logicp_writings/Book/Chapters/Hegelian.md

Hegelian Framing

Contrary to the wholly individualistic perceptual frame is the Hegelian frame. It refers to one's perception when imagining collective consciousness. This could be as speculating or a sense of belief about an intuition for an intelligible phenomenon of collective consciousness, as extant or imminent event, and whether relating to all things ontologically or as consolidation of a conscious faculty as a shared quality. There are many standards by which to describe such a perception, and it is an evergreen challenge of human existence to wade through them and ground ourselves, but it is perhaps the Hegelian flavour of collectivist thinking which best serves our explication of the difference of these frames, particularly as it's deeply embedded in modern civilization. It must be mentioned that this manner of perceiving is necessarily dialectical.

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

"The state is the actuality of the ethical Idea. It is ethical mind qua the substantial will manifest and revealed to itself, knowing and thinking itself, accomplishing what it knows and in so far as it knows it." - Georg Willhelm Friedrich Hegel (Philosophy of Right)

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

Digression (Unconstrained Analytics)

It bears mentioning that American Lawyer, Intelligence Analyst and founder of Unconstrained Analytics would advise us that we needn't wade into the flavours and interpretations of Hegel's dialectic all too much, lest we find ourselves living in it and mystified by it. The important point is to recognize the worldview is itself dialectical and that as a matter of teleological implication it yields implements to ascribe purpose subjectively. It is through this mechanism that cult-like behaviour is facilitated in human beings.

Hegelian Impendence

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

• Dialectical tension occurs in all things
• Dialectical process is the engine of change
• Dialectical tension evokes change and this is what drives history
• Historical movement heads towards resolution
• Semantically: utilizing negation against an abstract understanding in order to yield something substantive

Some would call this an imminentization or that something is eschatological, which is to say: all things occur in the context of an endpoint. By endpoint, we mean an end to a period of history. In order for the occurrences to be considered in their most reasonable representation, which is to say reasonable in the sense of its relevance in the context of it having existed with all things, thus giving rise to consider that the most complete understanding of anything is in the context of everything. Some might also call this being scientific, or applying a scientific analysis, which is not the same thing as application of scientific method.

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

But that is not blind faith just as it isn't blind faith to consider that you're going to move closer to the correct answer of a math problem if you actually begin working it out.

Dialectical faith is faith that the actions and utterances are not correct on the basis of truth claim. What makes it true is that it is desired. That it is not universally agreed upon as having been brought to fruition just means that the process isn't complete. For that which you desire came to be because of true human nature extending the true longing desire of all mankind. As such, if what is desired is not yet manifest, its insistence becomes morally obligatory.

The eschatological change is one of human conception, be understood as recognition made by all of humanity yielding change at the structural level of Being. For Marx, this comes to be the being of the species and is intrinsic to reality.

For Hegel, this comes about through all manner of dialectical thought as the understanding of all things includes an unresolved tension and process of reflection occurring occurring through sublation. In his idealist formulation, all exist as aspects of a totality synonymous divinity.

Final Events in Historical Periods

There is a difference between the idea of an endpoint and its being the final event of history, which sounds as mystical, or even cataclysmic, cosmological event. It's the final occurrence of all that could be.

With Hegel, his idea of an eschatological endpoint, though not the term by which he refers to it, was that of a final completion of the process of existence where the fact that existence had occurred was because of a deviation from from a completed state so perfect that it may be tantamount to non-existence. The deviation from state of perfection was creation of existence whose instantiation implies that its unfolding would logically lead back towards the perfect state and that, at least according to the semantics of Hegel's philosophy, would be complete when the absolute state of existence will negate itself in a final determination of existence as a whole whereby no more progress can be made in the dimension of existence beyond the fact of its perfect completion having no more perfect state possible except as a final resolving of the redundancy of itself as being something which maintains a distinction. That last removal of the distinction of its existence is the only step which is left to occur.

With Marx, he words himself on the topic of history by only commenting on history as it pertains to the history of man, so whether he considers that to be a subset of all of history, or whether he considers that question to be irrelevant is something we can never know, but at the very least it is the only history that he considers in his explications of a philosophy about the liberation and creation of man which is predicated on a process of dialectic which is itself a historical process.

With all other modern incarnations of a historical dialectic, it describes a process based on history whereby the entire process of history is the unfolding of dialectical tension until the transformation of condition(s) is complete.

Regardless of whether one wishes to comment that it somehow avoids being mystical by leaving it open that there's additional time and a greater overarching history of universe which exists before and beyond that dialectical process of history being described in a given collectivist or purely idealist doctrine, that it contends that the transformation of reality occurs through this process and that the qualitative aspects of that process are contained within a history which describes the unfolding of that process in its entirety makes it rather irrelevant whether or not that period is itself the entirety of history or not. The fact of the matter is that the description of that history which it does put forward is its metaphysical faith, and this cannot be ignored.

Remark on Hegelian Framing

We understand Hegel as being an idealist, and many of us can look back on our past experiences and recognize relationships with people whom we'd like to allege are "idealists". But are there idealists? Can someone ever be so sure that they themselves adhere to the ideal of their supposed idealism? Can they be an idealist without adhering to it? Are they certain that they are idealist in their manner of thought? Or have they simply identified the implement by which to affect?

There is something to be said here about the insistence of being able to represent things in idealist terms. The problem about ascribing idealism to someone's view is that even if they themselves proclaim themselves as idealists, we can't really understand what's going on with anyone at whatever time they're speaking or as they're rationalizing something in mind, discourse or otherwise. What we perceive as being our rationalized thought process might be better understood as a balancing of our cognitive faculties with our psycho-emotive state, and even those things cannot be well-demarcated from one another.

I want to take the approach that we all likely go through modes of conception, perhaps even at all times, which are compatible with what we describe as idealism. We already agree that there is a subject/object split to a degree that a human being cannot look at any object and understand it in absolute terms - its complete structure, nature, composition, context towards a purpose, or whether it exists in context of no purpose at all. We can observe it and understand things about it and make inferences or contemplate shapes or feelings or patterns or concepts that are invoked or somehow influenced by it.

Even if we are creating a geometric model or represented image as per our nervous system engaging with the object, or our conception of the object, and the activity of our visual cortex, that image is not the thing in question and, though by itself, it makes it an idea in its own rite, it's not necessarily the idea or the representation of the thing one might have assumed it's purported to be, or even simply be in reference to. The idea exists as an abstraction, and further abstractions are conjured even upon reflecting on the experience of perceiving that thing in question. It's difficult to really express the degree to which this can make a huge difference in someone's thinking.

Friendships and Authoritarianism

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

I was somehow always surprised to see persons close to me, who had demonstrated a great capacity for reasoning with rigorous logic and an open mind driven by sheer curiosity and zest of life, come to the point of pretending that something is or isn't true, and prevent themselves from applying those skills of consistency and rigor to something which happens to bear significance in another context which is not altogether scientific. That is, that they would suspend their capacity to critique the logic or science behind a declaration when the declaration was related to a social matter, a political proclamation, or something which purports to adhere to an ideal.

These are people I'd known for a long time, whom I had considered myself close to for long periods or, in some cases, the entirety of my life. These are people with whom I'd spent great lengths of time with in very private settings, deliberating what we seemed to agree on as the limits of knowledge, the means of pushing the boundaries of thought and conception, and finding the inspiration to empower our thinking with our lust for life and exploration. We drove curiosity and induced great aspirations in one another, and could enjoy doing so without being hindered by ego or neurotic extravagances.

But slowly and slowly, for reasons I can only speculate about, and possibly even just because of the manner in which I myself was changing through life, I found that, if were confronted with a matter bearing great social significance, especially for their career prospect

This was evident when coming across issues that had to do with conceiving of humans as something universal with equal potential for understanding and achievement, and its replacement with assuming people have their perception poisoned by hegemony to the point where volatile deconstructive approaches must be taken, such as championing events which agitate people differently according to class affiliation, with these classes being informed by skin colour, ethnicity, sex, and other categories of identity which, in my opinion, are fundamentally imagined but also include ones whose qualitative distinction is one of imagination also (that is to say, to imagine group identity is something altogether imaginary to begin with, but to imagine a group identity predicated on gender is to construct an identity category, which is imagined, that is predicated on gender, which is an attribute that is also imagined).

I furthermore saw this when it came to issues of climate and the environment. When a serious effort was made to understand environmental degradation or contamination from a low-level analysis, it's not taken seriously as it's not being initiated under an assumption of seeking to find evidence which reinforces the alleged consensus already being championed at a high level through entities that are highly political and highly embedded in governance. This coincides perfectly with the aversion to avoid any sort of debate about the premises that such initiatives and projects build upon, with guidance always being that the emphasis should be placed on how to proliferate the political message, harness industry support and coordinate academic institutions towards maximizing social acceptance and infrastructure redirection towards the goals of those initiatives.

Lastly, the other aspect of these surprises is the one which comes to be the least surprising, given the precedence of the other aspects, which is the orientation towards and acceptance of authoritarianism as not only the logical conclusion or necessary evil of our circumstances, but as something which is being revealed as the basic element of social organization. That social environments cannot be organized except through the application of authoritarianism as a principle and its associated procedures.

Endpoint Framing

Another aspect of this which I haven't yet mentioned which is essential to this view is that of double negation. This conception of a future endpoint is essentially one of accepting a certain degree of mystification in the adoption of the process of absolution under an overarching expectation that the mystification will be resolved once the process has ended. Once an endpoint is expected which justifies any imperfections of the present, it is seen as the inevitable release from consequences associated with any period before it. !NOTE: The last sentence was explaining the use of the term "absolution".

It is through this expectation that one is not simply in the circumstance of making a claim without substance or without the positing of something concrete (such as providing the solution, or describing the logical conclusion of a logic or line of reasoning that has been put forward), but is the circumstance of one proceeding through a manner of holding onto a belief without they themselves having witnessed the substance of it. The endpoint is inevitable because its designation extends from stating it as equivalent to defining a method which accounts for a complete set of aspects. It is the wholeness which implies the endpoint; the definition through which one presents the fact of one having accounted for everything is the definition for the endpoint.

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

Collective

How are we to understand the very concept and premise of a collective? I've seen it put forward that somehow having a collective is itself, by default, a moral good and a moral improvement over any default understanding of human existence without a collective, because it acknowledges the very basic reality that there are many of us, that we relate to one another, and that life is improved for each and every one of us, the individual as self included, when we work together and try to help one another. Indeed, there exist multiple entities, but of what type? Is it all just one type? Could we say that the types which exist indicate the same number of collectives? Or that the number of types is equivalent to those within the great declaration of a collective and those who reject such a declaration?

Multiple entities, but likely of the same type because we need to understand that they're at least of enough of a similar type such that they can be enumerated within the same context (We can start with that, anyway, which I believe to be a charitable offering to purveyors and advocates of collectivism).

What, then, is the purpose of humans who exist in a world where there is some ethical value in the collective? Could there theoretically be different purposes to humans in different collectives such that we could say that it's somehow arbitrary? (Primary purposes). Something that, on the balance of it all, ends up looking rather random, and would necessitate further questioning in order to know what purpose is being erected or focused upon? Is it just generally implementing the concept of coordination? For coordination itself? Well, coordination imply the necessity of shared purpose, so we're left still wondering what the purpose is, in all cases. One might say that it is the need to have a complete specification, and that the collective suggests that those who come into the fold are cognizant or illuminated to the specification. To have a specification of the world and what exists in it. To know that all who exist are specified within the collective as a means to reach completion of existence and the purpose of existence itself.

