What is feminist justice and how is it different from patriarchal injustice? That is an essential question to ask before even considering the possibility of justice as justice needs be considered in epistemological, hermeneutic and teleological terms before the ontological possibility of justice may even be considered.
- Injustice of Patriarchy
- Justice as Redemption
- Judgment and Prejudice
- Justice in Virtual Reality
- Epistemology of Jurisprudence
- Death of Bureaucracy
- Adjudication Science
- Statehood without Statist Oppression
- Whither REtribution
- Salutology of Psychopathy
- Physiognomy of Verdict
- Epistemology of Bureaucracy
- Nature of Conscience
- Love in Virtue
1. Injustice of Patriarchy
What is systematically misnamed as so called “justice” is mostly simply part of patriarchal more or less formalized systems of injustice as solely intended for the purpose of upholding structural oppression in cultural hegemony. Of course that is a definition of injustice rather than justice.
Structural oppression as performed by social agency exists in three forms, namely economic structural oppression, social structural oppression and statist structural oppression. Patriarchal systems of injustice are precisely concerned with upholding those very anthropological systems of physionomism specifically and discrimination, oppression, lies and prejudice (DOLP) generally.
Is it therefore simply all a play of power of discourse and signifiers whereby everything is relative and where lie equals veracity, where happiness equals suffering, where virtue equal oppression, where everything is undeterminable and where “everything” is equally performative and where organism does not exist because of nefarious social construction?
Of course that pertains to a certain “holistic” ontology of being, the notion of everything being linear and comprehensible, much like a street pattern in an inner city as planned with rectangular patterns of streets and blocks of houses.
Feminist justice thus needs consider that Para-Christian metaphysics itself is a pattern of patriarchal injustice and hence the possibility of rather than endless deconstructing Para-Christian metaphysics instead endeavor towards escaping the metaphysics of cultural captivity that is ethnocratic patriarchy.
It is thus insufficient to merely operate within that system of cultural captivity and so to speak “reform” it from within. But what is the alternative to egalitarian political reform of mainstream feminism and gender separatism of radical feminism?
2. Justice as Redemption
Ethnic culture legitimizes itself by claiming to constitute virtue such as for example the patriarchal misconception of ‘justice’. As the question of justice is thus one of virtue need we consider justice in anthropological terms in studying “modern” Eurocentric (i.e. Para-Christian) systems of injustice from the perspective of Queer anthropology, meaning studying modernity as an ‘exotic culture’ with “outlandish” and “bizarre” social practices masquerading as cultural ostensible “normality”.
Judaism brings the essential insight to the world that things are not as they ought be and hence the revolutionary message of Judaism and its fervent hope for future political redemption and ultimate establishment of justice. It is essential to understand that Judaism’s hope for the coming of redemption is essentially political in nature and “religion” as we now know it was only invented with the coming of modernity whereby aspects of non-Christian cultures as considered “parallel to Christianity” by European social scientists of the time became increasingly socially constructed as phantasmatically separate from other cultural expression.
If we study the Babylonian Talmud from the perspective Queer anthropology will we quickly discover that it mostly deals with what we today would describe as as simply culture and that what we today refer to as so called “religion” was always marginal within Rabbinic Judaism. The attempts to remake Rabbinic Judaism in the image of Christendom of course led to widespread auto-destruction of Rabbinically Jewish culture, similar indeed to tragic experiences in other fourth world indigenous cultures.
In order to fully understand this predicament need we also understand its structure of modus operandi, its very aporia indeed. Eurocentric Para-Christian culture operates by bisecting everything into binary opposites pair, also known as dichotomy. A structural dichotomy is obviously a social construction although falsely seeming obvious due to Para-Christian ethnocentrism. Of course subdividing something into two matters may be appropriate as depending on the situation just at it may be appropropriate to subdivide something into three matters, four matters, five matter or for that matter any number of matters. However routinely subdividing “everything” into two matters by default is of course a particularly stupid thing to do. And so the silly primitive mathematics of 2-1=1 as simplistically and imperialistically imposed on “everything” hence to a very significant extent structures Para-Christian culture and to significant extend many ethnic cultures worldwide as subjected to modernization. Another example is the color black which humans invariably perceive as a single color due limited optical vision of the human animals when in fact what is known as black constitutes a tremendous diversity of color which are not consciously discerned by the human eye.
It could of course be argued that default dichotomy is structurally inescapable within current European language and that is true to some extent in the sense that extensive new vocabularies need be devised for expressing things which current language does not allow expression of such as female intimate desire which is currently usually communicated secretly, both by semi-subconscious and subconscious communication as well as by emotionally suggestive, yet virtually always discreet hints.
This brings us back to the question of justice where we need identify obstacles to justice. We need consider that justice may not be reducible to pseudo-mathematical rationalism. Justice in the tradition of Rabbinic Judaism is perceived of as a process of redemption which is attained by means of incremental discursive progress and hence the existence of the Jewish science of Critical Theory in constituting an academic continuation of the Talmudic tradition. Of course epigones and obstructors in the nonsensical discourse of so called “postmodernism” have endeavored to divert Critical Theory from its teleological course of justice.
While the possibility for justice is structurally pre-existing in discourse (meaning that the hope for redemption is fully justified) is redemption hard intellectual labor and something which is not achieved by a mere conclusion of stroke of a pen but rather by an incremental communal process of attainment of nobility in intellectual virtue. That is what yeshiva study is about and so need we understand the yeshiva method of learning and its history and origin.
The yeshiva method of learning is known as chavruta which means studying a text together in pair. Rather than assuming a “natural” metaphysics of dichotomy is the text instead studied from two idiosyncratic perspectives of two different human beings.
Chavruta is an Aramaic term which means “friendship” as originally referring to practices of secondary marriage between two couples as already in a state of primary marriage. Dönmeh Judaism which is part of Alevi-Bektashi Judaism still practices this and this is in Turkey commonly referred to as “Dönmeh wife-swapping” when in fact secondary marriage between two couples is a refined and sacred institution of elaborate and gynocentric Sumerian sacred ritual sex.
Chavruta partners may be temporary and especially so for tutoring and coaching purposes, but most yeshiva students study with a permanent chavruta partner as essentially based on psychometric compatibility. Chavruta partners thus choose each other on the basis of intellectual and psychological matching.
Chavruta was however not invented by rabbis but is rather the study method of Plato’s academy and so Para-Christian default dichotomous thinking is simply a Para-Christian derivation of mass theological distortion of Hellenistic philosophy which in turn was founded in ancestral insights Greek Median Judaism of Antiquity. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle although no doubt original thinkers however mostly continued to communicate insights of a pre-existing tradition as having originally emerged in Sumer, the world’s first civilization.
The same perception can be observed in how Christians continue to systemically misinterpret the curiously misnamed Hellenistic Jewish anthology of the “New Testament”. To begin with is every rabbi fully aware that the so called “New Testament” if understood in historical context contains precisely nothing new since it simple presents Judaism itself with minor influences from Greek philosophical speculation of so called “metaphysics”. The misnamed “New Testament” is however a magnificent and extremely detailed documentation of Roman-era Jewish life in the land of Israel and is studied as such in history classes in the secular Jewish school system in Israel. That which in the “New Testament” is attributed to the famous Pharisaic rabbi of Christianity is simply what every pulpit rabbi teaches and was neither new then, nor now.
The notion of eschatological paradigm is introduced by means of Para-Christian binary thinking in epistemological time rather than as usually in epistemological spacing. The problem here is the conception of epistemological eschatology as taking place in rare collective leaps as well as purportedly “original” discoveries of what are actually pre-existing possibilities which of course already existed within the prior discourse from which the “invention” took place. Para-Christian carno-phallogocentrism thus turns into structure of the ostensibly personal which is of course would be simply ridiculous were this misunderstanding not so fundamentally tragic indeed.
This of course is not to underestimate the importance of empowering talent for the purpose of spearheading groundbreaking intellectual advancement. Para-Christian “academia” as an essentially repressive and authoritarian institution does however in many ways unnecessarily impair the trajectory of scientific progress by various irrational Para-Christian practices of paradigm, genre, discipline, narrative, ethnocentrism, metaphysics etc.
Eminist feminist theorist Donna J. Haraway has suggested that Israeli and Palestinian feminist scholars ought create a feminist intellectual space outside of the cultural captivity of the Para-Christian, namely barely secularized Christian metaphysics.
Feminist theory, Critical theory in general; science generally and human discourses of modernity generally need break free from the unnecessary discursive strictures of the Para-Christian as imposed by academic terror as insanely organized by the patriarchal intelligence world which closely monitors academia so as to prevent encroachment into the much less formal but in other ways highly methodologically problematic fields of intelligence science.
Patriarchy in modernity as an ostensibly invisible structure of power is centered in the thoroughly criminal and Frankist patriarchal intelligence world and hence need the annihilation of Frankism generally in every form and shape precipitate feminist social revolution of universal emancipation for the simple reason that universal emancipation cannot practically speaking be introduced unless nefarious ethnocratic patriarchy is first destroyed.
The Jewish process of redemption is one of continual trajectory of intellectual advancement while the Christian/Para-Christian process of salvation is one of leaps with often Para-Christian Jesus-style founders of discursivity heralding intellectual progress when in fact cognitively capable human beings generally should become involved in the attainment of increasing scientific/intellectual progress. The ideal of yeshiva study through chavruta needs thus be brought to humanity generally in carefully studying many different types of texts and other semiotic presentations/representations with the purpose of advancing the process of justice, namely redemption which is also in contemporary American Rabbinic Judaism referred to with the kabbalistic term tikkun olam. This obviously needs become gender-diverse and not gender-segregated as typically in Orthodox Judaism.
3. Judgment and Prejudice
The so called modern ‘system of justice’ is an evolved and superficially secularized culturally Christian and now Para-Christian system of injustice as based upon the notion that judgment as typically mediated to varying degrees by prejudice should be delivered by usually prejudicially disposed ignoramuses as enacting daily doomsday. How is it possible that persons without any education in gender science whatsoever are still tasked with “judging” in cases involving misogynistic crime such as systematic police persecution of transgender females as systematically covered up by thoroughly criminal, Frankist police intelligence through their effective control over prosecutors as protectively recruited by police intelligence.
