Generic Arguments: The Post

I've literally heard Nazis say this:

Attached: mobile-phone.jpg (800x533, 179.57K)

I kinda feel that these threads are a bit useless honestly and just spam the board

"black ppl in vidya games make me upset so we need a fascist ethnostate that btfos the sjws" seems to be a common one

What if my aunt likes girls from japan
Also what if my father was killed by a white guy
Omg there are to many problems to name

Attached: IMG_20180410_163646.jpg (960x941, 187.28K)

...

I said to one of them
And then I get called a cuck or whatever

Attached: cd4.jpg (619x671, 54.82K)

...

...

...

Attached: 1425267922146.jpg (201x255, 16.62K)

being anti-natalist is not the same as being some kind of death cultist.

so anyway,

There are benefits to having that. It makes for easy repairs and drives the price for those repairs down to the ground because of how common the parts there is.
We all eat the same food and wear the same clothing and in a majority of cases live in the same model of house already in capitalism because of this simple fact.

well I guess you're right, what I meant to say was that Americans think that all the things we'll have in common in communism would be poor quality. Like we'll all eat bread and milk for every meal and drive shitty cars.

Attached: matt.PNG (701x540, 706.75K)

always good for a chuckle

Attached: 79784b533fc9195274bc493f992f3200c79c65e7c252c7fd44566d70108abf98.png (540x508, 168.72K)

im fully economically leftist but I can't stop being a racial separatist and no amount of normative leftist theory is going to counter the descriptive claims backing it so I'm probably going to eventually get permanently banned from this board but heres a half hearted circlejerk attempt

Attached: DjXt4zgVAAAoJE9.jpg (889x486, 105.46K)

reported for underage user

*a wild romanian appears*
They took my grandpa's factory/farm/church and burn't it to the ground!!!!!!1

Why are you a racial separatist though?

That's literally the "user" namefag who was an ancap and now calls himself a liberalist. I remember him getting really mad in a Ceausescu thread.

answer to all of these is no

Because he has an irrational fear of brown people.

People also attempt to leave Haiti and the Dominican Republic in rafts and boats. But for some reason you never hear about that.

Attached: cuba ball.png (600x450 61.57 KB, 36.88K)

big brain poster, for asking questions and furthering discussion

small brain poster

(pls no ban)
Because it is a natural division among people. Note first of all, that this isn't a theoretical philosophical statement, but a descriptive one. Note that, those who have with people of other races have more bias. People naturally segregate and prefer their own race. Official measures of social cohesion go down with ethnic diversity. Ethnic segregation has nothing to prove, they have worked for thousands and thousands of years. Multiculturism in the US and in europe has led to lots of racial tension and idpol. Desegregation efforts have been going on since 1965 and we are still are segregated just as much if not more than before.
If you were to start a revolution then whether you want to happen or not, your proletariat is going to be ethnically divided and all this "prejudice" and "bias" and "idpol" is never, ever, going to go away. In fact, in a certain way, identity politics is the only politics that can exist, since every "ought" is based on who you are.

You might say "well I'm not openly biased!". This is probably because you live in a wealthier part of your country. For instance, I live in New England. Any hispanics or blacks that I meet here have been filtered and selected for certain traits that allow them to live there. Travel to San Diego or Lousiana where the majority of such minority populations live, and you will become openly biased against them. Even my libshit sister who vied for "black lives matter" movements and such became openly biased against hispanics.

If ones state is ethnically homogenous, then there is no need to focus on idpol.
Unemployment for blacks was lowest under segregation because they didn't have to compete with whites, they had their own autonomy.

I have mountains of data to back up what I am saying. In every single measure, more diversity in ethnicity is a bad thing (barring perhaps GDP per capita, but confidence intervals are too large to tell. Very small effect, plus GDP isn't a great measure anyways)

Even considering the possibility that in actuality having different races in the same area in the same country has zero downsides, then in practicality everyone is still going to be biased and there is going to be racial division. You would literally have to remove part of their brain (amygdala) in order to get them to do what you want.

I've tailored this response to appeal to the stereotypical Zig Forums perspective as much as I could. I fear if I post papers then I'll get banned.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arirang_(smartphone)

Attached: kittysong.mp4 (640x360, 7.32M)

Your brain on /pol.