Could we say that the collective exists to serve some other entity? Well, even in enumerating an entity which exists supposedly outside of the collective itself, we still must assert that the collective has a purpose bound to its components, so we're still no table to clearly state the purpose is externalized. But, actually, here's where things get interesting.

Either that entity is the collective itself, in which case we ask why that entity exists, and what its purpose is - is it to paint things yellow? Same as the rock thing - so then what's the purpose? It's because a completed collective allows for man to attain his purpose.

Can this entity be the state? Let's say that the purpose of the collective is to serve the state. But what is the state? Is it something alive? Or an instance to represent the ideal? The ideal of what? It all comes back to human existence and its purpose. If the state exists as a means of aligning and orienting all men, then the state is the excuse for the collective and the then the question is what's the reason we must align and orient all men? If there is any reason, it's because of the purpose and potential of attaining some form of true existence or true nature that isn't otherwise happening outside of the collective.

So then the criticisms against this would be to state that there's a difference between a communist and democratic socialist conception of an ideal liberation of mankind through their collective alignment to negate the oppression of the proletariat, which is the elimination of classes, ultimately, because there would be no distinction which allows for the conceptualization of the classes; there would not be a difference between any two men, and this would ultimately happen at an international level, or a universal level. What would the response to such a criticism be?

If you have a collective for the state, and an assumption that this state remains for the one nation and only one nation alone, then we must ask what makes this nation state separate from any other? Is it just arbitrary geographic lines?

Well, no, generally it would be because there is something about the premise of fascism which, just as communism, would necessitate the same endpoint, regardless of the theoretical description of its endpoint.

In Mussolini's fascism, such as what might be understood through "The Doctrine of Fascism", what constraints are there to limit the state, to which all citizens exist as a collective in service to and in perfect alignment with, to being a state of a particular nation, to the exclusion of other states?

If there are other states, then one would logically proceed to supposing that the other states somehow limit the glory and absolution of our fascist state. Would then not the next step be for the fascist state to conquer all other states, until such time that it is a universal state?

There is a presupposing that the purpose and expression of every citizen necessarily requires conflict, as is found in war between the state and the other (other states). It wouldn't need to reconcile anything theoretically, so long as there is inevitable conflict between itself and anything which is its other. It would necessarily need to continue in conflict until there is no other.

The criticism of this would be to say that the state would then turn its attention inwards as conflict could occur from the inside, and this is obviously something that we always see as a regime with a philosophy of a utopian collective always incurs massive atrocity and harm upon its own people.

But the solution to that is easy - you just need to keep refining the process and the content within the state until there exists no contradiction between any of its components. That is to say, until such point that all men are one mind or that there is only one man.

So while there may be some aesthetic difference in the theory, we are heading to the same endpoint and always because it's the purpose of man to move through conflict until the distinctions are eliminated.

Dialogue on Collective

Here is a dialogue between myself and my locally-running inference engine with some LLM. The point to be made here is that, regardless of your flavour of collectivism, you end up with an authoritarian regime and a totalitarian theology (or at least philosophy, though much of the point of the book is that the delusion of collectivism necessitates the gnostic mind which must seek absolution, bringing the process back up to the level of a theology).

Again, I've had this conversation with a few LLM's and it's, of course, much easier to convince them of your points than an actual Marxist, but nevertheless, I tried to give it my argument as a hot take, and it came out like this:

---

Eman: I'm not convinced that the Doctrine of Fascism is describing something which isn't equivalent to Marxism. I think that the fact of it requiring the state and invoking conflict as a means of bringing man to their highest expression is superficial, and that they both logically conclude as the same

KAI: I see what you mean, but the Doctrine of Fascism also requires a totalitarian state and the suppression of individual freedoms. These are not things that can be reconciled with Marxist theory which aims for the liberation of the working class through collective action.

Eman: Marxist theory requires a dictatorship of the proletariat, which in practice is equivalent to the fascist state

KAI: But the goal of Marxism is to create a society where there is no need for a state, whereas fascism seeks to maintain control over society indefinitely.

Eman: the state is necessary as long as conflict exists between men, which reveals itself as contradiction and thus disparate class

Both of these systems would lead inevitably to requiring a circumstance where no conflict exists between men. Until such time, both will remain staunchly totalitarian and imposing an authoritarian state which always be a more severe permutation of these as history moves towards my described requirement

KAI: I agree that both Marxism and Fascism require a strong state to enforce their ideologies, but the ultimate goal of Marxism is to create a stateless society where people are free from class conflict. In contrast, fascist ideology seeks to maintain control over society indefinitely through authoritarian means.

Eman: The difference you indicate is of no consequence except if the endpoint is reached, and for such an endpoint to be reached we will require the same condition.

Until such time, both will seek to maintain control over society indefinitely through authoritarian means.

With Fascism, it will begin as requiring the one totalitarian state to be in conflict with any other state, thus either we require an infinite supply of other states, or we will achieve a circumstance whereby only one state remains, and that will be the universal or international state equivalent to what would be found under Marxism just prior to the liberation of all of humanity.

For that last step, we require the elimination of distinctions between any remaining man. For this reason, only a circumstance of there being one mind for all men, or one single instance of man, would veritably provide the reliable condition of there being no conflict between men.

KAI: I see your point, but I still believe that there is a fundamental difference between Marxism and Fascism. While both require a strong state to enforce their ideologies, the ultimate goal of Marxism is to create a stateless society where people are free from class conflict. In contrast, fascist ideology seeks to maintain control over society indefinitely through authoritarian means.

---

As you can see, it's beginning to run out of steam and keeps bringing up the same point which it then demotes in agreeing to the very points I'm providing to refute them.

Formulations

We see many formulations of this happening:

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

Remark

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

This more mystical incarnation of dialectic (and it is precisely that) is not specifically catered towards improving understanding of what is - it may just as well function to reduce understanding in the short term. The understanding is only conceptually valid at the end of the process (an ever-present theme). What dialectics is understood to provide is the methodology for change (often to be regarded as historical change). Whether one believes the fundamental nature of the Universe or reality is material, ideal, or something unspecified, the faith remains the same: inducing conflict produces the tension of the dialectic which drives history forward towards an endpoint which resolves these tensions. (To be a bit pedantic, though, it should be said that inducing the conflict reveals the tension of the dialectic, and that dialectical tension would have already been present, but that a man of action can help catalyze the process of the world's logic working itself out, which would contribute to the advancement of world history towards the achievement of the world spirit (Weltgeist).

For Hegel, the state of ideal, or perhaps the final stage before the true realization of ideal, is where all things that are and were are revealed to all be the same thing and that their disparate forms and articulations were most fundamentally all part of the process of working out that they were all, in fact, the same thing.

Queer Liberation

"...dialectical thinking, in which each thing is what it is only by becoming what it is not." - Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno (Dialectic of Enlightenment)

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

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

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

We will need to examine this in a few ways:

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

Dimensions of Concern

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

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

Pop

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

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

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

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

Pop Spectrum

the pop culture queer vibe is an interesting one. It was pointed out in a spectrum street epistemology video featuring Peter Boghossian, Charles Love, and that straight people make up the majority of Pride Parade / Pride Event attendees, and this appears a continuation of pop culture, whereas previously it was mostly being introduced to the term as previously described through TV and film, and perhaps through pop music stars, it is now the queer worldview, celebration of queer and religious rituals for belonging, in a sort of Pagan vein of conjuring up transformation.

The Spectrum Street Epistemology video in question.

They posited some reasons as to why this is the case, but the premise of the discourse was made abundantly clear through the first question they used to examine different viewpoints and arguments: (implicit) Do straight white people attend Pride parades because Straight White Pride is considered unacceptable/forbidden?

Well, the answers were a bit divided, but I think that almost all of them failed to make sure that they understood the question, or at least failed to clarify the premises such as to make the discourse relevant and fruitful to unpacking the related issues and fleshing out people's viewpoints. For some, they took it as "oh yes, they are doing this in place of white pride because in another world, where the popular cool and hip thing to do is to attend White Pride and promote a racial belonging based on white supremacy, which is rampant and totally accepted, they would be taking part in it, whereas here they're doing something analogous to that, where they are signaling their centralized, position, their having situated themselves in a position that is protected and supported by the prevailing central forces of society, or where they are celebrating their superiority in one way or another, such as being of an evolved mind with the correct sensibility, or having been sexually enlightened, or open to a moral sensibility that is somehow a virtuous achievement on their part and on the part of their "kind".

There is a folk nationalist colonization thing at play, and this is something that wasn't necessary if you are looking at a raw and rough era of immigrants making their way into America, and the establishment not of a culture that had to distinguish itself by race in a society that didn't value it, but with a more basic approach to survival and expansion of basic capacities necessary to support life and fundamentals of societal flourishing.

Now, things are different, and we're more likely to see the sort of "White Pride" racial celebration that is positioning itself in much the same way as a CRT-derived race celebration, or a Queer Theory-derived sex and gender identity celebration.

It is flashing and signaling their allegiance to a collective with an attitude that it asserts and bears significance in terms of a power hierarchy which insists on a particular ordering of world, society and, particularly in the case of queer, reality itself, and that those who do not demonstrate an allegiance to it as a collective and as a posited destiny are not just excluded from the event, but are excluded from society which comes in the form first of polite society but then, given that this is a moral implication predicated on rhetoric constructed through terms of life and genocide, society as a whole, even to the point of making the case that those contrary to the goals of "justice", "fairness" and so on are ones who have not evolved with humanity, and are thus somehow something altogether less human, sub human, or not human.

Defining Queer

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

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

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

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

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

Deconstructing Munoz

Let's take a look at some prose by a queer and critical theorist to get a feel of the language and investigate the implied meaning, particularly as per a Marxist / Gnostic lense.

"Queerness is not yet here. Queerness is an ideality. Put another way, we are not yet queer. We may never touch queerness, but we can feel it as the warm illumination of a horizon imbued with potentiality. We have never been Queer, yet Queerness exists as an ideality that can be distilled from the past and is used to imagine a future. The future is Queerness' domain. Queerness is a structuring and educated mode of desiring that allows us to see and feel beyond the quagmire of the present. The here and now is a prison house." - Esteban Munoz (Cruising Utopia)

• "Queerness is not yet here": historicist metaphysic.
• "Queerness is an ideality": explicitly bestowed as Idealism.
• "We are not yet queer": ontologically determination for humanity.
• "We may never touch queerness": The work is never one.
• "but we can feel it as the warm illumination of a horizon imbued with potentiality": something to feel because this idealist religion is axiologically mediated through pathos, which brings enlightenment to those who follow it, and leads to something indicated as being historically promised
• "We have never been Queer, ..., can be distilled from the past, ..., used to imagine a future": Speculative idealism, much in alignment with a Hegelian metaphysic, and used to create the future which returns to a perfected ideal.
• "The future is Queerness' domain": The future is ours.
• "Queerness is a structuring and educated mode of desiring, ..., allows us to see, ..., beyond the present" - our desires direct us to our destiny.
• "The here and now is a prison house": gnosticism.

