49: NEFX - Mountaylardiss

NEFX - Dondanto.txt ? It is by the nature of such contradctcions that the pyrrhic power-seizure venture of the Blightgeist would in its avarice involve and sacrifice even its more vulnerable demographics to where it could not maintain its visage as a system without thereby granting concessions to them for inputs in official decision-making processes after making its own arbitrary decisions on, about, and with them in their very survival and existence (at least with the demand of beings-at-large looming over them). ? These may be required as inevitable blindspots of initial formation become clearer over the course of a system's existence (particularly across generations) , which indeed practically no amount of foresight (certainly within the myopic framework of the Blightgeist and in particular in its territorialist factions) could account for yet which Erosive orthodoxy maintains must be perennial even as it experiences contradictions it must yield cognitive dissonance to accept. ? This can extend both to the replacement of one particular personnel or position with another, or the decision by one such personnel to bring in another personnels' replacement on which conditions. ? Here we may find another peer into the art of system-craft in the specification of exceptions in the case of personnel problems (like vacancies). ? This can persist long past the point where it would even be momentarily effective, and yet despite its possibly practical benefit be thereby reflexively over-reversed in-time to create a persistence of power-lusting personnel. ? Furthermore, even official decisions concerning, say, the logistical and temporal arrangement of official personnel in the operation of the system, may be desperately meanwhile implemented for short-term gain for one's own particular sub-faction within the faction's systemic framework and yet may by the difficulty of attaining its dissolution be carried forth across generations and get an overall trending strengthening hold for generations via habit and conditioning. ? It will hold to the principle of an atrocity against being-as-such in its present time while absolving the agreed-upon historical atrocities as being the cause of being-as-such itself, or as its at least closest approximating official representative movement. ? Furthermore, within the framework of the Blightgeist, especially in the territorialist faction and its logic, even those hard-won and hard-fought-for concessions from the halls of officiality for the prevalence of being-as-such even within a certain social privilege, both the key agents for this pushing may be in their own regard operating within the Blightgeistian framework at the expense of other beings-as-subsets, and the Erosive aspect of the Blightgeist in the long term may both point to this as proof of the limit of the actual ambitions and thus "righteous principle" of the movement to which they belonged that forced such concessions, even as with the other side of its mouth the Blightgeist condemns the movement outright in principle or insists that by its own benevolence the movement was accomplished. ? If anything, this allocation is not itself equitable, but the popular imagination so conditioned to associate it with the principle of equity as invalid, it further galvanizes the Erosive spirit in the Blightgeist in such a way as to strengthen the latter anyway. ? Even where the official rules added touch on an actual principle, such as the necessity at least within the framework of a territorialist faction for allocation of means to different causes, it is purely for mercenary means and never actually allocated in a way favorable to being-as-such, and galvanizing resistance thereto only in the Erosive principle against any official measure that would do this reallocation at the risk of individual convenience. ? Yet with it supposedly being so in the official writ, no further pushing for the actuality of that principle is officially permitted, such principle never having been the point to start with. ? Specifically, the covert rearrangement of geographical-populational unit recognition, and the systemic recognition of beings-as-subsets as predestinedly harmful, allows the prevention of access to the means by which official inputs in the outcome of territorialist faction's system can be made. ? More specifically, the, say, official inputs of all territorially contained beings may be eclipsed by the manipulation of their conditions and the detection of geographical-populational units in the system as would most elide them. ? It is but a smokescreen, a machination within a machination. ? Neither does it prevent the prizing of certain beings-as-subsets within territorialist bounds even as those may be forcibly brought in out of the Blightgeistian enterprise against being-as-such. ? At any rate it still elides the role of basic conditions (especially material) in the actual practical holding to the enumerated allowances of the system, and the ensuing practical disallowances of those same allowances for certain being-subsets even as they are writ. ? Even where these official concessions are granted as backed up by structural reconfiguration, it does not mean the underlying Blightgeist has been quelled -- only sublimated in the particular impulse through its other ensnaring machinations, especially so that subsequent privation by beings-at-large from such conditions can be pointed to as proof of the invalidity of such concession (be it across time, context, and generations) and thus an excuse to a harder return to the original systemic atrocity (however gradual). ? It conditions beings at large to attribute any of their actual achievements for the cause of being-as-such, particularly as is wrested from the key agents of the territorialist