105: NEFX - Deounderry

NEFX - Contalleed.txt ? But in the end, from the process of system-craft to its execution, exceptions can, will be, and have been, made. ? Officially declared fealty by the lower-tier branch may also be stipulated in the system’s provisions, complete with a formal process, and qualifications needed and not needed for the positions of any tier may need specifying. ? The manner in which any such structural supremacy by one branch or personnel may take place may also bear mentioning, as the taken-for-granted understanding of it may forget such details as that it may take temporal precedence over others and have its own needs and procedures met first, as part of the procedure for the lower-tier branch insofar as the latter must wait for the former to proceed in a matter. ? Indeed it would be likely rare and contradictory for a system to be formulated that would grant ultimate systemic power to a party outside the dictates of its very written provisions. ? This would likewise extend to the pre-eminence of the system’s hub over its tendrils. ? Yet even though the supremacy of the system as a form may be implicit, it still may bear stating if that is indeed the aim of the system. ? These half-measures may proceed by gradations and taking years at a time amidst ongoing systemic atrocity, yet even then this is owed to the pushback from beings at large. ? Yet by the same token technical half-measures (that is to say, partial retractions of the systemic knife from beings) written hard in law by this very provision help grant visage to the system as being ultimately in favor of being-as-such in practice and principle, and being owed the ultimate thanks for any progress in the venture of Lightform (which they are themselves ready to condemn if they even recognize its essence). ? through enforced servitude). ? e. ? Indeed even these boundaries can be, and historically have been, subject to defeat by the sheer might of will of collective beings, mainly insofar as they impede the cause of being-as-such (i. ? Such provisions may extend naturally from the circumstantial impetus to their creation, as when creators of the system and its explanatory documents must make exception to themselves for their own rules in order to logistically accomplish the system's complete formation. ? The necessity of specifying the differences in manner and degree of treatment of different branches within the system likewise necessitates rules on any manner in which the representation should (according to the rules of the system) be equal, and those sections not open to altering even within the bounds of procedures for alteration by the system. ? The tides of history may leave such possible measures untouched, one of the many ways in which practice can defy intent in even the most seemingly robust and deliberate of system-craft. ? Here too secondary methods must be conceived of in the event of such primary method's failure or unavailability, such as a more open gathering and discussion among the charged official personnel, and whether this itself would also be allowed after a threshold of inputs by some of those same personnel. ? a “majority”) — and this too may be esoterically and numerologically determined, and proceed in a fixed order of parties such as in a branch within the hub followed by a branch of the hub's tendrils. ? e. ? Here in the process of system-craft one must question what parties hold what stake on what basis, namely in whether the basis be by a statistical or linearly quantifiable benchmark (i. ? The concern of official processes for changing the system by its own delineated methods and within its methods herd also raises its head. ? Likewise other doctrines may concern official responsibilities of the tendrils to the hub, such as in the notification of the cause for such hub duties in the first place or as may concern officially recognized attacks from within (mainly beings at large and, more broadly and in essence, being-as-such). ? Other doctrines may concern the responsibility of higher tiers to lower tiers even if in as simple a form as the official personnel for the whole system (that is, the central hub component, that spanning rulership of the entire as-yet-known territorialist domain), such as defense of the tendrils by the hub against forces outside of the faction or domain. ? Chief among these doctrines can be the options if not outright responsibilities of particular geographical-populational untis (or, what is more to the point, tiers in the total schemata of the system) in official personnel arrangement decisions, especially as may relate to themselves and their own rulership. ? This can be done in the enumeration of doctrines, or sub-principles — and the total conceivable and actually conceived of and marked-down principles, clauses, doctrines, sections, etc can depend on the range of ability and willingness to conceive of such things in the first place as well as the practical scope, aim, and logistical concern of the entire document and set of principles as may most serve (at least nominally) the faction’s constituents to absorb. ? But overall a principle must be enumerated that goes generally over all the aforementioned and the general relation of all at-stake units in the part of the whole, or of the general form and function of the total system. ? This may be so for purposes of careful and controlled management of beings-at-large by the system within the means afforded