terminal 0
unfinished
NEFX - Trateleposts.txt ? Trammel the despot, now and always. ? Such premise established, Erosive thought can elide and distract from the naked malice of a key icon ruling on its behalf by the inherent inefficiency (real or alleged) of the official system in which said icon chose to operate — often a thinly veiled inclination towards the installation of such icon as an untrammeled despot. ? And how convenient, really, that in such instance the “ancillary” necessity of resource pillaging and hoarding from within the breast of an atrociously brutalized domain and beings at their cost be done (again, mainly beings at large more than their territorialist representatives who are the at least nominal inspiration for the systemic atrocity against the domain in the first place), especially considering that this ancillary need is for an apparently strong domestic need such as economic balance teetering on the brink. ? Of course, this is a big part of the actual design of the Erosive enterprise. ? It ignores that when such mass systemic atrocity is carried out, it affects beings at large in a way not only inimical to the cause of being-as-such but in practice stupid even within its own logical framework for the mass wrath it invokes by beings at large across generations. ? But deeper still, this sort of pernicious thoughtform manifests in the justification of mass atrocity by the supposed “necessity” of punishing all those perceivably associated with an at least nominal guilty party in the carrying out of atrocity on masses of beings that is intepreted by the latter’s umbrella territorialist faction as an attack on their pet biogeophantasm. ? This thoughtform manifests in an assumption of envy on part of the opposers to Erosive agents and their thoughtforms, with supplied evidence lying merely in present differences in structural or material means between the two either on a purely individual basis or as filtered through the phantasm of the beings' respective territorialist factions. ? It also does not recognize, or at least willfully ignores, that much thought which at least according to Erosive thought does not accord sufficiently with Erosion, is born at least in its initial conception as not only in primordial principle, but also and by extension in rightful defensive reaction towards Erosive force that would negate the existence and validity thereof of the believing being. ? But while Erosive thought in certain instances may rightly point out that common thought consists in that which is fed without pre-ratiocination, it neglects to explain why, and with the implicit message (bolstered by its cutthroat authoritarian streak) that it is not so much the source (at least direct source) of the common thought so much as the content (and more broadly ultimate source whence common mass thought must originate) that is invalid and dangerous — therefore, it actually favors mass conditioning in concept, in order that Erosion may prevail even at the expense of beings at large in their very survival or even thrival. ? Granted, the mere premise of beings at large is predicated against Erosion and more broadly The Blightgeist, but mass consciousness in its time is not necessarily attuned to this (though it possesses the potential to be so, which is part of the point). ? Yet in addition to reducing the science of truth to a plurality of evasions of each other on the basis of them either not “being” truth or just not being “truth” simply by nature of their assertions, it ultimately blindly scapegoats the ever-nebulous “crowd”, which is to say the most of whoever is conceivably present in the world-as-known at any given moment (and this moment lasts forever), as though it encompassed all that which was for “being-as-such” and thus not of Erosive thought. ? It may also note a common mortal tendency to presume to speak on behalf of a celestial figure. ? It may likewise note the common mortal tendency to take at the word that which emanates from a trusted mass source. ? It may call into question the ability of fields of study to comprehensively explain phenomena. ? For example, it may note the invalidity of argument ab auctoritate. ? As such, it may (however obliviously or for wrong reasons and ends) touch on legitimate issues with said daily forces, but ultimately only that the latter’s orientations be the more shifted in favor of Erosion. ? For that matter it alludes to these common ubiquitous forces vaguely as if to imply that they are at large attuned to the cause of being-as-such that the Blightgeist is predicated against. ? friends, family, media, and otherwise compatriots) so long as it emanates not just from Erosive thought, but especially and in accordance from a central pseudo-deistic figure. ? e. ? Erosive thought faces a dilemma in both its holding to mass thought by coercion, conditioning, and coercive conditioning, and also its holding to thought via outside pressure to be by that fact invalid even before the actual content of the thought is revealed and investigated, thereby mapping illogicality purely onto beings at large (not to mention being-as-such) and holding (whether subtly or not) that valid thought may take place in these general common ubiquitous sources that surround beings in their daily living (i.