logicp_writings/Book/SCRATCH.md

The Health of Humanity

!TODO: Does this go under Covidism?

Aggregate Health as Tyranny

It isn't just the case of whether those are organic systems that become weak and that people died. If we focus on the fact of those systems as being composed of humans, some questions begin to arise:

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

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

But this can become another question of infinite regress. That is, do we imagine an universally-relevant root factor as only extant per a threshold of participants, or is it something we could find in each our individual experience? Yes, any pathology exhibited by an individual can be intelligibly framed as socio-politically active and the participants could exhibit psychopathological traits which can be implicated such as to relate in terms of being a health to others, but that needn't be considered through the lense of public health, which must necessarily seek perfect uniformity as one of the requirements of perfect execution, as psychopathology can always best be understood at the level of ideology and the individual, and a perfectly executed public health policy is something which itself must express an ideology all its own.

The Trick of Reality

We clearly play tricks on ourselves, so why not begin with such scope before complicating it with others and imagining that the phenomena begin there? Yes, it may be more pronounced and even more observable, but we should strive to distinguish the precise point at which the behaviour might emerge, and I contend that it must be something affecting us universally, because it emerges both individually and so broadly that you'd never believe someone who claimed to have somehow avoided it through exceptional circumstance or behaviour.

And that isn't to say that we don't have terms like cognitive bias and rampant psychological assessments being published for every new iteration of populist, blue collar scorn, but that we are much too forgiving with our complacency in the selective application of such analyses.

What we are dealing with, not just some political system, or social doctrine, but with individual human perception which seeks to simplify the perceptual frame and processing therof while maximizing the perception of one's potential for metaphysical freedom. How this occurs is beyond pragmatic assessment, but deep down we all have been touched by some fundamental angst borne of our human embodiment, and we've found some good ways to describe it, such as through gnostic association which contends and expresses one's imprisonment as a demand for a condition of freedom which transcends all possible human conceptions of freedom, which are limiting.

The limit of freedom is not only raised, but made undefinable, because any physical laws of the construct of reality may be replaced, even insofar as ignoring selected factors while otherwise supposing that the construct is similar to what is already otherwise presented. That is to say that even in the case of imagining the divine or transcendent, we are still left having to interface it with the human experience in order for it to be cognizable.

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

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

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

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

Experiment

Toddler

Just a gentle reminder that we are prone to delusional thinking and become developed and socialized such as to make it not interfere with our ability to undertake reasonable interactions with one another into adulthood.

Take, for example, a toddler who desires a treat. The toddler will intuit that important living is taking place through this treat, its acquisition, its consumption, the exploration and enjoyment of it, and so forth. The toddler, however, has an emotional reaction that is visceral and over-exaggerated because of the having been denied this treat, even simply due to the fact that the treat is not yet being made available for reasons that are purely circumstantial. The toddler intuits that it has come into conflict with the structure of reality, affecting its their life purpose and actualization of self.

The toddler, of course, doesn't have that level of descriptive sophistication, but the conflict nevertheless occurs at the simple level of basic needs and it cannot fathom a requirement for any other kind of need or semantic aspect upon which its life experience depends. A superfluous and excess sweet which likely harms the child is now that thing through which it validates its purpose and existence.

Sure, you might say that most people have gotten over this, or even the most intelligent, reasonable or mature people have gotten over this by the time they are well into their adulthood, but how can you really be so sure? Is it wise to assume that you aren't prone to delusion? Don't you find yourself having to admit to even small logical compromises that smudge your track record of avoiding fallacious reasoning?

Now that you're hopefully open to thinking about how widespread it might be that humans of all ages and stripes participate in varying degrees of delusion from time to time, we need to talk about some of the more recent consequences.

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

Modern Collectivism

Ideas vs Actors

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

We have a bad habit of associating bad behaviour being the consequence of bad ideas which originate from bad actors, but is this not a foolish and childish presumption which leaves us with a terrible blindspot as to our own capacity to develop and act on bad ideas? In any case, let us undertake a brief, higher level analysis so we can enumerate some of the consequential players and ideas pertaining to each of the modern collectivist philosophies of interest.

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

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

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

Race

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

Actors

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

!TODO: Expand on each one and provide examples

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

Info

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

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

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

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

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

Gamifying?

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

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

Anteceding Procreation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Queer

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

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

Reality ( as being challenged )

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transhumanism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Upheaval

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

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

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

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

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

Dissatisfying Distinction

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

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

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

Digression

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

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

Summarizing

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

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

Covidism

Introduction

A forbidden topic for many, especially if you aren't simply repeating the catch phrases and popular appeals to authority that became so commonplace these past few years.

"What do you mean, covidism? Shouldn't you be calling it covidians? Wouldn't participants in covidism be covidians? Why aren't we calling them covidists?"

What's In a Name?

Certainly, there have been many fun pet names for the recent public health phenomenon such as the Branch Covidians, drawing inspiration from from the Branch Davidians and the Waco tragedy, Covidians, Quarantine Karens and Mask Nazis. But, in general, Covidian has a nice ring to it, and makes it sound like a member of the Cult of Covid. Technically, however, there are etymological ramifications concerning the use of one suffix vs the other.

!TODO: What about "covidience"? Like Consilience of covid and obedience?

A "Covidian" would be one who is "of" Covid; the consequence of having been in a particular milieu or locale, and we might say that children who are raised in an environment where obsession over the threat of commonly transmitted disease symptoms have been the norm might be best described in this way.

Conversely, the "Covidist" would best describe the alarmist, fear-mongering initiate to the "Covid Cult" who leverage broad cognizance of this event in order to advocate for transformation of society, agreement with their Critical description of reality, particularly if it involves a Marxist-style hierarchical analysis, and a general desire for a Collectivist endpoint which they indicate as necessary given the occurrence of a "deadly pandemic" which manifested precisely because not enough had yet been done to drive the world towards their conception of an ideal state of mankind.

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

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

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

• Those who make dialogue and question narrative identify themselves as beyond the pale, according to logically deduced evaluation as per state rhetoric.
• You could simply participate by restating what has been uttered by the state and reinforce the stated goals pertaining to the statements.

Acting on Body is Acting on Mind

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

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

Dialectics

The Covid era has been especially potent for transforming people's understanding or confidence in their capacity to understand, as well as imprinting cognitive association or linguistic triggers to completely guide and control their thoughts and emotions seemingly at will, at least for the most common among us. !TODO: is it only the "most common"? Isn't it all of us, but perhaps leading to different details in some of the lines of thinking?

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

!NOTE: Above: humans were classified into two categories - citizen and threat, with the former further subdivided into essential and non-essential. !NOTE: Above: it continues to this day both among public who consume certain media or are of a certain disposition, as well as certain institutions, but this isn't because of them taking an opportunity to practice a neutral behaviour - they are aligning with state and authoritarianism in a manner which reinforces biases and delusions.

Yes, opportunity to do:

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

!TODO: Rewrite the above in normal language, as there are some good points. Draft below:

Yes, indeed, this gives institutions, particularly those of the medical persuasion, ample opportunity to validate both their mechanisms, and those of those which the state utilized to enforce a new standard of authority and control, and given that these institutions depend so heavily on state funding and legislation, it is a deadly cycle of reciprocation and narrow incentivization. Institutions can rationalize extra demands by continuing to purvey the semblance of the threat, and the institutions and state can piggy back on one another's initiatives in order to enhance their ability to communicate in public to improve public perception and opinion about themselves, and acquire additional resources (rationalize?). It also serves as praxis for collectivist consciousness, as this is always performed as a means of escaping the threat of existence as it currently stands, in its sinful state which begs for cleansing.

Furthermore, any broad threat can always be used as a continuation of poor circumstances, which come to be associated with the issue du jour as it provides an endless stream of evidence. Lastly, it provides a good excuse to claim there is a need to restructure the organization, which is useful for purging undesirable elements or claiming additional power.

Indeed, the issue, when championed and enforced through an authoritarian entity, becomes an extension of your own other favourite issue and then a mystifying argument is formulated to say they are the same issue, and that your model of it, which includes a new aspect that's been brought in through synthesis which accounts for your identified contradiction is a more intentional and appropriate means of addressing the issue.

Some examples of this, over which we've seen an excess of communication over the past few years, might include the following:

• Covid is actually social justice
• Covid is sustainability
  • is social justice
• this is all evidence of transphobia and fascism-creep

YT-CoV2

The cult of covid was also expressed as being synonymous, equivalent and interchangeable with whiteness. This was evident quite early on when the there was a sleugh of rushed, ambiguous medical papers which blurred the lines in the sense of using medical and scientific language while being focused and concerned on sociopolitical issues which have been weaponized, such as Social Justice and antiracism.

There are so many ways of making these connections, and they only need some framing of disparity in any capacity so long as it supports collectivism and consolidation of power to central authority:

• White people are sometimes argued as being disadvantaged, and this is put forward by those who don't know how to engage the discourse correctly as a contradiction which defies the description being put forward by the Critical Theorist.
  • Negated through invocation of the "historically oppressed" moniker.
• White people are disadvantaged statistically because even the tools of whiteness concentrate power and wealth for a small minority of white people or the white adjacent or otherwise beneficiaries of whiteness (that is to say, those people who somehow benefit from the use of a property or even simply those who do not denounce private property and whiteness as private property). This is a good example of making argumentation which postures itself such as to be reasonable in fully consolidating the contradictory elements in the analysis, such as the claim that though the fact of being economic disadvantaged seems to be statistically more relevant in terms of indicating problematic outcomes in different demographics, it's still fundamentally caused by the factors which are more central to the lense being applied and, as such, those who don't agree the analysis but who otherwise seem to fall under the description of those who are an exception or contradictory element, are simply suffering from false consciousness.
  • If you don't see it, you are likely at least biased from the benefits it gave you or those you believe will come to you:
  • Not proven per specific belief.
  • White and yt-adjacent benefit simply by not having to directly deal with the conflict. In this way, there needn't be any strong piece of evidence, which is something we've discussed before. Instead, you simply need the absence of any evidence which is itself a form of evidence in the sense that one's disagreement is evidence sans any concrete evidence about why that disagreement might be.
    • No conflict, no reason to change the comforting stupor of false consciousness.
• So long as their plight is described as a consequence or lingering symptom of ailment that would otherwise be addressed by the distribution of power and wealth to entities that pursue collectivism, the rationale will be considered valid and legitimate.

Ultimately, only the thing which addresses all effects, and thus the oppression models of the world, will be considered valid. This is, of course, because the ultimate solution is a totalizing and one, and its system for man's life and society is a totalitarian one. This is also known as (holism, and many others !TODO: enumerate and disambiguate).

Is a Marxism

There have only been a handful of people who have come out and said that covidism is, in effect, another instance of Marxism. Many push back on that idea the moment it is uttered. This needs to be disambiguated like the others to show that this is not necessarily a component of Marx's predicated sequence of historical events en route to his utopia, but it follows the general thought as an evolution of oppressor and oppressed.

Private property as bourgeois property and the cause of human self-estrangement still remains, but now the risk to health and society is made more concrete as an example which made previous warnings of grave consequences for our continued behaviour appear to have been remarkably prescient. Furthermore, it is repeatedly stated by academics and throughout the media that though "Covid" was a horrible, once-in-a-lifetime ordeal, it is only a slight taste of the horrors to come.

The modern degrowth movement, such as those who followed the lineage of thought from the Club of Rome, or those who so easily swoon at the words of Kohe Saito, speaks about Marx's analysis and how it touches upon the environment in terms of the use of land, and the metabolic rift resulting from utilization of resources in a commoditized form, whereby the true cost and value of their use is supplanted by a reified, contrived and inauthentic format which leads to loss of understanding and blindspots or ignorance which potentiate catastrophe.

The true use value of resources are never expressed in spite of the expenditure of resources which, in turn, affect the conditions which cause the weighting of the use value.

Early Observations

Early on in the Covid era, even during the period immediately following the official announcement of a global pandemic, a wide scope of authoritarianism was so widely applied, adopted and accepted that it was stunningly remarkable and almost hard to grasp. Everything was being made as an early comprehensible moral claim, while presupposing things that were either not known or impossible to know, and i twas done in such simple terms that were completely void of any consideration to the implications, particularly concerning law, rights, and precedence moving forward. In spite of the rhetoric being disseminated, it was still impossible to know how deadly and dangerous the threat was. It was impossible to know the net benefit of increased authoritarianism as a society.

Our vulnerability towards unquestioning adoption of the practices and social acceptance of changes was built on an assumption not simply that it was for survival, because of the supposed range of risk of the infectious threat, but because of the implications for survival from the standpoint of social acceptance and social salience. That is to say, maybe it was the case that the threat itself was high and that, even if we were against the advanced progression of society towards a more authoritarian formulation, we would need to adjust to that as there was a real possibility that we would come to require access to medical care in order to survive an illness that was almost certainly going to happen and almost certainly going to be the worst one we'd ever experienced. Or, maybe it was the case that even if the threat were overstated or fictitious, we were living through a transformation of society, social norms, legal precedence and standards of governance that were sure to affect all aspects of life from this point onwards, and that if we hoped to not be excluded from society, particularly after having gotten a taste of just how far the state would be willing to take an event that was, as controversial as it might be to say, itself unremarkable in the eyes of a significant proportion of population (who might be overrepresented among those who are inclined to read this book), then we would have to find some limited manner of acting out obedience just to at least figure out what the extent of the subversion was and to understand what risks and benefits we'll be needing to worry about in the near future.

It also seemed quite clear, at least as far as what rhetoric was being disseminated, that the new standard for the acceptability of harm, at least insofar as considering the threat of focused upon by the state and insofar as a means of evaluation was to be posited for recording purposes and to be "scientific" and rigorous, was to be put forward as zero. This isn't to say that the conduct of the state and those who aligned it either by matter of opinion, or by profession, was zero - quite the contrary - but that the aim concerning the threat being focused upon was to work towards a state of affairs wherein the degree to which persons are subjected to a risk of that particular threat must become zero. This was evident almost immediately as it was acceptable to trade away long term resilience at any number of levels of society and human existence, in exchange for the theoretical reduction of risk for this one threat ( !TODO: Zero Covid, school closures, lack of immunological resilience, worsened morbidity risk factors, etc ). This clearly indicates a desire for a transcendence towards a standard of a "harmless life" to be made possible through state intervention and mass conformity.

There were immense social pressures, which still continue to this day to varying degrees, to be part of this new awakening which understands the new acceptable level of exposure to risk, You are either part of this new evolution of society, or you are one part of the group which brought us these problems in the first place.

Also, surprisingly to some, but not to, again, many of the readers of this book, was the messaging proclaiming a desire, a heightened risk against, and an opportunity to champion equity quite early on. In fact, it was present in some of the very early research papers about "Long Covid" even within the first year of the Covid era, as well as rhetoric declaring the predicting of easier times ahead if we were to give up our rights in the immediate. This rhetoric included the priming of reactionary dispositions classically associated with the "Far-Right" which were quickly adopted, expressed and repeated by the "Progressive Left".

Dialectic Examples

Though it may not have been obvious to as many of those interested in the reading of this book, at least at the times being indicated or being pointed to in this deconstruction and reflection, there strategies and rhetorical conflicts beginning quite early on from which the employment of the dialectic can be logically deduced.

Dialectic of Human Adaptation

The dialectic of human adaptation, particularly in the sense of immunological adaptation, but not strictly limited to just that. Our ability to adapt no longer functions, both at the level of immunological adaptation to infectious agents like a coronavirus, but also at a higher level in the way that our behaviour, as has been the case, is what lead to our current circumstance and the introduction of this specific infectious pathogen. On the topic of the virus itself, we cannot adapt to it as both undertaking the process of adaptation is too costly and a non-starter, but also in that our reaction as the adaptation to it is so deleterious and toxic from head to toe that the very act of adapting to it, in the way that we are meant to, is also synonymously our destruction. This has been expressed in different ways, often utilizing a good measure of ambiguity, such as whether the adaptation itself is insufficient, the adaptation is somehow incorrectly coordinated resulting in a permutation of immunological state which is somehow harmful, or simply that the condition of having to react as one is expected to react to the live virus in the wild is, though part of the adaptation, too strong of a stimulus.

Though there's infinite depth of consideration to wade through in order to consolidate all the weeds, details and semantics related to understanding immunological adaptation and all the factors that go into it, it's the very premise of taking the concept of human immunological adaptation and saying that it is itself something incorrect but also correct, because it serves as the means by which to understand how adaptation should occur. Extending from this, the dialectic goes deeper in proposing that any immunological solution which is being put forward by corporations in coordination with the state and its public health apparatus is somehow not to the exclusion of human adaptation, but is itself merely this human adaptation being understood, leveraged and conveniently (and safely) provided to persons who can choose to make use of it, should they desire. Somehow, the capacity for human adaptation is itself both insufficient and the precise thing which is being provided, both in a way which is different but also the same, depending on the context wherein it is being discussed.

In a sense, the state must seize the means of production of immunological adaptation so that it is done to yield the conditions which make existence for humans palatable, admissible and sufficient for flourishing. When rhetoric indicating this also utilizes argumentation on the basis of reified oppressed identities who will be affected asymmetrically by this strategy, then we can see that it is a dialectic demanding the seizing of the means of immunological production for the purpose of liberating the proletarian class, and that those who understand this innately do so because they are of a particular consciousness which is in line with the current historical moment in the development of our species.

The other aspect of having seized the means of immunological adaptation is that, in tandem with the completion of man, we'll finally bring about the conditions whereby man's body will finally do what it was meant to do, with the "ought" of what it is meant to do being that which is line with an existence that is free of oppression, which is consistent with Marx's ontology of Man.

These ideas came to be embodied in academics and medical professionals to the extent that many of them began to make the claim that even a single infection of one cell in a human body by a virus is something unhealthy and detrimental, as though there is some perfect state of net-zero viral infection, even on the order of single cells, whereby the reality of us being continuously exposed to pathogenic particles, which is a continuously extant phenomenon, is itself something unnatural and to be solved. This flies in the face of many complexities about the nature of biological life, ecology, evolution, and infers the need to delve into such questions as whether we might best live in a vacuum, rather than be exposed to environments with the hopes that any consequent adaptation might better prepare our systems for unknown threats in the future.

Dialectic of Personal and Public Health

"Living through this COVID-19 moment as a political theorist has made me wonder about what kind of disease this virus resembles within our body politic. What pre-existing conditions does it exacerbate? What kind of demise does it portend? What cures might exist, and is the body already too weakened to be adequately treated? Or is it possible that what doesn't kill us will make us stronger? Hobbes's wager was that by constantly reminding us that bodies are vulnerable, and that commonwealths are nothing more than artificial bodies whose breath of sovereignty is blown into them by the will of a people, our mortal fear could translate into civic health." - Prof. Sara Rushing (On Bodies, Anti-bodies, and the Body Politic in Viral Times)

There is no personal health without public health. There is no public health until each individual's personal health is expressed as a coordinated effort to perfect the conditions which allow for public health to be possible. This is why the desire for "natural immunity" is a form of blasphemy in that it functions as a contradiction towards completing the sanitized and immunologically perfected being that could only come to fruition through public health.

A wonderful example of how public health progresses mostly through conformity can be found in analyzing the discourse surrounding masking. There are a range of pre-existing studies of various levels of quality that could have been drawn from at the outset of the Covid era, but debating the costs and benefits of masking quickly became forbidden, and it was from that point only acceptable to put forward the notion that masking is going to be helpful in any capacity. As time went on, the scientific debates, or whatever was left of them, became much more focused and finally culminated in the most relevant and well-accredited voices who promoted masking proclaiming that it may very well be completely useless, and even downright harmful, to wear cloth and surgical masks, but that the holy grail of high-quality masks that are still sufficiently feasible for everyday use, the N95 mask, were helping to protect you and your neighbours, and should continue being used, and even enforced (depending on the time and details of the discussion).

There was, of course, a meta analysis of RCTs on masking put out by Cochrane which should have put the issue to rest, but this was largely ignored, villainized, and refuted on the basis of a discrepancy between the statements of the authors of the study and the editor which emerged after the publication (and in response to the massive criticism it had received by pro-masking medical professionals, activists, and collectivists of all stripes).

But that aside, even if we were to assume that the critics were correct in maintaining that N95 is a necessary and helpful intervention that should be partaken in by all who have the means to, you would still widely observe, since long before and continuing ever since, that even in environments where Mask-Nazis are present, or where masking is enforced, people are accepted into the environment so long as they wear any mask at all - N95s, surgical masks, cotton masks, polyester/spandex masks, and I'm sure people could even get away with more ridiculous arrangements, such as undergarments placed over the mouth. You would also find that professionals and activists are, at least in most cases, no likely to utter a single peep of protestation about people wearing a chin-diaper (a mask over the chin), just so long as they are participating in the ritual.