to it in that moment for proper execution of its long-term (however muddled, pyrrhic, myopic, and inter-generationally disconnected) venture against being-as-such. ? Indeed if a branch of the system is erected specializing in the maintenance and overseeing of geographical-populational units on which the territorialist faction is run, this would lend itself to dominion over such formulation. ? System-craft for that matter may also entail concern about who is responsible for the formulation of such units and how, including the possibility that the units themselves may not do so. ? That is, it would include active and passive responsibilities, proactivities and avoidances. ? Such responsibilities could include not just the difference (or lack thereof) in official systematic treatment of beings according to such things as whether they reside inside or outside said unit at the moment of the thing’s becoming, but the circumstances in which such unit or representing personnel would act at all. ? an action or status), and would likewise entail responsibilities for the official units and their ruling personnel. ? e. ? This would depend largely on the nature of the thing officially beholden to the system or granted by it (i. ? Here too one must account for and accommodate such possibilities as whether a being within one officially recognized geographical-populational unit would be beholden to and granted the same official standards in another, particularly another in which they do not dwell (at least according to official recognition). ? One must also account for whether such enumerated principle would require the formal recognition of something in one unit to be likewise recognized in all other conceivable ones within the system (or at least the particular units in question). ? That is, each conceivable involved party would have to allow the systematically-accomplished decisions and rules among other parties in the structural arrangement, in all its various conceivable possibilities such as legal granting of rights concerning transportation and operation of certain equipment, records, and contracts between persons. ? Among these principles could be the mutually agreed-upon respect of this structural arrangement to begin with. ? Nevertheless, the specific contours and logic of this structural arrangement between hub and units may be established first in the enumeration of underlying principles. ? Such practicality may only arise from demand of constituents on any level, which is not to forget that the ultimate purpose of many such system (if not official structural system in concept) is the contextually sensitive strategic edging towards a pyrrhic ultimate power-seizure venture that is the essence of the Blightgeist, and so may be a mere temporary compromise to that end — and let us not forget for that matter that these various provisions, complexities, and expectations of their rote memorization and abidance are but distractions from this core venture to undercut the primordial birthright venture of Lightform. ? Indeed the nature of the hub may not be in the existence of the territorialist faction itself, but in an official structural extension of it that handles logistically the aims of both the system at large and the aforementioned units both individually and in relation. ? Units merely present in the whole of the system as in trinkets in a bag may not be able to serve the aims and flow of the system, and for that matter the conceived-of structural hub may likewise need changing. ? This may be arrived at to a degree through trial and error as when said units merely contained within the whole of the territorialist domain meet their logistical limits in so operating and fulfilling their goals without sufficient interlinks. ? The exact allowable nature and range of interactions between geographical-populational units (and units in general) must also be accounted for in system-craft, likewise enumerated in a cordoned off and numbered section of an explanatory document. ? This is not even regarding the inherent stupidity of expecting that which is systemically better for beings — and thus necessary for the world-as-known stage cast as a contiguous place needing emancipation for all beings — to be ignored or fought against for the mere reason that it is an at least nominally adopted trait of the enemy territorialist faction and not of the present one. ? Here the actual provable change in conditions for beings even according to the logic of the territorialist faction under which they dwell is not even a necessary concern in the deciding of punishment along lines of faction-betrayal, and in fact there may be none at all — only the seeming contradiction of the factions’ self-cast role along territorialist lines is the concern and cause for punishment. ? Indeed the personnel and branches of the system (or at least a select one such as is shown to most represent the technical and logistical basis of official decision-making, such as geographical-populational units) are charged with deciding this, cloaking its autocratic core; and the according punishments are likewise conceived of temporally and quantified. ? This may include simply the crime of seeming to act against the will of the territorialist faction, which under such logic consists largely not in the lessening of its conditions as much as the aiding of an outside territorialist faction in the present one's crosshairs — so that even where such lessening