Transgender females are subjected to horrendous crimes by Frankist police intelligence and are severely sexually exploited within Frankist police intelligence sects where they are considered inherently ‘satanic’.
Of course the ‘system of injustice’ is not limited to what is narrowly known as the ‘system of justice’ but the ‘system of injustice’ includes modern government bureaucracy generally. Government bureaucrats deliver their verdicts even without formal court proceedings and especially entrepreneurs are vulnerable to systemic abuse of power, including by thoroughly criminal Frankist police intelligence agencies.
How is possible that European-American members of courts of law in the United States are allowed to pass systematically prejudicial judgments against African-American persons whose systemic humiliation in color-based structural oppression they may be sympathetic towards but in actual practice have little interest in genuinely understanding?
Why are LGBTQI people so afraid of courts of law? That is rather understandable considering that members of a court of law typically have no training whatsoever in Feminist Theory and Queer Theory of gender science and so why should LGBTQI people reasonably expect impartial judgment?
Courts of law even as strictly and properly abiding by procedural rules for legal process are no less influenced, formed, shaped and colored by physionomism specifically and DOLP generally than is society at large. They pass “judgment” as based upon their own imagination of the other as part and parcel of structural prejudice of oppressive cultural hegemony.
It needs be clear that the so called “system of justice” is part of the wider bureaucratic system of injustice which hence needs simply become abolished with universal emancipation. That of course opens the question as to what ought come in its stead?
4. Justice in Virtual Reality
Most bureaucrats as many other mass professions of the dying era of capitalism will need to become phased out in the increasingly approaching Talentist economic era of Virtual Reality (VR).
The online world in being heavily globalized is essentially lawless with almost zero law enforcement with the exception of course of illegal extensive police intelligence entrapment operations as targeting innocent citizens and residents for purposes of coercive intelligence recruitment to ruthless, brutal and thoroughly criminal Frankist police intelligence agencies.
The old systems of patriarchal exercise of power have no real answers as regards law enforcement on the Internet other than pervasive surveillance and illegal online police methods of harassment, intimidation, provocation, entrapment and extortion.
What is instead needed is almost complete transparency. This means that every human being should have a legal electronic identity to which all other online and mobile identities should be tied. While it should be possible to use aliases online will it be possible for anyone to find out the real identity behind the respective assumed alias. Every person should have a unique internet domain name and it should become easy to create corporations, each one with a further domain name. It will be fully public however which person(s) who stand behind any particular corporation. A domain name should contain at least two combination of letters with one dot between each combination of letters.
Surveillance is only a threat if the surveillance is withheld from the public. Public surveillance cameras should thus broadcast online around the clock in the interest of public safety. Law enforcement should be under constant public surveillance so that the public will be able to follow their every word and action online in real time. Citizens and residents should be fully entitled to demand copies of their full surveillance records at any time.
Citizens/residents would each have two legal jurisdictions of residence. The first would be residence IRL and the second would be the online municipality. Physical municipalities should be abolished and a citizen/resident should be able to freely choose her own virtual municipality as subject to acceptance by that virtual municipality.
Virtual municipalities should be formed as voluntary corporations with democratically elected organization. Virtual municipalities should be intentional communities of particular ethico-aesthetico-political lifestyle. Virtual municipalities should however be legally disallowed from engaging in illegal discrimination of any kind. This means that virtual municipalities ned be inclusive of all member provided that all virtual municipality residents as subject to democratically legislated municipal law abide by democratically legislated axiomatic community standards.
A member of a virtual municipality will be able to freely participate in the life of the virtual municipality in online social life generally and through realistic participation in Virtual Reality in municipal life in particular. Any person should irrespective of her number of citizenships only be legally allowed to a member of one single municipality worldwide. A virtual municipality would not be subject to national law as it would be open to humans generally irrespective of citizenships or lack thereof but would however need to fully comply with international law.
Joining a new municipality will be a comprehensive review process whereby the applicant is vetted for social compatibility with standards of democratically legislated municipal law.
It will be public record as to which virtual municipality any particular human person belongs and it will be illegal to use any other identity than one’s own identity within one’s virtual municipality. Virtual municipalities will be global as unlimited by national borders and so will municipal membership not be limited by physical residence.
Virtual reality should be based in virtual municipalities although it should of course become possible to communicate and interact in VR between virtual communities. Any corporation must also be legally, formally and practically based and incorporated in one single virtual municipality.
Virtual municipalities are essential for online law enforcement which needs be no less transparent than law enforcement IRL. The globalized nature of the online world has made is essentially lawless and practically speaking unaccountable. Virtual municipalities are an essential part of bringing rule of law to the online world as victims of crime will turn to their own municipal law enforcement officers for purposes of attaining legal accountability.
It is essential that law enforcement acts on behalf of victims rather than as of now the corrupt patriarchal police invariably being criminal perpetrators themselves. Municipal law enforcement will therefore prioritize the security and wellbeing of members of the virtual municipality and that will also help create cohesion, solidarity and communitarianism within each and every virtual municipality.
The principle of subsidiarity requires decentralization, yet there is no reason why decentralization ought be geographic rather than communitarian.
Virtual municipalities means that citizens/residents will live much of their lives in their own safe and secure intentional communities. Social media will adapt as social media providers such as Facebook Inc. will become providers of municipal communal space for virtual municipalities, including VR work space.
Democratically legislated municipal axiomatic law also means that citizens will participate in the democratic development of the very community in which they indeed spend most of their time in life.
The internet needs become anarchistic rather than as of present essentially anarchic and so will the establishment of compulsory membership in a legally incorporated virtual municipality mean that progressive libertarianism will establish the realization ethico-political visions of diverse projects of communitarianism.
A member of a virtual municipality will spend most of her online interactive social time (including in VR) in her own virtual municipality for the simple reason that the risk of bullying, mistreatment, abuse and exploitation will be minimal in the virtual municipality. Online worlds have unfortunately served to reinforce female vulnerability in public space and making sure that everyone will feel safe and secure online needs therefore become an essential task of every virtual municipality.
A virtual municipality will need to conform with all provisions of international law also in terms of its founding spirit which importantly needs be ethico-political in nature. This means that although in principle anyone can form a virtual municipality will there need be a comprehensive prior review process so that its founding charter is established in accordance with the noble tenets of emancipation, freedom and democracy in accordance with the principles of dignity, respect and liberty.
It is essential to be cognizant that a virtual municipality will be subjected to international law but not to national law as a virtual municipality will at least in principle be universal and global in nature. Virtual municipalities therefore will not be subject to national law which will have jurisdiction IRL only.
Virtual municipal law will thus apply within the online space of the virtual municipality and national law will only apply IRL. What then about non-municipal online space and VR integration between virtual municipalities? This is an essential question to ponder. Any online misdemeanor against a member of a virtual community will be considered as if an attack on the entire virtual municipality and the community of the victim will bring charges against the defendant in the community of the offender.
This means that the virtual community of the defendant will become responsible for the legal defense of the defendant against the charges of the claimant.
A virtual municipality could have any size demographically speaking as this too should be elective as properly for an intentional community. Many virtual municipalities will have an upper limit on the size of the demographics of its membership while some will be comprised of millions of persons. This will be possible as long as members strictly abide by the communitarian ethico-political standards of democratically legislated law of the virtual municipality in strict conformance with requirements of non-discrimination of international law.
What then will be included in the realm of the virtual municipality? VR gainful labor will mostly be performed from within the virtual municipality. Communitarian life will mostly be performed within the safe and secure space of the virtual community. Everyone will select a virtual municipality of their own specific choice which means that online social interaction will become far more comfortable within the virtual community itself which essentially in social terms will be one vast family.
A virtual municipality will be a safe and secure social space for both VR and other online social interaction. Most online social activity will for this reason be performed within the virtual municipal community and social media corporations will adapt themselves for this purpose by providing intra-municipal safe social space.
5. Epistemology of Jurisprudence
What is a court of law and what purposes does it actually serve? A patriarchal court of law determines and defines the limits of cultural hegemony and as such is a patriarchal court of law a severely structurally oppressive ethnocratic institution.
We need however ask as to whether cultural hegemony necessarily and inherently is always something negative considering the term’s distinctly negative connotations in Gramscian theory. This is surely a most pivotal question to pose as prior to even considering the question of courts of law.
What then is law? Members of the public typically believes that jurisprudence is a literalist exercise whereby legal texts are interpreted as they seem to simply state. That is not the case at all. If this were the case would there be little to no need for law schools as law schools rather are about teaching students to adjudicate codified law other than simply reading it how it is literally stated.
The hermeneutic process of articulation of jurisprudence is similar to theological approaches where hermeneutics serves to justify ethnocracy by nominal recourse to scripture while at the same hermeneutics determines how scripture is read and (mis)understood. The discursive process of jurisprudence similarly justifies ethnocracy by recourse to judicial scripture while at the same time defining the outer limits of cultural hegemony.
The essential question thus is not cultural hegemony but rather its outer limits and so need we surely ask when of courts of law were authorized to act as legislators in extra-judicially socially legislating cultural hegemony? Surely is it not the task of courts of law to pursue the possibility of justice rather than enforce structural oppression in cultural hegemony?
A fundamental problem with courts of law is their lack of specialization and this means that members of courts of law often lack necessary education in matters on which they rule. Law school would not even be necessary as multiyear endeavor were courts of law and members of courts of law instead extremely specialized to begin with. Specialization rather than as now geograghization of courts of law would mean that a highly specialized single court of law would in most cases rule on nearly identical cases and that in turn would mean that the position of jurisprudence would in most cases be perfectly clear as therefore obviating most legal processes. Vertical courts of law rather than as of present horizontal courts of law are hence an essential part of the remedy to the problem of institutionalized patriarchal injustice.
