terminal 0
unfinished
NEFX - Vigoblunk.txt ? There may indeed be little other option in the moment, living under such faction and the Blightgeist in general. ? And though the faction’s official institutional demand of its inhabitants’ prosaic rote memorization as a mere means of fealty and officially recognized thoughtpower may be abhorrent, there remains an opportunity here to develop and explore the potential of thoughtpower and thought processes in order that such pushed information and concepts may be more deeply understood and transcended from within [note the lore of 1787-1790]. ? Through this we can see the various precarious factors in the eventual deciding moment that is then canonized and used as a coerced and inter-generationally habituated norm for long after. ? The beginning and ending of this crowning moment can gain its own lucid mythologizing in the context of that of the system itself via the invocation of times, names, and places, as well as the final deciding action by an officially recognized icon or territorial unit. ? These contradictions now played out in the process of faction system coagulation, the general official approval can begin, in whatever process is laid out. ? This naming and titling extends to the invocation of such concepts in the titles of official, officially-penned, or officially-canonized formative documents and declarations that are nonetheless disingenuous. ? And the parties of such faction grappling for different grasps of the ideal structural arrangement for this may pen formative documents consulted ever after as being of the essence of the concepts to which they vaguely allude and which are only technically inclined towards within a context that in the end is for Blightgeistian aims, complete with legendary names and titles that even in their time take on a mythological air. ? Finally, it cannot reconcile between its need for subjugation and its resistance against the very system it may by circumstances find itself compelled to erect to attain such aims at least provisionally even as it by that act further entraps itself. ? Blightgeistian thoughtform in its Erosive aspect cannot reconcile (particularly within the frameworks of certain territorialist factions with their own origin stories) between its requirement of institutional fealty as such and fealty to concepts that institutions thwart, nor between said institutions and the thought form’s own inner impotence and need for emancipation that it has perversely sublimated into subjugation of the Other or into the mapping of one’s own emancipatory desires onto a perceived remote sphere even as the remote is conceived of as at least being of the generalized and nebulous Other. ? The Blightgeistian being in its Erosive aspect cannot but pledge fealty to the officially canonized underpinnings of their parent territorialist faction while also clinging to concepts that said underpinnings preclude. ? More specifically, the holes and contradictions in the territorialist faction’s thoughtform become more apparent when considering that the basis for the favored document lies in concepts and measures that the document’s most stringent adherents (at least in retrospect) are most opposed to in essence, which at the very least shows the contextual disconnect across generations. ? In point of fact, the essences could not be attained to in these grasps given the (however tacit) biological-geographical phantasms on which they rest, and would only ever touch on it inadvertently and in passing via a technical fact or consideration, nonetheless canonized and made so vivid in any relevant beings, places, or times documentable about it. ? concerning representative government and direct control by beings-at-large). ? e. ? Moreover, the technical inclinations of one grasp of the structural system by some sub-party of the framing party are painted as favoring the ultimate underlying principle or full general extent of this in principle, ripped from context (i. ? For example, the party most favoring of the strength at least nominally lying in an aspect or branch of the decided structural system is painted in such a way as to correlate favoring of this emphasis within the means, context, and boundaries allowed by the already pre-decided “choices” of the system with the favoring of this emphasis as absolute principle and with the favoring of this or that deciding (at least nominal) “ultimate document” or charter thereafter consulted for the running of the structural system. ? The territorialist faction’s (and more broadly Blightgeist’s) self-mythologizing mechanism involves the framing of a conflict between formative parties in the faction’s development of a technical opposition regarding official structural method as being the ultimate battle between ultimate principles of governance in essence beyond which nothing further could be conceived, so that in its own convoluted fashion the opposing forces (and certainly the victor) would be determined “in nature” to be the most respectful of beings if not being-as-such (in however a way predicated in practice against being-as-such). ? Actually, this mere semblance of balance, proportion, and overall supposedly esoterically objectively determined inter-checking, can be one of a system’s potentially most dangerous conditioning weapons, and is to a degree strategically implemented in part based on known history of past systems for the securement of secrecy among a territorialist faction’s (and thus the Blightgeist’s) chief agents, such as in the erection of a new sub-branch of official decision separate from that initially slated for an administrative or electoral function along lines of a territorial (or populational) unit. ? moving its application for all officially recognized territorial units to that of yet another quantitatively-decided fraction) in the very context of their formulation and yet treated ever after as perennial in the spirit of emancipation as a concept and thus unable in principle or in practice