Race doesn't matter the way you think it does. I'm poor as fuck and I don't have any major problems with my black or hispanic neighbors on account of their race. I've had a lot more problems with the local authorities. I don't really have the time or interest to bother with purifying my neighborhood on race grounds, even if I were a triggered poltard. It's only because you're a sheltered faggot that you obsess over this shit in the first place.

I don't care about loving people of other races or if they love me. We're not interested in whatever strawman belief you've attributed to us.

did you even read my post? Nobody cares what you may think, people care about race and thats the way it is.

Attached: genforward.png (1036x650, 20.98K)

the ABSOLUTE STATE of Zig Forumstards

genforwardsurvey.com/assets/uploads/2017/10/September-2017-Final-Toplines.pdf
hers ur source bruh

People don't care the way you think they care. There aren't a whole lot of people gearing up to fight a Nazi masturbation fantasy because Nazi masturbation fantasys are retarded, like you.

Please explain why a cntrl+f search of the term "personal identifiers" terms up nothing in the entire source and how come my quick scroll through of the entire thing did not show a graph like the one you posted.

Attached: hmmm.png (3244x2062, 253.4K)

its p.g. 17

Then your graph is still wrong. Top 3 identifiers for all races are race, gender, and
==economic class==.

No its not wrong.
The question asked ~each individual~ to select their top three most important identifiers. This is why the percentages don't add up to 100%
The graph just selects three categories to showcase across races.

Anyways, case in point, people care more about race than economic class, which is particularly relevant so thanks for bringing that up I guess.
Blacks identify with race TWICE AS OFTEN as economic class. I would be willing to bet actually that if they were forced to pick a single one, race would be at the top of most of the lists actually.
There is a reason that maoist china and the USSR both started as purely third worldist/communist movements then quickly evolved to nationalist regimes (as I understand it, though I'm sure people on this board have more nuance to offer)

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-08-25 at 11.38.14 PM.png (1346x84, 22.82K)

The problem is that every capitalost hangs these fruit from their branches.

You need not go any further than this

to explain this

t. probably doesn't even know what a confidence interval is

The US remained segregated after it was no longer law because the same people living in those neighborhoods still live there now. That it turn creates a culture of segregation. It's the unfortunate side effect of Jim Crow.

Aside from that, redlining exists. People are economically segregated.

Stop being spooked by race.

If you read my post, I'm not even making the claim of innate racial difference or the existence of race. Rather, I'm making the claim that people are largely "spooked" by race, and there is nothing you can do to change it. Even if you may think its an anachronistic notion, it is still more relevant than economic identity.

True. This translates into racial segregation.
Well, yes. What I am talking about though is widely known about. Have you never heard of "white flight"? Ya know, the mass exodus of white people from cities?
You can call it culture or call it innate, but the fact is it hasn't gone away. The level of segregation has increased since 1980. Decades of campaigns by the government to end this have basically done nothing. This culture seems pretty persistent…
Again I just want to note that unemployment of blacks hasn't been as low as it had been under legal segregation when blacks had their own businesses that didn't have to compete with white businesses.

I lol'd.

what did he mean by this?

...

and per capita strikes again

So the point of welfare is just to feed the nigras, then.
Fucking Galaxy Brain take. Jesus.

This is the thing I don't get about race discussions on the Left rn, why reach for racism as the explanatory factor for a phenomenon when other factors explain the issue just as well?

A poster here pointed out that these discussions always start with some sort of inequality between racial groups and then use that inequality to prove racism in a circular fashion–when, in fact, there could be many reasons that explain differing outcomes among racial groups.

I don't think that Asian or Jewish success can be explained as a result of racism either against disadvantaged groups (blacks, latinos etc.) or against non-hispanic whites. Rest assured, I'm not convinced by the "race realist" explanations either but we can say there are other casual factors at play.

I might go into this later when I have more time but for instance with redlining, I've heard identity libs argue that 1. its racist if banks do not lend to blacks 2. the hotcakes home lending to "POC" that occurred before the Great Recession was racist because it indebted them with loans they could not pay

It's possible that both explanations could be true at the same time but unlikely. I also think its extremely nebulous to think that something such as credit allocation, which is governed by the economic laws of capitalism, can be constrained by anything as petty racial ideology; money talks and bullshit walks.

