Transcript: Behold the man, within his state of quintessential slumber, eyes wide shut, deaf to all things but screams of fear and pain; mute in all ways but for screams of fear and pain; blind to all things but for fear and pain...and dream. What is this man? For he who is all of deaf, mute, and blind? He sees forms or at least his cognitive interpretation of forms; he hears sounds, or at least as per his cognitive interpretation of sounds; he creates sounds, at least as far as he in concerned. Yet he objectively does none of these things. Logic, they may say is their highest value of epistemology, yet, will at the same time demand evidence of logic’s persistence (which is of course highly illogical). It can be said that all men are capable only of solving the problems they allow themselves to see. This seems logical. The human mind is highly inhibitory, so it would seem natural for that to be the case. How strong are these inhibitory structures? How deeply are we deluded into our perception being seen as normal? Regular? Is our perception not merely absolutely pathetic in comparison to our “real world’?
Much of the mind is like that of the State, which exhibits a mechanism for survival above all other meanings. The State will tell its subjects the narratives it hopes will best enable the continuation of the State. That is to say, that wherein there exists a State, there exists merely a will and an associated narrative, a sublime fiction of coordinated coercion, generated through majority submission to this now “State”. In essence, the State is the agglomerated order meant to stave off the true chaos that exists outside of it. These conceptions run directly parallel with that of the human mind, which is difficult to ignore, and one might hope that the parallels would end rather quickly; however, this is not so, for the parallels run deep within the structure off the mind, and from this we can conclude that the existence of the state is not merely something that can be said to be a completely conscious structure, for much of it stems from unconscious motivations. Why does this need to be said? When it comes to understanding things, one must not be perturbed by the information which comes forth, one must be willing to embrace the truth within our contemporary Pandora’s boxes, if only just to peek at it but a little bit. From it you will find incomprehensible truths, but undeniable ones; from this fountain you will find that which is the most valuable, the boon, the golden fleece, the goose which lays the golden eggs; but this is never given freely, it comes at a great cost, you must first slay the Dragon to attain the princess; you just psychologically slay the tyrannical mother in order to attain the real woman hidden behind it (or suffer in remaining the forever-child, Peter Pan’s boys).
The State cares not for anyone lest it affects the security of the State to do so. It cares not for vanity, love, honour, truth, valour, children, orphans, mothers, fathers, families, friends, animals, governance, pain, cruelty, charity, money, wellbeing, materials, even to consciousness it heeds not to, nor does it ordain value. The State simply cares for nothing but it’s own perpetuation; it doesn’t even care for itself into the enduring future. Inasmuch as it can manifest order in order to survive, it does; all other factors are completely and utterly logically irrelevant. It must be deeply stressed that this is the case. We all know examples of this, the State perpetuating itself in face of ethical or moral considerations which even some of the simplest of people could understand if let known, perhaps the likes of Julian Assange, Tommy Robinson, Edward Snowden, or Chelsea Manning could be considered examples of this. They may not have been perfect beings but what a ridiculous measure of credulity (that of it being an incredibly incredulous measure), and one cannot deny that they were at least in part trying to make us all conscious of the mistakes and real incredulity of our State(s). Notice the reaction. Notice the denial of conscious reality replaced by a narrative which completely aligns itself with the narrative presented through the State apparatus. Isn’t it just too coincidental? Do you even as an individual grant such narrative force to the State? If you do, ponder as to why that is the case, if no, then perhaps you have already pondered as to why the State does what it does, and have realized that each and every single State action is 100% cynical.