Georg Lukács might offer some insight into how collectivists feel about the errors of proletarians:

"proletariat always aspires towards the truth even in its ‘false’ consciousness and in its substantive errors." - Georg Lukács (History and Class Consciousness)

The belief in the validity of one's health as an individual is a form of false consciousness, much in the way that a Marxist views false consciousness as that which excuses the material conditions of bourgeois society. Covidism always asserts that those who do not conform to the new collective with a totalized vision of society are doing so because of ideology, which can be enumerated in various forms ranging from "Far-Right fitness culture", to "toxic masculinity", to capitalism, and many more.

"Ideology is a system of concepts and views which serves to make sense of the world while obscuring the social interests that are expressed therein, and by its completeness and relative internal consistency tends to form a closed system and maintain itself in the face of contradictory or inconsistent experience. ... Marxists seek to subject all ideology to critique, uncovering the internal contradictions in an ideology and exposing the social interests expressed by it."

"Marxism itself is frequently described as ideology, in the sense in which a negative connotation is attached to the word; that is, that Marxism is a closed system of ideas which maintains itself in the face of contrary experience. Any social view must contain an element of ideology, since an entirely objective and supra-historical view of the world is unattainable. Further, by its very scope and strength, Marxism lends itself to transformation into a closed and self-justifying system of assertions."

"However, such a development of Marxism is contrary to its spirit which is relentlessly critical and self-critical and draws sustenance from the unceasing creation of new material for reflection in the progress of culture and social life." - Marxists.org (https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/d.htm#ideology)

As seen before, for a collectivist, their worldview and that of those whom they put forward as congruent to their cause are simply utilizing reason to make sense of the world, and those who are not agreeing to their observations, analyses, objectives and prescriptions are participating in and succumbing to Ideology.

No Health Except Communism

As the concept of health has transformed through Critical Praxis to mean a state of affairs void of oppression, then epitome of health is conceived of as a state of equity wherein no social tension is produced from the relations of humans. This has a few consequences, one of which being that inclusivity, which is the championing of those whose bodies are superficially described by the collectivist mythologies, are the model by which an environment is evaluated as per health. Since the theory produces the model which represents those it asserts as being assigned to those categories, the apparatus of Public Health has full capacity to enforce its ideal prescriptions for all humans based on those mythologies.

Another consequence, as a corollary of the demotion of individual health, is the framing that those who champion fitness improvement, as per the actions and behaviours that can be undertaken by individuals, is seen as the appearance of Fascist ideology. This was evident in the failure of public health officials to remind the public to improve their physical health, the further failure of public health officials to not acknowledge that fitness levels should affect outcomes with any respiratory disease, and the prevalent association of the right wing with fitness culture, according to mainstream media sources, at relevant time points of the covid era, such as this article.

Dialectic of the Natural

They want to have it both ways by saying that natural immunity does not exist but that the immunity which thy can confer upon you will occur precisely because of your capacity to naturally adapt immunologically to the stimuli of your environment, with this being a "controlled" introduction of the precise stimulus to which you are supposed to adapt to in order to attain the maximum benefit both for yourself and for your community. That those with a collectivist mindset ran with the notion that natural immunity could not be undertaken for so long, not simply on the basis that it wasn't preferable, but even by insisting that persons who experience a real infection to Satan's particles would not confer immunity, due to a variety of proposed mechanisms, such as the ratio of non-specific antibodies after an infection, binding affinity, the rate at which the receptor binding domain of the spike protein could mutate, glycan shielding, conformational flexibility, the infection causing an inflammatory response with non-ideal proportions of particular inflammatory markers, inadequate germinal center formation, suppression of interferon signaling, and so on. It boggles the mind that the logical conclusion of many of these arguments is that people would not be able to clear the infection, but was an absurd thing to suggest as an inability to clear the infection would mean eventual death.

Since quite some time, now, it's been obvious that people do, in fact, recover from infection and though many like to argue as to whether one form of immunological adaptation is superior to the other, most partially-sensible medical professionals and scientists have conceded that natural immunity is indeed a thing and actually quite robust. Nevertheless, we should still analyze a bit more this blurring of concepts which were thrown upon the entire world wherein they were gaslit into denying the notion that they could benefit from natural immunity while also being told that the design of the jabs and one's ability to respond to it were all based on one's capacity to enjoy natural immunity. In particular, this was expressed through claiming that there is nothing artificial about the jabs or one's reaction to them and that, in fact, they were much safer and more natural than previous vaccine designs, which included metal-based adjuvants and biological particulate.

Collectivist public health advocates also claimed that there was nothing natural about being infected by a virus, as though it weren't something that were technically occurring all the time, and which wasn't part an integral part of our ecological reality and the mechanism of evolution which has created and guided our development as a species on this planet. That somehow the adaptation we would incur by being exposed to something through the progression of barriers by which we are designed through evolution to deal with the biodiversity of the environment is something unnatural, but the presentation of antigen through mechanisms which would never have occurred in the natural world except as an effect of human industrial development was itself something more natural or less unnatural.

The effect of all this has been to mystify people as to their expectations about their safety under completely normal circumstances, such as when being outdoors with good air, good weather, and without a single ill person in their midst. In these normal situations where they might otherwise benefit from touching grass, reducing stress, enhancing their vitality and being creative by whistling a tune, man now found themselves tasting their own mucus and saliva as they continuously rebreathe their bodily fluids which become aerosolized from the ever-moistening mask they keep on their faces for far too long, in circumstances for which it was never intended, and in a manner which habituates them to maintaining a more anonymous representation of themselves both to the public, and even to themselves. To look out into the world with the expectation that one cannot be easily identified while thinking that every possible location in the parts of the universe they are likely to traverse is a threat to their life, health and well-being is now somehow a natural way of being.

The Dialectic of Togetherness

This one was especially treacherous and seems to have had an effect which remains to this day. We had to be apart in order to be together for if we were apart when it was necessary we could come to be together on a higher level than before. In putting aside our selfishness and taking the step to be apart now, we transcend our previous shortcomings which contribute to the atomization of man and society and demonstrate capacity and willingness to achieve unity in a way which preserves and prolongs the lives of others. Instead of being separate and atomized, we are coming together and prioritizing the health of all people as a whole.

Through this process of becoming physically separate but consciously aligned, we achieve new understanding and appreciation for how precious it is to be together while we'll each have contributed to transforming the conditions to make togetherness possible again. Not to mention, absence makes the heart grow fonder!

By being apart, we show that we care about each other's well-being and that we understand the historical process of achieving what is necessary for the benefit of one another.

The pandemic is a challenge for us as a species, and our ability to erect the hope of an improved form of togetherness rests on our ability to prove authenticity to ourselves and each other, which makes the project of a great vision for humanity possible. In being separate, we are actually behaving, perceiving and feeling the essence of togetherness, as opposed to allowing us to return to selfish desires which keep us from connecting with one another.

In quelling our immediate wants and coming to understand that everyone's success, including our own, is potentiated through the greater collective, we set an example of empathy and embody it in our very actions, making us more symbiotically compatible and resilient against the dangers of this world. What seems like a sacrifice as an individual is actually a blessing to each of us.

Conversely, seeing one another during this high risk period will have the opposing effect. In choosing to risk one another's health by coming into close contact when it's not yet safe to do so, we find ourselves ignoring the risks of the situation and pretending to enjoy one another's company while fostering cognitive dissonance which disrupts the flow and precludes us from having the fulfilling interactions we truly need. Being together when it's harmful while being aware of the danger reinforces the practice of selfishness, isolates us and makes us unsympathetic to the real needs of our fellow humans.

After having gone through a great intellectual, physical, and even spiritual challenge, we'll transcend the limitations which had rendered us so dull, callous and prone to bringing catastrophe upon ourselves and overcome the atomization of our technologically-preoccupied lives.

Our History Coming Together

!WARNING: There may be some repetition here

We are not truly together unless we are apart. That is something which can be understood in a number of ways. Ultimately, it means that we must show our love for whomsoever we claim to care about by doing those things which demonstrate true togetherness -> that is, things that are good for the public, society and humanity.

This also means that having preferred social bonds for inner nuclear family members or closer friends and prioritizing them and our relations to them (at least, in any manner which can be construed as deleterious or detrimental to public health) is not expressing togetherness or demonstrating that we truly care about anyone. We are simply upholding ideology, being reactionary, acting on our irrational fears, and being a puppet for interests who believe they can maintain their advantages in society by not falling in line with public health perspective and its prioritization of our collective well-being.

This event is historical as well. It is preceded by the events informing and leading to it, and it also leads towards a future that is now informed by it.

More specifically, however, the transformation of us all towards something embodying courage and desire is historically informed by whatever is correctly prescient or at the cusp of change. Those things which denote the moments of change somehow keep their symbolic relevance politically, but also as a feature in the structure of reality such that its content and determinative factors must be resolved and accounted for as part of historical progress. This is why so many supposed non-believers, academics or elites are so compatible with the idea that either something has to be eliminated or used in such a way as to be what appears as only a superficial or aesthetic consolidation in ritualistic social phenomena which are otherwise an unnecessary or destructive occurrence. There is no reason for angry youth to destroy cities and deface monuments of historical significance, but the elite find it amusing and mostly harmless.

If, for them, they intuit an imminentization without believing that it is something conceived and constructed or constructible from mind as things are already in the present, then it is something to be released from a reordered structure. But, then, if the current structure doesn't permit that because of the addition of undesirable aspects / details / phenomena which effectively pollute the structure as it currently exists, then a practice of purification has to take place, and this only makes sense asaa process of destruction and replacement.

So, then, in order for there to be some evidence of progress of history, the particular aesthetic of the zeitgeist in current event bearing conflict, is seen as itself a fundamental aspect of the progression of humanity, even if it interferes with some previously-stated principle, it itself becomes an essential principle which supersedes the principle with which it conflicts, and any resulting disruption of logic, presentation of hypocrisy, or failure to cohere at some level of analysis can be disregarded on the basis of a proposition that the conflict is itself an incomplete procedure of intellectual refinement and that the very fact of one accepting, supporting, or executing the act of negating the targeted problematic aspect is itself the intellectual refinement in action.

This is, in essence, a very low bar of entry towards a supposed intellectual achievement, but any shame, dissatisfaction or vulnerability one might normally stumble into as a consequence of this is supplanted by the sense of moral virtue one assumes through the sanitization and abolishment that has been indicated.

It also, of course, goes without saying that a centrally acknowledged and socially supported process of sanitization is something complicated to reject and that attempting to reject it will necessarily incur the cost of grappling with the suggestion that one is rejecting morality, cleanliness, and higher intellectual expression. For these reasons, academics and political elite will always err on the side of the political initiative at play and infrequently demonstrate skepticism in response to the new propositions.

The Dialectic of Consent

This is probably one of the most egregious manipulations on all humans as it attempts to directly redefine the ethics and morality of what right one has to their own barriers of privacy and autonomy concerning their own body.

The very concept of consent and, as such, the sanctity, autonomy and sovereignty of one's own personhood is put into disarray by supposing that the default state of reality is one to which one cannot consent to. This is reminiscent of the thrownness that was referred to earlier.

One cannot consent to the unknown, which is nature as it currently stands. This is particularly because it is not the correct nature, due to the tampering consequent to man's selfish needs. As such, nothing about the state of reality can be known until such time that science has completed its task, which is akin to a historical process completing the specification of man and world, man and nature which are, as Marx put it, one and the same but also in a configuration whereby man is not actually expressing his true nature until such time that the process which his to say man's ontological journey through history, is complete.

You were always given a choice to be a part of appropriately-assigned, institutionally-supported effort which is intelligently formulating the specification for the adaptation and as such you can consent to an intelligent solution for the problem that not only you're faced with but that you modulate as a problem for others through your actions. You were given consent because the knowledge you have the choice to receive is being guaranteed as the most intelligent option available, specifically-suited to your and everyone else's needs.

Since the dialectic involves a default state of nature to which one cannot consent, and a process of composing the intentional solution with specificity, any hesitancy or dragging of feet is portrayed as the denying of other people's consent.

Not only that, but the state keeps the process of knowledge-construction and, by extension, consent, free of contamination by the elements that you are otherwise most susceptible to such that you would otherwise have the worst capacity for consent. In fact, the process of contaminating knowledge production is itself a phenomenon which is like a viral threat, demonstrating the multiple levels of complexity at which this issue is having to be dealt with. The whole ordeal of infectious disease is so complicated beyond even those areas of discourse that you are aware of that you would otherwise be completely overwhelmed with the complexity of it all. The state helps to fix the process of dialogue which otherwise eliminates opportunity for consent.

Of course, this is all hocus-pocus dialectical nonsense whereby your consent has been demolished through a specious and sophistic faculty of aufheben. Not only is your fundamental capacity for consent being overlooked, supplanted and destroyed, but the censorship, corrupt incentives and threats to professionals through totalizing entryism makes it so that even the information generated to be salient with the institutional narratives is itself corrupt and something which, when presented to you at face value, impossible to give intelligent and reasonable consent to.

Eco-Socialist Spin on Consent

Many of the previous generation who subscribed to the green "revolution" framed in a more Neo-Liberal formulation will see themselves as environmentalists and scientists built on naive realism extending from the lineage of naturalism who must now "undo" the mistakes of an overzealous form of industrial capitalism rabidly pursuing elite status through profit-motive. For them, their idea of a noble and pristine natural state of the environment is something which was corrupted by the selfish inclinations of their less green and less educated neighbours and, as such, their understanding about the conditions which can be consented to is that, just as they explain extreme weather conditions as all being the result of the fall of man, so too can the pathogens of the environment now be thought of in that way, including any and all common infection which runs the risk of inducing detrimental effects, even undetected, beyond that of any common respiratory illness we've been subjected to.

Dialectic of Fascism

To remember what the Dialectic is, especially in modern times, it's worth looking again at that quote by our seminal Critical Theorists, Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno:

"...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)

In the sense of Fascism it is being redefined both by the state and activists who are actively engaged in their disposition towards collectivism, as those things which are actually antithetical to Fascism (with Fascism being the concept put forward by Giovanni Gentile and Benito Mussolini, whose work "The Doctrine of Fascism" helps to explicate what everyone already has a sense of as being Fascism, but what can be more simply summarized with the following:

"Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." - Benito Mussolini

Indeed, the acts and aspirations of individual humans towards freedom and liberty are truly antithetical to Fascism, but such acts have come to be labeled by Fascism by the statists and collectivists of our time who are seeking to create a superstate through authoritarianism which promises to provide us with medical treatments en route to a situation where viral infections simply would no longer occur.

All resistance to the state is now labeled as "Fascism", while actual Fascism is synthesized with the superficial portrayal of freedom and liberation in a contrived sense whereby it is deemed that the conditions for freedom will be made possible through submission to the state and the relinquishing of one's desires for personal or individual liberty. Those who benefit from an empowered structure will label themselves as liberatory and congruent to equity, and those who criticize them for having facilitated the merger of private and public into an increasingly authoritarian state come to be labeled as Fascists. Fascists is now any resistance to the transformative progress of encroaching Totalitarianism.

The Freedom Convoy and those who advocated for freedom and liberty during the Covid era were denounced as being those who destroy freedom by inconveniencing through their protest, desire for dialogue (both with the state, which was never granted to them, or simply with any whomsoever wished to speak, dance, eat and play with them in their bouncy castles), as well as with their pestilence and unclean bodies which serve as vectors for disease and contamination, as was described by the state's supportive witnesses who claimed, without evidence, that the truckers who had come into Ottawa, Canada to protest were defecating on the streets.

A state who completely refused to communicate with protestors but instead stamped them out, literally, at gunpoint with the boots and hooves of its heavily armed and armoured security forces is the opposite of Fascism, while those who asked for nothing more than dialogue were the epitome of Fascism for daring to desire freedom and liberty. They were a horrible inconvenience and a stain on our otherwise pristine and beautiful nation state. An inconvenience that is completely the result of the vile conspiratorial villainy by these unwashed truckers, and was not in any way maximized by the government who intervened immediately as the truckers came into the city and instead of allowing them to set up camp in various parts of the city that were not necessarily going to block traffic, such as along the canal and in Confederation Park, had forced them to amass themselves in a concentrated permutation along the busiest streets of downtown Ottawa in a manner which would maximize the inconvenience to the city. Yes, these truckers were the embodiment of Fascism and were given their just desserts by the helmets and batons of freedom, courtesy of our magnanimously empathetic and generously charitable government.

Freedom

Freedumb for the Freedumbers

How did we get to the point of people actively mocking those who attempt to fight for something which, conceptually-speaking, applies to absolutely everyone? It would necessarily be the case that you would have something to fear. What might those fears be?

Unfreedom

There has definitely been plenty of narrative supplying a dialectical attack on freedom in the form of proclaiming that those who advocate for freedom are actually just destroying freedom and chasing their selfish inclinations. But it goes a step further, in saying that they are the tip of the spear, so to speak.

Firstly, some of the more ridiculous points that have been repeatedly disseminated have said something like that the advocacy of the Freedom Convoy, and those who support them, is actually their demand to have constraints put on the public. This is often elaborated as things which include the banning of vaccination, the closing of hospitals, the dissolving of a functional government (both formally and informally), the banning of face masks (either by making it forbidden to wear them, or by some set of actions which lead to them becoming unavailable in the country).

Next, we have claims that their actions are all centered around disrupting social services, making routes unnavigable, exhausting supplies and breaking the supply chain. There is something to be said for the breaking of supply chains, but that wasn't in the sense of them destroying those chains themselves, but in going on strike because of the conditions that were being imposed on them through a central authority. This is classic worker advocacy and, given that all of their critics are generally in favour of unions, and even the type to speak of unions romantically, it's somewhat perturbing to see, though predictably so, that the socialists who love unions hate them when they're advocating for freedom, liberty, personal choice, and so on.

Lastly, there was quite a bit of rhetoric being used to put out the idea that the truckers had been captured and were being controlled by the Russians, Russian intelligence, or any villainous country or organization that had managed to place their tendrils in the minds of these pitchfork-wielding hicks who somehow learned to drive a truck without crashing it every time. These are insane conspiracy theories, of course, because regardless of whether there are international interests at play who wish to disrupt the affairs of other societies, that is something which is an evergreen problem, and which latches onto every opportunity for conflict possible, including this one. Regardless of whether this is a real problem, it's not being treated in a serious manner if it's only supposed that certain people can be affected by influence, if it explains all the motives for any of the participants, and if it's used to completely disregard the possibility that some of the players may have honest and authentic inclinations which may not yet be properly understood.

Fear of Freedom

Freedom isn't an easy proposition, especially if you've never had to fight for it, or if you've never been exposed where the denial of freedom is something palpable and clearly cognizable to you. The mind is always working through the set of sense apparatuses in order to obtain a viable field of vision and a proposition for action. Most of that process is one of simplifying complexity in order to make the body and environment something actionable. A situation where the body and the spirit are being made to wade through the bizarre complexity of being and align the focal point with the potential for action and modification or conformation to the shapes and levers of the world. To interface with it, if you will, and find the best way to proceed in one's survival. If one doesn't have this capacity available to them, they become overwhelmed in the complexity to such a point that it becomes grotesque and overbearing.

True freedom is the threat of chaos, unfortunately, but it's something that, based on the nature of man having freedom to act and choose and have a focal point that the person directs and focuses through, is a natural inclination and, when freedom is sufficiently denied, you'll be hard pressed to find a human who does not react with great valiance and courage. It's just wired into us.

Without coming to that point, however, many will fall into the simplicity, of believing there is a prescribed protocol for all actions and environments and that, by adhering to the to an external authority and conforming to it, you and it come to be an extension of one another and, as such, you are given certain assurances and benefits that you might otherwise miss out on. This external authority functions to take the place of what would also be symbolized as the Father Figure or a God, which is comforting and stabilizing, if even only superficially and immediately.

If you are particularly prone to negative emotion, then the urge to choose this option of operating becomes all the more natural, as deciphering and acting on your own behalf is distressing,especially when you're being told by all messaging apparatuses to panic and be on edge.

Exclusion: Punished for Freedom

The threat of exclusion rears its head again as one recognizes that the source of self-justifying violence and power has a point of origin. Having that in mind makes it more difficult for anyone to find the motivation to hold the entity represented at that point of origin to account, but some acquiesce more easily than others.

With a seemingly omnipotent force representing the morals and ethics of the environment, it seems so big and makes you feel so small. It's best to remain invisible, and even a coward, and assuming such a stance impels one to have hope and faith that they will be spared of any of its possibly tyrannical effects.

Even more complicating is that one intuits and finds evidence from one's peers that all other subjects of the shared social surroundings claim allegiance to the source of centralized power. In fact, if one seems to fall out of line with the currently represented code of that power, one runs the risk of being mocked, ridiculed and even vilified. It even becomes complicated to learn other people's thoughts, especially once they seem to be incongruent to the social fabric extending from and surrounding that authority, as the state has already told you what people believe and why. If, for instance, you were to agree with some of those forbidden views, you run the risk of incurring cognitive dissonance, complicating your life and that of your loved ones, and other people might even be willing to pretend to be of the appropriate sensibility expected of them, just to maintain social cohesion and their current momentum towards their goals and expectations. It's best to remain safe in one's bubble of conformity.