Why then this eerie similarity between patriarchal theology and patriarchal jurisprudence, is this mere coincidence? The Para-Christian nature of patriarchal ostensibly “secular” jurisprudence needs therefore be re-understood in terms of the Para-Christian nature of its ostensibly “secular” scripture. Not only does jurisprudence epistemologically relate to its scripture virtually exactly as does theology to its scripture but the scripture of jurisprudence is distinctly Para-Christian indeed. The scripture of jurisprudence is enumerated exactly as in the Christian bible in numerically denoting books, chapters and verses.
In order to elucidate this need question need we compare as between different approaches in Talmudic jurisprudence. The Sephardic approach relies on application of previously existing models whereby a discursive device from a different discursive context is introduced into yet another discursive context. The Ashkenazi approach rather relies on dialectics (pilpul) as in chavruta (the platonic study method) where two contrasting positions clash. The German epistemological tradition of Aufklärung is derived from cultural contact with the Ashkenazi yeshiva approach while the French epistemological tradition of Deconstruction is distinctly derived from cultural contact with the Sephardi yeshiva approach.
Decades of regular and intensive Talmud studies between the Ashkenazi Emmanuel Levinas and the Sephardi Jacques Derrida in fact meant a meeting of the two traditions in Derrida essentially being devoted to deploying Sephardi epistemology for the purpose of deconstructing originally partly Ashkenazi-derived Para-Christian hegemonic epistemology. Of course that opens the essential question as to the third approach in Rabbinic epistemology, namely Yemenite epistemology and so could conceivably contribute to the question of adjudication in jurisprudence? Yemenite epistemology is entirely based on the opinions of Maimonides. Rabbinic Judaism is the most secretive form of religion anywhere with the purpose of the Jewish people according to Sabbatean Judaism being to provide a home for the current reincarnation of so called “god”. It needs be added that all contemporary Rabbinical poskim are Sabbateans and that Hasidic Judaism is a continuation of the Sabbatean movement with significant influence from Alevi-Bektashi Median Judaism.
The universal genius of Maimonides in having been born as the recognized reincarnation of “god” of his time was therefore also the most cognitively advanced human being of his time in this very capacity indeed. Leo Strauss famously writes about Maimonides recognizing Hebrew scripture as being part of the distinctly human Great Tradition of the Art of Writing. Maimonides performs much dissimulation in e.g. claiming that Angels lack bodies when clearly described in the Hebrew Bible as most clearly embodies indeed. For example is Jacob described as wrestling with an Angel and so how could that be possible without the angel being embodied?
This illustrates the epistemological position of Maimonides in him being raised as the contemporary reincarnation of “god” in therefore not interpreting “god’s” words but rather his own words being “god’s” words, something which completely reverses the entire question of signifé et signifiant. This shows that the signified is discursively produced by the signifier and not the other way around and hence the question of social construction being posed as problem rather than as an ethico-political task of epistemological social engineering.
The agency of the court of law is thus the agency of social construction whereby the court of law constructs the outer limits of social acceptability in cultural hegemony. It is well-known that it is very much possible to influence the epistemology of jurisprudence by political lawsuits as intended to challenge jurisprudence into epistemological reconsideration of contemporary discursive practices of the hermeneutics of jurisprudence and so active participants in a court of law all become part of this process of producing cultural hegemony.
What the if the court of law was more devised as a platonic yeshiva rather than as an inquisitional procedure as based on barely secularized epistemological modes of Catholic canonic law? The barely “secularized” culturally “Christian” nature of the Para-Christian precisely retains its status as cultural hegemony due to the public in most cases certainly not being aware of the “Christian” barely “secularized” nature of the Para-Christian.
Of course theology is studied in another faculty than in law school and members of Para-Christian courts of law in most cases lack the faculty to understand the intrinsically and inherently Para-Christian nature of their own mental processes as socially constructed by imperialistically extended Christendom by means of the superficial and ostensibly culturally neutral devise of the German Aufklärung.
What then will come about in the wake up of the discrediting of the largely silly and in fact mostly nonsensical Para-Christian? The question of justice however cannot be merely reduced to a matter of Slave Morality of finding the Holy Graal in khôra beyond the polis of Eurocentrism.
The rabbinic tradition provides a trisected epistemology of the acceptable acceptable, the acceptable unacceptable and the unacceptable unacceptable. What does this mean? Why should we after all accept things that are unacceptable? This is based on the notion that humans must be given of freedom action as even to commit errors but why should humans beings be given freedom to do things unacceptable?
This opens up the question of the friction between hermeneutics and ethics whereby ethics is ostensibly derived from hermeneutics when in fact hermeneutics for the most part simply reproduces structural oppression in cultural hegemony.
The answer lies in democracy whereby participants in public debate need become participants in discourse of jurisprudence as public debate is surely a most effective way of exposing things distinctly unethical. Imagine if all court proceeding without exception were available on youtube for anyone to view? This would bring transparency in an unprecedented manner and thus democratic accountability itself.
Furthermore needs the science of psemography (science of studying prejudice/oppression) be brought to critically bear on all legal discourse whereby psemographists will closely scrutinize legal discourse for detection of physionomism and DOLP (discrimination, oppression, lies and prejudice).
Paragraphic law itself needs become supplanted by axiomatic law in that that the legal practice of justice must be based on adjudication of contextually ethically relevant ethical axioms of law. Paragraphs are simply devices of power of structural prejudice/oppression in cultural hegemony unless of course being contextually relevant ethical axioms indeed.
Once we thus realize that we must pursue justice itself by means of legislating and subsequently adjudicating axiomatic law itself rather than performing bureaucracy of ethnocratic hermeneutics will we realize that justice will be non-existent, partial, coincidental or senseless routinely unless we internalize that adjudication of law must be based on ethical axioms only which need furthermore be absolutely ethically relevant to context.
Legislating axiomatic law will require an elected parliamentary chamber of selfless saints, persons who are exceptionally virtuous in almost every respect. How is it possible that today can a carnivore judge a vegan from a perspective of distinctive moral inferiority? How is it that oppressor is allowed to judge the oppressed on the basis of varying shibboleths of structural discrimination/oppression? This is of course so since the cultural hegemony precisely is that which upholds structural oppression.
How then can we elude this predicament of nefarious cultural hegemony as consecrated by judicial discourse considering that this precisely is that which perpetuates structural oppression? Is there after all no connection between members of the court being lowly meat-eaters and the fact that they for the most part refuse to uphold animal protection laws and see it as their task to protect the economic wellbeing of criminals rather than the physical integrity and legal rights their victims? They do so of course willingly but on instructions from thoroughly criminal Frankist police intelligence which instructs them how to rule in such cases in severely abusing the practice of police intelligence protective recruitment. That is in a nutshell the criminal nature of abuse of power in bureaucratic injustice in patriarchy.
The same is true with other police intelligence protectively recruited government clerks which similarly make bureaucratic decisions as upon instructions from thoroughly criminal Frankist police intelligence. Systemic practices of institutional injustice is thus not limited to courts of law but in fact pervade discursive practices of government bureaucracy which unless specifically instructed by police intelligence makes decision and determination on the basis of “praxis” rather than on even nominal interpretation of law.
The discursive complex of patriarchal injustice that is ethnocracy is thus not limited to any particular section of government employees but in fact pervades government practices generally.
This brings us back to the question of the acceptable unacceptable in the sense of the need to limit the reach of patriarchal injustice. But that is unambitious and pessimistic in essentially discounting the contemporary possibility of just, even righteous society.
We must therefore commit ourself to pursuit of justice by means of psemography and democracy as that surely cannot be left in the hands of bureaucratic autocrats who act in epistemological capacity of simplistic, uneducated appropriation of theological agency.
6. Death of Bureaucracy
Why does bureaucracy even exist? The answer of most would be “to uphold the law” and “to uphold order”. But then what law and what order? Are most elements of bureaucratic procedure really required by law? Does systematic structural harassment of citizens with unending unnecessary formalistic requirements uphold any kind of order at all? Do these not rather bring chaos to lives of citizens?
This clearly illustrates the pseudo-legal nature of of the wider patriarchal system of injustice as all justification for bureaucracy are simply baseless. Rather is bureaucracy (including the judicial system) produced by unethical application out of context. What does this mean? It means that functionally unethical and otherwise generally unethical considerations are in play including extrajudicial considerations of various kinds; unethical legalistic literalism, unethical application of principles, extrajudicial instructions from police intelligence and of course as so commonly simply sadistic abuse of power against the contextually innocent citizen.
The understanding that might is not necessarily right is a fundamental and essential insight of open society without which liberal democracy is undermined. But is not liberal democracy itself based upon the fundamental misconception that exercise of power is always legally right in the context of liberal democracy? Tyrants typically believe that might is simply power and will only outwardly claim that might is right and will do so for demagogic propaganda purposes only. In liberal democracy is there however the notion that any abidance of instruction within the system of state is right under the fallacy of might is right.
It is of course the prerogative of citizens to complain and usually practically speaking rightly so and hence need we investigative the hermeneutics and teleology of complaints. If we are aware that a practice as carried out in the name of the state constitutes miscarriage of virtue need we also seek effective remedy which will solve the performative problem rather than merely slightly modifying the particularly practice of miscarriage of virtue.
This leads us to the question as to whether the state itself is anything but simply gargantuan miscarriage of virtue? And who needs the state after all and why does it even exist? These are fundamental questions that we need to pose against problems of a precisely fundamental nature as opposed to seeking cosmetic remedy as is the wont in liberal democracy by means of perpetuating the system of injustice by means of incremental, indeed seemingly unending “improvement” of systems of miscarriage of virtue. Cosmetic improvement thus whether intentionally or de facto serves the purpose of upholding the patriarchal system of injustice and its systematic practices of miscarriage of virtue.
First is the state actually needed to uphold law and order and so is the existence of statehood of some kind nominally teleologically correct as the alternative would obviously be anarchy. The problem is rather the slippery slope implied in this intrinsic teleological necessity. Outwardly does every state present itself as standard bearer of virtue when in fact government employees systematically act in contravention of public understanding of law and justice and usually simply disregard codified law in favor of performance of actually extrajudicial “procedure” and “praxis”.
