terminal 0
unfinished
NEFX - "Webs of Formal Inter-Territorial Bonds" Global and geopolitical chains of necessity borne of Blightgeistian logic require that parties involved act specifically within the rules and boundaries of external procedure in order to stave off catastrophe (often caused by a territorialist rule imposed by one party) that in theory could be staved off outright to the betterment of all, though this would undercut the premise (both globally and territorially) on which the Blightgeist operates. Sometimes this is due to the required logistical procedures of cooperation whose absence produced or facilitated a particular (contextually sensitive) catastrophe in the first place. The existence of such a dilemma or of the procedure in question, let alone procedure itself, conditions too the actions to be taken going forward. The increasing of procedure also increases specialists and institutions through which communication is made who have their own logistical processes and delays in approving or completing a step taken in such procedure, increasing the fatigue by committee both for parties involved and those outside who are affected or may try to at least observe and understand. Yet even in instances where a territorialist (and thus generally Erosive) rule disadvantages one party, Blightgeistian icons of the latter’s particular territory may not so accurately or rightly represent its subjects as assert their own tentacles within their range of (perceived) available power and within the optical and rhetorical bounds of peace and cooperation. In such instances, the actions of either party can be held to a timetable that may (even deliberately) force them into less efficient means of engagement and solution, which can also set a precedent for future control of the rushed party. Specialist positions are erected and employed precisely for these relations, and their necessity may be purely nominal and in any case impede flow of knowledge through all appropriate channels of the employing party by dint of disconnect in understanding between increasingly entrenched positions of specialism and in the faults of logistics. This isn’t accounting either for the timetables of respective parties concerning their respective societal systems and procedures thereof, and how these may conflict; or for the personnel involved at different points in the process of engagement between territories about an agreement or dispute. This may call into question the very starting validity of such systems or thoughtforms as may yield the (often solemn) formal bonds tying territories, which bonds may only ultimately be intended for their framers and yet even so frequently are intended by both framing parties for their respective selves only (though again the personnel shifts, rendering the power-hungry efforts more precarious as regards their aims). Yet as regards the generally more disadvantaged or “forced” party in a formal (as opposed to principled and innate) inter-territorial bond, more constricting ruling personnel of a territory are (or at least appear) provisionally necessary or popular in order to rise to the threats and impositions of the more oppressing party. In many such cases a (seemingly) incidental provision of the bond is already set by the oppressing party which can be held hostage depending on the decision of the other party, and the retaliatory imposition of timetables can help rush a decision of lenience even where it is not valid. Nevertheless, the mere maintenance of such formal inter-territorial bonds and their related and entailed procedures and thoughtforms can only perpetuate the Blightgeist, especially when any repairing or compassionate measures made within its framework inevitably fall short in some capacity and thus inspire further backlash to Lightform itself (and the consequences of half-measures of Lightform can often be significant). The appearance of diplomatic resolution or ongoing dialogue only smoothens this dilemma. In fact, mere resolution of dilemmas inspiring or rising from inter-territorial bond strains or conflicts further legitimizes some aspect of the Blightgeist as legitimizing the Blightgeist in a particular form or capacity, and frames success only in terms of agreement or resolution of a conflict that was neither necessary nor valid. It also elides the ways in which particular ruling icons or (at least seeming) formations of an iteration of the Blightgeist may be taking exactly same procedures as opposing icons or formations before them, yet in such a way that is viewed differently per their stated allegiances and expectations. Said agreements or resolutions do not annul various other ways that current territorialist icons of the Blightgeist may sow further destruction regarding even just the other territory or party under discussion, much less the other seeds of destruction it sows in other domains which may be (perhaps deliberately) distracted from by the public and cultural emphasis on the dilemma currently under discussion. In any case, the phantasms of security and prosperity will be constantly invoked, heedless of the long-term consequences or externality that the mere spatiotemporal distance of atrocious measures puts far away out of general public mind.