Real Freedom: The State

In music, and particularly in jazz improvisation, it is said that you need some structure in order to liberate yourself. This might be something as simple as knowing the "shells" of the harmonic progression, which are generally the 3rd and 7th tone relative to the root in some harmonic configuration, in order to outline the tonality. With the movement of these voices outlining how the music unfolds, there really are no limits to what sorts of ideas you can come up with as your mind, fingers and rest of the body dance to your heart's delight!

With guard rails from the state to help you move through the tempest of an angry planet, you can finally find your place to express yourself, choose an identity, perform a role and entertain yourself. Without that structure, you are let flailing all over the place with no discernible direction. The structure gives you a path forward away from the doldrums of the stupor of crippling depression that one falls into when disabled through inaction in a sea of chaos.

Freedom to Choose

One of the loveliest parts of this dialectic has been to have those drawn into the cult assert that there's no such thing as force, violence or coercion except in the form of holding someone down and penetrating them with a needle. Anything up to that point is fair game and can be classified as the experience of having freedom; freedom from coercion, freedom of choice, freedom of autonomy, and so on.

Indeed, the very same people who will assert that failure to enunciate sounds precisely as prescribed is a form of "literal violence" which is tantamount to partaking in "genocide" of an entire "class of people" are the same ones who will tell you that forcing you out of employment, subjecting you to a continuous barrage of messaging from the vertically stacked message apparatus of the corporatized state and every branch of entertainment continuously telling you that you deserve to be condemned, to be exiled, to be cast out of your family, to be denied medical treatment, to be denied access to purchase goods and services, to be denied the freedom to leave your home or even your room, and that you deserve to suffocate in an agonizing death which no one should even so much as feel one iota of sympathy for is not a form of force or coercion, but simply the experience of going through informed consent so you can make an easy decision about your life and personhood with a clear mind.

And then there's also the wonderful fallback of plausibly denying state-sanctioned coercion because there was no official law to forcibly inject anyone. Even forgetting the phase of forcing people to show proof of vaccination before they enter into certain public areas or businesses, there were jurisdictions which, for a time, enforced lockdowns on only the portion of their citizenry that was unvaccinated, such as Austria. Another claim to fame for Austria, and quite in-line with its pedigree of treating different classes of people as fully-human and sub-human, was the decision to impose fines on people who refuse to take the vaccine. In some places, such as Greece, this was done for elderly persons who had not been injected (even taking it out of their pensions), while other places, like Austria, attempted to do this with everyone as a whole, with fines of up to €3,600.

Such policies would be referred to as progressive and enlightened by public health advocates, politicians, and other subsets of Totalitarian fear-mongering cult initiates who would repeatedly claim that vaccines are the only way to "end the pandemic" with many of them, to this day, likely claiming that there was never any cessation to the ongoing pandemic which continues to torment us. Politicians who make such inflammatory statements are given a generous platform, completely void of any substantive criticism, such as Canadian Member of Parliament Jean-Yves Duclos, who served as the Federal Health Minister until mid 2023, who said that the "provinces could make vaccination mandatory". Indeed, "you're so lucky we aren't directly pointing the barrel of a gun to the head of your loved ones, forcibly restraining you, and using an 18 gauge needle just to make sure you feel the thrill of saving the lives of your countrymen. We are so nice to you!".

Honestly, could you imagine those who claimed there was no coercion not approving of a state-sanctioned campaign to utilize greater degrees of force, including fines and imprisonment, in order to get to each and every vaccine-refusenik? Shy of a few exceptions, the vast majority would unquestionably approve any proposition to escalate force for conformity.

Remember, these are the people that rationalize every step of their encroachment on other people's life by predicating their argument on unwritten and unspoken social contracts, who conflate failure to use language as genocide, who invent terms like cultural genocide to equivocate with terms which otherwise indicate enslavement, death and murder, and who claim that every human being has the right to every possible form of implement and assistance which might somehow reduce the amount of work they might have to do for themselves, not even just even for their survival, but even for their leisure and recreation. But when faced with a non-conformist, they express nothing but a wall of disdain and disgust, wishing for no single potentiation of survival to be extended to the "other".

Most people are not farmers and do not have the means to produce their own food. Mandating the administration of a medical treatment under even just the threat of loss of employment threatens someone with their very survival, the erosion of the health of themselves and their loved ones, the prospect of starvation and loss of productivity, and the inhibition of the development of their children. Imposing loss of access to resources and the facilities of society creates a class system and imposes hierarchical structural force on other human beings, which is in line with the projections about an oppressive world that the advocates of such a process are constantly proclaiming. It is clear that the messaging and policies intended to quell "vaccine hesitancy" are promoting and encouraging loss of health, vitality, years lived and death in those who do not agree with whatever is demanded of them, and to think that this isn't a form of force or coercion is dishonest, hateful and psychopathic.

Conformity as Resistance

This dialectical juxtaposition has been instrumental in the overall attempt to transform society into a totalitarian state, something which I argue is the natural consequence of systems maintaining themselves across time as they grow in size and consolidate greater complexity

There's no room for insubordination and non-conformity, thus they have to have a more totalizing pattern of behaviour imposed upon the entities within their scope of governance. Indeed, as we've seen, the words resist and resistance have become co-operated, manipulated and resynthesized to mean their complete opposite as those who advocate for collectivism and embed themselves in state activities in order to guide discourse and policy towards their desired ends are specifically those who are most conformist in their views and most likely to identify non-conformists as an "enemy of the people". They are, of course, claiming that to resist and the act of resisting is to become aligned with their movement for greater state censorship and enforcement of social norms, economic constraints and ever-increasing regulation which fundamentally infringes on liberty and freedom. For them, the enemy is freedom itself and people's desire for it, thus they see actual resistance as "ideology" which they equivocate with fascism and the far-right - terms they have made synonymous with terms understood in populist movements as representing a desire for freedom, such as the now fraught term capitalism.

What began as a Marxist critique that the working class was not expressing the repressed revolutionary energy that had been concentrated and embedded deep in society has gradually escalated in the hyperbole of its representation while the source of that critique has itself positioned itself at every opportunity at the most centrally-located points of society possible such that the messages generated from what is classically understood as the most dominant, authoritarian structures now describes the least powerful entities as the fiercely privileged champions of fascism already for simply not using their voice to demand increased centralization of power and control but especially so if they demonstrate any willingness to resist the consolidation and concentration of that power.

Linguistically Supplanted

What we see in the use (abuse) of language, is that all concepts of freedom have now been resynthesized to capture all terms associated with freedom and liberty, but as liberation through the unrelenting totalitarian structure. That is to say, those who are posited as benefitting from the empowerment of central authority will label themselves as liberatory and equitable, and these concepts are put forward to indicate that they provide a path for creating a freedom which can not yet otherwise exist, except as the pursuit of formulating the future freedom promised by the God entity which, in this case, is the Hegelian State. Those who criticize the reformulated concepts of freedom, and the authority of state as a whole, are now understood as being Fascist and of Fascism. This includes any resistance to the merging of private and public, the nationalizing of any implements of the social environment, and the bringing of all articulation of society within the control of the state.

Dialectic of Victimhood

Seen throughout the Covid-era was the assertion that those who are hesitant to accept or promote the vaccines, offered resistance to wearing a mask and social distancing, or those who didn't agree with vaccine mandates, travel restrictions and curfews, were simply those who were promoting a victimhood ideology built upon a foundation of paranoia and privilege. You see, these ideologues who dragged their feet against progress which would otherwise be leading us out of a pandemic were suffering from a false consciousness, partly due to their subversion by coordinated actors who wished to control them, like Russia, and partly due to their habit of trying to avoid changing, even for the better, as they already have it better than most.

As they tend to assume an oppressor role in a general sense as a member of society, their demand for free choice while crying about being a victim is actually an ideological tool, manifesting even at the opportunity of seizing and leveraging something that is truly of benefit for them.

In contrast to these self-proclaimed victims, who are cesspool of disease and ill heath, are the real victims who always position themselves with the centralized authority. Those who are align with central authority and who are trying to complete the system of pristine life with virtually no ill health, poverty, and racism are being held back by those who won't conform or play-along, as they are not willing to be resilient or to sacrifice some of their own wants and desires, which direct them poorly, for the greater good. Acting in their own interest, or what they believe is in their interest, rather than that of others through methods which actually would be of benefit. Instead, they are paranoid that everyone is out to get them. Their resistance proves their paranoia and belief in delusion.

Why do they do this? Most fundamentally, they view anything which might benefit others as something to their own detriment because it can harm their relative status. A reduction in their comparative advantage over the marginalized.

Imagine thinking you are a victim while aligning yourself with the authorities and doing everything demanded of you, including singling out and flinging feces of vitriol upon any who don't fall in line, making jokes about their death, proclaiming them as less human, comparing them to the least desirable people to ever walk the earth, the Nazis, whom most wouldn't even consider as being worthy of life, particularly if the person considering it has grown up in the west and been subjected to western entertainment, and then to say that it is you who is the victim. You, who demands death of those lesser than you, who believes themselves to be congruent to all the most powerful sources of authority in the land, and who is enjoying, in their own opinion, all the most advanced offerings that civilization, science and technology have to offer, and in spite of all of that it is you who has been especially taken advantage of, made vulnerable and made to be exposed to the unwanted aspects of life more so than nearly any other, especially those whom you are wishing ill upon.

Dialectic of Family

At a certain point, every human wishes to fall back on the assurance that there is a source of familial loyalty in their lives whereby oneself and one's family members would be willing to take on what might be an increase of risk, even in the form of modest exclusion or reduction of salience with respect to the surrounding social sphere, in order to maintain proximity and compatibility with family, such as with even just the nuclear family. This is because, whatever our disagreements and problems, there will always remain the greatest potential for empathy, understanding, patience and intuitive symbioticism for one's family members, if even simply out of a respectful regard to the contributions of one's shared genetic antedecents. The symbioticism in particular, for example, might be seen as well-wishing and social support for one's success as an organism surviving in a broader environment, but it also includes such things as developmental influence as aligned and similar genetics, learning, nurturing and, furthermore, immunological maturation. This, of course, is a great oversimplification, as it goes without saying that familial interaction, for better or worse, establishes the base of physical, cognitive and social development in almost all humans, save some feral children, and that though there are risks and benefits in any social environment, one's lowest level scope of familial structure is the environment bearing the greatest impact on a child's development.

Though it barely needs to be stated, as there is ample evidence of this and it shouldn't even be controversial to state the proportionally more significant influence of family, as such, we can easily reference works that are commonly known, even outside of academic circles, such as Attachment Theory, Ecological Systems Theory and the better-known Hierarchy of Needs, which all reinforce these assumptions.

!NOTE: Bibliographical references for developmental hierarchy

1. Attachment Theory

2. Bowlby, Ainsworth - Attachment and Loss, Volume 1: Attachment (1969)

3. Ecological Systems Theory

4. Urie Bronfenbrenner - The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design (1979)

5. Hierarchy of Needs

6. Abraham Maslow - Motivation and Personality (1954)

Familial support begins with interaction between mother and child which, in our context, we can touch upon contextually by indicating it as part of the fundamental basis of immunological development. It is necessarily the case that the mother is exposed to, and has been exposed to, a wider and more dynamic range of biological phenomena informing her immunological capacities, and that this extends to opportunities for both exposure and adaptation by her offspring by virtue of her child-rearing activities. Though we may focus, in discussion on the prospect of a mother providing mature and differentiated antibodies to her child through mother's milk, it should be noted that a baby's immunological capabilities come most extensively from their innate immune system, such as that provided by T-cells. They differentiate as both CD8+ (helper) and CD4+ (killer) cells through many forms of exposure which includes discarded nucleoside sequences and DNA fragments present in exosomes delivered via skin, sweat, exhalation, breast milk, urine and feces. This is a rich form of exposure to real phenomena in the shared environment and it allows adaptation to occur precisely in the manner sought by the administration of vaccines.

Surely people either learn this or come to have some intuition about it on the basis of learning about breast milk providing antibodies, which is more widely communicated across the popular landscape than most other health factoids because pregnant women will be incentivized to produce antibodies in response to a commercially available immune-inducing agents, and there rightly arise incentives around such a practice in its own rite.

What explains this drive to prevent a child's robust development and the imposing of a supreme concern of evading the particles of this one classification seems that it can be chalked up to public health messaging, but I don't think that really begins to explain it.

The offering up of one's child to the administration of new innovations and subjecting them to social conditioning that necessarily isolates them is many things, including the conforming to social expectations, but we should consider that it is a rite of passage, in that your child must undergo initiation to be accepted into the next stage or evolution of society. Perhaps more controversially, though, is that to pursue the administration of substances to one's child which are beyond one's comprehension is also intrinsically going to symbolize some form of sacrifice. There is something to be understood in the sense that people felt some impetus to allow certain harm to be incurred, even only as a modest, and even perhaps insignificant, risk of harm that was interpreted as being low, but simultaneously being one which can be catastrophic, as immune-related issues can sometimes become. To accept, choose or promote the administration of a substance which is beyond one's understanding also proves a world-view both to one's child and one's social milieu, and possible leads to some comfort that the state will understand you as having honoured its bidding which, as undertaken in the Covid era, indicates acceptance of and a more restricted future necessarily makes you more dependent on the state

Beyond the Child

It gets more broad, still: !TODO: snitch culture, questioning beliefs, masking, exclusion, paranoia about family events, state messaging over family communication. Whenever examining stories of Totalitarianism, whether fictitious as in 1984, or in the real-life retelling of events by escapees of North Korea, or the scholars having dug into documented events from Soviet Russia and Communist China, one thing phenomenon which demonstrates the absolutely devastating degree by which cult mentality has taken over the mind of those aligned with the state is that of family betrayal. Perhaps what's most disconcerting, however, is the degree to which these may occur as developments that are incremental and insidious. That is to say, it is not a conscious and planned betrayal but a slow adoption of state-approved belief of which one is continuously prompted to signal alignment through their professional and recreational environments, and that this supplants familial loyalty as the first order set of socially-relevant principles by which one is expected to be well-versed.

Though this is always playing out to varying degrees, the manner is unsurprisingly predictable.

Familial Negation

!TODO: I hesitate to call it the state-approved sets of "thought" actual philosophies, of which they rarely are - especially when disseminated by the state.

The primary mode of imposition is the tension brought about through the denial of one's beliefs which isn't necessarily on the basis of refuting the content of the description of any said belief, but through making the rationale of any non-approved belief inadmissible. The family member who is initiated into the state-congruent collectivist philosophy.

State Enforcement

A lot of what takes place after the dismissing of one's attempts to proclaim their beliefs or present their rationale for said belies is an numeration of properly palatable options which serve as an affordance trap ( !NOTE: citation needed ). These state approved options are presented before the articulation of one's thoughts can take place in order to prevent thoughts from being fully formed and digested. If the articulation does take place, however, it is to be disregarded and is often met with the discontinuation of the interaction which is often prompted by the declaration of a wound having been identified or collected by the initiated member. Thought termination is necessary in order to proclaim the acceptable beliefs which must be absorbed wholesale without deconstruction, disambiguation or critique. This process must always take place to satisfy the initiate's baseline conditions for acceptable family bonding.

The result of this practice is atomization which, though already occurring broadly in the society at large, is now also occurring in real time in the environments that are otherwise most resistant to it.

Delegation of Reason

In having an approved set of resources to draw from and which, as per their origin, present a morally-implicated rationale for their imposition, the state-enforcer in the familial environment no longer has to undertake the work of articulating their reasons in real time, particularly if any supplemental requirement is demanded of them. The authoritative characteristics of their source provide endless means of asserting in a manner bears plausible deniability, at least as per discourse which complies with "polite society".

In the case of the covid-era, this means that one's conduct which may previously have been considered to be threatening as per the rhetoric surrounding the level and structure of the threat to which we are subjected can be dismissed out of hand, even when being contradicted by new behaviour which is qualitatively different, simply on the basis that recommendations have changed and that they are to be believed wholesale without any process of comprehension having to take place, unless as a sort of intellectual luxury extending from already having proclaimed agreement with the new state-provided description.

Supplanted

As the basis of the rationale for the denial of rationale is indicated through the proposition that the domains of knowledge available to persons are made as such through identity, the logically consequent proposition is that there are now a set of pre-approved identities which will serve as the foundation of family and that, if these are not fulfilled in the environment of an enclave of members with shared heredity, that they will be supplanted, at least from the perspective of the initiates, with persons presenting identities from other domains. In all cases you will find that those who are of the mind to have accepted the initiate language and external loyalty to entities outside of the family of shared heredity, that there are also going to be sources of communion and socialization from which they hope to mediate the threat of atomization and exclusion, and that this is presented to them through profession, other friendships and, in many cases, celebrities. You will find, almost faithfully, that these initiates are heavily interested in pop culture and will attend many pop events almost as a source of ritual for psychological and even spiritual fulfillment.

Drive Towards Infection-Free Environments

One of the consequences of the priming of fear towards the threat of infection, both prior to Covid with Hollywood films like "Contagion", and then through the early phases of the Covid-era, was the emergence of rhetoric which presupposed that any amount of infection by any pathogen at all was something that was should strive to eliminate as a species. That this particular pathogen was harbouring such an inexplicable degree of harm that it's time to consider that humans and human society should evolve such as to eradicate the threat of even incidental, nominal and miniscule occurrences of infection which aren't accompanied with noticeable symptoms.

Though there were voices describing the phenomenon of viral infection in precisely this way, including ones from academia, the movement of "zero-Covid", though likely buttressed and portrayed as larger than it may have been by social media campaigns, public health advocacy and private interest groups, grew to sizeable proportions and was, in effect, the logical conclusion of rhetoric which had been composed to maximize fear and interest in unquestionable uptake of the primary treatment sought by state governments across the globe (the one which starts with "V"). It didn't really make sense to think about the threat of coronaviruses, or any virus, in any manner except one with an eventual goal to make infection impossible. This was because of the unchanging goal of the Covid-era always being the neutralizing of infection. Vaccination was always described as yielding humans as being the final endpoint for the coronavirus as it wouldn't be able to transmit from that point onwards, which stayed in line with the original public health enforcements whose rationale always centered on the fact of there being vulnerable for whom a risk of infection was unacceptable; all of the demands for force and coercion centered on the premise that the only manner in which a safe environment could be achieved for the particularly vulnerable would be to ensure that every individual in that environment had received a "full immunization". Additionally, the rhetoric of fear maintained its intensity regardless of changes to the relative profile being found in sequenced viral specimens of various regions as time went on (which took on names such as Omicron, for example). If the conversation surrounding the evolution of viruses has been made such as to exclude the concept of its diminishing virulence across time, then it stands to reason that all viral infection should be avoided and, if possible, neutralized from taking place using whatever technological means are available to mankind.

!TODO: Disambiguate the above.

What is the drive towards the idea of a society which must be free of the threat of infection? Do we know that an infection-free society would be a good thing? Some possibilities include:

• [] Transcendence !TODO: still need this one

The drive towards the idea of a society which is completely free of the threat of infection has many aspects, and much historical precedent. Certainly, there are factors worthy of consideration, at least insofar as the motivations are concerned, which indicate, at some level, positive characteristics about human beings. But, when seeking an absolute outcome which is not only outside the reasonable conception of reality, but also an outcome which cannot be reliable ascertained as a positive or net-good for our species and which is, more likely, a net-negative and possibly even catastrophic outcome, we can begin to hypothesize how best to frame these motivations.

I would suggest that the motivations themselves are echoing some of our darker proclivities and that these have already manifested in some of the more extreme outcomes of our recorded history.

Survival Instincts

To be fair, there is of course a survival instinct that most of us felt in touch with early on in the Covid-era, if even just before the official announcement when the fearful discourse was fresh and unfamiliar. This gives a good base for empathy to work from, but the fact remains that many who did fear for their lives and health early on overcame that fear and were in many cases putting themselves in situations that they believed to be of elevated risk if even just for the principle of how their behaviour would contribute to the potential of an increasingly totalitarian society. For example, many who believed that the threat was elevated, or who were at least affected by the continuous messaging from all angles and sources, whether authoritative, entertainment, workplace or one's own personal friends such that it gets in your head to keep thinking about the possibility that you are within spitting distance of the most uncomfortable week of your life, or even death, would still refuse to wear a mask or avoid seeing certain people face-to-face, simply to push back on the process of conformity which was unfolding all around us. So survival instinct is not a sufficient rationale on its own, especially not in the case of rationalizing one's drive towards desiring an infection-free society.

Contamination

Now we're getting somewhere, because the fear of contamination and heightened disgust sensitivity was palpable among those who were most ardent in their insistence that measures be followed and that a perfect endpoint was hopefully around the corner. What was most notable was an unquestionable desire to follow authority and even take up the opportunity to report and snitch on strangers, friends, colleagues, and even family members. In fact, it was explicitly encouraged in some circumstances, and given the atomization that our society has witnessed over the past few years, it's not far-fetched to recognize how quickly society can change towards engaging such practices.

In fact, the threat of infection can override people's self-narrative about what standards they consider acceptable for society not just during the moment of extraordinary circumstance but in general, leading to advocating dehumanization, exclusion of those who believe, behave or appear differently, and the erecting of authoritarian policies which would be difficult or even impossible to overturn, at least in theory should the system of governance and corresponding society sustain itself.