I find it doubly ironic that the same people who complain about redlining also complain about gentrification and the negative effects of suburbanization. If more "POC" got loans that would enable them to own homes then they would also have an interest in keeping property values high, much like your typical white suburbanite. The end result would be even more rapid and extreme "gentrification" as rents rise to match rising property values and so on. Most people agree that the lionshare of the divergence in wealth held by similar black and white income groups comes from the fact that white families are more likely to own a home instead of renting. Should this really be encouraged? What is the benefit to the working class that more blacks should pay big mortgages in the hope that their house won't go under-water? Its pretty obvious that even if a person "owns" a $100,000 house and pays mortgage on it that really the bank is the true owner of the house; on paper, he is wealthier and may derive real benefits from this, but in real terms he is often no better off than someone who rents a house of the same value in real terms.

Just some thoughts.

No, these are not actually the same thing, unless you think that people who live in rich gated communities and people living in trailer parks are somehow the same because they share the same skin color.

Jesus fucking christ I just said it was an integration attempt. Yes, in actually there is little SES movement and 70% of african americans benefit from it, but the POINT is that it is an integration attempt. It isn't my fault that I have to meme you this point.

Paying poor black people = integration attempt that goes against muh nature
Paying poor white people = completely legitimate, fair and justified and how dare dem Jews take our gibs away

The logic of Zig Forumsacks.

literally never said that
you have nothing but projection and are incapable of debate sorry

And there we have it: 'there is nothing you can do to change it'. You betray your Zig Forumstardation once more, arguing as if it's a given. This is the reasoning of the 'Beautiful Soul' - the one who proudly claims things as if they're given while actually being a part of the very process of things. You are one of many, of course, dancing to the rhythm of the thought of servitude to some external essence which apparently cannot be controlled when you could in fact give us a hand. Even if all your claims about 'muh commies were third-worldists' and shit like that were true, you're forgetting that racism and any other social phenomenon is mediated at the very least in part through reason, which is in fact the commons of humans, the only species which actually has some sort of behaviour that is beyond fixed social organisation aimed at mere species survival that is internal to the species - or in FED's words, we are meta-social ( dialectics.org/dialectics/Glossary_files/Glossary,Definition,Human_'META-Sociality',28FEB2015.jpg ). We can engage other humans on a rational level, hence we can engage racism on a rational level and discern its origin - and we have Lacanian psychoanalysis and dialectics for just that. We can show that the supercession and eventual abolition of the racial identity will be beneficial to people of all racial backgrounds and that the survivalism of identity politics is what will actually lead to more destruction than ever before and if taken to its conclusion, new racial categories as the standards of 'racial purity' or whatever change. Moreover, there is always the transhumanist solution - on the purely genetic front (so I'm not even talking about technological implants and whatnot here), it is not that of eugenicist breeding in terms of how we once bred plants and cows, or even a looting of the genetic supermarket, but rather the creation and selection of the most effective genes for all things.

Well, I agree they aren't exactly the same but I am just referring to how it is a component that translates into the racial segregation
- races clump together on SES
- people geographically clump together based on SES
- it follows that SES clumping contributes to racial clumping geogrpahically
is all I'm saying. Not really a significant point though anyways.

Yes, you did. You totally did. Conservitards are always so grossly dishonest about every single thing they say and do.

quote the text. do it.
show it.
its impossible because I literally have made only 1 normative claim (separatism) and the rest is descriptive to back it up.
im turd positionist you idiot

Which makes you a conservative who lies about his own position, retard.

Unless you're Mussolini, we know what you're asking for. Seriously, who else is the government money gonna go to? Nobody? Are you a lolbert too?

Well, I guess I can't truly respond until I've read that pdf, which I definitely will.
Yes, like fiat currency or regard for authority. I am aware of this, it isn't something that I missed. My barebones argument was intended purely for this board that wouldn't tolerate any sort of material differences between subpopulations. That wasn't Zig Forumstardation, it was making it kosher for this board. Moving on…
From what I can glean from your post, you are essentially suggesting eradication of idpol through 2 other measures?

- Engaging in Lacanian psychoanalysis and dialectics (aka talking about it a lot)
- The transhumanist solution

I don't know about lacanian psychoanalysis (inb4 dumb Zig Forumstard, work with me here) but from my point of view if people could find a formulaic way to make people stop being racist in an efficient manner, such a method would be widely used and documented in literature. The only way I know of to stop people from being racist is removal of the amygdala.

