terminal 0
unfinished
NEFX - "Self-Will and Self-Defense Beyond Territorialist Schema" It is highly customary for territorialist factions within the Blightgeist to frame atrocity by those who said faction supports (be it often itself) for long-term gain within the widely acceptable canard of “self-will”, “self-defense”, etc, especially where it elides the particular of who is committing atrocity upon whom within the blindspots of territorialist schema — that is, where the atrocity of a territorialist agent ruling over subjects being more wrongly treated and persecuted is conflated with those subjects, as though territories comprised essentially amorphous populations. Moreover, such “self-will” and “self-defense” willingly ignores any major material power differential, or how the outward form of action (let alone atrocity) that bears resemblance to that of “self-will” and “self-defense” does not make it thus, and if anything may be that which would necessitate and justify such measures from the actually more mistreated party. Overall it allows territorialist rulers to continue the mass spell over beings of the ultimate conflicts at stake being between territorialist factions — or, more broadly between beings-as-subsets — rather than being more vertical or being that of the Blightgeist itself against being-as-such and beings at large. Beings at large are the ultimate casualties of such schema. Per Blightgeistian custom, such schemas are generally perpetuated out of sheer habit and familiarity, especially as is leveraged over beings at large across generations and which is one upon several fragments of the bedrock of general known reality upon which Blightgeistian society rests. Within such a thoughtform, it is easy to frame opposition towards being as subset (or, more broadly, being as territory, which notion itself is predicated against being as such) as being against being as such; not least of all where the beings a defended territory is meant to represent have historical precedent as targets of previous systemic atrocities which the Blightgeist only ever fully acknowledges in all its magnitude with historical retrospect, and in a rather declawed way for leverage of (ironically) present atrocities that it posits as being different due to not only the different lineup of parties and being-subsets involved but also in Blightgeist factions’ support of a territorialist faction that represents that subset of beings so historically wronged (though it not be the exact same individuals anyway). Yet such support is ultimately nothing but the brash clinging to a coat of arms as such. The framing of such historical, longstanding support as though it were perennial and (often by that fact) based in principle both elides history and underestimates the power of habit within the Blightgeist’s own thought form (which is unsurprising given said thoughtform's inherent hubris), for such support is often based in fleeting individual mercenary interests that are leveraged through official channels (be it for acceptable pretexts to get so far) and that are disconnected from present reality yet persist in part by the initial velocity of the deciding ruler's leveraging. Moreover, such decision as a mere pretext or proxy for a deeper objective relating to Blightgeist rulers' power seizure schemes is able to go largely undetected for a long time, with the seeming immediate and provisional necessity of the supported territory (or, what's more, territorialist faction) playing into the supporting party’s hollow invocation of such principles as “self-will", “self-defense”, etc. Yet for a territorialist faction to admit to the root motivation of such geopolitical moves would be to call into question and undermine its own existence, or the premises on which it rests, let alone those of its receiver of support in question; for the enemy to beings at large and being as such is territorialism as such, and this in itself is the cause of such reckless carnage than any thwarting of such principles as “self-will” and “self-defense” as it hides behind to largely commit the opposite. Given this both in principle, historical precedent, and current, ongoing practice, it is inevitable that such protected or supported territorialist faction will at a certain threshold find itself in the crosshairs of its former benefactor for such reasons as motivated the initial support; especially where opposition to the being-subsets that said supported territorialist faction represents is so endemic to the parent culture of the supporting territorialist faction, and where meantime support is driven first and foremost by expediency towards the crushing of an enemy and towards general opposition to being as such. The framing of “options” of support in a false dichotomy of territorialist conflations of beings within a territory with those ruling it (let alone maintaining its status not only as territory but as territorialist territory) only further serves to condition beings at large to the atrocious ways and thoughtforms of the Blightgeist. Yet one who sees through this will unto themselves exhibit inner self-will and self-defense beyond the ways in which they are culturally recognized and acted out.