We saw this first hand with inflammatory language describing the unvaccinated, vaccine-hesitant, and unmasked as unclean disease vectors, unevolved and deeply immoral subhumans. The comparison to vermin was reminiscent of Nazi-era rhetoric where such comparisons were a central feature of public messaging.

Moral Purity

Along with the obsession with contamination and the categorizing of people as being members of the disease ridden and unclean was a sense of moral purity which was both intrinsically bound to this phenomenon and prevalent in the language used by public officials.

From the rhetoric that was being disseminated and the response by those who seemed to acknowledge its rationale and who abided by it on a seemingly religious basis, it was clear that the decrees would be adopted and followed regardless of level of threat, just so long as the central authority was broadcasting the demand. What's clear is that, when taken to their logical conclusions, the rationales being disseminated were ones which, regardless of the efficacy of the measures prescribed, (for which) the conditions always serve as a sufficient predicate.

That is to say, if there is always a portion of the population which is too vulnerable to adapt to the ever-differentiating threats of the environment, and if erecting barriers between us and making use of implements which supposedly prevent us from being infected with an antigen while also preventing us from transmitting it to others, then it stands to reason that it's always a good idea to apply measures, particularly when considering that there is no private health without public health; that is to say, there is no way of guaranteeing the best possible conditions from which your personal health can be influenced except through a public health apparatus which is functioning such as to affect those conditions in the first place.

That these modes of thought completely abstain from considering the degree to which other factors of resilience are developed in a social environment, such as the fact of healthy persons developing the means of acting as sinks for pathogens while distributing safer fragments and signals about the threats to which we may all be subjected, or the fact of how isolation, reduced activity and reduced exposure might lead to less general vitality, tells you not only about the degree to which many may be unaware of the complexity of the issue, but also that the phenomenon of people adopting societally-enforced measures on the basis of collective safety who might actually be aware of some of these complexities would necessarily be incentivized by the perception that there is an immediate risk of health on themselves, and that the degree to which the frail and infirm might be made even more fragile under the circumstance of increased isolation, and the degree to which families relying on businesses that were deemed non-essential might be impacted negatively in a way which imposes a non-null effect on health and well-being, tells us that these motivations of survivability towards an aesthetic of cleanliness and moral purity are motivations of individuals wishing for an improved level in terms of the risk of disease that they themselves are being subjected to, and that this motivation would continue regardless of the ill effect that might develop long term for society as a whole, just so long as one maintained a belief either that their immediate threat is being reduced, or that the enforcement mechanisms are from a centralized entity to which they are maintaining some form of alignment.

Furthermore, as the mind becomes more preoccupied with the threat of infection, there is a greater desire for control and order versus freedom and chaos, which coincides with what we said earlier about the effect of a risk of infection on predisposition towards traditionally "far-right", but best understood as authoritarian or totalitarian systems.

!TODO: disgust sensitivity and personality !TODO: disgust sensitivity and societal transformation

Disgust

• Cleanliness / disgust sensitivity
• Normally Far-right
  • Only unsensible persons woul put others at risk
  • Aversion to entropy and the unknown
• Having progressed from tolerating the intolerant -> of immunocompromised / fragile

Control

!TODO: Below needs redrafting

Whenever there is a lever by which authoritarian implements can be wielded to compel, coerce or manipulate people, those with a disposition towards power and control will not be able to resist wielding it. During the Covid-era, this means that those who gravitate towards taking up positions which play a role in the administration or oversight of power as per the need for new safety measure are likely to find their moment to do as such.

We saw it in immersive, overbearing and exorbitant abundance during the Covid-era as so many in leadership roles spoke in such inflexible terms and unwavering demeanour about the new standards with clearly deducible implications for human freedom and liberty. They did this for such a long portion of the Covid-era, with many more continuing to this day, without even so much as a tentative comment revealing the tiniest bit of concern about the short or long term consequences on human freedom. This is in no small part related to the phenomenon of person seeking political power with a collectivist conception of an assumed social contract whose understanding of freedom and liberty is predicated on a collective trajectory towards improving the conditions of the world as they perceive them and with such a prospect of traversal serving as the precondition from which any notion of freedom can be considered.

When the very notion of freedom changes from something universally applicable as a default modality of human life, if even as something to be valued in theory, to that which extends from the fulfillment of objectives as indicated by someone who necessarily perceives their social surroundings as one in which the powers of state enforcement are available at their fingertips, it shouldn't be considered intelligent to expect anything other than an ongoing transition of society towards something which is always more tyrannical. To add the element of the threat of disease, if even as just part of the rhetoric, then the expectation should be for such an approach of tyranny to be accelerated.

Inducing Pathology

We've given people a huge chance to control their environments, peer groups, workplaces, communities, organizations, friends, partners, families and essentially anyone with whom they have disagreements, particularly of how this topic became embedded in every moment and aspect of everyone's lives and because of how propaganda, social media and an interdisciplinary-focused academia that was inebriated with Social Justice.

When everything is predicated on a greater good and the risk of the destruction of all thing sand the risk of you harming me or me harming you, you can have it every way you like a whatever moment you like and anything you assert can be implied as being supported by the authorities because you align on a higher level objective and since the weeds can't all be known and perfectly understood at high resolution, as everything is in a process of discovery (but anyone who is aligned with the same outcome is doing the science whereas everyone who is against it is anti-scientific), then we have a never ending means of rationalizing on the basis of authority just about anything that the control freak wants

And, what's even worse, is that they get validated and find a form of toxic community to support them in all of this at a time when people are most divided and isolated, both figuratively and literally, and so everyone is a bit more on edge and ready to embrace these opportunities if they have the necessary proclivities. It worsens the pathological tendencies and hides the worst of the outbursts which aren't as public as they once were. People are isolated for longer, crazier for longer, and more tolerant of a lower expectation for human freedom, liberty and open aired reasoning (or open air anything, as it was)

This reinforcing of dubious behaviour combined with the state providing cover for one's linguistic manipulations on concepts like freedom and liberty, which are now contingent on the achieving of these other goals of sanitation and conformity, means that we are initiating, rewarding and exacerbating pathological habituation.

Perfectionism

Perhaps, for some, it's easier to avoid contemplating whether there is a risk involved for their children, particularly if it's being recommended, advocated and even demanded that you administer it to your child. It's easy to delegate the difficult question of evaluating the plausible ramifications when you can consider that, as all children are being made to participate and be subjected to something, then surely that increases the likelihood that it must be safe. And even if it were not safe, it would be a sacrifice that all would be committing to together, contributing to our shared strength and knowledge, and thus we have good reason to feel encouraged as we are en route to a perfection which, if ever attained, would likely be something developed, supported and maintained by the state.

TODO: Need to complete this

Historically-Oppressed Virus

Vacation

Back in 2022, after having been locked down for longer than one could remember, and having gone through a period of undulating, tyrannical policies including vaccine passports, masking, destruction of businesses and the economy, curfews (in many parts of the country), and restrictions on travel and even movement between cities and provinces, we were finally ready to take a vacation. Perhaps a year earlier, we had even considered that should we ever find ourselves able to take a vacation from Canada and, given the recent actions of the Canadian government, and the manner in which those actions were met with a combination of glee, manic enthusiasm, apathy and hopeless withdrawal by the Canadian citizenry, that it may possibly be one of the last vacations we are able to take (at least legally). At this time, however, it was already Christmas of 2022, and the echoing effects of the Canadian Freedom Convoy had made many of us more hopeful about the possibility of changing the tone and culture of the west such as to make a steady march towards totalitarianism less feasible, at least for the more immediate future.

We made our way to the Dominican Republic, with our child, and without having to be struggled over the lack of proof of vaccination at the Canadian airport, and were finally able to enjoy some family time in the sun. It was wonderful for health, vitality, and the capacity to prime ourselves for a more inspiring outlook towards the future.

As usual, I found the resort gym on the first day that we had arrived, as I quite enjoy training in new gyms, enjoying better recovery and having a level of activity which helps mitigate some of the delicious alimentary endeavours that the resort might offer.

At the gym, I saw another similarly-aged man who training with a respectable degree of effort, and we pleasantly introduced ourselves. He was a professor of oncology at university in the US and we had plenty of health and medicine related topics to discuss while attempting the maintain the pace of our workouts. I was actually quite impressed with how open minded he was about cancer research and the degree to which metabolism may play a role in certain cancers, and we delved into other related subjects, in close proximity to one another as we aerosolized or bodily fluids, came into contact with the same surfaces of the same gym equipment, and likely introduced one another's immune system to artifacts of the other's recent environments.

Before long, however, he began lamenting on the crazy right wing nutcases in America, likely assuming I despise any of the non-academic, non-intellectual and non-elite professional classes as he now seemed to, and their support of Donald Trump who, as a political figure that was not adequately championing the cause of addressing climate change (I am summarizing the professor's perspective), had played a hand in causing the pandemic. Yes, it was his opinion (though he might have said that it was an undeniable fact) that climate change had made the conditions of the world so unnatural that a freakish and defiled monstrosity of nature had manifested itself in the form of a coronavirus of unprecedented capacity to menace humanity, almost as a vengeful act of Gaia, and hurled itself at us in order to make us pay for our collective misdeeds.

I was soon done my workout and went to offer him a cordial shake of my hand before I returned to my family in time for our dinner plans, only to find that he just left my hand hanging. In fact, he almost seemed mortified as though I might cause him a trip to hospital for intubation in an undeveloped country - how horribly selfish of me! I support the blood sweat and tears that his skin had absorbed off the leather and vinyl gym surfaces was more to his liking than something more direct as my well-callused paw.

Climate Historicism

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

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

!TODO: compare against Covid-era notes.

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

Covidism and Symbolism

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

Our Metaphysical Question

!TODO: Move this and the next section?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Human Narrative as Story

Collectivist Story

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

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

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

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

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

Individual Story: Hero's Journey

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hero Cognition

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

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

TODO: Piaget and complex reduction

Freedom

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

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

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

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

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

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

Artificial Assessments for Artificial Freedom

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

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

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

Leviathan of Freedom

!WARNING: brain dump

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

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

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

Human Freedom

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

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

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

Types of Freedom

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

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

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

Occupy Existence

!WARNING: draft off the cuff writing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sinful Density

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

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

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

Human Woke Freedom

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

Woke Requires The Elimination of Things

It all functions through negating, but why can't it simply be the addition of something new?

Examples:

• Queer kids
• Gender identity
• Animal identity
• Racial identity
• Sustainability

Queer kids | New | Negated | |-----------|-----------| | Gay/Lesbian | Non-sexual child | | Non-binary | Biologically essential aspects / deductions of reality | | 2-Spirit | Universality of consciousness | | Trans | Boys and Girls |

This will bring us to our next section: Modern Woke Negation

Modern Woke Negation

Some would say that, since the advent of "woke", a continuous stream of wedges have been driven into the fabric of society such as to drive people away from one another. Others would say that this began with the advent of propaganda, or Fascism and Nazism. Yet others would specify Communism, Marxism or Socialism as the point of origin, or even Positivism. What we'd label as a stream of events of this type has likely always been there, and is simply more apparent based on the scale of social relations and information that can reach humanity, coupled with the evolution and availability of logical constructs that can be made use of in order to compel humans to take on a problematic view of each other and the world at large.

In modern times, we are stuck with this term "wokeness" which, as of late, has caused quite a bit of division among those who previously believed themselves as belonging to one portion of a partisan divide that sought to address the issue of "Woke" in society due to it having been identified as a threat to humanity and civilizational progress (progress as net improvements to society, rather than the approach of an eschatological demarcation of our true lives).

In essence, though the fraught term is attacked on the basis of its ambiguity and the tendency of so many to comment on it by supposing that some association or analogy somehow identifies and describes it, it's actually quite simple to understand and though we can, and have, get into the deeper explications, the primary motif always reigns supreme and so let's touch on it again:

Belief that systemic oppression is the primary mediator of society.

How do we know it's the primary mediator, and in what context is this relevant? Well it's relevant in our political endeavours, as seen in what we indicate as the right method by which to structure and govern society. And we know it's the primary mediator when one wishes for authoritarian solutions.

1. Gay/Lesbian

Constructivist Project

It's difficult to unpack the ideas of comprehensive sex education and how they've produced these dialectics in classrooms and regulatory institutions without taking them in the context of the Queer praxis by which academia and international organizations have come to demand their inclusion. It's especially important to think about this with some of the seemingly more "normal" subjects, such as homosexuality, which by now almost everyone agrees is a natural phenomenon and not something that's worth groveling over (we shouldn't have a say in who people choose as their romantic partners, generally speaking, so long as they are adults making their own choices), because Queer theory focuses on attacking normativity, but Queer praxis as common activism works through confusing normies by attempting to initiate them into a Queer worldview by pretending there is a controversy over something completely normal, like homosexuality, and using that as an implement to defend something completely abnormal, like pedophilia.

How do we know this? Because Queer scholars and activists can't help but attempt to sexualize children and criticize the notion that they should be regarded as innocent:

"It is a rather amazing fact that, of the very many dimensions along which the genital activity of one person can be differentiated frame that of another (dimensions along which include preference for certain acts, certain zones or sensations, certain physical types, a certain frequency, certain symbolic investments, certain relations of age or power, a certain species, a certain number of participants, etc. etc. etc.), precisely one, the gender of object choice, emerged from the turn of the century, and has remained, as the dimension denoted by the now ubiquitous category of "sexual orientation." This is not a development that would have been foreseen from the viewpoint of the fin de siècle itself, where a rich stew of male algolagnia, child-love, and autoeroticism, to mention no more of its components, seemed to have as indicative a [elation as did homosexuality" - Eve Sedgwick (Epistemology of the Closet)

"The experiences of art photographer Jacqueline Livingston exemplify the climate created by the child porn panic. An assistant professor of photography at Cornell University, Livingston was fired in 1978 after exhibiting pictures of male nudes which included photographs of her seven-year-old son masturbating. Ms. Magazine, Chrysalis, and Art News all refused to run ads for Livingston's posters of male nudes. At one point, Kodak confiscated some of her film, and for several months, Livingston lived with the threat of prosecution under the child pornography laws. The Tompkins County Department of Social Services investigated her fitness as a parent. Livingston's posters have been collected by the Museum of Modern Art, the Metropolitan, and other major museums. But she has paid a high cost in harassment and anxiety for her efforts to capture on film the uncensored male body at different ages."

"It is easy to see someone like Livingston as a victim of the child porn wars. It is harder for most people to sympathize with actual boy-lovers. Like communists and homosexuals in the 1950s, boy-lovers are so stigmatized that it is difficult to find defenders for their civil liberties, let alone for their erotic orientation. Consequently, the police have feasted on them. Local police, the FBI, and watchdog postal inspectors have joined to build a huge apparatus whose sole aim is to wipe out the community of men who love underaged youth. In twenty years or so, when some of the smoke has cleared, it will be much easier to show that these men have been the victims of a savage and undeserved witch hunt. A lot of people will be embarrassed by their collaboration with this persecution, but it will be too late to do much good for those men who have spent their lives in prison." - Gayle Rubin (Thinking Sex)

"As Duschinsky (2013) notes, “Discourses of childhood innocence seem to have an unimpeachable moral status. Yet scrutiny of these discourses indicates that they may in fact be regarded as a potentially exclusionary form of social practice, linked to little-acknowledged and problematic social effects” (p. 764). While such social effects have not gone entirely unquestioned, most critical work on the topic of childhood innocence, much of which has been produced by Australian scholars, has focused on the regulation of children’s sexual agency (Egan and Hawkes, 2009; Faulkner, 2010; Robinson, 2013). Here, I take up the notion of childhood innocence to examine how, in the US context, it regulates race relations by producing a particular “childhood” that perpetuates White supremacy." - Julie Garlen (Interrogating innocence: “Childhood” as exclusionary social practice)

Childhood Innocence

Why would they criticize innocence?

Innocence denotes some societal expectation and, given the assumed circumstance of an oppressive society which enforces structural norms to maintain the current permutation of social stratification, any expectation based on social norms is deemed liable to be an aspect of the oppressive structure reinforcing itself, leading to reification of beliefs which cause members of that society to become unable to discern the manner in which the oppressive affects themselves and others or, put another way, induces a false consciousness.

Thus, if the assumption is that children are innocent and non-sexual, then one must counter the potential that such an assumption produces oppression by bringing it into conflict with its opposite formulation: a child with a sexuality who is either not innocent, or the notion of a sexual child whereby there is no such concept of innocence on the basis that our very understanding of what it is to be innocent is itself an oppressive imposition.

How can a child have a sexual orientation? Well the assumption is that a child not expressly gay is heterosexual (according to Queer theory), but is that really the case? Sexuality suggests sexual attraction, but a child is not reaching states of sexual arousal, and far less a state of sexual arousal associated with reproduction. There may be some inclination towards romantic feelings, but these are not yet compared in a context where they can be identified or their ramifications understood. A reasonable understanding or attitude would be to say that children are not yet developed in a manner or to the degree that sexual arousal manifests, and that children may be fond of one another but that the relation and dynamic of that fondness is not sexual whatsoever and is, thus, much simpler and of less impactful consequences (particularly with respect to commitment and accountability).

"In 1991, Eve Sedgwick (1991) published an essay that may be said to have initiated contemporary queer theory’s consideration of childhood as a site of heteronormative - Hannah Dyer (Queer futurity and childhood innocence: Beyond the injury of development)

It's unfortunate that this needs to be stated, but perhaps this is the sort of cyclical issue in human evolution that needs to be touched on every so often to make sure we're not trying to aim towards the catastrophic, but it seems quite apparent that it is a common perspective among Queer theorists that childhood is an opportunity to intervene in the formation of various unconscious forms of oppression which come to be seen as "normal", such as humans believing that heterosexuality, which is an aspect of sexual reproduction (and thus the reason why the human species has existed for more than one single generation) is a normal practice, and that this view of its normalcy leads to the oppression of homosexuals. Now, the focus on homosexuality as a domain of oppressive peoples has come to be a bit antiquated, as the insistence on viewing gay and lesbian as the alternatives to heterosexual living have come to be labelled as a form of hegemonic oppression in its own rite. What rite is that, and ho w might it be referenced? As homonormativity, of course, and though it might sound jarring to some, it's become a common enough concept which makes sense when you realize that all forms of collectivism are aiming at the same thing: removing limits from existence en route to a state of being where the human is not going to be denied any possible form of existence. To flesh that out just a bit more, it might be best to describe homonormativity as the forced categorization and annulment of Queer liberatory potential into structurally enforced roles. That is to say, homosexual identity as a limited and assimilated role which mimics and adheres to cisheteronormative practices.

Agency and Accountability

"There is a paradox that arises when the child’s rights to agency and participation in the world are secured while it is suggested that they are innocent and lacking complexity. I invoke this dilemma to highlight what is at stake when queer theory speaks about childhood as social construction but forecloses a consideration of actual children. In not thinking about children’s material rights, there are issues that get forgotten. As I write in Canada, I am considering, for example, the history of residential schools and their devastating effects on children’s lives as just one issue that may be elided or repressed when queer theory evades recognition of how the preservation of innocence (in the name of rights) has not protected all children equally." - Hannah Dyer (Queer futurity and childhood innocence: Beyond the injury of development)

"My argument begins with the premise that developmental theory and its attendant model of Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP) can be destructive to some children’s imaginative and social capacities when not attuned to their possible queer presents and futures." - Hannah Dyer (Queer futurity and childhood innocence: Beyond the injury of development)

There is quite the dialectical juxtaposition being presented here, in that on the idea is to introduce children to comprehensive sexual discourse in order to remove the idea that they are innocent because it keeps them from having true agency. But agency for what? For sex? Well, maybe that's just a side effect that the Queer theorist isn't too concerned about, but the real focus is that some children have had rights violated thus children shouldn't be selectively protected from having their rights violated, and how is this done? By giving them every right. By having supposed that some children have the right to innocence, we've also not afforded them the complexity to have agency in how all children have a role to play in addressing issues of social justice. Put another way, introducing children to idea that they are sexual beings early on will help them address social justice issues and prevent the possible violation of rights that might otherwise be experienced by their more "marginalized" peers.

