103: NEFX - Stascited

NEFX - Metegrop.txt ? deliverance) may decrease in favor of that of another. ? deliberation vs. ? e. ? That is to say that, even if by pressure and seeming desire of constituents and beings at large, the structural significance of roles concerning the dealing with rulership (i. ? Furthermore, as the role of a branch such as the shadow one may come to have an increasingly diminished role in the whole official structural system across time and contexts, accordingly will the nature of the iconistic role generally reached change accordingly and perhaps in turn change its yielding conditions. ? Fewer yet may reach the latter while occupying the former position, given the constraints of balancing in approach and thoughtform as well as in sheer logistics and earthly capacity. ? It is perhaps ironically because of the strenuous need within the system’s logical framework to most prove one’s capability as a shadow branch key agent in order to proper balance its impulses with that of the iconistic role that so few truly reach the latter by the former. ? Yet the machinations of the system, let alone both branches in inter-contradictory ways, ensure that this is never so simple and direct as likely desired. ? It would appear that by its very nature, those operating in the shadow branch are those with the most aspirations to reach the at least seemingly opposite-most branch within the structural system. ? That which is learned in the domain of the shadow branch can be carried over into the iconistic role and balanced with those elements which take place in the open, and the renown gained within the shadows may by addictive dint yearn to expand and be seen in the open. ? It may be little wonder, then, that those seeking such station may envision themselves to actually in spirit (if not eventually in practice) be among the more iconistic ranks which thrive themselves off of mercenariness in their own leveraging (be this also highly assisted by the currency of renown, which in turn is also fueled by hoarding and mercenariness). ? Further still, the spending of such resources in the leveraging of one’s eventual selection goes into the total structural system itself, as though to win allowance and favor through obsequiousness, the slight and willing defeat of one's own potential qualifying aspect within the Blightgeistian framework -- opulence and mercenariness themselves —to bet on the potential long-term increasement of status within its framework by another malign metric. ? This itself belies a shameless mercenariness that confirms the sort of character necessary for the technical operation within a shadow branch, though logistics may be such that such individuals cannot fill out all of its ranks and that idiotic expendable usefulness (according to the parent Blightgeistian framework) concerning the leveraging of Blightgeistian ideas will suffice (be it to the framework’s own eventual peril due to its own self-defeating logic), or at least that their own amassed resources and currency trounce that of the average even if it does not reach a certain bracket. ? This is especially so where the relative amassment and hoarding stays so relative to the average of known beings while also being itself opulently spent and exercised for the individual would-be personnel’s own leverage, a predictor of their favorability within that branch. ? Yet this itself further elides the ultimate mercenary criteria (however itself shadow and not spoken of even officially) for such a role, which is the amassment of material resources and currency within the structural-societal framework. ? This can be due both to matters such as the prizing of at least an abstract seniority and because of insufficient outside pressure to change this, though ironically not doing so means less comport between the various components of the structure, like a once structurally sound building collapsing amidst the imbalance of its individually soundly-built components swapped in from outside without respect to the whole. ? Yet where the base criteria for a particular role does not change, this may create contradictions and ruptures in logistical runnings across iterations of the structural system. ? The structural change may involve the shifting of being-subsets responsible for the selection of personnel within a system’s branch. ? This may especially be so where other branches within the official structural system follow suit, whether out of according alarm concerning the pressure from beings at large or from according logistical adjustments to maintain smooth operations between branches and sub-branches (and, for that matter, sub-factions) within the official system. ? So long as the figurative knife is at least partially retracted, the mere technical move to at least nominal appeasement of beings at large relative to the branch’s prior official position and structure is seen as sufficient, warranting of obsequious gratitude, and a sign of a supposedly extant principle for the good of beings at large. ? Other times the motivation may be pure momentary logistics for individual leverage. ? In particular, changes were made which may have initially been intended to be temporary and expedient due to the pressure of the surrounding context (especially from constituents and beings-at-large who seem to threaten the continued success of the overarching system and its individual mercenary Blightgeistian pursuits if not appeased) yet which coagulated through the aforementioned conditioning and habit and which the branch may overall desire to reverse upon sufficient threshold of structural power. ? Still the tracing of either branch’s nuanced changes in arrangement across contexts provides deeper insight into the character (indeed shadow character) guiding it at different stages and on the whole, especially insofar as the general Blightgeistan framework via the structural system endures in its root nature across contexts by so much as sheer inertia and cross-generational