, with that being weighted through a function which recognizes people's social significance insofar as they are either authoritative in their role, or that they have a track record of having been contributors to the specified vision of freedom and liberty for the future, which could be something akin to the party's progress to consolidate power since that party represents the people.

That we could continuously evaluate the changes of society and people's utterances and actions as they contribute to the process of freedom revealing itself, which is simultaneously the progress of totalitarianism or socialism or whatever collectivist cult formulation is best supported at the time this is spoken, would be something that is most intelligent from the standpoint of the authority - an authority which acknowledges or denies what a person's proposed concept of freedom might happen to be, acting as another filter to ensure that the data being collected and the model being refined are truly "for the people". To think that we could have come this far without something which is continuously framing and evaluating our greatest values, virtues and understanding in a nuanced and detailed way whether we are living up to those values! That's something that we've dreamed about to have a good future for our children. In fact, it's something that we've come to add to our educational endeavours already, whether as an anti-racist initiative to harvest "race data" on children in order to combat cognitive bias, or whether it's to make certain institutions meet standards for funding ( !TODO: citation for SDGs / Sustainability / Comprehensive Sex Ed ) over the past few years, and it's something which is finally generating data that we can act on to make a safer and more inclusive learning environment.

With time we can have education which actually serves the people,a nd we'll know that will have come about as the students of that time will produce the society which finally creates equitable and fair outcomes of opportunity to everyone, which we'll know to have been fair and equitable since everyone will have come to be wealthy, healthy and happy, while living meaningful, freedom-promoting lives that are congruent to the state's activities and desire for a just and motivating society.

Human Freedom

Human freedom as something deeply liberal in the spirit of liberty for individuals being just and worth preserving in law for universal human progress has long been argued as the most intelligent choice of organized objective for freedom on the basis that it leads to the highest potential for flourishing and success. That is, that it leads to such an outcome even just for oneself if more of the other people are able to maximize their gifts and level of development, and that this occurs as a consequence of advocating through a universal vision of rights and justice that is blind to superficial attributes. It's worth mentioning that many who will come to criticize the attempt to argue on behalf of human freedom and the highest potential flourishing is something mundane, facile and performative in the fact of acknowledging that we all want that - but those same people will certainly argue against anything which is known to lead to flourishing other than venturing off into the new, which is always unprecedented. When a more complicated form of freedom is put forward as though a more intelligent replacement for an antiquated understanding of freedom, what we are dealing with is a dialectical process.

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

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

Types of Freedom

You can only become truly free by becoming that which is not free (completely in line with the definition of the dialectic found here: "in which each thing is what it is only by becoming what it is not" - Theodore Adourno). Or, freedom must be understood to also be the absence of freedom (constraint, capture, structure, guard rails, immobility to suppress mobility which might otherwise be harmful and counter-productive, the absence of potential for movement, change - Essentially, for something to be free in this world, it would be the complete opposite of what it is expected to be.

Just as to be truly honourable you would need dishonour (which sounds like complete nonsense until you examine a punk-ish context to defy structure and authority, but in this case we get actual freedom by ensuring that whatever it is we do is something which doesn't permit much movement, as well as, and this is even better, taking away activities and behaviours for which it is asserted that it can cause an imposition on a particular freedom), we would preserve and potentiate freedom by disenfranchising, neutralizing and censoring those whose conduct is antithetical to the freedom of others.

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

Occupy Existence

!WARNING: draft off the cuff writing

The freedom to exist is the freedom to occupy space, and what precisely makes it free is that this freedom to occupy is not something granted socially by other beings who have different claim to space, at least at the universal level, but that you have the freedom to occupy the space by virtue of the laws of nature. That you can maintain presence with your body in some space, somewhere in this world, and that it's not contingent on it being granted by another being who is more legitimate and viable. That is to say, that they have for them some space in this world whereby they may occupy space without it being considered illegitimate or in poor taste, whereas another does not have any space for them to occupy without it constituting some sort of infraction or offense.

All other embodied freedom extends from this, such as the freedom to move. When we say freedom to move, this means the foundation by which you can have things like a functioning metabolism, signaling in the nervous system, the beating of the heart, the displacement of bodily fluids and gasses, movement of the diaphragm, movement of the eyes, eyebrows and nostrils, and then ambulation and all the rest of it.

Indeed, freedom of movement doesn't mean that you have endless justification to occupy every space you desire. It isn't suddenly the case that you can walk into someone's domicile and declare it your just right to exist in that space because anything less would be the denial of your existence.

The issue of jurisdictions, the legitimacy of having a state, what its purpose is and what limits it should have in order to fulfill that purpose are beyond the scope of this writing. Those are issues tackled from a different specialization and perhaps from a higher level (though one would say it's a lower level in the details of legal discourse, but I would contend that civics and law are matters which are approached after we have an underlying basis for choosing to approach them, and that such a basis is putting forward what is reasonable to expect in terms of the foundation of ethics inherent to the biological form because, as it stands, there is much agreement about whether human rights and the law it stands, in whatever country, is something arbitrary or whether it extends from concepts like Natural Law).

That it is acknowledged that no human being can be considered as being illegitimate in every part of the universe, unless somehow granted grace by another human being is completely abhorrent to me. Similarly, though perhaps a more complicated issue, is that a human being should be able to do things in the natural world, such as displace, transform and consume its materials, in some general sense and in a manner. For example, if there were wild land and a human entered into that space, it shouldn't be considered illegitimate of that human to consume water in order to survive, to eat berries as sustenance, to harvest wood, fashion a javelin and hunt an animal, and so on.

One could say that there is no wild land or that any wild land which does exist is in some nation's jurisdiction and, as such, each human needs to be in the space to which they correspond such that it accords with a legal justification for their existence, but would it not be absurd and somewhat evil to presume that no human could legitimately exist without the legitimation of a state entity? If ever there were to be made an argument as to what is and what is socially constructed, would the state not precede that of an actual biological being? Of course, those who wish to override any possibility of a hierarchical designation that they might not favour, even to the point of rejecting hierarchies and categorical understanding of the natural forces themselves, would sooner force the option of making absolutely everything social constructed, as we've already seen, even to the point of making the state a being of equal level, or higher level than the human being, but to make it to the head of God as manifested in the material world itself. This is why, though some will assert that there is a harmonious and, by implication, divine human being here in this world in its current permutation, they will also not allow any questions of infinite regress or speculation about naturally evolved circumstances taken to a logical conclusion. There is a first being, but not procedure by which to decipher a first being. There is a divine being, but no universally accessible pathway to the divine. They finally have the hierarchy they desire, and it confers the divine and the mundane, the true human and the sub or false human.

One might push back on the notion that to assert the necessity of a legal justification by state to corresponding space for the legitimate existence of a human is absurd on the basis of some set of arguments including the proposition that humans can't exist in the wild, at least not in the current form or with their current level of knowledge (except, perhaps, a noble savage, or especially a rainbow noble savage), or to say that, as things currently stand, each person, having been born in some jurisdiction, has a corresponding space that is legitimate for them, but this is specious and obviously dishonest, since they're also presenting the argument that there is a type of human being that is more legitimate to a space, in spite of the otherwise equal legal designation as per the state authority for the sovereign nation to which the space is associated.

Sinful Density

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.

It really is its density which makes it exclude other forms, and which makes it apparent that it is imprisoned in our limited material frame of reference, and just for a short time at that.

If, for example, we could be thoughts without the density of the body, would that indicate that we'd have been cleansed of the sin? Of the sexed, mortal, space-excluding body? Perhaps, and perhaps that's one of the charms of a transhumanistic evolution which could promise the preservation of mind, emotion, sensation, experience and relation without the excluding confines of the dense trap which is the body.

Human Woke Freedom

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

Avoiding Totalitarianism

Negation through State Mythos

We Need To Seriously Disambiguate

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

In many respects, this specific aspect of collectivism is what motivated me to write this book. The idea that the state could even enumerate our beliefs as though it had an intelligent and nuanced reference as to what they may be. The idea that the state can communicate that people, and especially categories of people, can have additional, greater, or even just different dimensions of spirituality from one another, and that having these dimensions signifies that the lives of persons within a category and the lives of those relative to them can be understood in terms which describe their moral circumstances and challenges, their disposition towards any other person, and the degree to which or manner in which they affect justice and fairness in this world.

For anyone to be regarded as having such an effect on mankind, history and reality, not through some precise action, but through their having disparate forms, is akin to a divine logic, with the impetus to act to correct the effects of their disparate forms being an application of divine principle. Even if statistics could show some iron-clad relationship that could never be undermined or challenged, but faithfully demonstrated as a mechanism for making a perfect prediction, it should still be rejected as bearing any relevance whatsoever against determinations made about specific events and actions. That is to say, any reality of injustice needs to be discerned in actual terms bound to the actions of people. There is no possibility of a true moral conflict occurring without an event pertaining to it with actual persons acting, observing and experiencing it, having intentions and reacting in certain ways, and regardless of what one believes about cognitive bias and false consciousness, there is no hope for any member of mankind without the perspective that logic and reason can be applied universally and that for any generally observed patterns visible at the level of a socially-conceived identifier or motif, there always remains the possibility of exceptions. Our expectation of that there can be an exception, even for ourselves is tantamount to our intuited belief that identity categories are not causative. These things hold true even when great, unjust and violent measures are applied systematically by an official, authoritative entity to a supposed category of people of any kind at any level of scale, which is to say, they hold true even if oppression were "systemic".

Queer Scholarship

!TODO: Possible sources to reference

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

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

!TODO: Reorganize to put all the Queer indigenous together With that said, we can focus on the manner in which a queer designation was imposed on the very idea of indigeneity.

Theory is Systemic Designation

It's important to make the assertion that Indigenous, or any sort of person that can be considered as being queer, is not something to be ascribed to only certain persons (or members) of a supposed broader identity group. The identity category is the difference between being a source of oppression or the sole component which resists it. Supposing the Queer attribute as only being inevitably purposed to a subset of humanity is impossible as the logic applied only works through the presupposing of a systemic condition and, thus, must be also applied systemically. Ironically, the demand of Queer theory is that liberation and designation as resistance to oppression must be the purpose of all beings, and this is an explicit form of proposed systemic oppression in and of itself.

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

This serves a general purpose for the state authority acknowledging, legislating, or mandating any piece of material or official communication which even so much as utilizes the nomenclature, taxonomy, or vernacular derived from the social critiques that were used to posit a systemic description for categorizing all people. This stands as the means of framing legitimization of power and work.

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

It is one thing to respect people's right to claim something like this which is to say to have the opinion that there are spiritual aspects or expressions that can only emerge from some and not others due to their unique form, which is to say the structure of their body and the manner by which that body is reflected by the subjects of this world, as well as declaring or believing that humans can or should respect peoples' right to perform and participate in practices which may presuppose this, but that is quite different from the state authority who must enforce laws.

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

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

They look upon their situation and they know that they'll keep knowledge and customs alive through teaching their loved ones and friends about the culture and that doing this brings great honour and excitement for the future; the immortalization of experiences, decisions and discoveries allows for the essence of truth and progress to rise forth and bring about a better world. These are things that we should all hope for, and they are the things that are maintained through an understanding which expects that knowledge is shared and accessed through universal means.

The other thing that bears mentioning is that in bringing the category of indigenous identity into or under the umbrella of queer, we are now deciding to refer to all supposed indigenous people as an enumerant of a classification system developed over the dimension of human sexuality. The classification system, borne of Queer theoretical critique, is based on seminal works, like some referenced in this book, that have already problematized, blurred and obliterated the distinction of biology and sex-related social construction, and is thus positing indigeneity along the lines of reproduction. This development comes in multiple forms:

• Repressed reproduction by society
• The notion that indigenous cultures are numerous and may have various social constructions borne of sex
• The potential for varying degrees of accepting homosexuality
  • The idea is dialectical in that the criticism is that the social theorists, anthropologist will have been informed with a worldview which does views and classifies homosexuality as an odd behaviour, simply as it is not the default
  • That there may be varying degrees of homosexuality within tribes is immaterial, as they are antecedent to a divine class and thus their understanding is a dialogical contribution to Queer ways of knowing and being

One more aspect for which little regard is given, at least among those in governance or education policy, is that the doors are left open to associate with the term Two-Spirit by means of sexuality, sex stereotypes, spirituality, historical legacy, mythology, tradition and culture. When the objective is a collectivist project of liberation, more assimilation is always better, and for any entity that is choosing to stake itself through promoting and associating a collectivist concept, it does so by presenting the collectivist mythos as something which integrates into its own worldview, thus implying that its own ideas and objectives are somehow congruent to the mission of liberation. As a result, any increased assimilation into the collective suggests acknowledgment of the legitimacy and significance of the entity and its objectives, creating a perverse incentive bias.

