Saturday, June 24, 2017

Las Cosas de Amores

This song is really about how evil "god" is, a villain who ever threatens to destroy not only them he made, BUT EVEN THEIR LOVE. Otherwise this is not sincere. For if their love is something which is a good gift from God, then it it would seem very unfitting, bad, and in essence damaging for it ever to be taken away, let alone as "punishment". It supposedly should be something they could sincerely feel is truly "of God", and so for it to be noteworthy it must be because such a Being gives this especially Good Gift, and is Himself the Best Being. Otherwise,  what's he selling with this song's metaphors? So he must mean to say "even from God the Greatest, this Greatest Gift". Well, that's supposed to reflect on how awesome and generous this God is, isn't it? It isn't just "good" but it's "Divine" and "Sacred". That point is established as plainly evident or the song makes no sense at all anywhere it refers to God, and it does that a lot and in key ways. But that it makes some sense is also already plainly evident, and so we come down to a matter of interpretations which in the end can be of only one of two kinds, which I'll get into later here. 

But for now, why would such a being ever take such a gift AWAY, as the singer fears may happen? Only, one supposes, if the person demoted from Grace were guilty of SACRILEGE. But to commit such an evil act, truly, requires one be incapable of any noteworthy love, let alone any genuine appreciation of it, since in the first point it was established that such a Gift is of the Nature of, and given by, The Best Being. So therefore, while he says it is something by which God might rightly punish them by taking back, he doesn't thereby imply that it was much to begin with, since they were sacrilegious. So since he sings so amorously, and with such spiritus, such gusto, we must conclude that he is not sacrilegious, and hence a 'man of god', perhaps a priest bemoaning his obedience to his oath of chastity when coming to meet someone who makes him want to break that oath. Hopefully an adult woman of excellent beauty and great character. Is that not an attraction supplied handily so that "god's gift" may manifest in the first place, as an offering of some phenomena seen as so fulfillingly pleasant? 

But then why require of anyone to forebear of such a gift, and in essence to take it away from them, for otherwise they cannot be considered "holy"? That is an absurd situation. It's like making something out of mud and then saying it fails to be sacred, or as sacred as "holy" implies, if it is not something else, perhaps hay. But mud and hay are two different things. And if both are within the power of the god to create as conditions of a being's reality, why set up such a being for failure, if being holy is such a "good thing" which gives such "good gifts"? 

So also with such a dubiously beneficent "The Best Being" as, say, the author of this world "as a whole" and the condition of man in it with all the corruption, evil and suffering that this implies. Indeed, fiendishness and devilish evil are easily found in man as are the sufferings they produce and the corruption they spawn, and he delights in making art concerning this fact, dressing himself, as it were, in his own mind's eye as a confession of his own essential nature. And that nature must be essential to him, or else its opposite would be, as they cannot coexist as the essence of any character, or anyone with any character worth calling more real than a stage prop's. Only they can exist, and only one per being, and either one of them MUST exist.  How they exist and what that means is how they are distinguished, just as we seek the nature (or meaning) of the tree in its fruit, by its "essence".

This cannot bode well for the men of mud or hay, but reflect on what it says about their god in that case, who made them this way, and who doesn't apologize for it, but blames his creation.  How petty. But this guy singing (or the character he's singing as), and perhaps his gal also, adores this awesome, blameless god, so this script seems to say. We can discern this because they are appreciative of their gift, such as it is, and wouldn't dare throw it away.  They feel ecstatic pain because of it but cannot cease it, such is what it means to them. And such that all they fear is what only their god can do, whom they presume gave their love to them.

At least they would exclaim this about themselves, though it is probably an illusion in some way, as he also seems to dread admitting this even as a possibility. Perhaps it is true of them. But supposedly in the case of any serious "holy" man, at least one of the type of religion posited in the example of the man who suffers for being a chaste priest, this is definitely not the case.  He thinks he's done a good thing by NOT dreading this loss, and can only bemoan it as an irritating reminder that he isn't quite holy for even still feeling it.  Yet if that love is meaningful to him, so that he thinks it is a Divine Gift, and one that makes for a terrific sacrifice, how can it not be excruciating suffering to yield it as though to do otherwise would prove him dirty in the eyes of God, or "less clean" or "less holy" or "less sacred".  Otherwise, what do those terms mean, and why would anyone care, let alone sing as if anyone would?  It must be that it is "bad, very bad" to be those things. You should suffer a lot, it seems to say.