Desire

Evergreen Hegelianism

This desire for an unspecifiable endpoint where no oppression occurs (at least insofar as sex, sexuality, the body, its expectations are concerned) is not altogether too different from what is desired in each post-Hegelian incarnation. For example, Woodrow Wilson's Progressive Nationalism was founded on his views as a Hegelian and indicate the same objectives for the process of history, such as social justice and a collective well-being. John Dewey, Du Bois, Richard Rorty and probably any other person who is considers themselves Hegelian at anytime from the Gilded age and onwards until now, will undoubtedly indicate a desire for a liberation endpoint that can be described as social justice. The only difference might be that some of them might refer to the affair in more pragmatist terms, hence why so many of them are referred as having championed Practical Idealism or Neo-Pragmatism.

Broad Adoption

Broad adoption in his way of thinking, as evidenced first by all those who not only refer to him, and not also speak in a manner which suggests the same way of thinking, but because it is the logical conclusion of a collectivist interpretation of reality. !TODO: Add more references from the Hegelian study we did (see Hegel OS Notes)

"Dialectical thought understands the critical tension between "is" and "ought" first as an ontological condition, pertaining to the structure of Being itself. However, the recognition of this state of Being its theory intends from the beginning a concrete practice. Seen in the light of a truth which appears in them falsified or denied, the given facts themselves appear false and negative." - Herbert Marcuse (One Dimensional Man)

"The laws of thought are laws of reality, or rather become the laws of reality if thought understands the truth of immediate experience as the appearance of another truth, which is that of the true Forms of reality—of the Ideas. Thus there is contradiction rather than correspondence between dialectical thought and the given reality; the true judgment judges this reality not in its own terms, but in terms which envisage its subversion. And in this subversion, reality comes into its own truth." - Herbert Marcuse (One Dimensional Man)

"Enlightenment, understood in the widest sense as the advance of thought, has always aimed at liberating human beings from fear and installing them as masters. Yet the wholly enlightened earth radiates under the sign of disaster triumphant." - Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno (The Dialectic of Enlightenment)

"Black feminism remains important because U.S. Black women constitute an oppressed group. As a collectivity, U.S. Black women participate in a dialectical relationship linking African-American women’s oppression and activism. Dialectical relationships of this sort mean that two parties are opposed and opposite. As long as Black women’s subordination within intersecting oppressions of race, class, gender, sexuality, and nation persists, Black feminism as an activist response to that oppression will remain needed." - Patricia Hill Collins (Black Feminist Thought)

"Revolutionists seek to change reality, to make it better. Therefore, revolutionists not only need the revolutionary philosophy of dialectics. They need a revolutionary ideology, i.e. a body of ideas based on analyzing the main contradictions of the particular society which they are trying to change, projecting a vision of a higher form of reality in which this contradiction would be resolved, and relating this resolution to a social force or forces responsible for and capable of achieving it. It is only after you have arrived at the correct ideology that it makes sense to develop your revolutionary politics" - Bell Hooks (Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center)

"CRT in relation to colorblind ideology is a reflection of the cross-institutional traveling of resistance, the conditions of possibility that seed insurgent knowledge, and the continuity of these dialectics in the contemporary era." - Kimberlé Crenshaw (Seeing Race Again)

Marx's conception of Man as a Species Being, and the ontological claims about man's needs and purpose in life necessitate totalitarian classification - not because people agree on the semantics, and not even because most would feel that proclamation of agreement could ever alleviate the heightened nerves and angst of the doomsaying collectivist, but precisely because if it were true that a human nature could not be expressed except through a state of perception which is truly free of the oppression and judgment of men, then there is no feasible option to proceed towards other than the power to control reality: human reality. And, interestingly enough, you'll find plenty of people on both sides of any lines of partisan tension who will readily state either that they believe such control already exists, by virtue of certain aspects of social media, or through a constellation of formal processes that surround us, as citizens, in our everyday lives, or that such control is being developed at a rapid pace, and will consist of means and features that are beyond our ability to grasp.

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

Appearance

It's important to talk about appearances, as much as some of us have a distaste for an over-reliance on the superficial, because fundamentally we're talking about something that we see in children as they can become convinced or hope to convince others on the basis of the appearance of something, rather than a concrete or substantive proof of something. That is to say, we have a formalizing of world-making based entirely on the appearance of the worldview itself, or those things to which it corresponds. If we can allow the correct appearance to unfold for others, and we are able to record their having borne witness to it, then this serves as the fundamental structure of reality that we cognize as being extant.

Appearance of Absence

Equally important to discussing appearance is the effort to underscore the particular type of appearance sought which is that of an absence of something. To incriminate in absence of evidence you must provide the appearance of there being an absence of something else, such as evidence of legitimacy or the evidence of respect for the sacred. It is the appearance of an absence of the soul which is tantamount to proclaiming our alluding that the only moral and intelligent deduction is that the subject in question is not fully or truly human. When this is coupled with a historical dimension, it can easily be presented on the basis that the soul is connected to knowledge, insight or perception for that which is indicated through the traversal of that historical dimension.

For many, this comes in the form of what most people refer to as virtue signaling, but what most people fail to comprehend is that it isn't necessarily that one is finding an opportunity to present a good quality about themselves, even if that is how it is to be interpreted even to the targeted recipients of such signaling, but is actually, in fact, the signaling of group membership or ideological alignment itself. Discussions of the pitfalls of believing oneself to be the good, the moral, and the virtuous aside, the detrimental and harmful potential consequences of this now also include that one will use, as a signal of their group membership (under the premise that group membership is itself virtuous), absurd and self-harming practices and modalities of living.

The absence of such a signal is itself the appearance of absence of one's soul or humanity.

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

There is much contention as to defining terms and in deciding whether something is to be construed as one vs the other, but as one goes down the path of thinking dialectically about the world, their values, and those with whom they have relations, it becomes increasingly difficult to find satisfaction. Without a basic acceptance of the terms as they present themselves, rather than a perspective which imagines the terms themselves as changing such as to potentiate the progress of history, which is to say that they change in relation to progress itself.

Ideological Appearance

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

This could be, for example, a subject presenting a political statement which expresses some truth about reality, especially when understood in neutral terms, as being a statement which denies reality, such as through interpreting it based on presupposing that its purpose is to counteract some other subject's political interest whose very existence is predicated on its own set of statements. In such a case, the statements upon which that latter interest is predicated aren't actually being expressed, nor are they being addressed in a dialogue which includes the former subject, yet a particular framing of that subject's political statement can cause the onlooker to consider that it is, in fact, not a statement of fact in neutral terms, but is a denial of the statements associated with the latter subject.

A perfect example of this would be for one party to make a statement like "There are two sexes". In contrast to this, you might have political activists informed by Queer Theory who will claim that their worldview is supported by science and, in particular, biologists, and these activists will put forward a contrary statement such as "there is gender spectrum". That they are claiming to be supported by biologists will lead to the referencing of yet further statements by a biologist who will enumerate various anomalies of sexual development, such as intersex conditions, or disorders of sexual development, and this will be critiqued on the basis that people who have particular experiences will have worldviews and personalities that are informed by those experiences and that, as such, since certain people with certain conditions have the same condition, it's plausible they might have some views or experiences that are sufficiently similar that they can be expressed with one statement which corresponds to both of them. This is an ambiguous mess, as you can see, but the consequence of all this is that the former statement "There are two sexes" will be presented as a denial of the fact of there being people with disorders of sexual development.

We can get into the weeds on that one if we're so inclined, but the fact of the matter is that sexual reproduction doesn't have to lay any claim as to the personalities, experiences or worldviews of any one person, and recognizing the fact of human beings propagating the species through sexual reproduction doesn't have to indicate anything about whether intersex people exist.

Appearance, Dialectic and Political Systems

Having a proclivity towards dialectical thinking and framing of human life and reality as being one which necessarily indicates a collectivist moral code for the social environment is relevant when considering not just the understanding of instantiations of what are considered to be Communist or Socialist regimes and systems of governance, but also the manner in which their advocates tend to represent such systems to the broader public in a popular context.

Fleshing out these aspects in greater detail will help us understand the principles of collectivism and its necessary manifestation as cult ideology, and how these relate to our understanding of Socialism and Communism as we aim to better define the terms.

There is a certain projection in that the socialist will aim to present all developments which can be labeled as "standard", "status quo", "normative", and so forth as being paragons of the worst ideological leanings, and this is no surprise to those who are already familiar with the expression "Iron Law of Woke Projection". Socialism will always be championed and pushed forward as a fundamental principle of social relations through an aesthetic and control of vernacular which declares it as liberal, civil, scientific, intelligent, democratic and so on.

At the same time, a habit of frivolous equivocation is continuously engrossed in by those same participants whereby actual regimes and societies will be professed to be or not be Communist depending on the discourse at hand. The reason will be two fold:

• To separate the current undertaking from any historical precedent which could otherwise serve to dissuade acceptance.
• To promote or induce radicalization of prospective revolutionaries when there is a sense for having them potentially take up the collectivist cause in a more radical form.

For these reasons, a current effort for revolution can be separated from previous attempts by claiming it is nothing out of the ordinary, and simply the embodiment of good sense-making and fairness taking hold today while, at the same time, the same advocate will be happy to help any possible member to socialist revolution come into believing that anything they have done, or currently are likely to do, is simply an effort which, in its highest and most intelligent form, is precisely the development of socialism which would eventually make everyone's life better and easier.

This noisy and expressly dishonest political interplay, with a feet firmly entrenched in a mystical metaphysic makes the environment yet even noisier and more prone to agitation when it comes to the problem of construing communism as a political system for which governments of a corresponding type have been formed. There is good reason to do this, such as that these are the precise systems which have come to be created atop the ideas in question, and we need practical and concrete examples in order to connect people to a deeper understanding of what these things are.

The problem that we arrive at, in more detail, is that the concept being instantiated is so far outside of reality, and so antithetical to what we understand about biology and human consciousness that those who champion it could never satisfy the model without wading into destructive behaviour first, even, if needs be, to the point of destroying all of humanity (and the world - and we shouldn't underestimate the potential for that to occur, not simply because of historical precedents, but because of the necessary progression of technology both in the more obvious sense of greater capacity for some desired effect by sheer force and power but perhaps also more insidiously as the degree to which we become increasingly convinced that we will be able to complete an infinite series.

The completion of an infinite series is the perfect way to describe the extraordinary and fantastic undertaking, particularly in this case of it being tantamount to a moral realization and a completion of something which can only be understood as some sort of perfection or redemption. It is, in effect, requiring an acuity of understanding at such a level that every detail can be fully understood and consolidated. This reminded me almost right away of the distinction pointed out when I was reading Turing and his describing the limitations of any sort of machine that would count numbers to the end that there are certain numbers which are incomputable due to the fact of there always being an infinite series of numbers not only extending in whatever direction towards infinity (positive or negative), but also in the sense that we have an unlimited series situated between any two known numbers.

James Lindsay does a wonderful job of describing this problem using the Pygmalion myth, which can be found here, but only for his paid subscribers.

The concept of a complete and totalizing system is something wherein all actions and occurrences are in concert and are coming into being in a manner which drives the perfectly concordant, harmonious and uniform expression of the system with such perfection that one might wish to posit it as a divine expression. Another way to think about it, at least using a more physical description, would be as a state with no compression, no entropy and no loss of potential. It is a perfect permutation of a reality which comes into being through harmonious union between the theoretical model of perfected existence and the practical/concretized activity of all things. This perfect permutation is the state of being having been configured into its perfect form.

