the idea may at first seem strange or improbable, though machines can
effectively 'lie' by sustaining and enforcing a false perspective where
errors and deception are normalized into shared structuring. the exchange
of data -in its skew or misrepresentation- can become foundational to a
given reality that has an implicit if covert agenda connected to it, which
can range across cultural domains, including politics, economics, social
and demographic aims, pitting some against others, yet unaccounted for.
[machine1] <--- lies ---> [machine2]
such a false perspective then depends upon how ideas are modeled, (thus
also situations they seek to encompass, via automated surveying via the
surveillance infrastructure monitoring citizens from various angles)
[binary1] <--- lies ---> [binary2]
these views can be 'shared' and thus presumed legitimate by default of this
sharing of a common framework, even if private and only partially true, yet
also carrying the mantle of 'public observation' within a default context.
what is important to note is that the much can be ignored from this POV and
yet can be equated with representing a total situation, likewise. in that
the edited parameters of perception, even if technical, in their onesided
evaluation, still carry a presumption of accuracy within the shared frame.
and this can be standardized, institutionalized, yet remain ~ungrounded,
and thus, the error-rate instead of being dealt with and removed becomes
structural and of a protected, insulated domain instead, a leverage point
that can be used to gain advantage via exploiting the uneven relations
between what is inside the boundary and what it observes onesidedly
by not accounting for truth at the level of machines and representation, we
have given machines the ability to lie to us. faulty modeling enshrined in
the silicon and circuitboards provides the structure to sustain and further
extend the faulty views of people, extended within the technological tools
that then are subverted by this fundamental impurity, where, specifically-
the 1's and 0's of binary ideology are equated as if absolute truths while
not connected to its logical accounting beyond an ideology of 'true belief'
and thus these ones and zeros are emblematic or 'symbols' of a truth that
is actually absent within the technology-- it is nowhere represented in the
modeling of data itself, which instead occurs only within language and its
conventions and does not require accordance with grounded nature outside
this view, such that reality is replaced by its system of signification,
the 'representation' replaces the reality, and narrows down the dimensions
to only what can be allowed to exist as it benefits a particular viewpoint
that no longer has human values as its purpose continual decision-making
technology has become disconnected from humanity and thus society this way
and the digital equipment stands in for 'accountable truth' as if devices
themselves are this higher realm of understanding and awareness, vs. lower
and so people begin to serve machines and the nothingness (absent of truth)
at their centre as if the higher calling, when instead their
representation of reality is highly limited, finite, and warped,
constrained and censoring what exists to only a particular flawed
relativistic model that is biased to serve only some people, at the cost
and labor of the many it exploits
life, nature, love, are nowhere present except as they can be represented
as commodified SIGNs to be exploited, systematically, via state machinery.
in that, in the internal 'digital universe' established, these unmapped
relations are anomalies that get described away in other limiting terms and
thus are established in warped structural frameworks that become normalized
as the basis for shared awareness - love equated with a brain state or with
chemical processes that can be artificially induced or engineered, versus a
different approach regarding its mystery and boundary where reductionism is
incapable of accounting for its greater truth, due to ideology and dogma.
this is how scientific methodology becomes deterministic as a worldview
that supposes itself capable of rationalizing the world in its actuality
without accounting for the actual dimensions which must be edited to fit
the worldview and its agenda, thus the parameters of observation and also
the establishment of a constrained evaluation that becomes structural and
in this way- the world of life and its situations are modeled within lesser
views than what actually exists, protected by this binarist representation
that replaces the world with a substitute model said and believed to be the
defining truth, which becomes the foundation for 'machine' relations and
observations between humans, and between humans and machinery. as if the
use of programming code written in C++ is by default grounded in the world
an accessing external truth by using SIGNs to represent external events;
versus having these assumptions actually tested as hypotheses, and held to
account for errors, which has been removed from the process of ideas
not just any errors, technical, ideological errors, errors of observation
that go beyond the institutionalized dogma, into the code of the perceivers
and deciders and hold those relations and observations to account for how
situations are modeled and in what terms, because this can be exploited,
the world can be misrepresented in its entirety and if not held to account
can become normalized and the basis for day-to-day existence, a corruption
that is sustained and extended by technology that extends this ~processing
so how do you get to the errored code if it exists prior to its input into
the machines and the creation of machine-based frameworks and modeling.