Spirituality

It's really difficult to put forward a universal concept of spirituality in and of itself, much less understanding an individual's motivation for declaring themselves to be spiritual, and that's already the case for adults who have a comparatively developed worldview and the means to explain themselves such as to negotiate with the world for their survival and professional advancement. But for children? You can get children to declare all sorts of things by simply prompting them with an opportunity to declare whatever it is you want them to declare, whether as a suggestion, a constrained set of affordances, and so forth. They will also declare a range of absurdities through impossible statements, be them assertive, imperative or otherwise, just on their own, meaning that, given enough time, you or some activist can find the evidence of whatever it is they're looking for.

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

Examples of Stories and Occurrences

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

I don't want to take something away from this powerful book. It's amazing that she has been able to tell a recollection of her life experience in such an intimate, raw and honest way. I don't think there's anything malicious about her sharing her life story and I find myself empathizing with her throughout, and feeling sorrow for some of the more difficult moments she touches upon. Her story of her experience seems to me to be told in as honest a way as anyone is capable of, but that has little to do with the point I am trying to make.

The issue here is that these concepts and the language which has been adopted in more modern frameworks of Critical theory/Queer theory/Critical Colonial studies and the terms that have been offered up in organized interactions which, having specific purposes whether in activism, education, and even simply recreation and community are simultaneously a means by which people are seeking to fulfill their lives and have a connection to others. What needs to be noted, however, is that political activism has led to the formulation of some of these terms which latch on to concepts found in, in this case, specific cultures which may be expressed in various ways, but which follow some semblance of similarity in the sense of not wishing to limit the qualities associated with a man and a woman to people of one sex or another, and have then steered, framed and transformed them to become language which expresses the practitioner of Critical theory's worldview. By doing this, it posits that the culture and people associated with that culture serve as the evidence of the Critical theorist's ideas and claims.

Consequently, these frameworks have imposed language and incentivized their adoption by people who might not necessarily understand the full significance of its use, but have taken to the readily accessible vernacular. This vernacular presents dynamic of equivocable exoteric and esoteric understanding which yield a circumstance of the language being used in a range of environments, including ones which are not just acceptable, but naively well-regarded, such as finding one's personal expression and seeking fulfillment in their interaction and understanding by others. But also in circumstances of socio-political import which assert the desire to seek to seize and distribute power which is already distributed, whether in the public domain or as it exists for enjoyment as one's personal and private property. It is used in undermining understanding of science, particularly insofar as such subverted efforts can be used to make claims about a child's identity, knowledge and agency towards matters normally reserved for adulthood. It is also promoted for use in radical sex identity advocacy in a manner which attempts to put forward the impression that those taking up its use to describe themselves are morally elevated, culturally astute, and personally liberated, but which takes on a more narcissistic modality by centering oneself and supposing that the self has greater purpose in the adherence to a belief of identity being referenced in the use of the terminology.

Humbly Narcissistic

The subtitle might rub some the wrong way, but this isn't a comment on the Chacaby's specific intentions which can only remain unknown, but one which is both about the hypothesis that can have separate forms of spirituality from one another, and that we would associate them to our material form in the context of Social Justice.

Most myths and frameworks for spirituality involve some description of masculine and feminine, and so it makes sense that if one were to consider themselves as having a spiritual aspect that they'd be faced with question of whether it includes the properties of either (especially if one were to have a cultural heritage which considers it).

In fact, one might say that both of them together would comprise a greater totality of qualities, and thus if one were considering a presentation of themselves, or something to which they are referential, that it might be more complete to conceive of it as bearing both the possible qualities to be the "complete" spirit.

Now, that's giving people the benefit of the doubt, and there's certainly good reason to do that, but the other side of this is that one's spirituality is something which can't be expressed or given true understanding in material terms, and thus one might prefer to not attach a need to have others acknowledge or confirm it for you. If it's within a cultural practice, then maybe that's something different, but once it becomes a political endeavour then, IMO, it becomes sullied. It's difficult to consider that one would be approaching the idea with humility at that point, but that's just my opinion.

Centering humans based on identity predicated on mythos of historical oppression means performing a ritual of celebrating and affirming to induce a sense of belonging of the oppressed. The rhetoric surrounding this practice is one which posits that the oppressed are already performing a courageous act by existing in a social milieu that has been informed by a history of oppression, and furthermore by the fact that they are willing to be centered amongst others which include oppressors, allies of the oppressed, and the oppressed themselves. This is due to the presumption of trauma and that they'll subject themselves to additional harm, which is the intrinsic effect of existing in the environment.

The very idea of that there can be a spiritual existence brings into question of whether it is connected with one's human life, but this question is addressed under the presumption that there's no need to even consider the possibility of spirituality if it doesn't mean some path by which we might exist beyond the material world. Then the question becomes whether a spiritual existence which corresponds to the fact of our instance of perception having occurred is something which is unique for each being, which exists as a state that includes all beings, or whether, if separate, there are important differences between each state of spirituality that corresponds to a perception as had occurred in material reality. Would separate spirits or spiritual essences be themselves something which is hierarchical? Would there be a dimension of the inferior and superior? Or would such concepts themselves be completely irrelevant, and just an imposed artifact of limited human thinking that was tainted by its limited view and sensory apparatus?

If something exists for each or all of us in a place beyond the material realm, then what would be the purpose in one's material form being recognized for it, unless the distinction of spiritual forms itself was something expected?

With constant invitation to speak of oneself in order to receive praise, recognition and affirmation under a presumption that it is a courageous and morally empowering act, it becomes perhaps too easy to give in to temptation to engage in superficial activity which rewards the ego. In fact, as the idea of spirituality pertains to transcending material limitations, then it would stand to reason that expressing one's spiritual distinctions such as to compel the manner of one's being addressed when in material form would itself be affected by the limitations of material existence that one would specifically want to transcend. Expressing oneself, ostensibly in an open manner which centers yourself and elevates your social value and moral standing leads the question of whether there might ever be a point at which one would want to keep it as something for their own undisturbed reflection. If even we are to entertain the notion that existing in any environment is causing you to incur harm, and that you are courageous amidst all your trauma, even then still we must ask if one were to have some awareness that centering oneself as a saviour of the world who serves to pivot the trajectory of humanity towards justice and liberation might be something that you would wish to limit, for fear of the side effect of it being ostentatious or making one conceited.

The naive normie might assume that applying a spiritually-indicative handle to someone is relevant because it indicates the unique experience they've undertaken and that this form of address more closely speaks to them as an individual. It certainly might seem that way, based on how language is used to rationalize the imposition of such terminology in order to attain an objective of political redress.

In doing work as Critical praxis towards Social Justice, it is precisely the opposite which is assumed. That is, the meaning of the language used to describe behaviour and the purpose of having used it are not based on the manner in which people are individually represented or even affected, but in the way in the presentation of identity is used to transform the structure of power. The idea of the good and the virtuous is captured by the praxis and as soon as identity is in the context, no longer has meaning outside of distributing power according to identity in order to achieve Liberation. In fact, to undertake this will appear as a process of attaining spiritual fulfillment, which is further complicated by the fact of using specific identity categories which are based on an assumption that they bear an aspect spirituality which supercedes the relevance of life in the material realm.

"In Foucault’s terms, the soul is not imprisoned by or within the body, as some Christian imagery would suggest, but “the soul is the prison of the body.”" - Judith Butler (Gender Trouble)

!WARNING: possible repetition in the following paragraph: For one to believe that a spiritual existence is possible is akin to saying that there is existence beyond what we observe, with the latter seeming as the animation of matter in accordance with instances of biological life. If one is to presuppose the possibility of a spiritual state of being as extant, then one could rationalize as ontological principle that that each instance of human perception correlates with the divine, such as a soul or a universal soul. Though this necessarily proceeds as faith and speculation, we are now pondering the limits of people's souls, or their very essence of being, whose substance may be completely disconnected from anything resembling a material existence, particularly insofar as verification is concerned. Nevertheless, for any being to entertain the idea that they may have a soul, they must also ask themselves if they are the only being with a soul, whether every being has its own soul, whether they share the same soul, or whether beings have souls that are inferior or superior to the souls of others.

Though this may just be the author's opinion, it would seem to me that for a human to have a humble disposition about the question of souls, while also believing in the possibility of a soul, one would have to assume that, whatever aspect of being lies beyond the material, any semblance of a divine or spiritual existence that is made possible for oneself would necessarily be made possible for everyone else, and that any distinct instance of soul for one human would be equivalent in quality and significance to the distinct instances of souls available to others. That one has a "special" soul because they are special, or an "old" soul because they are magically wise, is a strange thing to claim from a position of humility.

For Chacaby, the concept of having a two spirit identity is asserted on the basis her grandmother having told her that she is very special and has "two spirits living inside" of her. The author notes that this can be observed through an affinity for exploring the bush, fishing and trapping. It's interesting to note that the behaviours and sex-role stereotypes of one's material life are being equated to one's spiritual content. It's also worth noting that, especially as sex-role stereotypes are strongly assumed here, the inclination to attribute masculine traits to children in order to make them tough and resilient in the face of hardship makes it very compelling for a parent or grandparent to decide to express such an idea. Furthermore, on the subject of being special, who doesn't want to believe that they are a little special? To bear the burden and pain of existence and give meaning to atrocities one has been subjected to?

Again, this isn't to knock on Chacaby, but to bring to a common level that is accessible the ideas and plausible thought processes associated with conceiving of oneself in spiritual terms, particularly when informed by cultural and human ideas, such as the idea of transcending human limitations, including those rooted in sex, and how this relates to an empowered perspective for dealing with the challenges of our lives, which can be tremendously difficult. That said, I struggle with the idea of approaching spirituality which, for me, is something beyond human understanding and human language. How one could attempt to maintain a grounding of humility towards the divine when championing identity which extends from the supposing of one's unique spiritual essence, in a political arena where its reference is utilized in evaluation of everyone's ethics and morality is beyond me. An evaluation of ethics, by the way, which extends to everyone, each bearing a differentiated identity, which is either of like kind or evaluated as per its ideological congruence to what is, in this case, a spiritual identity. For me, it always drags down and cheapens the notion of spirituality to use it as a means by which to make proclamations about the meaning of human beings in the world which we perceive as sharing and operating in through material forces.

With the term having been introduced and into the inventory of Queer praxis rather quickly, if not immediately, the lines were blurred between what coincides concerning "Pride" and the tropes of the noble savage were embedded while many felt emboldened to associate themselves with the notion of a sacred, forgotten identity which the country's "predecessors" worked hard to eradicate.

One of the complications of Two-Spirit as a term having been borne of an older concept of spirituality and divinity having been fashioned and formatted to fit the purpose of Queer praxis is that its distinct original content is necessarily, as all things being synthesized in eschatological cult collectivism, negated in order to make the motif suited to engaging the conflict of assimilating the social environment into the frame of Queer liberation.

This can be seen as conflict between more traditionally-minded indigenous people who are often older (but not always), and younger generations who are immersed in pop culture, public education, activities, hobbies and employment that are captured with Queer and Decolonial activism.

This is also visible among the Queer-identifying indigenous people who complain about white or allegedly non-native trans/queer identifying digital artists, furries and cosplayers who make use of, integrate and display stereotypes of indigenous and native culture into their artwork and hobbies even if it is sometimes done in the name of celebrating a traditional indigenous culture, such as making it in honour of "Indigenous People's Day".

Spirit and Nature

"The anger and grief we carry from the destruction of our lands and our loved ones is the fire that fuels our resurgence. It drives us to remake our relationship with the land, to live as constellations of co-resistance, rooted in love and responsibility for the earth." - Leanne Betasamosake Simpson (As We Have Always Done: Indigenous Freedom Through Radical Resistance)

The trope of the indigenous manifesting rage and anger to fuel decolonization as a means of both their rebirth and the restoration of harmony with nature has become deeply embedded in western culture. Though first outlined in cultural interpretations of historians and philosophers of antiquity and medieval times (Tacitus, Hesiod, Michel de Montaigne), it was the work of Rousseau, whose incorporation into Hegel and German Idealism to become a foundational nugget in all modern collectivist thought, which really crystallized the motif which is plausibly cognized by all westerners when presented with the notion of decolonization as something which ascends beyond cultural preservation and hints itself as a form of natural conservation and Climate Justice.