to be transcended (except at least in the latter case through a particularly rigid official procedure that Blightgeistian conditioning across generations is wont to dissuade beings from). ? e. ? Even here the laws of representation can be adjusted for the sake of expediency (i. ? By the same token, the mere contextless protest against technical systems less inherently favorable to beings at large and being-as-such do not itself constitute respect towards the goal of ultimate emancipation. ? The premise of the underlying system’s very structure precludes this possibility even where the bare technical possibility for a different option remains, and understanding this is a secret key to understanding the art and esoteric practice of formulating systems at least in concept (though in concrete they are not to be taken lightly). ? It simply does not a complete rite of passage for an official measure make. ? Here after all the aforementioned is an official agreement reached, and canonized for the record. ? Here the indirect granting of this power through a mediating party that does not proportionally represent them but offers the semblance of an option and negotiation, comes to pass; and this may pass muster in large part due to its appearance as both an in-principle and simply logistical interface between structural power and its (at least perceived) underlings. ? Even here the Blightgeistian mind is given to biological-geographical phantasms and its agents are often unclear as to where they stand in the mass they seek to categorically separate themselves from except through subjugation; so this coupled with the aforementioned pull to arrange the system so as to at least tentatively leverage the will of mass beings for Blightgeistian aims compels the system-crafting agents to grant provisional concessions to those same mass beings. ? For the system it erects as being the absolute in emancipatory aims cannot afford this very aim in action, and must depend on the successfully conditioned mass belief in its already being attained among those the Blightgeist feels most contempt for — the Other. ? With a system forged accordingly, chief agents are met with the quandary of how and to what degree to arrange and balance in practically ideal proportion that which is both most directly expedient to their mercenary and bloodthirsty (what is to say more broadly Blightgeistian) aims and that which pacifies the constituents they plan to use in a way that will both prevent the highly potentiate uprising against the Blightgeist and serve as a means to their aforementioned aims. ? Its canonization as through documented and memorable preservation of original forms and copies in iconic locations only further contributes to this, if in more subtle psychological fashion via generations of Blightgeistian conditioning. ? It is the paradox of the declaration of ultimate freedom under Blightgeistian logic that for such validity it must be adhered to ever after even in the face of mounting contradictions and shortcomings, in such a way as to further constrict inhabitants within the faction's domain and by extension inspire more bullish and bloody enforcement of it by its willing adherents. ? It only further lays bare the inherent shortcomings underlying the faction’s system in question, to say nothing of territoriality itself and the very category that such faction is operating on. ? It is actually this form of contradiction that may lead frequently to the superficially “objective” quantitative measure in which particular being-subsets are systematically considered a distinct fraction of that of another. ? Even those argued-for measures nominally or superficially favoring being-as-such depend on the premise of the primacy of being-as-subset, and as a measure that both does not transcend this systematic treatment of being-subsets (and, by extension, being-as-such) and is purely instrumental in the strengthening of the being-subset favored by the territorialist system. ? With this excuse in place, coupled with the administrative pretenses of “balance”, measures against being-as-such are given the veneer of “objective impartiality” and “diplomatic negotiation” among the differing deciding parties as regards the method of venturing against being-as-such by the discrete quantifiable measurement of method by a number. ? Such harmful measures may even be given visage through their supposed good-willed delegation towards the supposed inherent “benevolence” (as would apparently threaten the Blightgeistian agents' enterprise) of nature, time, and permissive conditions that the beings at large involved in such atrocity would supposedly naturally recognize with time, which can then always allow for the passing of the buck until such atrocity is finally confronted and overthrown. ? in the form of a “winding down” period of several years for a measure or condition, with caveats added as would most ensure the continued convenience for Blightgeistian agents at the expense of being-as-such and beings at large). ? e. ? Those stubborn persisting unresolved issues may be given timeframes of resolution at a remote time, and thus unto themselves could constitute a form of negotiation or resolution even as they may both harm being-as-such and beings at large and yet gain face in doing so for the way that this is deliberated upon through official procedure and thus giving the visage of necessity to both (i. ? We may nevertheless in poring over the history of such developments catch glimpses into general psychological tendencies of beings in the process of negotiation, such as the agreeableness on relatively smaller or less contentious matters once the larger, more divisive and strongly-convicted-upon ones are granted bilateral satisfaction and thus release after the long build of tension (which may even be deliberately engineerable for the sake of such an outcome with an advance view towards such resolution). ? Yet there are always caveats, and they are often unspoken among the