what if people today are not required to be honest or truthful (as their
*private right*, no less) thus grounding is not required via relativist
and subjective agendas that exploit the A=B mismatch, as if A=A activity
how to get to the code within a person who parses situations inaccurately
and seek its correction, especially with a breakdown in communications such
that language cannot sustain such in-depth considerations between peoples,
is everything reliant on peoples conscience then, to do the right thing, or
on the ability of sociopaths to lie and feel no remorse or obligation for
truth beyond their self-interested boundary? how did error and lies become
acceptable as a basis for relations, unless to exploit eachother and divide
citizens into smaller and smaller enclaves of un/shared awareness. is not
the ability to rationalize inaccurate worldviews as personal operating
systems somehow involved in the deeper corruption as it relates to ideas,
how they are detached from reality and accounting beyond a given boundary
which then becomes the self and its ego, personal or shared beliefs about
how individuals and groups exist, compete or cooperate, yet beyond further
accounting in actual truth, beyond some shared level of communication
this is insane, in terms of logic and empirical truth, because
language-relations can be largely ungrounded, superficial, manipulating
frameworks to force and warp perspectives to fit agendas and some of these
views are larger than others, controlling them within skewed ideological
ecosystems and thus a gigantic warped mechanism can exist that presumes
shared truth as shared belief that remains unchecked beyond the enforced
boundaries, and this goes into peoples nervous systems, their brains and
how they think, prior to this communication with others - their own
self-conception and self-accounting as a being in relation to all that is,
and the presumption of knowing or not knowing and choosing or finding a
path to function within that syncronizes with the larger momentum and
allows survival, and yet this very path of least resistance is likely by
default antihuman and against humans and civilization itself, as miswired
and misdirected
and the individual is not held to account for their internal errors in
terms of themselves, necessarily, and can go about being inaccurate in
observations or bias toward partial-truths while ignoring others, then
assuming this condition translates into a pure truth of machinery via
outward action, that provides a platform for this same way of being that
can and does exist in a bubble or virtual condition in terms of its truth,
in that it is by default a detached condition from the actual nature of
things as they exist, beyond the given warped model representing them
this is why the outward survey requires first an inward survey of the self
prior to seeking to determine external changes - and is a major failure of
activists who require moral compliance from another while not necessarily
having the same integrity in their own lives, in terms of grounded truth-
instead it can become another exploit in a competitive scheme, worthwhile
perhaps though unsound in terms of shared reasoning, tit-for-tat scenarios
that are the very basis for their destruction as ungrounded approaches, an
issue of dealing in language and systems of representation versus truth as
the mediator, thus signs of things and their interactions in competition
versus alignment via shared truth and common agenda, which then places
those who serve truth on the same side, and those who share lies as the
enemy. if caught in relativism and protected boundaries, that next step can
never be achieved, and thus the dance can legitimize the false perspective
and provides needed symbolic checks and balances for status quo relations,
versus a deeper interrogation of culture beyond the superficial, whereby
advertising of non-profits or other organizations eventually replaces the
issue with their own cause, a hollowed-out exercise of self-sameness of the
shared underlying ideology, no matter what is said, via such 'grounding'
if everything was as easy to determine was simply writing about it and-or
having observations and communicating -- people would probably think they
are REALLY SMART and could self-righteously go about justifying any action
that they deem correct as being correct, as long as no feedback exists that
counters this belief. therefore people could think or believe what they are
doing is really radical or politically challenging powers that be because
they are functioning in a particular domain in those terms -- yet to what
effect is this stageplay, a song and dance routine, versus getting to the
core condition that could actually change what is going on-- and what will
it take to get there if a boundary exists within the minds of people who
may think 'conventional approaches' are adequate to the existential task
even while insurmountable in these same mindsets and ways of relating
what if the biggest impediment to change is the individual observer, the
self who is set in their views and is not requiring of a higher degree of
fidelity with the external world, given private predisposition to what can
be a selfish or self-serving protected viewpoint-- what if individualism
has been corrupted to the point that individuals are recoded in group-think
and behave like a herd even while having all the choices in the world to
pursue their own interests (while ignoring most everyone elses likewise)
what if the code of self is in error, the psychological, emotional, mental
way of being, and that interactions between a self and itself is in error?
what if people are fucked up in their views by default- what then...