conditioning and habit. ? Even within the shadow branch there are masks — and even within the mask branch there are shadows. ? Within such framework, in which individual mercenary ambition rules, the mere accomplishment of formal agreement and accordingly nominally agreeable logistics rules over the content of rulership (which itself is already tainted by its conception within the Blightgeistian framework) — especially where internal rules are implemented which require unanimous consensus for certain measures provisionally necessary even for an individual key agent’s Blightgeistian success to pass. ? This and all other mechanisms involved in the running of the masking branch and shadow branch give enough of a technically proven front of efficiency and formal agreement to foreclose en masse conception of any greater system or collective life of beings beyond the framework offered by not just the system but the thoughtform that birthed it — and it can even extend to how long gatherings may take place for deliberation on rulership, the type and amount of formal decisions and rules that may be created, and the point at which formal inputs (mainly quantitative inputs) among personnel for the decision on rulership to be made must be cast. ? Nonetheless, the veneer of diplomacy afforded by agreements (even those formally codified in the system as options and thereby encouraged) between sub-factions concerning the arranged timetables and logistics of official procedure and gatherings further upholds the lie of unity and freedom as well as the agreements on their total nature and ramifications. ? This Blightgeistian measure, threatening the provisional necessity of sub-factions within the constricting framework of the structural system, elicits another (if technically less so) Blightgeistian measure that gains the visage of supporting the cause of being-as-such merely for annulling (however incidentally) the former measure and making it appear as though it was the benevolent overseers who saw through a societal-structural breakthrough in favor of being-as-such, particularly among the marginalized. ? For the use against being-as-such will the key agents of the Blightgeist go the most distance at great cost to logistics and even individual stamina. ? A common end result is the prizing of the more Blightgeistian allotted speeches and gathering “turns” and those of the more coercive bent to act them out, as opposed to their opposites. ? Further still, by couching the idea of dialogue or negotiation within the bounds of the official structural scheme, any adaptations made which would supposedly address its shortcomings really only exacerbate certain of its issues by constricting options within the already constricting framework of that scheme. ? What’s more, by couching the concept of freedom in these pre-established set options, the content of a freedom is largely assessed only according to its degree of conformity with it. ? All in all, the intention is to curtail freedom of performance of the actions or even the conception of them as being outside of the acceptable framework, or even the recognition of that framework and ensuing mass conditioning in general. ? An overriding tactic of the Blightgeist is to utilize a mass conditioning apparatus implemented largely initially through force and then used to pre-set and constrict conception and allowance of timetables and logistics in which an accordingly pre-set set of actions is possible, and which said actions are constrained by the limits set of them to be abused in such a way as to yet further constrict freedom in a kind of layered compounding; so that now, these actions being in their own way at times provisionally necessary if yet inter-conflicting, any move for their abolition or that of the framework in which they are abiding constitutes a threat to the freedom underlying the action, the freedom to perform the action in general, and the principle of freedom itself. ? In fact, the logic imposed by this framework encourages the withholding of scheduling of gatherings in which a form of rulership would make the gauntlet of deliberation. ? The codification of such measures as implements of true freedom means that the mere “imposition” as would be entailed in its abolishment constitutes in the Blightgeistian mind a threat to the principle itself, because it would appear to restrict the option of carrying out such duties; when really, such abolishment would be freeing not just in terms of externalities and allocation of time and means to the broaching of topics of concern (foregoing for now the remaining issue of the territorialist faction existing at all with its guiding rancid principles), but in the constricting framework of logistics and timetables that instigates their use and abuse. ? All this to a degree is a microcosm, a fractal layer, of the broader function of a territorialist faction's official structural system in the first place -- which is to formal process both as mask and leverage for the realization of Blightgeistian goals that are extant anyway and not the result of such deliberation according to principles (noble or otherwise). ? Such strategy may extend even to the implementation of official roles, duties, or privileges as would fill timetables, such as checking for the presence of personnel, declaring concern points, and proposing superfluous changes. ? That such stalling could carry gatherings to their preset logistical end especially concerning timetables gives the public visage of lawfulness and of even the “principled passion" of constant cynically engineered deliberation which bears the mark of sacrifice -- the catch being that it is not noble but for mercenary motivations of the Blightgeist. ? Little to nothing then is actually communicated, and again there is no "there" there. ? The use of plausible deniability and technical keeping within the frames of systemic rules means that "deliberation" can be interminably carried out as to not be deliberation in