"Early childhood studies are based on the hegemony of what is scientifically known about children’s development without adequate attention being paid to how childhood is socially and culturally constructed. ... The work of Butler (1993) creates a space to challenge, shift, create discomfort, and make noise about the gendering of children in early childhood programs. In Bodies that Matter, Butler suggests:

To what extent, then, has the performative “queer” operated along side, as the sanction that performs the heterosexualization of the social bond, perhaps it also comes into play precisely as the shaming taboo which “queers” those who resist or opposed that social form as well as those who occupy it without hegemonic social sanction. (p. 226)

In essence, we do (perform) gender whether we want to or not and implicate children who may not fit normative expectations of what we expect as acceptable behavior. Kumashiro (2002) has argued that the norms of schooling and its manifestations can be perceived as oppressive, arguing, “changing oppression than requires constantly working against this norm” (p. 11). The propensity to focus on developmentally appropriate practice seems overbearing and indeed oppressive. Children’s identities would be better understood through a critical deconstruction of Western theories of child development and of the normative pedagogical frameworks that dominate early childhood practice." - Zeenat Janmohamed (Queering Early Childhood Studies: Challenging the Discourse of Developmentally Appropriate Practice)

A sensible understanding of a child's agency and the level of accountability that is imposed on them by their family, peers and society at large is already well established in Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Early Childhood Education, but this has been the focus of criticism by Queer theorists who believe that Early Childhood Education should explicitly attempt to "Queer" development through creating different norms, reifying Gender Identities and conceiving of a child's identity through critical deconstruction, which is to say, to view it through a lense of understanding how a child's development is an opportunity for applying Critical Theory to deconstruct the social environment in hopes of producing something different which, based on the history of Critical Theory, and its origins, would mean producing Socialism en route to a Communist Utopia.

Of course, as much as Queer theorists talk about giving agency to children and making us all accountable, the accountability is only insofar as we are able to potentiate collectivism. At the moment that a form of accountability is discerned as tacitly indicated through the overarching proposals of the Queer theorist, they will deny any form of individual accountability or commitment and move towards the reification of a group by claiming everyone is responsible for all the world and that, that this representation as an understanding of the real is an actual form of accountability that can be concretized, as opposed to an individual accountability which is a form of fallacy due to a contradiction in the outcomes of different children. In this way, we see again that the eschatological endpoint through a Hegelian process of becoming both removes accountability and makes the individual vulnerable to being consumed as a fuel cell to be discarded in the historical engine.

To summarize, though the norm is to understand children as bearing some form of inherent innocence, the collectivist, particularly one who is implementing a dialectical methodology descendant to Hegelian thought, will say that the innocence is an illusion derived from:

As we are simply used to engaging this concept as though it were some form of a universal norm, we perpetually fall into a form of fatalistic reasoning about the limits and simplicity of children, which negates our opportunity to grow and evolve as a society towards some of the Utopian destinations that were previously identified by some of our greatest thinkers. The fatalistic expectation is imposed through conservative reactions to any attempt which tries to lift up our children from the endless cycle of capitalistic and normative conditioning and is furthermore a marker of privilege in the sense that those who participate in this way haven't the critical consciousness afforded to them from possessing a more marginalized perspective.

As a result, they reify a false consciousness because the ascription of innocence is actually positioning them to reinforce the cisheteronormative structure which they intuit as holding them up in an advantageous manner in the hierarchy of social strata. Our failure to recognize that acceptance of identities has been an inauthentic and lost opportunity for social justice is therefore our borne of the selfish dispositions which repress humanity and keep us from truly adopting the knowledge necessary for us to thrive.

2. Non-Binary Negation

• Biological essentialism
• Grounding of human reality
• Questioning evolution

Biological essentialism is instantly in the crosshair because whatever criteria was previously used and believed to be sufficient for identifying real, actual aspects of human biology are being made to seem unproven, inaccurate and insufficiently argued for. The reasons for this are of both conscious and unconscious origins, and this is argued with the perspective that those in favour of a biologically essentialist view of the world are assumed to follow through in having been influenced by entities which favour those same things as well, such as a history of capitalistic exploitation to keep industry moving and demand increasing, as well as the imposition of hierarchy, particularly as a consequence of Patriarchy.

One of the best representations of an argument which, though rather ambiguous to the uninitiated observer, has carried mighty weight in helping to establish a foundation of discourse in Gender and Queer studies, and their related activist endeavours, is a quote we already touched on earlier by Judith Butler. Here's a quick breakdown of some of the primary points she puts forward in her problematization of sex:

"Originally intended to dispute the biology-is-destiny formulation"

• It's one thing to say that you're doing employing a radical premise in order to analyze something differently, but it's quite another thing to say that the thing you wish to analyze was itself the employment of a radical premise to begin with, so things are incredibly dubious right off the bat. It would be much more sensible to say "gender was originally intended to describe the corresponding behaviours, social norms and expectations that we associate with people of a given sex".

"Taken to its logical limit, the sex/gender distinction suggests a radical discontinuity between sexed bodies and culturally constructed genders... 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."

• Here she is saying that the very fact humans came up with a concept of gender and gave it a name tells us that sex and gender should, in fact, eventually come to be seen as things that are not related. She would push back on that and say that they are related and that the concept of gender worked as a good start towards freeing us from the imprisoning aspect of our attitude towards the sexed body, but that the fact of us having come up with this concept demonstrates that we are trying to break free of the limiting ideas about human sex."

"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."

• Quite simply, that we came up with a sex/gender distinction contradicts the immutability of sex, and therefore the distinctions of sex are themselves contradictions.

Judy is somehow presupposing that anything we conceive of is revealing some great truth about ourselves and the world, but humans go down useless rabbit-holes all the time, and though there's something to be said for the pain and struggle of some of the hard lessons we teach ourselves, there's no good reason to assume that we have to learn every difficult or even stupid lesson that we possibly can put ourselves through, as there's always an infinite set of additional ones to undertake. While we can theorize as to what reasons we possibly might have had for coming up with concepts such as gender, whether there are competing concepts referenced by that term, which ones are more legitimate, and so forth, it's much more obvious as to why we humans created the means by which to describe sex and the sex differences, and regardless of what psycho-social behaviours we can associate with either of them, the striking and unmistakably distinct physiological differences which correspond with completely different reproductive systems are themselves self-evident. As such, the whole reason we identified the concept of male and female, which definitely refer to sex, regardless of whether you also believe in the concept of "gender", is because we have to deal with our biology. We need an intelligent way of referencing to the fact that there is a difference, as well as a way of referring to the practice by which we find ourselves in the complicated circumstance of a pregnancy, and so forth.

We understand that reproduction is possible just as we know that there is only one particular modality which one would understand as being relevant to the reality of what impact sexual reproduction has on them and their lives. A set of effects is a real, non-subjective aspect of reality which every human is liable to deal with and, though we can perform actions which affect what those effects may be, such as, for example, contraceptives and abortions, and the dynamics of how they are expressed as they occur, which includes everything from nutrition and endocrinological treatments to composing a birthing environment, any intended destination sought through doing so is not something otherwise extant outside of human intervention and only as advanced technological exploit. Nature, with the constructs, formulations and behaviours which arise from its biologically mediated determinants, does not include any of these such endpoints, permutations and phenomena, so as much as we criticize the social constructions which we hope to be corrected, whether from the standpoint of the Queer theorist who takes offense through suspicion of meaning attributed to body, or the individualist of a classical Liberal disposition who declares their "anti-Wokeness", we must ask if the problem hoped to be corrected is not the folly of human concoction, be it social implements that are structurally oppressive, and not the post-naturalist mystical theorizing as are Queer and Trans activism, but one of nature itself.

Indeed, we fight against nature all the time, which is treacherous, brutal and unforgiving, simply to survive in comfortable enclaves while using the most unnatural technological developments that could ever be imagined, so rather than spending all our time fighting about whether the infinite genders are something legitimate, we could simply be having more intelligent discussions about the projects, targets and effects of transhumanistic development will actually bring, sans the context of an unconscious conspiracy to socially oppress.

3. Two-Spirit Negation

• Universality of Consciousness
• Diversity
• Minorities

2-Spirit as a concept, its use in Queer theory, Critical Colonial theory, anthropology in the wake of its having been infused with Critical Theory, Critical Cultural studies, and so forth, is one the more distasteful and infuriating forms of abusive, anti-human negation processes. It presents as some sort of advanced, sensitive and evolved form of collectivist philosophy which, in making a more explicit contact with ideas of divinity, the sacred and cosmological substance, beckons a totalitarian sensibility as soon as it becomes a concept to be enumerated, championed and described by the state. That state bodies invoke and enforce its being referenced in its own infrastructure, in human cultural practices it recognizes, and in privacy companies which wish to maintain legitimate in the business circles falling under the jurisdiction of the state.

This isn't simply totalitarian potential whose ideas could yield different results, depending on certain conditions, but a concept whose recognition by anybody with legislative authority is incoherent except in the context of conceptual enforcement. There is no "meaningful" action that any government can take to ensure that the society of its jurisdiction accommodates or "respects" this concept, except through policy concerning what expressions may take place in that society.

If there are 2 spirit people and other non-2 spirit people, then necessarily it's the case that the 2 spirit people have a type of knowledge that cannot be attained by the non-2 spirit people. And it's by no means necessary to tell some person that they shouldn't believe they have 2 spirits, or that their essence is the product of 2 spirits, or 3 spirits, or an infinite set of spirits, or all spirit, or half of all spirit, or what have you. A human can choose to believe that they are composed of energies and inhabited by demons or that their soul was formed because of the existence of a particular animal, or that they themselves are reincarnated, or that they're somehow a seed of the creator or that they are even the creator themselves. They are fine to believe any and all of that, and it's not really necessary, or morally palatable, to enforce what people believe in any capacity, especially individually, and even when it comes to the obscene, but it is quite a different sort of thing to have an authority which is responsible for the laws of the land to say that there are 2 different types of people and that they are differentiated by something spiritual, because now the state who has jurisdiction over the land and who wields the legal and enforcement apparatus by which to arbitrate conflicts amongst men is saying that there is a secret epistemology that some of those men can understand and be respected for and others not, thus obliterating the concept that humans each individually have consciousness that is equivalent in its capacity for reason, morality and viability.

"But isn't it just the same thing as saying people are religious, and referring to people by their religion or the name of their belief system?"

No, it's not the same thing at all. We can say that they are believers of such a thing, but to say that our own epistemology now needs to accord with the belief system that they purport to follow, and to consider it a civic duty, a professional requirement, and even a civic or criminal offense to refer to them by their religious title is not the same as enumerating the religions that people in a jurisdiction happen to follow. Having all citizens assist in the practice of their religion, when enforced by the state, becomes a religion of the state - not necessarily the religion that others are being directed to curate their words, thoughts and actions for, but the belief system indicated tacitly through the state positing that its direction about language, action and beliefs for a social endpoint must be followed as a moral directive, rather than for consistency in abstaining from infringing on laws which protect people's individual rights. Humans don't have a right to maintain their own belief in the fact of a world which might pose challenges to the maintenance of that belief.

In having the state acknowledge that that its citizens inherently have access to different knowledge, and while knowing that this state is the legal authority in a particular jurisdiction, it then follows not just that there are different types of people, but that the relevance and means of their differentiation is by virtue of the content of their knowledge, which corresponds by type. In doing so, the state has now formalized a declaration that knowledge, faculty and capability with different knowledge are contingent with the means by which the enumeration of their differentiated types is qualified. Since this is not necessarily qualified by individual experience, which would correspond with a universal capacity for logic and reason accessible to each individual, the means is now set in identity as per the modes of evaluation associated with the theory of identity being utilized.

Since the models of identity being employed are postulated as pertinent on the basis of their position in a structural hierarchy of oppression, drawing from Critical Race theory, Queer theory, Feminism and other formulations sharing in the lineage of Critical theory, and since their qualification is on systems of power wherein the power is derived through social relations, it becomes the presentation of the body as per the perception of others which constitutes the means by which the individual whose person's body is evaluated through which knowledge and capability are designated. This qualification is not in the genetics, the skin colour itself, and certainly not the experience of the individual, but something completely externalized which cannot itself be verified, hence moving the expertise of the evaluation to the theorist best recognized by the state.

In having defined the limit and content of what can be known by people in this way, we eliminate the notion that there is shared capacity for knowledge, universal access to reason, and a means by which we can come to understand one another.

4. Trans Negation

• Boys and Girls
• Men and Women

Though one might prefer to consider the trans phenomenon as being covered under the subject of non-binary, or gender fluid and what have you, there are some different issues that are perhaps easily addressed in speaking about one vs the other, in the sense that though non-binary negates a human being's perception of reality by problematizing biological essentialism, the notion of evolution and some of the fundamental considerations as to what it means to be a human being, the trans phenomenon, though being active in different facets of life and society, bears most of its relevance in negating the concept of a man and a woman and, especially in light of the focus of Trans praxis (which is also Queer praxis), male and female children (boys and girls).

The notion of the transgender, and especially the transgender child, constitutes the negation of boys and girls, as well as men and women, through supplanting the biological essence of sex with the fashioning of social expectations and the understanding that the relevance of a sex-related distinction is through the interest, attention and arousal that can be derived through the gender as a domain of human relations, behaviours and discourses.

Though the trans activist would concede that these things called man and woman do, in fact, exist, but not defining them as the products of or understanding derived through social construction. And why would that be? Because we have given them names.

In naming them, we sought to control, as the fact of the names having been perpetuated through a society wherein inequity exists means that those who succeeded in naming them benefited from the hierarchy of power and, as such, sought control over the meaning of bodies in such a way as to reinforce that hierarchy. For this reason, we must negate their meaning through reifying a meaning that gives control to the oppressed, and the best way to formulate that meaning is by choosing a meaning in line with an oppressed consciousness.

When there is no longer an inclination to think about performing a gender, people will be as they truly are, and this will constitute a double negation in that the process of reifying meaning to divert power and control will have been negated.

As the aforementioned process describes a liberatory process, children have a role to play. Given that they are not free, with the controlled meaning of their bodies already rampant in society, taking on this role in pursuit of liberation is both a moral imperative and their best path to freedom in who they truly are. As their peers and social environment, should it be conducive to liberation, is aware of the liberatory pursuit, the children will be struggled to demonstrate their consciousness.

State-Constructed Savage

As mentioned before, the grave injustice resulting from the state's enumeration of an identity type is largely on the grounds of the state's assertion that the identity in question suffers in the permutation of social relations found within the region over which it asserts authority.

What does the state know of the concept of Two-Spirit? What it knows is that it accepts certain categorization of people based on activism that has been influenced by academic papers on the subject, and that these papers are from academics in disciplines that have been heavily influenced by Neo-Marxists interested in Critical Colonial / Postcolonial studies, and the concept of identity in the context of Conflict theory, Standpoint epistemology and similar ideas from a very similar set of related ideological frameworks which follow the same logic as Marxist critique, regardless of whether they explicitly associate as being a domain of Marxist thought (some might prefer the term Marxian, in that regard). Though "Two-Spirit" is often professed as a "third gender", the term itself seems formulated through a correspondence of various sources which drew inspiration from creation myths and put forward a term to replace more offensive terms, such as Berdache, which were commonly used in Colonial studies and Anthropology to describe homosexual or sex atypical behaviours observed by those who researched or commented on tribes in what we call the North American region of today.

Even when examining these papers, published in anthropology journals, Gay and Lesbian journals, Radical Feminists journals, Postcolonial journals, and so forth, it's clear that the term was being suggested for use in referring to homosexual men and women living in North American Indian communities. It's only through the Queer praxis of Queer activism that the lines have been "queered" such as to propose that this is now the secret non-dualistic gender which has always existed, and this is usually qualified through comparing it to intersex persons and the notion of Native American "Gods" or mythological figures.

"institutionalized same sex intimacy was supported by religious beliefs that acknowledged the existence of people (and gods) who were neither entirely male nor entirely female. Because of this, Native American men today are likely to reject such labels as homosexual, gay, or berdache, in favor of two-spirit men." - Terry Tafoya (Native American Two-Spirit Men)

"the recent general sexual revolution in the United States and the gay liberation movement contributed greatly to the production of Williams’s wide-ranging and fully documented book. It will surprise some, shock some, but almost everyone can learn something new from it. Williams gave me a few surprises. First is the message that berdaches are nearly always homosexuals--with one male partner specializing as recipient of anal intercourse. Another one was the general practice of both male and female berdaches entering into extended, same-sex “marriages.”" - Omer C. Stewart (American Anthropology Volume 89, Issue 4, December 1987 - Commenting on Walter L. Williams (The Spirit and the Flesh: Sexual Diversity in American Indian Culture 1986)

"But with the greater focus on gender and sexuality in anthropology and heightened sensitivity to Native American voices and categories, the term berdache has been criticized (e.g., Jacobs and Thomas 1994:7). As a result alternate terms and categories such as gay, alternate gender, and two-spirit have arisen." - Carolyn Epple (Coming to terms with Navajo nadleehi: a critique of berdache, "gay," "alternate gender," and "two-spirit")

Epple also comments on the notion of "multiple genders" as though there is something beyond what corresponds with two sexes, but the dualism remains:

"Thomas (1993) describes four Navajo genders: female-bodied women, male-bodied men, female-bodied nadleehi, and male-bodied nadleehi. In this system male nadleehi' same-sex sexual practices are not equivalent to many present-day Euro-American homosexual or gay practices, since nadleehi partners are of a different gender (usually male-bodied men) than nadleehi, while present-day Western gays and their partners are of the same gender (Thomas 1993:4-5)." - Carolyn Epple (Coming to terms with Navajo nadleehi: a critique of berdache, "gay," "alternate gender," and "two-spirit")

Though, technically, the term "Two-Spirit" is most attributed as having been first formalized by Albert McLeod, a gay Status-Indian from Manitoba who has done a lot of LGBTQ or 2SLGBTQ advocacy, at the Third Annual Inter-tribal Native American, First Nations, Gay and Lesbian American Conference held in Winnipeg, Canada, in 1990, where a term was specifically sought to replace "berdache", and this event has been corroborated through many sources, it stands to reason that the papers referenced above are in-line with what those attending the conference would have conceived as being the inspiration for the term.

If taking a reasonable and charitable stance on the subject, the term is best described as a religious term, and its use by politically conscious persons who are either politicians, or who are doing political advocacy in institutions are blurring the lines between Queer as a praxis of liberation from cisheteronormativity as a theoretical understanding of oppression derived from sexual identity, and a non-specific reference to the broad understanding that North American Indian communities, in some cases, have creation myths or mythologies involving gods and special beings who relate to this term. The idea that our government can compel its citizens to refer to these things as actual legitimate constructs that are to be tacitly acknowledged as both real and relevant in the context of Social Justice insofar as morality of citizens, and enforcing legally consistent behaviour of citizens is absurd. By taking this step, and many others similar to it, the state is demanding its citizens to reify a specification of identity lest one be deemed hateful, immoral and even, in some cases, guilty of infractions which can escalate to civil offenses that could lead to jail time. That is to say, what may begin as a violation of the Canadian Human Rights Act can lead to monetary penalties which, if left unpaid, could theoretically lead to imprisonment.

Further to hate speech provisions of the Human Rights Act, one could also be argued as having imposed "conversion therapy" on someone by not respecting their proclaimed gender identity, which includes the idea of Two-Spirit identity.

Enslaved to Validate State Ideology

Intrinsic to the acknowledgment of the concept of Two-Spirit by the state is its authority to proclaim and maintain the technical specification for what that thing is; that is to say, that thing will no longer exist except as per the model provided by the state authority (and an individual's ability to arrange, express, present and be perceived adequately such as to pass continuous evaluation against the state model). Without meeting such a capacity, one then becomes re-ascribed as something else, as chosen by the state or as per a defacto designation which occurs by virtue of entering into conflict with the state.

And if the concept exists as even a subset of another larger category, then it and the implements which evaluate against it become the means by which all designations within the larger category are validated. This includes the category of "human". Put another way, as the state has indicated not only a historical injustice continuing through the citizenry which it governs today, but that there is a moral impetus for those citizens to acknowledge the special insight and abilities of a small subset of its citizens as but one method by which to address the injustice, then meeting this demand becomes a test of the citizen's humanity.

Drafted as State Enforcer

This isn't only one being evaluated as per the appearance of the body, through meeting rigid criteria for the expression of their form, and the manner in which its perception is interpreted, but because its form now can only serve in a capacity to reify and reinforce the state specification and because it is only legal acknowledgment, one's role must be specifically to ensure the state's conception of the phenomenon is the only one utilized, as anything else is now a form of genocide and erasure (at least by the state's acknowledged description of the phenomenon and the positing of its historical context bearing the sort of relevance which meets the prescriptions given to the citizens of today, its specification, and a need for enforcement of those prescriptions. The state cannot under any circumstance be made to acknowledge a false representation of its citizenry, or it admits to serving something other than its citizenry, such as its own pursuance of power, or an imagined or falsely interpreted citizenry).

Know Your Role

Think about it. If your conduct is contributing to the message that the state is incorrectly identifying its citizens, the relations between them, and the purpose of the institutions and initiatives of the country, then you are identifying as someone who is both a threat to the state's authority and to social harmony.

Everyone's role in the matter, including those who are supposedly caught in the net cast by the specification, is to confirm and elaborate the truth as indicated by the state, and to do this correctly means not participating in or contributing to a genocide of the reified identity being referenced. If you are a Status Indian living in Canada who doesn't believe that other Status Indians are Two-Spirit, or that the term doesn't really describe something legitimate, then you are succumbing to the influence of whiteness and colonialism and now possess a false consciousness. You can no longer speak on behalf of any peoples you are otherwise ascribed as being a member of.