Ostensibly “secular” codified law is usually rather clear and lucid to interpret yet is systematically misinterpreted by government employees similar to how organized religion systematically misinterprets both explicit exoteric intentions and esoteric intentions in political dissimulation of authors of scripture.
It would not require much education and training in law to become specialized for serving in a highly specialized court of law. It would however require profound understanding by and saintly virtues of officers of the highly specialized court of law.
This leads us to the question of misunderstanding. State employees systematically misunderstand individual citizens and virtually never recognize their own typically systemic misunderstanding let alone apologize for any wrongdoing. While citizens in many countries can at least attempt to hold the state accountable by recourse to law does this procedure typically cause significant economic risk to citizens with limited economic means and is simply practically speaking unavailable to most citizens without economic means. Courts of law thus effectively serve as a fig leaf for not holding government employees accountable for often deliberate and essentially criminal misunderstandings on their part. Most state procedures are simply abuse of power in everything but name. It is not uncommon for government employees to sadistically enjoy themselves causing suffering to the usually contextually righteous-minded citizen.
This leads us to the question of death of bureaucracy for its demise has been prayed for by generations of suffering weeping victims of usually almost completely unjustified state humiliation of citizens in the name of the evil principle of might is right.
Bureaucracy is in fact the very opposite of justice in the sense that justice is the pursuit of fairness while bureaucracy is the pursuit of dogmatic unfairness although coincidentally often indeed actually producing justice. It needs be pointed out that coincidence may be be perceived as justice yet is not for the simple reason that justice requires love of wisdom (Greek philosophia) and there is no love in bureaucracy let alone even the semblance of wisdom but rather mere brute and indiscriminate abuse of power in the service of perpetuation of structural oppression/prejudice in cultural hegemony.
The usage of the term ‘structural oppression’ is in discursive application typically limited to that of social structural oppression to the almost complete exclusion of economic structural oppression and statist structural oppression. It is course an interesting question as to why this is so and hence needs the question of systemic injustice on the part of ethnocratic patriarchy become fully re-understood in terms of all three forms of structural oppression.
The state practically speaking regards itself as a defender of economic interests. That is how courts of law operate, that is how bureaucracy operates and that is how foreign policy operates. This practically speaking means the state serving the interests of those with means at the expense of those without means. This of course is blatant inequality in the sense of constituting systemic inequality before law.
State employees receive no training in learning how to avoid performing and perpetuating social structural oppression which exists on the basis of shibboleths of structural oppression (age, ethnicity, functionality, gender etc.) and will if confronted claim that structural social oppression is legal and irrespective of whether this is a correct understanding in terms of contemporary hegemonic hermeneutics of judicial discourse in that particular jurisdiction.
The question of state oppression is no less important in as much as the state itself is for the most part simply statist structural oppression itself. The state apparatus in constituting systemic stratist structural oppression is thus the primary vehicle of upholding social structural oppression and economic structural oppression as well.
This leads us to question as to what the state itself “is”? The state is simply ethnocratic patriarchy and ethnocratic patriarchy as in human cultures generally for the most part constitutes systemic abuse as nominally justified by recourse to “necessity”, “tradition”, “consensus” and “rules”. The essential challenge is therefore to deconstructively perform Queer anthropology in re-understanding modernity as constituting an odd collection of bizarre, irrational and intrinsically oppressive behavioral practices.
We need furthermore perform systematic innovative social engineering although that in and of itself is insufficient as social engineering needs be ethico-aesthetic, verified, ethically tested and subjected to careful scrutiny.
The technological means for supplanting nearly all human bureaucracy and thus firing nearly all bureaucrats are already available and not only in futuristic research laboratories of major information technology corporations but the technological capabilities themselves are already available in terms of the technologic means for supplanting bureaucrats with technology as already available to engineers of digital communication technologies. Most administrative decisions can be made highly accurately be a government computer by means of computer aggregation of all relevant documentation as available to the government.
More subjective administrative decisions are typically about perpetuating systemic injustice of social structural oppression of shibboleths of discrimination (age, ethnicity, gender, pigmentation etc.) of ethnocratic patriarchy in the primary function of bureaucracy being to legitimize and perpetuate structural oppression whether economic structural oppression, social structural oppression or statist structural oppression. This needs be effectively dealt with by means of outlawing structural oppression generally under international/constitutional law.
Structural oppression is that which upholds and constitutes cultural hegemony although of course not entirely so. The diverse aesthetics of human cultures however valuable and worthy are practically speaking simply decoration in serving the function of justifying and legitimizing structural oppression by means of structural perpetuation of nefarious cultural hegemony.
We need become clear-eyed as to relationship between aesthetics and power and so need aesthetic expression generally become mobilized worldwide for the purpose of feminist semiotic revolution of universal emancipation against structural oppression generally whether economic, social or statist.
7. Adjudication Science
Justice requires law and law requires justice. Law without justice is not law and justice without law is not justice. Law based on injustice does not produce justice. However law needs be based on ethics in order to produce justice or it is otherwise simply abuse of power.
Paragraphic law is Para-Christian in the sense that it is based on a hierarchy of epistemological enumeration such as in 1:1:1 as in biblical book, chapter and verse. Hegemonic Para-Christian legal discourse assumes that justice can be hermeneutically derived from exegetical interpretation of text.
Yet religious scripture contains gross abuse of the worst kind as does indeed also legal discourse as combining abuse by law-offenders with abuse of perpetrators of injustice of the system of injustice itself. This is so as the punishment usually causes worse suffering than the crime in question. There is no question that prison constitutes a Crime Against the Conscience of Humanity as incarceration is torture and this is the reason why it is considered a punishment, namely due to the gross psychological suffering that it causes. International law completely prohibits torture.
Police interrogation is also a form of severe psychological violence and also torture which serves the purpose of provoking the subconscious to speak in the conscious thus losing control over body including tongue and mouth. This is not only a form of psychological violence as caused against the will of a person but also a form torture which typically causes significant trauma. Police interrogation as a form of torture is a Crime Against the Conscience of Humanity. It needs be strongly emphasized that torture in being a CRIME AGAINST THE CONSCIENCE OF HUMANITY must not be confused with justice.
The practice of law in a court of law is the adjudication of different legal axioms in determining which ones of typically several different legal axioms that need be given preference. This is typically completely arbitrary in being founded on bureaucratic arguments and simply prejudice of members of the court.
Codified international law and and codified constitutional law is based on axiomatic law, namely listing ethical axioms. Ordinary national laws are however typically more similar to biblical commandments in constituting an elective mix of prejudice, abuse of power, moral prejudice, morality and ethics; all joined together from different decades and even different centuries.
What is thus needed is to disband paragraphic law altogether and supplant it with axiomatic law. An axiomatic law must not merely be legitimately legislated but it must also ethical.
How do we know that an axiom is ethical? An axiom must be documented to be very widely ethical in terms of effect of implementation. When an otherwise ethical axiom has also some negative effects has this usually one or more explanations: 1) Overapplication of principle, 2) Misapplication of principle, 3) Dysadjucation of principle.
What is an ethical axiom? An ethical axiom is expressive of virtue. What is virtue? Virtue is excellence in ethical practice. If something unethical is presented as a virtue is it not virtue at but semi-vice or vice. This certainly applies to the bizarre biblical-style elective mixture that is paragraphical law. Paragraphic law is an ahistorical mixture of vice, semi-vice and virtue.
What is justice? Justice is adjudication of ethical axioms, meaning when deciding which one(s) of two or more competing axioms that ought have precedence, indeed priority when coming into conflict with each other.
While courts of law as based on paragraphical law often get things right in terms of determining burden of guilt is this typically due to non-ambiguity of untampered evidence.
Courts of paragraphical law do however routinely produce miscarriage of justice due to stale bureaucratic reasoning, evidence as fabricated by thoroughly criminal police intelligence, undue process, members of the court who routinely and fully illegally so act upon instructions from police intelligence, routine illegal use of secret evidence, defense attorneys who act on instructions from police intelligence rather than representing the interests of the clients, suppression of evidence, using confident client-lawyer communication as secret evidence, deliberately ignoring enforceable law, corruption and generally serving criminal agendas of thoroughly criminal police intelligence.
In addition to all this is paragraphical law simply farcical and mostly constitutes prejudice and structural oppression. The purpose of paragraphical law is to uphold the triple evils of 1) economic structural oppression, 2) social structural oppression and 3) statist structural oppression.
This brings us to the question of the faculty of law. What is law in the sense of the academic field and what does actually study? The academic undiscipline of “law” is first of all not a science all and is not even a pseudo-science but simply production of discourse. It does not study justice and constitutes a tautological system of studying itself. It is a poor imitation of theology in practicing hermeneutics in exetegics of unethical text. That is all that it is with no connection whatsoever to justice other than sometimes coincidentally so. It is simply production of tautological layers of discourse as justifying injustice. This is simply vice as falsely posing as virtue.
How then to adjudicate ethical axioms? This is a most essential matter which requires a new ADJUDICATION SCIENCE. Presently is adjudication mostly yet not entirely performed on the basis of moral prejudice whether personal prejudice of members or the court or bureaucratic justifications as legitimizing discursive reproduction of moral prejudice. Members of courts of paragraphic law usually have no expertise whatsoever and very little education in legal philosophy and adjudication is furthermore typically performed by jurors . Members of the court except in special courts usually lack all expertise in the matter at hand other than common moral prejudice.
Not only is paragraphic law itself a travesty of justice, but the adjudicators are mere prejudicial enforcers of physionomism (anti-body ideologies) and DOLP (discrimination, oppression, lies and prejudice).
How then briefly could adjudication of ethical axioms be described? If the good consequences of an ethical axiom are already well documented how can we make sure that it does not result in 1) Overapplication of principle, 2) Misapplication of principle and 3) Dysadjucation of principle?