is legitimate or the aiding of said outside faction is unrelated to the conflict with the present one, the punishment only gains face by the pre-presence of a known enemy, and in the meantime conditions can be lessened for beings at large in a way constitutive of war against the constituents of the faction and yet will not be recognized as such because there is not (at least nominally) an outside territorialist faction being favored in this. ? On the note of punishment and removal, the most comprehensive (balanced with concision) array of possible crimes towards the purposes of the system must be conceived of and explained along with their criteria and according penalties. ? Indeed, in system-craft one must include among conceived-of timeframes those of the long term across generations and adaptations of the system including (and especially) its own officially self-approved means, such as concerning how positions seemingly unthreatening to an at least nominal balance of structural power may yet come to take on more severe leverage across iterations of the system and thus generally defy their due penalty or removal throughout history. ? The constant and fixed nature of such evaluative branch may likewise leave personnel open only to select penalties and expulsions, though this raises dangers of easily untrammeled and unthreatened abuses. ? These timeframes may even be influenced purely by those of other extant (at least in mind, that is to say, already-decided-upon) personnel or branches so as to likewise (at least nominally) inter-check them in terms of timeframes. ? Such nature of roles and purposes among these branches may likewise influence conception of timeframes as may regard, say, allowable length of occupation; and numerological concerns may extend to their remuneration as well. ? Indeed centralization would correspond with the centralized nature of a fixed set of rules (in particular criteria for the formation or affecting of yet more rules), yet with the lesser and more dispersed stations for such purpose made to accommodate both logistical hurdles and the respective needs and orientations of the officially set geographical-populational units; and extant personnel and branches may enact formal procedures to make it thus, through officially titled and dated writs of rule. ? But here now beyond the respective realms of the formulation and deliverance of rules we arrive at the issue of their evaluation in according with the system’s very provisions; and here we encounter a logistical concern, that of where and in what spatial capacity (real or abstract), as in whether dispersed among several inter-communicating stations or a central one, as may most enable all involved in the territorialist faction’s system to evaluate created and slated territorialist rules for whether and in what manner they should be so delivered. ? Even within the supposedly principled inter-checking tendencies of the respective personnel and branches, such supposed principle is only the pretext to the broader power-seizure game at play among all system-embedded parties, the further realization of the Blightgeist in all its ugly headlessness. ? Paradoxically, it is the same mechanisms inherent to the system, nominally erected to prevent abuses, that allow it (especially across inter-generational disconnection) to add layer by layer to itself structurally until it can and will overcome itself in its initial contextually sensitive self-limitations; and indeed this may be a plan (however also inter-generationally disconnected) for the way in which it allows casual being-conditioning takeover of the domain of life as part of a pyrrhic venture against being-as-such. ? Within these timeframes must be conceived the purpose and, for that matter, requirements of given information by which party according to their respective roles and experiences outside of that set official gathering, as well as of the whole array of conceivable misdeeds or crimes within the system and their according tiers and punishments — and this may be compound, as in the event of a gathering requiring one official personnel or branch to relay information to another that was previously relayed to another party (the difference often being between those within and those without the whole body of the official system rather than among personnel and branches within it per se). ? Systems can, often do, and in any case should operate according to conception of time, and the more at-will and arbitrary official timeframes or gatherings set may in practice not tally with their intended design and may be very much (however indirectly) self-serving to the initiating party. ? The structuring, mapping, and reasoning of various divergent, interacting, and often inter-conflicting time frames is actually a key shadow component of understanding of system-craft just in principle. ? These would be distinguished by being carried out at will (at least within the officially given boundary of law) as opposed to according to a fixed schedule, and yet may be given boundaries of expiration such as at the end of a term or timeframe for another personnel or branch. ? Time as something constructed officially for a procedural purpose is likely an important consideration in system-craft, particularly as regards who may carve out what time in what place and capacity in their specific role or branch, and who may not (at least in like fashion). ? This can take the form of