Though there are, of course, many true believers who see this as the legitimate path to a continued and evolving human existence in the face of the chaos of nature, regardless of any degree of corruption of nature by man, the incentives for state control and the implications for a common view of universal ethics among human beings are an unavoidable complication that needs to be contended with in the face of technologically facilitated totalitarianism. As mentioned before, having the goals of sustainability and equity made mechanistically approachable by methods the elaborations of which interface with people such as to appeal to their egos, aspirations and hope for transcending physical limitations, particularly in a format which is intellectually stimulating and causes one to suppose their agreement is an indication both of their high intelligence and as a social signal which maintains not just their compatibility with the social environment, but their deserving of a high status placement or placement of operational significance within its structure facilitates one's acceptance of narrative which delves into the mystical and the spiritual, even if done so in a manner which is incompatible with their stated beliefs, such as atheism. The reduction of resource usage under a circumstance of ensuring vital essentials will be preserved for priority usage is compatible with one's belief that their reaction to such messaging is one which announces their reliable, obedient and highly capable characteristics which are congruent with both state ideology and its operational framework.

For the state to posit a type of citizen whose essence is harmonious with nature tacitly declares and evokes the image of a utopian paradise along with the corollary of the accountability of the other citizens. As one type of being is presented as already harmonious with nature, it implies that the remaining portion of inhabitants are not either through having prevented the harmonious occupancy and integration of the former, or by some combination of inducing dissonance or having fallen into apathy and complacency.

In a further impression of a harmonious nature wherein the activities and wants of each organism are satisfied with the perfectly orchestrated dance of Gaia, the notion that a citizen of the state could too be a part of that perfectly integrated nature as its great knowledge keeper and steward, brings to frame the Marxist idea of man not being delineated from nature. Consequently, we conjure the objective of harmonized world spirit, as we carry the Marxist torch which he had taken from Hegel, and the vision of a utopian paradise is one of nature and social equity where the instincts are fully satisfied while our problems are transcended, including that of mortality. Why mortality? The reasons are twofold as the understanding of a perfect ecology is one of balance which includes the lifespan of its component parts functioning together as the everlasting lifespan of the whole, but also through the understanding that, from a technological and infrastructure standpoint, resource utilization is only considered from the perspective of the whole. If technology is directed towards of the whole, and there is a promise of perfect integration and harmony, then the natural endpoint for technology is to make it so our concerns about biological limitations become moot.

The harmonious, noble savage beings have been robbed of this by virtue of the presence of their other, who have made them an other. This is the conflict that the state implies and even codifies in its official messaging, policies and laws. What really needs to be grasped here is that the proposing of conflict between identity categories, by the authority who announces the circumstances and conditions of the shared environment in a manner for which it corresponding enforcements become moral obligations simultaneously implicates any person found to be referenceable by the proposition and makes the purpose of their life part of the collective objective.

For the noble savage, it is the acknowledged sensibility that their rage and anger are perfectly tuned with sacred spirit. Any and all emotion can be seen as legitimate not on the basis of how actions are executed or lives are affected, but simply for taking a side in conflict and insisting that there must be an escalation in the tension felt. Each citizen's purpose needn't be demonstrated in their lives, but insofar as can be imagined to potentiate the possible life that could be lived at a future time. To finally create a life worth living.

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

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

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

Land Acknowledgments

Totem Polemic

Part naive thought experiment, part polemic, part warning about the awful places a mind falls into when reading into the implications of land acknowledgments

When first confronted with the land acknowledgment, spectators of the event, as inhabitants of this shared environment, contemplate that the land is used differently for different people. Is it that people make decisions about how to use the land that they have, the land of the space in which they are present, and public land which they generally share with other inhabitants? Is it that the land is used by those in positions of authority such that the less fortunate are affected differently from others? You might say that the notion that people make decisions about how to use their land, or the public spaces, is something which shouldn't be expressed, because its being "problematic" in complicating the circumstances of some, their thoughts, and the possibility of us addressing the fact that not everyone has an equal standing or enjoys life and resources in a manner equivalent to everyone else.

The land is currently used in a way which benefits some over others, because it was used differently by some in the past. That is to say, the land, rather than being used in a uniform way which doesn't exploit, had been used in a manner which uniquely exploited some. That it was used differently in the past is not because of an arbitrary change of use in terms of new occupancy, but a qualitative change of use coinciding with a particular change of hands which forces us to think about land ownership. This is so intensely important that we are to ignore other changes of hands which may have taken place, rather than undertaking an investigate regression in order to determine the truly legitimate original inhabitant of that land, which would otherwise seem as a near-infinite regression leading to a question of whether it were first human (hominid?) or animal. We are only concerned with the last change of hands "of interest" whereby the state has declared that the former holder in that exchange was legitimate and harmonious, and that any owner since that time is illegitimate, an offense to the survivability of others, and a perversion of not only the specific environment which they occupied, but the very manner in which land is conceived by all of man.

Because the land was not occupied by the legitimate type of person, the land was used in such a way which causes others to underperform. Did poor people perform so poorly because they didn't expect how immediate and real it would be to change situations and have a new perspective? Well, no, they performed poorly because the use of land was for the purpose of realizing unfair treatment.

Last Legitimate Tribe

That prior men have used a land calls into question whose usage was the last to be legitimate. That is, usage which accords with the harmony of the world, rejects the temptation to perform disharmonic action, and which is in line with the trajectory towards resolving unwanted harmonic friction and alleviating the world of its sources of disharmony.

We both live on this land but its history also demarcates the limits of all our potential accomplishments. The history of this land necessitates and weights the handicap to be imposed that can bring about equality. In the best case, he whomsoever has a more advantageous foundation can have pity on the other and see them as less capable. The reality of the sub-capable other is to be pondered upon as a psychological phenomenon and issue of resource accessibility, with these issues wrought upon the other through mediation in a system which identifies the substance of their mind as something allocated by virtue of their superficial appearance within the system.

Even if we have everything else equal in this world, and even with an other that is physically healthier, wealthier, and better looking, they can never be as great as what the historically advantaged can become. In the worst case, those with structural advantages in the form of political power, social wealth, and the time to allocate towards implementing structural/systemically discernible effects, such as the word of the law, are not only using a concept alleged to represent the other in order to gain even more power for themselves while diminishing that other, but are being facilitated by the other who believe this affordance will grant more power to themselves. This is made even worse still by demonstrating an affinity to receive stories which describe you, the other, as unfortunate because of weaknesses and pathologies. Being part of such a plan and being active in its formulation further cements the other's place as inferior. It manufactures privilege and oppression in exchange for the destruction of dignity, erasing of culture, and production of resentment.

It takes faith to claim that a particular piece of land is your birthright, and to propose that those not of your bloodline or within an accepted relative range of genetic or phenotypic variability have performed a terrible injustice, and that you are owed some form of compensation, royalty, tribute, or admiration because your life and what you've done hasn't been enough to feel as though you are able to move on from the past, or the fable of the past, of lives lived that were not your own.

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

If things are not so perfect, however, and these flaws and deficiencies are the result of land and property, then you, as the divine being of this land, are the only part of the social structure who's not at fault and the only part that would be perfect if not for the existence of other non-conscious participants.

Divine Land and Queer Spirit

The spirit as one perceives oneself to contain an imprisoned essence and also this bound to a projected object cognized internally as the essence of a liberated humanity which manifests from the potential of human beings existing in an undisturbed state where thought and action unburdened and thus revealed as what they truly are.

The formalized secular, materialist and seemingly irreligious commentaries stemming from delusional collectivist belief sustain the same religious desire. Ranging from before Marx to the empty, sardonic chatter heard in the favourite recreational pop culture activities of today, this desire dismisses accountability to the real and present, making it inadmissible as an explanation for one's place in that moment. To resent it is also a reference to the world that should be outside of it.

!TODO: These Lukacs quotes need to be sorted. Perhaps they needn't all be in this location.

The main idea thing is that Lukacs does a great job of both being a Marxist who claims he carries their methods and ideas forward, but describes the ways in which Marx continues the Hegelian project and that they are of the same essence. The dialectical method isn't a new creation, but a formalized procedure driven by desire for the mind to reject unwanted distinction in exchange for the believe that the potential for a future to supplant reality and remove the relevance of the distinction is itself a more correct permutation of reality. That the mind may cognize this way is now being fed with a formalized religious tradition which becomes increasingly sophisticated. It is the natural cult religion of collectivism, which is the natural human conception for the potential to maintain delusion through subjective reflection. (Subjective reflection in the sense that the subject perceiving the world believes it perceives the reflection of its belief through another medium of perception which is also a subject i.e. another person.

"Marx’s view of the importance of Hegel’s dialectic is of lesser moment here than the substantive significance of this method for Marxism" - Gyorg Lukács "By adopting the progressive part of the Hegelian Method, namely the dialectic ... He took Hegel to its logical extreme... Marx's critique of Hegel is the direct continuation and extension of the criticism that Hegel himself leveled at Kant and Fichte. So it came about that Marx's dialectical method continued what Hegel had striven for." - Gyorg Lukács "Any conscious error is not in fact an error if it is believed to align with the historical process" - Gyorg Lukács "proletariat always aspires towards the truth even in its ‘false’ consciousness and in its substantive errors." - Gyorg Lukács "Above all one thing must be made clear: freedom here does not mean the freedom of the individual. This is not to say that the fully developed communist society will have no knowledge of the freedom of the individual. On the contrary, it will be the first society in the history of mankind that really takes this freedom seriously and actually makes it a reality. However, even this freedom will not be the same as the freedom that bourgeois ideologists have in mind today. In order to achieve the social preconditions necessary for real freedom battles must be fought in the course of which present-day society will disappear, together with the race of men it has produced." - Gyorg Lukács (History and Class Consciousness) "the Communist Party is the organised form of the conscious approach to this leap and hence the first conscious step towards the realm of freedom... The Communist Party is an autonomous form of proletarian class consciousness serving the interests of the revolution." - Gyorg Lukács "However little the final goal of the proletariat is able, even in theory, to influence the initial stages of the early part of the process directly, it is a principle, a synthesising factor and so can never be completely absent from any aspect of that process." - Gyorg Lukács "To be radical is to go to the root of the matter. For man, however, the root is man himself." - Gyorg Lukács "...class consciousness is identical with neither the psychological consciousness of individual members of the proletariat, nor with the consciousness of the proletariat as a whole; but it is, on the contrary, the sense, become conscious, of the historical role of the class" - Gyorg Lukács

The land serves as a vital aspect of creation as the ground of human creation wherein glory of human life is sought through a balance which isn't to be corrupted through disrespect of territory otherwise imposed by blind capitalist exploitation. As the material conditions serve as the base from which man creates, and are also conditions that are created by man himself, the man works upon the conditions to create himself. If done in alignment with the environment, it becomes an expression of the divine.

The settler, as discordant other, disrupts the harmony of the environment which would otherwise provide and lead to perfect existence. It's a shame to the state that the other who pollutes reality must be tolerated, but this demonstrates the wisdom and patience of the state.

The conditions that have been made to be perceived as "normal" as per hegemonic forces and the ideologies which support them are genocidal. They lead to the practice of both cultural genocide and literal genocide as an eventual destruction of humanity itself. The oppressive bias from this process affects marginalized the most and imposes false identities which, through presupposing an individualistic primacy, must be replaced with collective liberation which promises those conditions where man is harmonious with creation and, in effect, would be creative.

In all seriousness, the idea of sanitizing the use and allocation of land to bring about liberation would mean the erasure of individual expression and its replacement with state-approved expression. This would lead to the creation of a new normal which recognizes the depravity of previous societies. In order to achieve this, we must enumerate all the modalities by which people are represented as oppressed through a lack of socialism and posit these identities as liberatory and harmonious. By enumerating them, we target the existing order as the enumeration is itself the evidence that the existing order is corrupt and worthy of destruction.

Normal is Genocidal

A common theme throughout all forms of collectivism is that the conditions created by persons not members of the collective yield the operators, actions and subjects that inevitably and spontaneously instantiate their own and the world's destruction, with those not contributing to the initialization of such a process being those who suffer the most painfully and immediately once such a process begins, as the marginalized, oppressed and non-privileged.

What do we mean by Operators, Actions and Subjects? The operators are the superstructure, in classical Marxist terms, who codify the specification by which to sustain themselves, as superficial authority, those who resemble them, and who share their values, or perpetuate the mythos which glorifies the structure and its followers.

By actions, we mean the exclusion, unfair relations, force to assimilate, unequal use of the law, and unequal deleterious effects of the environment.

By subject, we mean all the inhabitants, including those who have a false consciousness, and those who cannot harness their consciousness due to despair and cognitive dissonant in response to the worsening conditions.

