Zoe (and politics)

I'm a little bit freaked out by ... how much of a bid deal this seems to be. And there are multiple layers to it. As from my own perspective, there are just a few things I really care about. And as with all the other things I would identify with, accuracy is one of them. And ... this isn't an attack helicopter situation. But that it moves into the realm where people might put it as on par with "Identifying as President of the USA" - is what makes it weird.

For me.

But sure. Looking at fictional Characters, they usually have their own fictional history - and in that regard I could not be them and they could not be me. That much should be obvious. And so we all (should) understand that. But we may also understand that we are at liberty to find similarities. And around that axis, we may regard their fictional histories as an abstract. Like, "trauma". Like, "tough childhood", or ... "born into privilege" - such things. And it doesn't matter how small or big our individual experience with that is in comparison. The older we grow the more likely we are to have a complex wealth of experiences that can be mapped onto all sorts of comparably flat and narrow fictional backgrounds.

What adds to that is that these fictional Characters overall don't exist in a Vacuum. So, there are a great many Characters; And so it's not just whether we can individually relate with a Character, at least to our own individual understanding, but 'how much' in comparison to other Characters there are or may be.

And then there's a difference between 'relating intimately' or thinking a Character is cool. And overall nobody would care; Until a person is by some happenstance large enough to be themselves a Character. Like so, to some people Elon Musk is like Iron Man and Donald Trump like Jesus. Or the God Emperor of Warhammer 40k. Or whatever. I personally don't see it, but well.

With that situation, I find myself in a bit of a predicament. On the one hand because I definitely am someone; Someone of renown even; No matter how much some people would like to denie it. But therein also lies the dilemma.

For instance are there social dynamics in play with almost everything. The thing with famous people here is, that they, by their "image", are larger than they are themselves. Like, the Queen of England or Michael Jackson may have been known - or still are known - by most people on this planet. Enough even for individual cultural identities to evolve around them. But if we're looking at their lives closer, they didn't have to ask for a majority acknowledgment to be regarded for whom they had become. Eventually all it takes - I learned that from reading Britney Spears' book - although it should also be obvious - is to know one person that can put you into a booth where you can sing; And eventually a lot of people can come to know you. And then there is that collective energy of people that appreciate them - but all that isn't part of their individual social dynamics anymore.

More to the point: In terms of social dynamics, these celebrities come to 'circumvent' matters of 'group acknowledgment' because they are "accessible" to the individual independent from that. So, if I'm a fan of this or that person, that's just how it is and with enough people "doing the same", they become celebrities.

And so is the thing with Zoe, that once people come to a certain understanding of who or what she might be, that she's like a celebrity. I mean, in a way she already is by virtue of being like ... a Character of some ancient mythology that has somehow endured the ages. What may have been missing is some extra bit of context to put her position into perspective, being like the female counterpart to Jesus, but either way, it becomes publically accessible - and maybe most importantly: In a vastly inconsequential way.

Yet by how the social dynamics align, it's easier to get away with claiming that Madonna is Ariel, than claiming that I am Zoe. That because Madonna already enjoys a public social standing - to the point where people in a sense even Worship her - that makes the Ariel addition also relatively inconsequential. Sure might people try to deny that - getting into a cancellation campaign over it or whatever - as for once the matter of who Ariel is or what that might imply might become more relevant. But at that point these people also would have a hard time - I'd argue - to deny what she is already.
I'll admit, quarreling over this might not be worth the effort. Like who cares? It doesn't really matter! We can exist as ourselves and move on with our lives regardless. There is like ... nothing to be gained from it.

Or is there?

Well, that would be the issue. I think. At least for me. It's like in that song: "Everytime I plant a seed - he said kill it, before they grow". Because ... the moment that people start to appreciate what I do, I'm automatically entering the celebrity hemisphere - where I'm not sure if you can appreciate what I do without that happening. And maybe it wouldn't be so bad, if it weren't for "the implications" of that. Like, the way I feel about it, people who are on the verge of "giving" me that kind of appreciation are reminded of "the responsibility" - that they thereby also enable those aspects of "what I do" that follow.
But that's Bullshit!
Sure - it might be implied that I'm this or that - but that alone wouldn't make people ... appreciate it.
God would know a thing or two about that!