How radical!  Also radically inconsistent with True Love and Generosity.  It also doesn't even seem like generosity at all, let alone Divine Grace, but instead it seems like manipulative stinginess and cruelty.  And in the philosophy which concerns such things, we are therefore proven to be spared the problem of figuring these things out "as such".  As such, we already know them, if we simply use common sense and a good heart and mind, such as those have who understand the difference between real generosity and sheer manipulative coercion combined with sadistic torture.  At least most "religious people" seem to think they've hit it right out of the ballpark on this understanding.  They usually aren't even IN the ballpark and certainly not if they think the love of the "god" in this song is is any better than his cruel mind and hand are.

Indeed, heard in the right tone of interpretation, this man is singing of this "god" in pleasant tones only to fool him, and trick him with a spell of flattery, so that he doesn't "jinx" his profession of True Love.  For he knows that is seen as sacrilege in the eyes of his "god", and he knows that he doesn't even deserve to claim that such can come from his own essence, but rather as being totally a production and manifestation of The Best Being who is all and full and everything, while he, the little man, is no one, and empty, and nothing.  Or at least he lets on this way, poetically.  But this song's lyrics are possibly really a code, to hide the Sacrilege within the crypt of false profession of worn platitudes about god which, absurdly enough, yet ironically and therefore in a strangely bemusing way funnily, make out the definition of this god as a fool as well as a brute, dolt and thug.

If one is right about this, then it SHOULD be amusing.  And if one is in this mode, one may laugh to oneself whilst cribbing these lyrics as a poem, but one should not do so loud enough for the evil thug to hear it, not like he does in places of his worship, with subwoofers blaring and big wheel rims spinning, not dare to show off and represent and make others eat the fat bass one drops, whilst admiring the thick gold chain and other ornamentations of the Best and Most Blingy Being, because one truly wants the message to be heard by the Beloved, and this requires not revealing any slip of contempt to the MOST BESTEST BEING who is IN NO WAY contemptible.  

As I said earlier, but as was said a long time ago, one knows the tree by its fruit, so anyone who has tasted of "his" gifts knows that they are merely baited hooks leading to a true and soul-destroying hell. He even warns them himself that he would come "as though The True God". Told them himself, right there.  The foolish mud and straw beings were simply doltishly fawning on their dreaded master as he said it, perhaps having no meaningful inkling that he may be referring to himself as though he were The True God saying it about someone else, namely himself.  Just no inkling at all. Not even a bare and unexpanded notion that such a thing is logically possible.  Maybe their god is a master of dolts, foremostly.  

But this singer is no dolt if he thought he could scribble some code on the wall that his Beloved could see but that the evil god of dolts couldn't.  He knew he had to sing doltish praises to the bestest one, so that he'd either be pleased and actually help them along, or else ignore them (best, actually), and he gives token admission to the fact that if he were to pay too much attention to them and find them displeasing in some way, then this gift could be taken from them as punishment. This, rather automatic, "gift" of being born from something one must recapitulate in one's own being and, expressing that in recapitulating it, reproducing the cause of himself as effect, and through this, repeating that original cause by causing the next generation of effects, in some due proportion. If that awesome "gift" were taken away, that would be like being neutered or spayed within one's very soul, yet it also looks like what happens all the time, everywhere, and in each and every case of human being, always.

So surely he doesn't view the "bait" of True and Enduring Love as something contrived by the god he's appeasing, who could never invent such a bait except as a provoking imitation. Rather, he must view it as something inherently Good, and that this is why he came to believe in the Goodness of the seeming giver, or at least he pretends that is adequate justification for proclaiming that the "giver" was greatly beneficent in the deepest possible way, not because of the gift, but that the gift was so great actually because the giver is so great... which is extremely flattering to be sure.  But he should be honest, with himself at least, and realize that it comes from within himself, and not from the fatuous circumstances which bring him into proximity with another animal of the same species but of the other gender. Because as to his own essence, if it is any Good, it couldn't be used nor construed as "given" as a gift, but rather felt as an Expression of His Own Essence. That can't be mistaken for some other way of experiencing Love, because it is the only way it can be experienced.  The fruit becomes the tree from which it descended, and IS that tree in essence.  This is not a "gift", this is simply the nature of what that tree does.