Anything Negative Affects the Marginalized the Most

The Margins As Essential to Survival

The promise of the collective must ultimately become the elimination of distinctions. This is the case because, as the subject perceiving reality and cognizing a difference between life within the collective and life without (as for those outside of the collective), for any matter relevant to the collective, the collective makes sense at the level that of making representations and solutions canonical. Though first appearing as a separate, theoretical abstract representation of thought, the representation as the canonical solution for the collective as a whole, and as such a state of consciousness which represents the understanding and perception of that solution, is the side effect in collective oppression. That is, that there is a mediation of oppression with a collective specification, even at the level of imagined hegemonic forces as a corruption of cognitive faculty towards objective discernment. As a result, for an expectation of potential dominion sought by an entity or apparatus of significance to a social environment, such as a politic or weight of sentiment, becomes one which would be effected at the level of logic compatible with the solution. One's perceived pragmatic validation of such logic is the conscious expression of the collective, through produces a representation of collective for oneself. If there is a discrepancy, even from within the collective, the difference regarding that matter must be resolved and any individual no longer aligned to the resolution is, therefore, no longer someone who belongs as part of the collective. As long as both man exists, and the collective can be cognized, then all things not ignored must be mitigated against the consequences of human relations and spacetime itself.

In the context of queer, those who've aligned to and perpetuated a conception of normal have rigidly fixed a belief that what is both traditional and common is somehow necessary for the existence of the human species, but have done so in a manner which creates a scope of acceptance that is exclusive to them and excludes those who do not accord with their view. Paradoxically, the tradition of normality to potentiate existence is precisely that which, according to the Queer theorist, has limited, suppressed and negated the survival of those other to it. In intentionally choosing to embody what one conceives as being other to tradition and normalcy, one etches out a new form for humanity and simultaneously protests by suggesting, through having targeted by implication in having presented as the antithesis, precisely what must be transformed in order to make human existence tolerable.

It goes beyond targeting the intolerable and demanding its negation, but also creates a demand for survival. The capacity for engaging in arbitrary action whilst surviving in spite of it necessitates an ascension in human capability to break the chains of the limits of survival and allow for an imagining of what can be without them. Propagation of human sentience which can finally direct its focus without being beholden to any idea outside itself, including any constraints affecting survival.

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

The focused laser beam of God will be directed and mediated by those occupying intersectional positions to remove the false influence of those in line with the established society. The dangerous, ill-gotten influence can be known through evaluations of the body, as well as that of its audience, regardless of what notes are hit by their rhetoric.

History as the dimension of progress towards collectivist liberation, and not some haphazard measurement from one of the myopic natural sciences laid out as mundane chronology, like the history of a rock. Those who present symbols of that which don't pursue such a emancipative completion are privileged within the fallen state, as the consciousness of the oppressed would otherwise balk solutions which don't remove from the world the weight of the status quo.

Replacing Perceived Identity with the Face of Collective Liberation

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

I knew back then that the target audience, which are the collectivists themselves, would scoff at much of what is said here. But then my next thought was that we are all those collectivists, as it's not merely a difference of opinion or that one was brought up in an entirely different environment, though such factors are both important in initiation to worldviews and the maintenance thereof, but that we are able to easily embody the sentiment which compels one to perceive reality with the tacit logic that supports a hope for collectivist liberation. Nevertheless, it is the language and offense of certain concepts to which the faithful adherents of collectivism are most averse that are also the most compelling means by which to help break the cycle of one's desire to externalize hope, and chief among these comes through with the use of the word theology.

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

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

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

Theology orients your entire life, at least by implication, around an understanding or expectation of the world which must be based on faith. The expectation of being made whole, or one wherein each component finds its meaning in a greater, total context. It is also, unfortunately, an expectation that one can flirt with ruthless power and loss of freedom. An expectation that one can feed tyranny while being free and safe to maintain one's existence or even bring about the conditions for the type of existence one believes that should be having.

It takes faith to keep feeding a crocodile, whether it be faith to allow oneself to be destroyed in the immediate, or faith to draft the recipe for the destruction of the rest of man first. Whether through the enforcing of garments and constrained biological integration with the world and each other, or the legal authority to tell people what they may express and with what language they are to express it.

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

Clearly, it must be the last of those options, for what on earth (or in the world) could possibly be an identity? Are we really to believe it to be coherent that something can be understood as being part of a shared, objective reality simply because of the degree to which it can be so eloquently described? Based on what? Occurrences that never manifest in everyone's experience (for it would be absurd to assume even if it were simply the name of a feeling)? Or the feeling and speculative thought themselves? Surely to cognize the represented object of one's identity is to be separate from it. To supplant one's process of being with the concept of what one could be thought of as being, or thought to become, is to reject one's accountability to their state of being as the true expression of what they are.

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

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

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

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

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

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

!TODO: Items left to argue: Sustainability. !NOTE: Possible ambiguity in the following sections in writing from the perspective of a collectivist or someone critiquing them.

Queering Kids is Scientific

It's scientific in many ways that we are revealing the undiscovered queer children by presenting to them the possibilities in the ways of being and seeing how they take them up, but also by seeing that children are declaring themselves as things which they were all along. We predicted the increase in the number, and just look at these new statistics which show that we were correct in our predictions! If our scientific means by discovering the queer child was already correct, imagine how we could enhance improve and save society and the world through our other scientific applications.

As this is scientific, you must understand that our work is serious. Science is serious and something which we apply universally to understand, in time, all aspects of humanity. In this case, we can imagine that everyone is oppressed by a system which already came to be different through the application of our ideas, thus demonstrating the science of being able to bring about change.

Striving to be scientific means striving for a complete understanding. In the sense of human expression and human health that means allowing for all the human expressions to be known, as well as removing those things which impede human expression. For the dialectician, that means pairs consisting of a queer identity characteristic and a regressive behaviour that needs to be remove. This might be put forward as saying that it is deleterious to mental health by not allowing the human to discover their complete way of being.

Humans which aren't able to embody the form of expression to which they are naturally inclined can develop pathologies. By titrating factors within the social environment, observing the expressions that children take up, and performing some statistical analysis, we can make multidisciplinary progress towards a better future.

Capitalism

For a Marxist, or collectivist in general, a scientific critique of capitalism involves a thorough understanding of history, technology, institutional development, psychology, political science, and a general insistence that the analysis is standing on the shoulders of giants. Marxists an posit the scientific quality of an idea or even a desire on the basis of a historical reference, even if its intended trajectory differs from that of the Marxist, as all things remain in flux. Ironically, though the shoulders of giants will be referred to when the Marxist makes a pitch to the normie or commoner, it is ironically some of the more fundamentally adopted of these contributions, such as the notion that humans autonomy to apply reason, or that reason is something that, when performed correctly, is a neutral tool for making deductions about objective reality. It is, however, not only that it is these specific contributions which the Marxist, socialist, or simply plain collectivist is ultimately denouncing, but which they must necessarily reject in order to maintain the prescriptions which ultimately imply an eschatology.

In 2024 (2025? Current time?), attempts to demand a fundamental transformation of what is erroneously referred to as capitalism, are commonly thought of as being scientifically sound recommendations to be argued on the basis of sustainability and other contemporary formulations of collectivist liberation that have become mind numbing in their plain-speak and appeal to authority. Perhaps it's just my opinion, but much of these demands constitute utter cringe and the complete destruction of one's self-respect.

Why is that? If someone believed they were on the correct trajectory, having been acknowledged sufficiently for their role, place in the world, content of character and so on, or that they were at least subject to the same issues that everyone else was but that these things could be improved by virtue of they and others having the capacity to pursue those improvements, then there would be no need to demand a centralized enforcement mechanism. If they, indeed, did hope to strengthen, potentiate and expand the scope of concerns of such an enforcement mechanism, then it would surely be something that they hope to enable in a manner which doesn't sacrifice themselves to the exclusion of others. That is to say, though there are aspects of sacrifice and even a death-cult lean on collectivist pursuits, they are a sacrifice towards the restructuring of the order of being, and not an individual sacrifice outside of the collective formulation. Though it sometimes seems as though that is not the case, with the sacrifice of the trans cultist destroying their endocrine system, neuro-musculature, immunological capacity, ability to heal, and so forth, or the Covidist who ostensibly dons the garb of disease mitigation for the benefit of their fellow man, the sacrifice is always in pursuit of the unearthing of conditions which will allow for their true existence to take shape. With all this in mind, we will proceed with an appeal towards representing a particularly "vulgar" incarnation of Marxism against the bland and traditional conception of capitalism as a blind pursuit of profit in the most immediately anticipated perspective which compromises maintenance and reverence for the fundamental principles which allow humans to legitimize one another's use of their own property for their own betterment, such as the creation of corporate enterprises which erode protection of individual rights otherwise supported by a state (a state which, in an ideally minimized role, would have been precisely composed for that purpose).

1. Capitalism is a means of conceiving of and utilizing resources with a limited scope of analysis which only consider resources, labour, production, and material conditions in a short-sighted and ham-fisted context. In is doomed, in having proceeding in such a manner, to never achieving a scientific explanation for itself or phenomena affected by it.

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

3. A conception of production and resource utilization which looks beyond simple profit maximization will always be more scientific. That is, understanding the wholistic mechanics of production is necessary for a science-based process of production.

I suppose that it isn't necessarily any more complicated than that except to the end that such a description of capitalism is always given as an inevitable consequence of private property given enough time. That is, though socialists attempt to differentiate between inconsequential private property and bourgeois private property, the distinction rests on arbitrary grounds given that any number of factors can be used to re-designate the form of property, be it its magnitude, the current use of the property, the theoretical use of the property, or any other demand described as extant within the same social environment. As a result, from the outset, it is always concerned with a desire to deny those with more power their own belongings, as though their very lives have stood in the way of everyone else having a better life.

Since material belongings appear to be something which are an immediate concrete asset, which can be used to nourish oneself and sustain one's existence, any disparity in material asset necessarily means that the incentives are laid out such as to potentiate the survival of not only those whomsoever are able to act and respond on a relevant matter, but of the qualitatively inferable conditions and our relations to them (the conditions, the environment) as well as our relations to each other. The disparity of assets are itself the evidence of a non-scientific approach to managing conditions, or one wherein the degree to which science has been applied is inadequate or sufficiently incomplete to warrant the negation of the current approach.

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

Because the very proposition to do anything scientifically requires observation of the problem, the experiment, or the choices of methodology itself. That would all be part of the scientific process. As such, it would be necessarily unscientific to fail to maintain an adherence to a strategy of extending, potentiating and maximizing the capacity for human life as a life can be lived with the knowledge that one lives not in a vacuum, but in a community and, as such, the insufficient utilization of resources by man as a whole becomes an anti-scientific practice. As it is always posited that further refinements can be made, the fact of disparity is itself the failure of managing conditions for survival, in spite of any argument that some degree of property can be best managed at the most local scope possible for an entity's own survival; it is always tacitly alleged that the correct management of conditions would result in universal survival of all entities within whatever scope of dialogue is supposed in rhetoric demanding improvement.

Pandemics and Infectious Disease

Challenge a collectivist's notion that any aspect of narrative having described the Covid era as a pandemic leading to unprecedented infectious disease, or that it's still not a remarkable threat, and they will moan and groan with great pain and distress, or even begin foaming at the mouth and gnashing their teeth.

Both systemic efforts and efforts of individual health in consideration of the environment, made to reduce the threat disease are an application of science, as it is scientifically valid to aim for reduced disease. Furthermore, all pandemic preparation is scientific and aiming to extend and reinforce the capacity for observation, too, is always scientific.

If one is not in favour of pursuing these things, then one is unscientific from the outset. So, really, there is no choice in the matter without absconding from being scientific; you must prepare for every type of threat that you know about within reasonable limits which consider the lethality and probability of the threat. As we become more developed and are successful in mitigating more lethal or deleterious threats, the reasonable limit at which we consider a threshold of lethality as having been met will reduce.

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

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

Decolonization

"Science has been and can be defined many different ways depending on who is doing the defining. But one thing that is certain is that "science" is culturally relative. In other words, what is considered science is dependent on the culture/worldview/paradigm of the definer." - Leroy Little Bear

Critique of western society, the enlightenment, "capitalism", and even science from the perspective of decolonization allows for not just the defining of science as including an overarching science of collectivism, as is with wissenschaft licher socializmus, but the demand for the capacity to arbitrarily define what science is. This isn't so unique with decolonization, as it can easily become explicitly stated by any domain of collectivist thought, as ultimately the relevance of the collective would be challenged unless there were some greater purpose supposed of it, and that greater purpose, if not purported as the spread of a forward-facing religion, requires a secular justification, thus such a justification must take up a process of defining itself as worthy and high status which ultimately demands the assertion of one's scientific soundness

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

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

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

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

Decolonization not only replaces the ideologically compromised but synchronously liberates those harmed by the history of colonialism to think, do, and re-acquire their voice and power. The colonized can then resume life in a capacity that takes patience, courage, and the means of contributing what they really see and feel.