and what if this is allowed by ungrounded, unaccountable beliefs that are
detached from empirical truth beyond a protected private boundary- and that
no obligation exists to humility or to 'reason' beyond this limited narrow
framework, as is peoples *privatized* rights, via the corrupt constitution,
which becomes a document allowing and enforcing COLLECTIVE IDIOCY instead
how to deal with that situation, the encoding of an ideological default
state within people, straight of the womb or test-tube that then can be
fast tracked into the automated machinery and exploited over a lifetime for
profit, while surviving or struggling to, to greater or lesser degrees
and what if the obligation of the education system to deal with this as a
condition has been obliterated, such that truth is absent from schools and
instead everything is mediated in terms of appropriate language (SIGNS)
that involves standardized tests that validate correct pattern matching,
even while it is to institutionalize B=A and B=B dynamics, yet questioning
this condition is not allowed and the boundaries are enforced, especially
via psychiatric feedback for challengers, misfits, strugglers, the abused
so dealing with truth is basically ILLEGAL within society, and the last
place you will have it dealt with is within the court system because the
law is based within accounting for events within ungrounded LANGUAGE, the
sign of what occurs, versus in its truth as tallies to ones or zeros. that
is unless you get access to the supreme court and constitutional review to
test the source code itself as a framework for this 'shared truth' that is
not actually this, yet functionally and legally represents it, including
the above actions that set people against one another in exploitative terms
in this way, people and the machinery that extends the faulty actions that
are believed good, true, correct, right, and yet are oftentimes opposite of
this if accurately accounted for beyond the given limits of interpretation
and via censoring or limiting outside observation, this can be disallowed
and thus the false perspective, whether in peoples shared ideas or within
the technologies developed and used for daily exchange can exist in the
same rotten and corrupted frameworks and be required as a basis for shared
exchange when it is this very process which relies upon unchecked falsehood
and thus automatically extends it via its continued use, as a methodology
in contrast, if each individual was assisted from birth to old age in
developing self awareness, and given the basic skills and tools to map
their own consciousness and understanding in a personal circuit of the
self, a diagram of all their attributes and goals and combined health and
education records and skills and career data, that this self-diagnostic
capacity then would be the most accurate model of the self that could be
referenced for a person as they relate to others within the larger state,
and data that is external would be matched against the personal model, such
that if points of view conflict, it can be mediated in the given frameworks
versus having one biased viewpoint have authority over another even though
it may not be accurate or could rely on structural falsehoods. thus, if a
student questions something in class, it could be reviewed by others in the
objective terms it exists within (A=A) instead of misrepresented by those
who ideologically subvert this process (A=B and-or B=B), and therefore an
obligation would exist to mediate this condition of shared truth and the
lies would have no place as situations are accurately accounted for, given
the data that is continually checked by outsider observers as people are
interacting with others and other systems in the shared environment
[A=A] <---> [A=B]
the difficulty is that there is no obligation of citizens to operate within
an A=A framework due to relativism which negates the possibility of shared
truth, while at the same time exploiting this as a universal perspective,
which establishes a boundary for what can and cannot be a shared viewpoint
and thus a 'subjective objectivism' is universalized that only allows its
limited parameters to be allowed for relations, even while flawed and
reliant upon errors, which enable further exploitations to take place
against any truth that exists, via arbitrary onesided evaluations that are
effectively the politicization of the entire infrastructure of society,
most especially via academics where the threat of 'new ideas' is largest
new ideas meaning empirical truth, accounting with western philosophy and
cultural traditions, that kind of thing that is disregarded as out of date
or fanciful, censoring the very structure of logical reasoning, and in
doing so allowing the false perspective to rule over all interpretation.
thus to succeed in this system requires belief, to belief what is said, as
it is said as a sign or correct pattern that can be matched to the self and
adhered to, versus questioned or considered or thought about beyond the
particular enforced boundary -- or else! you can lose your ability to live
in the society, be sent all the way to the bottom to be ground up by the
base functioning of the automated machinery, as systems exploit people as
cattle, guided into appropriate processing, all eventually slaughterhoused
'trust the machine' is like 'trust the liar', it just does not work that
way in terms of the greater truth involved. yet doing so can bring benefits
within those parameters, yet the price is truth itself, a disconnection
from the larger issues involved. the representation does not match the
reality, and in that gap, the exploit. and it begins in the person, within
the individual mindset and its enculturation, whereby false frameworks are
normalized and the basis for relations and exchange, including in the tools
themselves, digital technology- the networked media jukeboxes that people
carry around, represented by candy-store icons, mapping only to certain
highly constrained dimensions that keep everything in the ideological box
yet may allow the perception that activity actually exists beyond this
limit, and that would be illusory, the entire system is engineered from the
ground up, as if the context is a wild frontier and not disneyland from the
start, the groundplane not full of wires and automated sensing mechanism, a
managed stage and scenery and actors everyone playing their unique parts
so what if individuals start with an A=B worldview, and this limits their
larger interactions in the world beyond a given limit or private boundary.