But far from truth to say such a being as depicted here is Supremely Good, or is the Supreme Good, rather it is actually sacrilege to conceive of such a being as doing anything more than lying in wait so as to ambush man and his Love, having kept them apart in the first place, since this was apparently in his power to do through various devices deliberately utilized.  And it is simply a concomitant result upon his relenting or failing to do this, that the Love is expressed, and it is not his to give nor take away, but is simply always there, manifesting more brightly the more this "god" recedes from the picture.  It is the same as when one receives something of value from someone who neither produced it nor can appreciate it, but simply manifested an opportunity for you to come across it by, as Heidegger might say, "disclosing" it.  Yet the only reason it is "disclosed" is that it before was nefariously closed off from direct expression.  This in that it was concealed in artificial forms which are actually split off little parts of his own foolish, evil mind.  Like a virus invading a "host", this "gift giver" can use his hand to promote opportunities which its other hand had been used to take away. But these opportunities for Self-Realization, which are not "in" time and space, but "in spite of" them, are basically what are meant by "matter".  Any honest physicist who isn't simply a lying fool will admit at least this much.  But if he is a lying fool who could never express True Love for anything or anyone, then he would of course pretend that he doesn't understand.

But time-space, or space-time, really are the coordinates which measure matter-energy, energy-matter.  It is simply the measurement of a being, namely a mind, which manifests a form and produces changes.  That process is understood as cause leading to effect, an effect which may or may not also be or become a cause and, if so, perhaps or perhaps not cause to an effect which, like itself, is like its own cause and doomed to procreate further causes-that-are-first-effects.  And this is all understood in terms of the Golden Ratio.  That's old knowledge.  But it is simply the case also that there is more than one qualification of "energy", in that it is directed in either a "good" or in an "evil" way.  And it is well-known that evil effects proceed from evil causes, and that the "fruit", the material forms and their states and changes, reveal the spirit aback them as only one or the other of these sorts of minds which exist and which produce those sorts of effects. The more powerful, the more "profound" the effect, the more powerful the force, the more profoundly of the essence of that form is the source of that manifestation, the more powerfully effective at expressing such an essence is that cause.

This does not, therefore excuse a being, no matter how grand it may be or perhaps merely seem, for being evil in any way.  All the more, a fortiori, it makes him more culpable.  So surely someone who could appreciate this would whisper his love song and not shout it, and he would cloak it in a veneer of disguise as the adoration of tyranny, so that he could experience once more, perhaps evermore, Union with the True Love which expresses, in one important aspect, as the Love of Truth.  One Truth, as Socrates tells rightly, is the knowledge of what it is that is more shameful. That is, of that which it is better to be ashamed.  So should one be more ashamed to lose life, or to lose virtue?  That is the question.  The truly Courageous man knows that the inevitable is unavoidable, and that the only choice is to face it Rightly or be a coward in the hopes of appeasement to a tyrant.  He would give to this tyrant only obvious and unfelt mockery, but reserve the Sincere Meaning only for Himself, and whisper it only under the cloak of a cipher.  But this all again depends upon one's tone of interpretation, and that is one's own secret and inner reality.  For as the singer says in the same song, "no one can know and speak of such things". Some for being too drunk of illusions and delusions, and others for being bereft of any sympathy with such things, being murderers of them who come in the guise of generous but stern benefactors, and others for simply cherishing them too much.

And yet here I have spoken of such things, just as Jose Alfredo Jiminez sang of them.  So there is perhaps a deeper layer of the phenomenon which cannot be revealed in words, but manifest only in actions.  In the end all such things will head down the river of Judgement and be sorted, and go to their appropriate destinations, as is Just.  "Suum Cuique".

Sunday, June 11, 2017

A Tremor along the Fault Lines of Justice

This event which occurred quite some time ago is seemingly perennially relevant, and is based upon my viewing of :

A short documentary about murder inside the black metal scene. Varg Vikernes of Burzum killed Euronymous of Mayhem in 1993. There are several resources used which tells the real truth and reason behind murder.
That is the short description of the video which documents the events involving Varg Vikernes as just described. There are some issues which, however one may feel about the persons and actions involved, stand out as difficult, if not impossible to deny, and present themselves as problems for Varg in my analysis, going from the particulars of his case to the general issue of the Rights of Man.

One problem with Varg's story, from a legal standpoint, is that he went to meet a man whom he suspected of having murderous intent toward him, and to be armed, and to have a deliberate plan for killing him. And he visited him on terms he suspected to be disingenuously given by this same asshole whom he didn't and shouldn't trust. That's the first problem. So the same evidence that characterizes his act as self-defense (his knowledge of the motive and method, and the identity of his would-be murderer), gets him into trouble as to HIS OWN intentions (because knowing identity, motive, and method, HE fairly supplied the very opportunity!). 

