logicp_writings/Book/Queerterferon.md

Interferon Concerns

June 12, 2022

Interferon respones were said to be quite different between acute SARS-CoV-2 infection (pronounced) and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. What is striking about this is that interferon Alpha and type 1 interferon as a whole is associate with such a wide variety of innate immune behaviour that it would beg the question of what could possibly be considered broad, comprehsnive and robust if it lacked a type 1 interferon component. It is not evidence of the response in and of itself, but evidence of the many associated factors having been initiated.

Having to Do

There were many friends and associates whom I never expected tobe telling that I could no longer have mor eto do wit, but such is the case se we begin to take our time more seriously. I dno' tbelieve that they were so interested in listening to my ideas as they were interested in observing that they would maintain good standing and feigned agreement with someone whom they believe holds very different opinions and views from them. But do we really?

In my humble opinion, the answer is no. We don't ultimtaely hold different feelings on these matters, it is that the same matter suddenly needs to be treated differently -> being represented by completely different symbols and invoking different chains of propisitions and environments - chains of evaluative mechanisms - not even the same mechanisms, parameters or operations.

Examples

Children are perhaps the biggest. Preceding teh current apperance of the child issue is the propensity of some to allow their child's health and well-being to be sacrified for their material success. And how do we know it is for material success? Well it is in exchange for something. IT is certainly not the path to spiritual sucecss. There might be some hope that, for example, in highlighting the medical issues of a child that they might be cured by focsing on the material aspects of a problem it might eb more likely to be resolved, but this is the most charitable interpration, because it assumes zero risk of any detriments incurred by doing so, not the least of which being the tendency of a human to be manipupulate dfor sympathy or a different circumstance through or upon which to be judged.

And really, we know for the simple fact that human babies do learn to manipulate through their crying and whimpering. So empowering that process, rather than simply allowing it to play out within a range of what is considered reasonable, is problematic.

Book Progress - Mind

June 15, 2022

Pushing back on many things, but it isultimately the belief in mind to transform through one's expression which is not merely the vocalized or animated expression observed by another, but the instantiated thoughts and conception fo thoughts in mind. We must alwayas give priority to the most fundamental level of environment upon which to cast, strike, place, etch a point of expression. Though we insist that the environment has an ideal form, weknow not whether it may be realized and, furthermore, though the tone struck might not resonate to the extent or satisfasction desired, the correct fundamental placement can always be sought for it is chosen in mind, and to choose correctly in the face of burden develops important skill.

Mind is the ultimtae apparatus, function and instantiated implementation through which limits are surpassed and the unrealized is discovered and acknowledged. It occurs when free movement of focus can take place or is imposd to tak place, even in the presence of force nad constraint. The modern state religions claim to present the means by which to do all that mind does already, while suggesting that mind, in fact, is not able to do those things and that it conversely amplifies and cements the aspects of the system which is responsible for negating such capabilities.

So, then, how do they purport to do what they assume mind cannot? By asking you to question what you believe to be true. But only about those things which the Theory concerns itself with.

Who is the Groomer?

June 18, 2022

They ask if those concerned with PRide movements show the same concern for catholic priests and churches as whole.

Their perspective comes from the assumption that traditions are forms of ideology which impose belief systems, such as Catholicism, through grooming which allows those with power to take advantage of others, like children. They have two forms of proof:

1. Cases of priests assaulting and performing sex acts on children
2. Assumption that normality causes Queer peopel to hurt themselves.

That is the analog to grooming chilren into a belief that there is emancipation and virtue to be sought by identifying oneself as Queer, though they might say that Queer is less or even not sexual, as opposed to heterosexual or proto-heterosexual. This is because hetero means has, or having, or aspiring to have sex between male and female, whereas Queer can remain undefined, ro can claim non-sexual/asexual status or a political motivation for opting out of any process that has to do with sex or normative human practices, such as reproduction (which is normal because we still exist). But here is the rub:

• All Queerness originates from the idea that sex be made politicized in order to push back against and eliminate oppression which occurs along a dimension of or in respones to that which is sex and sexual - oppress sex workers and sodomites, etc.
• An asexual, abstaining or pure platonic status is defined as per sex, its absence, but this need to specific that one should never wihs to have sex is absurd - either they feel no attraction to anyone, have a fear of confronting sex, or have chosen the designation arbitrarily
• Queerness pushes the idea of levels and rules, and always remains fluid, so making definitive claims is oppressive on its own.