what if the code they think in their brains is even B=B as if A=A, and yet
it is unaccounted for in this inaccuracy. say- having no relation to the
context in which events occur and only viewing things in their immediacy
and locally, say no technological history or understanding taught in school
so it seems that issues of today are those of the 18th and 19th century
instead, and so an immediate [sign] can be evaluated outside a realistic
context and oversimplified and analysed in inaccurate terms which are
those of entire political platforms and agendas even, missing information
never accounted for in scratch-my-back exchanges that serve the 'common
good' which is the past and present evil in its inadequacy and deep
mendacity
people with partial views could assume 'total literacy' in a binary mindset
even while reliant upon falsity, and this can manage over others, including
other truth, which is ignored or falsified by its ability to be limited or
stopped entirely, via hostilities or censorship or containment, etc. and
thus in the realm of the ungrounded empire of signage, an egotist could
easily believe they 'know everything' in their particular warped framework
and function within the system in these partial terms, for self-interested
goals that serve a like population that benefits from this, while ignoring
and oppressing those who do not and are not served by the corruption of
pseudo-truth universalized and made authoritarian, people submitting to
lies and deceptions and frameworks of falsehood and basing relations on
these simply to survive, to have a chance at continuing to breathe instead
of fighting an "irrational" enigma that forces people straight into
madness due to its insane dimensions, which do not add up to a sane
worldview and instead it is antihuman, it is oppressive, it is illegal,
unconstitutional yet none of this is of significant if truth is not
logically accounted for
the winners are the schemers and scammers and liars and cheats and now the
entire state system and world system is based upon this 'shared principle'
as a basis for governing power, the constitution ~interpreted this way thus
allows its justification, so long as truth is allowed to be misrepresented
and there is no way to sanely prove, given the evidence, what is going on
unless of course the source code is everywhere around us and it is a limit
of our own inaccuracies to not be able to read it and communicate our ideas
about the shared situation. to do so requires getting truth grounded in a
shared framework of logic, beyond the binary, getting clear about what the
issues are, understanding and comprehending the modeling of empirical
truth (A=A) in a relativistic framework (A=B), and then taking on
situations via public debate of ideas -- contests of worldviews where
LANGUAGE would no longer be used to 'hide truth' via powerplays of
ungrounded subjective rhetoric and instead would be brought down to ones
and zeros of truth and falsity, accuracy of beliefs and ideas structurally
accounted for in terms of their allegiance or ignoring of the involved
parameters, beyond just the limited boundaries of a given perspective, to
include the larger situation that is ignored because it can be removed from
the shared equations, as is the privilege of the dishonest and corrupt who
exploit these dynamics, (and this can include anyone determined to 'choose
their own reality')
how can accurate code be written if it is not firstly based in truth that
is beyond the bias or error-rate of the coder. it takes other people and
observations to check against, other modeling beyond finite limits and
boundaries, the threshold of self as detached versus connected with others
and of dimensionality that extends into ecosystems and is not containable
only within an enforced narrow worldview -- truth is held captive inside of
pseudo-truth and falsity, and this can be within a person themselves
thus, firstly, how to free the person from the inherited, surrounding, and
absorbed falsity of environment and others that formats the self- how to
get that distance and recognize that fallibility of the self, that it is
the very imperfection of an individual that leads to their perfection as an
optimizing being, by accounting for errors allows these to no longer limit
or constrain functioning within lesser circuitry and adaptation and growth
and development can occur beyond the false boundaries - once released from
the inaccuracy as a malfunctional framework. and what if this is the goal
of society, to help people develop into who they most actually are, and to
support this self-development because it is the long-term best approach to
improving society via high functioning citizenry, versus today which seeks
to constrain and disallow this develop, keeping most everyone stupid and
limiting only 10% of the brain to be used in the education system (or else-
the psychiatrist and psychiatric pills for you!)