The second problem is that he went there armed, under the state of knowledge that he had. That aggravates the notion that he went to fairly supply an opportunity for a crime to be attempted (like baiting or entrapping, when the cops do it, which is far too often), and so he raised the stakes for both parties in a way that prevents a worse case scenario (going there like a dupe and making his enemy's fantasy a reality), but creates ANOTHER problem, which is that going there at all is problematic, but going armed and with the will to kill in self-defense if necessary, is basically waging private war, albeit a war of self-defense given the grounds. It is engaging in a deadly feud, not merely being the victim of one. And that can only be done right or is stupider than doing it at all (or not at all, depending on your view), and to do that, one MUST go armed AND with the will to kill at the right time (which is probably at the first meaningful opportunity... given that just going there and saying hello is to invite being killed!). I reference the simple wisdom of General Patton to the defense of that assertion.

This creates a third, and this a moral problem, (whereas the first two were pragmatic). If going there unarmed would be stupid for a special reason that he would be visiting an enemy with deadly intent who both plans evil against Varg and has the means to carry it out, that is, stupid either because he goes at all or if he were to go unarmed or without the will to kill if necessary, then that means he must go armed and with the will to kill if necessary, just to avoid being THAT stupid

This creates a fourth problem. So as not to be stupid, he had to be cunning, and go armed, knowing, or believing, that he would be going into a likely kill-or-be-killed situation with a clumsy, would-be assassin. Doing this, under these conditions, with the will and knowledge that he had, that is to wage private war, which is not only illegal, but prohibited by the cult of the state because it is their own special weapon which no one else may use (it's their "power"). The law is the public face of what has a deep, sordid private aspect. So they have monopolized exactly what Varg has done "on his own". 

Such a thing might not be shameful, because he seemed like an alright guy compared to his foil who, if stories are true, was a sadistic miscreant who did plan to do a foul deed to him beyond being just killing him. In this aspect it might even seem just like Varg were an honest citizen investigating a crime, or a vigilante out for justice, or if he were in a uniform, a detective who was investigating a conspiracy to commit murder, a murder against himself... (let's call him a very brave and brash investigator if he were on the police force). 

But even in any of those cases, including the hypothetical police Detective Calahan scenario, it is indistinguishable from going to visit the guy, and doing so specifically in order to kill him, though in self-defense. He knew what might transpire, or though he knew, and he did go there armed, and he did pursue his would-be killer until a lethal, perhaps simply self-defensive, stabbing of his attacker ensued. If his story is true, then he went there to confront him, not necessarily to kill him, but if his story is true as he stated it, then in this knowledge he intentionally catalyzed the actual event, in a sense helping his enemy commit the intended crime.  On this head, Varg used his knowledge of his enemy's intent to take tactical advantage by going along as if unwitting with what might have been a ploy to harm him.  That is, in effect, to take the fight to the enemy, and that is a method of warfare, where a force will gain intelligence of the enemy's plan, then go along as if not knowing, at a key moment surprising and getting the better of his would be lier in wait. The problem is, that's one of the most prohibited acts a civilian can take, which is to preemptively seek out someone who plans harm, and to be prepared to use force against them should they attempt it. It borders on entrapment when objective evidence is insufficient, and it is indistinguishable from calculated retaliation when the person threatened engages in it.  Either way, only the military actively gets away with it, or intelligence agents, or law enforcement, or criminal miscreants that work privately as outright criminals for hire for corrupt elements of those groups. They are protected by a thin bureaucratic line, which is tenuous at best for them, and this works only if it can be plausibly denied, and only as long as those involved can claim to be doing so for the best interest of the public, as their duly appointed officers with that specific authority, whether to defend the Constitution, or the public safety, or an individual, or themselves (here in the line of duty).

So this all creates a vexing problem for Varg.  Knowing that an honorable killing by way of duel was basically the intent, they couldn't let him get away with it or they'd have by precedent ignored their own standing policies for internal control and public justification for their authority to use force in defense of the law. Officially, those who judged Varg could do so only because they claim that they themselves are the only one with the right and duty to approach Varg's would be killer, and that Varg hadn't the right to do so on his own behalf, let alone any duty to do so.  When those who have the official right and duty engage persons to neutralize their violent intentions or actions, they still tend to utilize forces who have no special interest in the subject they are pursuing, treating it as an abstract matter which they are handling on behalf of the public. Elements of this class will use their authority to take care of matters of personal importance to themselves, but only let themselves get away with this for special reasons under centralized control, as it is a "precious resource" in their eyes, which they will guard jealously, even within their ranks. Abuse of authority, even among this select group of people, is a perk that is managed according to a pecking order.  So Varg. perhaps upright and cunning as he may be, should also have understood that the state wouldn't let him get away with this, this being what they have refused as a right to private individuals and made only their own, private privilege to carry out as a public duty FOR any such individuals, as well as for themselves on the side in certain special cases ...  Varg was not in that pecking order, nor did he operate according to its preferences or interests, so they put him in a secure confinement that resembles a very nice group home.