self-selected so-called chosen ones along biological-geographical phantasmic lines. ? Agents of varying grasps of ideal structural configuration for power seizure schemes are satisfied at once here, and this mere pretense of plurality, negotiation, and choice may pass muster as the utmost in freedom (not least of all as only supposedly procurable by this elite few). ? In such a hybridization the deciding branch of a power system may become multi-united, proportionally representative (at least nominally) of beings enclosed within the bounds of territorialist faction (along biological-geographical phantasmic lines), and independence of action by some branches or sub-branches. ? It is then only fitting that these “options” should become a hybridized form that does not fully represent or offer (or even conceive of) the full spectrum of possible conditions or thriving for beings. ? That said self-styled representatives should differ in their aims of structural arrangement to this end, let alone in such a way as would appear to be selectable options and thus bestowers of freedom unto beings, only emphasizes and in some cases even exacerbates this absurdity while obscuring the ways in which the very conditions of their imposing presence preclude the principles they perpend to defend [note the lore of Virginia, New Jersey, and Connecticut]. ? There is yet further hindrance of beings in the pretense of “delegates” or representatives of beings along biological-geographical phantasmic lines qua the inherent pretenses of a territorialist faction that is imposed by its agents on any who should be so born or constrained to dwell and survive within it. ? Yet in the end it may even be mere logistical concerns by the Blightgeistian agents of the territorialist faction that compels them to the less consolidated option in the moment, for this in some respects would be less convenient to their aims. ? It may at any rate cling to a notion of “freedom” that conceives only of population containing units or otherwise territorial sub-branches without the context or size of the populations contained therein, or a supposed limitedness in power that is in point of fact only the reduction or restriction of a power branch into fewer personnel and is thus only technically smaller in a different sense elided for the sake of a power seizure inimical to freedom itself as concept, to say nothing of logistics (such as concerning the enactment or evaluation of laws). ? And in the end this structurally and circumstantially victorious idea may be in fact little different in its actual effect than that which it was meant to supplant. ? Furthermore, the plurality of propositions and variations on this same old rechauffe in the “formational stage” chapter of the territorialist faction's self-myth lends further to the idea of “freedom” that consists largely in the notion that that which gains structural and official advantage in the moment and is more “locked in” by at least the mere appearance of official procedure is eo ipso the most valid one. ? The mere discussion of freedom or emancipation by itself, regardless of context or the implicit “givens” of the territorialist faction (particularly along lines of biological-geographical phantasms), shrouds the context in which they are discussed of a merely transactional and subjugative option that is achieved materially and circumstantially. ? Still these various inter-contradictions pose a useful question about how much administration (to the extent that it is even valid in concept) should divide among interest qua contextually and culturally differing (particularly across time and circumstance) branches on one hand, and mere population on the other — a yet further implicit critique of official territoriality at such, let alone territorialist factions. ? This is assuming of course that the suffering of the latter is not discounted as also being ultimately self-imposed, or that the secrecy is not in fact only partial and conditional via the indulgence of its participant in even public matters that only their opulence could permit them. ? This is only further shown in the willing self-isolation and secrecy engaged in by such agents that by various circumstances may further their suffering yet which are framed as a necessary action for the attainment of their aims and, by extension, freedom (per Blightgeistian reasoning) -- the implication always being that it is the fault of beings at large or being-as-such that such suffering should occur or need to occur. ? And yet here too in the self-mythologizing story of the territorialist faction is any technical suffering (real or alleged) among the agents of its formation emphasized especially in relation to the process of such formation as by that fact justifying it, as though such effort could not be motivated by the inner void that screams for yet more subjugation long-term; with due emphasizing of every key iconic location, branch, person, etc. ? Such stories as this only further show that the decided structural system for a territory can only so reliably reflect its essence, notwithstanding the (however transient and based in a general spatiotemporal point) general stance for and against certain governmental structures or functions by different ideological adherents. ? The (however nominal) increase of official branches, institutions, and sources of decisions for governing processes, particularly as in an “inter-checking” relation, gains yet further visage for the main agents of the territorialist faction and by extension The Blightgeist; and indeed it may be more structurally and logistically convenient for its aims and incidentally offer technical (even if not net) benefits to its constituents in such an explicitly providential way as to (per deeply psychological Blightgeistian conditioning) foreclose any protest among many of them — like branches for the creation, delivery, or the evaluation of measures, laws, and proposals, or the nature of their relation and rank to each other.