Decolonization is scientific in that it counteracts and removes cognitive biases, allowing for an environment more conducive to science. It brings about a more prosperous and flourishing society which is a reasonable goal for any sociopolitical interest that proceeds scientifically. It aims to attain a more complete perspective from which to make observations and form hypotheses, and expands the repertoire of knowledge from which to draw from, making our scientific practices more robust. Scientific analysis requires being able to make comparisons, and it's impossible to establish neutral baselines in a society ravaged by bias, thus decolonization is the start of a scientific revolution.

Decolonization Retort

Though it's no big surprise that Two-Spirit as a concept of identity is deeply associated with Queer theory, given that its initial use was specifically by a social justice activist focused on gay as an identity, it tends to surprise many that the very idea of indigenous people is put forward as a Queer identity by feminists and Queer theorists, though the overlap doesn't just exist there.

The terms and the activism give away the real overlap of all these domains of collectivist praxis. Whether Postcolonialism, Critical Colonial Theory, Critical Theory of Coloniality, or Decolonization, we see how it targets the same concepts and issues as every other realm of collectivist liberation. That is, it targets objective reality, private property, sovereignty of personhood, the right to a mind, the expectation that humans can freely think and not be dismissed as suffering from a false consciousness, and the right to receive equal treatment before the law. This is why it's no surprise that Queer theorists have posited that indigenous and native people have inherent Queer identities and is also why anything can be argued as being in need of decolonization just as anything can be argued as being in need of Queering. Whatever happens to be the "norm" that has yet been unchallenged and untransformed for the purpose of bringing about socialist revolution can be decolonized by saying it's done in the name of indigeneity. This is also why see the awful and tiring image of well-to-do caucasians donning sacred-looking fashion in order to present the aesthetics of the noble savage.

Additionally, we know that decolonization is a violent revolution which must destroy the previous civilization and its people. The complete and utter replacement of one species of men with another species of men, as has been said by Fanon. To even suppose that there is a coherent construct such as a species of men, demarcated by a historical status which suggests a knowledge or consciousness amongst those referred to by that species posits that such members act, exist and conceive of in a manner which expresses and ontologically composes the life of that species, as species beings who are, as an aggregate, the being of the species. Considering that this falls in the footsteps of Marx and his concept of Species Being, it would follow that its presumed the replaced species is not capable of species being and its replacement is, which fulfills a desire for collectivist liberation and absolution by those who are consenting to their own death and destruction and that of their own loved ones.

That people feel incomplete, inadequate and fallen gives rise to their bitterness and resentment which convinces them that their own destruction is a necessary part of the scope of experience, their frame of perception, as it is a means by which they may transcend it, if even just by alleviating themselves of the suffering of having been thrown into a false existence which doesn't fulfill what they believed is tacitly promised by it.

Decolonial Queering Retort

!NOTE: Possibly move this to "Queering Kids is Scientific"

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

It can be supposed that one could take the proposition of transcending what might charitably be put as a "normalcy bias" purely on its theoretical merit and eliminate the perceived bias by the recipient of one's argument and this would have also been a good strategy to demonstrate openness, transparency, and the rigor of one's approach to sensemaking as a reasonable and logical human being.

The issue is that, even in the theoretical sense, examination of the very concept of normalcy is difficult to undertake without coming to the conclusion that what is considered normal is reality itself, as must be reasonably understood by a human being. That plants grow, or that buildings require a foundation, or anything extending from spacetime whatsoever could be deemed "normal" and if framed to limit the conception and belief of the angst-ridden or aggrieved makes it an ideological artifact of the "enemy".

More commonly, though, you will see criticism of a concept of normal in forms such as (and one common overarching form TODO: confirm this has been detailed) sexual deviance, differentiated from mere romantic interest. This was clear from the outset of Queer theory in its seminal formulations. Gayle Rubin repeatedly dwells on sexual abuse of children, which she refers to using the euphemism "inter-generational love" and the incorporation of kink into more aspects of a professional environment or daily life in general. There is even a defense in decriminalizing the production and distribution of materials and paraphernalia involving child exploitation on the basis that laws and arguments which intend to forbid materials which sexually exploit children through claiming that it would necessarily lead such as to include materials which don't explicitly fall into that vein. And, yes, we are reminded of woke projection whereby they are declaring their tendency to search for a means of constraining any behaviour from the perceived other as an infraction against some structurally enforcible law or policy.

Queer theory also criticizes organized structure in all forms, the most remarkable of which being that which is the product of nature which is to say aspects of biological life that are consistent even outside of observations of human beings.

Put another way, they are willing to not only permit but to prime, facilitate and potentiate a lewd and destructive behaviour for so long as it can be matched against an accepted and desirable behaviour because it accomplishes the capturing arbitrary power, yields an implement to target and eliminate the other, and eliminates distinctions which allow them to imagine the reality they desire without hindrance. In fact, we can put it even another way by saying "imagine what can be, unburdened by what has been".

Closeted?

Queer theorists of pedagogy propose that there are secretly gay children suffering mental distress for not being able to express themselves. Gay is put forward as interchangeable with queer on the basis that stereotypical behaviour is inherent to a gay, possibly genetic (depending on whether the supposing in genetically-mediated behaviour can serve Queer praxis), and is not sexual in spite of being bound to a specific sexual preference, as the child may not yet be aware of it (though the educator can sense it, so long as the child has claimed the identity).

The pressure to not express the forms and human inflections of their critical identity arise from normativity as a political modality, thus Gay is a proxy for Queer. Because of system abuses, there is a moral impetus for everyone to be an ally, which does not corroborate with one having a consciousness, perspective or character of great depth, thus one can attain at least an equivalent moral status, though actually much higher, and great expectations of an accomplished, wise and experienced being, in being Queer. Since all identity is socially constructed, the outcome is based on priming the environment and performing the identities, alleviating any need to consider whether one must be inherently, genetically or otherwise foundationally verified as being truly of one identity or another.

Normal vs Different

Of course the status quo and the normal is an imposition of oppression, and this would have to be the case, whether thinking definitionally in the abstract, or as per the aesthetic of human life. Isn't the limitation of spacetime and the human body already unfair and unjust in the sense that there could be so much more? There could be complete freedom of movement in the universe, the freedom to create through multiverses, or the ability to have many perspectives instead of one? Infinite perspectives? Perhaps, even just insofar as we accept that we have the limitations of a human body in spacetime, the oppression is that we aren't all bound as one in order to experience the tragedy together. Surely, as we all suffer in our separation and our lack of affirmation and attention from humans and humanity, it would be attenuated and made bearable if we knew for certain that we were all feeling one another's and the same pain all at once. We were all understanding one's unique existence is the fact of a human existence being unique to the rest. Understanding one's genius as the genius that human thought can be - that we are all capable of because we are all of the humanity which has had ingenious thought.

But alas, if we are to be separate bodies, then can we not at least have the same body? The same mind? The same life? The same duration of life? Something more similar and equal so that our distinction is not a lost tragedy!

In spite of that pull to soothe the pain of separation, we paradoxically desire to be different on our own terms. Does everyone claim to want to just be like everyone else? Through limitation of language, and expressing the appeal of assuaging one's loneliness, one might utter as much, but I'd wager it's more their focus on what is symbolized as the idea of making equivalent insofar as it calibrates the interfacing of one to another at a level of abstraction, but that ultimately in a manner which doesn't rob one of their unique experience, just so long as they believe themselves as the object to behold in the mind and eye of another. In this way, any totalitarian collective cult, such as the Queer, will always fail to truly hit the mark of satisfaction and legitimation.

In consideration of these realizations, we still have to give "the devil his due", so to speak. We can reject the totalitarian cults, but we need to understand that the impetus is still there. !TODO: SAFKT. What of the notion of difference? Sure, there is the separation of perception from one another, and one can sometimes imagine a tension between the reality of human embodiment and that of an absolute togetherness of all existence, and though it may first seem like a proposition to consider a religious metaphysic. Anyone who has ventured into experiences with psychoactive compounds can express to you some sort of familiar state of being which they believe themselves to be experiencing. And by familiar, it's a familiarity which becomes incredibly easy to notice in that, as much as each experience can seem so out of this world, the experiences induced by one particular psychedelic will bear distinct similarity such that one will feel a return to a locale with subsequent experiences.

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

Further to that point, we can look towards some meditative practices and find claims of having entered a state of consciousness which appears to be some type of collective, meta or divine consciousness as well. There is something to the comforting, surreal and eternalizing concept of returning to some total state of being which can only be defined through some manner of completion, as it intuitively appears as though it would allow a human to transcend the limitations of matter, aging and death. But solving the plight of human experience ain't science, as it is infinitely complex, and impossible to navigate with scientific rigour that is also meaningful.

That isn't to say that psychedelic compounds or meditation hold the key for solving the ills of the perceived order of being or that they are a proper means of addressing a divine existence so much as it is to say that there are always going to be interesting means by which to examine these questions and that it's actually a liberal worldview which permits for various investigations to be performed and reflected upon at a meta level in a manner which minimizes ideological corruption of our understanding such as it can pertain to a belief in an objective reality.

Problematization of Difference

In the midst of philosophically-supported drives towards collectivist liberation, it is ironic to find commonality in that we find independent means of claiming differences while using such claims to harvest collectively-designated resources. That is, modalities of self-conceived identity that are also a means to not miss out on appurtenances and provisions found within a social sphere.

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

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

The distinction of normalcy and one's friction against it may very well become the proposal for a collective commitment to a declaration of allegiance to a new standard of equalization is not necessarily in the sense of equal affordance and acquisition of resources from the environment as it currently stands, but instead as a demand for a transformation of the environment. That is, to transform the environment such as to create the nature of its inhabitants, as though it were somehow something alien to them.

When considering children and epistemic practices, there are universal and general requirements for development and these obviously derive from the generalized requirements to sustain life, and so the proposition that children have individual requirements stemming from often unquantifiable (in the sense that to collect data for a purpose is not the same thing as quantifying a phenomenon) and unverifiable truths which bear relevance on themselves and society which are somehow evaluated on the basis of their material classification is an affront to reason and true justice. To compel children to place themselves in a moral hierarchy by luring them into supporting a political view in exchange for their ability to make themselves potential recipients of the benefits of society, or even to use language which assumes such a hierarchy reasonably makes sense so they can fully participate in society, is to condition them as initiates in collectivist cult praxis.

We are compelling children to accept a material classification to be able to participate in society. The assumption is that some categories are killing and oppressing others by their very existence. Some categories are afforded which classify one as being in service of the collective by virtue of the critical theory-derived model of history. To not be in service, and thus in being incongruent to the collective which defines true humanity, one is not on the continued path of evolution. As such, this not only validates you as having come to this point in an evolved state, but this can be suspected and insinuated as replacing procreation, as it imputes one with reference to the process of human immortalization made manifest here in a material reality, which also suggests it can be confirmed as legitimate.

Since the goal of collectivist ideologies, and especially Queer theory, is world-making and the creation of man, anything which commits you to the goal insofar as being connected to this realization of its endpoint becomes the mechanism of your immortalization. Since reality is actualized through social constructivism, the manner by which one commits themselves to the endpoint allows for it being bear witnessed by the collective as one's corrected identity. Semantically, the commitment is by leading transformation to the conditions which make the endpoint possible, and this is through eliminating aspects of the world which are an expression of the current conditions, which are the material aspects which maintain a distinction about reality. Such a distinction may even just be a reified conception of reality in and of itself, in the eyes of the Critical theorist, but this means that one's identity must be the negation of the current reality.

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

It's Not You, It's We

People like holding onto their permutation of collectivist cult ideology for the aesthetic, metaphysic and capacity to maintain delusion. With the metaphysic itself yielding an incomplete view of reality, each subset is itself an incomplete a further reduced view which limits representation of the world to the superficial particulars provided by its description while being forced to insist that that one theory is no theory but simply a honest look at reality describing its real machinations and bringing forth insight into what limits have been placed on our lives, thoughts and happiness.

And let's imagine for a moment, that the descriptions are somehow correct, and that we wish to address the associated problems through approaching solutions to the word of the law. That we are going to look at what the current social structure is, what its legal stipulations happen to be, and discover that there are, indeed, hegemonic forces that are systemic and that necessarily affect the value of a person based on however it is that they are made knowable to the society.

And, to dwell on that for a moment, how are we certain of the systemic forces?

• Advanced biometric analysis
• Perfectly honest admissions of guilt of specific actions of prejudice

I'd love to also say that the laws of the respective jurisdiction were themselves also prejudice in how they're applied differently to different people, based on a group classification. Unfortunately, that would actually constitute a form of "systemic" prejudice and, at least as far as it pertains to western nations, the allegation of "systemic" prejudice, like "systemic racism", is only ever the mystical variety.