specifically-formatted communications or documents from one such personnel or branch to another both within and without the official territorialist faction's system in question. ? Here in contrast with the officially recognized procedures and restrictions for battle is that of negotiation and gathers for such matters as that. ? The roles of officially deciding and officially executing the at least top decisions concerning such bloodthirsty ventures may be officially divided among different branches or personnel within the system to encourage inter-checking and cooperation on the matter, but all this means is granting license to the Blightgeistian agents of the system to pick and choose which of such bloodthirsty venture (particularly abroad) to decide on and publically declare so as to technically stay within the bounds of their own law. ? That many said underlings would come to at least nominally officially be in control of these official brutalisitic or imperialistic operations only speaks for one thing of the general strength of the Blightgeistian conditioning apparatus, for another of its deceiving apparatus in how such statement may elide the ways in which these commanding underlings of “right-given grassroots operation" are themselves beholden to the official system of Blightgeistian agents, and of the general Blightgeistian thoughtform of bloodthirst driving such operations besides — generally along biological-geographical phantasmic lines. ? Here then is the essence of the Blightgeistian venture underlying the territorialist faction and its official system and documentation more of an open secret, such as in the power of the personnel or branch under question to conduct and command the most ruthless and brutalistic pyrrhic power-seizures involving the lives of countless underlings, both in official aggregate and regarding those specialized beings within those officially recognized geographical or populational units. ? Yet by the same token this comparative dearth in detail may be because of the more absolute power of the branch or personnel now in question, which by its simplicity may transcend the apparent checks of the previous. ? With the primacy of which system branch or personnel in the systems’ deciding operations now established (such as in its earlier or larger, more detailed mentioning in official documents), particularly in terms of what concept or units are most focused on at least officially (aside from actual official action that is especially borne out historically), fewer clauses and details may be required in delineating the official powers and boundaries of another in part because of how they derive largely from the former. ? whether to alter it during the personnel's length of occupation and whether they can accept remuneration outside of that officially granted in actuality and in law by the system). ? e. ? This all may be clearly delineated in an official guiding document of the system in a marked out section, which may also note of such things as guidelines and restrictions for official remuneration of the personnel in question (i. ? This will apply as well to steps in the process, such as the interment of the input-victorious official personnel and later the gathering of the at least partially-deciding personnel for other formal decisions and overseeing in the process. ? Such timelines can be determined in distinctly quantitative fashion regardless of any generally culturally agreed upon systems for tracking time, but in many instances it will be subordinated to the latter; and indeed this may be decided anywhere from arbitrarily to numerologically, and in any case largely bound thereafter by the force of ingrained cultural inter-generational habit (for example one culturally-decided cyclical dating unit in the span of a decided larger quantitative unit it would cycle in, which may vary between such quantitative units as to its marked placement). ? In these official personnel selection procedures a pace and deadline must generally be set to avoid overextension; and logically, any system which would assign to a particular branch of the system the running and delineation of geographical and populational units would also task it with deciding such timelines. ? In other instances the collective input of an official geographical or populational unit will directly reflect the (at least nominal) distinct quantity of the officially recognized inputs among whatever subset of beings is deemed officially worthy for submitting inputs or input units in the ultimate decision. ? This mediation can even take the form of a selection system whereby slated personnel most decided on are thereby represented as gaining the input of all the officially recognized geographical or populational units, generalizing the actual distinct quantities of inputs for this or that personnel or action; and somewhat ironically this same system may not hold true for official personnel selection at the higher geographical and populational ranks as would be said to encompass the whole territorialist faction. ? Indeed, such increasing foment can spur the rise of (even spiteful and compensatory) participation (largely via”inputs") by beings in the arrangement of the faction's system and thus help turn the tide in the favor of the officially granted "opposite" personnel, system configuration, party, etc. ? This Blightgeistian method is not only effective for “nuancedly” quelling the will and cause of beings at