It is because of this that it becomes more important to demonstrate the logic and corresponding thinking of the state specification than it does to be of a particular physical form, to have had particular experiences and history, to be of a certain family, to be of specific genetic make-up, and so forth. If your communication does not facilitate the demonstration and reification of the state's specification, then your history, your skin colour, your family, your genetic make-up and your physiological experiences all become inadmissible except as evidence of the mythos put forward by the state, and only insofar as it will be interpreted by those the state deems its experts.

To be clear, it's not any of the specific, concrete attribute of the body, nor even the genetic sequence which can be decoded from a sample of your DNA. It is predicted interpretation by experts of the perception and consequent expectations of the phenotypic expressions deduced from the presentation of your material body when observed by members of specific strata in a corresponding social environment.

All your beliefs about our family and the legacy of human activity are now irrelevant and tantamount to lies and dishonesty unless you correctly demonstrate the state's recommended sensibilities for someone with your body. The state owns the infrastructure to assign reality to each and every being and, as such, the meaning of every scrutinized moment of your life. If seeking to truly represent your own person on your terms, you are an irrelevant piece of embarrassing and disgraceful clump of matter and you can never be intelligibly construed in this society; you can only be an example of how to have your real, experienced existence erased, disregarded and discredited. You will never be a real person.

Evading Mephistopheles

And so it is in Faust that the main character makes a deal with the devil on the basis of his desire for power, pleasure and intellectual formidability. He laments having studied and mastered all the great works and sources of knowledge and that he still stands "no wiser than before", and yearns for the satisfaction which has always evaded him:

"Then to the moment I might say: / Linger a while, thou art so fair!” - Faust

It would be the realization and admission of a moment that he would like to remain in for longer than its expanse of temporality, such as it is, which proves that, should his promise have been made, the devil's part of the deal will have been fulfilled.

Obviously it's presented such that the red flag of a sensory rewards-based satisfaction is doomed to prove insufficient. Even if it is derived through intellectually-driven pursuit, it's still assured to be a moment that satisfies as mere feeling, which in spite of any level of sophistication is still the means of driving an animal. This is, in a sense, analogous to the collectivist desire, which believes there will be some satisfaction in the Immanentization of the right conditions and finally curbing the angst of existence, having triumph on conquering one's enemies, attaining a radical joy after the hope of victory, and being finally brought to the endpoint that tension had driven one to.

In the second act, however, after many would-be moments of bliss that just somehow missed the mark of truly becoming the moment of satisfaction, he finds himself nearing the end of his life and now, finally, he's confronted with moments which might help him reach a higher level of being. He imagines enhancing the world for the benefit of the many, and it leads him to an astonishing moment of revelation:

"Such a throng I’d like to see, / Standing on free soil with a people free! ... In the foretaste of such bliss, / I now enjoy the highest moment, this.” - Faust

On the hand, this is presented as something beyond his mere intellectual inclination and his pursuit of experiencing the greatest moment through his sensory apparatus, and I'd love to say that his former goal of achieving something with correlates with the inclination of the collectivist has been supplanted with a realization that there's something more than mere pleasure: the eternalizing satisfaction that there can be a better world for all and that one might have conceived of it, or even had a hand in it, and that, should it be realized, one needn't even be thanked for it, thus making it a selfless act. Goethe even makes it appear as such as, in spite of Faust's expression which was previously tied to being the unlocking of the bargain by which the devil would now own his soul, he is still accepted into heaven for having been one who "strives with all his might" for something greater than himself, which qualifies his redemption.

But is it not the same thing? Is it not still a moment of bliss which, though ostensibly presented as a focus on the good of all, rather than his own gratification, is still never going to be beyond his embodied experience. Whatever blissful sense of transcendence one aspires to, the notion that it's in service of a collective good which is separate from oneself is, at best unproven and in all likelihood tangled with one's state of embodiment and proclivities borne of the senses.

It's precisely this failure of distinction which will always enable one to rationalize what can lead to the absurd, the atrocious, and even evil deeds through one's moral aspirations. This is quite in line with the banality of evil which, though some argue as being an illusion in the face of actual psychopathic minds who expertly seek out the acting out of evil deeds, needn't present as a case of mutual exclusion. It's precisely our capacity to imagine we are good which provides opportunity for more tragedy and, yes, even evil.

For many, it might seem obvious that seeking bliss and fulfillment through intellect, lust, passion and triumph are things that, if perfectly quantified, would be evaluated and expressed in material terms. By perfectly quantified, I mean that we could theorize a system by which the pleasure of the nervous system could be expressed in a standard format, even just in theory, on the basis that we agree that there can be pleasure in experience. We could even theorize as to how we would take into consideration the dynamics of human cognition and performance on the basis that capabilities mature over time, are yielded and granted through disparate paths to mastery, and the manner in which long-lived impressions can change through experience, thus adding many layers of complexity to how perception is affected and personalized in complex ways, and that this contributes to a maturity of perspective that we sometimes refer to as wisdom, and that with better models, theories and quantification, we could theoretically develop an ever-improving capacity to evaluate the "bliss" of the moment as is experienced by a human being.

In contrast to this, it always seems common to assume that, even if one were not a theist, the idea of experiencing spiritual transcendence is difficult to quantify. That for some it might be connected to the divine, or an idea about divinity, and that for others it might simply be perceiving the world with a heightened sensibility where one aspires to express obtain and reduce their selfishness in order to find more meaningful fulfillment and that, in even simply aspiring to meet the frame of perception differently, it becomes more complicated to ascertain whether one is driven through an incentive of satisfaction via the sense apparatus.

But I would argue that, in truth, it is complete and utter hubristic nonsense to entertain the possibility of these things being separate, at least insofar as oneself might experience, and that the very inclination to assume we can consider the possibility of this difference in informing what sort of undertakings should be sought for a collective are liable to be at the root of any vile catastrophe.

That we could seek some elegance possibly in the spirit of some counterpuntal quality of existence may, very well, be a better way of regarding reality at all, but that it may inform our moral prescriptions for another is inherently problematic in just the same way as prescribing another to the benefit of the many can be.

That isn't to say that we I wouldn't hope to discern satisfaction from activities per an expectation of lasting satisfaction which is well-supported and not fleeting, and perhaps something that can be attained in a manner which restores, reinvigorates, and reinforces the most remarkable and elegance-supporting patterns of phenomena. But, we can't ever discern something beyond an individualist pursuit of a resistance of the ego and the will which insists on demonstrating a supremacy or in receiving an experience that one might otherwise be missing. Is a complexity which comes through a relaxed awareness lending towards unique, exploratory expression that is harmoniously and robustly reinforced with a seemingly infinite depth of the natural frictionless essence of reality? A noiseless expression of a quality which trumps the barbaric ejaculation of egotistical desire? I hope so.

I contend that the collectivist pursuit of supremacy over the order of being is precisely the Mephistophelean path, but that the belief that one is choosing a mode beyond it is liable to fool one into following that same path yet even further than before. It is the individualist whose attempt to find a more chaotic and ephemeral harmony with his free peers, and embodying the wisdom gathered through our history and experience, and that this can only hoped to be approached as a possibility. Perhaps through such a modality can humanity harness some infinite potential of our world and ourselves, but this can't be measured beyond adherence to our principles most readily observed before the advent of political society; the infinite regress forces us to ask questions of life in pure solitude and the lowest levels of social interaction.

Regardless of which path we may be on, we must always suppose that it's taking us towards this abomination: a monstrous, blind and archaic corporate entity calling itself the people, for the people and for the good. A freakish beast that purports to know minds, and which threatens to replace real people and a legacy of beautiful culture with a decrepit and pathetic voodoo doll and childish taunts of a supreme infallibility.

Two-Spirit Negation Part II

How distastefully ironic that after the elaborate commentary on the 20th century's dehumanizing practices of categorizing humans to enact social, cultural and absolute control over people's supposed identities, and indeed their lives, the state, corporation, syndicates and oligarchs are finding an ostensibly true humanitarian calling in imbuing the entirety of what they do with reifying a specification of what people are, as denoted by their material classification (that is, the classification of the matter of their flesh as the source of applying a meaning to the essence of their being). As we've commented on before, the irony is purposeful in that the system of critique which declares the need to categorize does so on the supposed need to counter the categories otherwise being wrongfully applied, and that it finds its way of doing this through the central authorities at every opportunity, which both empowers the psychopathological activist to wreak their manipulative tactics for their personal proclivity to reify their morally elevated self image.

People with North American Indian heritage are but one of the many casualties, which actually encompass all of humanity, but are as a target quite exemplary of the pathological political climate in Canada. For years, Canadians have bemoaned that the higher poverty of Native Indian persons living on reserves is directly related to low expectations translating to lack of agency and had sought initiatives to champion economic opportunity and skills development specifically because of the understanding that they are equally capable of using logic, reason and a motivated capacity for work to achieve a better life. The contrast of living in poor conditions, with few opportunity, among those who share an ethnic and cultural heritage and in a manner which exhibits the aesthetics of segregation against an integrated society where people are free to engage in their cultural practices as they please has been something that was always critiqued as a consequence of misplaced effort and poor central planning. Even while working for Northern and Indian Affairs Canada, in the early 2000s, it was a common opinion among policy analysts that this circumstance was harmful to Indians particularly because of the bigotry of low expectations combined with a circumstance whereby those in that environment never find themselves building interests and discovering what they are capable of.

In consideration of the state, to indicate that there is a need for rectifying historical oppression because of its relevance to identity, identity that it knows and enumerates as concrete, is synonymous with claiming the power necessary to curate and transform the conditions which were in any way a ground for that historical oppression. According to Marx, and many after him, the conditions include all human relations, all use, availability and ownership of resources, and even nature itself, which is ultimately not something which is to be distinguished from nature itself. Until that historical oppression is no longer extant, this project continues as the construction of the noble savage, at yet a newer iteration, and which has been constructed such as to include implements of all the subset collectivist ideologies still floating around today and this is a project most mediated by those who, as already positioned in the upper echelons of the sociopolitical environment, are most enabled through enhanced implements to sociopolitical power.

Of course, this isn't just relegating one set of phenotypically observable expressions bound to a class of human to a form of beast, in the sense that their content and motivations are something modeled and prescriptive, but the assigning of a beast category to all humans as a whole through the historical mythos, as it confers content and motivations for them as well.

Assuming that these simple beasts exist with no real thought of their own, but simply an awkward mess of desires and reactions, and that one classification of beast had a temporally-afforded state of relatively more endowed access to resource which allowed them to attain dominance over another, regardless of any other contextual consideration, is the cause of the eternal designations of God and Devil, sacred and fallen, divine and mundane. Through state-acknowledged identity, one material formation of flesh vs another becomes the principle driver of our morality, the questioning of which is avoided as though deemed forbidden and evidence of which formation one's mind is the product of. And indeed it is forbidden as the law dictates that the capacity for an identity category to exist and thus any instance of beast to which it has been ascribed rests upon the capacity of the collective to assure that an identity can be made to sufficiently feel a sense of belonging to an environment, with the chief evaluation in that environment being the content of utterances which occur within it.

Interestingly enough, however, the fact that questioning any aspect of the mythology of conflict between two classifications of material forms should be forbidden indicates that the classifications themselves should be something for which good sense would incline towards forbidding, as it makes any concept of one's identity into something dead, unchanging and unresponsive. Imagine that living person would want for their state of mind and view to be predicated without real observation and understanding of the things they say or do. Of course, even such an inhuman practice needs to be permitted, if only just to identify those who harbour actual bigoted points of view (that is, the practice of labeling people as per identity categories and theorizing about their morals, opinions, rationales, and so forth based on the meaning of that identity).

That simply isn't the extent of it, but it certainly is the basis as to why it should be rejected and ridiculed. Any ideological pursuit of imposing contradiction for historical rectification is necessarily a process for the discovery and construction of totalitarian, puritanical and eschatological characteristics (creating conflict to rectify historical conflict implies a need to control the state of reality until conflict does not occur, or dominance and supremacy is permanently achieved). That all humans must take up the work of transforming the world into a specification of acceptance criteria which, by any reasonable consideration (barring the most extreme technological solutions), is not only technically unattainable, and is not only presupposing a representation of every human, as per a model's evaluation of their body, but which is formulated with logic both congruent to and inspired by Marx's critiques and critical philosophy as per his writing and theory of historical materialism.

Many would balk at such a suggestion, claiming that the classical and perhaps even naively vulgar socio-economic classification, predicated on material management as resources bearing an effect of value, is a far cry from the nuanced understanding of cultures, races, psychologically-mediated gender expression, and so forth. But what is a perfection in the configuration of matter without a perfection which includes that of the flesh?

When it comes to producing rhetoric which supposes an oppressed status by people befitting a description of their bodies, such persons are put on the stage of this authoritative entity, described in a manner which presupposes that this entity has a deeper understanding of a particular type of human by virtue of the fact that it speaks of its weaknesses and vulnerability, but this is in addition to a few more things to the oppressed type as well:

• One's fallen state is reified uncritically: The suggestion of man's shortcomings is always a welcome one, as the state must always validate its reason to enforce new controls which will remedy the situation. When reinforced by theory which can presuppose the malice and hate of man with identity itself satisfying any need for evidence, the tendency becomes irresistable.
• One's challenge in life is now defined and described by the state along with its purpose, intention, meaning and the nature and content of the experience: The state understands both the nature of every human being's challenge and the role each citizen must play in overcoming challenge.
• It becomes the standard quantifier for determining the quality of God or Devil: With its premises already fulfilled, it just becomes a matter of collecting the right information.
• In order to be spoken of as enumerated by the authority as being considered as legitimately having a particular identity (performing it correctly), one must either perform their actions in line with the authority's description (based entirely on what you say and what you do), or not offer up or express any contradiction, resistance, or hesitation to the description or the capacity of the state to announce any identity. Resistance to its descriptions of identity is tantamount to erasing all members of the identity, destroying their "human rights", and participating in genocide, as "genocide" is now no longer the direct practice of systemic eradication, but is instead something which includes a failure to center a particular category's culture, as was seen with Canada's declaration of the historical occurrence of Genocide of Canada'as Native Indian populations (prepare yourself -> death wish, assured death, misery & company, apocalyptic induction and so on).

As we carry on in our analysis, we will examine the ways in which the state has employed aesthetic determinants to appropriate the culture and representation of millions of people based on the material characteristics of their bodies or their proclaimed experiences (as evaluated by the state)

Rainbow Savage

Motifs of rainbow:

• Brilliant, eternal light
• Transcendent completion
• The total range of being
• Infinite
• Timeless wisdom

There is something majestic about the rainbow and the prism of refraction inducing the display of superseding wisdom in its perfected, harmonious and balanced form, as though something beyond the crude offerings of fallen man. To take this up as an extension of oneself as though the essence of one's being is to be acknowledged as something revered with the perfection of the potential of expression - that things taken as humans understand them as things that are discrete will always yield incomplete, partial expressions of being, but that consolidating all things within one expression by purposely pursuing and empowering the expression of anything based on the suggestion that it should be limited in some way is the path of salvation and that resistance to this in any form is a failure in some universal sense, regardless of any particulars - that as soon as something is indicated through identity, that it must be incorporated.

Modern Queer liberation is not the only philosophy or religion whereby the Rainbow is invoked as a sign of transcendence or supreme mastery. From ancient Sumerian myth with hints of divine approval and possibly immortality, protection and power in Hinduism, a connection to the land of the gods in Norse mythology, aura in Theosophy, mastery of the body in Buddhism, and so on, we can see that it quite intuitively brings the human mind into considering the divine and the infinite, almost as a proxy for reaching something beyond the mortal and material human life and uncovering the true view of reality.

Unlike other supposed "races", which are enumerated through descriptions found in Critical Race Theory as people whose knowledges come through the structural oppression vis-a-vis "Whiteness" and colonialism, and whereby there isn't usually much rhetoric which acknowledges their identity as being related to the divine, Indigenous, Native, First Nations, Inuit, Metis and other means of referring to people with relations to anteceding persons whose presence preceded that of Europeans are often portrayed as having some divine connection to land, with rhetoric even going so far as to the point of self-proclaimed atheists using terms like "Creator" or "Spirit" when explaining the history of said peoples.

The State as Man's Failure

Let's refresh ourselves on the role of the state, so we can better interpret what the incentives might be both for those employed within the structure of governance, as well as those who implore the state, to have the system of governance implemented such as to refer to its citizens by disparate identities rather than referring to them in a way which identifies them on the basis of their commonality.

• State exists to work out / resolve conflict between men
• Men without conflict don't need a state
• The existence of a state proves that class conflict exists

If the state exists as man's failure, then it necessarily needs a story about the people for whom it is undertaking the great task of correcting. In the case of a political process, since we're dealing with species of men who, according to the mythos, cannot use logic and reason to resolve their affairs and create a better world, the state must alleviate man from having to be faced with situations whereby they are liable to use, or believe they are using, logic and reason to settle their affairs. Put differently, the state must ensure that the conduct of its people is for the people, which means preventing them from performing actions which are contrary to the interests of the people.

This also means that, when subjected to the conditions of a political system where the citizens assume they are afforded a democratic process, the state of the people must remain vigilant to ensure that the process is functioning correctly and not subverted in such a way that parties which exist to undermine and oppress people are able to gain power.

See, the purely democratic system of governance for the people is a state government which has successfully eliminated all political entities vying for parliamentary power that are not "for the people" and this is the first step.

"Dialectics of democracy: if democracy means self-government of free people, with justice for all, then the realization of democracy would presuppose abolition of the existing pseudo-democracy. In the dynamic of corporate capitalism, the fight for democracy thus tends to assume anti-democratic forms, and to the extent to which the democratic decisions are made in “parliaments” on all levels, the opposition will tend to become extra-parliamentary." - Herbert Marcuse (An Essay on Liberation)

What does it mean to be "for the people?". Well, that is evaluated in the sociopolitical discourse and if some perfectly-composed, semantically-complete structure representing a party "for the people" can be ascertained, presented and disseminated, then the parties can be compared against it in order to know how perfectly "for the people" they are. We could call that the second step. Of course, it is mostly organized activists or the incumbent party that are actively evaluating and producing rhetoric as to whether other parties in the environment are meeting a standard of being sufficiently "for the people". The incentives will always be structured such that the incumbent party wishes to demonstrate that it is the only party which is truly for the people, while the activists who compel the state to enforce stricter constraints in order to ensure that parties must be "for the people" will desire having a say in a people's party, either by influencing a party or through its creation.

In the meantime, so long identity breeds intolerance of ideas, democracy becomes a mere fable and is supplanted by the process of convincing people to set into motion the elimination of political choice until only one incumbent party remains which has unequivocally declared itself to be "for the people".

If that could ever be achieved, what happens next for the classical Marxist (along an interpretation of Engels) would be that the state withers away. For the Leninist, they would say that the state will continue to exist only as long as struggle and tension between the parties continues to exist, as the contradictions can still linger among the people. That the party exists is itself the indication that it should continue to and, knowing the sentiments and attitudes of legislators, administrators and politicians, there will always be struggle and tension to be found so long as people remain classifiable through sociopolitical theory.

This is why it doesn't matter how blatant, egregious, or severe the party's mistakes are. If even ever the errors of a party are undeniable, if no immediate scapegoat exists, any error is always preceded by at least one other error at the lower level of analysis bearing any sort of association: that of a human. This is, ironically, the only time a human is considered to have individual agency, whereas almost all other decisions are made under the assumption that we need to counteract the "fact" that humans (except maybe children for whom comprehensive sex education might be offered) have no agency.

That is, there is always reason to assume that everything about you from your morals, values, ways of relating to others, and so on, must be taught to you, not in terms of ways of thinking about these things outright, but in terms of what the correct opinion should be on every matter of any import, and especially so in the age of ever more miniscule gradations of experts. What's most insidious is how it is explicit here that these things are programmed into people while also utilizing and convincing them that their selecting a particular viewpoint and, by virtue of the content academically attributed to that viewpoint, they've somehow provided a demonstration of a critical thinking faculty. That is to say, whether it is inline with their capacity to bring about proletarian revolution.

Great Spirit, Great Creator

When the state invokes the reference to and story about what it refers to as the original people of this land, it's implied that the relevance of the reference is because of the assumption of their having been wronged and stolen from. Of course, it doesn't mean by it (the state). No, the state is the only entity which is finally making the wronged, broken people whole again, whereas all other humans in the world who aren't enumerated as these unfortunates can only participate in demonstrating a desire for restoration (reconciliation) through supporting the state, proving the state correct, and participating in the work of whatever program it is undertaking. In fact, in Canada the process of reconciliation is referred to as "Truth and Reconciliation" and, in the words of many Indigenous activists, "reconciliation" begins with "truth". This is, of course, not a process of inquiry, discovery and deliberation, but an acceptance that truth is the product of identity, and that one's ability to benefit from truth depends on the positionality of one's identity. That is to say, if one is not bearing an identity of the oppressed which, in this case, is someone whose body will have them be structurally associated as Indigenous, then even though one cannot truly know truth, they can benefit by truth, and not act as a gatekeeper for the benefits of truth to be enjoyed, by accepting the truth as is told to them by those whom they are oppressing.