The thing is very well that I do have to earn my name - like, from scratch. Or in other terms: Fill out those shoes. Which would or should be like ... one requirement for wearing them.

No, it's all about the celebrity status itself. To be in a position from where that appreciation might grow.
Of course would people eventually start using terms to simplify "what's happening" - like ... using the term 'Prophet'. Or Queen maybe. And if we put it up for a vote - President of Earth mayhap. CO - Chief Overlord.

So, making it sound outrageous that I might claim to be this or that - is just using the celebrity standing of this or that to knock me down. Because - it poses the question, unto you, whether or not you acknowledge that claim of mine. Even if the question were directed at me. "Herp, so ... you want 'to be Zoe?". "Well, I'm not sure, actually. But let's say I'm not, what were I then?".
An impostor? Well, am I ... an impostor?

I mean, if people could be straighforward about it from the start, to say that there are "issues", that would also ... change how people might react to it. And though history may teach us that the "I'm not saying that she's [x or y], but" downplaying strategy should be effective - it all depends on what follows the but, because ... the way I see it, the cards on my table are so utterly in my favor that I shouldn't be too concerned about it.
I mean, if all the people who care about it only speak against me - or more to the point: The obvious parts laid out in front of everybody - they'll be the ones doing more towards establishing what is implied than anyone who appreciates me for what I'm doing ever could. Because ... sure ... if we're honest: We can't say, with utter certainty, what it is that God wants and such.

And yea. If there's no difference between what you may think about Zoe and what you may think about me - what's even the point? 'Nicole' ... 'Christina Sonnberger' - should suffice.

I mean - if we want to talk about ancient figures, we're also talking about ancient history. Whatever Zoe did - for all we know - has already happened a long time ago. And although we are certainly defined by our past actions - we shouldn't feel doomed to repeat them forever and ever just to do justice to our name. Life is also about growing and thus moving on - to yield the fruits of past actions for sure. Now, yielding someone else's fruits - especially if they wouldn't want that - is bad. Sure. But that's also kind of why I ought to be at least a little bit upset myself.

For, if we say that [anything] is reserved for [someone] - although it's like a public thing based on individual choices - should that stop us from ... moving on?

So yea, there is definitely a barrier between fiction, what it implies, and reality, the things we do. And so there is a barrier preventing us from taking fictional - or potentially fictitious ideas - into real life. It's at the very least cringe when people who didn't really earn it do it - but it's also stupid to make fictitious ideas stop us from moving.

I mean, if I have sympathies for some people; And amongst those are people who have compatible sympathies for me; And there are synergies and all that - just as a fact - that would be something we should appreciate. Those that it concerns. People could then go and draw comparisons to whatever. Greek Mythology, Norse Mythology, Gnostic Mythology - and imply that we're cringe for behaving that way. That's just ... basically what lefties mean by social constructs. Like, the same is true for Gender. Prior to coming out there's the Gender Assigned at Birth that the person has to live up to - and after coming out it's whatever the other thing is that they ought to live up to. But that's nonsense. We are to be who we are ourselves. I mean, perhaps it would seem as though trans people should be more vulnerable to the social stereotypes that are ascribed to a given gender; At least do the nay-sayers behave that way; Though, if they were to actually look at how broad the diversity among either gender is, they should be able to understand that their "ought to's" don't mean shit!

But OK, let's say that some people just can't help themselves. I mean, my Mother is really supportive of me - but she also has her very own idea of how things should be. Including how I should behave. And I suppose ... some parts of it are true, for sure. Often enough I however see it as a temptation, because ... overall I have my own ideas of how I should behave, the things that are important and how to organize my priorities accordingly. To some degree that also involves a lot of stubborness - and that's where I have to agree that I should yield to the one or the other thing. That also makes it so that certain demands appear like a nuisance; Where I get into the mind that "I have more important things to do" while all I do is ... waste hours watching nonsense on YouTube.
On the other hand however - as I try to improve, in areas that aren't easy for me to improve in, the progress is slow - maybe not even visible; And that too is annoying.