This brings us to the question of dogmatism. Jacques Derrida would probably describe the question of dogmatism as follows: “Human language does not permit us to express ourselves without a certain degree of dogmatism”. The question is thus a liminal one of drawing limits to application of ethical axioms. Dogma of course is just a negative term for axioms as considered ethically binding whether being ethical or not. The term dogma as influenced by historical Protestant anti-Catholic rethorics typically implies overapplication of axiom whereby axiom (principle, obligation, right, liberty etc.) is applied with such seeming consistency that it is applied where not ethically relevant all. Another term for this is fanaticism and this typifies indeed discourse of paragraphic law.
How then do we perform appropriate liminal distinctions so as to prevent overapplication, misapplication and dysadjudication of principle? The science of deconstruction as founded by Jacques Derrida is an applied science of epistemology as devoted to this very issue of ethically drawing limits in discourse of every kind.
First is it important that legislated ethical axioms are not too numerous in numbers and so needs these become continually deconstructed into as few ethical axioms as possible. As further insights of ethical axioms are legislated is it an essential task for a SCIENCE OF ADJUDICATION to scientifically deconstruct these axioms into as few axioms as possible. This means that as more ethical axioms are added to legislation need these become continually merged in minimizing the total number of ethical axioms which must not exceed two hundred.
In courts of axiomatic law will the prosecutor and the defense attorney each present which ones of the less than the two hundred legislated ethical axioms of axiomatic law which they consider even remotely relevant to the case. The first verdict consists of determining which ones of the two hundred axioms that could hypothetically apply. All documentation must be provided online in real time so as to provide full supervision by journalists and the court of public opinion alike. Transparency is an effective barrier to miscarriage of justice and democratic accountability is not even possible without full transparency.
Who then will pass the first verdict? This is a most essential question indeed. The answer is that only highly specialized courts should be allowed to exist and which will have specialized full national jurisdiction.
Who is suited to pass the first verdict? Or rather what property in a person is required for being suitable for passing the first verdict? Most ancient Greek philosopher would give an unambiguous answer in this respect, namely that POLITICAL WISDOM is required. But should not politics be kept separate from jurisprudence and ought we not avoid politicizing jurisprudence?
The answer is education in love of virtue; including learning to distinguish virtue from vice/semi-vice, learning to understand the ethics of priority and understanding that this is about pursuit of justice and certainly not a bureaucratic procedure. Yet this is not enough as a new SCIENCE OF ADJUDICATION is absolutely required indeed. Hillel the Elder of the Babylonian Talmud who lived in the first century CE was once approached and mockingly asked to explain the entire wisdom (torah) while standing on one leg. Hillel the Elder told the mocker that he should treats others the way he would like to himself be treated and added “now go and study”.
8. Statehood without Statist Oppression
The question of statehood is one with many dimensions. The essential question is thus; needs statehood be oppressive? Of course it ought not but be the real answer lies in conceptual, social and technological innovation. The real answers therefore respond to ‘how’ rather than as to ‘whether’.
Current state practices are based on promoting vice in the name of virtue as if evil becomes good by good intention. States are about the triple evils of 1) economic oppression, 2) social oppression and 3) statist oppression.
If states are essentially institutionalized evil should not states be disbanded as advocated by anarchists? This is an important question to ponder and the answer is ethico-minimal statehood. How then to attain this? The triple answers are technology, deconstruction and universal emancipation.
Outlawing structural oppression under international law means simply that things will need to be performed otherwise. Axiomatic law will prevent not only citizens but governments from acting unethically, This is significant as this means the abolition of morality in favor ethics. Once axiomatic law prohibits bureaucracy will things need to be done otherwise. Once axiomatic law prohibits discrimination will things need to be performed differently. Once sexism become illegal and the prohibition is legally enforced will most men cease to oppress women. As of now is oppression of women mostly not illegal which is plainly simply absurd to put thing mildly.
We literally have all the means at our disposal and so we need to make the necessary transition in leaving the tragic present of relative dystopia for a very different future.
9. Whither REtribution
Who needs punishment and what purpose does it possibly serve? This is surely an essential question to ponder and also answer in some detail. The most common answers among legal scholars is that 1) it is a necessary evil, 2) that there is no choice this regard 3) and that the alternatives are worse.
But are these answers sincere and truthful or to put it better have these answers truly been considered in a serious, prudent and rigorously scientific manner?
The answers are rather 1) that measures are needed in order so as to prevent reoccurrence, 2) ensure public virtue and 3) protect persons from evil. Further issues need be considered in this regard including 1) does the punishment meet its purpose? 2) is the punishment just? 3) and does the purpose justify the means?
First let us reconsider the question of corporal punishment. Corporal punishment is generally considered repugnant and cruel due to violating the dignity of the body. It has been argued many a times that imprisonment is preferable to corporal punishment and this question needs be revisited once more.
Corporal punishment spans a wide range from the almost symbolic to the most outrageous physical torment. Prior to what is known as “the enlightenment” was corporal punishment and torture widely deployed for purposes of exorcism specifically and inquisition generally. As Vatican intelligence invented the pseudo-scientific intelligence outfit known as the psychiatry did inquisition change focus from tormenting the body to tormenting cognition alone. The same change occurred even earlier as regards penology.
But what is really the difference between “tormenting the soul” and “tormenting the body”? In either cases does it cause experience of suffering and so what is the difference indeed? First is there a difference in that harming bodily integrity is certainly a further violation. Second is “torment of the soul” more evil in the sense that it attacks personality. Third is this based upon an artificial cartesian Para-Christian distinction which ignores the importance of respecting the undivide personhood.
Then comes the issue of forgiveness. Why is it needed, who needs forgiveness and what purpose does it serve? An additional issue concerns who has jurisdiction to provide forgiveness.
Let us begin with the matter of forgiveness. First, what is forgiveness and are there different forms of forgiveness? Second, what is the meaning of forgiveness? Third, is forgiveness semiotic, performative or both? Fourth is forgiveness a virtue, a vice/semi-vice or both?
These are many questions to answer. Let us begin with comparing the Jewish tradition and the Christian tradition in this regard. The Jewish tradition believes that only the offended party may provide forgiveness to the offender and that God provides forgiveness during a certain period of time every year provided that the offended party thrice refuses to offer forgiveness to the offender. The Christian tradition in contrast believes that God provides forgiveness by default once the offender has expressed remorse. We need thus consider 1) why forgiveness is needed, 2) for whom and 3) who is eligible to provide it?
Forgiveness serves three purposes: namely 1) conciliation, 2) preventing reoccurence 3) and healing the victim. Forgiveness is premised on conscience which exists to varying degrees in different persons and serves different purposes.
This brings us to the question of conscience, why is it needed and whether and what is a virtue? The conscience is performative in the sense that it generally speaking is neither vice nor virtue but is rather a mental process within the human cranium where one brain reconciliates with the other brain. Rather than the subconscious exercising control over the conscious is it rather the two brains within the human brains that exercise control over each other to varying degrees and in varying ways. For example, imagine as is common that one brain is autistic and the other brain is psychopathic. Conscience is thus a psychological mechanism in which the more conscientious brain exercises control over the less conscientious brain. Conscience is hence a scientific issue of utmost importance in consideration of the question of remedy to vice generally and violation of law specifically.
Conscience may however serve as a structurally imposed punishment of the soul whereby a person suffers on account of not having abided by vice of moral prejudice in the furtherance of structural oppression under the social tyranny and social terror of ethnocratic-patriarchal cultural hegemony.
This brings us to the question of virtue. Is conscience virtue or vice? This depends on its telos and as to whether it produces behavioral change or mere continuous psychological suffering. The question is more specifically as to whether the telos constitutes virtue, semi-vice or vice?
What then is semi-vice? Semi-vice is the corruption of virtue whereby sin speaks in the name of virtue. Examples of semi-vice are love without grace and grace without love; justice without ethics and ethics without justice, conscience without virtue and virtue without conscience; consideration without proportion and proportion without consideration; affection without empathy and empathy without affection; prudence without responsibility and responsibility without prudence; generosity without frugality and frugality without generosity; hospitality without generosity and generosity without hospitality and so on and so forth.
From this can we infer that virtues are intrinsically connected with each other and that one virtue does not exist in splendid isolation from the other. Why is this so? Because virtue is not virtue without interpersonality and interpersonality is profoundly social whether directly or structurally so. The Jewish philosophical tradition would conclude that the Other is the telos of virtue.
What is however distinctly needed is a multidisciplinary approach which needs to deal with issues such as 1) as to how education may produce conscience in virtue? 2) as to how can we may change tack from punishment to remedy? 3) as to how we can strictly scientifically distinguish between virtue, semi-vice and vice.
The relative existence of conscience is psychometrically measurable and is more a neuropsychiatric issue than a penological one. Is it even appropriate to punish a person due to relative psychometric lack of conscience? Is torment of the soul in any sense legitimate?
It could be argued that punishing a person for lacking conscience is the equivalent of the traditional moral example of the hungry stealing a bread in the sense that a person hardly can be blamed due to either starving or relatively lacking a certain psychometric property. But the comparison is instructive in other ways as well in that one vice does not justify another.
This brings us to the question of morality and its relationship with moral prejudice. Does all morality constitute moral prejudice and what is the purpose, indeed function of morality? There needs be a distinction between moral prejudice on the one hand and semi-vice on the other and the term morality is interchangeably used to describe both.
This brings us to the question of science and semi-vice. Scientific systems of “morality” typically operate by means of semi-vice in carnophallogocentrism. Schools of moral philosophy essentially serve vice in the name of virtue, power in the name of discourse, abuse in the name of rhetorics, evil in the name of sacrifice, structural oppression in the name of justice and physionomism in the name of objectivity.
Moral systems are however mighty devices of discourse and power in misleading persons to complacency and semi-vice and do in this sense constitute pure evil. Moral systems are essentially “secular” ersatz theologies of Para-Christian depravations. Systems are usually not ethical, yet we need certainly consider the possibility of systemic ethics in the sense of devising systems of power that produce ethics. The fact that this so far almost entirely abjectly failed is not a convincing reason to refrain from doing it right in a manner that is not merely prescriptive but can become fully verified indeed.