I am really hesitant to consider the transhumanist point of view since there is a whole host of moral questions that comes with that.

I'm overall pretty convinced that separatism is the most practical way to obliterate race idpol atm but I will read that pdf.

somehow the point of integration failure (which is a talking point for anybody talking about race in the US at all…) became
lol ok bud have fun with that

What are you saying here? You're talking about 'material differences'? They don't speak for themselves; the forces which we talk about are being spoken about by us - this is a matter of human praxis. There are multiple ways to tackle this problem that you speak about even if we assume that there is inherent racial inferiority. The standards identitarian right-wing take is a response to an XY problem of their creation.
It is not simply talking about it but about uncovering its basis and showing how it can overcome itself. Concepts, when taken to their extremes and approximating themselves, (at least in many cases) are not enough for themselves and cannot justify themselves ( dialectics.org/dialectics/Primer_files/Karl_H._Seldon_,_for_F.E.D._,_v.2.0_,_Introduction_to_'Contra-Boolean'_Thinking_,_21MAY2016.pdf ).
But racism, like other social phenomena, is irreducible to the brain. Some try to make scientific justifications for racism which are independent of the lower-level and less-reasoned justifications used at the emotional level. The latter are often highly subjective. The whole point is to root out this reasoning entirely, at least with regards to the kinds of knowledge that we have (including religion-like moral doctrines and sciences).
It is the only solution for liberation; if done in a democratic and empowering fashion, it would allow for greater human control. That is the point of Communism: the free tyranny of reason alone - not by some technocrat's will but by the will of subjects who universalise themselves.
Somehow we already have an idea of your political orientations and we know what you're looking to justify. What, are we just hopeless at sticking 'another label' on you? Are we misrepresenting your claims and motives? It's not enough to simply take what you say here in isolation but what the ending of your reasoning alongside that of whom you're associating with. You admit that you're trying to 'tone down the rhetoric' so that it's 'kosher for this board', indicating that you're probably not from here even though you've lurked a little bit. My advice: lurk a ton more and read some Zizek and FED stuff.

Jesus christ they should've used latex this looks cancerous
I was, but I took your point and moved on with this:
in mind. I should have been more clear I guess.
The domain is the brain interacting with the environment, yes? So mustn't you either make a change in the brain or the environment?
This was confusing because I thought you were talking about explaining the phenomenon of racism and now I think you are talking about the justification of racist acts, or the state of being "racist". I agree about the two levels of justification (ought and is) with the ought being subjective…
In what sense are you talking about justification? I am very off kilter since I know you don't consider what "is" to be justification of what is. I am coming from a very hume point of view mind you.
Probably because I openly said I was a separatist painting my position is something other than true communism and so has all sorts of qualities you people are quick to critique and strawman. Like most people on this board, (and I think like most people in general) I want to end ethnic idpol and see separatism as the most immediate realistic way to do so, by accepting what currently is the case and working with it (accepting racism). I don't believe the challenge of eradicating racism will be accomplished in our lifetime, or frankly as long as different races exist.

On the contra boolean logic, have you actually read and understood that? I'm currently taking graduate courses in math so I probably am better equipped than the average joe to understand it. Modeling something as dynamic and chaotic as human thought with boolean type logic seems absurd and like crackpottery to me honestly. Can you normalize or justify this sort of thing to the uninitiated? Give it a sliver of credibility? Going in dry without context probably isn't productive.

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-08-26 at 4.15.20 AM.png (1224x732, 378.18K)

This is a reduction of the social world to biological phenomena - i.e. that we are brains. The essence of reason as a kind of matter or a set of rules for a specific kind of matter (distinguished by its organisation) is not reducible to brains or any biological processes no matter how much it depends on biological processes for its existence - in much the same way that although we are sustained by chemical processes, we are not reducible to such chemical processes. Formal logic (of which Boolean logic is a single kind) is entirely-capable of modelling species development with regards to social animals - and this is not unknown to biologists - but it cannot model human thought, through which we assign and derive meanings concerning whatever is relevant to human praxis - i.e. the (real, material) world.
I'm saying that even if we eradicated emotions through eradicating amygdalas (assuming that this would be the result of that kind of surgical procedure), that would not stop racism because it, like any other kind of result of reasoning, is absolutely irreducible to emotion in the wake of subjective experiences. The point of each new kind of knowledge throughout history to date is that it is invariant with regards to certain specific things which are discussed 'lower down' - for example: the scientific method doesn't rest upon very specific metaphysics; philosophical reason is independent of religion. 'Race realists' know this to some extent and posit that whatever evidence that they serve up does not rest upon ethical or philosophical claims but 'hard facts'.