It seems Varg actually suspected this outcome was possible, and probably became sure of it at an accelerated rate as the case proceeded.  So it seems his anger, as he would admit himself, got the better of his concern for such a fate, even to the point of being willing to risk death or imprisonment. What ire!

I say such ire is right in principle, and that people should be able to settle their disputes of honor in ways that are satisfying and primal, and that dueling and blood-feuding should be admitted by the constitution of a just land, admitted to be men's RIGHT, not just the overall basic right of the state, and hence those who represent it's legal authority, perhaps spuriously and corruptly!  It is more the right of all men than it could be of a select few who were simply voted into that position.  It was once the case that this would be voted on strictly by the warrior class, the military and police, if you will, and not by every namby pamby person and numbskull.  But modernity in our world is tantamount to the going from what is often bad, to what is definitely and always far worse.

Lord Shiva, a Warrior par excellence without peer, will address such a world with the purest Ire you can imagine, and much worse besides. Unlike Odin, he will not be killed by the demons he slays, nor his hand stayed or punished by anyone.  So I'd say that while Varg may be guilty of a crime by the sociopolitical law and by custom, he is not guilty of violating any moral or natural laws.  This situation can be improved only by enabling such disputes to be settled openly and rightly, just as they would have been by honorable men throughout the past.  And then we can say "may the best man win" instead of creating an unnecessary and very debasing category of "naughtiness against the law". Who would you rather have around if Varg's story is true?  Eronymous, or Varg, if it had to be one of the two?  Someone who will plot to torture and assassinate you in a snuff film, or someone who would put at end to that sort of evil, at least for himself (and possibly those he loves), if not for anyone else. Look at the sheer hypocrisy of the status quo on this issue, for this is a Right in principle, and you may surrender it, but it can never be given to you or taken from you!  As Etienne de la Boetie relates in his political philosophy, a Sovereign isn't possessed with different Rights than a subject, but rather he is simply exercising His Right, which all his subjects may also inherently possess, but who, unlike their Ruler, have opted not to exercise theirs in favor of His being exercised, supposedly in their best interests as His subjects...

This can only have a limited, highly conditional plausibility for a person to have done this, such as when we defer to another's trusted expertise, superior virtue or faculties, or better objectivity or position in which to act, which are all conditions that vary between persons, situations, and objectives and are not immutable nor irrevocable.  The Scales of Justice weigh these and all other nuances, whether men do so or not who pretend, presume or truly happen to be Just.  Such Justice, though seemingly abstract or grandiose as a notion, is actually the most forceful and final reality whose substance is truly sufficient.  Especially as regards any systematic and pernicious obstruction to Their application to any matter!

These Scales, Weights, and Measures of Justice have been counterfeited by those which are unbalanced, crooked, and unjust. This corruption is as vast as the world as we know it.  The damage is just as irremediable as it is corrupt and vast.  There can be only one possible result, therefore. Since common sense and honor will not prevail among these beings from within and among them; and since all this has been and is increasingly becoming a mockery of not only Fate and Destiny, BUT OF VIRTUE AND SPIRIT; and since it is systematic, worldwide, and both ancient and unremitting; because, in other words, it is sheer evil lunacy, then the only outcome that there can be is destruction. Because Justice and Right have been themselves plotted against by the social networks of scheming hypocrites of this world.  And that is how the world sealed its own Fate, in trying to bypass Fate and secretly dictate to men, in order to co-opt and subvert the Best Men and the Best in Man.  Such a world cannot be fit to exist, cannot be redeemed, and must end with an inglorious result, a justly destructive rebuke!

Friday, June 2, 2017

The Hierophancy of the Psychopompous Sycophants

The saddest part of this evil hell which is miscalled "a world" is that it still contains some admirable talent and effort, even good effort, even by basically good people. But they won't go far enough. The "Trump Train" variety will choose to see in the DJT coalition a sign of the return of The Lord. But then why does this group, which supposedly offered Trump to the public for the power of an "official office" which is very, very official, but not really very authoritative, why I ask do they lack coherence in their message down to the basics of common sense? Cognitively and morally, they are inept and naive in a key way.