This brings us to the question of policy making. How can policy making promote virtue without reducing virtue to semi-vice? How can virtue be structurally instilled in young person without structurally reducing virtue to semi-virtue of moralism? To what degree is this an educational issue, a matter of inquisition and a matter of neuropsychiatry? First needs the deplorable nature of Para-Christian systems of education be pointed out in that these systematically destroy virtue and integrity of personhood. Second needs the deplorable and pseudo-scientific nature of psychiatry be emphasized in constituting as does indeed most of the rest of the patriarchal intelligence world a tragic remnant of medievalism indeed.
This brings us to the question of what is best described as “social exorcism” in secular cloisters. What is a secular cloister? Secular cloisters are public sector funded institutions which were originally set up either by the Catholic Church generally or by Vatican intelligence specifically as now known as the CDF. Secular cloisters include hospitals, schools, prisons, nation states, kindergartens, mental hospitals and even nation states as discursively created by Catholic moral philosophy.
This brings us to the question of social exorcism and its relationship with democracy. Is social exorcism the telos of democracy? What is even the telos of democracy? The answer is that the telos of democracy is universal emancipation and the problem with democracy as it currently is, is the lack of universal commitment to universal emancipation, indeed a certain discursive deficiency of relative lack of democratic virtue.
This brings us to the question of universal emancipation. Is this merely a legal procedure of enfranchisement and subsequent judicial enforcement? The answer is that universal emancipation is eschatology itself.
This brings as to the nature of eschatology and its relationship with dystopia. How do we know that eschatology is not dystopia? The answer lies in verification of outcome. Does an eschatological process produce virtue, semi-vice, vice or as in the case of the Para-Christian paragraphical system of injustice a bizarre mix of all three?
This brings us to the question of verification and objectivity. How do we know that what we assume is good and is not actually evil or semi-evil? The answer lies in noble virtue. Do we accept complacency or do we self-critically strive for pursuit of perfection in love of virtue in loving kindness?
This brings us to the question of perfection. What is the nature of perfection? The most common perception of perfection is that of ontological teleology. We know that all the good intentions of modernity thus reached the train station of the Auschwitz concentration camp as a secular cloister turned into nefariously intended realization of the traditional vision of hell. Yet it is much less known that the human devils and their External Assistants at the Auschwitz concentration in abidance with Nazi law first performed every single medical experiment on innocent non-human Animals and only thereafter on innocent human beings, neither of which had done anything to deserve the atrocious torment of vivisection. No action or consideration could in fact justify this atrocity of tortment as every form of torture no matter the nature of physionomies of its victims can be justified. The Red Army only liberated the “sub-human” victims, yet refused and outrageously not even considered liberating the no less innocently victimized and tormented non-human prisoners.
This bring us to the question of the slippery slope as descent into hell on earth may be incremental. What is descent into hell on earth? Descent into hell on earth is the process of virtue becoming transformed into semi-vice, subsequently vice and subsequently living hell on earth.
In the 1980s did the Israeli Supreme Court deliver a number of verdicts which “legally” allowed so called “moderate physical pressure” under exceptional circumstances, the so called “Ticking bomb scenario” whereby some forms of torment could be allowed to prevent a greater calamity. While such a hypothetical scenario is indeed possible to conceive of is there no legal evidence whatsoever as documenting that any such situation of extreme emergency as having ever existed in the sense that it would oblige performance of torture in order to prevent a calamity. The problem however is that this ruling most shamefully led to establishment of Israeli Security Service torture centers in Judea and Samaria, something which was only stopped by Israel’s second semi-secretive hereditary head of state (Operative 002) and highest judicial authority issuing a ruling covert military judicial ruling as canceling the high court permit for so called “moderate physical pressure” which in fact led to systematic and organized perpetration at these torture centra of certainly far worse forms of torture. From this can we infer that a slippery slope of vice masquerading as virtue is evil just as utilitarianism generally is conscience causing radical evil.
The next question concerns the question of justice itself. What is justice and what is nature of justice? Justice is noble pursuit of love of virtue in loving kindness.
This brings us to the question of evil. What is evil? Evil is simply the zoological condition of parasitism. Nothing more and nothing less. Vice and semi-vice are the behavioral spectrum of descent into parasitism. However, just as there are relationships between different virtues are there also relationships between vices. One vice may lead to another. For example may a woman’s consent to unethical forms of sexual intercourse lead to enslavement in prostitution. Experimental use of one less severe illegal drug may ultimately may ultimately lead to addiction to a far more severe illegal drug. This is the nature of the slippery slope whereby corruption of virtue into semi-vice causes descent into lowly depravations in vice.
This brings us to the question of secularity and its relationship with Christianity. What is the relationship between the theological and the Para-Christian? This is clearly descent into moral corruption, literally a road to to hell paved with good intentions. Most things Para-Christian are banale, ignorant and the utter ignorance as regards Christian metaphysics among scientists have turned academia into an academic kindergarten. How is this so, ought not science be non-denominational?
Science was born in ancient Sumer and subsequently developed in different civilizations until it became the home of the Catholic church which established a vast number of centers of virtue in love of learning, torah lishma indeed as in many ways comparable to yeshivot of Judaism, the living and uninterrupted continuation of Plato’s academy. The fundamental problem with the Catholic Church is its structural tendency to reduce ethics to morality, virtue to semi-vice, nobility to moralism, sincerity to hypocrisy and principledness to unethical overapplication of principle; the slippery slope indeed or to put it differently the trajectory of descent into evil. The strictly temporary cloister of contemplation of Hellenistic Judaism thus over the course of two thousands years ultimately morphed into the Auschwitz concentration camp as that is the history of Christendom in a nutshell. Yet is it not blatantly unfair to draw such a line of trajectory of development and does it not imply blame? It does not as we need strictly scientifically study trajectories of slippery slopes.
This brings us to the question of carnal love as inseparable from love generally. Is there a merit in sexual abstinence and is it a vice, a virtue or both? Sexual repression is the cross-anthropological practice by ethnocratic patriarchy of seeking prevent carnal desire to descent into evil, yet it is precisely evil itself.
Sexual discipline is a virtue just as sexual repression is a vice. Love without sexual discipline is not love but rather constitutes a trajectory into evil. Sexual discipline without love is very the condition of sexual repression which is a cardinal vice. Sexual hypocrisy is also a vice other than as performed in consideration of personal safety and/or the safety of others.
This brings us into the question of marriage generally and monogamism specifically. Marriage is a virtue, yet monogamism and other forms of parasitical marriage are a vice as agreement to participation in parasitism constitutes infidelity to God.
This brings us to the question of pursuit of love. What is love? How can it be differentiated from parasitism? This is not merely a question of philosophy but importantly one of neuropsychology and intersectional science. All four cognitive centers of the two human brains inside the human cranium must consent or it is not truly consent in a philosophical sense. This means that eight cognitive centers must consent to love between two persons, twelve cognitive centers must consent to love between three persons and sixteen cognitive centers must consent to love between four persons. Yet, seemingly paradoxically so does neurological consent become easier and more spontaneous the more persons who are involved. As a comparison is it easier to perform courage in group than alone and almost any act is easier to perform the larger the group. This is because neurological synchronization becomes easier the larger the group.
Neurological synchronization is however performative in the sense that it may lead to persecution, mass hysteria and so called “collective psychosis”. Neurological synchronization is the basis of all social control, including enforcement of nefarious structuctural prejudice of oppressive cultural hegemony.
Neurological synchronization may however also serve the purpose of instilling noble virtue in loving kindness. Pursuit of justice requires a new field of intersectional legal neuropsychological studies as in no way reducible to the mostly descriptive physiognomy of neuropsychiatry. NOW GO AND STUDY
10. Salutology of Psychopathy
What is psychopathy and why has there been no official investment in its treatment considering the highly destructive influence of psychopaths whether criminal or not on human society? This is an essential question to consider since this is hardly even studied outside of the world of intelligence science.
Psychopathy is part of the spectrum of differentiation in personality. Psychopathy itself is a spectrum from mild traits to severe dysfunction in what was unscientifically known in cultures around the world as so called “demonic possession”, severe forms of which were widely described as so called “satanism”.
The patriarchal intelligence world systematically tries to suppress academic research in all field of knowledge it deems to be in the exclusive epistemological domain of intelligence science. This is due to pervasive influence by Frankist intelligence sects over the patriarchal intelligence world. The reason for this was the predominance of psychopaths within Frankist intelligence sects.
It is clear that imprisonment in buildings and confinement to small areas are torture and therefore constitute CRIMES AGAINST THE CONSCIENCE OF HUMANITY. While there is no question that many psychopathic persons have developed into extreme evildoers and so is CAPITAL PUNISHMENT humane and ethical in those cases provided that the execution does not cause significant suffering which most forms of execution unfortunately tend/risk to do. Guillotine is one few humane forms of execution as for example the electric chair is pure evil in often failing to cause timely death and therefore cause tremendous suffering.
Psychopaths of all genders and anatomies are characterized by excessive production of testosterone, something which tends to strongly reduce impulse control and which in turn typically makes them more prone to commit crime generally including manslaughter in sudden anger. It is essential not to demonize psychopaths although the behaviors of those who in discourse of intelligence psychiatry were known to be on the so called “demonic spectrum” were hardly innocent or virtuous by any standard of conduct.
There are several medical issues to consider in this regard. 1) First needs gene therapy be applied as early as possible, indeed on early embryos. 2) Second needs hormone therapy be applied where necessary. 3) Third needs Social Behavioral Therapy (SBT) become implemented as a means of rehabilitation in order to instruct patients in feminist court etiquette by means of role play until neurologically automatized.
It needs be emphasized that prisons and penological systems were invented for the purpose of protecting the general public from persons on the clinical demonic spectrum. It also clear that undertaken harsh measures of execution against evildoers on the demonic spectrum throughout history were fully justified.
Psychopaths outside of the demonic spectrum do suffer from significant disability and so needs they be given appropriate medical treatment. It needs be emphasized that psychopaths experience little introjection yet are often skilled at projection, something which tends to make them sexually promiscuous.