Long story short ... sometimes it can help to lean into the things that people try to impose upon you. I guess. It's not always pretty. You know, if people take you for a criminal, where's the harm in actually becoming one? Well - there's the harm done and the potential for getting caught.
One of the things 'we'(TM) do however, is to lean into being the bad guys in movies. It's like ... we've completed our individual hero's journeys - have become Elden Lord sotospeak - and now there's all those Tarnished aiming for the throne. But more so, if 'they' insist so hard on being the good guys, in Minecraft, why shouldn't we let them? Unless we forget that what matters is what happens IRL - what's the harm?

That people might forget?

Hmm ... I suppose there was a time where I could have laughed at that ...

Anyway ... it appears to be so then, that I have to lean a bit more heavily into marketing. I mean, marketing a product is one thing. It's like an established science at this point. Stuff like "brand recognition" and all that. A long long time ago that was just expected excentricity. And so I have ideas, images, floating around in my mind - and some people might share that. A lot of people even, at least in the aspired future, but to make it more than just a puff in our heads, we need to like make it a thing. And by 'we' I suppose the idea might be that we all just wait until someone does.

Anyhow. So - first of all, 'my symbol' - as to put onto flags and banners and all that - is the same I use for my Glyphs. The upper half of a sun - 7 rays - with an additional ray detached from that sun going down - on a black background. It is to represent my exaltedness, but in that very same stretch the Gnostic Dilemma. The isolation of one's individual mind - as illuminated by God - and what little of it we can 'give'.
To make it more about me, I had the idea of a woman in place of the ray stretchign down - with some rays (for decoration) visible behind and the head being like in front of the sun. The woman is embracing a large sword, say, a Zweihander. Alternatively ... a woman holding a lantern, possibly by a chain. Or a woman embracing a Zweihander while holding a lanter by a chain.

The Circle-Triangle-Square is I think the best symbol for Gnosticism overall - the Triangle and Square represent the Three Principle and the Four Lights respectively - while the circle represents one-ness and the twelve Aeons.

Zoe herself is typically represented as a woman with brown skin and long, smooth blonde hair and amber eyes. Her facial features are simplistic, her body type is extremely feminine. She is very tall and sturdy rather than frail. Her curvature is evenly distributed (and her waiste isn't dented).
Usually she wears a simple, white garments/dress (showing a lot of skin and aligns to her contures) and "is glowing like the sun".

"We" also simp the German Colors (Black, Red and Gold) - Black for the Mangle, Red for the Passion and Gold for the Virtue.

Politics

Though the idea is that we're open to discussion - and that we want to develop our identity organically, extended into whatever complex diversity may emerge from it - there are, at least for the contemporary times, certain things I think are or should be beyond discussion. These things we may take as dogma, or simply imply as the given common sense we regard to be the standard.

Generally we might say that we don't care for as long as it works - though "what works" can be a complex question. A question, as these days would have it, dragged into all sorts of issues we might at some point find stupid and nonsensical. Whether one is for or against [a thing]. This produces topics that further produce stances and positions we don't necessarily see as part of our identity, but exist due to the imposed context nonetheless.
Hence individual positions may vary - as we, for instance, support feminism and meninism alike.

We embrace emancipation, but also imposed and elective diversity.

Or so, while we may say - by words and actions - that contemporary politics DON'T work, we don't want our movement to be understood as anti-political, anti-democratic or anti-establishment. We are very much political, pro-democracy and pro-establishment. But, we believe that the establishment should exist in favor of the people, for instance, rather than the other way around.

We can also say that we don't culturally appropriate, but that we are culturally appropriated. But as individual views of what any of that even means may differ; It's as fair to say that we are for both and against either.

We do not like to get dragged into topics such as colonialism or slavery; Because these are matters that concern individual entities - individuals and collectives alike - of the past and their actions. We however try to regard life as gift to be lived; And therefore we are very much against some things that these topics imply, but also very much in favor of other things that these topics imply; Even if they wouldn't be worth mentioning - given the political climate around these topics.