As has been discussed earlier, the ever-present factor of structurally-determined oppression has been interpreted by Queer theorists such as to assert that persons of North American Indian descent have a Queer identity. I am reminded of this quote:

"Native peoples have already been determined by settler colonialism to have no future” (p. 48):

If the goal of queerness is to challenge the reproduction of the social order, then the Native child may already by queered. For instance, Colonel John Chivington, the leader of the famous massacre at Sand Creek, charged his followers to not only kill Native adults by to manipulate their reproductive organs and to kill their children because “nits make lice.” (p. 48)

In this circumstance, the Native child is not invested with assurance of futurity and cannot cohere in Edelman’s privileged portrayal of the cult of the Child. The Native child, for Smith, is queered because it “is not a guarantor of the reproductive future of white supremacy; it is the nit that undoes it” - Hannah Dyer (Queer futurity and childhood innocence: Beyond the injury of development)

As a reminder, "futurity" refers to the reproduction of society, particularly through oppressive hegemonic structures. Hannah is quoting Andrea Smith's paper entitled "Queer theory and native studies", which investigates inadequate deconstructions of "futurity" and uses Smith's criticism of Edelman to show us how the evolution of Queer theory has been such to consider both the expectation of. Essentially, Edelan is known for having problematized childhood innocence as an abstraction because innocence of childhood is made sacred as a symbol of heteropatriarchal order which ultimate positions childhood development such as to lead to heterosexual reproduction, hence a need to "Queer" childhood innocence.

Smith's criticisms are great examples of the semantics by which Queer theory is the logic of cult collectivism and, hence, totalitarian.

She posits that Edelman fails to understand, or at least acknowledge, that not all children are innocent. Though she finds that he does a good job of bringing into view the notion of a Queer childhood, it makes too many assumptions which keep marginalized identities from being made visible and, thus, becomes not only a missed opportunity, but re-enacts the form of oppression that it purports to be addressing. She refers to the "vulgar constructionism" which, for those keeping score, is a nod to antiquated ways of thinking that are associated with classical Marxism which simplify a more richly nuanced reality of social relations by painting it the fuzzy and blurry brush strokes that come from a classical critique of capitalism. For example, though he wishes to problematize the expectation of children being innocent, and hopes to do this through the "Queering" of childhood, Drawing on an example of the "Native child", Smith posits that Edelman doesn't realize that some children are already not innocent and, as such, already"queered".

Another point of her criticism stems an understanding that Edelman's analysis fails to provide a more materialist and intersectional implementation of analysis in that it is grounding praxis in the abstract, by utilizing language about children which describes the child's body as a concept, rather than speaking the actual, concrete bodies of children more directly. That is to say, she wishes to ground the site of contention and conflict in the bodies themselves, which is something that has become more rampant in queering of Early Childhood Education:

"the child’s body, as we imagine it, is a battleground for our projections and fears" - Kathryn Bond Stockton (The Queer Child)

The last point to draw attention to from that quote is that Smith doesn't believe in addressing the need for social transformation on the basis of rhetoric and criticism alone. While Edelman believes that Queer activism negates and disturbs on its own, thus rejecting concrete political projects altogether with the belief that the praxis at the level of theory and living will evoke the changes sought, Smith envisions coalitions, provisional political organization, and collective material movement for confrontational action towards Queer liberation. In a sense, though this is the logical evolution of collectivism, it's also still going back to some of the fundamental staples of Marxist praxis, which did always indicate a need for a dictatorship of the proletariat.

This follows the same line of reasoning that collectivist thinking necessarily seeks totalitarian solutions in that the very idea that there is a moral impetus for viably human participants to be differentiated on the basis of agreeing with those whose ideas are represented in the collective implies a totalizing endpoint. As a result, even though many thinkers within an area of collectivist thought may truly believe that they wish to preserve fundamental principles of freedom and liberty, it's only a matter of time before their ideas are supplanted by those who advocate for views which evolve with the domain of thought. That is to say, the domain of thought itself will gravitate towards totalitarian solutions over time.

What It Is

What It's Not

There is relentless effort to put forward the notion that identity is something tangible and meaningful through the argument that people have unique identities because they are a mishmash of component identities which, in their particular permutation, constitute something unique. This is an absurd idea, because the very idea that any of these components are themselves enumerable means that the expectations bound to them are something meaningful and true, and that they are designated to persons because they have the knowledge or behaviour which is associated with them. Even to suggest that people are unique because the identities being allocated in their specific configuration constitute a unique set is ridiculous, because that we can classify which types of identities are being spoken of and recognized in society means that there are certain ones which are worth of reference, while any others which might number in an infinite set of possible identity types carry no political weight behind them, and are disregarded.

Are we to think that there exist disregarded identity categories that are somehow more important than the ones the state has chosen to recognize? What would it mean if the state were putting forward statements and legislation of moral and legal weight on the basis of identity categories that elide more significant categories that are not being used? Wouldn't that mean that the state doesn't know its own citizens, and that its efforts to resolve their social conflict are actually being done a somewhat blind and possibly counterproductive fashion? If the state were to suggest or admit that there exist possibly more important categories that it hasn't yet made use of in its communication to the public, then it would be admitting a gross and fundamental error about its approach and record of governance.

So, no, it would be ridiculous to assume that the state would even concede that there exist more important identity categories, therefore the ones it is using are those which it deems as being the most meaningful in terms of understanding the nature, knowledge and behaviour of its citizens. Based on this alone, it would be necessary to assume that, all thigns considered equal, persons bearing the same identity category, even as a composite of intersectional ones, are of the same nature, character and morality, that they exhibit the same behaviour, and that they enjoy the same knowledge. This is a completely repugnant idea and anyone with a shred of honesty, even if they agree with the use of such descriptions for some historical purpose, would understand that these proxy identities are not actually the substance of a person, but an implement by which to mediate social affairs in the context of a state which can apply force to its citizens.

On the front of narrative and rhetoric, there are always challenges in getting humans to understand that there is an insidious and harmful practice of collectivist cult initiation occurring, and that initiatives which perform activist such as to draw persons into the cult are targeting people on the superficial basis of taking some aspect of their body's presentation, and then using some of the aforementioned theories to describe the meaning of the person in an environment which requires transformation into collectivist society because society currently has artificial expectations about that body.

Approaching the Naive

Over the past few years, I've been delighted to see a change in the attitude and initiative of people who might refer to themselves by quite a wide variety of social identifiers, from liberals and conservatives to academics and blue collar workers, and everything in between. It had just taken some time before the toll of collectivist cult ideology had made its way into their personal and professional lives, and left them with pain, estrangement, disillusion, unemployment, lost loved ones and, in some cases, a desire for suicide (that some may have acted on). Many have strong opinions on the correct manner with which to present specifically what it is that we're deaing with, how best to comprehend it, and how best to address it. Though it's better that people are willing to stand up to propositions that they intuit or ascertain as being wrong, there can be many pitfalls resulting from the approach they take in addressing it.

Many choose to simply call it Communist, based on quite a wide variety of interpretations as to what constitutes Communism or a Communist. Obviously, based on the writing in this book, I've taken a moment to illuminate my understanding both of what it is, and what the most common understandings of it happen to be.

!TODO: Re-summarize Communism:

• Communist as definition: the { concept, idea, model and theory }
  • Theory described as a model of what could be
  • The theoretical concept of what a human being may be -> described fundamentally as an ontology and:
  • The species Being -> Marxist definition/description
  • People advocating for a political system / political party
• Communist as self-described: { identification, declaration, and social culture }
  • What one might claim themselves to be
• Communist as deciphered by the onlooker: { observation, allegation, categorization }
  • What one asserts others to be

Now that we've re-visited some of those summaries, let's touch on some of the challenges most would have in calling out collectivist cult artifacts, practices and instigations as being "Communism":

Calling it Communism

When you refer to something as being Communist in order to criticize it, you will mostly be confronted by those who don't really understand what Communism is in the first place, beyond either a pop-culture understanding derived from consumption of entertainment, having observed surface level spats on politics prompted by people's television consumption, or perhaps what one might have learned based on some introductory politics material given as one portion of curriculum in a middle school course (in our case, it was it was a "Canadian Studies" course in grade 7 where we learned some basics presented as one linear dimension of political orientations spanning two extreme points of "Fascism" on the right and "Communism" on the left, and this has turned out to be almost everyone's cursory view of politics).

It doesn't mean you shouldn't call out things as they relate to Communism, whether by philosophical underpinning, or as a progression of what is being demanded, or whether a description of the world being enunciated before you matches the description of man's ontology, according to Marx. Regardless of how you do it, you should do it in a way which indicates that Communism was a conceptual endpoint which satisfied the requirements of Marx's liberation. That is to say, the thing you are identifying as relating to Communism probably shares the concept of Communism as its logical endpoint, and bases this logic on a declaration of a human being's reality in line with what Marx and his followers have described. If you're trying to make the claim that it's a secret Communist agenda or a Communist conspiracy by a Communist empire, then you're probably also a bit nutty and this book may be about you too.

Calling it a Cult

It has become increasingly common to accuse someone of belonging to a cult, engaging in cult-like behaviour and referring to an organization, ideology, political party or political orientation as simply being a cult.

This, of course, happens all across the political divide, with accusations of one being of the Gender cult, to the MAGA cult, to being taken in by the cult of personality of Monsieur l'Orange, to mindless statements like "all libtards are part of a cult".

Almost anything can be made to sound like a cult in today's day an age. If someone feels uneasy that too many people appear to be paying attention to something, or if they hear something uttered that's politically relevant that they don't understand or find sounds incomprehensible, then it seems to point to there being an inner-enclave who would be the only ones able to decipher the messaging. If there is a reiterated and perpetual aesthetic, a recognizable artifact, logo or colour scheme, or something memetic which appears to pervade certain subsets of society, then it is surely going to be labelled as a cult.

Nationalism becomes a cult; that people wish for something which is presupposed as being available or accessible within a closed system with restricted access and preferential treatment, then that is easily referred to as a cult.

This complicates things, because sometimes it's necessary to point out that something exhibits the properties of an actual cult, but this will now easily be met with denial and resistance. It's far too easy to take the term "cult" and use it to describe an absurd illustration of just about anything.

But why would one legitimately wish to refer to something as a cult? I'm guilty of using the term repeatedly throughout this book and, though it might sound excessive to some, I'm very convinced that the behaviour we've seeing, the use of initiate language, and the result effect of persons being drawn into the ideas becoming incapable of of having rational discussions with those who even modestly disagree with them are all expected consequences of the implementation of a cult structure having proliferated in our society.

That really is the difference between a cult and a philosophy or ideology. That is to say, the effect of making adherents unable to rationally use logic and reason to discuss their ideas with those who aren't part of whom they perceive as being the "in-group".

This in-group/out-group distinction, though often declared by an initiate or an adept as being a difference of those who are supportive and understanding (in-group) vs those who are ideologically possessed and harmful (out-group), are a difference in use of language. That is to say, though one could investigate a subject's claim that another is harmful to them, it's besides the point and is, in effect, a subjective claim. Those persons whom they don't consider "in-group" aren't necessarily posing a specific and impending threat to them. That is, those whom they are now unable to rationally engage with could be friends or family members, and the initiate doesn't necessarily have a specific reason to suspect them of wishing to or being capable of harming them. The difference is that, at the level of language, they have now been made incapable of discussing the subjects relating to the point of contention because of the linguistic manipulations they have adopted through the in-group. That is, their incompatibility is the product of having adopted initiate language specific to the cult which causes the adherents to compose beliefs contingent on the new specific use of language, and this use of language is reinforced by those who are part of the in-group, leading to the initiate's world-view being made incompatible with those out-group persons, even if it includes those persons with whom they would otherwise share a close and familiar connection with, such as family members.

Let's take as an example, first in the abstract, that to use initiate language which makes oneself believe that they are part of a liberation movement and having an identity which pertains to that movement, they begin to use language to describe the premises redefined to have particular meaning within the movement, and these carry implications that are contrary to reasonable understanding they would otherwise easily come to have with familiar persons that are now out-group. Now, more specifically, if this were occurring as a Queer formulation, they might say "this is my true self", that they have a "gender identity", must be referred to with language which normally refers to the opposite sex, and that to maintain the understanding of their "true self", the persons with whom they associate will now have to make use of different terminology in order to address or refer to them.

Though this can occur through the introduction of new terms, and this often is the case, it will also be the supplanting of existing terms or the meanings of terms using dialectical negation. There is now an in-group language which is supported by its own rationalizations predicated on in-group understandings of language and these rationales have become incompatible with general use of language and processes of reasoning through critical thinking using logic in neutral terms.

If people are defensive of some idea or realm of thought, or even just primed to dismiss criticism of something popularly accepted as being the stuff of conspiracy theory, they will respond poorly upon hearing that the thing in question is a form of cult:

Mostly, they will think of a cult as being something which has been romanticized and exaggerated through a Hollywood production. Everything from high profile international conspiracy involving royalty, to monsters and space aliens. Perhaps something of a skull and bones variety with roots in every institution of the world where members carry daggers, perform blood rituals and must take part in extravagant initiation ceremonies as new recruits who endure gauntlets of tests involving murder and debauchery.

As with anything, you need to stick to definitions and be clear that perversion of language isn't necessarily a secret cult, but that formal aspects of it are simply the parasitization of ideas, to borrow from the great Gad Saad, which has established itself in academic disciplines through collectivist praxis, and become well-represented in entertainment and pop culture first and foremost because of the effect of that parasitization. There is no conspiracy required for its instantiation and proliferation, and whether people conspire to achieve objectives for their own benefit is an independent matter which doesn't need to bear any relevance on the subject as we're examining it.

Calling it Mental Illness

I've seen many people refer to the ongoing issue as being one related to, or even caused by, mental illness. Whether it's due to the rise in mental illness diagnoses, the focus on mental illness in media and academic institutions, the swelling of mental health and wellness industries, the identification of new mental illnesses for identification as part of professional diagnostic repertoires, mental healthism in education, or the fact that Critical Theory-based analyses, grievance and victimhood as a cultural practice have led to mental health conditions becoming a sort of identity by which people choose to associate themselves, often as a virtue, it's something for which there are many reasons and opportunities to come into thinking about, especially as it presents in politically tumultuous affairs.

Though it's probably not accurate or even helpful to frame the societal challenges of our time as being the product of mental illness, it's perhaps still worth understanding the relationship of mental illness to our shared predicament as it's certainly the case that it has become not just a more visible element in society, but that it's commonly, if not specifically diagnosed, at least referred to among those who associate themselves as being part of a collectivist movement, or who somehow identify themselves using a term which is common in one of these movements.

Mental Illness as Critical Consciousness

The fact is that, for those who advocate collectivist solutions, they are seeking evidence that those in their vicinity will agree to their prescriptions. This means agreeing that the conditions themselves are not satisfactory and can only be overcome through such a degree of collective effort that full participation stands as the only proxy indicator by which the conditions are adequately addressed (the alternative being that one wouldn't have an inclination to criticize the environment and, as such, wouldn't have conceived of the possibility of the collectivist undertaking).

For Freire, this would mean "Denounce to proclaim the world". For Marx, it's "Ruthless criticism of all that exists" ("rücksichtslose Kritik alles Bestehenden"). For Horkheimer, he described the whole purpose of the critical method as follows:

"Critical Theory ... is suspicious of the very categories of better, useful, appropriate, productive, and valuable, as these are understood in the present order, and refuses to take them as nonscientific presuppositions about which one can do nothing." - Max Horkheimer (Traditional and Critical Theory

It stands to reason that in order to recruit for a worldview which requires the destruction and replacement of the "present order", whether through "ruthless criticism", "denouncing" or the attitude of being suspicious to all that is "valuable", that one would necessarily take on a position which despairs about things such as they are and that, as a collective endeavour, one would seek out, identify, or induce in others a similar sentiment of finding the current world intolerable. A belief that existence is intolerable would cause one difficulty in their everyday functioning. This is quite amenable to definitions of mental illness, which include describing mental illness as being a condition or behavioural pattern which "causes significant distress", "impairment of personal functioning", the "reduced ability for a person to function effectively", and so on. This is, for example, something commonly described of college or university level students of climate science when teachers detail the need to provide their students with additional exam time, or the ability to retake their exams, due to the students being so personally affected by their understanding of the threats they are faced with by virtue of the insight in to the matter that was afforded to them through their study of the course.

Herbert Marcuse bemoaned the failure of the working class to realize the limitations of their circumstance of living in an unliberated environment, due to their having settled for trivial and mind-numbing pacifications which make them "one dimensional". His hope was that the negative experience of college students and ethnic minorities would be so severe such as to constitute a "biological" need for revolution:

"This new consciousness and the instinctual rebellion isolate such opposition from the masses and from the majority of organized labor, the integrated majority, and make for the concentration of radical politics in active minorities, mainly among the young middle-class intelligentsia, and among the ghetto populations. Here, prior to all political strategy and organization, liberation becomes a vital, “biological” need." - Herbert Marcuse (An Essay on Liberation)

For him, this is the basis by which to form what he referred to as a "New Sensibility":

"These causes are economic-political, but since they have shaped the very instincts and needs of men, no economic and political changes will bring this historical continuum to a stop unless they are carried through by men who are physiologically and psychologically able to experience things, and each other, outside the context of violence and exploitation. The new sensibility has become, by this very token, praxis: it emerges in the struggle against violence and exploitation where this struggle is waged for essentially new ways and forms of life: negation of the entire Establishment, its morality, culture; affirmation of the right to build a society in which the abolition of poverty and toil terminates in a universe where the sensuous, the playful, the calm, and the beautiful become forms of existence and thereby the Form of the society itself." - Herbert Marcuse (An Essay on Liberation)

Across the board, whether represented in the formal offerings of specific collectivist philosophies, or as can be deduced through fleshing out the logical conclusion of collectivist thinking, the participants will participate when they are agitated by the circumstances such as they to such a degree as to become mentally ill. This is the same reason why Critical Pedagogy, which has embedded itself in all of our children's curricula, was formed under the assumption of helping children make realizations that place them in a state of crisis, and then using that mental state to guide them towards transformation, as was stated by Kevin Kumashiro when he said that "Educators have a responsibility to draw students into a possible crisis". Put another way, and has been pronounced in every other area of thought based on Critical Theory (Race, Gender/Sexuality, Marxist Liberation Theology, Cultural Marxism, Intersectionality, and so on), humans must wake up to Critical Consciousness, and it's important to understand the connection between mental illness and Critical Consciousness, be them synonymous or as simply bearing a notable relationship.

Struggle Illness

Additionally, as an implemented instance of collectivist activist formation provides the means by which to struggle others and declare what their moods, behaviours, opinions and actions should be, we find an attractive opportunity for persons bearing psychopathological traits to leverage the situation to their advantage. Though this may seem simply as an opportunity for them to exercise the behaviours that they find appealing and gratifying, as programs placed in professional settings by which to enforce adoption of the collectivist ideals and adherence to their corresponding dictates, those who are the most apathetic about leveraging mechanisms of their enforcement in order to distinguish themselves in a corporate or academic environment should be expected to adopt and master the practices most readily. When ethics and morality are not simply evaluated by holding the correct opinion, but are now no longer shown to be lacking in those who don't have them due to the manner by which they can circumvent a dispassionate analysis through maximally focusing on identity and linguistically verified ideological commitment will find a new advantage that may have previously been missing. For these reasons, we should expect a quicker and more sustainable path of ascension in professional settings by those bearing psychopathological traits, such as those referred to as cluster B (especially narcissistic personality disorder of both the grandiose and vulnerable variety).

Lastly, we should speak to the question of nature vs nurture in the context of psychopathology as mental illness. Though it's commonly asserted that there are inherent predispositions and that, at a certain point, it doesn't make much of a difference to ascertain precisely what moment of early life the instantiation of a disorder may have began, so long as it's early enough to be remarked as an inherent trait, there's something to be said for the acting out of identities in a group setting whereby the identity itself is expected to receive praise and glorification on the basis of its oppressed status, insight of consciousness, ethical virtues and so forth. As the identity must be made visible, the practice of constructing the aesthetic is intrinsically superficial. This, in tandem with the expectation of receiving praise and status necessarily leads to the issue of acting out narcissistic behaviour, whether through the manner in which it affects the performer, or through simply having to go through the actions which will validate the assertion of the identity.

We can hypothesize about whether an individual not otherwise predisposed to such a psychopathology might come into reacting to cult initiation through the adoption of a "Critical identity" and having to perform in a manner which puts them through the motions of a narcissistic personality disorder. I cannot say whether such a person would adopt the disorder or simply appear to be affected by it, nor could I furthermore comment as to whether such a person, if having been affected by it, would come to alleviate themselves from such effects after having fallen out of favour with the collectivist cult and, furthermore, renounced the performance of the identity. One should hope for a full recovery, but it is nevertheless a complication to consider.