faction via allowances and concessions, as both owed exclusively to said key agents and their cudgeling class, and yet not deserved as though it should not actually be thanked for at all out of invalidity (for the faction as part of the Blightgeist is predicated against being-as-such). ? By the same token, this procedure only strengthens the chokehold by the system on beings at large and, by extension, the cause of being-as-such, even as it meets provisionally necessary demands by the latter. ? But the supposed perennial principle not being sufficiently established, assuming it even could be and is not invalid per concept as part and parcel of such things as territorialist factions in concept, is liable to give way to its own perpetual violation and according strenuous means necessary to reverse such changes to the point of requiring the very degree of fiat that violates the entire system and document just in principle yet which would be carried out by its most stringent (at least nominal) adherents. ? For that matter it could be said that territorialist factions' systems and according central deciding documents which are held aloft as abiding by absolute freedom in concept and which are somewhat ironically the more stringently and violently upheld across time and circumstance (even as the latter defies and distorts understanding of and thus fealty to such principles in the first place) would be so with the intention that no change would be met to it except by slow, gradual, theoretically "hard-earned" (assuming their premise of the validity of such system and document) means. ? Yet it is nonetheless savvy that automatic allocations of rights or allowances (or perhaps even their opposites) for things should be specified in the event of any non-standing official determination on those things. ? It may also be to meantime-pacify the target being-subsets and build rapport for its own procedures and ideas. ? This may even be along faultlines of long-held traditions of elitist secrecy within the halls of the system. ? In addition to being held as perennial in principle across contexts and generations, it generates contradictions among its constituency and geographical-populational units as they may exhibit desires predicated against being-as-such (particularly in a way that is specifically for, say, being-as-potentiate or being-as-memory) that run up against the brick wall of structural power in the Blightgeist to exhibit itself even as it too may be ultimately predicated against being-as-such and thus cannibalize its own in the moment (be it provisionally for the better of the cause of being-as-such in the limiting of the prizing of something like being-as-potentiate). ? The specific official allocation of roles, rules, duties, and powers among different conceptualized branches of the territorialist faction, including even its general constituents, holds the veneer of objectivity and fairness yet is the specific circumstantial calculation by the founding key agents of the most personally optimal balance between appealing to the target beings-as-subsets along biological-geographical phantasmic lines on one hand, and exercising structural power in the long-term pyrrhic power-seizure venture on the other — such as in the enumerated notion that that which is not specified is granted to a certain category or branch of the territorialist faction. ? Such threshold may become outdated if it involves currency, which concerning the steadfastly adherent thoughtform of the faction-clinger would either mean that evolved circumstances cannot but defy the spirit of the founding key agents of the faction and its system, or that current beings would be thereby obligated to annul and change those same tenets — which even if so done by the very stringent procedural means afforded within the system and its official central documents would not only annul again the spirit of the founding key agents but also leave open the possibility of their invalidity in present context if not in total concept. ? But peering deeper into the relics of officiality as manifest in central deciding documents one may find the clinging to the specific context in which a clause was written according to a desire by the territorialist faction’s key agents for certain outcomes that evolving circumstances since then have trounced, such as concerning at what point an allowance is made for a being put through the evaluative process of the system, usually monetary. ? Here, such veneer established, the bloodthirsting impulse gets to be sublimated into "objective" official discussions on the manner of atrocity to be carried out in the name fo quelling atrocity itself. ? Furthermore, the potential to separate the official procedure for evaluation of a being and their action within the territorialist faction's rules, and that of the determination of official reaction to the being according to the decided-upon evaluation, provides the veneer of objective and diplomatic procedure that only further puts beings in the barrel upon determination of their status as Other. ? This structural power of a territorialist faction now established against any objection or even its own supposed scruples as outlined in its own documents, the veneer of officially forbidding and condemning a particular category of atrocity (particularly of a sadistic sort) outright can mask the ways in which it is quite openly (be it in an open secret) participated in outside of the general sight if not arbitrarily decided official “bounds” of the system. ? But it is certainly a practice but another tool in the arsenal of the Blightgeist to condition beings to its veneer of benevolence. ? In theory this stated boundary would be to, however subtly and esoterically, prime the reading mind (particularly within the