spirit at all so much as mere stalling. ? It is by their feverish pursuit of the issue that they gain public visage for the treatment of being-as-such even as they continually by that actual action threaten it, and in the meantime sub-factional warfare ensures that the logistics will be reduced even for the short-term in such a way as ensures that issues actual or not cannot be sufficiently addressed in the meta-branch of both the masking and shadow branches. ? Even those issues which are more dire and important on both the universal and socially practical level with respect to the branch itself are ultimately pursued first over that coveting. ? Where this is due to the actual direness of the issue even as may concern long-term optics for the key agents of the Blightgeist, the logistics in realizing rulership for such concerns, or the covetedness of the positions of the particular issue and according gathering may vary and in any case are at the whim of the shadow branch. ? These issues may be given their own codified prioritization according to specific criteria. ? This can concern such matters as natural health and environment as well as their cultivation, the management or allocation of currency or resources especially as the key agents of the official structural system hold, personnel of battle past and present, civil structures and their arrangement in all their various categories and according named official funds, matters of inter-factional diplomacy and relations, inner runnings, mass conditioning apparati, demographic or being-as-subset concerns (which is generally to say their solemn accommodation and management), science, and rulership conception, evaluation, and deliverance. ? Gatherings may form around notions and concerns (whether truly held in earnest by the branch’s participants or not) which may be the more effectively engaged within the shadows insofar as the logistical system allows through the ease of continued familiarity -- even as this makes eventual absences (be it so by death) the more catastrophic in maintaining flow regarding that concern or gathering. ? Given that such seniority standard extends to chances for continued occupation of a chair within the halls of officiality (especially as an outgrowth of the standard's prizing as a supposed principle over and above the content said personnel puts forth in rulerships and notions), the shadow branch incentivizes further integration of the already sufficiently-integrated, in part to maintain the compounding of its own shadow element and mistrusting inter-checking cloak-and-dagger dynamic. ? Further across time this may give way to the same general disingenuity-instigating social pressure utilized in the masking branch along faultlines of the usual standard of seniority, though this may indeed gain more public visage for the branch (at least insofar as even the mere operations, let alone existence, of the shadow branch of the territorialist faction's official structural system can be known or willingly allow itself to be known) of prizing freedom of choice and, what's more, being at least a reflection of the nominal system enacted with respect to the system's constituents. ? Yet over time this may give way to selections by the top-ranking key agents within that specific chamber. ? The leaders of such gatherings within its ranks may be selected by one of the more iconistic roles. ? Given that the shadow branch of a territorialist faction's structural system must inevitably hold official gatherings in which to deliberate on its operations, it compounds upon its shadow element even as it (however merely nominally and in response to great cumulative social pressure from many including beings-at-large over the course of generations) becomes more public and transparent. ? Either the notions (if indeed they are principled) are diluted via the constraints of structural compromise in a way that tends to bely lack of conviction if not effectiveness (particularly for the cause of being-as-such) or they are coercively and bullishly forced through (be it done through effectively navigating the structural system’s rules and restraints), which temperament acting upon them either pre-determines or influences the content of the notion by the time it is realized — and this mere variety of toxicity passes muster for principle itself. ? To this end, sophistry is the order of the day as mere convincing and rhetoric for the leverage of an ideal in such system (even where such an ideal is inevitably depraved via the Blightgeistian logic that compels people to become key agents within the structural system) takes precedence over the content of notion that is put forth if even the logistics of the set structure permit its working through and realization. ? Even the mere decorum of its key agents must vary greatly yet in each instance be forwarded as though it were an expression of an innermost principle, which by such point in the integration into the halls of officiality may well be insofar as it is a capricious vacuity. ? To a degree the enmity is even specifically built into the system's structure via the snitch-layer dynamic taking place along any and all sub-factional sides, obligating one key agent among one such sub-faction to their own even as it threatens the structural integrity and unity of the systematic whole -- and those of the shadow branch have more ability to do this than those within the masking branch (that is to say, the structural system's branch pretending by design to serve at least an aspect of beings at large and thereby being-as-such). ? In essence, the mutual enmity and mistrust gains its public visage by the mere status of its at-least-supposed inter-checking nature, as being not itself but a just objectivity. ? The more entrenched in this structural scheme the participant is, the more they are hinging upon the word and approval of the one above, even if it is not officially recognized because it sits "outside" of the officially recognized branch.