Could it then finally become appropriate to use a structural critique of our relations and infer something about a type of person, now finally, because of the actual real proof of systemic forces which we know applies to everyone within the corresponding geographic locale?

Well, no, because no matter how you slice it, people aren't groups and although we can say that the systemically applied laws are unfair and need to be removed, that should be done on the basis of the logic of the law, by its principle, and not on the basis that it would affect one group of people differently from another. If the law itself isn't composed and worded in a manner which declares its universal applicability to every human, then it shouldn't even be considered.

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

How are we to imagine what the better world looks like without criticizing those things about it that we want to change? Though we can identify and logically explain those things that should change, and in what ways, the most reliable changes you can make are the ones that you are tending to yourself.

Concluding Overview

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

Paulo Freire

"Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed, which was published in 1970, did not launch the critical turn; rather, I contend, Freire’s work was revisited in the mid-1980s because of it. Additionally, I argue that critical scholars should read Freire’s work with particular attention to his claim, and his core contribution to Marxist political theory, that the process of education must be at the center of radical movement building." - Isaac Gottesman (The Critical Turn in Education)

"Today, Paulo Freire is invoked, discussed, and cited in a wide range of educational scholarship, from literacy education to school reform. Pedagogy of the Oppressed is a mainstay in education courses across the country. While John Dewey is likely the most recognized scholar in the field, Paulo Freire is probably not far behind. For radical education scholars in particular, Freire is the touchstone voice—scholarship espousing social justice is almost always in conversation with his critical educational approach." - Isaac Gottesman (The Critical Turn in Education)

"I argue that critical pedagogy emerged as a specific post-Marxist project in the work of Henry Giroux in the late 1970s and 1980s." - Isaac Gottesman (The Critical Turn in Education)

"Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed offered a new language for educators, one that insisted on viewing teachers as intellectuals who could link knowledge to power and learning to social change. His work revolutionized how we understand the role of educators in fostering critical consciousness and agency among students." - Henry Giroux (Cultural Studies and the Politics of Public Pedagogy, 2004)

Why

Many, both critics and followers alike, have documented the role Paulo Freire has played in nature and standard of education in the west, as well as attitudes as to what constitutes literacy and the role of the public education apparatus more broadly. Whether this includes the work of Isaac Gottesman with "The Critical Turn in Education", or work by James Lindsay showing the connection between Paulo Freire, the Marxification of Education, the development of Critical Pedagogy and its connection to programs and initiatives currently widespread in education, such as Culturally Relevant Teaching. Freire's work hasn't simply been referred to by educators and pedagogists, nor is it just that his philosophy and methodology have enjoyed widespread implementation in our schools and curricula, but that has work has evolved Marxist thought and revived a path of resentful collectivist revolution in the footsteps and honour of notoriously destructive collectivist leaders, like Mao and Lenin. It is an evolution in cult initiation and collectivist radicalization.

Canada, my home country, played a striking role in the development of these frameworks, as Henry Giroux, who is half Canadian, collaborated with Joe Kincheloe, whose work on Critical Constructivism is the most fleshed out elaboration of Critical Theory in epistemology which serves as the technical foundation for Critical Pedagogy today. Kincheloe was the Research Chair for the Faculty of Education at McGill University, where the Paulo and Nita Freire International Project for Critical Pedagogy was founded. This served as a primary hub for program development, research, training and activism using the concepts of Critical Pedagogy and Critical Constructivism. This has had a profound effect on education in Canada, exacerbating the issues I already believe to be inherent in public education as a whole, and formally repurposing childrens' education towards social justice through collectivist cult initiation by acting out the Marxist metaphysic with an aim of achieving Critical Consciousness in all humans under the assumption that this will lead to perpetual progress towards a state of liberation. Of course, as we'll see, such a state is never to be achieved, which is somewhat similar to what's to be expected with the more traditional forms of Marxism.

Additionally, we want to talk about Paulo because he does a few things which bring the logic of the cult, its implementation, its roots, and its ramifications into clear view. It's also his work which has been instantiated in our current society at the points where we are most vulnerable and (this is a restatement of the previous point), at the point at which it is most likely to have an effect. Lastly, it's also a domain of thought and philosophy which is most explicitly religious, both in terms of its own description as well as the underpinnings and influences which it references in its own work. In this way, being well-versed in its concepts and some of its rhetoric is useful in helping others understand that Marxism and the historicist metaphysic intrinsic to collectivist thinking necessarily induces one into religiosity wherein even if there is no specific Deity external to man, man both as himself and as a component in the nature whose evolution he is directing is perceived as the Deity.

1. Logic

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

One of its essential presumptions is that all knowledge production is a means of oppressing the proletarian class so that their value can be extracted by the dominant classes. This is analogous to any description of class consciousness in a hierarchical system of power and oppression.

Before declaring and examining some of its most concrete prescriptions, and their corresponding rationales, we will need to summarize and enumerate its implementations with some brevity:

• No individual agency
• Ethically prescribed brainwashing

"Since it is always a process, knowing presumes a Dialectical situation. Not strictly an I think, but a We Think. It is not the I think that constitutes the We Think, but rather the We Think that makes it possible for Me to Think." - Paulo Freire (The Politics of Education)

2. Implementations

a. Models and Concepts

Generative method

• Codification
  • Collect information on the subject
  • Construct a theme in an encoded form such that the theme becomes a cognizable object which stores everything necessary for a process of learning through focusing on the experience of the subject as they unpack the object. An example of the encoded form is an image or piece of media.
  • The aspect of the subject's life has now been represented as a problem affecting themselves and the world
• Decodification:
  • Interpret the encoded object (thematic material):
  • Unpack the experience of bearing witness to the object.
  • It must be related to the learner. Since it is a thematic image of their experience and familiarity, it is easy to for them to feel intimately connected to it.
  • It must be politicized. The description of the image places it in the context of the social environment and indicates the collective challenges everyone is facing together.
• Problematization
  • This is simply the politicization of the object of study. That it has been described as a challenge, opportunity and course of action to move towards a better environment for all lays out the problems it represents, which indicates what should be felt about it and why. As this is generated from the mind and experience of the learner, the learner is now accountable to its representation and the prescriptions yielded from its study.

Gnostic cycle

Freire refers to his methods as the gnostic cycle which is essentially both a reframing of the same dialectic as used by Hegel and Marx, but from the locus of education, as well as a reflecting on the essence of notion of gnosticism in that the subject, as doer, perceiver and knower, has knowledge within to be used on transcending reality as a whole.

b. Instantiations

Critical Constructivism

• Henry Giroux
• Joe Kincheloe

c. Instantiation in Education

• Critical Pedagogy

3. Roots

Mao

Freire specifically proclaims his system as sharing the same fundamentals as Mao's Cultural Revolution:

"The pedagogy of the oppressed, as a humanist and libertarian pedagogy, has two distinct stages. In the first, the oppressed unveil the world of oppression and through the praxis commit themselves to its transformation. In the second stage, in which the reality of oppression has already been transformed, this pedagogy ceases to belong to the oppressed and becomes a pedagogy of all people in the process of permanent liberation. In both stages, it is always through action in depth that the culture of domination is culturally confronted. 10" "10. This appears to be the fundamental aspect of Mao’s Cultural Revolution." - Paulo Freire (Pedagogy of the Oppressed)

Lukács

"...class consciousness is identical with neither the psychological consciousness of individual members of the proletariat, nor with the (mass-psychological) consciousness of the proletariat as a whole; but it is, on the contrary, the sense, become conscious, of the historical role of the class" - Gyorg Lukács (Class Consciousness)

One's ontology, as human, and as proletarian, is a law of nature. You can either intelligently aware of it and being conscious of the world which corresponds with that law of nature, or you can be unconsciously fated to the consequences of that reality. The illiterate need to become aware of this sense in order to be conscious of their nature and role in liberating humanity.

Gnosticism

Freire's method is commonly referred to as the Gnostic Cycle, which he is a practice with a "gnostic character", and is used in pursuit of having students learn the substance of contents whose essence he deems "gnostic". In fact, his having used this term repeatedly in "The Pedagogy of Freedom" has been effective in having his methods referred to as gnostic by educators and pedagogists ever since:

"Freire used a gnostic cycle to demonstrate how one would change, grow, and develop a curiosity that would in turn lead to another awakening or deeper understanding. Freire described a fluctuating cycle of change in which awareness comes in and out of focus, bouncing from magical to naïve to critical consciousness. The cycle of change is a development of critical consciousness that is ignited by epistemological curiosity (asking how and why you know what you know) and fueled by praxis (action and reflection)." - Wendy Lynn Freebersyser (A Narrative of a Teacher’s Awakening of Consciousness: Learning to Become an Effective Witness)

That it is a means of attaining freedom through praxis from an oppressive construct described in Marxist terms mirrors the aesthetic of gnostic cults which seek to escape the false order of being and return to what they believe as there true divine state wherein they can exist without the illusory limitations that they were damned into being imprisoned by through the actions of an artisan, erroneously believed to be God.

4. Ramifications

Education

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

5. Current Instantiations

• Critical Pedagogy
• Inclusive component of sustainability

Critical Pedagogy

The Ontario Ministry of Education, ONTED (an education resource put together by Ontario educators), the Ontario Teachers' Federation, the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, and other organizations related to public education in the province in which I reside all refer to Culturally Relevant and Responsive Pedagogy which cites Gloria Ladson-Billings, as well as other Critical Theorists, whose work cites Paulo Freire as well as his evangelists who were most responsible for bringing attention to his work and spreading his ideas across the discipline of education in North America, such as Henry Giroux. Critical Pedagogy is deeply embedded in public school curriculum, the beliefs of educators and administrators, and the manner in which education is conceived of and organized.

It's not likely that we'll be able to come to a place where public education is not some form of cult initiation for Critical Consciousness based on identity formulated on Marxism and Critical Theory, but we can at least better understand the ideas, how they're implemented, and use that knowledge to make better decisions for ourselves, our friends and our loved ones. We can furthermore push back where necessary using well-reasoned arguments supported by citations which can be traced to the aforementioned organizations.

"Freire’s work on critical pedagogy, particularly his emphasis on 'conscientization' or critical consciousness, informs my understanding of how teachers can empower students to challenge oppressive structures. In culturally relevant pedagogy, we draw on Freire’s idea that education should be a dialogical process, where teachers and students co-create knowledge to address issues of race, culture, and power." - Gloria Ladson-Billings (Crossing Over to Canaan: The Journey of New Teachers in Diverse Classrooms)

"This book is about teaching practice, not about curriculum. Much of the purported reforms and the debate about our schools focuses on curriculum: What should we teach? Whose version of history should we offer? What priority should different subject matters be given? But it is the way we teach that profoundly affects the way that students perceive the content of that curriculum. My notions in this domain are strongly aligned with Giroux and Simon's thoughts on critical pedagogy" - Gloria Ladson-Billings (The Dreamkeepers)

It's also worth noting that the title of Gloria Ladson-Billings' 2001 book, Crossing Over to Canaan, further demonstrates how Critical theorists, and especially those involved in Critical Pedagogy, see it as a religious undertaking. The duty of every educator, of the proletarians (or the "minoritized" or "racialized", within the framework she promotes) and of the oppressors, settlers, colonizers or otherwise bourgeois class members who are being compelled to partake in allyship and centering the oppressed such that their knowledge can be used to transform society, is to leave the structure of society and reality itself and, as Freire's concept of Easter would put it, allow previous identities to die as all move towards the perpetual rebirth of a new equitable world which can only be known as fulfilling the true requirements of humanity once there is no impetus towards criticism.

That her work champions a declared purpose of developing critical consciousness in all students with the student being centered to become the source of knowledge shows that this is precisely both the task of Praxis as described by Marx, as well as that of Freire. These objectives, and their corresponding terminology, were adopted by the Ministry of Ontario more than a decade ago, and are easily found in all our schools, the base level of administration, school objectives, codes of conduct, pedagogy and curriculum, counselling, policies for discipline, and so on. It's just the manner, thanks to programs developed through many organizations, including ones like the Paulo and Nita Freire International Project for Critical Pedagogy, in which educational professionals become accredited, develop discipline, and end up thinking and working as they navigate our institutions.

!TODO: need to tie the above into the following

That education must be pursued by emphasizing power relations means that development and learning never occurs without the threat that the educative process harms the child unless applying Freirean dialectical methods to ensure all activity is explicitly utilized to address power relations.