The gender and age aspects to psychopathy also need be emphasized, in that 6-7% of white androgenic persons meet clinical criteria for antisocial personality disorder. while only 1% of white gynogenic do. While the proportion of psychopaths vary in different human genetic groups is the vast statistical asymmetry between androgenic persons and gynogenic persons constant across human populations. There is also a correlation between average genotypic IQ and genotypic frequency of psychopathy, meaning that genetic groups with comparatively higher average IQs also have relatively lower frequencies of psychopathy in the population. Psychopaths are of course minorities in all human populations. It needs furthermore be underscored that gynogenic persons despite having significantly lower genotypic average IQ than androgenic persons in the same population have significantly lower average frequency of psychopathy. White gynogenic women have five points lower average genotypic IQ, a factor which needs be considered in understanding why the terror and tyranny of patriarchy has so successfully perpetuated itself. It needs be emphasized that comparatively lower IQ is relative to comparison and that this whether relating to individuals or genetic groups certainly should not be misconstrued as implying any kind of so called “inferiority” as that is most repugnant physionomism as based on superficial comparisons. A comparison is just that as who is deemed to have “lower higher IQ” entirely depends on whom is compared with whom. Genetic English people have five points higher IQ than genetic Scots/Irish people, but genetic English people have five points lower IQ than genetic Japanese and genetic Koreans. While it is important to study all psychometric differentiation is dignity in personhood independent of psychometric differentiation. A “fool” or an “idiot” is a person with highly deficient personal judgment and certainly not a person whose IQ is lower than another person. It needs be emphasized that bad judgment is in no way limited to persons with psychopathy and they must not be maligned, persecuted and/or discriminated on account of disability.
11. Physiognomy of Verdict
Verdicts in paragraphic courts of law are typically highly dependent on the exterior of the defendant. Persons are all the time judged by shibboleths of discrimination. There is no equality before the law in this respect whatsoever and jurors and officers of paragraphic courts of law receive no intersectional training whatsoever as part of their jobs.
There is complete arbitrariness in this regard. A woman will likely be found guilty if found sexually unattractive and innocent if found sexually attractive. Fathers who behave like mothers are routinely accused of being pedophiles. Immigrants are routinely considered guilty due to their typically accented speech and every African American knows that non-appeal courts in the United States are pure judicial lynching.
This is the reason why defendants are instructed to dress well in courts because not dressing well influences the verdict. Defendants who look humble are acquitted and defendants who look arrogant are considered guilty by default.
Innocents are found guilty all the time as evidenced by the fact that so many verdicts are overturned in appeal courts. Furthermore why is it that so many defendants are acquitted? One reason is that they “look innocent” despite not necessarily being so. Another reason is that thoroughly criminal police intelligence routinely orders protectively recruited prosecutors to prosecute persons whom they already know are innocent as means of pure harassment. A common motive for this is that if person somehow gets too close to police intelligence intelligence involvement in criminal activities such as police intelligence symbiosis with organized crime will police intelligence typically try to legally distract that person and the most common method is to accuse that persons of the very crimes which police intelligence itself commits or else involve the person in a lawsuit which will go on for year durings with the purpose of thus very effectively the victims who will furthermore be believed as to what the person found in the first. Prosecutors receive and act upon instructions from thoroughly criminal police intelligence as to how to rule in cases as based on “secret evidence” which in many cases is fabricated and do issue verdicts accordingly which means that thoroughly criminal police intelligence can sentence any innocent to prison.
Of course everyone knows that the judiciary and police are corrupt in the third world countries. Everyone who watches television knows that US police officers are criminals and every African American knows that the US non-appeals court are racists institutions of institutionalized lynching. But is it any better in other democracies? It certainly is not.
It is worse in the sense that victims are not believed by society which naively believes that the courts are just and objective which of course is anything but true. A transgender female is automatically found guilty, a black man is almost automatically considered guilty of rape.
Of course why would a white woman wish to have sexual intercourse with a black man considering that everyone knows that their penises are oversized? Of course everyone knows that transwomen are dangerous pedophiles who must be stopped at all price. Of course everyone knows that immigrants are thieves. Of course everyone knows that Muslim women are unreliable. Of course everyone knows that Romani people are all criminals. Of course everyone knows that a person already convicted of a crime is guilty the second time the person is prosecuted.
In dictatorships does everyone know that courts of law are a travesty of justice and that virtually all police officers are criminals but in democracies are in contrast the victims of deliberate judicial miscarriage of justice silenced and shunned as presumed guilty by everyone. They are advised to appeal and little did they know that the Gestapo as operating from Argentina in 1945-2016 largely controlled military intelligence agencies in most countries until 2017; including through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as founded by the Gestapo in 1947. Since officers of appeals courts are protectively recruited by military intelligence did this mean they effectively took orders on how to rule from the Gestapo.
It is clear that this travesty of system of justice is pure evil as physionomism is evil indeed. If physionomism is not evil then what is? It is ridiculous that lay people who may be agents of literally any intelligence agency including of an enemy country are tasked with ruling on e.g. civil servants who may be targeted for attempted coercive intelligence recruitment as is very common. This how both the SVR (Russian Gestapo) and the CIA (American Gestapo) operate.
Just as the Suffragettes founded liberal democracy by gaining the right to vote need we know fully and completely dismantle the evils of ethnocratic patriarchy which is an evil abomination indeed. This of course is not say that everyone who is part of patriarchy is an evildoer, on the contrary so, many are simply otherwise well-intentioned careerists or believers in “a necessary evil” etc. Victims of intelligence recruitment who are disobedient are usually discreetly “eliminated” except in cases where persons are considered “valuable” in which case they are abused by psychiatry on orders from secret kangaroo “courts” of the police or miltiary. Public persona are discredited by means of smearing them as criminal offenders.
It is clear that a new feminist system of justice is needed with extremely specialized courts with completely different officers of court as trained in intersectional sciences (including in intersectional physiognomy) rather than in criminal exegetics.
12. Epistemology of Bureaucracy
There is a rabbinic saying according to which a parent needs not worry as long as a child continues to ask questions but that a parent definitely needs worry once the child stops asking questions.
Need it be added that the same applies to adults? One of the most dangerous things in the world are uncritical adults who leave the curiosity and inquisitive mindset of childhood behind and who become fanatical believers in various prejudicial concepts of so called “culture”. Indeed what really is the difference between culture and religion and indeed between “secular law” and religious law?
This leads us to the question of bureaucracy and its epistemology, ontology, teleology and hermeneutics. Who needs bureaucracy? What purpose does it serve? Everyone except the bureaucrats themselves detest bureaucracy and so why does it exist? One thing is clear however and that is that it was invented and developed by stupid adults who stopped asking questions. Stupidity here does not refer to “low” measured individual IQ or to any diagnosed condition but rather to modulization of minds where virtues of childish mindset are reduced to sillly automatization of mind.
Bureaucracy is of course a perfection expression of this mental condition of severe adult disability. Then what is a bureaucrat? A bureaucrat is either an idiot or an undercover non-idiot pretending to be one. A bureaucrat is a one-person court of injustice pretending to a mere “authority”. The only differences between a court of injustice and an authority of injustice is thus that the latter 1) is is one single person 2) and does not pretend to be a court of justice.
In fact, courts of justice are bureaucracy and bureaucracy are courts of injustice. The difference between the two is negligible indeed. The authority of injustice is however executor of injustice without neither prosecutor, defense attorney or documented legal process. Most bureaucrats worldwide are corrupt criminals and nearly all bureaucrats even in Western countries do accept generous bribes, including sexual ones.
Bureaucracy is simply miscarriage of justice pure and simple although of course bureaucracy often gets it right although usually due to either coincidence or things simply being (and not just seeming) actually being quite obvious indeed. Bureaucracy is the hermeneutics of performative ontology where the personal or received opinion of the bureaucrat is by definition truth and nothing but the truth so help me God!
But the bureaucrat of course is not God but is merely a person either implicitly pretending to be God or in some countries claiming to represent God. Nobody really needs bureaucrats since most of their decisions are of such a banale nature that computers would make far most consistent and accurate judgements.
Why then do bureaucrats exists and who are they in epistemological terms? Bureaucrats are a stupid version of rabbis. Rabbis usually at least seemingly very intelligently interpret Jewish religious law, but bureaucrats are in contrast all too often specialized in stupid misinterpretation of law. It is unclear why a university degree is usually considered since there is no academic track for specifically becoming a bureaucrat.
Bureaucrats are part of the bureaucracy of miscarriage of law whereby law is not sufficiently lucid for self-application. Axiomatic law in contrast needs to be characterized by ethical clarity so that application is absolutely lucid indeed; meaning that law is so apparent that an ordinary citizen will be able to perfectly apply it without further ado.
We need furthermore consider that keeping unethical practices “legal” require extensive regulation and if unethical practices instead were not legal would regulation be superfluous. This of course must not be confused with moralism which promotes moral prejudice, but rather needs so called “morality” become studied by psemography in order to uncover physionomism (anti-body ideologies) and DOLP (discrimination, oppression, lies and prejudice). Bureaucracy although infused by various prejudicial concepts is simply structural oppression, pure and simple.
Bureaucracy in constituting structural oppression must simply be outlawed, period. The existence of highly specialized courts will obviate most need for legal process since the position of jurisprudence will be most clear indeed. However, highly specialized courts will be capable of providing very exact, precise, indeed literal determination of ethical clarity (justice) in cases citizens are unable to interpret law themselves or simply wish to know beforehand what the position of jurisprudence is so as to be able to act upon binding legal advice. Hyperspecialized courts will be able to provide very rapid judgment and members of the court will be experts in empathetic interpretation of the matter at hand. Members of hyperspecialized courts need rather think and act like real rabbis, meaning acting out of pure desire to serve the individual person in loving kindness.
13. NATURE OF CONSCIENCE
Conscience is one of those things that we take for granted without scientific investigation due to assuming that it belongs to the sphere of religion. Apophatic epistemology is derived from the sphere of virtue but it surely is no virtue whatsoever. Conscience is a matter of neuropsychology and is surely not a matter for metaphysical speculation.
