terminal 0
unfinished
NEFX - Rahard.txt ? To see above and beyond this is to further detect the boundary of right action and avoid pitfalls away from it. ? Furthermore, the actual success of an individual operation on the pyrrhic or futile path of the Blightgeistian power-luster both fails to complete its own long-term objectives by the very nature of the Blightgeistian game it itself plays in, whose territorialist nature leaves it too open to weakness and resistance by the many other territorialist forces that are themselves part and parcel of the Blightgeist (for such enmity is actually an essential component of it) and yet are also created by it; and the individual operation at the same time is pursued both out of the Blightgeistian agent’s insatiable addiction to illegitimate power and by the provisional success of that individual operation, which temporarily satisfies said addiction. ? To this end, passivity or non-participation as regards imperialist or otherwise coercive and invasive measures of the Blightgeist amounts itself in the Blightgeistian thought form to violation of liberty, regardless of the actual content of such measures. ? The public credibility of such according mass coercion lies in the supposedly desperate, ever-in-need cause of absolute liberty whose own public face comes first and foremost from the identification of the aforementioned bogey as threatening it — that is, the notion of freedom arises first from the notion of a threat, of that which supposedly violates liberty purely by existence, as though anything (let alone beings or beings at large) could hold such universal power. ? The actual form or degree of opposition towards conditions of the Blightgeist may not be of that actual bogey (real or imagined) at all, but conditioning towards this idea can mark out any form of opposition towards such conditions as being of that bogey, ranging from refusal of mercenary coercion to mild reforms that (in function or intent) aim at the needs of beings at large if not being-as-such, to even a point of governmental weakness in the geographical domain currently being targeted for brutalistic or mercenary interests. ? As Blightgeistian mass conditioning strengthens, the mere invocation of such bogey is sufficient to permit or ignore all manner of atrocity committed supposedly against it by official powers and channels. ? Of course, such enterprise of atrocity has a cover motivation in the form of a bogey, whose invocation again is both a distortion and yet (however subconsciously) necessary to motivate the enterprise as through contrast, or the mere vague threat of such bogey's presence somewhere. ? This territorialist logic is therefore only able (and usually expediently or with the safety of historical distance) to recognize a mass atrocity and according tragedy if it be within the specific bounds a (again, usually foreign) territory or regime, localized, rather than spread out across multiple times, places, and operations but consistent and demonstrably affecting in its goals, results, and methodologies— and this latter form of atrocity may in fact be more insidious for its greater reach and stronger cloak. ? In the meantime, the proven death tolls of the actions of these brutalistic branches of the Blightgeist are elided for the ways in which, per Blightgeistian mass conditioning, actual “loss of life” is only calculated according to those within spatio-temporal frames of a (usually foreign) regime (and provisionally at that in order for the propagandist arm of the present territory to make a point by its own prowess only through presented contrast), and furthermore according to who (however tacitly until the propagandist is confronted) truly counts as “being” at all, let alone being of a rightful range of concern. ? Even territorialist agents within the very assailed territory may be secretly trained in such institutions for the ends of the Blightgeist and atrocity in particular, if only (supposedly) for the particular territorialism aims of such agents that will upend the system more serving of beings at large and being-as-such, and for said trained agents’ long-term expendability (as is seen when the pet dictator installed later becomes an enemy, perhaps deliberately as part of a long-term plan); which yet further goes to show that the actual battle for beings is not between being-subsets AS subsets, but between beings at large and the branches of the Blightgeist that both transcend and yet are hopelessly ensconced in territoriality logic — or, what is more to say, between being-as-such and being-as-subset, which is part and parcel of the Blightgeist. ? Such institutions may even gain their own titles, nicknames, or otherwise niche notoriety. ? Though they may operate within the territoriality domain that birdhed them, they may yet operate in the other areas (according to territorialist logic) that they assail, and in such an openly secret way as to taunt beings at large even as beings at large are both hidden from and generally distracted from by the whirlwind of regular life, provisional necessity, immediate experience, familiarity, and (in the extreme) fear of brutalistic punishment from the agents of the Blightgeist upon being found out or resisted. ? Brutalistic branches of the Blightgeist, it has been shown, not only have mercenary interests over and above both their commonly shoveled pretext of “liberty” and “security” drummed out repeatedly across time and the extent to which they’ve gone to hide the specific atrocities and motivations of each of their operations they had a cover action and motive for, but also have secret operations or entire institutions in the specific instruction of such brutalistic and mercenary methods in specific identifiable locations.