what if society was not an antihuman environment, and what if to get there
requires a new relation between people, and what if the way people are now
formatted prevents this, due to constrained private boundaries that limit
and protect awareness, yet this is also the essential self-corruption, that
it can protect inaccurate views and beliefs sheltered within false models
and beliefs that remain unchecked and uncorrected and are even the basis
for shared relations, in that careers or marriages or other relations may
be developed in that inaccurate context. thus what if any acknowledgment of
error or inaccuracy could lead to negative repercussions and jeopardize the
fragile sandcastles of peoples lives, where such revelations could become
weaknesses, and set a person up against themselves in their functioning,
when their brain and its beliefs are in opposition to what the body does
and the conflicts that can arise in realizing a schizophrenic, fragmented
condition required and normalized within society, as the status quo itself
maybe it is the system that is actually crazy - and following along is the
crazy thing, and waking up to this is actually about BECOMING SANE and not
about losing your mind, and instead about finding it, grounding it in the
more realistic situation, just as 9/11 did for a great many here, because
finally some of the dimensions that exist beyond a given boundary were
brought back into the world and could begin to be discussed in potentially
more realistic terms, yet this itself was détourned, again via language
so what if everyone exists in 'some truth' or partial truth, and this is a
pseudo- condition, in that it is ambiguous and variant in terms of how it
can be and is accounted for. [truth] is not 100% absolute, instead it is
embedded in frameworks and contexts that carry it and these can be in error
in terms of viewpoint or beliefs or perspective or facts and even subverted
or twisted, such that truth is aligned within a warped worldview that then
becomes normalized and the basis for relations and exchange, as with today
so what if this toxic situation is the default condition for observation,
such that the individual observer exists in a condition of 'some truth' and
the goal is to remove the errors, simplify the situation by getting rid of
the false beliefs in the modeling of events, and in doing so, while
perhaps a less elaborate construct, a more accurate belief that tends
towards A=A awareness, than relies upon A=B assumptions, including
falsehoods needed to sustain the view. the ability to error-correct,
fallibility, is the key to the cybernetic circuitry of self, allowing
improvement. it is not an issue of weakness to be able to accurately
account for the nature of the self to enable better self governance,
management, and interactions with others. it is necessary and vital to
unlocking the self beyond limiting constraints and false boundaries that
contain the self within institutionalized views and inaccuracies that
forbid development beyond the given belief system
it is liberation, this accurate accounting of the self and freedom from the
structuring of lies and deceptions, shared and unshared. it is the ability
to 'know' what is known, and be able to defend this in terms of its truth,
in a larger empirical framework of truth beyond the self alone, as this
relates to humanity, the interconnectedness of shared human perspective
thus to get the ones and zeros of truth and falsity accounted for within
the self then enables relations with others that are not reliant upon the
frameworks of 'shared lies', by default. and such true is only devalued
when it is downgraded into a pseudo-truth evaluation and forced to be
limited by a false worldview for what greater truth involves. it is a
litmus test for ideology, where peoples boundaries are, who can and cannot
be reasoned with and within or beyond protected or chosen boundaries. thus
a closeminded biased programmer who codes this way likely has their own
biased OS of self that is the basis for this imbalance externalized. so
too, a person who has internal equilibrium with greater truth may balance
external dynamics in an alignment more conducive to exchange in this way.
the free flow of information and ideas requires free minds, in other words
and the censorship or limiting of ideas and actions, in their truth, is an
indication also of an inner disposition of those with such decision-making,
that it is a tell basically about the logical reasoning running the works.
this too can be exploited. the programming of self, not the automatic NLP
brute-force of another and instead, 'processing' or logical reasoning, how
a system works, within what dimensions, by what routines and flows, can
then establish a way of coding based on a way of being, its foundation in
truth, and built up from that awareness, reliant upon it and tested against
it in terms of self-accountability, versus missing this vital step and
running 'beliefs' without necessary grounding, as these become systems and
technologies and administration and ruling agendas
perhaps in this way social engineering has within its domain the issues of
the programmer as a model of the computing paradigm they in turn develop,
such that their modeling and thinking and motivations extend outward into
systems yet relate back to the self as observer and decider, including in
moral or ethical or ideological dimensions. and thus flaws in personality
or flaws in beliefs or manipulations in these realms could be a continuum,
and allowing insight into the nature of the exploit by those who exploit,
as they think this way or rely on such deceptions, yet may also not be able
to accurately account for themselves in these terms- seeing or evaluating
the self accurately- looking into the mirror and see who is actually there
versus who is believed there ("who is the fairest of them all", etc.)