large and by extension being-as-such, but does so in such as way as to incite foment among beings against each other — for the result of the faction's official procedure openly defying the collective input of constituents can be blamed in principle on the conduct of the “one of two” supposedly most opposite-in-principle "options" and thus on the general misconduct and misprinciple of beings granted official “input" in their selection at all. ? System-craft must also account for secondary methods of official decision after this phase in the event of an unclear or incomplete result, such as post-hoc input by one of the key official branches. ? a designated time period or deadline), or whether the victorious being is so by mere higher quantified favor among deciding beings or by first reaching a threshold of such favor. ? e. ? From here a key point in system-craft is deciding — again possibly according to numerological or otherwise esoteric means, or simply to practical ones that may simply carry forward thenceforth out of inter-generational habit and blind fealty to tradition-as-such — whether the winning potential personnel in an event of decided arrangement is met according to such options as a temporal limit (i. ? To this degree, even the officially granted act of input by a being under the territorialist faction in such matters is itself mediated to be an act of input for the officially granted personnel of much smaller number making the direct input. ? Thus the vaunted “privileged” (yet also officially-declared “right-given”) “input” of beings at large in the arrangement of personnel or system operations is in fact highly annulled and generalized. ? This mediative provision and party can correlate directly to a unit of population (often collective), official geography, or amount of representative official personnel thereof. ? This mediation, though in the first place to a degree inherent to official systems as outgrowths of territorialist factions and thus territorialism as principle, is in this particular case part of the long-term Blightgeistian conditioning apparatus whereby the provisional granting of systemic will to beings-at-large via constituents (or at least the strategical appearance of such) pacifies and patronizes them enough into compliance while out of a defiance of their validity of thought compared to the Blightgeist's own thought. ? For such selection process may not be so direct as mediated according to the aforementioned established principle of geographical and populational partititioning. ? For even concerning such a personnel of iconic stature, the nature and boundary of the space (physical or abstract) they inhabit must be established, as should the official process for the personnel’s selection and the branches, parties, personnel, etc, involved in said process. ? This nuanced reality can be the more understood precisely by understanding it as in-principle divisible into a series of sequenced sections, so that all is understood holistically according to a thorough line and "flat sequence" rather than as a steeple poking out from a nebula. ? These various ideas for system-craft being established concerning specifically that aspect of systems dealing with the formulation of rules, we must proceed then to that concerning their deliverance; especially as such may relate most heavily and commonly with those positions which in the public imagination come to be more iconic, and thus commonly evade true nuanced understanding. ? To this end, even the system's prohibitions that may seem self-evident given the system's premise, such as may relate to the practices of a bogey or “parent" territorialist faction emancipated from by the present "child" one, must be established and delineated, if only to give the visage of service of being-as-such and to in any case make clear the status of purposeful difference from this or that faction or principle, especially given that indeed many constituents are so by a variety of circumstance not necessarily connected to the actual principle being written and fought for. ? Even among the delineated role of certain positions or parties, certain exceptions must be imagined and accounted for in accordance with the intentions and incentives of the system both in whole and in parts, such as prohibiting certain branches from exacting certain control over currency or resource among different geographic or populational units. ? The consideration of time is also important in terms of what may be changed about a system’s rules (or, what is more to say, variable domain of rules as may be added to or subtracted from), such as in whether something should in retrospect be treated according to current rules and structuring inexistent at the time. ? For example, a provision may disallow direct official action by such branch or agent except as is granted by the results of a long and laborious process — and indeed, to imagine a cynical domineering perspective, the mere presence of such process may grant visage to an action that is, in point of fact, no less severe or harmful to the cause of being-as-such than such direct official action, but is actually the working out of such severity in detail, including in this length and laboriousness itself (foregoing for now how much success within it depends on plutocratic advantage). ? Such provisions may serve to both justify and clarify the purposes of the restrictions officially placed on different systemic branches.