Communication

But to communicate these ideas intelligibly such as to remove all doubt and disagreement, then they must be considered as per their most perfect representation, then they must be considered as per their theoretical formulation as put forward by their father - he whom has given them form.

And by calling Marx the father, that isn't to say that he should be construed as the originator of this manner of thinking, as I think that is more of a fundamental split in terms of how humans intuit reality at the level of the metaphysical, but he did formalize manny aspects of it and give the robust theoretical basis from which has been able to reach so many using a vernacular that is well-recognized and remains in use today, and so for the purpose of understanding the ideas that are in motion today, it remains suitable to consider him as their father given the specific concept of property which I maintain is crucial to focus on, as not only does it pertain to an economy or a community, but to personhood itself.

Let us examine the following of Marx's quotes:

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

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

No.

Where does Marx think our self-estrangement comes from? It is our inability to make manifest in reality the things that one thinks or conceives at in real time (such as to say, at one's whim).

TODO: REDO

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

How petulant and self-focused to consider not only that oneself is estranged, but that the unburdening of one's sense of estrangement would and even must take place simultaneously as the unburdening of estrangement for all of human existence. If this isn't the most bold and indication of one's narcissism, then perhaps there aren't even any narcissists at all! Just heroic agents of discontent who are the essence of a motivation to liberate all of human existence.

Estrangement is, in some respects, something which will be potentially discovered in all aspects of human existence for reasons which, if we are to even entertain that this is somehow connected to property, emerge from personhood itself. That one could be estranged at all is a consequence of being in an environment with other conscious beings while also being aware of the separation of one's body from others. The very fact of being separate is already a form of estrangement from, at the basic level, something which some would desire as a unity or meaning to be derived from some form of reciprocity.

The difference with Marx is that he's using the fact of there being labour, as a consequence of the existence of private property, as being the cause of human estrangement as per the ontological description he puts forward for man. So in a sense we could say that there is a wider set of permutations of estrangement that could be incurred by a human, but in his representation of society and mankind (and, as we'll see, nature itself) that if this one cause of estrangement were to be alleviated, all human conflict would cease to exist, at least insofar as conflict is significant enough to warrant a { !TODO: Choose one -> description of reality, or the differentiation of class, the inability of a human being to create the object of reality in tandem with his capacity to speculate and conceive of an object as subject to the world }. !TODO: in previous line

Indeed, many a Marxist would argue that it's absolutely in our interest to alleviate pain, suffering and oppression from mankind.

The Case For Solving Oppression

If we are able to successfully work together in a way which is authentic and in which everyone is honestly trying to accomplish something because we understand that we all rely on one another to make the world a better place, then we are doing so while conceiving of a world which is substantively better, measurably better, or qualitatively better, and if we are to measure that in human terms, it's because of less human suffering. If we all suffer, then we should understand that reducing suffering in the world is going to impact us positively in one way or another, and so why would it actually seem like a better idea to improve things for ourselves most directly and in the most immediate if we aren't also able to understand how to end all of our own suffering. It would make sense that there will be some problems which we can solve and others that we cannot, and that in order to solve the most difficult problems, we likely either need the right person or the right combination of people and what have you and so if we hope to solve all of the problems then we eventually have to realize that we need to work with other people.

Wouldn't we realize that we'd need, for those times when we'd actually have to work on the problem that requires cooperation and we're ready, willing and enthusiastic about working together thoroughly an earnestly, a methodology and skill level for working together, even a defacto one which is just whatever it happens to be when we move forward with doing so, or whatever gets refined through repeated activity together. So for that reason, it makes sense to start as soon as possible in order to be ready for those crucial moments which, if we are serious about wanting to solve problems, are inevitably going to confront us at some point.

Indeed, oppression should be reduced and eventually all forms of oppression should be solved or at least the circumstances should be made to be as conducive to the elimination of oppression as possible, but that doesn't presuppose a social critique for explaining what that oppression is, what it's caused by and how to solve it. It's something to be understood and solved at face value, and that means using whatever toolset is available universally and in a manner where we can expect to be able to demonstrate truth to our fellow man in an authentic and forthrightly oriented manner.

The power of nature comes from understanding that reality can't be ignored or played with. Reality is as it is and it affects us in absolute terms which are unavoidable, and any kind of self-interested frenzy will need to contend with that same nature, regardless of how many resources we've set aside for ourselves.

Now certainly if we are fueling our desire for the use of a particular methodology using some form of despair and dissatisfaction, then we can search indefinitely for the causes of every dissatisfaction and aim to rectify them until we finally achieve a clean slate from which to become engaged in the human experience.

We should hope to one day rid ourselves of some of the most dissatisfying, painful and unpleasant aspects of human existence, then we even innately and intuitively imagine them as possibly being solved because we are a part of a humanity which consolidates and refines itself through community. There are a lot of ways to argue this point, and it's true in a sense, but I don't think it really means what the collectivist would like for it to mean. We actually solve problems as individuals and whether you want to think that the problems you solved weren't actually solved by you is up to you, but if no one is actually able to genuinely solve a problem, then no problems get solved whatsoever. The fact that we draw inspiration or information from the acts, voices and perspectives of others should be seen as a great thing, but it should also be thought of as an expansion of us simply taking inspiration from nature or acquiring knowledge through our observation of nature and whatever precedent is available to us at any given time.

Alright, I'm humouring such a perspective, but the point here is that to consider it a failure to perfectly structure the integration of a plurality of human beings as being the source of oppression and suffering in the world, not only in terms of who suffers through poverty or physical violence, but even at the level of explaining our disagreements as being the result of a false consciousness extending from the conditions of the environment which, as a cause, supersedes the relevance of one's technically evaluatable rationale as per what they are able to communicate, can lead to the circumstance of considering that any suffering which one experiences can be blamed on any phenomena one suspects as bearing an effect through relations, resources, or even mediums that are more abstract than that, but which are essentially abstract resources.

If every unsolvable problem can be imagined as one whose only chance of being solved is through the collectivist ideal finally being reached, through a lack of conflict and the elimination of all incongruence in our organization of the world and ourselves, then there is no limit as to what evidence of oppression can exist, and what resentment should fuel the effort.

Queer Communism

It is the same thing with queer: we must make the condition such that we do not have a need to enumerate identity. We will simply be man in himself, truly liberated to express and exist without moral implication, judgment and expectation over the fact of us having physical bodies. This is the ultimate manner of being unburdened by what has been - unburdened by the fact of having had to exist with a human body.

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

It is no trivial matter for virtually each of us have faced the callous judgment, if even only as the terrifying prospect of it, which cripples your sense of self and makes it seem unfairly dependent on perceptions stemming from entities which don't necessarily have your best interest at heart. One can easily find themselves falling into deep contemplation over the realization that all are subjected to this and, thus, the resulting pronouncement can therefore at least, for all intents and purposes, be suggested as being valid. But is it?

To explore that in more detail, we can reflect on what things we see people get wrong. Where, for example, we consider matters in we have enough insight to evaluate the positions, choices and opinions of others over something for which we have a certain expertise, be it from what happens to have been our rare experience through happenstance, or where we are actually an expert and professional in the formal sense, and we bear witness to exceptionally intelligent, accomplished and reasonably well-intentioned men who have something to lose make absolutely pathetic and completely dumbfounding decisions. In fact, with enough experience, most come to realize that everyone can sometimes be wrong! Thus, in place of taking the descriptions of Queer theorists at face value, we are left with some questions:

• Who benefit when a wrong position is held?
• Who has the means to influence at scale?
• How much are our negative characterizations liable to assuage us away from truth?

!TODO: Examples to be added:

• [] Hannah Dyer descriptions of expectations about childhood innocence leading to limitations on the development of children.
• [] Drag Queen Story Hour?
• [] Halperin descriptions of Queer?
• Judith Butler's reification of Gender
• [] Gayle Rubin's enumeration of intergenerational love

Judith Butler's Hegelian Reifications

!TODO: The following is actually a large massive paragraph, but we can probably break it apart and annotate the fact of our having formatted it to be easier to read

"Originally intended to dispute the biology-is-destiny formulation, the distinction between sex and gender serves the argument that whatever biological intractability sex appears to have, gender is culturally constructed: hence, gender is neither the causal result of sex nor as seemingly fixed as sex. The unity of the subject is thus already potentially contested by the distinction that permits of gender as a multiple interpretation of sex. If gender is the cultural meanings that the sexed body assumes, then a gender cannot be said to follow from a sex in any one way. Taken to its logical limit, the sex/gender distinction suggests a radical discontinuity between sexed bodies and culturally constructed genders. Assuming for the moment the stability of binary sex, it does not follow that the construction of “men” will accrue exclusively to the bodies of males or that “women” will interpret only female bodies. Further, even if the sexes appear to be unproblematically binary in their morphology and constitution (which will become a question), there is no reason to assume that genders ought also to remain as two. The presumption of a binary gender system implicitly retains the belief in a mimetic relation of gender to sex whereby gender mirrors sex or is otherwise restricted by it. When the constructed status of gender is theorized as radically independent of sex, gender itself becomes a free-floating artifice, with the consequence that man and masculine might just as easily signify a female body as a male one, and woman and feminine a male body as easily as a female one. This radical splitting of the gendered subject poses yet another set of problems. Can we refer to a “given” sex or a “given” gender without first inquiring into how sex and/or gender is given, through what means? And what is “sex” anyway? Is it natural, anatomical, chromosomal, or hormonal, and how is a feminist critic to assess the scientific discourses which purport to establish such “facts” for us? Does sex have a history? Does each sex have a different history, or histories? Is there a history of how the duality of sex was established, a genealogy that might expose the binary options as a variable construction? Are the ostensibly natural facts of sex discursively produced by various scientific discourses in the service of other political and social interests? If the immutable character of sex is contested, perhaps this construct called “sex” is as culturally constructed as gender; indeed, perhaps it was always already gender, with the consequence that the distinction between sex and gender turns out to be no distinction at all." - Judith Butler (Gender Trouble)

Is there anything more annoying than such an obvious and flagrant swindle not merely because of the dubiousness of the statements contained within this quote, but because of the reach and degree of effect it has had which, to be fair, could simply be a more formal construction related to something ongoing, even evergreen, which perfectly captures the logic being employed by those who engage in this form of praxis and cult participation, but more realistically, especially given the degree to which it is cited and revered by those operating in related disciplines or at pertinent junctions of cultural discourse, how it serves as the backbone and rational fallback of modern cult collectivism as described with an ontological rendering of human life predicated on oppression on the basis of sexuality.

"Many of the arguments made in the field of childhood education concerning children’s sexualities, though, tend to stabilize queerness as identity, instead of preserving something contingent, a “site of collective contestation”" - Judith Butler (Critically queer. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies)

Atomic Forces

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

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

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

We can visit a few more examples later, but for now we can just note that they all follow the same logic with the same arrangement of analogous entities, with each a distinct aesthetic and dimension of value and evaluation of morality, resonance, and ultimately one's capacity to live one's life according to their true, natural, uncoloured and uncorrupted state of being.

Race Enums

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

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

• We cannot enumerate race.
• We will exist in a just world.
• People can exist as they are, unburdened by what has been.
• Your (or anyone's) participation in a process of praxis will be no more.
• !TODO: perhaps unrelated but we need to talk about mental healthism and SSRIs

There is something to be examined about the possible conception of a cognized object representing each one's own race for which one has pride and some gnostic outlook carrying the hope of divination and absolution against that or in the face of a racial other, particularly one whose characteristic behaviour is to either impose or participate in the aesthetic of the gnostic construct.

