The Costs of Fundamentalism Have Become too High: On Appropriation, Fundamentalism, and Hypocrisy

 To understand America historically speaking, one must understand Christainity. Christainity is inherently and necessarily based on existentialism, the relief of the posture of ledgered lineage on the merits of a redeeming process that draws its power from transcendental functions. (Less so the immanent ones, only insofar as they inform the required transcendence.)

Fundamentalism implies and drives home on this implication that things truly exist or truly do not exist--that some thing is, precisely as it is. That includes sin, debt, time constraints. Like the market, if one can divine the constraints on any little nest egg of temporality, one can perfectly predict all motions in that container. To the fundamentalist, the fabric of spacetime is flat, all difference of celestial body and gravity are negligible, and that truth is just the same as it is on the Earth...as of course, these fundamental laws apply uniformly (obviously they do not). 

To the fundamentalist, everything is as it seems on the ground; differences in gravity are a hypersensitive’s yuppie scam, and birds are only flying by the motions of nonsense. It should be obvious then these two positions are in general opposition, and one possesses more of the nature of truth...ask any bird, they would gladly certify they are flying on the blockchain if that meant you would leave their obvious motions alone. 

Fundamentalist economics, as made in their American Christian militarism (American fascism) rendition in the portrait described is the absurd and pathological position that due to the positivist assertions inherent in Christain fundamentalism--the force with which these positivist statements are asserted ex nihilo-- one can rationalize murderous claims that accumulate (capitalize) towards the religion from a coercive stance instead of pull people in by their merit. 

In the same way someone might be attracted to the source of their wound, one may be attracted to a Christain fundamentalist that steals resources from a country or society. Is it attraction or is it a need for answers? As we are focusing on America, we keep it Christain for the most part due to the requirements of accurate historical analysis but this is absolutely applicable to other types of fundamentalism as well. 

“What garbage!” Correct. To state that those things which do not adhere to your ideology do not possess the wealth required to inhabit a right to unharassed humanity, or even realized existence, (“you’re not real, therefore it’s ok to kill you”) is indeed not only garbage but entirely not Christain. 

Fundamentalism is, therefore, a combustible economic practice, not a self-consistent and therefore self-creating assertion that draws people in on its merits. These combustible practices are noticeably less efficient than self-consistencies that explain and draw in on their design.

When people say that which is self-consistent and therefore self-affirming, creating its own sphere of gravity, does not possess capital that does not mean they do not possess wealth. They do not possess accumulations of resources, however that does not mean they do not have access to tenacious and sustainable circulations; this is a notion that capitalism when understood from a position of strict materialism often misses out on. 

Just like any process based in force and domestic abuse, the points of fundamentalism are won in a zero sum fashion by subtracting from the somatic intelligence of countries and individuals (show of force) not from a position of truth (which respects sensemaking from optimally healed positions, and can demonstrate its form in a logical fashion from this position.) The “nonnegotiable” of force and its combustible relationship to energy inherent in fundamentalism of any kind is indeed very negotiable. In fact, one would do better in terms of collective potential understanding to not adopt it at all. Do not make this mistake is correct. 

It is under this positive affirmation that proof and appropriation exist. By proving in the positive direction that control of the material has been possessed, insofar as it is culturally recognized as control and not acceptedness or some other form of interaction, one appropriates entirely the fruits and goods of the interaction and distributes them without guilt as the appropriated material has been objectified and in many ways dehumanized, like the grotesque distributions of a meat market. 

The mistake, and risk, of course being that if there is any borrowedness to these interactions, then one while claiming mastery actually goes into a later dimension of debt on the point that no system is possessed in full, as a fundamentalist may think (that by grabbing all necessity one can come to possess would imply that one can even do such a thing). 

As we must come and remain committed to collective potential sensemaking from a positive process, if not position, in good faith the fundamentalist actualizes not much more than domestic violence and robbery/appropriation. And as I understand, such things only persist past their self-consistencies through shows of force--accumulated energies often on borrowed (or extorted) time. 

Fundamentalism is then, inherently against lasting truth.