halls of officiality) to consider what may be the limit, and that such a limit should even be considered at all. ? Even the mere trick of nominality allows for the seeming retraction of the knife merely by officially arbitrarily giving a subjective measurement of atrocity that the system will by its own law avoid, so that any that it carries out within this nebulous limit (which is not only inscrutable across contexts and generations but may not actually be envisioned or concretely specified at all) is absolved — such as may apply to required submission of currency by a being for relinquishment of punishment, confinement, forbiddence, etc. ? In the long-term pyrrhic power seizure scheme of the Blightgeist, systems of nominal freedom predicated clearly against being-as-such will then use their chokehold of structural power to lessen their own restrictions against such cause in such a way as to make it seem a benevolent hero according to its own principles — again presented as "perennial" even as they change. ? Yet this "perennial principle” can and will evolve as circumstances dictate. ? in terms of severity of possible crime or punishment). ? e. ? In some instances the allowance for such things as an intermediary for a being in the process of being officially evaluated and scrutinized may be granted by demand (or at least predicted demand) at the highest conceivable structural level of such evaluation (i. ? The evolution of a territorialist faction's system shows a perpetual conflict between the granting of allowances to beings as a pretext to untrammeled rampancy of structural power (often including violence against the same beings) and the lingering desire to take it away even as it is held over beings’ minds to instill a sense of guilt and even as it stands to be taken away upon the sufficient threshold of attained structural power under the equally hollow pretext of “emergency" and often as attained through the won compliance of beings from its prior granting in the first place. ? It is by practicality that a sub-provision is officially granted which puts the burden of funding or coordinating for such a “protective process” in the absence of normal means, granting further its thin veil as protector disguising an intent of forced harmful loans disgusied as gifts. ? And indeed here upon investigating we can make out the being-subsets for whom this provision was never the case, which again may be a function of time and practicality even as it may harm beings. ? Even as the Blightgeist grants, so it wants to take away, as certainly do its many more fervent adherents. ? Indeed, the more the presumed offense (especially along faultlines of demographics and biological-geographical phantasms), the less chance of even the veneer of "objective and fair” official evaluative process being carried out at all. ? Not only does this elide the premise and likelihood of putting the being through such process by official coercion or fiat, but it may also elide the ways in which such processes could have only been applied to an even narrower subset of beings than is currently known (both in present experience and learned memory), such as involving the officially recognized degree of potential offense. ? The filtering principle of territorialist faction systems and by extension the Blightgeist may also extend to the granting of personal intermediaries for beings in official processes of evaluation, especially as may relate to the nature of these intermediaries’ roles in the process (in particular regarding timeframes for the expedition of these processes). ? The ensuing legacy may be enough to pacify beings at large within the territorialist faction's constituency that it would be allowed if not ignored when such granted allowance is weakened and eventually outright undermined or removed. ? This veneer becomes stronger by the official habituation if not outright top-down enforcement of this declaration in certain situations. ? Yet by these allowances may the louder official declaration (particularly by the faction's cudgeling agents) be made of not only its tenets but its supposed underlying principles so as to grant the veneer of respect for being-as-such even as official actions are carried out (again especially by the cudgeling agents) in so much as that very moment which are predicated against that cause. ? Further still the aforementioned clause could include the necessity of involvement of other beings (be it so by compulsion and threat of punishment) according to a certain criteria of selection for involvement in the determination. ? Exception in this case might be made for if a certain threshold of official evaluation, scrutiny, or punishment for an individual is met or (by according official process) avoided. ? Furthermore, it would be ideal both in theory and in practice for the system's (and, by extension, faction's) veneer of legitimacy that no being would be officially turned against themselves in such a process. ? For example, any evaluative process of a being or the legality of their action would ideally not be repeated for the same instance it is carried out for. ? It may establish all the various contexts in which this could conceivably apply as would concern the aims of the system and which would be rather ancillary to the central tenet being laid out in a clause in the document and yet which would pertain enough to it to be contained within that same clause. ? Yet indeed we see in practice as well as theory that that which involves right of omission or reticence may yet warrant the longest and most detailed explanation in any system’s central document. ? Official structural power's brute force and ease of official loopholing (particularly via a cudgeling class) extends also to the supposed “right" of omission or