So, no matter where the focus of conflict goes, Queerness contends that whatever evokes an expectation of normality or normalcy is harmful and that, since heterosexuality is considered normalcy, and is defined by sexual behaviour, anything that reinforces normalcy is reinforcing expectations about sexual behaviour and that those who raise children without allowing them to become Queer are "grooming" them for a sexual behaviour while also injuring their development and risking catastrophic harm to those kids who would otherwise be empowered to discover a Queer identity which more authentically describes and expresses them

Defunding Children

Of course the area of conflict eventually becomes children. People invest in children because they expect that there is a future to be had, and that the future will be like them (like the children whom they believe will learn or adopt some of your characteristics). For anything which becomes a non-starter for someone past a certain level of development, it becomes feasible for those below that level of development. Children are also that which cannot defend themselves.

Is It Really Our Fight?

Some might say "This concern ma seem legitimate, but focusing on it is negative and might breed further negativity". There is truth to this, in that one can never know if things in the world most as per the sentiment one expresses as they exist. The empiricist would say that there are direct cause and effect observations to be made from the manner in which you engage the physical world, and that you cannot make such observations of your feelings/internal state, and that is easier to understand. The next question, then, becomes: "what is negative? Conflict? Is it disagreement? Could there be challenges in this world without conflict? How about progress?

Is there not always something to resolve? I suppose that might depend on what one believes is an ideal state, and what would need to change before such a state could come into being. In this case, we are looking at all of these phenomena through framing the proposition of existence. Do we want to exist? Presumably yes, as we are here, and we find ourselves looking forward. If that takes place at all, then we know existence can be acceptable and that alone is sufficient to meet the threshold of existing vs not existing. Then, what are the moments that we find acceptable? Are they so because we are experiencing something beyond our nature? It is as of yet inescapable, so we must all acknowledge that our natural existence can be acceptable.

The Victim would contend that all moments should be beyond acceptable because:

• For many, they are unable to envision what is truly acceptable
• They impose unacceptable standards on those who are able to better see reality
• The threat of perceiving the unacceptable looms and must be evolved beyond

Were you always powerless to affect teh nature of your existence? Is that not the only interface by which to transform the moment? If there were nothing but one more moment, would you use it to ask why it wouldn't be a better moment, or would yuou attune to that one moment of existence through championing one's curiosity of existence? What is this moment wherein it has come to pass that I am experiencing it?

It Always Comes Back To This

We, indeed, always fight against a drive to control every facet of existence and being - one which asserts that existence on its own is frightening and that certain assurances need to be made and granted until such time that teh proposition of existence be made more acceptable. But, what is there to be said for a proposal to exist in an environment whose chaos engages us such that we and it are transforming in ways unknown, that there is utility in allowing that to take place, and that there are downsides to giving in to the desire to have complete control. That drive can never be satisfied as its requirements will always change.

Being Anti-Communist

Listening to someone claiming to be an anti-Communist caught my attention, even though I had no idea who it was and what sort of background he had, beacuse it seemed to me that if one has such concerns, they might elaborate into:

• how could it already be present here?
• how might I already be contributing to the problem?
• should I realy be prioritizing scrutiny of an external enemy over an internal one?

As you can see, these concerns are prioritizing a means of examining the likelihood that the ideology might be implemented through subversion of the environment to which one is already most familiar. Why is that? Quite simply, it is the manner in which all previous Communist regimes have come to fruition in the past. That is to say, the populace themselves did not notice the ideology being implemented into their society or, more specifically, their personal lives.

The most dangerous, insidious and pernicious characteristic of a collectist ideology is that it destroys independent thought. Independent thought is naturally antithetical to a collective as there is an utmost priority to achieve and maintain uniform thought. Uniform thought is the essence of the collectivist system. So, if you find yourself arguing with people within your system as to which external entity is the bigger threat, you must ask yourself how this conflict and discussion is helping or beneficial to those already in your system and how it might be conducive to collectivist thinking.

Queering Kids Through Drag

It is said that this practice is meant to give them exposure to that which they might not see at home, btu that argument applies to anything, including murder and consumption of that which should never be consumed.

But the general idea is that it makes them more comfortable around "Queer Folk", and gives them an opportunity to have some fun.

Comfortable around Queer - does this mean Gay? No, it doesn't. It means those who express themselves in a way which falls outside of the norm. To be clear, it's specifically a dialectic of normalcy. But is that non-sexual? Because, first, nothing can ever be established as Queer since it will be less Queer or not Queer at all the moment it becomes normalized. But what do we expect to see at Drag Shows?

Dressing and presenting as caricatures of the opposite sex, particularly men as women. Caricatures, how? The most flushed cheeks indicating excitement and arousal. Lipstick does this too. Breasts, to attract men and demonstrate reproductive fitness, except it is not, actually, wide hips to accept entry and bear children, as they cannot. Long, smooth legs that want to be observed and caressed. Why? Becaus they invite access to that which is between them.