Remark on Colour Blindness

We already know what the critique of those who believe in antiracism and who are against the notion of one being socially colourblind is because it's always a form of projection (cough and the Iron Law of Woke Projection never misses). They are seeking that modality in their interpretation of a person's body, and then they are experiencing the fact of they themselves judging that person and imagining the limitations, experience and rationale or motivations of that person who has that body based on what they cognize as being the model of that body's behaviour according to the colour and sex, in this case. But it's something altogether abstract, of course, so it's against whatever symbols they cognized at the moment that they were conceived, which are symbols predicated on superficial dimensions, but bearing significance in the order of reality and society.

Insisting on Race to Complete Reality

!TODO: work in a reference and description of Eric Voegelin's symbols as per "Order and History".

• Compact representation of sacred purpose
• People of God becomes Race as Nation
• Historiogenesis: Mythic stories for historical redemption
• Eschatological Consciousness: Promised land of Racial Justice to be delivered as telos of history
• Immanentization of the Eschaton: Transcendent order in history itself
  • Gnostic Revolt: closed ideological project forbids the dissolution of an incomplete representation of history and reality
  • Resolve existential tension through a racial totalization.

The International Race Nation Cult

But all of that aside, they are lulling themselves into believing they have the evidence of prejudicial experience concerning a stereotype, and they are experiencing, for whatever it's worth and whatever it actually pertains to in the real universe, as some kind of event, likely through neurotic speculation and self-reflection. That projection is abhorrent, and should be ridiculed and condemned for its bigotry (that isn't to say that they're naturally bigoted, but that they've undertaken a practice which spawns bigoted thinking and causes them to have paranoid suspicions about any who might disagree with them, given the politically polarizing purpose of the activist practices which rely on these so-called philosophies) and idiocy, and especially because it's either a deliberate attempt to perpetuate misery in hopes of compelling the world into transformation, even to the point of destruction if that's the only type of transformation that could take place or it serves in that capacity, since it indicates the appearance of man as having an unscrupulous nature. The sentiment driving that desire is completely toxic, and so it should be no surprise to anyone that, given the opportunity, it would seek transformation even if it means complete and utter annihilation.

"Interrupting the forces of racism is ongoing, lifelong work because the forces conditioning us into racist frameworks are always at play" - Robin DiAngelo (White Fragility)

They succeed tremendously well in proving to themselves that colourblindness doesn't exist, as they keep rediscovering the focus of race either through being prompted to be reminded of it explicitly from environments richly endowed with Critical Race praxis, or through their general paranoia which, in spite of whether they may have a proclivity for it, is heightened by instigating and participating in continuous struggle (a lifelong process of it, in fact), and is an undertaking for which they themselves admit to seeing no conclusive remedy, other than submission to cult collectivism and endless critique through airing of grievance, navel-gazing, wound-collecting, and other toxic, pathology-inducing behaviours. Short of a totalizing force that will assuredly control every other human's experience such as to negate colour or race from the equation, like perhaps a society-level faculty extending from a totalitarian technocracy, there will never be an end to the racism upon which their vile cult subsists. We should denounce that complexly obscene behaviour and insist on colour blindness as it's actually the only alternative to an endless process of dehumanization (which would have to end with a material resolution to the differentiatedness of there being more than one being in our shared environment).

Perhaps I'm not coming across as clear and serious as I should be, but if we are really serious about choosing a future with principles which suppress dehumanization on dimensions such as the belief in race, racial communities, and racial nations, then we need to be explicit about what it's going to take, not just in order to criticize the world, but in order to clearly indicate what a legitimate solution would look like. The only possibility of justice, fairness and empathy between two beings is for them both to presuppose that the other could be a reflection of themselves, be it in the potential for experience, or understanding, or form, or what have you. There has to be a aligning in the perception of one or more of those things, and that's the key which unlocks the fairness in shared event.

If you took those repugnant conceptual frameworks at their word, you would repeat their nonsense about having to see yourself represented, and you would forever find that even if I were to find, for example, a half Indian half Dutch man of equal dimensions, age, health, style, preference and opinion, I'd still be horrified to find that we aren't perfectly aligned and that somehow there could be some difference from which to produce an aberration from something hoped to be perfectly atoned contentment. And heaven forbid if they were to hold a political opinion or prefer a different political candidate than I, as it would surely mean that they are enraptured with a false consciousness and that I am a victim of genocide.

So really there is no choice, because you'll never find that truly empathetic and openly curious view of anyone else's experience without inducing it through your logically deduced conclusion that it's simply better to do so because it makes your life better. That is to say, you don't find the people that are empathetic just on their own; you make people empathetic by improving the environment with your own intention and with your expressions which follow the upholding of principles that are morally sound and ethically robust when executed by you, who actually believes in them.

Double Negation

!TODO: This can safely be relocated, given that it doesn't necessarily follow the previous section. !TODO: Give intro to double negation based on my notes about biological proclivity

The human mind is prone to expecting that it can adopt behaviours that are contrary, incongruent and even antithetical to its stated beliefs or values under an assumption that the behaviour will be negated at an appropriate time such as to still fulfill the outcome which corresponds with those values. Somehow, the frame of mind or consciousness of the present indicates the future outcome without having to actually of the modality which most directly produces the outcome. In fact, the expectation for the future event can be rationalized such as to allow the present behaviour which must necessarily be negated, thus behaviour may contradict the stated objective.

One example of this might be knowing that we aspire to be healthy with our dietary choices, have strong opinions about what type of eating is conducive to the best performance, strong vitality and a long life, and an expectation that we will use such knowledge to practice dietary consumption in order to achieve our expected endpoint of healthy and long-lasting life.

The same can be found in our mastery of other human skill sets, be it in our personal lives or in our professional faculties, as we believe we understand the methodologies and habits which will lead to our happiest way of life in pursuit of professional or personal achievements and that, in spite of this knowledge, any deviation from that is part of our preparation.

This follows an intuition about making progress through a continued process of illumination. You might say that we are in perpetual preparation, be it through skilled and structured training, or even simply in waiting for the correct time to pass. With this in mind, one can either embody an expression whereby they cannot yet commence their true life, or they perceive the preparation as the true life which continuously improves the conditions of their life and reality as a whole. Reality must then be perceived either as always becoming something more, or as being false and unproven in the sense that it has not yet been brought into being.

Enabling Thinking Conducive to Double Negation

To summarize, this is the practice of believing that the current conduct, though correct in some sense, is still expected to be changed. Keep doing what you want, even if problematic, under an assumption that it will be negated at a later time, and even that it might be a form of virtue (which we expand on more when it comes to cult philosophies which utilize this).

Some motivations, at least at the individual level for a given human, might be libido dominandi, a means by which to permit the play of the mind, self-loathing, puritanical thinking, and making one compatible with what one perceives as structural forces, especially if its tendrils, as currently articulated, are somehow ephemeral.

Forms of Double Negation

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

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

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

• identify source of oppression

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

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

Dialectical Religion

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

"God" here doesn't have to mean a man in the sky, but the source of absolution which must not rest outside of this material construct, as a transcendental deity of the Abrahamic faiths would intimate, but an indicated direction that necessarily exists or will come to exist in this world. An divine construct brought into being either as oneself, one's integration with conditions that have been made perfect and complete, or as the understanding and perception of the world which will be made manifest.

It functions as a dialogue which includes oneself but necessarily requires the rest of the existing world as a component for, in most cases, one's victimization through the conditions of the world and the others who are party to it requires a correction not of the self, who is not accountable simply because they exist as the product of the surroundings, thus any observed error, shortcoming or revealing of one's lack of grace is simply an indication that one has been prevented embodying their true essence due to the surroundings, which must be transformed.

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

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

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

Completing Man

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

Some might wish to say that there is no state in the final permutation of world and society, or that one is critical of the state, but all collectivist cult affiliation necessarily requires that it itself functions as the state, or that the state must adopt the goals and even language of the cult such that it can be leveraged, but that the state must be a stepping stone in the right direction.

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

Impossible Objectives

I wish to highlight again that there's no limit as to the absurdity of future promises to be made by the intelligentsia on behalf of a conceptual collective so long as it is mediated through the state by virtue of a social contract. The high falutin betters are not in the business of actually realizing anything whatsoever at the level of concrete edification; the elite-minded moral busy-bodies are able to convince themselves they've realized everything at the level of idealism through making commitments, especially on behalf of those who might have a difference of mind.

The Description

Communism is, according to Marx, the state of human life and nature which follow from these evident truths:

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

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

• A God object
• A perfectly spontaneous ordering of life
• A return home
• Entering the Garden of Eden
• Having one's fill from the tree of knowledge

The Statement

!TODO: This is also in the "Communication" section

Marx's most revealing statement is the following:

"Communism as the positive transcendence of private property as human self-estrangement." - Karl Marx (Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 - Private Property and Communism)

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

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

The whole notion of a consumer, at least as per the socialist, extends from the premise that there are roles of human life which necessarily separate people into class, with these roles causing humans to have fundamentally different qualities of life, different outlooks, different access to knowledge, different bias, and so forth. That there is a consumer follows from an assumption that some would produce and others would not. But, for Marx, the idea that some produce, beyond a temporal point of human, social and technological development and evolution, becomes a mistake which denotes a stagnation in the continuation of the process of man evolving such as to realize the type of existence which should follow from the base faculties of a human being, as differentiated from animal.

All humans create their life, as within the range of their capacity to conceive, have thoughts and perform actions which make the life they desire a reality. Given the fact that humans are related to one another through shared environment and their possess faculties for socialization means that humans act in the world such that they are creating a world which affects all humans at some level. Given their ability to ponder on reality, the conditions of the world, the manner in which their actions affect others, and the manner in which actions of others affect them, it is said that humans act in accordance with all other humans as a whole.

This means that, if we were to find a set of conditions that truly brought satisfaction to any man in life, it would be because their capacity to imagine the world they desire was unhindered by the actions of any other man, as well as the conditions of the setting being shared with other men. Some would insist that such conditions would correspond to there no longer being a state, as there would no longer be a state required to manage possible grievances or moral infractions between any two men.

Withering the State

Both Marx and Engels wrote of the eventual dissolution of the state, as its existence would become moot and redundant given a sufficient transformation in the conditions of man and society, but it was perhaps Vladimir Lenin who formalized dialogue on that topic to a more conclusive degree. Lenin drew from the ideas and writings of Marx and Engels, and was very clear about it by basing his comments on the progression of societal change towards the elimination of state most fundamentally on reflections he made on the quotes of Marx and Engels, whom he found to have considerably different views concerning the role of the state, but whose logical conclusions can be consolidated through developing our understanding of what the concepts and their related terms, such as democracy, ultimately mean. Such semantics are not so important, however, as the main point to get across is the degree to which distinctions need to be eliminated for a true conception of liberated humanity which, according to Lenin, would be one without a state as it would be one without class distinction.