6. Vulnerable

Critical Pedagogy, unlike the more broad Freirean practice of revolutionary whole-system learning, focuses entirely on children. As child humans, they've not yet developed faculties sufficient to detect assumptions baked into programs they're engaged in or evaluate their consequences. Furthermore, the necessity of liberation through developing political literacy through the critically conscious experience of the marginalized is the logical conclusion of accepting Marxist human ontology in the Freirean modality is to consider the rejection of its assumptions as equivalent to an individual's expression of systemic oppression. Put differently, any form of reasoning which rejects the assumptions necessarily used in Critical Pedagogy is interpreted as an artifact of oppressive ideology or ideologically-driven.

7. Effective

It is indeed effective because its methods rest entirely in cultivating a sense of crisis in children. It's far too easy for a young human to experience angst when partaking in an activity intended to discover one's most sensitive points, and yet easier when there's a moralistic rationale encouraging one to view the world in the way which should produce such emotions. Not only that, but one is afforded some assurance that there is a collective focus provided specifically to be attentive to these types of reactions and realizations. In predisposing the subject to experience greater angst, a perpetual cycle can develop towards despair, as they are less likely to feel in control of themselves. Any poor experience can be describe, through a Critical pedagogical lense, as evidence for the need of social change. One must work towards realizing one's critical consciousness and amending the conditions to make healing possible.

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

8. Religion

It is religious because it involves having faith in what cannot be known and then asserting with divine authority the requirement that this world view be adhered to lest thee be fallen. It puts forward a declaration of liberation that will be made possible once the world is made holy. It puts forward a desire and promise for the role of man as world maker with the task of creating the world where all the demons of reality have been destroyed.

But what are these demons? The differences between us. The fact of there being any difference of note eventually becomes oppression for each of us as that separation and differentiation will play a fundamental part in one's having an undesirable perceptual frame of reality which is not universally experienced by all men or all of existence.

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

While Freire puts it as a transcendence of oppression through a whole-world integration of creating through the literacy of the oppressed, this is ultimately the means of transcending physical limitation and separation, fulfilling the plight of Marxism through a means which is most-directly relevant to real human perception. It is the theologically-prescribed activity and to interpret this correctly requires a correspondingly intuited metaphysic, which is one which is mediated dialectically.

Freirean Syllogism

Marxist: "Freirean buffoonery? There is nothing more refined than something which wishes and functions to perpetually refine itself. Its commitment to perpetual revolution guarantees that it will always adapt and respond to reality at teh most immediate opportunity and to the most measured degree. That some might not agree with that is the real standard for buffoonery, and yet still that applies to those who have not had the thought to consider it. The real challenge is in being honest enough to question whether you are really doing it."

Realist: Certainly, it would seem that an intention for change would be more intelligent, more granular and thus less ham-fisted a way of going about one's interaction with a reality which is also a social reality. One where perception isn't simply limited to oneself.

But, I would wager that it is precisely limiting it to yourself which is the fundamental pre-requisite to being nimble and responsive to the real. One can feign humility in proclaiming that one isn't to benefit from anything until all benefit from everything, but that is simultaneously the pronouncement of one's need for everyone else to satisfy one's precondition to be granted a true beginning. A new phase for your being which doesn't start until all has been prepared to your satisfaction. A preparation that involves every other soul having conformed to your expectation as service to the precondition of your action.

Freirean Paradox

Donaldo Macedo, who wrote the introduction to Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed, mentioned Freire's "courage to denounce in order to announce" when describing Paulo Freire as a forever-present force that keeps alive our understanding of history as possibility. This is because Macedo understands, or at least has the affinity to grasp that Freire's methodology rests entirely upon negation. As it is with Critical theorists and Queer theorists, edification isn't sought or even foreseeable, but is expected as a consequence of negation. Select a target for destruction and the resultant system becomes what one has proclaimed.

"To deny the word implies something more: It implies the denial of the right to "proclaim the world". Thus, to "say a word" does not mean merely repeating any word. Indeed, such repetition constitutes one of the sophisms of reactionary literacy practice." - Paulo Freire (The Politics of Education)

Though it sounds as though the comparison between a word having been enunciated and the absence of that word is itself some form of edification the difference between nothing and something, and thus the creation or edification of a word, the key is that it has to be done such as to not be repeating a word. That is to say, to not say it with the unconscious meaning otherwise associated with it, which as normal repetition is simply a reactionary activity with corresponding political effect, but instead negating our understanding of that word and replacing it with the meaning the learner becoming literate. Since the learner is illiterate in the sense of knowing how to harness the means of politically liberating themselves, they will now use the word to proclaim a liberated word through having negated the understanding of language which does not lea to that liberation. This removes the neutral or objective understanding of the target term and replaces it with the demand for revolution.

All of the woke assertions for power are made on the basis of assuming reality cannot be described within the terms of our world as currently conceived, as systems of oppression pollute the presentation of information and cause the formality of knowledge to be composed in such a way as to prioritize the maintenance and reproduction of the current system. The denying of the system, its knowledge, and the very notion of its literacy being legitimate implies there could be a better system. But first the current system must be continuously reordered to make cognition of the correct system even possible.

Is the promise of the endpoint removed because the entire reality must be supplanted? (!WARNING: Highly abstract!) If the source of oppression and domination is borne of all capacity to dominate, then we are left with only a few options:

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

Freirean Collectivism

The truth is that once you accept a collectivist ordering of world and society, the details begin to matter less and less. The most important thing is already behind us, and that's a clear decision about how we organize society, our values, our priorities, and our body politic. The immediate presumption becomes the idea that individual capacities, such as that of a fair, happy and worthwhile life, occur because of the collective. This means that, regardless of whether the details make sense, and in spite of, quite ironically, a philosophy which posits itself as a dialogical process of discovery through questioning, one is forbidden from posing questions. One cannot question the legitimacy of the collective and the coherence of the notion an intelligible collective. One cannot question whether it makes sense to have a declared endpoint, or whether our disharmony is apparent, with disharmony as that for which there is a moral argument to have it serve as an impulse for a change in order to be relieved of it. One cannot question whether our prized and cherished collective is itself the endpoint, or simply an embrace of the worse aspects of human or animal tendency. !NOTE: a bit messy above.

Universalism and Transformationalism (rethink title)

Individualism and Collectivism

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

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

!NOTE: Transformationalism, as a term, also bears significance in the domain of understanding globalism for which critiques linking it to Neo-Malthusianism and Neo-Marxism already exist. Some of those critiques can be reviewed through this resource. Paramount to universalism is one's own assumption that others could attain their knowledge, and that people are to be regarded as individuals because precisely anyone benefits from developing themselves.

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

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

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

World Planning

Normies interpret the prescriptions of a Critical pedagologically-informed educator, administrator or politician as identifying problems that may or may not be of the utmost importance, and find assurance in thinking "Well, at least this one issue is being identified and addressed. It can be solved and, then, on to the next!". But, as the issue having to be addressed is systemic, lower level analyses are never necessary, and can never serve as highlighting the difference leading to success. There are no final constraints except liberation itself. That is, even if a critique is wagered against some particular of an enumerated system, the scope is liable to change indefinitely until such time that no criticism can be wagered. This is obviously because no specific infraction is being addressed but rather the experience of dissatisfaction and discontent itself, thus the prescription to address the ailment is aimed at creating a world where dissatisfaction becomes impossible.

SDGs

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

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

The Way Forward

!TODO: Do we need to talk about mirror neurons?

Evolution: mirror neurons and empathy vs evidence and reason:

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

Reactionary Woke

A lot of people were rubbed the wrong way when suddenly confronted with the term "Woke Right" on social media, in podcasts involving James Lindsay (or in ones where he is being mentioned), and at events involving political parties associated as being conservative or right-leaning. No doubt, everyone has been sick of the term "Woke" for years now and seeing an effort to revive it in an altered context is something that understandably causes some apprehension and even revulsion. In spite of all that, it appears that the term has stuck around for longer than many had anticipated, has become intelligible for many, and is still being rejected explicitly by many who, nevertheless, continue to talk about it, which has been puzzling for many, and even myself when I hadn't spent enough time thinking about it.

The truth of how I feel about the notion of "woke right" is easily read based on the positions I've taken in this book. The human tendency to imagine a collectivist solution or a collectivist nature is not something that is isolated to "left" or "right" politics.

As has been detailed before, the very prospect of believing that a correctly composed collective will bring about the desirable changes by virtue of its construction is the projection of self as a belief in a shared state of consciousness. This extension of self creates the path of liberated ground towards a higher level of existence to which the current realm of existence appears as a limited form in which one is imprisoned. To suspect this is one's awakened status and that this is believed to be knowable is the modern gnostic disposition. This is synonymous with being "woke".

While humans rigidly connect their belief about themselves with a partisan disposition under a suspicion that this maintains their congruence and suitability to community, the elements to allow for and maintain a flourishing society become tangled in the political divide. Helping people understand the manner in which all collectivist thinking brings out the worst in us is crucial to extinguishing the engine of totalitarianism necessarily empowered by the development of technology in human society.

Palestine

This is, without a doubt, the current events issue which has proven to be the most complicating not in terms of material changes in people's lives, but in the sense of confusing people about their moral standpoint, ethical commitments, means of replicating their values, and so on. It poses a new dimension by which disagreements are difficult to resolve because, unlike most of the other previous issues which divide neatly across partisan lines, this issue, while still having a less-pronounced partisan divide, brings about much more conflict within the superficial scopes of "left" and "right".

While many with a pro-liberty bent have a legacy of distrust of government. More classically, this was resulting from foreign intervention, security intelligence for matters both abroad and at home, and its support of Israel in various conflicts. The Israel-related conflicts are sometimes argued as ones where they are alleged to have executed pre-emptive or preventative strikes against less capable targets, and sometimes involve accusations of conspiracy. My point here is not to comment on whether these matters are the case, as it's outside of my scope of interest and requires a dedication of research that I'm not willing to allot.

Other distrust of government stems from a history of identifying its citizens as enemies, terrorists, incompetent, radical, and so forth. !TODO: { sensationalist FBI terrorist entrapment, parents designated terrorists, classic 9/11 era critiques of imperialism, Occupy Wallstreet and the demographics associated with these }

To really understand it, we will need to be sure to cover the following relationships: !NOTE: Do we really need this list? Should we address everything and remove it?

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

Indigeneity

Indigeneity is touched upon in the context of North American Indian people, and while the fundamental ideas and the issue with considering it as a concept that can be legitimately used remain the same, the terms bring on a some new meaning at the level of aesthetic and culture when considering Israel and Palestine.

May of us became interested in the anti-war movement in the wake of 9/11 as we became deeply skeptical of US imperialism and the military industrial complex following activist campaigns which appeared to originate from the "liberal" left, including filmmaker Michael Moore whose work on Farenheit 9/11 had him being published in the mainstream and even documentaries that were critical of Israel's policies concerning Gaza as they relate to the conditions of civilians, settlements, and violence including the crushing to death of activist Rachel Corrie by a bulldozer. There was also a lot more skepticism in general, at least for 2 decades or so (and perhaps peaking after 1 decade) which led to a general questioning of the right-leaning leadership of the time, which may be well-represented through the use of the term "Neocon". Even if people believed the events of 9/11 as generally being correctly expressed in popular media, many wanted to believe lies were told, poor decisions were made, potent opportunities were seized, and that it was all done to an extent that was detrimental for the west and the world in whole.

Many shared the sentiment of skepticism about US' military exploits, and a belief that life would be better for everyone if much of that budget were redirected towards social services under a presumption that less poverty and disparity would result.

Through the formation of such a world view, I came upon argumentation conceiving the repurposing of land previously inhabited by Palestinian Muslims for use by Jewish settlers. A lot of these arguments would go on to allege that a genetic analysis of current-day Israelis in comparison to that of Palestinians would reveal that it was in fact the Palestinians whose genetic lineage most coincided with those of the inhabitants of Israel thousands of years ago. These perspectives always included points selected in the context of "these were the previous legitimate peoples of these lands" or "these were the last rightful and peaceful occupants of the land", which generally goes hand-in-hand with the suggestion that they lived communally, free of conflict with other tribes, or that they employed "sustainable agricultural practices". This is, again, in keeping with the trope of the harmonious being that is more legitimate because of it expressing some divine connection with nature or special consciousness which, when allowed to exist without oppression, harmonizes the world and flourishes in a way which moves us to world transcendence.

Middle East Monitor Al Jazeera

Rhetoric which sees the plight of Palestinians as an extension of the revolution towards total salvation is always concerned with framing what they did with the land and historical identity. It's the view that that we may process our understanding of all historical events pertaining to them based on an approach to creating the future of resolved contradiction (such as between Muslims and Jews in the area currently referred to as Israel); we must collapse categories through negation induced by the power of history. This means that no matter what history is recorded, or what experience is recounted by whatever actual living human being, those who insist upon the theory get to control the meaning.