 A man who'll defend himself and not attack others is actually the avatar of Justice, not simply someone in a special building with a special document and an aggressive attitude. That's not sufficient, those are supposed to be the trappings. But face it, without a gang of people who covertly support those with such trappings, in a world of pervasive fraud, the substance which is sufficient is lacking. That is a problem for any claims of authority which hinge upon honor or dignity.  All of this applies, by the way, to all on the stage of sociopolitical movements whether involving government, economics, culture, etc, which are all interwoven into a great tapestry of fraud anyway. This is not any direct criticism of DJT, Trump Supporters, The Trump Train, Conservatives, per se. IT CAN'T BE, except insofar as they map onto the template of what society is that I'm here explicating in one of its crucial aspects.

Whatever the world could or should have been like, we are in the set of possible worlds where something with a strong, decisive agenda, far beyond these superficial social movements which manifest as public politics, policy and culture, is involved in controlling the entirety of the process as a subset of its own interests. Yet in order to promote the tacit acquiescence of the masses and the lower echelons of their own control group, they've had to make that lower echelon of their own controlled group interweave, covertly, with the upper echelons of the masses' control group. This has gone quite far, given the degree of corruption which plainly exists, both exceptional AND systematic, to such a degree that we are in a de facto tyranny. Everything else in such a polity is simply window dressing. EVERYONE ADMITS THIS.

What they have not admitted is that this is the case in their own case. They won't really admit that it is thinkable in their case, in their world, in their back yard, so this is tantamount to saying that such a condition is only a virtual being, a unicorn not worthy of serious consideration, or at least not as something ever to be actualized in this, "their" world. Therefore they will not treat as serious any treatment of a subject based upon this as a hypothetical actual, which is to say a conceivably "actual actual". It will always for them be a possibly actual, never actually possible for them. They think of the world in a self-centered way, epistemically.

The reason for this is because the positing of a hypothetical actual must be aligned with the needs of their cognitive dissonance of attentional awareness on the level of thought versus action. This is the critical step in the deliberation process and it is the seat of the will in man. Where he decides he thinks he knows what's going on (or could be going on, or is likely going on, etc), and therefore weaves his thoughts around what are the scenarios which may play out in a way that will definitely, likely, possibly but not likely, or definitely not involve his need or ability to act. That's not a joke, in case anyone didn't realize that is the same thing as the seat of their soul in the human form.

So if this can be influenced by psychotronics, and it can and has been in low-tech and high-tech ways for quite some time (as is thoroughly attested), then this is the biggest issue of the day, period. It is so attested, as I've said, by all relevant forms of evidence (existential, historical, empirical and logical) and this is a shut down, knock down, drag out, and open/shut case if there ever were one. So I'm not going to "sweat it" when the status quo goes on acting like this is just some absurd, only "remotely" possible scenario. I know damn well that it is not "remote", and so do the upper echelons of their controlled group. And they are therefore, manipulated to decide to restrict their attentional awareness from these subjects as serious matters because the "thing which should not be" is breathing down their necks at work, etc. As if that were not the reason. It is the reason.

But it is not necessarily because they are merely that way by nature. They may well be that way by nature, the sycophants who adopt a status quo in their thinking merely on threat of ostracism. That is has been the norm for quite a long time in human society. What is not necessarily the case is that, as I've said, it is in our world down merely to that nature. And this is a significant issue when we realize that the principle faculties which a human being must employ in order to decide what they will put up with and what they will not when it comes to society, good, evil, authority, corruption, is precisely the ones integral to the principle of deliberation action that I've said is the "seat of the soul" in the human form. At least insofar as that is backed by the sufficient substance of the Divine Soul in fact, and only in due proportion, which varies.

It varies enough that Trump Trainers will not admit that the DJT coalition has a low likelihood of being anyone's salvation, although it may derail many evils. Because though it may derail many, it is not able to stand against the Psychotronically Augmented "Deep State". Hmm. PADS for short. They pad around like as if they were human beings, just as long as they are in control of the human open air gulag. And they don't arrive at that power by being inconsistent with themselves, but rather in making people get used to inconsistencies in their worldly environment. I mentioned that the deliberative process is partly cognitive and partly active, and both pertain to the will. This is, in one respect, a "purely cognitive" issue. Some people can't get abreast of the ideas and facts needed to reach conclusions on certain levels, and this is a "natural evil" which will delimit their ability to cope with stress of realizing which possible worlds they are in, especially in cases of such worlds where the operant conditions involved manipulating and poisoning and otherwise deforming and/or truncating the function of the deliberative process in those whom are sought for being controlled.