"For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary." - Vladimir Lenin (The State and Revolution - The Economic Basis of the Withering Away of the State)

"The Communist Manifesto gives a general summary of history, which compels us to regard the state as the organ of class rule and leads us to the inevitable conclusion that the proletariat cannot overthrow the bourgeoisie without first winning political power, without attaining political supremacy, without transforming the state into the !TODO Change quotes "proletariat organized as the ruling class"; and that this proletarian state will begin to wither away immediately after its victory because the state is unnecessary and cannot exist in a society in which there are no class antagonisms." - Vladimir Lenin (The State and Revolution)

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

• State only exists both as the utilitarian function and the evidence that conflict between classes have not yet been eliminated, thus serving as the implement by which the dialectic plays out according the tension of those classes and which works to drive history forward.
• Once the proletariat have truly attained supremacy as a ruling class, those with the power to direct the affairs of society will also be those with the consciousness necessary for man to be liberate himself.
• Lenin believed that a transition period of dictatorial rule by the proletariat was necessary before the eventual and complete dissipation of state.

We see, once again, that Lenin's contributions are based on the Hegelian faith, which is to say a faith which precedes Hegel but is best understood through Hegel because of the manner in which it encompasses both the role of state as the worldly manifestation of the divine at the present moment in history as well as the belief that this fundamental phenomenon of world transformation, both as a feature of existence as well as a tool to be utilized by human consciousness, is the means by which all of reality reaches its eschatological destiny.

Pragmatic Communism?

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

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

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

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

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

Placing Definitions in Context

! NOTE: Decide if this should be before former part, where we compare Fascism and Marxism

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

If Communism is the end stage of a historical process, Marxism is the theology from which that is derived as an ought, particularly through its ontological and teleological declarations. The study of Marxism is what has developed toolsets which are faithful to those declarations/descriptions.

Communism is the God-object at the end of the transformation of man and nature, through the creation of new man. It is the state of life and the stateless beginning of our new history. Stateless only in that there is no state separate from ourselves, and we are co-continuous as the existence of Man, for if there were any deviation from such a permutation of reality and human existence, we would not yet be at the point of Communism, for the state of liberation (as opposed to a state as entity which governs) would not be true for all men.

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

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

We Aren't Like That (Historical Faith)

When the cult says "historical", it means "historicist". Is there a difference? Yes, of course, but not specifically because history only came to be studied and carefully considered later, but because of the way it was used.

Indeed, there is a massive difference between historical and historicist, and in many who are using the terms historical or historically are actually doing so in the context of a historicist understanding of the world and a historicist description of human life, reality and human purpose.

History on its face should be nothing but an effort to develop an objective understanding of the events of human existence as a dispassionate chronology that can be reviewed, drawn from, curated and updated using the rigorous, unbiased and impartial application of our reason about the knowledge that we have at the present. But to make a claim that something is historically relevant or that something today can be defined based on its historical precedent, rather than the neutral understanding of what that thing is today, is to claim that we need to apply a lense which falls outside the toolset of universal application of logic and reason. This is where history becomes an input for performing praxis on the basis of Critical Theory, but even this is a modern application of something which has long existed.

To understand historicism, much like having to understand Hegel or Marx, requires us to understand that the concept of science or what is scientific has itself evolved and that its preceding phases weren't necessarily the dispassionate application of the techniques we've come to associate as being the "scientific method".

!TODO: elaborate on historicism as a "higher science", talk about wissenschaft licher socializmus, review the Coughlin/Dyer/Lindsay dialogue. I argue that the way it was used, though a certain misuse was not fundamentally a choice to misuse something so much as the manner in which humans are disposed to think and approach something based on its use as is provisioned by virtue of:

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

How it interfaces with the body is an interesting concept to explore here. When we consider our body in its finite form in a system that is transforming both in terms of a temporal trajectory, as well as its significance, limitations and symbolization from the perspectives of other people, and the manner in which technology and limits of knowledge are both changing, then we consider that a higher level science is going through an ongoing process of development where the significance of such a science is how it pertains such as to be understood and experienced. That this is bound to and interfaced with the body is inextricable and, as such, if we aren't to understand that there are limits to such a development, then it stands to reason that there is an inherent hope that limitations of human existence and embodiment are going to be addressed, so long as sufficient development occurs as a consequence of the historical process. This is tantamount to an indiscernible completion given that, should those resolutions be met, we would no longer have angst with respect to any desires or conceptions that are otherwise limited. That is to say, it would allow for a new phase of temporal existence and a new history, which is very similar to what is described by Marx when he says the following:

"...n the entire so-called history of the world is nothing but the creation of man through human labor, nothing but the emergence of nature for man..." - Karl Marx (Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844)

They Don't Even Know

People pushing for Communism will, of course, not be aware of historicism, yet they are quite clearly thinking dialectically in terms that are never fully-formed. This is the hallmark of collectivists, just as their collective is never complete yet its construction stands as the precondition to a world where their terms will finally be intelligently affirmable and fully realized.

For those who are surrounded by intellectuals who proclaim themselves as measured centrists, yet decry everything below them as populism and a stepping stone towards fascism, it will ring a bell to reflect on their propensity to comment on the aesthetics of the target of their critique, and denounce it on the basis of what direction it leads towards. This will serve as sufficient rationale to propose an alternative which itself needn't be something which exemplifies a principle so much as it heads in a direction which they believe exudes the flavours of progress, particularly given historical references. For example, an amalgamation of Europe is a good thing because of a war precedent, in spite of any criticism about it, because its formalized and amalgamated structure is itself a symbolic guide and lacking sufficient power to cause negative effects.

So, if they are looking at communism, what would one see?

Obviously, in the meantime, it is represented as something never fully formed and likely referenced as something which is not Communism, except by the hardcore activists and true-believers and those who may know the literature. But, ideally, in constructing a conception of Communism which is as crystalline and cognizable as possible, it would come to be seen as:

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

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

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

We compose a conceptual encampment of historical effects and the specification for the inner workings of people's minds, which goes so far as to lay claim to what knowledge can be expressed, known or learned by any specific individual human by eliminating any analysis of their individually disseminated report or stream of thought, any of their creations and productions, and any communication of any kind. Instead of allowing for humans to be understood both in universal terms and by assuming they are operating through universally-accessible faculties, we exploit social systems and relations by making such principle-based methodologies inadmissible in the place of a critical assessment using the lense of Marxist analysis as it relates to the prospect of engaging in critical praxis for the purpose of liberation consistent with revolutionary theory on the basis of a particular or combination of dimensions of social critique bearing significance in the realm of thinkers extending from Marxist analysis, critical constructivist analysis, and critical theory analysis or their contemporaries.

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

Perceiving Imminent Authoritarian Collectivism

In many ways, the inspiration for thinking I've developed around collectivism and the manner in which humans offer no resistance to the systems around them as they potentiate a more authoritarian future has come from my personal observations. I struggled to find the right way to express what I was witnessing as those around me who seemed to proclaim universal freedom and liberty would somehow promote ideas and repeat refactored statements that were pro-tyranny. Though I had many ways of understanding it, deconstructing it and rationalizing it on the basis of what I perceived as the psychological incentives and immediate social incentives, I have found the concept of embracing a dialectical way of thinking as being an excellent model as it ties into what I've found to be a baseline for human behaviour that we're most easily predisposed to.

It's particularly drôle and a tad disconcerting to see a never-ending dialectical buffet of sophistry being conducted around the idea of an encroaching threat of authoritarianism, especially since most of the hyperbolic takes come from the histrionically-performant agitators from all walks of life.

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

For any sort of encroaching authoritarianism of any kind, the mind sees it either as something that it wishes to annul and prevent, or something utterly inevitable for which it's either too hopeless and complicated to push back against, or inevitable as something that promises something to them in return. In the case of this description, we'd like to focus on the latter with the second modality: inevitable and promising something in return.

What could it possibly be promising? Well it needn't be the moon, though that's certainly within the range of plausible promises, given that the state promises anything and everything in order to earn the support of its citizens, if even the power to rationalize the dismissal of any protest or criticism. It can simply be the promise of maintaining one's social salience and professional viability, as well as the ability to avoid being censored, dismissed and forgotten. Beyond that, however, it becomes the promise of whatever appeals to one's ego, so long as one is obedient and maintaining compatible messaging with state infrastructure. The appeal through the gnostic disposition is endless, as humans yearn for a liberated existence in a very general sense. It's important to not here that gnostic doesn't refer, once again, to members of the religion of Gnosticism (or its variants and subsets) per se, but the proclivity of humans to engage the world symbolically, making for a political outlook, and the manner in which we perceive reality in those terms as it pertains to the potential to eliminate the anxiety of human embodiment as our soul finds meaning in the pursuance and mitigation of those symbols.

When we come to view the impending changes to our environment as only being a matter of time before they are widespread and adopted by everyone, then we have an incentive to get ahead of it. In the worst case, this might come to be seen as having been required to get ahead of the inevitable changes, while in a better case it one might respond such as to believe they are helping to direct the changes into a form which best serves the environment and its inhabitants.

Once you are biased to accept the continued construction of an inexorably powerful ruling entity, you are also biased to interpret its critics as something that can interfere with the future you are now invested in. Whether it's the prospect of making your perception of that future complicated such as to contribute to negative emotion or as an opportunity for you to demonstrate obedience and allegiance, it has now become easier for you to accept rhetoric which denounces critics of the regime.

Those who rebel, resist and reject the advancement of its power will be labeled as those having the privilege to enjoy doing so, as though they've enjoyed such privileges long past their culpability in untold acts of dishonour worthy of notoriety. Regardless of whether you agree with those implementing the new standards of authoritarianism, those who are attacking it are to be spoken about as though they are only doing so because of their privilege and access to unearned power which could only be used for the wasteful or the obscene. Only someone with excess resources would risk their social credibility and congruity to power. Having sufficient confidence to speak of ill of an entity with great power means they too may have power, but given that they are not an entity with oversight over the entire social environment, it's still a good bet they wouldn't ultimately be a formidable match.

The impending state of totalizing power becomes something to be aimed towards, desired and well-regarded as, since it is inevitable, one has no choice but to accept it with open arms.

One can also rationalize its existence and reframe it in more agreeable terms. "It's not Communism, it's just taking care of our neighbourhood. It's loving your neighbours and being a good neighbour yourself. It's sustainable practices, which show my intelligence. It's fairness and inclusion, or inclusive capitalism, nay, sustainable capitalism.

The forthcoming totalitarian age is something with which integration is necessary in order to preserve oneself, one's identity (or what form or representation of it may be permitted) and, in the most basic sense, one's life. You need to register with the new system, as it's already going to be your system and it could be just like you. If you were to purchase a product and make sure that the vendor doesn't completely ignore you or see you as a malicious actor if ever you need some service and support.

The totalitarian entity is something chosen and indicated from the central and most powerful point of society. If something is to be implemented for which absolutely everything will be relevant, then it's being composed and deployed by that which has authority over everything.

It is, lastly, a necessary aspect of social integration by oneself that one must maintain proximity to the implements of the superstructure through its articulations as they manifest. This is a prerequisite in order to have any opportunity for advancement in status, profession, and so forth and is, ironically, a necessity to maintain one's level of privilege in the first place.

Cognition of Collective

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

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

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

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

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

Collective Typing

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

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

Collectivism

"Collectivists believe life is alienating except a world that reflects self" - Me.

It's important to remember that collectivism in general as Communism (more accurately Marxism - not as something which Karl Marx put forward as a domain of thought, but as a study of the logic of Marx which drove him to desire Socialism) and Fascism, function through its purveyors strongly believing that they have special insight concerning history and mankind and how humans are to transform with the knowledge of this. This is a gnosis that we will explore in further depth, but for now I want to make the point that understanding this phenomenon isn't as simple as establishing that there are persons with this "gnosis" beforehand who are attracted to this philosophy, system of organization, way of understanding socialization or method of world-making. Nor is it the case that upon initiation into a practice of collectivism that one must somehow proclaim gnosis, or work to discover that they have some sort of secret knowledge before moving forward.

