terminal 0
unfinished
NEFX - "At the Boundary of Territorialist Folly" Territorialist principles of Erosion under the Blightgeist forwarded with dishonest cries regarding safety and danger distract from the ways they are inherently predicated against being-as-such and are willingly the moreso both by the perceived vulnerability of a subset of beings that an instance of such a principle targets, and the fact that this same vulnerability can be appealed to on the bright side of Erosion’s two-faced nature — and to this end, said vulnerability can be appealed to as needing help precisely by being on the outside of the established territory and territorial conception of the Blightgeist area under investigation, and the (at least appearance of) outreached hands towards subsets of beings the territorialist schema doesn’t account for can thereby be framed as actively harmful. Erosion needs this seeming legitimization to more widely approvedly forward what is actually a delighting scheme in impeding subsets of beings whose presence (if not very existence) threatens their territorialist notions, by any means on a spectrum from threat of law to genocide. But the desire to hold to the spatially and being-wise recognizable range of a territory is eo ipso indicative of an underlying hierarchical scheme against being-as-such that would spurn such protective sentiments in the first place, and phantasms of security effectively mask the Erosive desire to exterminate beings it perceives as threatening by nature to its own conception of being. The Erosive branch may even re-appropriate symbolism and sentiments of global alert as if to acknowledge but distort the nature of global alert by remapping it onto a “real and actual” bogey by contrast to a real menace actually underlined in such alert. The actual nature of grievance against such outreach may be precisely in the burden it inevitably imposes on the willing guardians of Erosion and its territorialist ways, ignoring how this lays bare the very waste inherent to such an enterprise; for the outward marks of atrocity, such as privation or exhaustion, are invoked here also. To this end, the nature of any supposed atrocity in the outreach to beings-as-such may not even have to be specified, but rather to be stated vaguely so as to both maintain plausible deniability and allow an audience of such sentiment to silently project onto (and thus have reinforced) their own convictions and conditioned mental reflexes as in a kind of Rorschach. A supposed crisis at the point at which Erosive territorialism meets its match consists merely in the degree to which they perform their prescribed duty, as though an abuser’s hand was forced by the emotionally vexing ways of their victim. Given the general unwillingness of Blightgeistian subjects to truly investigate and think through the implications of these boundary points of the Blightgeist, it is all the more sufficient to convince them of the nature of the issue by vaguely referring to many key points of conditioned political interest without specifying or revealing the manner in which related issues pertain to any party in such a conflict or their relations therein. Under Blightgeistian conditioning, the mere phantasm of familial love can then be referred to to signal a generally recognizable weight to such conflict without emphasizing that it is the party of beings whose being-as-such is assailed by apparati of The Blightgeist to whom such issue most applies or faces threat, within or without Blightgeistian conception of such love. The result is a kind of backwards hostage situation in which the assailed beings are kept trapped by circumstance that is either not recognized or simply ignored but whose nature is excused both because it does not threaten the (perceived) domain of the Blightgeistian subjects who it is done in part to appeal to and thus maintain power over, and because it does not fit within the Blightgeist’s general established mental framework of freedom and bondage. The more conditions worsen under the Blightgeist’s territorialist measures at the point of conflict, the more the opposite of such shall gain false legitimacy as backwards OUTREACH. This only further disincentivizes treatment of beings as such. The brutal territorialist logic of Erosion inevitably seeps into brutalistic expansion and ultimately lowers the mask of having ever not been for such purpose, with “pre-emptive” and "defensive" advances of brutality across the boundary of conflict they once merely “defended” blending into expansion with the momentum of habit and accumulated circumstance. Chief figures of the Blightgeist stand to break big in the ensuing conflict; and in the meantime, such schemas regarding Erosive territorialism gain such a hold over even those beings not under its banner that the root causes of the (external and surface-level) inspiration to Erosive territorialism, such as privation and distant brutality often connected to the domestic arm of the Blightgeist that is itself constricting of its subjects (in however less a fashion than of those outside beyond its perceived territorialist boundary, hence part of its decroded domestic appeal) are forgotten. But to remember these sufferances, their essence, and their general and particular causes across time and space, is, despite its tiring and frightening harrowingness, crucial to ultimate emancipation of beings-as-such.