So if the DJT organization claims "Fake News is the enemy", I want to laugh, because that's like telling, if it were possible, a dog that "a stick" or "a taser" is their enemy, when it could only be the one who controls the device, not the device. Sure, "Fake News" smears are a weapon, just as would be any smear. Not to mention that every smear made into news, with the intention of imposturing as news, is a "Fake News Event", as in a smear campaign. And that campaign would be the worst possible form of "Fake News", as it is meant to be weaponized against some group and/or individuals and in a way that entrenches social and political power in the hands of some group. And so when it is said that Fake News is someone's enemy, that's just silly to the point of being absurd, just as we wouldn't say a stick beat a dog, but rather a man beat a dog, with a stick, as in "using" a stick.

That's just how absurd the cognitive dissonance of society looks to me, especially those who get along by acting as covert operatives in the "PADS" organization, who pad around like cats in an open field in broad daylight and then hunch down like you won't see them. ALL EVIDENCE POINTS LOUDLY AT THEM!

I and long before me have plenty of others, and much more masterfully, presented the evidence of different aspects of what I'm here discussing. The merit of such stylish power be what it may, the fact that I have presented the sufficient substance of the matter to find that none have presented any novelties not already known or quickly grasped in a systematic way, is not a boast, but rather it is, in philosophical methodology, a necessary condition of doing the work which philosophy entails. It's as simple as that.

So rather than endeavor to systematically present my studies on that, I have simply skipped to the consequences of that effort, and showed some of the related implications, because it is the case that if it is made plain on all levels, simply and with whatever complexity is absolutely necessary to the explanation, to the audience, then it must be so to the speaker. This doesn't mean some of it didn't go over some heads, but I never left out the essence in simpler form so any honest person could deliberate on it and make just decisions if it were in his power, regardless of his level of sophistication or knowledge base, if he could read and access my public writing. I did that as a ritual to exculpate myself from my own conscience's accusation that I might not have done or cared enough about the rest who suffer the spectacle of a delusional world.

The world is full of too many charlatans and impostors, too many aggressive and obsessive rabble and troublemakers to make informal, public presence-based expression a means to locate and inform Living Souls. The world is "not that way". And I say seriously and gravely, it would not look good in a metaphysical triage center.

But all that is speaking simply of the vast array of cognitive issues which are, by degrees, problematic for the world's capacity to grasp just what world it is, at least as opposed to how it presents to itself in the public psychopomp's arena. Surely, people minds are an absurdist modern art masterpiece when it comes to understanding that, no matter what else they ever get right. Which, painfully, leaves in a lot of room to enjoy and admire people and phenomena in the world. Painful because it is like watching a regurgitation of one's loved ones by the monster which eats them, offered as a gesture of invitation into his mouth. So surely it comes with a cost to "enjoy and admire" to "express to the fullest" and to "do you" blah blah blah, when so much 5th columnry has essentially usurped the domain of culture with their pompous cooperation with a network of manipulations they cannot or will not understand.

But what of the implications for action and inaction? If the cognition of people can be so warped as to take what is presented as ambrosia when it is in many ways NOT, then we may ask the question whether they are human beings in the "Divine, Spiritual" sense, which implies use of deliberation in a way that makes us "wiser" than brutes who can't even truly figure out what the hell is going on around them except in the most specious, tactical, automatic yet "very enthusiastic" ways. So give me a break, you pompous fucking charlatans, you're part of a system of total bullshit, all your talent and enthusiasm being counted against you for throwing the weight of that temporary power you have in the physical form into a decision to act without genuine right, to act as demons would. Charlatans.

So yes, there is an overlap in the purely deliberative qua intellect and qua act, the later shading into what should be called the decisive. If someone cannot see that by being a good means to an evil end, they are, as so-called noble human being, either something shading off into a beast, some sort of idiot or fool, or else they are very evil, yet possibly also very clever dupes or lackeys, who for them it is simply a matter of having no scruples.

The problem becomes, when this portion of the human mass becomes or is the most preponderant, that it becomes a form of entrapment to have scruples in all sorts of ways. If you have good scruples about many things, those which "look good" to have them about, and if you happen to look good also, then you may move up in the world as some sort of icon, and that is useful for social control, so it is approved by powers who may have not a single wholesome intention. That can also be a very extreme divergence, an not a cute one, but a very evil one.