They cannot give an adequate reason as to why they are correct (this is particularly the case with things which involve algebra, as Goedel's incompleteness laws show). It is just like how Hegel's Being cannot be meaningful unless it juxtaposes itself against Nothing - which is supposed to not be Being - without a third category to unify and distinguish between the two. From one idea it is possible to construct two or more (in this case, three), and Hegel goes on to produce many more by selecting points of ideas around which 'determinate negation' occurs, yielding new ideas out of old ones from whatever is common between the old ideas and has not been 'negated' before. For working out new qualitative ideas, dialectics as a kind of logic reigns supreme.
How is 'separatism' any different from ethnic idpol? What's more, here we go again with the 'realistic' mentality. This is something which plagues the left, as it happens: we call it 'opportunism', the sucking up of leftism to liberal and reactionary discourse and praxis - the same shit that has made the social democrat cause a fucking mess. The whole point is that we strive for absolutely radical change and we seek to develop methods of doing it even though we are a minority. The same was true of Lenin, as my angry and heavily-formatted rebuttal to some Zig Forumsyp shit tries to demonstrate through a quote of Zizek. We know that racism is a matter of reasoning more than anything else and we already have some ideas of how to engage it (Lacan). It is not something that is automatically out of our grasp.
I've already addressed this earlier in the post: it is not a Boolean algebra or even a set of formal doctrines but a contra-Boolean algebra.

Attached: 951c7a8e0535ec432f9da61fdfb35e0fd1e27976a1852fcf9d4cab16dd572b6f.png (474x711, 90.48K)

You might find this trite, but I disagree with this. I see reason as a result of chemical processes and as such not something in itself but rather hallucinations produced by such processes. Though I've been told that materialism is unjustifiable and a symptom of our STEM success, but I've yet to be read or be referenced the good criticism.
You are saying that it is theoretically possible to model species development via formal logic? I don't see how this is relevant. Also the proof of this would be interesting because I can't think of how this would be theoretically possible.
I'm sorry but this is something else I just fundamentally disagree on. I am too Hume'd for this discussion perhaps. For instance, I see this invariance of certain epistemologies you mention as evidence that people's brains are just statistical machines that measure reality and create local approximation functions of those points to create models. The rules don't have any transcendental meaning, they are "sophistry and illusion" we create and the only real truth is in the unknowable reality. I pin racism as primarily emotional, and the rationalization and reasoning comes after the fact.
To be fair, race realism is (or should be) empirical and 'hard facts' colloquially means 'science-based and empirical'.
lmao not a very cogent point to be making to a math person. I find your affinity for formal logic as some sort of absolute truth as baseless, though I'm sure you have some interesting justification.
Again, doubt it because of my 2hume4u beliefs

I hope you don't think I'm being intentionally difficult or not engaging in good faith, my empiricist and materialist views are quite common, as is my view of human beings as fundamentally just another animal.

Never heard this one. I thought the Western racists don't usually consider Russians fully white, always pointing out the Tatar yoke.

Attached: le asiatic russians.jpg (755x1024, 232.06K)

Zig Forums falseflaggers on here say that all of the time, it's a talking point among some Russian vatniks too

Also that is retarded the USSR was probably the most ethnic and cultural diverse nation on earth

Attached: 1280px-Ethnic_map_USSR_1941.jpg (1280x789, 510.34K)

based and redpilled.
also most of the people who talk about muh soviet ethnostate are just Asserites or Seige Nazis who hijack socialism as their own with some 4D chess shit about muh based anti-semitic Stalin

There's a book from a O9A Nazi that Stalin was a Nazbol.

amazon.com/Stalin-Enduring-Legacy-Kerry-Bolton/dp/1908476427

update: on page 13 of pdf, yeah you talk about empiricism and how it is reactionary in nature, I'm going to assume you completely address it.