But It Doesn't Matter (Indigeneity)

Of course, a declaration of Indigeneity both without the intention or capability of consolidating the infinite regress is meaningless in the face of re-establishing land designation, at least insofar as the logic is concerned. Indeed, we already understand that edifying such implements in society is always a means for power, but we're trying to understand the manner of thought and where inevitably leads. In examining the futility of the best argument for it, we see that when it is taken to its logical conclusion we must assert where every human should be born or what materials are valid in the context of what human being may exist where and whether it can be permitted to propagate its likeness through procreation. Let us imagine, for a moment, the evaluation of the very procreative act!

The Birth

A woman becomes pregnant. How does this event affect our humanizing struggle? Is it a net positive for liberation from hegemonic oppression? Is this the seed of decolonization? Will she give birth to a new sensibility?

First, we need to understand the DNA, as a proxy to gauge how its person and descendants are likely to be ascertained as likely to be structurally determined to be when made the object of perception in the system. What identity categories does she belong to? Has she maximally traversed the range of identities she has access to in order to present herself as capable of speaking with a proletarian voice? What is her identity based on? Her form, construction and composition? Is she composed in such a way where she looks very much like what is expected of her DNA and cultural or ethnic heritage? If she is merely an ally, then her pregnancy isn't necessarily a good thing. A pregnancy by a white, cis female ally still decenters the marginalized. White woman tears are not a true expression of the oppressed.

What about the child? What is the most oppressed specification of identity set that can theoretically be applied to the child? If the mother is not of an oppressed identity category, then the DNA and identity of whomsoever impregnated her can override the evaluation of her own identity and body, but only so long as the phenotypic expression corresponding to paternal influence is sufficiently pronounced. This is because, as the child of an oppressor mother, and in the case of it bearing a phenotypic expression that is too similar to the mother, the true identity of the child in a critical theoretical worldview will be ascertained as the structurally-determined construction as edified by its perception in society. Again, you are not you, but you are what others perceive you to be.

And what other options might the mother have for the oppressor child? How could she offer it up to revolutionary praxis or assign a liberatory identity to it in advance, without access to the facility of assigning any oppressed identities?

She could simply not assign a gender, and even develop a plan for "gender treatment". You might say that she could possibly assign the gender of the opposite sex, or a distinct gender which is not "male" or "female", but we're not quite there yet, so she'll have to settle for simply not assigning one. She could also abort and offer up the body, with its tissues and organs, for the advancement of health equity.

Otherwise, there isn't an acceptable course of action. Your genes and potential to support hegemonic forces which repress the desired genes or material of liberation are forbidden and to be condemned.

Palestinian Indigeneity

It ultimately is being forced to matter as a sort of malicious pragmatism in service of pathological processes. We know this for many reasons, such as that the original inhabitant (Australopithecus?) cannot be ascertained. There is also no desire to perform an infinite regress to make such a determination whereby one could that this being was the first to claim this land, and what ramifications that has vis-a-vis the beings which exist today. It is, of course, never about the original being, but about making a romantic mold with certain collectivist characteristics, such as communal living, sharing of property, cooperative labour, and the like. Though we see that already in the west with state-supported initiatives driven by narrative focused on the noble savage of the Americas, for example, something not just similar but far more directly collectivist is found not just with western rhetoric surrounding Palestinians, but even within the ideological frameworks in the origins of the Palestinian movement, the PLO , PFLP and DFLP, which include Marxist concepts and critiques, calls for a Socialist state, invocation of Marxist-Leninism, and wide support by entities which proclaim themselves as Communist. Whether someone meets some criteria of being referred to as Indigenous is quickly thrown out the window by those champion decolonization through a reaction of silencing and erasing any human expression which does not accord with the theory of proletarian revolution. Those designated a proletarian identity can only hold onto it by virtue of their material body if they are inactive tokens who can best be objectified by activists, or if they act without vibrating discordantly against the description of their body as per Post Colonial theory.

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

What Makes Anyone Deserve Space?

We deserve space because, to the best of my knowledge, none of us consented to come into existence, and all are forced to deal with the challenge of life. No single person gets to make available the possibility of reality, construct the environment, establish its properties, or the fact of humans having come into being.

One might make a claim about the human body and state that their way of doing and understanding of the world potentiates and facilitates the development of transhuman solutions and that these would finally allow us the sort of control wherein one could make the case that we are finally setting fundamental properties of existence, at least phenomenologically, but to a point that is so comprehensive as to approach all of reality as a human reality.

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

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

Though any modern collectivist critique is based on equity, it really is any collectivist endeavour as a whole, as the difference between within and outside the collective is both itself a stratification and also an assumption of a resolved stratification within the collective. As such, absent a truly liberal value set, we inevitably employ a theory where any economic or cultural disparity is sufficient to drive a model describing a falsely stratified society. The insistence of a model is the insistence of a false or, at best, limited simulation of reality with a corresponding theory of knowledge, and thus is the means of overriding what any one account can provide and what any institution communicates; it is always an expression of an automatically reinforcing hierarchy.

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

This leads to a disconnect between an understanding of imminent and desire for improvement, but it is a rejection of one reality under presumption that a future reality will amend it. That is not synonymous with desire to improve, which builds and launches from accepting the real.

Let's accept accept that reality is here as something both that we experiencing, and which corresponds such that we are accountable to it. This means that we cannot designate property ownership, morality and guilt on the basis of anything beyond our actions.

Potentiating Globalism and Global Governance

Global governance? A global environment? Are we global citizens?

Am I someone whose reach, influence and importance can be considered at the global scale? As a capability, a demand of me, or a responsibility?

It always seemed to be something sensible when the notion of global responsibility was given attention. Be it as a side effect of technology or having reached the point of development as a species of evolved ideas and intellect, being concerned with something superordinate affecting all is exciting and comforting. Comforting in spite of its magnitude by harnessing the weight of it through the belief that if one is correctly oriented with it, then one is somehow supported by it. An ever refining plan for one's greatest aspirations. A guiding entity reaching every corner of the world yields assurance that the challenge is something transcending the self and thus one needn't be concerned about anticipating failure. So long as it is cognized as interwoven with the challenges and aspirations of one's own life, one can participate in the grand effort, the target of which helps one imagine being lifted above one's limitations in a trajectory of solving the puzzle of one's life with that of the world. If others are similarly concerned, you have their strength and intention by your side. If not, they haven't yet reached the deep knowledge of true reality that you hold.

Leveraging this disposition, globalist activism undermining national sovereignty and, by extension, blurring the scope of the means to otherwise protect individual sovereignty and personhood, drives humans into commitments involving international conflict in whatever terms presented. Instability and mass migration are a win to those whose aspirations demand greater state control and reduction of human freedom. In many respects, it's easier for us to consider everything in this way, given that technology invites us to expect solutions without their conception while the lack of experience with real, brutal physical conflict allows us to expect that the consequences are never our own to bear.

We must give serious thought about the permutation of society and corresponding human conformations which arise from ever-expanding state authority that is necessarily restrictive and suspicious of the rights and freedom of individuals. The state embodies every criticism leveraged on the basis of hegemony, and has become most championed by those uttering those criticisms as it is the power they crave, and it does this not as a conscious entity but as the matrix of incentives which force a game upon every societal participant. Only individuals are real, conscious and experiencing entities capable of compassion and empathy, and which are truly able to inspire. It is the frame of experience which we aspire to, imitate, embody, and come to be shaped by. The only reason the idea of a human experiencing anything can make sense to any person is because of the individual's capacity to imagine experiencing it themselves, and this is always an expression of universal belief in the existence of individual perception.

We must think about what happens as an authoritarian state becomes increasingly adapted towards ensuring it can both measure every aspect of human life and predict the results.

With that in mind, trying to construct the frame of mind possessed by one who sits idle as the progression of state championed to our absolution takes place, witnessing and even cheering it without recoil, horror or denouncement. A frame of mind that makes excuses for it and creatively imagines the wonders that might be unlocked through it. They are not "in on it", but hope of it and thirst through it.

It may seem facile to limit conception of such a frame of mind to what appears as a false dichotomy, especially in a book purporting to critique dialectical belief. Simultaneously, this concern shouldn't preclude us from making an effort to conceive of what a frame of mind presents as, as this would be the natural consequence of attempting to apply a modicum of empathy to the circumstance. Surely, even a most empathetic view should serve to reveal some reasonable description of the behaviour and opinions accompanying such phenomena. With consideration to these factors, let us suppose an enumeration:

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

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

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

Decolonization

Naïve

The naive view would be to consider decolonization as some sort of correction for the infractions that exist in society as a consequence of historical events. That events in history were participated in by persons who took their positional advantage to diabolical and malevolent ends, resulting in the current, shameful moment. It is seen as a good-will initiative to find opportunities appropriate to advancing the colonized and articulate and preserve sources of knowledge that are otherwise being lost or ignored, to the detriment of all the world.

Informed

Frantz Fanon

"National Liberation, national renaissance, the restoration of nationhood to the people, commonwealth: whatever may be the heading used or the new formulas introduced, decolonization is always a violent phenomenon." - Frantz Fanon (The Wretched of the Earth)

"Decolonization is quite simply the replacing of a species of men with another species of men ... Without any period of transition, there is a total, complete and absolute substitution" - Frantz Fanon (The Wretched of the Earth)

Why is this important? Because, unlike something like some of the more supposedly facile descriptions of Communism in line with a classical and vulgar Marxism line of thought, decolonization's aesthetic involves liberation of a less abstract instantiation of the duality of bourgeois and proletarian by juxtaposing colonizer and colonized. In what is also called Critical Colonial theory, the group assignments are far more racial and, unlike critical race theory's white / black dialectic, all land can specifically be problematized on the basis of whether the holy incantations are being uttered over them, with those incantations themselves being a means of reminding the crowd to struggle itself and invite everyone to participate into struggle as a ritual act to purify the body politic.

Against eternally-deriving designations, as though your composition and you socialization are lost in an endless feedback loop of your ever intensifying depravity. The more pure you become insofar as decentering, allyship, self flagellation, humiliation rituals, and erasing yourself through representing all identities correctly, the more hidden secret and insidious your corruption, always bound to your flesh. Though a bourgeois can become a worker by being the champion of the people's party, for example, and cis can become queer through sacrificing the body, or even simply making the claim, the colonizer of decolonialism, as with the white of Critical Race Theory, is never going to be the colonized.

Lamentation:

The thought stream of decolonization, whether academic, pop culture, or the navel gazing that many are lulled into when presented with an opportunity for narcissistic self-celebration, is always one of lamentation. How wise, noble and hurt I've been is what I dwell on, and it's forcing me to manifest bravery through demanding everyone's eyes to me on me. Aren't I powerful, beautiful and deserving? Aren't I mystical, full of secret power and a truly natural being, unlike all the rest? If you were wise you would bow to me as this would be you greatest blessing! You must purify yourself immediately, since it is not you who is the original and unique one, but a patchwork of superficiality which fails to mimic the truly human. You pretend to be important and meaningful, but your very existence brings down the meaning of the world and makes it impossible for people to see real value. Real value which only I, unlike you, truly possess.

It is awful for us, the good and the true, to witness your depraved existence, which continues past its welcome, as your presence is a proverbial spitting in the face of those whose existence actually fulfills hopes, desires and aspirations.

Additional

What is the Cult?

It's worth putting into words why I refer to these things as a cult and what that means. We can talk about cult memberships, Marxism, different collectivist systems, Fascism, National Socialism, more modern cults like the Jonestown suicides, and so on, but ultimately I'm indicating that embracing a disposition towards pursuing collectivism, when formalized, is a cult requiring membership through signal and ritual, and in that it requires the upholding of a constructed reality. Someone will say "well, you're doing what the Marxists are doing because they're saying that ideology is basically the excuses for us not having a socialist worldview, not wanting to return to the garden, but you're doing the same thing on the basis of Individualism". But, it is different. You only exist as an individual so anything that causes you to believe that there is a collective way of seeing reality which corrects the broken perception of seeing things as an individual is a cult, because to refuse the individual perception is to refuse the possibility of seeing the shared reality which would need to correspond at the level of the individual.

Political Nature

They say that our political nature is the consequence of indoctrination or programming. Although that stuff happens and affects everyone, we can't say the degree to which it plays a factor in our being compelled into a political view. In fact, we needn't use such excuses to disregard that we are naturally inclined to viewing issues politically, as it's actually our capacity for advanced syntax and the descriptions of our perception. It's the consequence of a highly-developed visual cortex which means that you are generating an image, even for something otherwise intangible. That ends up having to be something that corresponds symbolically, and thus it is the meaning is of the symbol, rather than the thing the symbol represents, and where subjectivity runs astray and causes us to require confirmation through other instances of perception in order to yield the presentation of the cognized symbol as reality.