In worlds like that, charlatanry would be in control of the status quo itself, and there would be a "Deep Culture" of evil to go with it. If they were organized well and had sufficient resources, they would endeavor to subvert any society and state in which they existed, by their nature. They would adapt to norms only to reach positions of influence which enabled them to free themselves therefrom with growing impunity while enforcing false ones upon those who might oppose them, mainly by covert means at first, but overtly where it is possible and sometimes not even necessary.

Deception rules the roost, but it is backed by force even in cases where their victim is innocent, as long as they have a group evil enough to do the deed upon sufficient reward (for some, the deed is its own reward, and they are afterward "sent back to where they came from"). The greatest gains come from the "iron fist in the velvet glove", and guess who's playing the velvet glove? The modern bourgeois elements who are long ago subverted, to include the various professional institutions, down to the academic levels and roots, all the way through what amount basically to guilds, which are pyramid schemes of control over spheres of human activity on the pretext of a common concern. Same thing happened to the cure for cancer, which we all know how that played out... Just ask St. Jude's Hospital, they'll fill you in on how far we've come since Rife.

This becoming the norm is nothing but systematic evil in pretty clothes. And because it actually is this, it engenders the most evil elements of its spheres of influence to be aggravated, and it promotes greater cunning and lack of scruples, but greatly rewards the charlatans of influence, who can dupe the victims into going along. These are the "Judas Goats", whether they are dupes and lackeys or else also willing and witting plotters.

That's the enemy, not the stick. A dog won't really fight his master for a stick he'll use to beat it anyway. But a wolf will go for his throat. This is what separates a submissive, dominated being from a non-submissive, non-dominated being. He is free to pay attention to his environment to the best of his ability, reach his own judgement, and act according to what seems most fitting. So by the human animal being conditioned just as if he were in a slave camp (which he technically is), his Spiritual Mind, if any, is thwarted in action, and possibly even in thought. A falsified version of all that is Good and Right is promoted to divert away from True Good and True Right, and those who see this due to their having the Substance Within, are thwarted by mass action from reaching traction with the masses, who might be more programmable toward good scruples than they are under the influence of a total racket. Likewise, they are more manageable and useful than they would otherwise have been for those whose evil runs far deeper. The horse is broken in by the rider, and becomes accustomed to that rider's "touch" and "tone", so to speak.

That people cannot see this clearly is one thing, but it is also a sign of a worse thing, that they shirk their mental duties out of fear, out of cowardice. That they won't see it is a sign of debasement to the point of evil. That they envision it so as to enact it is pure evil. That they envision it because it is their duty to see the world "as it really is", is to their credit. What is to be done about it? That is in the realm of both morality of action and strategy, or ethics and praxis, which harbor the essential distinction of end and means respectively.

What is wrong with the world is that it is a hoax perpetrated on slaves, who are taught to submit to their slavery just as if it were freedom. Just ask the jolly happy team who brought you "feel good" advertising and product placement, programming you through your own home's shelves, cabinets and closets. They are the beneficiaries of this system, simply because for them they have no conscience or else their conscience is numbed to within parameters sufficient to enable control or manipulation in some way profitable to the system's control over others for whom this would have been an issue (thereby they become the "guild masters" of celebrity), and as a solid counterweight against the aggregate force of those who oppose tyranny.

Both sides of this issue are abstractly mentioned here, and who their existential embodiments are is probably sheer mystery to most, but that it would be the object of one side of the conflict to falsify this conflict's image and manipulate the entirety with the weight of a programmable mass of dupes and lackeys, that is an absolute certainty of their intent in worlds where they have already gotten as far as they have in the world we are in. And like to admit it or not, psychotronics is just one of the many horrific technologies at their disposal now, along with many other techniques and methodologies. Multiplies by their aggregate hoard of resources and the powerful force of camouflage, cover, concealment and initiative, it boggles the mind how anyone can take a well-publicized encounter between these two forces, one that is well-staged, not to be also highly controlled and manipulated.

That's why this very writing my be shunted through some cover internet topology, and covertly blacklisted (white-listed, both privately and publicly). But my conscience is clean, even when I "enjoy and admire" the remnants of what once might have been, but now is not and cannot be, except in the hearts of those with Sufficient Substance, who are not the ones going to Public Psychopomp/Sycophant University.