terminal 0
unfinished
NEFX - "Ensnaring Procedure Within the Blightgeist's Framework" The expectation of formal procedure and broad societal anticipation mentally conditions and limits the range of expression and, by extension, thought concerning addresses to populations by systems' leaders. It also allows for the strategic planning of rhetoric, omission, and distortion regarding the information and ideas being presented, especially in expectation of the (if by a different apparatus) societally conditioned range of conceptions regarding issues that concern said population and beyond, especially as they pertain to narrow territorialist conceptions of being and the qualification thereto. Beyond this, vehicles of information that serve beings are more beholden to the schedule and addressment of such issues and their conceptions by aforementioned leaders and systems themselves, insofar as such are foisted upon beings regardless of the former's actual intrinsic value or validity, further filtering the exact nature of the information (especially relative to any self-conscious “branding” pressure taken on by said vehicles) at stake and behooving beings to grapple with that and those of other vehicles as well. This (whether intentionally or not) continues to grant the Blightgeist leverage via distraction and exhaustion of beings. Within such a dilemma, the mere allowance of “pleasing decorum” towards beings in the dissemination and delivery of such information and notions as are given in systemic addresses to its subjects increases the general glossing over of the actual content or consequences of systemic actions being done anyway (whether explained in the address or not), as though to prize mere performance of this as content and only by contrast with an (outwardly) opposite leader or system within the Blightgeistian framework whose decorum may more closely match their (especially systemic) actions. Yet even despite this, long-term Blightgeistian conditioning of subjects into the supposed necessity of established procedure as belying good and systemic functionality itself (even if this is merely provisionally necessary within said framework for valuable information to [at least in theory] be delivered to subjects) means a measuring of the system according to that adherence to functionality, and the quality of leadership depending largely on procedure and appearance itself if only according to the target subjects' desires. This only further emphasizes the value of performance once it is delivered upon demand (and perhaps mounting doubt) for the leader's functionality in formal systemic procedure. This is all aside from the Blightgeistian icon’s vested interest in being dishonest, in however distinct a fashion (whose distinction gains it the face of honesty merely again by contrast to the form of dishonesty exhibited by those of another strain of the Blightgeist). The actual nature of the principles, resources, and contiguous concerns entailed in the structuring of living and societal systems on even a physical level beg study; and the disconnection of this from the practice of their concern, let alone general systemic disconnection (possibly deliberate) of beings from either, feeds only into the aforementioned dilemma. Contiguousness itself is a hard-grasped concept, including as the science of living systems (particularly those contrived by beings) is contiguous with other subjects of collective living, which are often mentioned as in a category whence no societal concerns can depart without neglecting it and, by extension, the good conditions and safety of beings (even if this latter is largely a red herring by agents of the Blightgeist to leverage a more malign measure against being-as-such). With this in mind, alternatives (in Blightgeistian theory, as opposed to actual original right notions which are buried) in yielding global salvation beyond the provisionally immediately necessary act of either inter-territorial competition or compromise through the already compromising medium of inter-systemic Blightgeistian formal procedure and contract -- these are difficult to even find or conceive of. The mere recognition of the issue of such compromise is usually misinterpreted or distorted by Erosive beings by ascribing to always-hidden malign forces the need for a particular instance of such compromise or competition, as in a supposed collusion to thwart the Erosive being’s own territorialist enterprise. Meanwhile, the mere attribution of authoritarian bent to the leaders or systems of a more outwardly brazen form of it helps elide purely by contrast the ways in which the accusing party is (or shall, perhaps deliberately, become) similar, or the ways in which the former are only nominally brazen (at least according to the conception of their subjects). But what is the order of conceptions and then actions for existing beyond the present Blightgeistian framework and its chain reaction of (at least seemingly) provisionally (though not ultimately) necessary measures for subsisting within said framework that nonetheless perpetuate it? When in the first place a competition is underway for the validity and preponderence of systems along formalist or territorialist lines, the mere formal and nominal if not outright barbaric (and thus against being-as-such) victory of the BANNER of such system and its underlying principles is inevitably prized and sought rather than the system itself.