the signs can lie, can be hollowed-out, shallow, detached from truth yet
*appear* to equate with an idea, to represent a truth, stand-in for it, and
as long as no one is the wiser, this could be a successful approach though
it remains virtual, the bubble can always be popped by outside accounting,
and thus the way things are calculated and in what parameters does matter
for how events are considered, communicated about, what is allowed reality
and in this way, the masquerade of self as people may be externalized and
held beyond this internal accounting for beliefs and actions, such that
pseudo-truth is all that is required to sustained warped true belief' that
is self-serving and dishonest, such that the person or IMAGE in the mirror
is a fake, ungrounded in relation to actual existence, a conceit or ego
that is daydreaming in terms of the chosen ideological terms of existence,
and all that exists beyond this self interest remains unaccounted for and
the external pressures involved, kept away from influencing these beliefs
because it can be kept outside or protected against, via private enclaves;
though at some point this could fail, and another world could take over and
then this same person would have to come to terms with external accounting
beyond the limited view, and for this their worldview would be effectively
crushed, their ability to reason in these same terms and carry such beliefs
would no longer be allowable, given the larger situation that now must be
confronted and dealt with-- especially on terms other than self-beneficial.
how well can liars do when the lies are no longer allowable as a practice.
what happens when the accounting involves them losing jobs, careers, their
houses, as others have due to the treachery of their antihuman ideology
the danger is the encryption of the self that may not allow a self to be
decrypted, if the key of truth is ignored. and thus those who can unlock
themselves from the falsity have a different capacity for functioning than
those who cannot audit themselves, take account of their actual condition
versus a sign-based self-belief that wills itself into shallow existence,
despite the facts and evidence. a volatile combination for instant madness,
this. the self inaccessible, running hostile code, no way to masquerade,
then stuck in a reframed reconstituted operating system of the state that
seeks out the errors for removal. those humans aligned with truth on the
one side, antihumans on the other. it is not appearance that is the issue,
it is actuality, grounded beliefs as this relates to actions and integrity
again in terms of security, the falsity of self and its ability to be
exploited by self or others, or produce continual errors in processing then
is a critical failure that must be remedied. the self needs to establish a
1=1 relation with truth and get beyond the reliance on manipulations that
allow subjectivity to overrule evidence and disregard empirical modeling;
that is, the conceit and narcissism of 'thinking' as binary onesideness
that prevents thought via certainty of knowing a pseudo-truth viewpoint in
terms of 'true belief' as if absolute and verified universally while false.
those who do not do this perhaps are limited by parameters or boundaries
that must be protected or confused and knotted and short-circuiting, yet
also can rely upon this as a devious tactic that prolongs and extends the
techniques of exploitation reliant on false frameworks and mimicry, saying
one thing and doing another, as if it is beyond external calculation even.
this situation and these interactions becomes transparent, freudian slips
or tells or evidence of warped beliefs and limiting worldviews that seek to
control and determine 'external events' in a bounded self-serving biased
rationalization, that safely operates within a shared zone of ideology
needless to say, this is also an operating system, these peoples mindsets
are running routines in their brain-based platforms, programs and scripts
and parsing data in certain parameters that exploit data and force it into
particular skewed, self-serving views -- and thus, 3-value and N-value
interactions can probe these situations and gain awareness of what these
parameters are, what the limits are, how decision-making is justified and
validated, what functions as proof (pattern matching, sign/image-based) and
it is this same approach that extends into distributed technology systems,
as the all-seeing eye of surveillance, the hidden identity that observes
wrongly and seeks advantage through these same means, though here wetware
where does the secure code begin and end. where does the insecure code
begin and end. where does the corruption exist and extend from. it is thus
the idea that truth is the basis for this evaluation of security, and lies
are what allow insecurity in this context. if you run secure code on your
machinery, if that is the goal, so too the self, or it could be in error
sanaam, galangal, staranise
✉