Strangely, some figures whom I have admired actually fall for the absurd suggestion that Drag Queens aren't always sexual, or that some might even be asexual. I am not even sure how this idea got started, but he referenced a TV program as being boring, banal and political.

At the margin, what is an asexual sexually reproducing species? It is almost like a protest against being. Someone finds either the proposition of life completely untenable, or they find the social aspects of society to have been so distasteful and horrid that they are explicitly focused on making this sexual grievance a centerpiece of their identity. Sex, as it was, was a distasteful proposition and they will live in a way which makes existence unfeasible for humanity. Whether that is void of sex is ridiculous as the entire context is based on male/female sexual relations.

Who has Diversity?

Demanding that there be legitimate diversity is a trap of sorts, because everyone demands it in their own way. The Neo-Marxists demand that members of marginalized groups be present, and that these members speak in a manner which authentically describes the perspective ascribe to that group as per the Theory, whereas right wingers describ diversity as having conservative voices in places where they are normally excluded, while insisting that these conservative voices include people who are of diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds. Those are not the same things, and none fot hem really achieve whta should be regarded as diverse, which is simply derived from knowing that every person is capable of having a unique perspective which isn't necessarily predictabe based on their aesthetics.

In other words, you get diversity, the real thing, based on how you allow discourse to be undertaken, because people speak more authentically when thy don't feel that their words are representing their group or that their words are beign used to shame them by virtue of their supposed group affiiliation.

This relates toa quote by Ayn Rand where she states that the smallest minority is the individual, thus you cannot be for minorities unless you are for the rights of the individual.

But perhaps the collectivists see no individual, just persons guided by collective consciousness, ideology and belief who are unable to see themselves for what they truly are, or that they themselves are absolutely not individual becausse they see their identity based on how it connects and organizes them to others.

It may also be that the idea of being ultimately alone brings about angst -> the idea that you cannot ever be certain that there will always be a group to which you belnog, who can advocate for your survival and forgive your moral failure on the basis of needing to keep the collective identity alive.

Again, there is that inkling of an expectation that everyone hopes to someday find immortality and that once it is discovered, the secret can be shared across your groups.

But We Aren't Right Wing

Yes, anything that is not Che becomes right-wing. Any structure, any specification, any static definition. But of course, the mind which insists as such is perpetually fixated on the evaluation of every prospective participant, and evaluating them as revolutionaries or dead mess to be cleared from the page of time to make way for a supposed New Sensibility.

That is itself a process which insists that there can be but one kind of society and one kind of citizen. A citizen who does not produce any distortion or disharmony when placed before my conception, my realization.

And this is why they love children. A revolutionary force by nature, they will rebel against their family and all of society even before I make a modest suggestion.

But to truly prove you are not "Right-Wing" is to simply be open. Accept no demand to conform, and reject the desire to rationalize tyranny. Have no angst about letting your vulnerable parts be exposed, or to realize that one cannot expect all resources to be made available or to be accounted for at any given time.

The Right to Vanity

Imagine, for a moment, that you take the identity which culture told you you cannot apply to yourself, and then think about all the characteristics that are associated with it. Then, think on how those characteristics might be ones which you believed could apply to you, but realize that the association between them and your non-identity (forbidden identity) causes an implicit assumption that those characteristics apply more strongly to the non-identity than to you. Now, imagine that you are rejected by that identity, and that you perceived that identity as being believed to be superior to you because it has a more desirable set of more strongly-weighted characteristics.

How unfair, no? What did you do to deserve this? You were simply made inadequate, per the essentialist lense.

Finally, imagine that you redefine the path to association with that identity, proclaim your association and then acquire its characteristics. Now, entertain the idea that you express those characteristics exceptionally well and that it is a moral good and even an ethical duty to claim that identity. You feel that you have new rationales and you, in a sense, have taken revenge on the non-identity as well as life and reality itself. In fact, by moving the standard of reality, you yield universal emancipation to all things.

Unfortunately, it is one's quest to believe they are unique which comes to dods with their need to claim an identity, any identity, that is recognizable. For even though a story might be told of one discovering their unique place and form, it is a story that has always already been told and the ability to believe the story can take hold and be relevant only insofar that it is communicable. In having to be told, the identity within the story must be understandable by those with whom it is shared, and it is only understood when the listener can imagine themselves as embodying that identity or by recognizing that it is something for which an association in the world already exists. This composition has already been written, the song already played. How to be unique an dalso have a form and set of thoughts which anyone believes to be their own?