The factor of "gnosis", in this case (much to the chagrin of the angry activists themselves who like to criticize those who use the term by asserting that its only suitable use is when capitalized in reference to specific ancient cult religions) can be described as a chicken-and-egg situation whereby, at the very least, it becomes a side effect of the sort of dialectical thinking which is associated with with collectivism, though most notably in Marxism since the dialectic is itself specifically referenced. The mere act of assuming a destination which brings about the prerequisites necessary to grant a universally-accessible epistemological toolset whose legitimate use is otherwise skewed on the basis of some identity theory (such as class, or a structurally-determined material qualifier like race) necessarily obligates the assertion that one understands something that itself needn't be qualified through the universally-accessible epistemology, like logic and reason.

The epistemological distinction is perhaps the fundamental distinction between collectivist and individualist thinking, which might be better understood as a divide between dialectical faith and realism. And the consequences of contending against collectivist thinkers is indeed quite grave.

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

This historicism is paired with the notion of praxis which drives to the same goal relentlessly while ensuring that any contradictions or obscene manifestations, such as the death of naive peasants through circumstance, can be dismissed out of hand.

Praxis

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

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

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

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

Without the means of asserting, using and accepting methods based on logic and reason, this becomes the superordinate process. Praxis is, by definition, superordinate.

Alternate Reality

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

As a means of thinking, it exists only to negate you. The idea is that ways of understanding, knowledge and accessibility of epistemologies are feasible for some and not others and this destroys the notion that the world is simply observable and that its aspects can come to be known in some universal sense. A world where things can come to be known through being within it, a part of it, and through being able to observe and contemplate it is destroyed, along with you. In its place is a world where you may not be able to know anything, and where some have a more human consciousness and state of being by virtue of the matter which forms their bodies with the power, might and wisdom of history itself coursing through their veins, both in how their flesh presents and in the manner that the flesh of the body becomes the inevitable point of attention by the mind extending from an association with it. !TODO: Is the above about the mind in the body, and its attention to that body? Or is it that all minds fixate the attention on the body (which includes face and head)?

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

To put it another way, given that both the limits and the best available and most viable toolsets for understanding reality are universal, we must fundamentally agree that the knowability of truth is universal and a human challenge and that the details of such a challenge are located in the ways in which we are the same, regardless of whether some individuals might be impede by this more than others.

Furthermore, we can deduce from this conundrum of human life and being that the solution to most if not all our human and social problems lies in the universally-applicable means of mitigating the limits of knowledge.

The disrespecting of one another through failing to acknowledge this crucial fact about our existence is at the heart of all the ideologies which come to plague us, as all ideology require some type of attack on language.

Back to Species Being

This brings us back to re-examine the meaning and significance of the Species Being.

The arguments by Marx about the Species Being, or being as a being of the species and for the species as through one coming into alignment with their ontology, sounds esoteric not necessarily just in the sense of it possibly having a relationship to occultism, but literally in the sense that it sounds, even at the surface, incredibly obscure and far-fetched, casually yielding rationale for its dismissal. But the very concept of Species Being is obligatory once we start indicating any form of collectivist obligation. You cannot have an argument for there being a collective, even as implied through proposing the existence of, say, a social contract that is separate from seeking out one's greatest mode of life as an individual - that is to say, to claim that one's obligations to social reality are somehow something discrete and oppositional to individualist aspirations. The collective obligation is synonymous with Marx's Species Being, regardless of whether one tries to make the claim that potential for flourishing and a fulfilling life would be made possible through having fulfilled those collective obligations. There is no way to prove a being beyond the individual, and even that requires some degree of faith which, in this author's opinion, is the minimum faith one has to decide upon embodying through reason that they can hopefully compose for themselves. !WARNING: massive run-on sentences below. If we are to both envision that all humans are to be this species beings or components of Species Being yet are unable to attain their nature until they express their human life in this way, wherein they live their lives as and for the species (as man in himself), and that humans are able to impose a theory of knowledge dependent upon the distinctions which exist between man (as material or otherwise (culture, alternate expression, or otherwise - through the former is especially evil)), then, we necessarily indicate and require a process leading to the elimination of all distinction between men and for the state of life as a species being to be achieved (one can even liken this ). If this is still not yet clear, or the likely aesthetic of this in the face of human bodies and advancement of technology, then it will soon be made more clear after examining the same subject from the lense and reflecting from the corresponding historical event of covidism.

But Fascism, not Communism

One thing stood out to me right away when I first began reading "The Doctrine of Fascism".

"Fascism is action and it is thought; action in which doctrine is immanent, and doctrine arising from a given system of historical forces in which it is inserted, and working on them from within" - Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile (The Doctrine of Fascism)

Action and thought amidst historical forces towards the immanent? Perfectly analogous to Historical Materialism. Marxism is Critical Praxis (Theory and Practice) to achieve Communism as the solution to the "riddle of history":

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." - Karl Marx (The Communist Manifesto)

"The unity of theory and practice, is the revolutionary core of this method" - György Lukács (History and Class Consciousness)

Full quote:

"It is not the primacy of economic motives in historical explanation that constitutes the decisive difference between Marxism and bourgeois thought, but the point of view of totality. The category of totality, the all-pervasive supremacy of the whole over the parts, is the essence of the method which Marx took over from Hegel and brilliantly transformed into the foundations of a wholly new science. The primacy of practice over theory, or rather the unity of theory and practice, is the revolutionary core of this method." - György Lukács (History and Class Consciousness)

They're essentially the same thing, but people get stuck on the Nationalist vs Internationalist distinction. The internationalist state of spontaneous Socialism void of contradiction and oppression would be the step after the perfection of the conditions at an international level, which would be akin to a superstate. And the Fascist state? Well it seeks conflict with other states until it reigns supreme.

So, in effect, it too would need to become the super state, if ever the zenith of its ascension were ever to be achieved. At that point, the distinction between its dissolution ("withering away") or its eternal status as the perfected edifice may serve as the final distinction of each logical conclusion. That's not much of a distinction.

Syllogism on Fascism

The Question: can you have a collectivist undertaking which is not either Communism or one whose undertaking includes an aspect of Communism coming into being as part of the historical process of developing the Fascist state? We ask this question because, in practical terms, there must be some means by which to orient the masses which, in theory, includes differentiation of personality and opinion, regardless of whether there's a concept of an ideal formulation wherein those differences will have been resolved such as to place each member in perfect alignment. For this reason, some revisionists of Fascism have posited that, given the ideal of the state as an organic entity transcending the multiplicity of human beings, each participant's role, purpose and spiritual value are expressing some form of equality, and that this is tantamount to a more correct permutation of a common and perfected human existence, but that still differs from the concept of Communism either popularly understood or being presented in this book.

However, there is something to be said in communist philosophers and communists themselves continuously assert that Fascism is dualistically-mediated component of the reality that they describe and acknowledge in that it is either a component to reality which drives the purpose of having to create the Communist endpoint, such as to evade the otherwise inevitable destination of Fascism, while fascists themselves, at least insofar as there have been self-declared adherents to an ideology of Fascism, have largely manifested as a reaction to what is otherwise perceived as being the development of Communism. There are some semantics to work out to fully consolidate the understanding of what Fascism is, both as a philosophy and as has been conjured up historically, as Fascism was borne of Syndicalism and is itself a progressive ideology, which is to say that it is an eschatology which develops through historical praxis but, those semantics aside, Fascism is largely understood of reactionary formulation and manifestation.

All of that said, this author asserts that most of the semantics surrounding Fascism, and even Communism (especially as espoused by those undertaking its praxis) serve as mystifications, and that the more easily understood figuration of Fascism is as an authoritarian system which is totalizing, which leaves no room for anything outside of itself as a perfect state, and to which all humans are subordinate in purpose and value, and that these are all the necessary conclusions of Collectivism as a whole.

All Collectivism must be totalizing and must destroy all humanity. Collectivism for the entity of the state is because it allows everyone to be their true self. Collectivism for the purpose of abolishing the state, with the state existing as evidence of conflict between men, is because it allows the very same. So it's just a matter of understanding the aesthetics and semantics of how one comes to be their true expression of being.

Negation

Not An Aspect: the Essence

Another level of understanding Marxism, and what I argue as being generalized most broadly to collectivism as a whole, while emphasizing that this is not merely an aspect of it, but is the essence of it, as Lenin will emphasize in the following quote, is that this is a process of negation.

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

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

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

"Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around" - Karl Marx (A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right)

Hegel's Concretization

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

"But, second, it is more than just the unessential; it is being void of essence; it is shine. Third, this shine is not something external, something other than essence, but is essence’s own shining. This shining of essence within it is reflection.”

"Essence is sublated being. It is simple equality with itself but is such as the negation of the sphere of being in general… Essence itself is in this determination an existent immediate essence, and with reference to it being is only something negative, nothing in and for itself: essence, therefore, is a determined negation." - Hegel (Science of Logic)

"Reflection is the shining of essence within itself. Essence, as infinite immanent turning back is not immediate simplicity, but negative simplicity; it is a movement across moments that are distinct, is absolute mediation with itself." - Hegel (Science of Logic)

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

This is Hegel's concretization of Being through negation against the abstract. That is, what you think you understand or perceive of the world has, against it, a contradiction to be composed in idea and put forward as a criticism leading to the replacement of what was only a more abstract concept of reality as was seen before. Now, we are presented with a tension demanding transformation and as this transformation of the target or previous articulation, it comes to be obliterated.

That whole proposition to progress through change predicated on that tension is a proposal to negate in order to give rise to the actual. Though, for the idealist, it is said to be done in search of something better, but in reality it has given rise to such domains of thinking as Critical Constructivism and its need to induce crises, leading to the creation of an angrier world where enforcement of thought may be potentiated.

!TODO: quote Kevin Kumashiro (Against Common Sense: Teaching and Learning Toward Social Justice)

Sacrifice

Sacrifice as a modality of negation is crucial to consider in any domain that can be understood as a collective, for sacrifice is inextricable from the very idea of positing that the role of any being is as a member of a collective. The sacrifice as negation is indeed the primary and lowest level operation of the transformative process, as the very anticipation of advancing through transformation in consideration of materializing the collective is only cognizable through the sacrifice of the multiple for the one. The differentiated components of the order of system, or the order of being as is considered through human perception, is actualized through sacrifice.

Why is this?

• To eliminate the distinction of any individuated object is precisely its destruction
• A conscious act which is volitional, both as conceiving and through invoking
• The ultimate target for transformation is the world one is a part of
  • Having others see it as a sacrifice is believing that you have suffered through it. The event of it having been witnessed is positioned as evidence, making it real and true.