Children are always going to be more susceptible to these malicious psychological assaults for many obvious reasons. Having less experience always leaves one with more plasticity of character and open to suggestion. Receiving messaging enticing and advising the adoption of certain world-views, particularly from those in a role of authority, but also simply from peers who are lavished with attention from other cult members, and who appear confident and manically enthusiastic about the undertaking, can play a forcefully persuasive role in pressuring one to participate. Facilitating participation even further is that the means of adoption is simply going to be the use of language. This is not just randomly composed language, but the language of cult initiation which has refined itself through many iterations, and which is composed such as to be introduced through topics of interest, popular culture, professional and academic materials, and even simply the messaging which occurs in the environments where affairs of each of these occur.

The identities which correspond to various domains of cult collectivism are hierarchical in terms of their moral standing, access to power, notoriety, and, by extension, and in the view of young persons, the degree to which it corresponds with being fashionable, current, cringey, cool, and so forth. This provides the ingredients for the most powerful form of group struggle to date, which follows in the vein of Maoist ideological indoctrination and thought reform, as was best detailed by Robert Jay Lifton. Rather than struggling children about their commitment to the "People's Party" or their ability to recite the nation's tenets as related to a great endeavour of the nation, the struggle session now pervades all aspects of their learning environment. As mentioned before, when not explicitly in the curriculum, it's found in the messaging of the environment through the choice, title and descriptions of the events taking place, the programs available to students as per their proclaimed and/or designated identities, and the degree to which punishment and accountability must now take into consideration through Culturally Responsive Social Justice in education. That some children are considered more responsible in a conflict and others are punished less severely in order to address "racial equity" in spite of what might have transpired pushes a child to assume an identity which they believe will protect and serve them in asymmetrically mediated conflicts.

Mental Healthism

Preceding all of this, and something which I remember from my own public school experience of the late 80s through 90s (graduated OAC, which was equivalent to a 13th grade, in 2000) was an increased focus on mental health of students and a desire to identify children which might be suffering from a mental disorder. I saw school mates all around me come to believe they had issues with mental health, with some of them being given counseling, and others ending up with a pharmaceutical regimen by which to "address" their issue. I even had a few instances of teachers or counsellors suggesting to me that I may have a disorder because of not appearing to exhibit the normal range of behaviours that they expect from their students.

Of course, it could have been the bullying or the lack of a meaningful social connection with some of my peers, which would very much constitute good reason for someone exhibiting signs of sadness or frustration, but that this is a mental health issue an that I should have it examined. I never forgot one such experience, as it seemed to me that, in an isolated environment with a teacher who had no training as a psychologist, who seemed to be dramatizing the my situation to me in such a manner that seemed inappropriate, even from my own perspective a 12 year old child, and who seemed to want to suggest to me that I was not well.

Looking back on it, I think that all children have their challenges, and my personality and interests may have made me less suited to a typical classroom environment, at least insofar as it is optimal for a child's development, but that the thoughts, feelings, behaviours and so forth that I exhibited were perfectly within the range of normality, and particularly so when considering that my interests and areas of focus were perhaps not the same as those of my classmates.

The tendency to diagnose normal behaviour as a mental illness has been referred to as Mental Healthism by Dr. Bruce Scott and though I don't necessarily agree with his analysis (he blames it, much in the same way as Marcuse, as being a tool by which to force people to conform to capitalism), he's certainly correct in claiming that mental health diagnostics, classifications and the increased disposition to identify opportunities to people, and particularly children, as suffering from a disorder as evidenced by their not having conformed to typical expectations, is a phenomenon which, when coupled with the focus on the need to exhibit a Critical identity associated with having a deeper consciousness about the world in which we live in, and one's special, unique or enhanced cognitive modality, creates pressure and opportunity for a child to adopt a designation of mental illness both to satisfy those interests which seek to place that designation, but also to satisfy the child's belief that they have a remarkably set of characteristics which includes qualities of character, knowledge, and a specific placement in the social hierarchy.

The light form of this is the temptation to claim that one is neuroatypical or neurodivergent. While it might sound perfectly reasonable for some who feel dissimilar from their peers, such as through their interests or the manner in which they approach or absorb information, it's worth taking a moment to think about what it would take for you yourself as a child in a group setting to consider yourself as not being typical, not having a typical mind, not being plain, not being average, and so forth. Being neuroatypical could alleviate the need to be held to the same standard as your peers, such as any expectation that other people are able to verify whether or not you comprehend something. If you assume others aren't able to hold you to a standard, then you can assert anything about your capabilities without evidence, feeding your ego, believing that you may be able to circumvent evaluations that you are otherwise anxious about, and so forth. You might think that you are more evolved than the average, or part of a new evolution of the species. You could even think that it indicates you have special emotional faculties which confer special value.

That isn't to say that none of those things are true, but consider whether these factors might cause you to choose to believe that you are "neuroatypical", and how this might relate to other designations, such as how it plays into "non-conforming" identities, placing you within the spectrum of oppressed peoples bearing an inherent Critical Consciousness. This is particularly important when considering how it contrasts with mere "allyship" if you happen to otherwise be someone who would be stereotyped as having a privileged or oppressor identity.

Beyond Allyship

Placing the suggestion of oppressor vs oppressed in the frame of the Master/Slave dialectic isn't just an amusing experiment, but is rather germane in light of the fact that many Critical theorists, their contemporaries, base their view on Marxist implementations of what we might call a Hegelian metaphysic (if we wish to park it there, as we could argue that it goes back further) and, as such, draw from the hypothesized framework of the Master/Slave dialectic:

"For the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house." - Audre Lorde

!TODO: refresher? In fact, the whole notion that different knowledge can be found among those of different identities is based on this very concept. If not, then the Critical Theorist would relinquish their undertaking of praxis and understand that a realist endeavour of providing access to knowledge and development to be pursued universally, without any concept of class consciousness, would be the best path for resolving social conflict. Instead, the bottleneck for progress becomes the execution of transformative praxis predicated on the knowledge which has been hidden in the minds, bodies and experience of the oppressed. Experience which is verified upon their expression of the angst and turmoil to which they have been subjected.

"the great humanistic and historical task of the oppressed: to liberate themselves and their oppressors as well. The oppressors, who oppress, exploit, and rape by virtue of their power, cannot find in this power the strength to liberate either the oppressed or themselves. Only power that springs from the weakness of the oppressed will be sufficiently strong to free both." - Paulo Freire (Pedagogy of the Oppressed)

This is why it's never enough to be an "ally". An ally can never be the one to liberate anyone at all - the oppressed, themselves, or the oppressor. Those privileged by whiteness can become allies by doing the work of learning about systemic oppression by centering and listening to the stories of minoritized peoples, but doing so is also an act of oppression which imposes demand of emotional labour on the oppressed while benefiting through becoming less ignorant and seeking a status of The Good White.

With this in mind, for a cisheteronormative, able-bodied and light-skinned settler who is seen as the beneficiary of whiteness and colonialism, the most modest step towards an identity which is not limited to the singular, narrow and dead consciousness of the oppressor, is to declare the experience of some form of mental anguish, psychological difficulty or emotional turmoil. It comes through showing that they are "strong" enough to be open about their "mental health" challenge, and the fact of them not merely being a plain and typical oppressor; these characteristics are, in fact, complementary attributes, which is to say that the pain of my experience is my superpower.

Getting Into The Substance

Though we've examined some of the ways in which everyone is susceptible to ideological frameworks which incentivize one's capacity for delusion through the perceived expectation of a collective process which alleviates the perception of limitations to one's organism and experience through their body, and furthermore the insidious nature of idea parasites which become embedded in domains of thought, discussion, research and production, the principal issue here is that these implements of collectivist initiation are set in place and advocated for by those of the higher echelons of society.

There is nothing new under the sun. At least, not fundamentally, though concepts and technologies develop and allow for the same forces to attain somewhat different results. The darker inclinations of human mind, allowing fear, lust for vengeance and retribution for the limitations of the order of being, set us on paths that ultimately lead to conflict where the worst forms include not just racism and othering, but desecration, defilement and genocide. As a continuation of the previous mentality which might be, at its root, something permitted because of the elevated faculties placed atop a beastly construct, we are now witnessing its unfoldment with society and infrastructure that are more complex and developed. This edified buffer permits us ever greater slack as we grow discordant with the blueprint of a resilient species and feed some more injurious possibilities.

Though it's easy to assume that the dehumanizing behaviours emerge from those whose actions exhibit the greatest barbarism, it's with a bit of irony that some aspects of the descriptions brought forth by Critical theorists have some truth to them in the sense that the dehumanizing ideas and behaviours come from some of those who are perceived as the most sensible, elite and refined among us. There is some of the following at play:

• Seeing as other and unlike
• Noble beast
• Controlling the unknown
• Seeing as lesser

!TODO: Flesh out how those who push policy and use political advocacy to reify identity are embodying what is accused of others when the term "settler" is thrown around. They are colonizing and reviving the spirit of slave ownership as a means to building their world.

!WARNING: This section might need to be split, with some of it assigned to "theory of collectivism leading to dehumanization", which is already probably spoken of (though labelled differently) elsewhere

Collectivist Thinking is Dehumanization

Through some combination of disgust, fear, pity and a need for self-aggrandizement, the true settler takes every opportunity to wield the wand which reifies some notion of critical identity. In designating the label of human types, proto-human types, subhuman types, and so forth, they paint a story which reinforces all their claims and places a weight of burden, in the form of promises, upon all of society. Promises which, when fulfilled, make their claims true.

And when I say proto-human, I mean that literally, whether it's referring to roughly half of a nation's citizens as "deplorable", commenting on the vaccine hesitant, at the moment of the greatest social and political pressure to have everyone accept the injection, as being as being anti-science, racist and misogynist, or when referring to all those who vote for Trump as being Neanderthals:

"I know it’s not fair to Neanderthals, but by calling Trump one, we only insult ourselves, since we’re all a little bit Neanderthal – especially those who voted to put him back in office." - Peter Sahlins, Professor of History Emeritus, University of California (Counterpunch: Is Trump a Neanderthal?)

During the Covid-era, there were many examples of messaging which promoted the attitude of gloating and mocking someone's death if they had not received the mRNA vaccine, these included jokes from Jimmy Kimmel about how ICU beds shouldn't be given to the unvaccinated, and a statement from Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik that "Mocking anti-vaxxers’ COVID deaths is ghoulish, yes — but may be necessary", but perhaps a better example of this messaging which is effective in helping to popularize an attitude while employing a clinically chosen distance for plausible deniability, was the front page of the Toronto Star whose quotes, as captured in a photo with a collage of headlines, said the following:

"I have no empathy left for the wilfully unvaccinated. Let them die... I honestly don’t care if they die from COVID. Not even a little bit... Unvaccinated patients do not deserve ICU beds." - Toronto Star (August 29, 2021)

Dehumanizing statements uttered from a standpoint which promotes collectivism isn't exclusively from those who refer to themselves as "left" or "liberal" (terms which I hesitate to use, given much of the subject matter in this book), but also include those who outright identify themselves as right wing collectivists. Though such persons are not as prevalent, at least insofar as they themselves explicitly label themselves as such (given that most claims of someone being a "right-wing Fascist" are labels being declared as a pejorative), they still can be found, especially among those who are promoting a Neo-Fascist worldview. A good example of this is Stephen Wolfe, who authored "The Case for Christian Nationalism", and who referred to "liberals" as "parasites on Christian civilization".

It is worth mentioning, however, that it's more difficult to find clear, unambiguous and explicit quotes published in mainstream sources where a self-professed "conservative" or "right-wing" personality uttered a statement about their "liberals" or "left-wing" which was dehumanizing. There are some quotes from Ted Nugent and Rush Limbaugh, but it is difficult to use them as good examples because, for one, they don't identify themselves as collectivist, nor espouse collectivist principles, for another point, and particularly in the case of Rush Limbaugh, the statements are quite dated and mostly based on secondary sources commenting on his statements as heard over a radio, and lastly because their statements, especially in the case of Ted Nugent, were also directed to people claim to be "conservative" or "right-wing".

Though there are many organizations, such as Media Matters, or the publicly funded "Anti-Hate Canada Network" which document cases of what they deem to be "hate", these often include lots of anonymous accounts that are unverified, or well-known political commentators who are being accused of being hateful for expressing criticism which isn't clearly dehumanizing based on the language used, but is accused as being "hateful" in the sense that the organization labeling it as hate considers it an act of hate to criticize the actions or statements of persons that it considers as belonging to an oppressed minority.

This asymmetry in attempting to discover clearly dehumanizing statements which target people based on political orientation or physical characteristics from personalities or social media accounts that can be verified to be actual people is a sign of the times and though many would be tempted to interpret it such as to say "group A is hateful and group B is not", I would suggest that the entire purpose of this book is to help us understanding that the inclination to delusion and dehumanization is universal and that these temporally visible asymmetries shouldn't be expected to last.

Again, though we might find good examples of individual psychopaths who are so caustic and resentful of humans that they would dehumanize others without the necessity of a collectivist mode of thining (though perhaps the "other" as a collective outside of themselves), the focus here is on combating collectivism itself which can bring absolutely anyone into viewing those outside of the collective as being less human. After all, in all collectivist thought, unless one fashions oneself a non-human, the semantics of inclusion/exclusion serve as a proxy for defining who is truly human, or worthy of being a representative or propagator of humanity.

And this is the common theme because as soon as the argument has been made about the existence of an identity and a moral imperative arising from it as reality, you are now committed to that perception about an indefinite quantity of some form or another. The commitment is to a representation of the world which bears some meaning to the subject in question, yet it is also a commitment to swathes of humans; they are now constraints.

Cheap Erasers

The notion of identity is always a cheap conception, and always suggests a fragmented view of humanity where we are ultimately trapped in silos and liable to engage in conflict. Though humans can have infinite variety of experience and be developed in myriad ways, to suppose that their identities are bound to something which isn't universally available to all humans leads to the question of what makes someone truly human and or that of what makes someone a better human.

We made good progress towards not falling so easily into the trap of assuming certain sets of phenotypic presentations, ethnicities, cultures and classes of humans haven't any value to offer and are unworthy of dignity. If we are to play with this idea of separating ourselves such as to make our claim to knowledge implicit through collectivist mythology, then we essentially give up on our own endeavour to better understand the world and overcome its limitations.

The casualty is always our rich tapestry of different people with infinite variation and locally-tuned awareness, which is perhaps the richest aspect of life itself for a human being, and something which mostly all of enjoy when conditions are prosperous and we have the capacity to examine the world and ourselves. This is being supplanted with a model which stands for the state and which imposes a life by rule, and rule by law.

When speaking to what I consider as being a cheap eraser, or the cheap erasure of actual people, what I find is a great example of this is the fact that the state has become engaged in declaring a few key identity categories for persons it refers to as Indigenous. Specifically, that it refers to Indigenous people as an original people of the land and that it refers to "Two-spirit" as an identity associated with the LGBTQ umbrella of categories which is to say that it is a Queer identity. It does this without providing deep explications, but by positing that the identity is related to both LGBTQ and post colonial discourses, which means that it draws on the rationales from each of these areas of thought, without committing itself to the semantics of either. Of course, Queer theory has already drawn from post colonial discourse in order to validate its claims about "Two-spirit" identity, which even drew criticism from Critical theorists working in the field of sociology who consider themselves intersectional Feminists and Critical Race theorists:

"I argue academics and activists need to be mindful that, even with the best of intentions, misappropriation of cultural traditions of minority groups is dangerous. This perpetuates historical practices that have silenced Indigenous experiences." - Dr. Zuleyka Zevallos (Rethinking Gender and Sexuality: Case Study of the Native American “Two Spirit” People)

Though I don't agree with solutions put forward by this Critical theorist, who frames everything in modern Marxist interpretations and argues for their corresponding prescriptions, the fact that the state has gone forward with making broad, blurry and legally impactful classifications coded into their public messaging and policies of governance, and have supported the Human Rights Commission in updating their code to reference these classifications is shows how the state cannot resist new strategies for classifying and controlling the world within its reach to ever greater degrees, and this is a good example of how it will take not just good ideas but, in this case, bad ideas and create initiatives which make them even worse, just as Dr. Zevallos has warned.

Any effort by the state to classify its citizens beyond equal citizens, by alleging difference among them based on history, race, sexuality, or otherwise, which inform their knowledge, morality and spirituality is nothing short of an abomination. It is obscene, tragic and evil that mankind develops concepts and systems with what's superficially presented as ever-greater sophistication to present, declare and elucidate its promise of a perfected human morality at the level of thought, which is to imply that humans are not capable of a morally robust manner of thought without intervention by the state. Presenting as the appearance and opportunity to achieve justice. Declaring itself as being the entity which can achieve something otherwise so difficult for humans on their own. Elucidating an explication of reality, experience, the substance of man, and the path to righteousness. Promising the fulfillment of our true needs and destiny.

Citizens Who Accept Labels

What can be said about citizens who accept the interoperable handles placed upon themselves and their neighbours? Is it something they really believe in? Are they just trying to get along to help with progress until such ways of thinking about their fellow countrymen are no longer necessary? What if they are to witness someone of a supposedly oppressed identity reject the label and the description of their knowledge and character?

To think that any sycophantic busybody would actually acquiesce to someone else judging such things about themselves as being incorrect not likely to happen and, if they're radicalized to any degree, something they would vehemently oppose. If someone is invested in making use of the state's apparatus to elevate their moral status and attain power, there is likely nothing that will change their minds beyond a change in the means by which the power itself can be sought. That is, they will adhere to the state ideology as it changes, and at the speed at which its changes have affected their ability to manipulate their circumstances. Only the more passive, vulnerable, hapless peasants who follow through in giving their dignity, property and children's minds and bodies as fuel to the resentful flame of critical praxis, under a banner of justice, will entertain a non-conforming "oppressed" person's story in good faith. It will, however, cause cognitive dissonance and though that can help break some out of the cycle of continuously accepting a brittle mythos by which to derive a recipe for ethical life, many will simply look back towards the most popular and trusted sources to find a way to consolidate these deviating individuals.

When it comes to accepting the state's designation of who and what you are, we can't know for certain whether it's faith or fear, given that the proclamation bears significance on not just themselves but the entirety of mankind, but we can try to understand the plausible paths and mechanisms for each, and build our diagnostic tools to be employed whenever we detect the disregard for principles of freedom and liberty in exchange for the promise of our somehow being made whole through the state.

Negation through State Mythos

We Need To Seriously Disambiguate

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

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

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

Queer Scholarship

!TODO: Possible sources to reference

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

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

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

Theory is Systemic Designation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spirituality

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

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

Examples of Stories and Occurrences

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

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

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

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

Humbly Narcissistic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spirit and Nature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Land Acknowledgments

Totem Polemic

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

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

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

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

Last Legitimate Tribe

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

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

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

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

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

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

Divine Land and Queer Spirit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Normal is Genocidal

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

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

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

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

Anything Negative Affects the Marginalized the Most

The Margins As Essential to Survival

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

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

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

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

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

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

Replacing Perceived Identity with the Face of Collective Liberation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Queering Kids is Scientific

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

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

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

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

Capitalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pandemics and Infectious Disease

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

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

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

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

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

Decolonization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Decolonization Retort

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

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

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

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

Decolonial Queering Retort

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closeted?

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

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

Normal vs Different

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problematization of Difference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's Not You, It's We

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concluding Overview

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

Paulo Freire

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

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

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

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

Why

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

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

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

1. Logic

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

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

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

• No individual agency
• Ethically prescribed brainwashing

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

2. Implementations

a. Models and Concepts

Generative method

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

Gnostic cycle

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

b. Instantiations

Critical Constructivism

• Henry Giroux
• Joe Kincheloe

c. Instantiation in Education

• Critical Pedagogy

3. Roots

Mao

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

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

Lukács

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

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

Gnosticism

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

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

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

4. Ramifications

Education

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

5. Current Instantiations

• Critical Pedagogy
• Inclusive component of sustainability

Critical Pedagogy

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

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

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

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

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

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

!TODO: need to tie the above into the following

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

6. Vulnerable

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

7. Effective

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

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

8. Religion

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

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

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

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

Freirean Syllogism

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

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

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

Freirean Paradox

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freirean Collectivism

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

Universalism and Transformationalism (rethink title)

Individualism and Collectivism

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

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

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

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

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

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

World Planning

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

SDGs

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

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

The Way Forward

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

Evolution: mirror neurons and empathy vs evidence and reason:

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

Reactionary Woke

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

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

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

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

Palestine

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

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

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

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

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

Indigeneity

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

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

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

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

Middle East Monitor Al Jazeera

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

But It Doesn't Matter (Indigeneity)

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

The Birth

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palestinian Indigeneity

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

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

What Makes Anyone Deserve Space?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Potentiating Globalism and Global Governance

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

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

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

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

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

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

With that in mind, trying to construct the frame of mind possessed by one who sits idle as the progression of state championed to our absolution takes place, witnessing and even cheering it withou recoil, horror or denouncement. A frame of mind that makes excuses for it and creatively imagines the wonders that might be unlocked through it. They are not "in on it", but hope of it and thirst through it.

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

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

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

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

Decolonization

Naïve

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

Informed

Frantz Fanon

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

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

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

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

Lamentation:

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

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

Additional

What is the Cult?

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

Political Nature

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