What is conscience? What does it mean to be conscientious? How do we know that someone is conscientious and not just hypocritical? When is exercise of conscience virtue, when is exercise of conscience semi-vice and when is exercise of conscience vice? Is selective conscience virtue, semi-vice or vice? These are essential questions to consider, ponder and answer in some detail.
Why do humans have conscience? We are herd animals and as such is conscience essential for evolutionary survival as we as human beings cannot survive alone. Since conscience is an evolutionary trait is it highly adaptable to a very significant degree.
Why do most humans experience so called “bad conscience” to varying degree and is it actually bad? Bad conscience is a traumatic reaction of helplessness whereby trauma supplants human agency of virtue. Bad conscience is simply sublimation of impulse of virtue. This undeniable fact however provides yet another essential piece of information, namely that virtue is an evolutionary psychological property which just as carnal desire is subjected to nefarious, indeed INFERNAL REPRESSION.
Most but surely not all humans are born with a fundamentally innocent mindset. Humans are born herbivores, the toddler eats the carrot and plays with the rabbit, not the other way around. INFERNAL REPRESSION of loving kindness turns the saintly innocence of the young human herbivore into mindless participant in EVIL PARASITISM of MOST EVIL consumption of THE FLESH AND BLOOD OF THE INNOCENT MARTYR. Every caged animal is an innocent martyr indeed long since pointed out by Catholic girl school graduate and feminist genius Professor Donna J. Haraway and subsequently iterated by eminent feminist Jewish genius Professor Jacques Derrida. The innocent human child thus gains taste for blood and is turned from innocent agency of unrepressed love and other virtue into mindless participant in structural oppression in so called “culture”. This is the nature of EVILIZATION, where the innocent anatomical herbivore is abusively socially constructed into selfish participant in evil.
Conscience as other psychometric properties are not merely subjected to social construction and conscience develops to highly divergent individual degrees in most humans despite pervasive practices of evilization, a.k.a. structural oppression. The development of conscience is hence limited by infernal influence of STRUCTURAL OPPRESSION which causes STRUCTURAL REPRESSION in the individual human person. Repression is hence the very telos of oppression. Evilization is the teleology of structural oppression despite structural repression usually masquarading as virtue. MORALISM IS HENCE PURE EVIL.
In order to develop conscience in the human individual must we therefore completely, entirely and with clinical precision remove structural oppression/repression from human society. This is not a matter of opinion or choice but a matter of agency of conscience in refusing evilization. A human person with blood from innocent martyrs in his mouth is certainly very far from perfectly predisposed to adjudicate virtue. A human being who has developed taste for devouring the flesh of the innocent is already on the wrong path in proceeding in THE TRAJECTORY OF EVILIZATION.
This brings us to the question of TEMPTATION OF FLESH. What is it and why does it occur? Temptation of the flesh is the human psychological tendency to develop taste for blood rather than plant for, taste for cruelty rather than mercy, taste for death rather than for life and indeed generally taste for vice rather than for virtue.
How then can we study this scientifically? We need consider social processes whereby an innocent human child develops pleasure in vice rather than pleasure in virtue. We need study social trajectories of evilization in individual human persons and in societies alike. How does evilization operate and how is it related to semi-vice which is umbilically connected with hypocrisy, the father of all sin?
This brings us to the question of lowliness. Pure evil is possible to understand due to its pure nature which is not reducible to malice of intent. Evil is performative in nature in that it is neither true nor false but rather performative. Evil may be intentional, structural and outcome, all three or only one or two of the three. But what is lowliness, how can it be explained and how is it conceivably related to the question of feminist justice?
Criminals are characterized by lowliness and this is so irrespective of social class. There is the pervasive classist misconception that opposition to lowliness is a mere by-product of class oppression, a.k.a. classism. Rather according to court etiquette is classism the lowliest of lowliest. It is royal etiquette for a Majesty to rescue fallen women from the clutches of nefarious exploiters. This duty was always considered as one of the primary tasks of the Catholic Church and indeed THE PRIMARY MISSION of female cloisters where rescued former prostitutes were rehabilitated by means of order and love, including Catholic ritual sex.
To look down upon members of a social classes for having lesser economic means is precisely lowliness, indeed transitional vice in the name of virtue. Classism is thus lowliness itself.
Then what is lowliness? Lowliness is pleasure in vice rather than pleasure in virtue. Suffering in semi-vice is an intermediary stage which itself is semi-lowly. LOWLINESS IS SIN ITSELF.
Vice and sin are typically conflated in moralist discourse whereby vice is discursively reduced to a reductively moralistic definition of sin. Vice and sin are however far from identical although surely umbilically connected. Sin is lowliness while vice is evil itself.
14. Love in Virtue
What is love and how do know that it is not parasitism? This is a most pertinent question indeed. Unless the we pose the question, how can we conceivably hope to receive an answer thereto? We need thus investigate the motives of love which to be sure tend to be mixed indeed.
We can thus conclude that love is relative spectrum of degree as spanning from pure love to pure parasitism. We can thus conclude that the spectrum of what is known as “love” is a spectrum of degree from virtue to evil with lowliness in between.
We can learn about the nature “spectrum of love” (SoL) from its motives but we can and must necessarily study it from the perspective of its consequences. SoL of course of is not spectrum of “love” but rather a spectrum of relative degree of psychological confusion.
We need therefore commence by comparing pathological infatuation with salutogenic infatuation. Infatuation is the psychological state of confusion whereby neurological communication causes oneself to confuse one’s own emotions with the emotions of another person.
Pathological infatuation and salutogenic infatuation are therefore highly similar in this respect and so what is the distinction between the two? The difference is that salutogenic infatuation involves true, indeed genuine appreciation of FULL PERSONHOOD.
This brings us to the question of SIGNIFIÉ ET SIGNIFIANT. Salutogenic infatuation involves LOVE OF SIGNIFIANT, meaning that is performative in nature while pathological infatuation involves LOVE OF SIGNIFIÉR, meaning that it is semiotic in nature. Heterocultural females generally tend to act as inquisitors in generally being rightly sceptical of heterocultural expressions of “love” and declarations thereof from heterocultural males. Does the infatuated man love the external semiotic markers alone (vision, scent, touch, communication) or does he in contrast love those semiotic markers as intrinsic expression of idiosyncratic FULL PERSONHOOD?
How can this be determined? It should be determined by psychometric testing. This is also an educational issue in teaching young persons and indeed persons of all ages to avoid TEMPTATION OF THE FLESH, namely in this context pathological infatuation, or to put it differently romantic objectification. Conversely is it necessary to learn to love without psychologically parasiting on the other and without becoming subject to parasitism by the other. Pathological infatuation is always a conscious choice as one certainly can CHOOSE TO RESTRAIN one’s feelings of superficial appreciation of signifiers in thus not truly and genuinely loving the signified which the signifers express.
How does one learn to LOVE FULL PERSONHOOD? This is not very difficult actually as you need to be conscious of the distinction and endeavor to strictly apply this essential distinction. It is important to understand that pathological infatuation and salutogenic infatuation are not necessarily discrete but rather form a spectrum of relative degree. But generally if one suffers and/or emotionally misbehaves out emotions of love is there some degree of pathological, i.e. parasitical element in those emotions.
Pure salutogenic love is strong in that it is clinically free from parasitism and therefore also free from romantic/sexual jealousy. One needs ask what one seeks from the other, does one seek interpersonality or does one seek dependence? This is in most cases not clearcut. The pure lover is therefore able to disentangle himself from the other without any significant degree discomfort other than perhaps for a day or a little more.
It is essential to understand that EROS and AGAPE are not in intrinsic opposition to each other. EROS is unhealthy if it is parasitical just as AGAPE is mere sublimation of the impulse of virtue if it is performed for self-gratification; i.e. “I just donated 100 USD to a charitable cause and now i feel that i am such a good person”. This of course is semi-vice rather than virtue.
Why do some men beat the woman whom they live with? It is performed for purposes of enforced sexual enslavement whereby she will become subjugated until she is ready for coitus etc. at all times whether with him, his friend or with customers, meaning that she is broken down into consenting to be raped at any time by any person when the abuser so determines. This is clearly and ambiguously parasitism. The two parties to this parasitic relationship typically develop some sense of so called “love”.
Slovenian psychoanalyst Slavoj Žižek has suggested that love is simply evil. While this suggestion is no doubt shocking to many is it probably not as shocking to victims of severe domestic abuse. We need therefore understand that SoL is a spectrum of parasitism, i.e. a spectrum of relative degree in evil as spanning from pure love to pure parasitism with varying degrees of intermixed appreciation/parasitism in between.
There is hence need for an applied science of love whereby we can learn to practice pure love. Infatuation always involves neurological communication of introjection/projection and the essential distinction between pathological infatuation and salutogenic infatuation involves the former confusing one’s own personhood with the personhood of the other person while the latter involves fully appreciation the other as the other IN SPLENDID IDIOSYNCRACY.
Who is the other? There are several questions to this answer. Satanists have their own answer to this question but let us for a moment disregard evildoers.
The other is 1) GOD, 2) community, 3) someone one knows, 4) the future, 5) tout autre 6) one’s other brain; yet the other is dialogical and is thus not an amalgam of signifiers but the combination of a) signifier (appearance, conduct etc.) and b) signifiant, i.e. idiosyncratic personality of the individual person.
While surely an important issue of concern needs it be clarified how this is conceivably related to that the question of feminist justice. Justice needs be performed out of pure and sheer love without corrupting ulterior motives of opportunism. This means that a person who has not clearly and ambiguously exhibited ethical courage has no business serving in a genuine court of justice. Officers of courts of justice of axiomatic law will need to have proven good judgment in standing up for others by means of strictly ethical priority of values in moral clarity. JUSTICE IS ADJUDICATION OF PRIORITY OF ETHICAL AXIOMS IN CONTEXT.
The Eurolect – Politics of the Para-Christian documentation project
The Intelligence Entrapment Methods documentation project.