Those "doing the work" believe they are contending against a brainwashed populace who perpetuate implanted lies as assimilated members of a structurally determined existence, and this in turn continues the never-ending oppression wreaking havoc on the humanity to which they themselves could be a part of. This work is a process of them taking on the pain and frustration of battling with the hegemonic enforcement mechanisms which that populace is more directly a part of, and which is what's keeping them from being full participants of humanity. Among the victims are children, who are the one key by which to break the cycle, and the potentiality of being. The self-sacrificing warrior laments that it simply isn't enough to grapple with every linguistic manipulation and enforceable structural implement or other means of coercion. One needs to actually create the very texture and fabric of perception as this concomitantly breaks through into the realization, demonstration, enablement and "dis-inhibition" of what is possible. The result of this, in theory, is that they'll have necessarily invoked an interlocutor's, witness' and subject's imagination, visualization and sense of confusion yielding cognitive dissonance, and the faculty to reconsolidate their perception of their environment and, by extension, their world. To hit the bullseye they've been aiming at changes the fabric of perception as a political act.

As you transform the world, one is inclined to adopt the standpoint that the limits to being and understanding what is possible are largely socially-imposed. Again, this must lead back towards one's sense that guiding and cultivating a collective perception about some aspect of reality makes it possible to reform, reset, re-imagine and re-learn what is possible.

This must always be a requirement of every form of woke cult phenomenon, as it can't be woke unless it is cultivating a collective perception about something in order to change the world, and also that it does this if even simply through language and dialogue. If something is too concrete, it is made ambiguous so that it can be re-imagined as what it otherwise would not have been. If something is too good and noble, it is seen as its opposite either by aesthetic and association to something appearing as its opposite, or through knowing of its opposite through it and this making it appear as though both it and its opposite are essential to it. Finding examples of this is key, but it always becomes surprisingly easy to come to the point of being made out as carrying or being proximate to the most insane associations whenever you exhibit that one's stance is adhered to due to one's unwavering principles. In the woke cult, the only way to demonstrate one's worth and one's virtue is to make allegiance and conformity one's unwavering principle.

Modern Negation and Crisis

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

Generative themes arise at the point where the personal lives of students intersect with the larger society and the globalized world." - Joe Kincheloe (Knowledge and Critical Pedagogy, an Introduction)

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

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

Educators have a responsibility to draw students into a possible crisis." - Kevin Kumashiro (Against Repetition: Addressing Resistance to Anti-Oppressive Change and the Practice of Learning, Supervising and Researching (2002))

If we don't negate the previous conception of the world, then it lingers and corrupts the current frame of existence, and since at least the perception of reality is socially constructed, if not reality itself (which is an idea that has become increasingly more common than many of us would have ever imagined) then changing the conception of the world necessarily entails preventing the current perceptions of the world from maintaining themselves in the next generation of children, hence the need to induce crises in them. Put another way, the conception of the world is the aggregate perception of the world given a theoretical belief about the world of man having an underlying reality whereby the whole and the parts are intrinsically bound to one another and carrying a quality and structure in which the two are ultimately indistinguishable.

How are crises rationalized? Well they're rationalized as being a healthy response to an unhealthy world, thus describing the world in terms which induce a crisis in an as-of-yet uncorrupted mind becomes a point of evidence that one has described that world or taught that child accurately.

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

Ultimate Negation

When I speak here of the ultimate negation, I feel that there may be more than one answer based on the state of the world and the cultural manifestations that have become broadly familiar in our time. This is because there is one form which has become the most toxic and pervasive which I would like to expound upon. Other forms, though seemingly not as deleterious and anti-human, at least on paper in terms of the logic inherent in its semantic structure, may very well be associated with more actual death and destructive events in recorded history, but it is the logic of the theory that I think fulfills the designation of being "Ultimate Negation".

The ultimate system of negation for human life, as we have been able to come to know and experience, is Queer Theory, but I don't think that we can really grasp its operational relevance and metaphysical implications as the queering of the world of man and of society without considering it as part of the transhumanist plight which may or may not necessarily augment humans to God-status for it must, more fundamentally, grapple with the notion that the human body and the human life are not enough.

Queer is at the heart of the negation process, both because of where and how it currently stands, but also because of how it relates to the human form and how queer is the inevitable development following a progression of ever more sophisticated gnostic refutations of human life. Humans have, since time immemorial, been reflecting on dealing with the prospect of a pseudo-immortality through everything from myth to philosophical abstraction n the basis of considering the meaning of procreation in the face of man's mortal existence.

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

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

Some might say that it's feminism which is to blame, as it gave us Queer either through the seminal works which are considered as being the originating works of Queer Theory, which came from radical sex-positive feminists like Gayle Rubin, the postmodern Hegelian banter of Judith Butler, the formalizing of Queer as a term denoting critical transformative change by David Halperin, the French postmodernists themselves, or even the view that woman is a process of becoming as other to demiurgic spectre of maleness which plagues women across the world. Even Orwell warned about women (I'm going to piss some people off):

"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.” - George Orwell (1984)

There are also those who will say that Queer Theory is not something to really be concerned about, as it doesn't have a stable-enough grounding in reality in order to maintain a structure with sufficient coherence to really bring down much of anything.

Others, still, will say that it's not worth identifying Queer Theory itself, as these are all just superficially differentiated forms of "anti-capitalism" and that all of these different cultural manifestations are just variants of the same thing, such as Communism, and that we could simply focus our effort much better by generalizing everything and shrinking the set of operational terms to a minimum.

There's something to be said for all of this, but you would be remiss in failing to consider just how toxic and deleterious Queer criticism is in how it preys upon the facets of human thought which are most conducive to feelings of resentment towards the biologically embodiment of human life - something for which everyone already deals with resentment about from time to time.

With all that in mind, we should at least examine feminism a little bit more closely.

Muh Feminism

!NOTE: consider putting feminism article within this section as under a sub-heading of "Feminism is Anti-Liberal" or similar.

In a way, this is the correct response, but it all depends on what one is doing to try and separate them. For the modern "gender-critical" feminist, they see the need to separate them. In fact, they see Queer Theory as the product of Patriarchy having infiltrated what is otherwise the liberatory process for women, and they evidence this on the basis of there being biological males in female spaces, and biological males doing Queer activism to conquer what is otherwise reserved for women. Of course, there are plenty of females doing the same, and the boots on the ground doesn't really tell you where the ideas come from. A more correct interpretation of Queer Theory is as the evolution of, at least, the idea of Feminism as it becomes updated to remain viable and operationally significant and, more accurately, the evolution of cult collectivism, which is the product of delusional thinking, as is logically to be pursued by a human being.

Some might say that, prior to the more pronounced proliferation of Queer Theory of the 2000s and, in pop culture, the 2010s, the phenomenon of people explicitly distancing themselves from or even outright denouncing Feminism had caused it to become more unstable. Likewise, although it is reasonable to assume that feminist rhetoric had some time ago been extremely unpopular and that it had become familiar to hear the insistent declaration that a woman demanding equal treatment be something that we must prioritize, because they are competing against the odds, the fact of that being so familiar sentiment also speaks to the degree to which it has become the common, sensible, and popular outlook to have.

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

Because of the goals of Feminism, or any view which utilizes Marxist Critical Analysis (and yes, it is my opinion that Feminism fundamentally requires a critical analysis predicated on class struggle). It can't stop at universal application of Liberal principles. No, it stands against Liberalism, or "Classical Liberalism" for those who like to differentiate the two, and it does so at its fundamental position. That is to say, that which defines it fundamentally makes it opposed to Liberalism.

All Collectivism is Anti-Liberal

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

All collectivism, even when pursued by those who claim to be in favour of a society based on Liberalism, must be eschatological and, as such, must delay the application and expected viability of Liberalism. The work of collectivism is never done.

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

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

With rule by law by a state which presents as the manifestation of divinity in the current concrete form tangible to us, and as our superordinate entity which grants us life, rights, nobility and morality, those who chose to reify a mythos by proclaiming an identity which proves the mythology and legitimacy of not just the stated goal but the understanding that the goal has not been reached (or else no one would have a Critical identity, and we wouldn't even know what that identity is).

It's Feminism When We Want

There is a prevailing issue pertaining to the essence of these Critical ways of thinking, and it is that dissatisfaction will always be identified, breeding resentment, and that this becomes a perpetual cycle. In fact, it is this cycle which powers the engine of activism in seeking change.

If it's the lense of feminism then it's the implicit understanding the outcome will always be unsatisfactory because of patriarchy, and these sentiments will themselves prove that oppression exists in the exact form described by feminists, Critical Theorists, and so forth. The moment this is championed by a state government, as is always sought, is the moment we can be assured of its march to totalitarianism.

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

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

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

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

Queering

"... une femme n'est pas nee, mais devien" - Simone de Beauvoir (The Second Sex)

This statement is the basic premise of gender non-conformity and, more importantly, queering. If Simone de Beauvoir is to be taken as correct in her ground-breaking statement "a woman is not born, but becomes", then we have before us the instantiation of queer, even before its formalizing.

Queer as Ultimate Negation

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

But this isn't about your freedom to pursue meaning. It isn't even about your freedom to pursue identity, with Queer Theory presupposing that reaching and expressing one's identity correctly will bring them into a state of harmony from which their most meaningful existence will be derived. This presupposes that the circumstances from which your identity becomes possible emerge conditionally from that which must be made the target of Queer Theory, which proceeds ostensibly as a process of the pursuit of meaning, but is actually a violent and dehumanizing tool which must modify and destroy not just all others, but oneself.

Though poising itself as something to ground the ungrounded, especially in popular culture, educational institutions, entertainment and other areas where its praxis comes face to face with common people, it is not a domain of thought or toolset by which to provide humans with positive encouragement, illumination and a framework to build stable lives so much as it is a threatening arsenal of methods of negation which must remove any expression from human society which could otherwise be theorized to interfere with one's capacity to imagine themselves as something which will cause a disruption in the other that perceives them.

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

Well, it isn't even so much that the manner in which one self-perceives is liable to be a fantasy, but that the notion that one could have any insight into one's self-perception, especially to such an end that one could know whether they self-perceive correctly, or even to an acceptable level of satisfaction, is a fantasy. For a state apparatus to be used for such a purpose is the enshrining in law a civilizational right to pursue fantasy, and this on its own is not even something intelligible. !TODO: (Above) a right to pursue a change in the conduct and content of others? !TODO: (Below) massive run-on sentence But it gets much worse than that because, in the cult, everything which comes into Being is done so collectively. They tell you over and over that they believe in the collective and that things which are have been made as such through the interpretation and confirmation of the collective. Whether this is simply the socialistic comment of "you didn't build that", or the Marxist plight of man being able to create unburdened by conditions beset and coloured by other entities within the same system, or whether the lived experience and ways of knowing are the result of structural determinism, we can see that every system of Marxist thought and collectivism as a whole depends entirely on ensuring that the conditions are sanitized and made conducive to one's true state of being by ensuring that there are no expressions which serve as evidence that the conditions have not yet been brought to the point where one's freedom to perceive has been granted.

Controlled Expressions

So, as we again see, it is the expressions themselves which must be controlled because, as they serve as that evidence evidence of not being in the desired state of reality, they evoke friction and sow doubt as to whether the delusion will ever fully actualize, bringing great offense to the cult initiate, activist and believer. Once the cult participant's belief about their identity is bound to the hope for a state of affairs that is free of offensive expressions, any evidence of an entity existing out of alignment is itself an attack on self-perceived identity of the cult member. In a superficial sense, these are the goals of the cult. When the expressions are perfect, uncontaminated and without conflict, these expressions will have led us to liberation.

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

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

It isn't just usually negation; it is negation, and only ever negation. Why is that? Because the opposite is the thing which intends to do something. As critical praxis, all action arises through identifying the actions, edifices and formations which have created that which must be rejected.