We believe in truth - and the reality there is that attempting to formulate any one specific statement of what that entails, is in a sense already very much against the spirit of what it implies. We don't say that there is no absolute truth - we very much understand that absolute truth is a given inevitability. Because we are however emergent from the mangle, we can't always guarantee that our understanding thereof is sufficient. We grow as we learn - and we imply that anyone does so at their own pace. Thus imposing things that are to be believed is difficult. But, of course:

That also means that we don't have any particular religious beliefs that should be of any political importance.
Likewise, we believe in the separation between Church and State.

We don't believe that they shouldn't be able to co-exist or work together; But that both are entities that each have individual concerns, dedicated to questions that shouldn't be dragged into the respective other. Naturally, people involved in politics can be religious and people involved in religion can be political. Being religious shouldn't exempt one from political consequences and being political shouldn't exempt one from religious consequences.

We also believe in Climate Change, which involves its effect on what is otherwise called 'Weather'.
We understand that we can affect the Global Climate; And that we should be mindful of not affecting it too negatively.

We don't think that the earth is flat.
Subsequently we even believe in the Coreolis Effect.

Naturally we value education; And we believe that hiding the reality of things from our children is a disservice to their development. Of course there is a good and a bad time for a lot of things - but we so for instance believe that Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity is a topic pervasive enough that hiding it from them isn't only a disservice to them, but to culture and civilization at large.
Needless to say: We detest propaganda aimed at teaching kids "ought to's" from a position of authoirty and wishful thinking by utilizing lies and other means of manipulation. We believe that we should be honest - which includes the fact that sometimes ... well ... we don't know!
We should help them to grow up into strong independent beings, rather than mindless drones freaking out under the forces that be.

We also detest the political or ideological concept of purity. They that think themselves pure enough to challenge this should be free to come forth and speak out, as we certainly also value freedom of speech. Freedom of Speech does however not circumvent our cultural and ideological convictions - and in that regard 'the will of the people' is a democratic condition.

Being Straight is a sexual orientation, selective breeding is an individual preference and pedophilia is a complex condition. We believe that the individual should strive to be of no harm to the people around them - and that not only by words but also by actions.
We also believe that life starts with the first breath we take - and I think it's fair to start being concerned with the life of a fetus, as on par with that of a person, once it is capable of breathing.
Breath is the foundation of speech - and as such it is the voice of human life.
We do believe that the pro-forced-birth movement is a bunch of crazy people! We also don't like the idea that people, God may be counted unto them by the way, that are support the right of abortion are a death cult or entirely against the concept of child-birth. To call Dune Pro-Life because it has a conscious fetus in it is ... technically not wrong but in the contemporary political context also utterly idiotic!

We're proud - in a sense - that you can appreciate some of the values that Dune promotes, if it only would stretch beyond the dumbest possible things ... that'd be sweet! Like so, there is context. Reasons for why a thing is good or bad - and that's prior to "Media Literacy" a matter of basic common sense.
And some things just are. Which is one of the fundamental pillars of our belief.
We believe that we have not only one, but many choices. Whether you ascribe that to the freedom of will or a lack thereof is practically irrelevant. Either way, we believe that satisfying our short term demands tends to not solve the actual problems we face.

If you have to hide behind people's stupidity/ignorance to acquire intellectual renown you're a pathetic clown!

We also believe that if Gender should be of political relevance, we should aspire to institute a Matriarchy. One that lets men be men - and doesn't deny women to be women. Trans logic included.

We also believe that I, at least in the spririt, am the first Matriarch of humanity - if not everything - and that while me wiggling the finger doesn't right away impose consequences, it should yet come as a warning of sorts.
But overall I think we lean more towards Gender abolition. The thing however being, that certain properties of existing cannot be abolished.
The human spirit is capable of great complexity, which does - in respects to co-existence - inherently produce modes of polarity. Some are spiritual - to say that ascribing them to a gender or a gender to them is difficult - and others are corporeal - to say that removing the concept of gender from them is difficult. We believe that if gender should matter, it should matter in terms of the properties that are ascribed to the gender, as for the given context; As opposed to the gender in and of itself. And while the man might be he who does, the women would be she who watches. To say: We don't want our politics to be shortsighted and mindless.

We appreciate the sublime splendour of God's work - and are much looking forward to leave the pompous prickery of today behind.