This is not materialism but empiricist idealism in disguise as crude materialism - and it is precisely what was answered by Lenin in Materialism & Empirio-Criticism and PDF related. The problem with empiricism is that as a theory of knowledge it states that all that we know comes from sense-data as something external to us and our praxis, and that our praxis can only be informed by it. For empiricists, qualitatively-new ideas can only come from this sense-data but the sense-data often or almost always justifies itself as having some sort of form which we can already approximate with formal models that have fixed qualities, hence through Ockham's razor we don't need to include such qualities in our scientific models. However, this means going up against the very form of empirical data itself and the various qualitative discontinuities between different forms of data - which correspond with different kinds of matter as FED describes. It is silly to say that reason is caused by chemical processes because no chemical processes can be isolated to explain particular thoughts; it is a useless theory. If everything is mechanical, we can provide a fixed number of qualities which we must already have to be able to explain it all, noting only changes in quantities - or at most, changes in the quantitative mathematical systems that we use to describe them. This breaks down with humans, most obviously due to self-reference: which chemical processes explain the thought of isolating those chemical processes which cause us? And which processes explain the thought of thinking about those processes which supposedly explain the thought of isolating those processes? We are met with an infinity of thoughts. If this isn't enough, some ideas (which FED label as being 'autokinetic') must, in order to avoid a paradoxical situation, keep including themselves iteratively - such as the set of all sets, which must keep on including itself as a set. We require new qualities to extend our models to in order to understand the world, though this is not entirely possible with modelling reason since we are using reason to model itself, which is hopeless if we are to remain within reason as it is given Goedel's incompleteness theroems. Ideas approximating themselves yield themselves plus qualitative changes in themselves (more precisely: determinate negations). Rafiq has said much about this: revleft.space/vb/threads/196200-Veganism?p=2876704#post2876704 revleft.space/vb/threads/195909-The-Origin-of-Leftist-Thought-in-Modern-Times

With given qualities, Darwinian evolution can be modelled very well right up until the times when intra-species architectures of organisation do not correspond with non-rational, 'physiological' changes and despite relatively-scarce changes there, such architectures begin to shift much more rapidly. This is the case with humans, whose social architectures have changed through history as Marx and Engels have described (we have different relations of production and family structures, for example, which have been dominant at different times in our history). With non-rational entities, it is far easier to do it with the only obstacle being that we can't fully-describe real processes of Darwinian evolution to their greatest levels of detail. However, we do know of the primary mechanisms such as genes and epigenetic factors.
Yet all emotion is communicated in Lacan's symbolic order, the order of reason itself. It is simply a less-developed reasoning. Additionally, no, we are not computers which only think in terms of formal logic - how would we have arrived at ideas which qualitatively grow themselves, which is impossible in formal logic? Note that when I say 'invariance' in this context, I am talking about a sort of independence from other kinds of thought. Philosophy decoupled morals from God and tied it to rational discussion involving ideas and empirical data which we develop and collect - otherwise, we would be caught in discussions about whether we may know the mind of God or not. Sciences decoupled empirical observations (from which we form morals) from philosophical scepticism and idealism. However, that does not mean that philosophies and sciences are static or that we finish with sciences. They may also operate on themselves as systems of ideas and then produce something qualitatively-more than themselves (FED labels such 'sciences of sciences' as 'psychohistories'). Marx decouples human thought from it being thrown into the abyss of being declared 'unknowable', for only as analysing it as something distinct from other kinds of objective material process can we make it knowable to us.
Ugh. That's not what I've been saying at all. First, what I'm saying is that formal logic is HOPELESS at modelling human thought, and this is shown through Goedel's incompleteness theory alone if not anything else. Because of that, no, it is NOT an absolute truth. In fact, in failing to approximate and justify itself, IT STRIPS ITSELF OF ANY CROWN THAT IT HAS AS 'ABSOLUTE TRUTH'. Please read what I'm bothering to say before you give me this shit. Secondly, racism is at best for its case as unjustifiable as anything else. The key refutation against it is that we have a commons of reason which is not determined (at the very least, in full) by biology. Racism at its current height is scientific ideology which is argued in favour of using empirical data and models which compute this data and bind it to qualities.
Explain which non-rational processes are causes for the reasoning behind racism in all its inapproximable horror. Hint: dialectics.org/dialectics/Primer_files/Principle_12_of_12_,_The_Principle_of_'Metafinity'_,_09AUG2016.pdf

is a continuation of , meant for . Also take PDF related.