non-revealing by beings in different situations, which can be again excepted as in cases of emergency, biological-geographical phantasms codifying who counts as beings within the territorialist domain or even beings at all, or the simple power of brutality and coercion in eliciting that which can only be voluntary yet which in such cases is freed of context and may indeed not be honest so much as merely extracted for purposes not related to truth so much as to long-term Blightgeistian motive that requires the stamp of “information". ? Overall, the further back the veneer of absolute codified principle of freedom via officiality is peeled, the less it is revealed that there is any "there" there. ? This is especially the case where allowance merely can be made for assumption of good faith upon those involved in the intruding, which good faith is “determined” by fiat in a system that is predicated against being-as-such and thus cannot afford the relinquishment of its cudgelers and overall cudgeling principles. ? Even where they may indeed rely upon an officially summoned document or procedural permission to carry out intrusion upon beings, it does not mean the criteria for said summoning cannot and will not be expanded. ? When said upholders, generally of a chosen cudgeling class, are at least nominally officially beholden to avoid that which violates their own rulership, so shall their own rulership make its own exception or otherwise expand. ? One example of this lies in the supposed stated principle of beings being permitted (“free”) to dwell in dwellings uninhibited and unintruded without officially procured due cause — which calls into question the calculus of officially recognized being along lines of property, not to mention again along the lines of the (however tacitly) target biological-geographical phantasm or beings-as-subset; and also ignores the ability of materially pre-advantaged structural power to act with impunity regardless of official code depending on the threshold of achieved power by key agents of the territorialist faction that weaponizes them, and that the mass conditioning of beings to the code being thus because it is so declared further blinds them to its actual regular violation by its very supposed "upholders". ? That these could be so appealed to and relied upon by beings when in a bind (however shakily given the ultimate impulse of Blithgeistian power to do as it wants within its present set means regardless), only grants further visage to the faction in question and by extension the Blightgeist, because it is an at least provisional allowance to beings, an at least seeming retracting of the knife counted as a favor, a loan counted as a gift. ? Yet in the meantime the supposed principle can be delineated and given the stamp of legitimacy and “objective” official procedure via clauses, provisions, etc as are given in central official documents for the territorialist faction's structural system. ? Visage is a key concern of system-craft particularly in the Blightgeist, for it gives the underlying impulse of pyrrhic power-seizure a filter, a stopgap, a veneer of legitimacy for an opposite goal to the real one which is in the meantime cloaked — that is, official protection against things like arbitrary prosecution is not out of principle itself, but out of provisional necessity for the long-term attainment of total pyrrhic power-seizure by Blightgeistian agents. ? For that matter, the oppositional key agents of officiality may likewise be operating along faultlines of structural and economic power among beings within the territorialist domain, another contradiction which the Erosive adherents of the Blightgeist are wont to overlook or simply not see at all, granting it visage by invoking the founding agents of the territorialist faction who used it. ? That the opposition especially of a structural sort towards this notion, especially along faultlines of the inevitable divergences of extant geographical-populational units, would be too operating (howveer subconsciously) on the faulty premise against being-subsets according to the inherited and deeply ingrained logic of the territorialist faction, only further muddles this greater issue within the mirage of the systematically given and conditioned false dichotomy of "polar available opposites" of thought and action. ? So too may granted provisions for the allowance of certain possessions or means of defense (especially as the two may be intertwined) be but codified for specific being-subsets and in any case giving the lie to Erosive adherents to such provisions regarding their disdain for notions of right, at least except as pertain to structural socioeconomic givens. ? Indeed, such provision may be ultimately against the originally inspiring Other territorialist faction or bogey, particularly that of the estranged-from "parent" faction. ? Indeed even where provisions are granted which prevent a certain level of intrusion into the affairs of beings by, say, those among the system’s cudgeling class, it may be not only given to the exception of "necessity" and "emergency", but within the scope of which being-subsets are systematically codified (explicitly or implicitly) as beings proper and thus applied to by the provision versus other being-subsets or those "not truly one of us”. ? But the mere conditional granting of freedom by officiality or really by any structural force is not freedom-as-such, let alone its culmination, always coming with a caveat. ? Indeed, the permission given thus may not be to beings at large within its chosen biological-geographical phantasm, but among its key agents or especially their chosen cudgeling class -- and in such a way as to convince the conditioned beings within their constituency of the permission being granted to them.