Political Motions

Regardless of what else we might add - or what should be marked as semi-serious because it might be a stretch or ... odd ... - the question of our political endeavors might still be lacking a cohesive answer. It's like I'm good at making a big fuzz about things; A fuzz that may not be wrong but still lacks cohesion. So, as for an agenda:

First of all we vote for us because we're sick and tired of the nonsense that is politics sometimes. We want to get onto the same page - and though that might entail us to brute force a many-party-system into existence where it isn't in place yet, in the short term we just want the nonsense to stop for a moment so we can think.

Because generally speaking democracy is a social system that requires us to work together, it is also socialistic in the sense that we combine our individual strength to produce something larger than the sum of its components.
Or ... perhaps more to the point: Something that adds up in the end ... rather than obscuring what is there.

We think that an organization into labels can be useful, but also detrimental. In the end we don't care as much about a proper label as we care about the best possible way to go. But consequentially we're communists in the sense that we think the best possible result would be a communism/socialism/whatever that works.
Whether that entails money or not is beside the point. So, at the end of the day, we're Democrats - I guess.

Democracy doesn't work without leaders that put the elective will into effect. The best possible way to do that, is to elect representatives in the smallest of groups - and have them tournament style ascend to the top. Here, every vote can be - if we kept that record - traced back to its origin; And a consistent line from the individual to the representatives on top is being maintained. While this would cost a lot in terms of individual involvement, thus time and cnsideration, this might not be possible as far as the ideal is concerned, thus it requires a bit of hope that the people who do take their time to be meaningfully concerned know what they're doing.
We can call that: A "grassroot" extension of the political pipeline.

I think we can agree that people who are, mostly by happenstance, put in charge of other people should be educated in what they are doing. Because we don't like the idea of thus going around to take children away from parents we deem unfit for the task, I propose that parents should socialize within some kind of parenting clubs where they may receive mandatory education, as to share experiences and concerns; But also to have access to social connectivity for their children's sake.

The issue is that our numbers have grown so large, that the "town-square" way of things is so utterly outdated it has long stopped being an actual thing; And other than tabloids nothing has come up to take its place. Due to how evolution happens, or happened, most institutions that could take its place have also "fallen" to an individualistic purpose separate from maintaining social cohesion - and I see that as detrimental to a democracy.
To that end there is nothing we can politicall prescribe - other than hoping that the concept of Church may rise to give us anchorage - to branch out unto the different needs it ought to satisfy, including political connectivity.

I believe we have to rethink how school and work works. And while I think that this kind of Church should give us a foundation for doing so, I don't think that this will work without the kind of actions that we would organize a government for.
It is fair to say however that many developments of the last couple of years or even decades, if not centuries, have made it easier for us to meet our needs - so much so that employment shouldn't be a primary concern. Education should be more important, as to thereby also ascertain the continued existence of the knowledge required to maintain that, regardless of its financial security.
Thus it is merely implied, that we take a more liberal or socialistic approach to establishing environments that cultivate that knowledge and proficiency - geared towards individual development rather than economic utility.
I think we should appreciate those that will do the work that is yet required; And also that everyone who isn't part of that group of people could spend their time more productively than continuing the circlejerk of doom we're currently riding on.
To add a wholistic spin to this: We may attempt to listen to what our hearts try to tell us - which seems to be that a lot of us would rather spend their time mindful of fulfilling the yearning of life rather than beating down on it.
Or in other words: Thinking effectively is a lot easier once you're not also doing hard work while constantly being exposed to mind-numbing noise. In this allegory the individual is as a neuron of a brain. Freeing up neurons to do intellectual labor rather than maintaining a mind-numbing delusion is the thing here.
So ... I guess that also makes us Socialists.

Though we don't really believe in religious freedom as per our individual confession, it's safe to say that whatever we could DO, politically, to that effect, is a bad thing. Subsequently we support religious freedom and the likes, hence I guess we're also Liberals.

LOL ... LDS ... Liberal Democratic Socialists!

As the internet is a thing we can very much appreciate, we're also Globalists; Given that we have absolutely no reason to support the idea of creating what's effectively a prison for the sole purpose of maintaining some last shred of nationalistic identity.

Anyway ... I think this is enough for the day.