[Forced conversion is perceived as validation by the imposer.

In that perception, the imposer transitions from self-justification into blasphemy.

The imposer’s I, seat of choice_3b, becomes I, instrument of the object that brings me into organization with sovereign power_3b.]

[In a truly open market, a smokeless cigarette would have been invented as a market response to growing awareness of the health costs of tobacco cigarettes.

The fact that the electronic cigarette was researched and developed outside the USA indicates the extent of market intervention in the name of the Progressive Union-God.]

[In the specific case of the use of tobacco products, the imposer’s stance makes sense. Clinical observations support the imposer’s narrow focus.

However, the narrow focus fails to take into account the point of view of the subject.

The imposer cannot appreciate the motive for smoking in the first place.

Because of this, “she” bans the development of less harmful substitutes. The so-called “electronic cigarette” was not developed in the USA.

Why?

Regulators. Imposers.

How stupid is that?]

[In the current example, the imposer only sees the health benefits of reduced use of tobacco products.

The imposer cannot acknowledge the reduction of personal responsibility and freedom.

The imposer cannot allow questions or challenges.]

[What must the imposer do in order to grasp sovereign power for “his” designs?

The imposer must sell “his” heart to the sovereign^infra, the (infra)sovereign religion.

The religion^sov looks down upon and situates, not the person, but the subject.

So, the imposer becomes an instrument of the religion^sov.

The imposer serves an object that brings subjects into organization (whether they want to or not). “He” can only think^pro-object. “He” must deny unintended consequences.]

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[Progressives impose organizational objectives.

What happens when an imposer gets to influence the thought experiment_3a?

What happens when an imposer alters the availability and costs of something_2a that situates the potential of other individuals_1a?]

[If an object^organization is validated by each unforced conversion, then why not appeal to sovereign power in order to force conversion?

For example, why not ban smoking?

Would that not further validate the object^organization?

The answer must be ‘no’.

Sovereign imposition of an object^org reduces the subject’s responsibility and freedom. This is the opposite of building character.]

[Does the institution gain from this exchange?

Certainly. Every success is celebrated.

The institution’s object^organization is validated by the people who buy their services.

The transaction itself serves as a confirmation of the business’ organizational objective.]

[The health-related business treats the individual, not as a subject, but as someone writ large.

The individual pays to form a business-person dyad to help coach “him”. The customer builds character. The customer gains both responsibility (awareness of “himself” in the mirror of the world₃ in regards to something_2H) and freedom (how my potential_1H is situated by something_2H).]

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[Compare a sovereign religion to an infrasovereign institution that refuses to seek sovereign power.

For example, consider a health-related business devoted to (what it calls) “smart choices’”.

This business tries to covert the free person into a character who, either does not smoke tobacco products, or smokes responsibly.]